1919-05-07

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting Supplementary
Estimates for the year ending March 31, 1919, was presented by Sir Thomas White (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the House, and referred to the Committee of Supply.

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

Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	How many workmen's strikes have occurred in Canada since the signing of the armistice?
2.	How many days of labour have been lost to workmen in Canada, as a result of the said strikes, to date?


Hon. Mr. MACLEAN:: 1.	70.
2.	217,913 working days.


TRANS-ATLANTIC PLIGHT.
Mr. McGIBBON (Muskoka):: What efforts, if any, are being made to enable Canadian flying boys to gain the honour of being the first to fly across the Atlantic?


Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: Exactly the same privileges are accorded to Canadian airmen as to British airmen in the competition for the prize that is being offered to the first airman who flies across the Atlantic. The British admiralty has made certain provisions for the care and protection of the airmen, and these are available to Canadian as well as to British airmen.


&quot;THE ONE BIG UNION.&quot;
Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	Is the Department of Labour aware that an Intenprovincial Labour Convention was recently held at Calgary, at which a resolution was unanimously adopted, authorizing members of Labour Unions throughout Canada to consider, by referendum, the question of recommending the enactment of a measure by which a workman's week shall consist of five days and not more than six hours' labour per day?
2. Is the Minister of Labour aware that a certain organization, " One Big Union," as it is called, are now distributing bulletins and literature throughout Canada, inviting adherents to Join and effect a general strike?
3.	What does the Department of Labour intend to do In the matter?
4.	Are the principles and objects of " One Big Union" and the I.W.W. identical? If not, how do they differ?
5.	Has the Government had any intercourse or correspondence upon this matter with the Secretary of " One Big Union," Mr. Midgley, 210 Labour Temple, Vancouver, B.C.?


Hon. Mr. MACLEAN:: 1.	The department has secured reports of the proceedings of a convention held at

Calgary on March 13 and the three following days, at which was passed a resolution urging the enactment of a measure providing that a workman's week shall consist of five days and not more than six. hours' labour per day.
2.	The Minister of Labour has received copies of various documents apparently emanating from what is termed "One Big Union" and favouring a general strike.
3.	The Minister of Labour is following the matter closely and is advising with his colleagues as to action to be taken to meet any situation arising.
4.	So far as the Department of Labour has learned, the principles and objects of "One Big Union" have not been yet determined. What is termed the "One Big Union" would appear to be yet in the formative stage only. The framework of a general organization does not yet exist. A central committee alone has been appointed with temporary officers. It is impossible therefore to state if the principles and objects of "One Big Union" are identical with those of the J.W.W.
5.	A communication was addressed to Mr. Midgley as acting secretary of the Organization Committee of "One Big Union," requesting copies of the official reports of the proceedings at the Calgary gathering of March 13. Mr. Midgley replied promising to forward the copies as requested.


THE SALE OF SALVARSAN.
Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	What is the date of the Order in Council
authorizing the granting of licenses for the sale of salvarsan, such as " 606 " and " 914 " as it is called?	.
2.	What commercial houses in Canada have taken out such licenses?
3.	What fee is charged to a person or persons obtaining such license (a) for export trade, and (-b) for domestic trade?
4.	Will the Government lay upon the table of this House a copy of the said Order in Council?


Hon. Mr. MACLEAN:: 1.	2nd October, 1914.
2.	(1) Ernest Neil Macallum and Charles Newton Candee, jr., both of Toronto, trading there under the name of the Synthetic Drug Company, subsequently incorporated as the Synthetic Drug Company, Limited. (2) Dr. Gustave Archambault, of Montreal, transferred to the Phenarsenyl Company, Limited.
3.	$10 in respect of each patent covered by the license. The license permits sale generally without referring to export or domestic trade.
4.	Yes.


CANADA REGISTRATION BOARD.
Mr. McGREGOR:: 1.	What is the name of the Registrar who conducted the registration under the Canada Registration Board for the constituency of Pictou, Nova Scotia?
2.	What remuneration did this officer receive?
3.	What was the total cost for Pictou
County?	.
4.	What was the cost per registrant of the registration in this constituency?
5.	What remuneration was received by the registrar of the constituency of Antigonish and Guysborough, N.S., for the registration in that constituency?
6.	What was the cost per registrant, and what was the total cost?


Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: 1.	J. Ed. Macdonald.
2.	Nothing.
3.	$1,034.13.
4.	3.77 cents.
5.	$300.
6.	11 cents. $1,811.59.


TAX ON FISHERMEN.
Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	Is there a Federal tax on fishermen in the district of Montreal?
2.	If so, what is the tax and who is the collector?


Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE:: 1.	Not by the Department of the Naval Service.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


ST. ZOTIQUE-RIVER BEAUDETTE ROADWAY.
Mr. BOYER:: 1.	Owing to the inundation of the public roadway extending from the parish of St. Zotique towards River Beaudette, in the county of Soul-anges, which is caused by the overflowing waters of Lake St. Francis, as a result of the dam which was necessarily built in order to protect the construction work of the canal, and to which the attention of the Government has been directed for several years, is it the intention of the Government to raise the said public roadway?
2.	If so, what amount is being appropriated therefor?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	The present condition of the road between St. Zotique and River Beaudette, the causes resulting in its present condition, and the Government's liability in connection therewith, are now under investigation.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


SPECIAL DOMINION POLICE FORCE.
Mr. DECHENE:: 1.	Is the Special Police Force of the Dominion still under the command of the Provost Marshal?

2.	Has the Department of Justice any jurisdiction over this force? If so, to what extent?
3.	Are there some men still under the jurisdic-[DOT] tion of the Department of Justice, exclusively?
4.	If so, how many?


Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1.	No.
2.	Yes, exclusively.
3.	Yes.
4.	218.


MISS YVETTE LAMONTAGNE.
Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	Has Miss Yvette Lamontagne of 91A Jeanne Mance St., Montreal, received a bonus in connection with her services in 1918, as an employee of the Montreal Board of Registration, Military District No. 4, of which Mr. Eugene Godin, K.C., was the Chief Registrar? If so, what amount did she receive?
2.	Did any other employee of said board receive a bonus?
3.	Was the entire staff belonging to said board entitled to a bonus? If so, did each member receive this grant?


Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1.	No.
2.	No.
3.	No.


THE ICEBREAKER EARL GREY.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Queen's, P.E.I.):: 1.	Was the Canadian Government Icebreaker "Earl Grey" sold? If so, to whom?
2.	At what price was she sold?


Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE:: 1.	Yes, to the Russian Government.
2.	$493,000.


CANADIAN NORTHERN ARBITRATION.
Mr. MACKIE (Edmonton):: 1.	For how many days did the Canadian Northern Arbitration Board sit at Toronto in 1918?
2.	'For how many of said days was Mr. Fair-weather, the Department Solicitor, in attendance?
3.	For how many days in 1918 was Mr. Fairweather in actual attendance before the Committee of the Senate during the consideration of the Consolidated Railway Bill?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	Fifty-one days-January 28th to May 16th, 1918.
2.	No official record kept. I-n attendance at most of hearings during first part of arbitration, January 28 to March 6, 1918. Not present during last part, April 9 to May 16, 1918.
3.	Was in attendance whenever the Bill was under consideration or likely to come up for consideration, between the introduction of the Bill, March 21, 1918, and third reading of the Bill, April 26, 1918.


FUEL CONTROLLER.
Mr. PAPINEAU:: 1.	What salary is being paid by the Government to the Fuel Controller?
2.	What is the Government expenditure to date in connection with fuel control?


Hon. Mr. MACLEAN:: 1.	No salary is, or has at any time, been paid by the Government to the Fuel Controller.
2.	From November 6, 1917, to April 30th, 1919, $170,398.16.


RATE OF EXCHANGE.
Mr. PAPINEAU:: 1.	Is the Government aware that on the 26th April last the rate of exchange on New York was 2 11/16 per cent?
2.	Does the Government intend to remedy
the situation in this connection?	*


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The rate of exchange in question is
governed by general international conditions beyond the control of any government.	'


THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INFORMATION-U.S. REPRESENTATIVE.
Mr. GAUVREAU:: 1.	Is the rumour published some time ago in the newspapers, that Honourable Mr. Rowell intended to have an agent or representative of the Bureau of Public Information appointed in New England, either at New York or Boston, an accomplished fact or not?
2.	If so, where has such agent been stationed?
3.	What salary and other expenses have been provided for the position and the agent?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The rumour referred to has not been brought to the attention of the Government. It is not the intention of the Government to appoint an agent or representative of the Department of Public Information either at Boston or New York.


ORDERS IN COUNCIL.
*Mr. STEELE:: How many Orders in Council were passed in each calendar year from 1910 to 1918, inclusive?


Newton Wesley Rowell: 1910, 4,811; 1911, 5,782; 1912, 7,015; 1913, 6,795; 1914, 5,859; 1915, 6,297; 1916, 7,343; 1917, 7,048; 1918, 6,301.


NATIONAL SERVICE REGISTRATION.
Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1. What persons have been employed by the Government in connection with National Service Registration (<j) at St. Antoine de Richelieu; (b) at Contrecoeur, County of Chambiy-Vercheres?



2.	What amounts were paid therefor to the said persons by the Government?
3.	What amounts, if any, were paid as rental for the use of the schools or other buildings, in connection with the said registration at St. Antoine de Richelieu and Oontrecoeur, respectively?


Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: 

QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. D'ANJOU:
1.	What has been the refit cost for Canadian trawler Vimy during the year 1918?
2.	Did the firm of Burns & Keeler, Halifax, do any work on trawler Vimy?
3.	If so, what was the amount paid for such work?
4.	How long was trawler Vimy in Halifax during the year 1918?
5.	What were the duties of that vessel while in Halifax?
Mr. D'ANJOU:
1.	Was H.M.C.S. Stadacona repaired by the Halifax Shipyards, Ltd., during the summer of 1918?
2.	If so, why were repairs necessary?
3.	What was the cost of the repairs?
4.	Did the Stadacona strike a rock on the Cape Breton coast during the year 1918?
5.	If so, who was held responsible for the striking of said rock?
6.	How many times during the war has the Stadacona been aground?
7.	Where was the vessel during the month of July, 1917?
8.	Did she, during July, 1917, take a party of naval officers to Labrador?
9.	If so, what was the purpose of this trip?
10.	Was the ship in constant communication with the Naval authorities during that trip?
11.	Was the Stadacona used as a yacht, or to provide living accommodation for any officers in the Canadian Naval Service during 1917 or 1918?
Mr. D'ANJOU:
1. What are the names of the private cars that were in the wreck on the Toronto and Ottawa train (Canadian National Railways, 21st-22nd April last), and the name of the respective minister to which each private car is assigned?
(Mr. Arehambault.!
2.	Who paid for the attendance, transportation and supplies for these private cars respectively, during the trip?
3.	What is the amount of damage which resulted from this wreck for each private car and by whom will the said damage be paid?
4.	How many private cars are used by ministers and high officials of the Government, what is the name of each car, and the name of each minister and high official using same?
5.	How many of these private cars, if any, have been used from time to time since 1911, by members of the family of the ministers or high officials exclusively for social and pleasure trips ?


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. NEWTON W. ROWELL (President of the Council): On Friday last I promised that the Government would give to the House information in reference to the terms of the Peace Treaty so soon as that information was available for publication. A summary of the Peace Treaty, consisting of some ten thousand words, was received by the Government this morning with the proviso that it might be released for publication at one o'clock to-day, and a despatch to that effect was also received from the Colonial Office. Subsequently, a despatch came from the censor stating that it should not be released to the press until to-morrow morning, but as the Government learned that it had already been published this morning in a special edition of a Montreal paper, as a cable from the London Times, and as the summary was being released to the American press at one o'clock to-day, the Government decided, as a matter of fairness to the Canadian press, to release the summary to the press at the same hour. It has therefore gone out to the press of Canada.
The House will be interested to hear a few of the most important provisions of this momentous document, which is made between the twenty-seven Allied and associated powers of the one part and Germany of the other.
The treaty does not deal with questions affecting Austria, Bulgaria, and Turkey, except in so far as binding Germany to accept any agreement reached with those former Allies.
Following the preamble and deposition of powers comes the covenant of the League of Nations as the first section of the treaty. The frontiers of Germany in Europe are defined in the second section; European political classes given in the third; and

extra European political classes in the fourth.
Next are the military, naval, and air terms as the fifth section, followed by a section on prisoners of war and military graves, and a seventh on responsibilities.
Reparations, financial terms, and economic terms are covered in sections eight to ten.
Then comes the aeronautic section, ports, waterways and railways section, the Labour covenant, the section on guarantees, and the final clauses.
Germany, by the terms of the treaty, restores Alsace-Lorraine to France, accepts the internationalization of the Saar Basin temporarily and of Danzig permanently; agrees to territorial changes towards Belgium and Denmark and in East Prussia, cedes most of Upper Silesia to Poland, and renounces all territorial and political rights outside Europe, as to her own or her Allies' territories, and especially to Morocco, Egypt, Siam, Liberia, and Shantung.
She also recognizes the total independence of German-Austria, Czecho-Slovakja, and Poland.
Her army is reduced to 100,000 men, including officers.
Conscription within her territory is abolished	-
All forts 50 kilometers east of the Rhine are to be razed; and all importation, exportation, and nearly all production of war materials stopped.
Allied occupation of parts of Germany will continue till reparation is made, but will be reduced at the end of each of three five-year periods if Germany is fulfilling her obligations.
Any violation by Germany of the conditions as to the zone 50 kilometers east of the Rhine will be regarded as an act of war.
The German navy is reduced to six battleships, six light cruisers, and 12 torpedo boats, without submarines, and a personnel of not over 15,000.
All other vessels must be surrendered or destroyed.
Germany is forbidden to build forts controlling the Baltic, must demolish Heligoland, open the Kiel canal to all nations, and surrender her 14 submarine cables.
She may have no military or naval air forces, except 100 unarmed seaplanes until October 1 to detect mines, and may manufacture no aviation material for a six months' period.
She agrees to return to the 1914 most favoured nation tariffs without discrimination
137i	|	|	:
of any sort, to allow Allied and associated nationals freedom of transit through her territories and to accept highly detailed provisions as to pre-war debts, unfair competition, internationalizations of roads and rivers, and other economic and financial clauses.
She also agrees to the trial of the ex-Kaiser by an International High Court for a supreme offence against international morality, and of other nationals for violation of the laws and customs of war.
Holland is to be asked to extradite the former German Emperor and Germany being responsible for delivering the latter.
The League of Nations is accepted by the Allied and associated powers as operative and by Germany in principle but without membership.
Similarly an international labour body is brought into being with a permanent office and annual convention.
Germany accepts full responsibility for all damages caused to Allied and associated Governments and nationals. She agrees specifically to reimburse all civilian damages beginning with an initial payment ol 20,000,000,000 marks, subsequent payments to be secured by bonds to be issued at the discretion of the Reparation Commission.
Germany is to pay shipping damage on a ton-for-ton basis by cession of a large part of her merchant, coasting and. river fleets, and by new construction, and to devote her economic resources to the rebuilding of the devastated regions.
A great number of international bodies of different kinds and for different purposes are created, some under the League of Nations; some to execute the peace treaty. Among the former is the commission to govern the Saar Basin till a plebiscite is held fifteen years hence. A High Commissioner of Danzig, which is created into a free city under the League, and various commissions for plebiscites in Malmody, Schleswig and East Prussia. Among those to carry out the peace treaty are the Reparations, Military, Naval, Aviation, Financial and Economy Commissions ; the International High Court and Military Tribunals to fix responsibilities, and a series of bodies for the control of international rivers.
Certain problems are left for solution between the Allied and associated powers, notably details of the disposition of the German fleet and cables, the former German colonies, and the values paid in reparation.
Certain other problems, such as the laws of the air and the opium, arms and liquor
[Stage Direction]
traffic, are either agreed to in detail or set for early international action.
The preamble names as parties of the one part the United States, the British Empire, France, Italy and Japan, described as the five allied and associated powers, and Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, China, Cuba, Ecuador, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, The Hedjaz, Honduras, Liberia, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Portugal, Roumania, Serbia, Siam, Tzecho-Slovakia and Uruguay, who with the five others are described as the Allied and Associated Powers, and on the other part Germany.
It states that: Bearing in mind, that on the request of the then Imperial German Government an Armistice was granted on November 11, 1918, by the five Allied and Associated Powers in order that a Treaty of Peace might be concluded with her, and whereas the Allied and Associated Powers being equally desirous that the war in which they were successively involved directly or indirectly and which originated in the declaration of war by Austria-Hungary on July 28, 1914, against Serbia, the declaration of war by Germany against Russia on August 1, 1914, and against France on August 3, 1914, and in the invasion of Belgium, should be replaced by a firm, just and durable peace, the plenipotentiaries (having communicated their full powers found in good and due form have agreed as follows):
"From the coming into force of the present treaty the state of war will terminate-From the moment and subject to the provisions of this Treaty official relations with Germany, and with each of the German States, will be resumed by the Allied and Associated powers."
This treaty was submitted to the German plenipotentiaries at Versailles to-day. If accepted by Germany and ratified by the Governments -who are parties to it the treaty will go into effect and peace will be declared.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Mr. LEMIEUX:: Has the minister any announcement to make as to what portion of the indemnity will be paid to Canada.


Newton Wesley Rowell: No.



WAR MEASURES ACT, 1914.

[Stage Direction]
BILL to extend ORDERS in council NOT PROCEEDED WITH FOR THE PRESENT.
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. A. ROBB (Chateauguay-Hunting-don) :: Yesterday the Acting (Minister of

Justice made a statement which left an inference on this side of the House and in the press that ho was going to withdraw Bill No. 71, (to extend the operation of the Orders and regulations passed by the Governor in Council under the War Measures Act, 1914. I notice that the Bill is still on the Order Paper. Is it there by inadvertence, or did we misunderstand the minister?
Hon. ARTHUR ME1GHEN (Acting Minister of Justice):	I did not intimate that
the Bill would be withdrawn. I said that the reason why it was not advanced was the fact that intimation had come that His Majesty's proclamation which would terminate the War Measures Act could not in all probability be made until about the first of August, and that consequently this Bill need not be gone on with because it could not with advantage be considered pending that time.


Mr. E. LAPOINTE (Kamouraska):: In
view of that, does the Government intend to introduce legislation to define what is to be considered the end of the war? The British Parliament has enacted that a proclamation will be issued by His Majesty in Council declaring the end of the war, such proclamation to be issued not later than the date of the ratification of the Peace Treaty. Will the Government pass similar legislation, or at least give some interpretation as to emergency measures and other war legislation?


Mr. MEIGHEN:: The Government has
given no consideration to amending the War Measures Act which now defines when it shall cease to be effective. I would not consider that there was likely to be need for such consideration. It is purposed to review such legislation as has been passed under the authority of the Act with a view to determining what should be done in relation to each piece of legislation having regard to the fact that it goes out of effect on the termination of the war.
It may be that will involve a modification of this Bill which was intended only to tide over the present period, it having been apprehended that the war might terminate suddenly. As the war will not terminate suddenly, or at all events it does not appear likely for some time to come, we would like to have time to consider each separate piece of legislation, and determine and submit to Parliament our proposals in regard thereto.


Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (Cape Breton North):: Are we to understand that it is

possible for a state of war to continue in Canada, or in any of the British Dominions, after the war is declared to be at an end by an Imperial proclamation?


Arthur Meighen: It is presumed that the war will be declared to be at an end by an Imperial proclamation. That proclamation will end the war so far as Canada is concerned, and the operation of the War Measures Act will cease.



WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. A. K. Maclean (Acting Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue) Bill No. 42, to amend the Weights and Measures Act, was read a second time, and the House went into Committee thereon.
On section 1-" Inspector " defined.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Will the minister please say if the amendment which is proposed here changes the territorial jurisdiction of any of the officers at present at work?


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: No, this clause
merely provides for the transfer of the administration of weights and measures from the Inland Revenue Department to the Department of Trade and Commerce, which transfer was made some months ago. Further, the clause gives a definition of the word " Inspector." I think perhaps my hon. friend's question refers to another clause.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Contents of French foot.
Mr.'A. K. MACLEAN: On the first reading of the Bill the object of this clause was explained very fully. The change proposed is cbnsequent upon the recommendation of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures to secure what is expected to be a more accurate definition of the French foot. So far as Canada is concerned, the French foot is employed only in the province of Quebec, and in connection with land surveys. The French foot as at present defined contains 12-79 inches, and the correction only amounts to -001. I understand this change is approved of by the Incorporated Society of Surveyors in the province of Quebec, and I do not think there can be any objection to it.
Mr. McMASTER:: -Should there be a hyphen after the word "eighty," in the fourth line of the clause? Should the figures there be seven hundred and eighty-nine thousandths, or seven hundred and eighty-nine thousandths?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The figures should be seven hundred and eighty-nine thousandths, there should be a hyphen.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On Section 3-Superintendent may be appointed.
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There really is no substantial change contemplated by this clause. Under the law as it at present stands the Deputy Minister of Inland Revenue was the chief administrative officer of weights and measures. Inasmuch as this branch is being transferred to another department, the administrative work-is being placed under the control of an officer, to be called the superintendent. That is the important change which the: clause makes.	.	,	,	.


Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR:: Is it intended to increase the number of officers engaged in this work? I see that by subsection (3) the Governor in Council is empowered to divide the country into inspection divisions, and to decide the number of officers to be appointed.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That provision was contained in one of the clauses which this Bill repeals. It is considered advisable to have the power referred to, although the departmental officers advise me that there is no intention to make additional appointments at present.


John Howard Sinclair: Then it is not intended at present to increase the number of officers?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Frequency of inspections.
John Howard Sinclair: How often is inspection of weights and measures and weighing and measuring machines to be made? Some dealers complain that they are greatly worried by the inspectors in that regard.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is not intended to inspect all scales annually. But there are certain scales, such as those in elevators and railway stations, which are used daily, and it is considered desirable that they at least be subject to annual inspection.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-Penalty for short weights, measure or count.	[DOT]
James Alexander Robb: In making the regulations I suppose the department will take into con-

sideration natural shrinkage? Certain commodities shrink in weight while other commodities gain. For instance, butter and flour shrink slightly, oatmeal and wool gain slightly in weight.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is always considered in the inspection of goods subject to shrinkage. This is a new clause. The officers of the department think that it will facilitate the administration of the Act and will be in the public interest as well. The only penalty now for short weight delivery is under the Criminal Code, and that is rather a harsh measure to invoke. The amount of short weight delivery in Canada -and I suppose it is true of all other countries-is very substantial indeed, and one would be surprised at the great number of ' complaints that are made to the officers of the Weights and Measures Branch in regard to it. But when the officers attempt to prosecute offenders for fraud they encounter very serious difficulties. For instance, the proprietor of a store from which short weight delivery has been made may know nothing about it; somebody in his employment may be responsible, or the business may be carelessly managed. Experience has led our officers to ask for this legislation, for they feel that if dealers are punished in this way it will be more easy to secure convictions, and the resulting publicity will act as a deterrent. New South Wales at the present time has the same law. I think Great Britain is adopting it this year. The section appealed to me as being a pretty good way of dealing with such offences Of course, whatever similar provisions are contained in the criminal law' will still prevail dealing with aggravated cases.


Mr. JACOBS:: Where does the minister read into the law that the provisions of the Criminal Code will stand, notwithstanding this new provision, 61 (a)? It would seem to me that this would abrogate the section of the Criminal Code dealing with theft or obtaining money under false pretences. It is a specific instance where the law sought to be introduced would over-ride the existing law.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I consulted the law officer of the Crown, and he thought it was quite proper to have that section. I do not think it will repeal whatever is applicable in the Criminal Code. It is practically impossible to invoke the Criminal Code in these matters. I do not know whether my hon. friend has had any experience himself in the prosecution of offenders under the Act; I have not myself.


Samuel William Jacobs: It does seem to me that a trader who sells goods under weight should be prosecuted to the full limit of the law. He is committing theft, he is obtaining money by false representations, and the public ought to be protected against such dishonesty in the most careful manner. But I think we are simply putting a premium on crime by abrogating the provisions of our criminal law which deal in a proper way with these cases. In the poorer parts of the larger cities people of modest circumstances should be protected by legislation of a vigorous kind. As I said before, the trader will take his chances and sell goods under weight when the only risk he faces is this trifling fine of $25. It seems to me it is a dangerous departure, and as far as I am concerned I would be in favour of striking that clause from the Bill.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I agree with my hon. friend that there should be no modification of the existing law which would lessen the protection to the public. However, my hon. friend will realize that in criminal proceedings you must prove wilful intent, and if he reflects upon the matter he will realize that it is practically impossible to prove it; and that is the experience of all men engaged in administering laws of this nature. For instance, a few days ago an inspection of sugar in bags supposed to contain 24 pounds- revealed a shortage in a great number of the bags, although some were above the specified weight. Take it all in all there was nothing to indicate wilful intent on the part of the manufacturer or dealer; perhaps it was due to carelesness. That state of affairs can be corrected more readily, I think, by giving the department this power to fine such persons. The- officers of the department inform me that if they have this section available, a great many prosecutions will be undertaken and considerable publicity given to violations of the law. I think it is a provision that will work out all right in practice, and I should like at least to see it tried.


Peter McGibbon: People in farming communities sometimes trade grain, lend and exchange grain and so on. Are they obliged to have their scales tested, as traders are?
Mr. A. K. iMAiCLEAjJjT: The Act applies to every one who sells or deals in articles sold by weight.


Mr. MORPHY:: Is this clause comprehensive enough to meet the object aimed at? "Any person who sells"-what about

the agent or the servant of the man who sells? The clause should read:
Any person who, hy himself, his -servant or his agent, sells, delivers or causes to he sold or delivered, anything by weight, etc.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The intention is to have the law directed or levelled against the principal, not against the agent.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: We should make the
principal liable for the fraudulent act of his servant or agent. Further, what are you going to do if the fine is not paid? Does the original Act provide for further penalty in default of payment? And what jurisdiction is to determine the conviction?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Section 78 of the original Act contains a clause with regard to the recovery of penalties, and to procedure.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: What about visiting a penalty upon the proprietor for the acts of his servants or agents?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: If a sale is made by an employee, the principal would still be liable, because the sale is made by the employee on behalf of the principal.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: But in that case the principal does not sell it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Oh, yes; the principal sells by his agent.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Not necessarily. The employee might do it in a fraudulent way, without the knowledge of the principal. The employee could not, perhaps, pay the fine, and might not be there to suffer punishment.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: An employee making a sale would make it on behalf of his employer, and, in law, the sale would be by the principal.


Samuel William Jacobs: Is this fine exigible whether dr not the selling party is aware that the goods sold are under weight?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes, if his employee or agent sells the goods by weight and does not deliver the proper weight, the selling party is responsible. His business should be so organized and conducted that the public will be protected. Of course, frequently there might be short deliveries for which nobody would be very much to blame. In such cases one would expect the officers of the department administering the Act to exercise discretion and sense.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: In section 8, the word " knowingly" is used. Why should it not
be used in this section, so that the provision would read:
Any person who knowingly sells, delivers or causes to be sold or delivered, anything by weight, measure or number short of the quan-. tity ordered or purchased, etc.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Then the department would have to establish knowledge, and we would again be under the present disabilities of the criminal law.


Samuel William Jacobs: Put -the onus on the proprietor.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: If the word "knowingly" was put in and a sub-clause added to provide that the onus should be upon the person charged, then the magistrate might use his discretion as to whether he should impose the fine or not. He could distinguish between the criminal and the innocent man who happened to send out short weight.


Mr. LOGGIE:: Does this clause refer to package goods?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.
Mr. LOGGIE. Some commodities which are of certain weight when packed are subject to shrinkage, and the longer they are held on the shelves of the store the greater that shrinkage is. If a clerk sold a package stated to contain one pound when packed but actually containing one ounce less than that at the time of delivery, what would be the position of the storekeeper who had bought that commodity in good faith from the manufacturer?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Inspection and Sales Act provides that such discrepancies as my hon. friend refers to- those due exclusively to different atmospheric conditions in different places, or to ordinary exposure, evaporation, absorption of water and so on-shall not exceed five per cent of the original weight when sold to the consumer.


Samuel William Jacobs: There seems to be no provision in this section for second and third offences. It seems to me that when a proprietor wants to engage in the luxury of continuing the habit of selling goods under weight, he should be made to pay the price. I suggest that after the words " twenty-five dollars " at the end of the section, the following words be added:
for the first offence, and $100 for the second or any subsequent offence of the same nature.
We should not permit any one to continue this practice without bringing him to book rather sharply. A fine of $25 ma.y be

sufficient for the first offence, but if a merchant becomes an habitual offender, the law ought to reach him in a more drastic way. I would also suggest that there be inserted in the section some provision whereby it should be declared definitely and conclusively that the section in no way interferes with the provisions of the Criminal Code respecting false pretences, and I move that the section be amended to read:
61A. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 405 of the Criminal Code, any person who sells, delivers or causes to be sold or delivered anything by weight, measure or number short of the quantity ordered or purchased, shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding $25 for such first offence and $100 for any subsequent offence under this section.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not know
that there is any objection to the amendment moved by my hon. friend, although I very much doubt the wisdom of expecting observance of the law by the imposition of an increased penalty for second and subsequent offences. I hardly think that frequent prosecutions and the imposition of excessive penalties would bring about the desired result, but if the public know that a dealer has been fined for delivering short weight goods, those practices would, I think, very soon cease.


Mr. PEDLOW:: One of the first difficulties'underlying this section is the possibility of a merchant being made responsible for the carelessness of an employee. Under the common law, an employer is at present held responsible for the actions of an employee.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Not criminally.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: But under this measure, any person may at any time be subjected to petty annoyances. An instance has been cited this afternoon of a number of bags of sugar having been weighed up and exposed for sale, the weights not all being uniform. As the human ' element is not as exact as some mechanical device for measuring, if some customer of a merchant purchased one of those bags and it happened to be short weight, that particular merchant would, under this measure, be liable to a penalty of $25. That is placing the merchant in a very unfair position, and it should not be the attitude of this Committee to place the mercantile community of the country in a position of this kind. I have many employees labouring for me distributing merchandise. How can I control all their actions? I employ the best help I can obtain, and I warn them 
to be careful in their actions as regards matters of this nature, but if they are careless, then I am not only held responsible, but subjected to the petty annoyance of being hauled up before a magistrate and exposed to the odium of being fined for their carelessness. They are not fined, but I am.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Surely the consumer who has bought the goods and has paid for something he has not received is entitled to protection.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: As a matter of fairness to the mercantile community, the minister should insert in the first line of this section, after the word "who" the word "knowingly." Then, if a merchant knowingly permits a careless employee to continue distributing short -weight or short measure, the section would be a good one. The section is not carefully enough framed, and in a subsequent paragraph the word "knowingly" is used, thereby giving some measure of protection in matters of this kind.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: If the section were to be amended as the hon. member suggests, there would be very little protection for the public. If a dealer has careless employees in his store and they grow accustomed to delivering short weight or short measure, that employer should suffer the penalty. Further, I do not think those in mercantile business will object to this see-
4 p.m. tion, because it is for the protection of the man who is careful and honest as well, in measuring or weighing the goods which he sells to his customers. My hon. friend would be surprised if he knew of the great quantities of goods delivered in this country which are actually short weight. It would be impossible to establish knowledge on the part of the principal, and it is not a difficult matter to deliver proper weights. The delivering of short weight or short measure is due to carelessness or dishonesty against both of which the public should be protected. If short weights were delivered by any merchant and that fact came to the attention of the officers of the department, the merchant would not be prosecuted for the first offence; he would be warned and consideration would be given to his reputation in the community, the character of his staff and so on. I quite agree with my hon. friend that the section might be abused, but I do not see how the public can be protected in any other way.
. Mr. JACOBS: I might come to the assistance of the minister by pointing out

that under the Liquor License law, the fact that liquor was sold is sufficient to justify a conviction, whether the owner knew of the matter or not.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: That is a different thing altogether.


Mr. COWAN:: Is there in existence now any law compelling parties putting up goods to label or stamp the can or package with the net weight of the contents? Just this morning I received a letter from one of the largest wholesale men in the West, complaining that all of the packages which came from Eastern Canadian manufacturers are short from four to six ounces, and he finds that American cans and packages all contain exactly what they are labelled to contain, the result being that he cannot sell Eastern Canadian goods to the western people. Is there any means by which that can be dealt with, or will it be dealt with under this Bill?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: We have now on the Statute Books such a law covering a large number of articles, and it is my intention to introduce at this session another Bill on the subject, which Bill passed the House of Commons at the last session, but which was, for some reason or other, defeated in the Senate. When that is enacted, we shall have complete legislation requiring all containers to have on the label the exact contents of the packages. _


Walter Davy Cowan: I am glad to hear that, because I know the eastern manufacturers are suffering greatly in the West by reason of the practice I have mentioned. If this condition continues, eastern manufacturers will lose their trade in the western market. There is no reason why they should be allowed to defraud our people, for that is what it amounts to.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I think the minister is
not giving this point the consideration it deserves. As the hon. member for 'Huntingdon has pointed out certain commodities after being carefully weighed will shrink in weight, while others will increase; it depends upon the atmosphere in which the goods are kept. Textiles for instance, will shrink in weight in a dry atmosphere; and increase in weight in a damp atmosphere. If the minister does not accept my suggestion to insert the word " knowingly " in the first line, I think this clause will be a most dangerous one, and will subject the mercantile interests of this country to a great deal of annoyance. I am informed by legal gentlemen in the House that the
Criminal Code already covers the cases which this clause seeks to cover. It is impossible for any merchant to measure goods exactly at all times. How then can we possibly hold him accountable for the acts of his employees? The human element enters into the transaction; it is impossible to be always exact. If this clause passes in its present form, the proprietor of a store will be liable to be hauled before the magistrate and fined $25 because his clerk on one occasion happened to give short weight, not with any intention of defrauding, but simply because the human element entered into the transaction. Furthermore, it will cause a whole lot of trouble for the department.


Mr. MABSHALL:: In putting up canned goods, we do not guarantee the quantity. We use standard cans, and we fill them.
I think the hon. member is very much mistaken when he says that the cans are sometimes short in weight from four to six ounces. Speaking for the Dominion Can-ners, while we may have had complaints as to quality, we have had none as to quantity. All our cans of corn and peas are filled by machinery at the rate of from 70 to 100 cans a minute. At this rate, it is possible for an occasional can to be not quite as full as others, but generally they are all full. A shortage in weight is more likely to occur in canning fruits which are filled by hand. For corn, peas and tomatoes we^ use the standard can used, same as used in the United States. We could not get help enough to fill these cans by hand and keep up our output. I have never heard of anything relating to short weight except perhaps with regard to fruits. We buy a great deal of produce, and we used to have trouble over raspberries and strawberries, but now all our produce is bought by weight. In my opinion ' this Bill is along the right lines.


Mr. LEGER:: I believe this clause should be amended to protect the merchant. A dissatisfied clerk who is about to leave may try to get even with his employer by giving short weight for the whole day before he leaves. Under this clause the merchant would be fined while the clerk would go scot-free. If short weight is given, I would make the merchant make good the shortage.
I think that the clerk who deliberately gave short weight should be looked after, as well as the merchant-


Mr. CASSELMAN:: As one who is engaged in the mercantile business and has a fairly good knowledge of the conditions, I approve

of the principle of this clause. I do not think the argument that merchants will be penalized for the acts of their clerks is well founded, because if a clerk habitually gives short weight or short measure the customers will soon bring it to the attention of the proprietor, and it will then be his duty to discharge the clerk. I think it is the proprietor who should be penalized The tendency of the trade is to deal more and more in package goods. The retail merchants buy a quantity of package goods which frequently happen to be short weight. The minister referred a moment ago to packages of sugar, and I suppose he meant packages that were put up by the factories and marked, as is usual, 20 pounds. In such a case the manufacturer should suffer and not the merchant, who can hardly be expected to weigh every one of the packages and cull out those of short weight. Packages frequently come short in weight, and I think the onus should be on the manufacturer or the packer, and not on the merchant. There was a penalty imposed on merchants who sold impure maple sugar. I know of merchants who were fined for selling impure maple sugar although it was stamped "pure." They did not know that it was not pure, and simply sold it over the counter for what it purported to be. I think the Bill should be so amended as to penalize the manufacturer and not the merchant in the case of package goods.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: In penalizing it is always dangerous to go further than the common law, which has well considered what is criminal and what is not, and enters into the philosophy of the condition of mind of those .who may be charged with crime. When we remove the safeguards . provided by the common law and constitute a crime regardless of the state of mind of the individual, we are on very dangerous ground. We passed a law the other day whereby, if a lady put a pan of bread into the oven in too big a fire, and the bread should burn, she is liable to two years in the penitentiary. That is extraordinary, but it is the law to-day that if by negligence any person makes a fire which destroys property of any kind he is liable to be sent to the penitentiary. Now we are coming forward with another law by which, if a pound of tea is one-thousandth of an ounce short in weight a man may be fined 825, or, according to the amendment, $100 for a second offence. It is better to err on the side of mercy and fairness, and it is better that the responsi-

bility should be thrown on the Crown to prove wilful intent, than to make it easy to punish people. We should not neglect the time-honoured principle of the common law that there must be criminal	intent in	order	to render aperson criminally liable, and I fully agree with	the	hon. member who
insists that the word "wilful" should be inserted. If this word were added I would have no great fault to find. I do not think that the store-keeper could be criminally liable for a sale made by his clerk. He would be civilly liable in damages for the quality of the goods and for any shortage or inferiority. My view of the criminal law is that the master is not liable criminally unless there is criminal intent on his part. Of course, if he instructs his servant to do an illegal act he is responsible through his agent and is parti ceps criminis. I think the whole difficulty might be circumvented by adding the word "wilful." It is better that the department should experience some difficulty than that people should be fined and imprisoned who are not really criminally liable.


Mr. BAEL:: Will this apply to public
scales, weighing co.al, hay, cattle, etc., and to private scales that are for public use? This law should be very exact. It is the privilege of the owner of any scale to have it inspected, and I think that if all scales are properly inspected there will be adequate protection. I believe a great deal of fraud is perpetrated in the weighing of coal, cattle, etc. There is a great deal of trouble in my own town with scales that are not correct. The person who hires his scale for public use should see that it is absolutely correct. I think the public has suffered very much in this respect and should be amply protected.
Mr. A. K. iMACLEAN: I am not convinced that this is not good legislation. The public must be protected. If a man goes into a store to buy a definite quantity of anything, he should receive it, and it should be no defence that the proprietor has careless or dishonest employees. Of course, the law might be abused, but I assure the Committee it will not be by the officers of the department.
My hon. friend from Dundas (Mr. Casselman) referred to package goods. That is covered by another statute, the Inspection and Sales Act. There is a toleration of error provided for in that Act up to five per cent of the original weight when sold to the con-

sumer, and it has never been the practice to initiate a prosecution against a person who sells goods in a container just as he himself received them. Prosecution for violation of the Inspection and Sales Act, if any, in that case would be against the manufacturer.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I would like to have one further opportunity of impressing my views upon the minister, who is evidently not yet quite convinced. The member for Dundas (Mr. Casselman) said a few minutes ago, that owing to the fact that there might be habitual cases of carelessness on the part of merchants or their employees this clause, in his estimation, was all right. But I submit it is not the habitual offenders that will suffer and feel the consequent exposure most, but the casual offender. The person who has really committed an offence under this clause-not intentionally, not knowingly, not wilfully, but by mere accident; you may call it negligence, a term that the Acting Minister of Justice is very fond of

will be the one to suffer, although the offence may be an accident purely and simply, I think it is the feeling of those members of the Committee who have given the matter careful consideration that there should be some safeguard provided so as to protect a merchant against such imposition as has been referred to, viz: that a dissatisfied employee might, in order to get even with his employer, act in collusion with a friend who would institute a prosecution for short measure. There are a thousand and one ways in which a merciiant might not only be penalized, but exposed to the odium which such proceedings involves, although that merchant is a conscientious person who gives the public the best of service and full measure and full weight in the sales which he makes. Like my hon. friend from George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs), I am willing and desirous that the public should be protected to the last degree in a matter of this kind, and that every safeguard should be attached to purchases by the public; but you can make the penalties resulting from proceedings under the Act so irksome, irritating, and annoying to the persons interested that it will be a continual source of worry to them. From week-end to weekend, and from year to year they will always be in terror of suffering seriously by reason of a slight deviation from the exact line of measure. As I said before, in my experience in mercantile affairs, covering a period of forty years, I have found that the measures going over a counter, either in. yardage or weight, vary as often
one way as the other. In a hasty operation of the scale or the yard measure an employee, even with the best of care, is liable to give over measure or short measure. Now the employee who has given in one case short measure even to the extent of a hair's breadth, is liable to a penalty under this Bill. I submit that the minister will be well advised if he listens to reason, reconsiders his decision, and inserts in this clause some qualifying provision.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I had intended, when last on my feet, to state that legislation similar to this has been enacted in other countries, particularly in the United States. The states of Massachusetts and Wisconsin have enacted a law of this kind, and I think that New South Wales has likewise passed legislation on similar lines. All this indicates that in the experience of other countries it was found impossible to secure convictions without these special enactments. My hon. friend (Mr. Pedlow) appears to be apprehensive that the merchants will be harrassed by the officers of the department in the enforcement of this law. I think I can safely assure him that there will never be any attempt to punish the casual violator of the Act, because there has always been what is known technically as " a toleration of error " allowed in any cases which come under the observation of the officers. For example, the toleration of error is applied to scales tq insure protection to the man who owns and uses those scales. I think the Committee may feel quite sure that the department will not institute prosecutions for what would appear to be casual offences or mistakes, or some infinitesimal shortage in weight. The principle upon which this legislation is based is that a man is entitled to get the thing for which he pays, and if he does not, it is no justification that the employer has careless or dishonest officials. I can see the merit in my hon. friend's contention that there may be unintentional short weight delivered, and in some cases overweight. At the same time the delivery of short weight is becoming, or rather, it has become, quite common, and there ought to be some means of dealing with it arid giving publicity to the fact, as against some of the offenders. After all, it is in the interest of the business man or dealer, who is scrupulously careful about giving the proper weight to his customers, that some other dealer, through carelessness on his part, or on the part of his employees, should not profit to his disadvantage.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: 
Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I am not a lawyer. I am looking at the interpretation of this clause from a common sense standpoint, and there is a difference sometimes between legal interpretations and common sense. Suppose I were to introduce a Bill and it were to become law-(although there is not the slightest chance of that-penalizing a lawyer for advising a client that he has got a good case in court, whereas he has not a leg to stand on. It would be just as reasonable for me, if I were Minister of Justice, to press through a Bill of that kind as it is to pass legislation of the character contemplated here. What a storm there would be in the House if I were to attempt, as a legal adviser of the Government, to pass a Bill of that nature. It is all very well to say that the officers of the department will not be unduly exacting, but under this Bill, as I read i,t, it will be open to the individual- purchaser to institute proceedings. It does not state that it is necessary for an official of the department to prosecute. Any Tom, Dick or Harry who goes into a store and buys a package of merchandise is able to take action before the magistrate, and we all know how human are magistrates in administering justice. It all depends on the state of their liver. If they have been out late the night before and are feeling the effects, we all know what kind of a deal they are likely to hand out. As a matter of fact, I have known many magistrates decide cases before they heard the evidence.


William Stewart Loggie: If I understand the minister, this law applies only to bulk goods, the goods that are weighed out by the store keeper. For example, if a clerk weighs out a pound of tea and gives short weight, either he or his employer is guilty under the law; but if he hands out a pound of tea that has been put up by a wholesale firm, living a thousand miles away it may be, and the net contents are not quite one pound, he is not liable. The Massachusetts
fMr. A. K. Maclean.]
law that the hon. minister read refers I fancy only to bulk goods weighed or measured out by the retailer.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes. Another Act makes provision for goods in containers, and as a matter of fact this would largely relate to bulk goods.


William Stewart Loggie: In view of that, I think the provision proposed would not cause undue hardship.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There is no possibility of any such construction. If a man sells a package of tea which he bought from his wholesaler as containing one pound, and that package is under weight he is guilty under this measure just as much as if he put up the package himself. There is no use having any misapprehension in the matter. The minister said that the prosecutions to be instituted under this new law will likely be initiated by the officers of the department, and he repeated that statement. If that is the intention, I would be satisfied by the insertion of a provision that no prosecutions are to be instituted except by leave of the minister of the department or his deputy. Then we would have some guarantee that frivolous and unreasonable prosecutions would not be instituted. I think that is the best safeguard we could have.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I could not consent to that. 1 meant to say that as a matter of fact and practice prosecutions, so far as I know, have never been commenced by private individuals, but invariably by officers of the department.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: But they are possible, are they not?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes, they are possible.
Mr- BALDWIN: Having been connected with mercantile business for some time, this subject interests me and brings to my recollection several incidents. In the case of impure food the revenue officer enters a store and buys the commodity suspected, and if he finds any impurity the retail merchant is punished, while the wholesaler, who sold the commodity to him, goes free. Who is to determine the weights of goods? Can a customer buy goods at a store, take them home, weigh them, and return them because he claims they are short weight? If that is possible, it is going to be a very serious, matter, and I would like to have that question answered before I say anything further on this measure.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is the most difficult thing in the world to establish violation of a law of this kind; in fact, it is almost impossible for a private prosecutor to do so. He has no means of testing the weight of the article which he has purchased, and the probabilities are that detections can only he made by officers of the department in their peregrinations through the country. They may have communications from individuals respecting short weights given by some particular dealer, and when visiting his store or inspecting his scales they might observe the weights of articles which were being sold, and in that way they would be able to establish any inaccuracy-
Mr.McCOIG: Will the officers work under a similar system to that of the Government officials under the Drug Stamp Act?


An hon. MEMBER:: I hope not.


Mr. McCOIG:: The Government officials in a number of cases caught innocent storekeepers who had small boys as clerks. In one city I have in mind an official prosecuted ten or fifteen storekeepers and they were fined $50 each, and that official got a "drag" of $25 apiece out of those fines. If the officials under this Act are going to work on the same basis, there is reason to use every precaution possible to protect the public before this Bill is passed.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not think
the cases are quite comparable. Whether or not a stamp was affixed to a package of patent medicines is a fact easily established; if it was not affixed, technically the offender is guilty. I do not think there is the same opportunity for abuse in this case as there might be in the case to which my hon. friend refers. I believe I may safely repeat, that all prosecutions under this section must necessarily be initiated by the officers of the department, and I trust they will always exercise their duties with some discretion.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: From personal experience, I can state that that is not usually the case with officers of Government departments, and I am not now speaking of this particular department. The point raised by the hon. member for Kent is well taken, and I regret to state that officers in this connection are not always, like Caesar's wife, above reproach. I have had similar experiences to that indicated by him. I know a case where an officer of the department visited the town of Renfrew and tried his level best to induce junior employees to
deliver to him packages without a stamp on them, and he knew they should have been stamped, but he endeavoured to induce the employees to commit an offence under the Stamp Act. I know that from personal experience. The same man operated in every store in that town on the same occasion along the same lines. I feel that no merchant would be any safer in the hands of an official of this department. This will be the last and final appeal from me in this regard. I have known cases where dishonest buyers tried to make believe that their measure was short. The merchant has no protection under this Bill in cases where customers take the goods home, remove a portion of them and come back to the store claiming that the weight or measure was. short.


Mr.  A. K. MAOLEAN@: This indicates
again how difficult it is to prosecute, even under this section. The Act will never be invoked unless an officer of the department knows that a certain man is habitually given to short deliveries. The evidence can only be secured after a great deal of trouble, probably by the officer of the department being in the store when the deliveries are being made.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I do not see, then, why the word "knowingly" should not be inserted after the word " who " in the first line.


Archibald Blake McCoig: The word " knowingly " is used in section 69; why should it not be used in this?


Mr.  A. K. MAOLEAN@: Because a man would know *whether or not his scales were being tampered with.


Mr. BALDWIN:: Where will this weight be taken, or where will the account be made to ascertain whether the measure is correct-at the counter, or after the customer has taken the goods home? Some twenty years ago I had in my employ a gentleman of high standing. A customer had been annoying him with frequent complaints of short weight, and he asked me what to do. I said:	Do you know that
you have made no mistake? He said: Absolutely. I said:	You weigh him out a
pound more sugar than he asks for the next time he comes, and give him thirteen lemons or bananas instead of a dozen. He did so, and there was no complaint. I said to him then: You may go to that customer and tell him that you have proof that he is not honest, because he has not reported the

extra pound of sugar or the fact that he was given thirteen instead of a dozen lemons or bananas. A man may come to a store and buy certain commodities, take them home, remove a portion of them and then call in an officer and complain that the weight or measure was short. Retail merchants have troubles enough to burden them; yet by this law you are putting them in the very clutches of dishonest people. I am also a lumberman. If I send a thousand feet of lumber out ten miles, it should be measured at the wagon; the customer should not report to me two weeks later that he did not get a thousand feet of lumber. We might as well close up business if such a law as this is on the statute-book.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: The measurement or
weight of the merchandise should be checked at the counter by the customer, before he leaves the store. In the banks you are asked to count your change before you leave the counter; otherwise .no claim will be recognized. Under the circumstances, I move the following amendment.


The CHAIRMAN:: Order. There is already an amendment before the Committee which will have to be disposed of before the hon. member may introduce another.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: With reference to what my hon. friend (Mr. Baldwin) has said, the fact would have to be determined as any other fact is determined. It would be very difficult to secure a conviction for selling short weight if the purchaser took the articles to his home and kept them there for some time.


Willis Keith Baldwin: Fifteen minutes would
be enough-or two minutes.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Or two seconds, for that matter; it would be very difficult to secure a conviction in that case. There need be no apprehension, therefore, about anybody being injured by this law other than the person who has clearly laid himself open for prosecution.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The section of the Code referred to in the amendment of my hon. friend (Mr. Jacobs) reads:
Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to three years' imprisonment who, with intent to defraud by any false pretence, etc.
There the intent is mentioned, as it is in every section of the Criminal Code dealing with such matters. Are we going to depart from that and give to officers of the class described a moment ago an oppor-

tunity of making money by going round the country, getting a fee from a man for seeing that his yardstick is the proper length and that his scales are in proper order, and then discovering something against him and imposing a fine on him whether he is guilty or not? That is going entirely too far. The minister has taken into his head the notion that it is proper to make criminal laws for all matters of this kiiid, and if in any of the ordinary transactions of life, a man is to be held criminally liable, if he happens to make a slip, that is breaking every principle I have ever known of in this country.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: We wish, really and practically, to modify the criminal law which now states that if a man wilfully sells short weight goods, he is liable to imprisonment. The officials of the department state, that in practice they cannot secure a conviction, and they want some legislation enabling them to punish men by the imposition of a fine for failure to furnish that which a man has paid for.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If the minister will furnish to this committee any tangible proof of protest coming from the people of any city or town in Canada that they are being defrauded by their grocers, I would certainly seriously consider the matter; but if this is only because the officers who travel around the country in search of convictions, find it difficult to make them, I have no sympathy with the Bill. If any men or women in Canada who go to buy tea, pork, fish or anything else to be found in a grocery store, complain of short weight, I am very sympathetic and will respond very quickly to any remedy, but I am not satisfied that there is any such complaint, and I have heard none.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There are every year complaints by the hundreds to the department that goods are sold short in weight. On the other hand, the officers of the department believe that short weight deliveries are due, in most cases, not to fraud and deliberate intent, but to carelessness, and they want to prevent this carelessness, and if possible, by this legislation, to compel dealers to give purchasers that which they bought and which they paid for. I hope this law will assist in making men more careful about the deliveries they make.
Amendment (Mr. Jacobs) agreed to.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I am still sorry that the minister is obdurate, unconvinced. He says

that complaints are from time to time coming in to the department, and I have no doubt of that, but am sure, when the department investigates the basis of the complaints, it will find that in the majority of cases they are without foundation and fact, and that the actual cases of short weights and offences of that kind are infinitesimal. No business man could continue long in business if he habitually delivered short weights and measures. According to this legislation one would think that the mercantile people of this country were a crowd of thugs, robbers and criminals, and that a wall had to be built round the public for their protection, as if the public were not capable of protecting themselves. From my experience, I have no hesitation
5 p.m. in saying that should customers be given short weights or measures they very quickly go back to the store and demand their pound of flesh, and I do not think the minister is well advised in acting the part of Shylock in asking that this section pass. It may be not only the pound of flesh, but some of the heart's blood along with it, and it was the latter to which Portia objected so well. I move:-
That section 61A be amended by inserting the word " knowingly " after the word " who " in the first line.
The principle underlying this amendment is admitted by the minister; it covers the point of carelessness, which is all that this Committee should be concerned in. If a man deliberately, habitually, commits this offence, then he should be penalized, but as the section now reads, if the action is only casual, occurring once in a while, he is liable to a penalty.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: We have discussed that principle pretty thoroughly, and I hope my hon. friend does not want to press the amendment. The sense of the Committee is, I think, that the section would be absolutely of no use if the word " knowingly " were inserted.


Samuel William Jacobs: If, as the hon. member suggests, we insert the word " knowingly," we come into conflict with section 405 of the Criminal Code, which states that if any person knowingly commits this offence, ne is liable to three years' imprisonment, so that we shall have the curious situation that, while one section of the law says that if a man knowingly commits this offence, he is liable to three years' imprisonment, another section says that he is liable only to a fine of $25. That reduces the matter to an absurdity.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: This does not conflict
with the section quoted by the hon. member, but is in entire harmony with it. The word " knowingly " was used in the Criminal Code, showing that the framers of it were wise in their day and generation, and we would not be well advised in departing from the phraseology of that section.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Let us give the
Bill a fair chance.
Amendment (Mr. Pedlow) negatived.
Section, as amended by Mr. Jacobs, agreed to.
On section 8-penalty for using counterfeit weights, etc.
Mr. iMoOOIG:	In case of a conviction,
will the officer laying the complaint be entitled to any portion of the fine or any fee?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On the preamble.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: On a former occasion
I asked the minister about the testing of meters for measuring electric currents. In out part of the country, complaint is made that those meters are not properly inspected. The minister could not, at that time, tell me under which department the matter came. If it comes under this department, I should like to know if proper steps are being taken for the inspection of electric meters.	_


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: II remember my hon. friend putting that question to me, I think, on the first reading of the Bill. The officer of the department -who is now with me is not in the electrical branch, but I shall .make a point, to-morrow, before the Orders of the Day are called, to give my hon. friend an answer, and I must apologize to him for having overlooked the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported.


[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Arthur Meighen (Acting Minister of Justice) Bill No. 78, to amend the Criminal Code (sexual offences), was read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 2-seducing female employees:
Mr. PEOULX:: I presume that sections 1 and 2 are the sections we passed last year, but which were objected to bv the Senate?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-unmarried man and woman registering as man and wife at hotel, etc.
Mr. NICKLE:: 
Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: I might also mention the case where a married man represents to a woman that he is unmarried and then marries her, committing bigamy. The woman who might be perfectly innocent would be liable under this section.


Arthur Meighen: The amendment suggested by the hon. member for Kingston and the suggestion of the hon. member for North Grey, have come to my attention only this afternoon. With regard to the latter suggestion, from the momentary consideration I have been able to give it, it might well be that innocent persons, man or woman, might be prosecuted if the innocent one was at the time under the belief that he or she was legally married. I think the suggestion is worthy of a few moments' consideration by the Committee. The latter remark applies also to the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Kingston. The amendment, however, would be more easily accessible to abuse for the reason that it suggests no time over which the open living together as man and wife must have continued before it shall constitute relief from the penalties imposed by the Act.
I would like the members to express their views particularly on the amendment and on the suggestion of the hon. member for Grey (Mr. Middlebro).


William Sora Middlebro: By putting at the end of the section the words " knowing the same to be untrue ", it would improve the section.


Georges Henri Boivin: It will be necessary first to dispose of t'he amendment of the hon. member for Kingston.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have no sympathy with, and I do not care to afford any protection to any man and woman who are living together in open adultery in this country. It may be permitted, but certainly it is in violation of everything we regard as good citizenship and good morals. Although perhaps we have not provided any direct law to punish it, we undoubtedly should not throw any protection around it". If any man and woman coming to Canada -have not yet been married, or have had no opportunity of being married, they can be married in Canada and should immediately comply with the law. I am not in sympathy with the amendment and do not think it should be accepted.


William Folger Nickle: The matter is not as simple as the leader of the Opposition supposes. He says that people coming to Canada can be married. That is quite true, but people

may not be in a position to marry. I will mention an instance that came to my attention within the last month. A Canadian went overseas leaving in Canada a wife who went off with another man. The soldier foolishly paid attention to a girl in England, and she, believing him to be single, married him, not finding out that he was a married man until a child was about to be born. She came to Canada with him but the child was born prior to their arrival. That woman is in Canada living with the man in Kingston, wife number one not desiring to live with him. It is not a legal offence for these'two people to live together, and you cannot prosecute the man for bigamy because the offence was committed in England. Will it be contended that it should be an offence for this man and woman to register in a hotel as man and wife, notwithstanding the fact that they may legally live together in a private house? That would be an anomaly. I can give half a dozen instances of the same kind if necessary. I have no desire to throw protection around people of this class but I certainly think that we owe it to them not to set traps for them. That is the principle on which I advocate the amendment I propose. The endeavour apparently is to prevent a man and woman from going to a hotel and using it as a place of assignation, but it should not be held that a couple casually visiting a hotel should be treated as criminals simply, because they register or otherwise conduct themselves as man and wife when they are not such in fact. There are men and women living in this country as married people who are not legally divorced from their previous husbands or wives. How unreasonable it would be to say that they should live together in private residences unmolested, but that because perchance they come !to Ottawa to see the leader of the Opposition or go to Toronto to attend the opening of the legislature they should be made criminals if they register at a hotel.


Mr. EDWARDS:: I can only attempt to
argue this matter from the standpoint of common sense. It seems to me that the member for Kingston fails in his argument when he assumes that it is all right for these people to live together as long as they do not go to a hotel and register. I take the view that they are committing a moral offence, at all events, when they live together after discovering that they are not legally married. If they continue to live together they are committing an offence even if they do not go to a hotel
and register. The leader of the Opposition has expressed the case exactly when he says that the passing of this amendment will be equivalent to this House countenancing the living together of people who have no right to do so. To take the case mentioned by my hon. friend of the English girl marrying the soldier in good faith. What course should she take on ascertaining the facts? I think she should leave him at once, and the fact that she may decide to continue living with him does not excuse either of them if they gc to a hotel and register. There ought to be a law on the statute-books, if there is not, making it a criminal offence for people to live together who are not married.


William Folger Nickle: I do not want the hon. member for Frontenac to put words into my mouth. Not for a moment did I suggest that it was all right for such people to live together. I was not discussing morals but law, and it is in that respect that my friend no doubt misunderstood me.
I said that adultery, at least in Ontario and Quebec, had never been recognized as a crime. The hon. member may be quite right in saying that it should be made a criminal offence, but if we are going to make it such let us do so in a direct way and not set traps for people. What I said was that so long as the law of Canada did not recognize adultery as a crime, I thought it was unreasonable that those who were living together openly as man and wife should be made criminals simply because they went to a hotel, lodging house, or boarding house and represented themselves as being married. I object to setting traps for people who are innocently-if I may use that word without giving offence to the hon. member for Frontenac-doing something they would have a right to do under the general law of the country but which becomes an offence when they register at a hotel or. boarding house, or represent themselves as having a certain status which they have not.


Samuel William Jacobs: Is not this the same Bill that was before the House last year, passed the House, and was thrown out by the Sen^e?


Arthur Meighen: This is the legislation in exactly the form in which it passed this House.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I have listened with a great deal of care to what the member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) and the member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) have said. I incline to the view expressed by the member



for Frontenac and also that expressed by the member for Cape Breton; I am very much afraid that if we amend this clause as the member for Kingston desires us to do it may be construed as giving the endorsement of this House to these irregular relations. Now, my hon. friend from Kingston seems to think that there is something unfair to the people living in these irregular relationships in this respect: That if they are living in a private house the law does not recognize their relationship as a crime, but if they go to an hotel or boarding-house and register there it is a crime. There is a distinction to be drawn. While these people are living in their own house they are not brought into contact with other persons so nearly and so intimately as they are if they register in an hotel or in a boarding-house.


Samuel William Jacobs: Brought into the same contact?


Andrew Ross McMaster: Not into the same contact. Let us take the case of a summer boarding-house. Two people living in this irregular relationship go into this summer boarding-house. They register as man and wife, they are accepted as such, and they may become friendly with the people-many of whom will be young persons-in that hoarding-house. I think the situation is different when these people are living in their own house from what it is when they are living in a summer boarding-house, or any such establishment. I quite grant that it may be a little hard on such persons to be subject to this penalty if they go to an hotel; but after all, however we may sympathize with individual cases, or however we may in our own hearts condone their offence, nevertheless they have by their action prejudicially attacked the very basis of our society, and therefore I would think that the amendment of the member for Kingston cannot be accepted. I do not think we can accept it because.I am afraid it would give the country and the world in general an improper and false idea of the attitude of this House and of the people of Canada towards sexual relationships.


Mr. HALLIDAY:: We have a moral law to observe in Canada as well as a criminal law. There may be sympathy coming to the man and woman who live as man and wife before they are married, but I have not heard any reason expressed for such sympathy. The most binding law which should be observed in the world to-day is a law not enacted by this Parliament. If there is no law on the Statute Book prohibiting one of the greatest crimes that is

taking place in this Dominion to-day, I think it is about time such a law was enacted. For my part I cannot let the opportunity pass without voicing my disapproval of it.


William Sora Middlebro: I would move that the following words be added at the end of the clause:
Knowing the same to he untrue.


Georges Henri Boivin: We must first dispose of the other amendment. Shall the amendment proposed by the hon- member for Kingston be adopted?


Samuel William Jacobs: Might I ask that the amendment in question be read, as I was not in the Chamber when it was proposed?


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. member for Kingston moves to add at the end of clause 4, to form part thereof, the following words:
iNo persons who have been openly living together as husband and wife shall be prosecuted for an offence under this section.
Amendment negatived.


William Sora Middlebro: My reason for moving the amendment which I am about to submit is simply this: I think the Committee will agree that in most cases of bigamy, one of the parties is usually.innocent. Now under the clause as it stands to-day if, under those circumstances, a bigamous marriage was contracted, the innocent party would not only suffer from the results of that marriage, but would be liable as well to imprisonment. The operating words of the section are that either of the pa*ties "represents or pretends" that the man is the husband or the woman is the wife. What I say is that this should not be an offence unless the person who thus represents or pretends, knows that the statement is not true. Therefore, I would move to add to the end of the section, the amendment referred to. Then in a case of that kind the innocent party to the marriage contract would be protected.


Mr. LEVI THOMSON:: I would agree with the hon. gentleman if his amendment did not impose on the prosecution the onus ~of proving a want of knowledge; I think the hon. gentleman will see the distinction there. I am not saying that his amendment does that, he has probably given more thought to the matter than I have, but if the onus of proving the want of knowledge does not rest on the person accused then we should be careful to see that it does. As my hon. friend knows, the onus must be somewhere. We want the onus placed

upon the right person, because it is very hard to prove that the party accused had such knowledge in a great many cases.


William Sora Middlebro: I would think that before any party is held to be guilty the proof of guilt must be forthcoming.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I am quite in sympathy with the amendment proposed by the member for Grey, but I do not think it is necessary. In order that a person be convicted under this section, the guilty knowledge would have to be established; there would have to be mens rea, and that being so, although I am absolutely in sympathy with the object of protecting an innocent party to these irregular alliances, I cannot see the necessity for the amendment.


William Sora Middlebro: I will submit this illustration to my hon. friend: An innocent woman accompanies a man to the hotel and the clerk asks: "Are you married"? and she replies, " Yes, I am married to this man here." In giving that statement she fully believes that she is married to him, yet under the section she would be guilty of an offence.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I do not think she would be liable, because she acted in good faith.


William Sora Middlebro: But the clause does not say that.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I submit wrongful intention would have to be established before the woman could be properly convicted under this section.


William Sora Middlebro: I would not want to take a chance on it.


Arthur Meighen: If I might present my own opinion, in a most humble way, it would be that the hon. member for Grey is right in his contention that that knowledge would not'require to be brought home unless the Act specifically called for such to be done. All that needs to be done to constitute an offence under the clause as it stands now is-we will take a single case -that a man by registering, or otherwise, represents that a woman to whom he is not married is his wife.
Now, all that has to be done is to so represent that a woman to whom he is not married is his wife; that itself the statute declares to be an offence. Consequently in my judgment-which I do not put forward as final by any means-unless we add " knowing the same to be untrue," this knowledge does not require to be brought home to the accused person.
138*
So far as the point raised by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle is concerned, 1 would certainly be of the opinion without reserve, that if the law were to be amended merely as asked for by the hon. member for' Grey, then the guilty knowledge would require to be brought home to the accused by the prosecution, lit occurs to me- although I would like more time over these matters before discussing them that it would be better to state that the onus of proof of lack of knowledge should be on the-accused. And if the hon. member (Mr. Middlebro) would so amend his amendment, then, subect to further discussion, I would be disposed to accept it.
Mr. JACOB'S: What is the law iii England with respect to 'these offences, particularly the offence under review?


Arthur Meighen: So far as I know this does not constitute an offence in England.


Samuel William Jacobs: Then why should we want to make it an offence in this country?


Arthur Meighen: We establish our own.
standard of morality-


Andrew Ross McMaster: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: -on the footing of our own conscience, instead of on the standard set by Great Britain.


Samuel William Jacobs: The sources of our law
are from Great Britain; we follow her closely in the enactment of criminal law.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Not necessarily.


Arthur Meighen: The principles of our
law, particularly of our constitutional law. we derive from -Great Britain; but our standard of morality we derive from our own conscience.


Samuel William Jacobs: I am of the view.that this clause is liable to produce blackmail on an unprecedented scale. This legislation is hysterical. I think the -Criminal Code already sufficiently safeguards morality without the introduction of legislation of this kind.


William Sora Middlebro: I will withdraw my amendment and substitute therefor the following :
The onus of proof of the absence of knowledge shall be upon the person asserting the-same.


Mr. DEVLIN:: While you are perfecting the section, would it not be well to insert something in reference to cohabitation? The simple fact of a man passing off a lady as his wife in a hotel is not in itself a. crime.
^164


Samuel William Jacobs: How are you going to prove cohabitation?


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: By their occupying the
same room. They do not generally do so except for an illicit purpose.


Arthur Meighen: I am afraid that if you put in the necessity of proving intention to cohabit you would only increase the difficulty of enforcing the law, and you would not absolve any deserving case.
Amendment carried.


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall the section as amended carry?


Samuel William Jacobs: Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment that the clause be struck out of the Bill.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman's amendment is merely a negative. If he is opposed to the section as amended he Is at liberty to vote accordingly.


Samuel William Jacobs: This Bill was before the House last year and was considered rather hastily I am afraid. In the Senate, where perhaps, if not wiser, there are older heads than in this House, they look at matters with that detached attitude which in questions of this kind is essential, they came to the conclusion that the entire Bill was useless, that it was provocative of blackmail and other offences of that nature, and consequently they failed to pass it. In view of that I do not consider it wise to send the Bill again to the Senate this year. 'This Bill was, as I understand, prepared and drafted by some association for the propagation of morality generally. It is not a request coming from any well recognized body, nor is public opinion, I venture to say, in favour of it. In view of all these '.circumstances I do not think it should form part of our law, particularly as we have, as I said before, a sufficient number of provisions of this kind in the Criminal Code to act as a drag-net for people desirous of committing offences against morality. As a matter of fact, I think we have too many of these measures already and they are not sufficiently carried out on account of that very reason perhaps. I am against the clause as amended and intend to so vote.
Section as amended carried.
Bill reported.



MIGRATORY BIRDS CONVENTION ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Arthur Meighen (Minister of the Interior) Bill No. 88 (from the Senate) to amend the' Migratory Birds Con-
I-JIr. Devlin.]
vention Act, was read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 3-one-half fine to go to private prosecutor:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This provision is something that I am opposed to on general principles.


Arthur Meighen: A treaty was entered into between United States and Canada for the protection of migratory birds. That treaty was ratified by Act of Parliament, and its provisions were embodied in the Migratory Birds Convention Act. The provinces, of course, had their own game laws, and, in the main, were enforcing them; but those provincial laws did not go far enough to ensure the protection of migratory birds. The subject matter having been dealt with by international treaty, the Dominion acquires jurisdiction; but the Dominion thought-and the migratory birds legislation is based entirely upon this hypothesis-that provincial legislation would be enacted to bring the laws in each province into conformity with the several provisions of the treaty and to provide for their enforcement. That hope has, to a large extent, been realized. Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta have brought their game laws into full conformity with the Migratory Birds Convention; British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec have brought their laws into substantial conformity-for all practical purposes, into full conformity -with the provisions of the convention and are in a reasonable manner carrying out those laws. But we have not been able to secure from the Maritime Provinces the legislation desired. New Brunswick, instead of bringing its legislation up to the requirements of the Migratory Birds Convention Act, has repealed its legislation altogether and throws the whole onus on the Dominion, very much to the disappointment of those who have at heart the enforcement of our migratory bird laws. Nova Scotia has not gone so far as that. Perhaps, in order to be accurate, I had better read just what has been done in this connection:
New Brunswick has not amended its game laws to comply with the treaty, but has repealed all its laws protecting migratory birds, on the ground that that is a duty now devolving on the Dominion.
Prince Edward Island has not amended its laws to comply with the treaty, and has no warden service.
Nova Scotia has amended its game laws, but it has omitted protection for wild beasts and ducks-except black, wood and eider-

an'd the open season for Wilson snipe and woodcock does not meet the conditions of the treaty. Moreover, Nova Sootia say they have not an adequate warden service to enforce the Act.
That being the condition of affairs in the Maritime Provinces, it becomes necessary for the Dominion, having regard to its obligations under the treaty, so to amend its Act as to enable it to enforce the law in those provinces. We must take power, therefore, to pass regulations covering minor matters of enforcement to enable us to carry out the law-it having been originally intended that these minor matters should be taken care of, as before, by the provincial authorities. That is the reason for paragraph (aa) in section 1, as to power of regulation under section 4 of the present Act. The same reasoning applies to the Bill throughout. Section 2 provides for penalties for violation and for the bringing of the goods seized to a justice of the peace who has power to order confiscation. The last clause, to which the leader of the Opposition advances his general objection, is also made necessary by the very same cause.
The laws of the various provinces which are now enforcing the Migratory Birds Convention Act, provide for the allocation of the fines. The provincial governments appoint wardens and game officers who a/re not under salary, but who are entitled, where they secure a conviction, to divide the fines, and in that way the enforcement of the law is secured. As, however, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island refuse to enforce the law-and this applies especially to Nova Scotia; the others refuse chiefly to pass laws-we must provide for some division of the fines as well, in order that a system of enforcement may be put into effect, without the necessity of our employing salaried officers for the purpose. That is the reason of this section. The hon. member will find that in his own province this very same law is in effect by provincial legislation. I read from section 108 of the Nova Scotia Game Act:
Every fine imposed and collected under the authority of this Act, shall be paid in full to the Chief Game Commissioner, who shall, except as elsewhere in this section provided, pay over the same to the Provincial Treasurer to be paid and applied to him as provided by section 104 of this Act.
(2)	When a complaint is laid and the information therefor furnished by a person other than a warden, the Chief Game Commissioner may pay one-half of the fine so collected to the complainant.
(3)	When the complaint is laid by a warden
under information therefor furnished by any other person, the Chief Game Commissioner may pay one-quarter of the fine so collected to such informant.	. i
So that the principle of the Nova Scotia' statute is merely being embodied in this. Bill to enable us to carry out the enforcement which apparently the province of Nova Scotia declines to carry out.


Mr. FIELDING:: Has the matter been
one of negotiation with the members of the Nova 'Scotia Government? It is very undesirable to have any conflict, and I thought perhaps, that when some of the ministers were here lately, they might have had an opportunity of discussing the matter with the minister.


Arthur Meighen: I have not conducted1
negotiations personally, but the Parks Branch has for many years been under the-charge of Mr. Harkin, and I know he has been conducting negotiations, although unsuccessfully, with those three provinces. I know Mr. Harken is very grievously disappointed that he is not able to secure that provincial conformity in the Maritime Provinces that has been secured in the others, and the consequent enforcement of the law.


William Stevens Fielding: Does this mean that
the Nova Scotia Government would regard this as a hostile measure, and that there would be a conflict between their laws and this?


Arthur Meighen: I do not want to speak too certainly on the point, but I rather think their attitude is this, that it is something of a burden and, inasmuch as we have made a convention, we should wholly bear that burden. I think I am safe in saying that they are quite in accord with the Migratory'Birds Convention itself.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The situation in Nova Scotia is that the administration of the Game-Laws is entrusted to an association called the Game Association, which comes, some-, times, to the legislature for amendments to the law. I do not know exactly what view they take, but I would be very much surprised if the Prime Minister of Nova Scotia and the other members of the Provincial Government would do anything that would' not be in harmony with the general law, and whatever is done is, I suppose, the finding of this Game Association, which collects those moneys, out of which they pay the game wardens in the different parts of the province. I would suggest to the minister that it would be well to endeavour to have no conflict as to the close season for game, wild and migratory birds. The close season is now. covered by the laws of the province of Nova Scotia.
[DOT]2166


Arthur Meighen: Undoubtedly, but we are bound in honour to live up to the terms of our convention, and as I stated to the hon. member, I am satisfied that the terms of that convention were satisfactory. Naturally inasmuch as the enforcement of them bears upon citizens of the- province, I presume the provincial authorities are not anxious to assume any greater share of that than they should. That is the general attitude. I realize there is no objection to this Bill; but if it passes, and if, hereafter, by the efforts of the hon. gentlemen or otherwise, the legislatures of the provinces can be induced to bring their laws into Conformity and to undertake the enforcement just as the other provinces are doing that will be much more satisfactory to the department and make a much better system all round.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not anticipate any trouble, unless it be on the matter of expense, concerning which all our Provincial Governments are sensitive. I know that this class of legislation has been regarded very favourably in Nova Scotia in days gone by, and I feel quite satisfied that if an effort is made the two Governments can be brought into harmony in the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Kecess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Sir Thomas White (Acting Prime Minister), Bill No. 68, for granting to His Majesty aid for demobilization and other purposes, was read the second time and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 2-payment of three hundred and fifty million dollars may be made:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not want to press the objection, but I think this Bill should not come before the House until after the minister had made his Budget Speech, because it involves the giving of a very fall explanation of the expenditures of Canada, particularly the war expenditures, from the commencement of the war down to the present time. I think the Committee and the House and the country would like to know how t'he moneys derived from the different loans have been expended in con-
,
nection with the war, and how we stand generally in respect of our war and other expenditures. Possibly the minister intends to give us that information now, but I rather thought he told- us not very long ago that he did not intend to divide his Budget Speech into two sections. For that reason I really think the consideration of this Bill should not be taken up until after the Budget Speech has been delivered. If the minister intends to go on with the Bill now, I trust that he will give the Committee the fullest possible explanation of our expenditure, particularly in respect of the war, the proceeds of the different loans, and what he proposes to do with the moneys which he will obtain under this Bill. It is quite true the minister may have been giving an explanation of these matters from time to time, but we have been so intent on winning the war that, speaking for myself, and I suppose that in this I am like the average Canadian citizen, I do not remember the details. Now that 'the war is over, I think it would be well to have a thorough reckoning of our borrowings and expenditures in connection with the war.


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: My hon. friend will recall that when the Committee of the Whole House had under consideration the resolution which preceded this Bill, in accordance with a practice which has been followed by the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) during the years of the war, I made a statement as comprehensive as was possible of the expenditure upon the war from the war appropriation during the past year, and also placed upon Hansard in such detail as was possible an estimate of the expenditure which the Government expects to be obliged to make during the present fiscal year in connection with demobilization and for purposes arising out of the war. My hon. friend will find that statement in Hansard of this session, unrevised edition, beginning at page 1404. I do not regard it as at all necessary that the consideration of this Bill should await the bringing down of the Budget. The Budget statement deals with the expenditures for the past year and estimates the expenditure for the coming year; shows the amount of revenue received during the past year and indicates the amount which it is expected will be received for the fiscal year in which it is delivered, together with the proposals of the Government for additional taxation to meet the requirements as disclosed. I informed the hon- member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon (Mr. Robb) that

I would give him as accurate a statement as I could of the war debt incurred up to the end of the last fiscal year.
I indicated then that I thought it inadvisable that I should make, so to speak, .two Budget statements, and I think the House will concur in the propriety of that view. It is my intention when the Budget is brought down to make as comprehensive and accurate a statement as I can with respect to the cost of the war to Canada to the end of the last fiscal year, together with an estimate, as nearly as it can be made, of the remaining expenditures which we shall have to make under the authority of this Bill for demobilization, including war gratuities and other expenditures arising out of the war, so that the House may have before it on the occasion of the Budget, as accurate a statement as possible of the total cost of the war to Canada from the beginning to the time when our accounts are practically closed out, with regard to the principle of war expenditure. There will, of course, remain the annual burden necessitated by our war debt and pensions, but I can assure my hon. friend that in the Budget I shall amplify the statement to the fullest extent with the view of disclosing to the House all the information in the possession of the Government respecting the matters which I have mentioned. While I stated that to the hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon, I also said that I would endeavour to give him the figures, so far as available, to the end of the last fiscal year in a very brief statement, which I shall now place upon Hansard:
War Expenditure.
Year.
1914- 15	$ 60,750,47;6.01
1915-	16	 166,197,7'55.47
1916l-17	 306.48S,814.63
1917-	18	
343,836,801.981918-	19	
4501,000,000.00 (Estimated.)
Net Defbt Statement.
Estimated Net Debt March 31,
1919	
Net Debt March 31, 1914.. . .

Increase oif Net Debt	 [DOT] $1,248,003,149.86
The war loans issued and outstanding aggregate $1,536,276,922.53. I stated the other day that our account with the Imperial Government showed a difference of over two hundred million dollars to the credit of Canada. I think that statement is all that I can give, or should be called upon to give, at the present time, in view of my intention, as expressed to the Committee, with respect to the Budget. If my hon. friend will turn to page 1404 of unrevised Hansard he will find the details of
expenditures for the past year. They are necessarily incomplete because many expenditures have not yet been brought into account. 'My hon. friend is aware that many services are not brought into account of the books for some time after the end of March, and especially is that so in connection with war expenditures. On page 1405 he will find all the different items of our estimated war expenditure for the coming year, with some notes which may be useful in their consideration. The Minister of Militia is here to-night because a great part of bhe estimated expenditure for the year belongs to bis department here and overseas.


Willis Keith Baldwin: Do I understand the
Acting Prime Minister to say that the accounts standing between Canada and the Imperial Government show two hundred million dollars to Canada's credit?
Sir' THOMAS WHITE: Yes.
Mr. 'CAHILL:	I object to the portion
of the clause with reference to promoting trade and industry. I understand that something like $25,000,000 is to be loaned to Rumania. Rumania is at war with Austria-Hungary at present and her credit may not be too good. Peace has not yet been signed and it is doubtful what countries will sign the treaty. I am opposed to the principle of lending the money of the people of Canada to the manufacturers of this country, for that is practically what this amounts to. There is an offer to Rumania, an offer to Serbia and I think to other countries to lend from $25,000,000 upwards, and the question arises in the first place as to the advisability of Canada going into the business of loaning money to the factories of this country to promote trade where they are not able to go out and get trade themselves. It is a fallacy to suppose that you can promote the trade of the country by furnishing credits to other countries to buy our goods. The trade of the country is done with trade; it is a trade arrangement. We are not going to sell Rumania rwheat, live stock, butter or eggs. We are not going to sell Rumania directly anything from the farm, but we are going to sell to that country manufactured goods; we are going to sell Serbia manufactured goods, and to any of the countries, apart from Great Britain, that get a loan from this Government will be sold manufactured goods. Great Britain can float a loan here at any timej and if Rumania wants a loan here she should be able to float one on whatever terms are possible.

But certainly she should not be able to come to the Government of Canada and float her debentures here .at par and take in exchange manufactured goods from this country. Canada to-day is indebted to Great Britain and to the United States. There is a heavy balance of trade against us, and we are in debt to various countries. Yet in the face of that we are going out to borrow more money from the Canadian people, or the British or American people to loan to another country. In other words, we are giving credit to doubtful customers at the expense of the people to whom we owe money to-day, with the result that we are only sinking deeper all the time. The manufacturers tell us they must have protection in order to cope in Canada with outside competition. Then they come back and tell us that they are not able to compete in the outside markets unless we supply them money to buy the goods. It can easily be seen where we are going to end if we attempt to furnish capital to the manufacturers to buy goods to ship out to all the [DOT] countries that are practically bankrupt in order to make trade for our factories. The argument was used, when the resolution upon which this Bill is based was before the House, that we must keep the factories going in order to create employment for labour. If the Government were to say: We will furnish this credit on the condition that all the profits that are made in these factories shall go to the employees and not to the manufacturers-then I would consider the proposal as being more sane and more justifiable. But to allow the owners of factories to fix their own prices for the goods, and their own price for labour, and then come to the Dominion Treasury for the money to carry that out, is, I think, a great mistake. If Rumania is not able to pay, what is the alternative? What are we going to do when this $25,000,000 becomes due? We must increase our taxation to pay the interest on that loan; and when our Western friends are asking for reductions in the tariff, or for the adoption of free trade, they will be met with the statement: Our responsibilities are so great that we cannot reduce or abandon the tariff. We are virtually bonusing these factories, causing a greater public debt, going out to incur what are practically certain losses that will entail increased taxation on our people. The Government is not only going to pay out this money to the manufacturers of Canada, but it is shovelling the money out to some foreign country; and the people of the Dominion 
will be called upon to pay. Should the loans not be liquidated, we will have to continue to pay the interest on these loans ourselves, and that will simply mean increasing the burden of taxation. I do not believe it is the duty of this Government to furnish any special industry or any special class of people with money to carry on business. If the Government has too much money on hand it would be better for it to purchase land from those who are keeping it out of use and sell it or give it to the returned soldiers, or to these factory employees, to build homes for themselves, rather than to hand it to some foreign country that in all probability will never be able to make repayment.
Mr. H. iH. STEVENS: The argument of my hon. friend is a most extraordinary one to my mind. He states that we owe Great Britain, the United States,- and other countries certain debts, and he deplores the fact. I wonder how in the name of common sense he expects this country is going to pay its indebtedness to Great Britain, or to any other country, except by the exportation of goods. Surely he must be aware that Rumania also owes Great Britain very large sums of money, if we send goods to Rumania and finance them in Canada we are simply going that far towards the liquidation of our debt to Great Britain. Being a man of very high intelligence the hon. gentleman must know that as a rule goods are not exactly paid for in cash to the country from which they are bought. It may be Spain, or Portugal, or France, or Great Britain, that is sending us goods; we also send goods to those countries; and the final outcome is a settlement by the process of exchange. He objects strongly to this Government establishing a credit for Rumania k* buy manufactured goods in Canada. If he is sincere he must just as strongly object to the Canadian Government establishing a credit for Great Britain or any other country-


Mr. CAHILL:: Not Great Britain.


Mr. STEVENS:: for the purchase of
other classes of goods. Of course I understand that my hon. friend will say, for the sake of his farmer constituents, that he does not object to financing the exportation of farm products, but he does object to-financing the exportation of manufactured goods. It is this everlasting baiting of the manufacturer, or other industrial person or company, that is causing sectional discord in Canada. This country is going to prosper, not merely by building up the agri-

cultural industry-which I am interested in and most anxious to see built up-but also by building up the manufacturing and the industrial interests. Canada does not possess merely agricultural resources; it has other immense resources-minerals, timber, oil, fish, and innumerable others; -and if we are going to liquidate the future debt of Canada it will be by the development of these resources and by encouraging the manufacturer. An ordinary business concern cannot ship goods to the centre of Europe with the expectation of securing an adjustment in the ordinary banking way. That is clearly impossible, and has been impossible for months and for years but through the agency of the British Government and through the medium of our own Government and the usual governmental channels and avenues, we are enabled to establish a credit for this country, and thus to send our goods out and secure payment to our manufacturers. This is not a bonus. My hon. friend is absolutely misleading and wrong when he tries to imply that we are giving a bonus to the manufacturers; we are simply establishing a credit to enable our trade to go on.
I think there is one principle that this House should get clearly into its mind, and get there just as quickly as possible, and it is this: If we are to meet in the next few years the enormous burden that Canada has incurred we must meet it through the process of foreign trade, through the exportation, not only of agricultural products, but of every class of goods manufactured from our natural resources. Unless we do seize upon that as an elementary principle in our economics, and bend every effort to direct the policy of Canada towards the development of our resources, I fear for the future of the country. I give the Acting Prime Minister and his colleagues the greatest credit for the courageous manner in which they are grappling with this problem, and providing for a medium of exchange, for a credit, for these foreign countries-especially for the enormous credits supplied by the Minister of Finance during the last four or five years for Great Britain, and for our Allies overseas, and I would say the more the Government can arrange these credits the better it will be for this country and the sooner we will certainly be able to liquidate our public debt, and relieve ourselves from some of the burdens which are bearing so heavily upon us.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It seems to me that the demand for such an enormous amount of money as will be raised under this legislation should not be submitted to the House at this particular juncture. In my opinion we are passing holus bolus a part of the Budget which is to be brought down some time during this month, if I mistake not, by the Minister of Finance.
We are anticipating and voting piecemeal what should be presented in bulk by the hon. gentlemen. If it were a small amount I would not object so much, because I understand there are pressing needs at times which require speedy and special legislation; but here my hon. friend demands that a sum not exceeding $350,000,000 be raised, and he is surprised perhaps that we offer some objection-not obstruction- to his large appetite for money. The preamble of the Bill does not in my judgment give a clear view of the situation. It seems to me an anomaly that on the very day the Peace Terms are announced to this House by the President of the Privy Council my hon. friend should preface his Bill with these words:
Whereas notwithstanding the armistice of the eleventh day of November last, and tjie extension thereof which has been granted by His Majesty and His Allies, has suspended the actual operations of the war between His Majesty and the German Emperor, the Emperor of Austria, King of Hungary, the Sultan of Turkey, and the King of the Bulgarians, it - is necessary that measures should continue to be taken for the common defence and security;
Shall my hon. friend for any longer period after the present eventful one come before Parliament and, always under the pretext of winning the war, ask for the speedy voting of such large sums of money?
I hope not,
My hon. friend enumerates in section 2 the purposes of this legislation. Among the purposes mentioned I find:	" (a) the defence and security of Canada." I am inclined to believe that this language does not convey quite the whole truth. The defence and security of Canada has never been so well provided for as at present. We have a laTge standing army, and our defence and security does not require, it seems to me, any large expenditure, if we have reached the millennium that has been sought for during so many centuries-that of permanent peace. The hon. Minister of Finance does not specify the amounts that are to be voted for each of the purposes enumerated, and consequently he does not say what amount out of this $350,000,000 will be applied to the defence and security of Canada.
Canada has during this great war done wonderfully well. She has raised, equipped and sent 500,000 men overseas, an array well

worthy of any great nation. But this was for the specific purpose of winning the war against autocracy. The nightmare is now over, the German Emperor and his allies have been thoroughly defeated. The people of this country made enormous sacrifices to maintain the honour and reputation of Canada. But, eager as they were to do their duty fearlessly and without questioning the heavy expenditure which was necessary, they are not in a mood-and I say it without any equivocation-to spend in the future, one quarter of the amount that has been spent annually during the last fateful four years. There is a general cry throughout the country that we should cut out the frills in the Department of Militia and Defence, that we should reduce mercilessly its expenditure and come back to normal. I hope that my statement will not be considered as anti-Canadian or anti-preparedness. I am simply voicing the feeling of the people in this matter. Before voting the amount asked for by this legislation, out of regard for the people and for Parliament, my hon. friend the Minister of Militia and Defence should give us an outline of his peace-time policy. Hitherto all appropriations have been voted liberally and willingly in view of war times; but now we have reached peace times, and in this connection the Minister of Militia, in whose integrity and honesty of purpose I have the fullest confidence, should give to the country at the earliest moment his policy with regard to the organization of the defence and security of Canada during normal times.
With the second purpose of the Bill, "the conduct of naval and military operations in or beyond Canada and the demobilization of the Canadian forces," I am partly in agreement. Any money which is needed for the demobilization of our Canadian forces I am ready to grant immediately. But here again I require some assistance from both the Minister of Militia and the Minister of Naval Affairs. In mentioning the question of the defence and security of Canada in peace times, I had in mind our military organization on land-our military forces- But here reference is made to naval operations. I do not wish to re-open the naval debate, but might I not say here that the success attending the naval operations of Canada during this war-and those operations were successful, because our coasts were well guarded-was due entirely to the wise policy propounded by the late lamented leader of the Liberal party? Sir, what happened in 1911? The Liberal Gov-

ernment had passed legislation with a view to creating a naval force for Canada. That policy was combatted from two different angles. It was combatted in my own native province, because, forsooth, the defence of Canada by Canadian ships manned by Canadian officers and Canadian bluejackets was nothing less than suicidal. Canada, in the words of the opponents of that policy, was entering into the vortex of European militarism. That campaign carried some weight in the province from which I come. In Ontario the policy of a Canadian navy was combatted because, forsooth, it was too much of a Canadian policy and not sufficiently a British policy. 1 shall not refute both arguments at this moment, but I will say this: The Government that preceded this one came to office pledged at the first opportunity to remove from the Statute Book the blemish which the naval policy of the Liberal party was supposed to have placed upon it. But nothing of the kind was done- In 1914, when war was declared, the then Government was only too ready to use the much decried "tin-pot navy" of the Laurier Government, and Canada owes the protection of our coasts-of the Atlantic coast, at least-chiefly to the much abused Niobe and Rainbow. Subsequently the Naval Department, which had been organized under that policy, was reinforced and developed according to the provisions of that Naval Bill. It is a matter of pride for me, after so many years -eight years have elapsed since that campaign of 1911-to proclaim that, after all, Sir Wilfrid Laurier was right when he propounded that policy-a policy which, we must not forget, had been approved by the Imperial Conference of 1911 and accepted by the British Admiralty.


Mr. BURNHAM:: Would the hon. gentleman object if it was proposed to lend the Niobe and the Rainbow to the British fleet?


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is a French proverb which my hon. friend may translate for himself: "A sotte question, point de reponse." We shall not be called upon to lend the Rainbow or the Niobe to the British Admiralty, which has been made much richer since the abject surrender of the German navy. But I should not be ashamed to lend to the British Admiralty, in case of emergency, the Canadian bluejackets and the Canadian officers who defended the coasts of Canada. The flag would be safe in their hands. I need not say, Sir, that I subscribe willingly and gracefully to a reasonable expenditure to

make permanent the Laurier naval policy which was so bitterly opposed in 1911 by some of the hon. gentlemen whom I see before me, but which, after all, has been adopted and will remain 'the permanent naval policy of Canada. But we are entitled to know from our great Canadian admiral, the Minister of the Naval Service (Mr. Ballantyne) his policy for peace times, as we should know from the Minister of Militia and Defence (Major-General Mew-burn)-two good Liberals, by the way, lost on the other side-
Major-General MEWBUBN: Lost, but not forgotten.


Rodolphe Lemieux: -his policy for our military forces on land during peace time. Am I asking too much from the Minister of Finance ('Sir Thomias White) ? Am I obstructing in asking that? I believe not. He is asking us, in anticipation of the Budget, to vote $350,000,000, are we not entitled to know the policy of Canada for normal times as regards our land anid naval forces? Clause (c) reads:
Purposes-the promoting of trade and industry and transportation facilities therefor.
I agree with the statement just made by the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill).
I am not enamoured with this Rumanian venture, especially when I see that Rumanian bonds are being marketed from bucket shop to bucket shop and passing through the hands of Sir Clifford Sifton, who, by the way, has opened an office in the building rented by the Canadian Trade Mission in London. The Government. I think, should have prevented any such desecration of Rumanian bonds. 'If my hon. friend in asking us to vote money for . the promoting of trade and industry and transportation facilities, therefor is sincere and earnest, as he ought to be, I am in accord with him; but again I say if in those times of peace to which we are looking forward there is one Cabinet minister who ought to be in his seat, it is the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster). During the last few years, we have been sadly missing the presence of a Minister of Trade and Commerce. Far be it from me to say one word against this right hon. gentleman (Sir George Foster), in whose ability I believe and for whose splendid eloquence I have the utmost admiration. He has, I believe, been one of the best public servants of Canada; he is one of the Nestors of this House; but I am repeating only what I read every day in the Unionist
press when I say that as Minister of Trade and Commerce he has been a gre*t failure. He has not taken to heart his position as Minister of Trade and Commerce, a department which has been sadly lacking in force, ability and foresight to develop the trade of Canada. Canadians are often called " the lion's cubs." That means, I suppose, that we are the true sons of John Bull, who is the master merchant of the world, who for centuries has been sailing and trading on the seven seais of the globe. Not to speak of our high tariff, which is a barrier 9 p.m. to. our commerce, we have done nothing to even imitate from afar what has been done by John Bull and Uncle Sam. Long before the armistice was signed-and my authority is the London Economist and some financial reviews in England and the United States-^-England and the United States had their trade agents in all parts of the world. Any western member will tell us that in the far Canadian West, representatives of American firms have been trading with our Canadian farmers long before our own Canadian manufacturers. I have seen that stated in the press and I have heard it from the lips of' my hont friends who represent western constituencies. Therefore, anything which will tend to promote our trade and industry, I shall willingly grant to my hon. friend, but what does he intend to do? Has he given this Committee any explanations? Is he going to establish agencies and in what parts of the world? Is he going to create new avenues of trade and commerce? He does not say. What will our new tariff be?
We are at the present moment building a- fleet of steamers. Some months ago I was present at the launching of the Canadian Voyageur in Montreal, in my own constituency, at Vickers, and on that occasion I heard speeches delivered by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and some other prominent gentlemen from Montreal, and I read in the press that the Government had a very large programme of naval construction. But to my dismay, to my horror, I find that the ships we have been building in Canadian shipyards with Canadian material, are being used not for transportation facilities between Canadian and foreign ports, but by the wily Yankees between their ports and other foreign ports. This little item came to my hand the other day:
Barbados-Steamer Canadian Voyageur- Farr, J.-3,000 bags sugar.
That is the consignee.

St. {Lawrence Sugar Refining Co.-11,500 bags sugar.
Armstray, L. W. and P.-8,000 bags sugar.
This was carried from Barbados to New York. Now it is strange that our ships should not find any business for Canadian ports-Quebec, Montreal, Halifax, St. John, Three Rivers or even Toronto-in the exporting of Canadian produce. Have we built those steamers to send them to United States ports, to take on cargoes there for other foreign ports?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: This particular sugar shipment came from Cuba, I think, and was consigned to the St. Lawrence Sugar Refinery. At the time the shipment was made the Voyageur could not get up the St. Lawrence, I understand, because the river was frozen.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What about Halifax, St. John, and Gaspe?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The railway rate would operate against those ports.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend must
confess in all humility that the interests of Halifax were not well served.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If my hon. friend had been Minister of Trade and Commerce, instead of being minister of all trades in the present Government, he would have seen that the Voyageur sailed from a Canadian port to a foreign port. I repeat, Mr. Chairman, and I am in earnest, we have done practically nothing. I know, of course, that our export trade during the war has wonderfully increased, but this was due to our war industries, and there is an end to those industries. To-day we must revert to peace trade and peace activities, and long before peace was declared an anny of commercial agents from England and the United States were marching through many countries in order to capture as much as possible of their trade. I am told that Mr. Hoover himself, although his mission was to feed the Central Empires, has captured the blue ribbon for the United States, having secured enormous orders for American concerns. But Canada has done nothing at all.


John Hampden Burnham: How did he do it? By advancing them money?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I ask my hon. friend the Minister of Finance either to secure a good sinecure for the present incumbent of the Department of Trade and Commerce -I want the best for Sir George Foster,
(Mr. Lemieux.]
because he deserves it-or to promote him tp some other department and appoint in his stead some "live wire" so that Canada shall secure some of the world's trade in the coming peace times.
I said a moment ago that this legislation is a camdufiaged Budget, and it is. In connection with this third purpose "the promoting of trade and industry, and transportation facilities therefor" the Minister of Finance owes the country an outline of the fiscal policy of the Government. Does he believe that trade and commerce and industry can be promoted if the country is kept in ignorance of the tariff changes that are to be made? Surely not. My hon. friend must know the sentiment of his followers. To use a somewhat vulgar expression, which is nevertheless in common parlance, he is between the devil and the deep sea-between the high protectionists on the one hand and the free traders of his party on the other-and he is simply marking time, awaiting the return of the Prime Minister or some heavenly inspiration. I am afraid, however, that his inspiration will come from the opposite direction-
The fourth purpose is this: "The carrying out of any measures deemed necessary or advisable by the Governor in Council in consequence of the war." Mr. Chairman, I am afraid of that purpose. I am not timid; I have some courage left in my bones, but I must confess I am really in dread of that fourth purpose. What are those measures that are deemed necessary? What are those vague measures that are deemed advisable? Should not those measures be made known to Parliament, and not left to the sweet will of the Governor in Council? Already the practice of governing by Order in Council has been too much abused, and I am really in dread of what may happen when my hon. friend is granted the powers he is seeking under this fourth purpose.
The fifth purpose is this:	"Payments
made on expenditure incurred during the fiscal year ending the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and nineteen, for the purposes mentioned in the War Appropriation Act, 1918, and in excess of the amount authorized by the said Act." It is true that my hon- friend gave the House the other day row after row of figures running into the millions-indeed into the hundreds of millions of dollars. We must face the situation; the millions are there. As Mt. Thiers, the liberator of the French territory, once said, referring in the House of Representatives in France to the inevi-

table expenditure of several millions: "Sa-luez, Messieurs, vous ne les reverrez plus." After having seen my hon. friend marshalling his long array of millions the other diay I also am inclined to repeat with Thiers, "Hats off, gentlemen; you shall never see those millions again." To be serious, I think my hon. friend should take us into his confidence a little more. Assuredly, I am not asking him to give us the inner secrets of his soul; I am not asking him to unbosom before this House, because it would be a terrible confession and I am afraid there would be no absolution for the many crimes he is guiilty of. But at least he should pay the taxpayers of Canada the compliment of telling them why this enormous sum of money is needed, and to w'hat specific purposes it is to be applied. I am afraid of being accused by my hon. friend of obstruction. I will say no more, but I again appeal to him to be a little clearer as to numbers 3 and 4, and to my hon. friend the Minister of Militia and also the Minister of Naval Affairs I would suggest that we might have an outline for the benefit of the country of their respective policies.
Major-General MEWBURN: I have listened with considerable interest to the hon. gentleman's eloquence, but I am at a loss to understand several of the statements he has made. If he will turn to Hansard of April 29th, when I had my main estimates for the Militia Department before the Committee, he will see that he was very complimentary to me on that occasion when I attempted to give a brief resume of the future policy of the militia forces -of Canada. The portion of the Bill now before the Committee does not include one item for the upkeep of the military forces of Canada after demobilization. My hon. friend will see that on page 1404 of unrevised Hansard, April 10, the Acting Prime Minister gave complete details of expenditure, particularly of the militia forces of Canada in connection with this Bill. I am sure my hon. friend is as anxious now, as he always has been, to assist in every way the prosecution of the war by paying for our soldiers overseas. I do not believe for a moment that he means now to leave those soldiers alone and not consider the complete demobilization of the troops. Every dollar of this expenditure is simply to pay the allowances of soldiers on active -service to-day, including war service gratuity; deferred pay, which amounts to some $36,000,000, which is money belonging to the troops, held back in the w'is-dom of the Government, and now being paid them on discharge, plus
interest; also assigned pay some $11,000,000; separation allowance to dependents of the troops; and subsequent items including transportation and feeding of troops until complete demobilization. Therefore, no portion of the money included in this Bill is to be utilized for the upkeep of military forces beyond the period of complete demobilization, which I am just as anxious as any one else to see carried out as early as possible.
Regarding the future policy as far as the militia is concerned. I regret that my colleague the Admiral of the Fleet (Mr. Ballantyne) is not here to give an account of the Navy, but I explained the other night as to the future policy of the military forces, that, after very careful consideration, we appointed an inter-departmental committee to consider ways and means for reorganization. The Chairman of the Committee is General Otter, who has had a very large experience in the militia of Canada; and it is also proposed to have an officer who has had distinguished service at the front-, one from the permanent force, one from the active militia, and one who has never been associated with the militia until this war. The Committee are to visit the various military districts, to consider ways and means and probably at another session of the House to bring in some concrete proposal as to how far the militia should go. The duty of the committee is to consider and report how best to give effect to the proposal that with a view to preserving their traditions and identities, the several units of the C. E. P. which have served at the front should be incorporated in the Canadian Militia-this without avoidable increase of establishments, without prejudice to the divisional system of organization, and with due regard to the services which at various times, both before and during the war, the militia itself has rendered. That is practically the substance of tlie duties of the committee. The present idea is to endeavour to rehabilitate the militia units as well as possible. The permanent corps had a strength prior to the war of 3,000, kept up during the war for service overseas by reinforcements. Those men who come back are entitled to discharge or to go on pension. It is proposed to increase that permanent force as a temporary measure to 5,000 men throughout Canada. That will be practically all the force in Canada, and will be held in aid of the civil power if necessary. At the present time it is not proposed to train the militia which is in a disorganized state. Possibly it may

be considered necessary to train a portion of the militia next fall, but no definite policy has been arrived at and il think it would be premature for us to lay down a concrete military policy just at present.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend must
have in- mind the very large reduction in the expenditure of the Militia 'Department for peace time. Can he state what he thinks approximately will be required in the future for the appropriations of the Militia Department? What amount does he expect to apply as appropriations for the Department of Militia and Defence in the future?
Major-General MEWlBURN:	I should
say approximately from four to seven million dollars.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I wanted to know what was in my hon. friend's mind for the future in peace time. It is a relief to hear that he intends to live up to $4,000,000, but he will have to cut many frills.
Major-General MEWBURN:	At present
the problem of demobilization, not only bringing troops back, but clearing up all records, documents, etc., is an enormous one.
For instance, at the present time some one hundred and seventy thousand ledger sheets have been returned from overseas within the last few weeks-that is, ledger sheets of the individual troops that are *coming over as the men are demobilized. The work of checking and dealing with every individual man's' account is enormous. In addition, there are some five hundred tons of files being gradually returned from overseas to the Militia Departr ment here. That includes all the records *and documents that have been moved from General Headquarters in France back to JSngland, and the records and documents from the various Record Offices in England. It takes an enormous amount of labour and some staff to complete and get all these documents into shape. Furthermore, there is the file containing documents of every individual man with the Canadian Expeditionary Force, amounting in all to over six hundred thousand files. These documents, containing the medical history of every man, it is most essential should be carefully kept so as to protect this country in the matter of claims for pensions in the future. The Pension Department requires these files, also the Department of 'Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment-when the men are discharged, which work has nothing to do with [Major-General Mewbum.]
the Militia Department-and the Land Settlement Board in connection with soldiers' settlement. Then there is the large problem of hospitalization. We are taking care of the returned soldiers-officers, noncommissioned officers, and men-in the various hospitals throughout Canada, and we estimate that by next February we should be through with the military hospitalization, but that is only an estimate. In November, 1918, the casualties of Canadian corps were something like 45,000. The difficult problem was to estimate the number of casualties or invalids coming back to Canada. We estimated, as well as we could, on information from the medical service, that somewhere about May there would be approximately 18,000 invalids still coming back from overseas. I am glad to say that we were generous on our estimate; that the patients in the military hospitals in England are being evacuated a little quicker than we expected and becoming convalescent cases. The last figures from France, I think, showed that there were about seventeen hundred still to be evacuated from that country. The total number of patients in England and France up to a week ago was slightly under 14,000, but many of these-


Rodolphe Lemieux: How many are there in Canada?
Major-General MEWBURN: In the various hospitals in Canada close on to 14,000. A very large number of those men, if they do not require any further treatment in the military medical hospitals, will be discharged, and will come under the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment for vocational training, and so on. Referring to, the amount that is required out of this particular vote, it is purely and simply to complete the pay and allowances, and deferred pay and war gratuity for the troops that are on active service. We estimate that ff we have no setbacks, our troops will be brought back from overseas by August. There may be some hospital staffs and other details remain for a further period, but by the end of this year, I have every expectation, the whole of these staff's will be cut down to the very lowest minimum, and nobody will be retained except to carry out the problems of cleaning up. I believe we shall enter upon next year with a very small staff both at Headquarters and in the military districts. I am quite satisfied of that. I think if my hon. friend would' look at these items on the page referred to, he will see that they have nothing

to do with the future upkeep of the militisl and are not intended for military purposes in Canada beyond actual necessary cleaning-up purposes.
' Mr. LEMIEUX: So the expression used here, " Defence and security of Canada ", has reference only to the war situation?
, Major-General MEWBURN:	Only to
that.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: While we are upon this
subject, I would like to draw the minister's attention to a phase of military life which has been brought out in a letter received by me to-day from a soldier's father. Speaking in regard to his son, the writer says:
He enlisted at London, Ontario, in December 1915, went to England in January 1916, and to Prance in June 1916, and has been there on active service ever since, while his wife and child are with us. The Canadian Authorities in Division One, London, Ont., took the initiative in the signing up of the boys conducting their medical examination, etc. They advised them to enlist in the Imperial Mechanical Transport, as the C.E.F. at that time did not need any more recruits. They took their advice. Had my son signed up with the C.E.F., he on discharge would have been entitled to $100 per month for six months, a total of $600. Instead of that the B.E.F. will only grant $75 all told, a difference of $525.
Now since this Bill, as it is worded, refers purely to the demobilization of Canadian soldiers, I thought it would be an opportune time to ask the minister whether he intends in the expenditure of these moneys to provide to the extent of $525 for the war gratuity of a young Canadian soldier who is married and has a wife and child? If the minister intends to do nothing in that direction, will he make representations, if such may be proper, to the Imperial authorities to influence them to act equitably to this young man who was misled, according tQ my information, by the officers of the minister's department 'at London. On inquiry, I find that there are overseas many hundreds of Canadian young men who have gone to the front in some capacity or other, having either transferred to, or enlisted directly in this country in, the Imperial Forces. If the Imperial Government are doing nothing for these young men, I want the minister to tell me whether he intends to do anything for them, and whether this fund will be available for that purpose? If the minister replies in the negative, I would say that I would be rather ashamed to live in the country if such inequity should be passed out to these young men who fought for their King and country as Canadians
in the Imperial Army. I take this opportunity of asking the minister whether he has considered the matter, and if he has not done so, to state, if he can, that he will consider it and that he will look favourably upon the application which I am making on behalf of these men.
Major-General MEWBURN: The subject which the hon. member has raised has certainly been given a good deal of consideration, particularly of late. The war gratuity does not apply to such a man as the hon. gentleman has referred to, hut I may say that some little time ago suggestions and claims came from different soldiers regarding the war gratuity, a few of the class are Imperial army reservists, who, when the war began, left Canada and rejoined their units. The claim has been made that those men should participate in this war gratuity, or be paid the difference between what they received from the Imperial Government and what Canada is giving. There were also pensioners resident in Canada who returned to England and re-enlisted-I am speaking of British pensioners, on whose behalf application was made; likewise, men who especially enlisted in Canada in the British Army Service Corps and the Royal Engineers ; men who enlisted in Canada and the United States (British subjects), and Canadians who enlisted while overseas in the Imperial Forces.
I may say for the information of my hon. friend that a committee has been working on this for the last week, and while it is not a Committee of the House, I understand, unofficially, that several hon. members who have had those matters brought before them have been meeting and are drafting a memorandum, which I believe they are giving to the Government, and I know it includes such items as those. Whether the Government can see their way to concede those or some other items, I am not prepared to say. But there are a great many hardships. A great many Canadians I know joined the Imperials, and a'large number of university graduates went over to England and took commissions. I understand the Imperial Government are giving very much larger gratuities to officers than the Canadian Government, but not anything like what we are giving to the rank and file. But that matter is having our most serious consideration.


Mr. KEEFER:: Will the Northwest
Mounted Police who were reservists be included? I happened to travel on the same

train when they were going overseas, and among them was Michael O'Leary, who later won the V.C. They were very anxious to return to Canada after the war, and hoped to -have a stake in the country when they came back.
Major-General MEWBURN: That particular man, I think, is in the Canadian Expeditionary Force.


Francis Henry Keefer: No.
Major-General MEWBURN: They are, included in the same lot.


Mr. DUFF:: I am very pleased indeed with the explanation given by the Minister of Militia as to what he intends to do regarding militia matters, and it is interesting to know that he has already appointed a committee of eminent soldiers who during the next twelve months will visit the different militia districts and get information to enable him to lay a concrete proposition before the House next session. I understood from his remarks that these three gentlemen are military men. I have no objection to their appointment, but I would suggest for his consideration that he also appoint to that committee at least one business man. It seems to me that the matter should not be left entirely in the hands of men who have served in the army or who are officers of the Militia Department.
Dealing with section 2 of this Bill, I see that a part of the $350,000,000 to be borrowed is to be spent (a) for the defence and security of Canada; and (b) for the conduct of naval and military operations in or be-jond Canada and the demobilization of the Canadian forces. I do not think it is necessary to spend much time in discussing subsection (a), because the Minister of Militia, when his Estimates were being discussed recently, convinced me that it is not his intention to spend any money in the defence and security of Canada except what is absolutely necessary to continue the staff at headquarters and to provide for the upkeep of other pre-war military organizations in different parts of the country.
With regard to subsection (b), I am in hearty agreement with that portion which states that this money is to be spent for "the demobilization of the Canadian forces." I think we all agree that every effort should be made to have our Canadian boys returned from France and England at the earliest possible moment, so they may be discharged and take their place again in civil life. But with the first part of this

subsection "for the conduct of naval and military .operations in or beyond Canada,"
I am not in agreement- I do not think it is necessary to provide that one dollar should be expended in military operations during' the year 1919, except as outlined by the Minister of Militia. Instead of spending money on military operations, we should strain every nerve to cut our expenditures down to the very lowest possible minimum. Let us see what we have spent for this purpose in the last four years. In 1914-15, the first year of the war, we spent $53,176,613.55; in 1915-16,	$160,433,416.42;
1916-17,	$298,291,030.66;	1917-18,	$316,669,-
871.95, and in 1918-19 to March 31, $289,229,119.38, making a total expenditure of $1,117,791,051-96 to equip and send our boys overseas and maintain them there. In addition there was spent on account of mUi-tary hospitals about $12,800,000, and with cur other expenditures in connection witn the war we spent up to March 31 of this year a total sum of $1,225,114,112.36. A great deal of criticism has been directed against the extravagant expenditure of part of this money, but so far as the Department of Militia and Defence is concerned, we have the satisfaction of knowing that while they have spent an enormous amount of money, and in some cases have spent it not as wisely as we would like to have it spent, yet they despatched at least 500,000 men overseas to fight for the Empire, and Canada to-day realizes that the splendid valour =hown by our soldiers on the battlefields of Flanders and Belgium fully justifies the action of the Department of Militia and Defence. 'Consequently, while as I said before there may be some criticism of the-manner in which portions of this large amount of money were spent, yet Canadians everywhere feel that they have received value in return for what has been disbursed.
What about the Naval Department? My good friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) thinks that the naval defence of Canada is a great deal better than it really is. Perhaps the reason for that is that "distance lends enchantment to the view," and my hon. friend, living as he does in Ottawa, does not know a great deal about naval defence on either the Atlantic or the Pacific coast. Since 1914 the enormous sum of $30,982,683.22 has been spent by the Naval Department on what is termed "strictly war expenditure;" and in addition millions of dollars have been expended in keeping up the dockyards and naval colleges at Halifax and Esqui-malt and in paying the salaries of officials

at Ottawa, Halifax and other places. Speaking for the moment of what is termed " strictly war expenditure," in 1914-15, $3,096,125.35 was expended; in 1915-16, $3,274,019.94; in 1916-17, $3,806,329.19; in 1917-18, $9,666,229.14; and in 1918-19 to March 31, $11,139,979.60; making, as I said before, a grand total of $30,982,683.22 I am going to show, Mr. Chairman, that [DOT]this $31,000,000 was practically all wasted, that it was not spent in the interest of the taxpayers of Canada; that it was entirely unnecessary, and did not in any particular, or in any way help to defend Canada or to protect the property of her citizens.
Before trying to show the Committee exactly what has happened during the war, I think it would be well for a few moments to give the history of naval matters in Canada. In giving this short resume of naval history, I do not intend to deal with the matter from a political standpoint In 1909 Sir George Foster introduced into the House of Commons a resolution, the substance of which was that Canada should proceed with the building of a Canadian navy for the protection of our own coasts. This resolution, with a slight amendment made by the leader of the Government, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, was adopted by the whole House, the members being unanimous in their decision that this was the proper course to pursue. In 1911 the Government called for tenders for the construction of cruisers of the Bristol type, and at the time they went out of power in 1911 tenders had been received from a firm in Canada which was willing to build these ships. No action was taken on these tenders by the incoming Government, and the whole matter was dropped for a year or two until Sir Robert Borden introduced a resolution to pay to Britain $35,000,000 to purchase three dreadnoughts, and, in a speech delivered by him, abandoned the Canadian navy. Some of the arguments which were used by Sir Robert Borden were that it would take fifty years for Canadian workmen to leam how to build these ships, and that we could not supply riveters. In view of the fact that for the last few years Canadian workmen have been turning out steel ships in different shipyards in Canada, the argument is refuted that -we could neither build the ships nor provide the riveters. Most of the work which has been done in the last few years by Canadian workmen is second to none and will pass inspection by either Lloyds or the American Bureau of Shipping.
At the same time it will be remembered that Mr. Winston Churchill informed us 139
that there was no land in Canada suitable for building these ships, a statement which at the time was laughed to scorn by every person but those who wished to damn the idea of a Canadian navy.
The Senate of Canada refused to sustain the vote of the House of Commons, and consequently the $35,000,000 never reached England, and the whole matter of a Canadian navy or of a contribution to the British navy died a natural death.
It is true that at this time we had at Halifax the Niobe and at Esquimalt the Rainbow, two cruisers which had been purchased by the Liberal Government. Up to 1911 the crews of these ships had been kept at full strength and had been used for training purposes so that young Canadians could take courses in naval instruction. Shortly after Hon. J. D. Hazen assumed the position of Minister of Naval Affairs the crews of these ships were disbanded, the boys sent home and only a few men kept on board to act as caretakers. It is just as well-perhaps, though it is not as well- that the gentleman who was then Minister of Marine and Fisheries is not here to-night to answer what I have to say. I may add that I do not lay any blame at the door of the hon. gentleman who to-day has charge of the Department of Naval Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ballantyne), because at the time he took charge, matters were in such a condition that it was impossible to remedy them. It is well, perhaps, that the gentleman who was in charge of naval affairs at that time now has a good, soft position in New Brunswick. A black eye was given the Canadian navy when the action of the then Minister of Naval Affairs showed that he was not in sympathy with any Canadian naval movement. Consequently, when the war broke out, the Niobe was not in fit condition to help protect the coast of Nova Scotia. Although immediately upon war being declared, orders were sent to Halifax to prepare the Niobe for sea and a part crew was sent from Esquimalt to man her, it was found that her boilers were in such condition that it would take several months to put her in a seaworthy condition. I make the statement here that if the Niobe had been ready to proceed to sea the morning that war was declared she would have succeeded in capturing prizes which would have p.aid the Canadian expenditure for war purposes during the first year of the war.
It was certainly humiliating for Canadians at Halifax to see this ship tied to her dock, grounded on her beef bones, weeks and weeks after hostilities had commenced



and also to know that the German-Hamburg liner Willehad, with a rich cargo on [DOT]board, worth millions of dollars, steamed down the gulf of St. Lawrence, proceeded along the Nova Scotia coast and sought refuge at Portland, while the Niobe was tied up with a chain at her port bow, a chain at her starboard bow, and two chains over her quarter deck so that she could not put to sea. It was also humiliating for Nova Scotians to know that the North-Ger-man-Lloyd steamer Princess Cecelia left Boston a day or two after war commenced with the most valuable cargo ever shipped from that port and with a million dollars of gold in her strong box, and that no effort could be made by the Niobe or by any Canadian cruiser to go out and capture that ship, although fishermen off Cape Sable reported seeing her steam down the Nova Scotia coast and leisurely turn back and make for Portland, Maine.
The Government awoke at last to the fact that something had to be done. They realized that the British Government required all their battleships, cruisers and destroyers to protect their own interests in the North sea and to keep the lanes oi commerce open; consequently they realized that they could not purchase or arrange with Britain for any of her ships. It became necessary for them, therefore, to endeavour to provide ways and means to protect some of the ports on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, and they proceeded to waste money in the purchase of a lot of small boats which were utterly useless for defensive purposes. Orders were given to shipbuilding firms all over the country, and boats of the drifter and trawler class were contracted for and feverishly rushed to completion. A number of retired English officers were sent to this country to help organize a Canadian naval service. Naval recruits were asked for, captains and first mates were taken from the merchant marine service and held around Halifax for months drawing pay and doing nothing, for the simple reason that there was nothing for them to do. The story is a disgraceful one and should bring the blush of shame to every Canadian.
In the meantime there were being gathered at Halifax a motley collection oi broken-down tug-boats, gentlemens' yachts, second-hand trawlers and drifters and the new boats which were being launched. A few of these boats were used for gate purposes at Halifax and proved more of a nuisance to the shipping interests of the country than anything else. When it was
fMr. Duff.]
found that Halifax was full of these boats, a base was established at Sydney, and when the war came to a close some seventy-five boats of all kinds were tied up to the wharves in Sydney harbour. I have no hesitation in saying that the large expenditure of money for naval purposes at Sydney harbour was absolutely wasted; that no good resulted from having these boats in that harbour. Owing to their condition they were constantly undergoing repairs, most of them were unseaworthy and were not fit to go outside the headlands. It is true, that in this way they were given something to do. Some of these little gasoline patrol boats were sent out to Low Point and held up all Canadian fishing boats or schooners that came to Sydney harbour, instead of allowing them to pass without delay on their way in and out.
One of these boats known as the T. R. 30 was ordered to sea one morning, and on account of the condition of the boat's deck, seven of the seamen refused to proceed to sea unless the deck was caulked. Water had been pouring down the decks into the bunks of these seamen for several days. They reported the matter to their officer, and he reported it to the officer in command at Sydney, who refused to have anything done. These men were court-martialed and sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment, and the mayor of Halifax protested against the sentence. I purpose putting on record the correspondence between the mayor and Mr. Desbarats, Deputy Minister of Naval Affairs. This item first appeared in the Halifax Herald:
Major Hawkins says there were seventy-one prisoners at Rockhead on Sunday.
Rockhead is the Halifax jail or penitentiary, where these boys were incarcerated:
He told this at the Board of Control meeting yesterday, and said further that there were there since August last a number of boys, some of them from good families and environment, who say that they complained at 'Sydney of unseaworthiness of a trawler on which they were serving, were tried there by court martial, brought here in irons and put in the city prison for eighteen months. The mayor said he had written the minister. Hon. Mr. Ballantyne, in reference to the matter. "Shipping laws are severe", said His Worship, "but it strikes me these boys got a raw deal from the Naval Department. They say no naval rules or regulations were read to them." His Worship' was informed that the boys had refused to go. to sea in the trawlers. If they had deserted,, they might have got but ninety days. They were ignorant of what they were doing, he said..
This item must have come to the attention of Mr. Desbarats, Deputy Minister of Naval Affairs, and he wrote Mayor Haw-

kins at Halifax the following letter on January 29, 1919:
Dear Sir:
In the absence of the minister I am answering your letter of the 21st regarding seven seamen from T.R. 30 who were court-martialed and sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment for "wilful disobedience of lawful command."
I do not think there is much justification for the statement that these men were not fairly treated at their trial or were given a raw deal. The men were part of the crew of one of the .trawlers doing convoy work at Sydney in protecting the vessels sailing out of that port. These men refused to take the ship out when she was ordered for duty with the convoy and the mercantile vessels sailed without the protection of this trawler. The offence whs a very serious one and if the convoy had been attacked the absence of this trawler in the line might have allowed of the sinking of one or more of the convoyed ships.
That is the most ridiculous statement 1 ever saw put on paper by a responsible officer, and I say without hesitation there was not in Sydney a patrol boat, not to speak of the T.E. 30, which could convoy any vessel or protect any merchant or other ship. The letter continues:
There was no question as to the seaworthiness of T.R. 30. She is one of a number of similar ships which have proved to be thoroughly seaworthy and staunch. The complaint made by the men was that water leaked from the deck into their quarters and rendered them uncomfortable and insanitary. An inspection was made at the time by the Warrant Shipwright, who reported slight leaks but nothing of a serious kind.
So it is admitted there was some ground for the boys' compla'int. The letter continues:
Even supposing that there had been serious leaks and that a good deal of water leaked into the men's quarters, this would have been no reason for refusing duty and for preventing the ship to take her place in the line and do her share in protecting the convoy.
The men stated that, they were quite aware of the seriousness of refusing duty but notwithstanding this they took the action related above. If men on active service were allowed to refuse duty on acoount of uncomfortable surroundings there would be no need of any defensive or offensive warfare. The offence committed by the men was quite serious, they took the action with full knowledge of its gravity, they pleaded guilty to the charge of disobedience, they were tried in an open court and given every opportunity to present any defence which they might have, and there is no justification for a charge of unfair treatment on the part of the authorities.
These men can hardly be classed as boys, as their ages vary from eighteen to twenty-eight, with an average of twenty-three, and they are therefore quite old enough to realize their [DOT]responsibilities.	.
It is to he regretted that ilt should have been necessary to sentence these men to punish-
139i
ment but it does not seem possible to maintain discipline in a fleet if men are to he allowed to refuse their duty on the grounds of personal disoomfort especially as in this case the discomfort would hardly seem to have been of a serious nature.
I trust these explanations will show that there was good ground for punishing these men and that there was no injustice in the sentence which they received.
Yours truly,
(Signed) G. J. Destoarats,
Deputy Minister.
My understanding of the matter is that these boys were poor boys from the country who knew nothing about military or naval regulations, and if, as Mr. Desbarats says, they pleaded guilty, what
10 p.m. else could they do when they were before the court-martial? I suppose they thought the best thing they could do was to say whatever the court wanted them to say. This, letter of Mr. Desbarats did not satisfy Mayor Hawkins, and on February 1, 1919, he replied as follows to Mr. Desbarats:
Dear Sir,-In answer to your letter of the 29th ultimo, it is my desire that my letter of the 21st ultimo regarding the seven seamen from the T.R. 30, who were court-martialed and sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment for "willful disobedience of lawful command," he placed before a responsible minister in the absence of the minister of your department.
_ There has been a good deal of feeling aroused in this community on account of the way ip which these seamen were treated ; the sentence imposed is looked upon as very much out of proportion, compared with other sentences of officers who have been court martialed.
The story of a certain Lieutenant Legatt, late commanding Officer of the II.M.C.S. Hoche-laga, who was court martialed and honourably discharged from service for cowardice, has been mentioned in the public press. It -would he interesting to know, as the court martial was held on these boys on the Hochelaga, if this officer had anything to do in passing sentence upon the offenders from the T.R. 30.
There are other instances where it would seem to show that there is a law for officers and another for seamen.
Yours trply,
(Signed) A. C. Hawkins,
Mayor.
In view of these facts, if these boys have not already been released, the acting Minister of Naval Affairs (Mr. A. K. Maclean) should draw the matter to the attention of the minister and have these boys released from jail immediately, and make proper restitution. An hon. member asked the Department of Naval Affairs for some information in regard to this trawler upon which these boys served, and it was necessary for him to ask the question several times before he could get very much in-

formation. Some of the questions asked by this member were as follows:
Was trawler No. 30 in the service of the Canadian Navy Department during the summer of 1918?
The answer was "yes."
If so, were any refits necessary to this boat during the summer of 1918?
The answer was "no." This is the summer the boys were sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment.
On what date was this boat laid up for refits?
The answer was:
Answered by No. 2.
There were no refits, said the department.
Where was trawler No. 30 on August 9, 1918?
The answer was:
At Sydney, under routine lay-up.
If there was nothing wrong with this boat, why was it lying at Sydney under routine lay-up unless that was the excuse for having all the boats tied up at the wharves at Sydney? But I have absolute information that these answers are not correct, and I say that on August 14, 1918, the Sydney Foundry Company completed the work of caulking and pitching the deck of this trawler, the amount of the account being $284. This was the boat from which these seven poor seamen were court mar-tialed and sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment, and yet within a fortnight after they were sentenced, this boat was laid up for refits and the deck caulked and pitched by the Sydney Foundry Company at a cost to this country of $284. Let us go a little further in this matter. Who were the gentlemen who court martialed these seven poor seamen from a fishing hamlet on the Atlantic coast? There was a steamer on naval duty called the Hochelaga, which was commanded by a certain gentleman and which was sent to sea on patrol duty. The look-out on this naval patrol boat one morning sighted a submarine; he reported the matter to the captain, and the captain, who was in charge of eight or ten small boats in addition to his own, at once put up signals to return to port, and instead of stopping and endeavouring to get that submarine or be sunk in the attempt, the captain of the Hochelaga deliberately turned tail and proceeded back to port. This captain is one of the three men who sentenced those seven poor Nova Scotia fishermen to eighteen months in the penitentiary. It is true that after the Hochelagf
fMr. Duff.]
returned to port and the naval authorities came into possession of the fact that the captain had acted in a cowardly manner they discharged him. But why in the name of common sense was he allowed to go with an honourable discharge, while these seven poor Nova Scotian fishermen were sen tenced to eighteen months at Eockhead? Is that fair play? Is that in keeping with the traditions of the British navy? No; and I say action should be taken to release these boys from Eockhead and make whatever restitution is possible.
We have endeavoured to get information from the Department of Naval Service this session with regard to some of the steamers it employs, but in nearly every case the answer has been unsatisfactory or contradictory. I think the truth of the matter is-that the Government are ashamed of the whole sorry mess of bungling extravagance and mismanagement of the naval affairs of this country since the war started.
To show the uselessness of the steamers composing this so-called navy, let me give one or two illustrations. On a fine summer day in 1918 the oil-tanker Lux Blanca, having discharged her cargo at the Imperial Oil works at Dartmouth, got up steam for sea. She was an American boat manned by American sailors and captained by an American ship-master. She proceeded out of the harbour and headed westward. When thirty-five miles west of Sambro island, the lookout sighted the periscope of a submarine. Let me say at this point that previous to this date the naval authorities at Halifax and Ottawa knew there was a submarine on the Nova Scotia coast, yet nothing was done. There were no patrol boats outside the headlands of Halifax harbour. When the lookout sighted the periscope of the submarine what did the captain of this oil-tanker do? Did he turn tail as the captain of the Hochelaga did? No. He had a gun forward and another gun aft, and he had these guns manned and trained on the periscope of the submarine. He gave instructions to the wireless operator to send a message to the Halifax station that he was attacked by a submarine and to send help. He turned his ship towards Halifax harbour and fought that submarine for three hours. The message was sent to Halifax about two in the afternoon, but, Mr. Chairman, not a boat left Halifax to go to that ship's assistance, and the result was that some of the crew of that oil tanker were killed, some were wounded, the ship was sunk, and the rest of the crew had to

[DOT]take to the boats. I admit that there were no ships in our naval fleet that could have sunk the submarine, but they could have done this: When that S.O.S. call came the naval authorities should have sent those boats to sea. I do not blame the captains or crews of those boats or drifters; I lay the blame on the men in charge of the naval base at Halifax, most of whom do not belong to this country, but were sent over from England after their period of usefulness there had,finished. Every man who knows anything about the business says that when that S.O.S. call came the naval authorities should have sent those boats out to sea because, whilst they may not have been able to sink the submarine, the minute the submarine sighted their smoke on the horizon, the good black smoke from Sydney coal, she would have disappeared and the oil tanker would have been saved. While this vessel was being sunk the naval officials at Halifax were trifling at pink teas and playing bridge whist. That is the way we were protected on the Nova Scotia coast.
Let me give another instance-I have five hundred pages here, and it will be impossible for me to give it all. The Lady Evelyn was one of the best boats in the patrol service. She had first class equipment; in fact, naval officers tell me that she was the only vessel in the fleet that could have engaged a submarine. While this submarine was off the Nova Scotia coast, the Lady Evelyn, the best equipped vessel in the fleet, was sent to the Magdalen islands to deliver six lead pencils to the wireless operator there. There were at this time some American destroyers also on our coast, and about the same day the Lady Evelyn went to the Magdalen islands to deliver the lead pencils, an American destroyer was off Cape Canso. This was twenty-four hours before the fishing vessels were sunk in those waters. This American destroyer received a call to return to Halifax. When the commander of the destroyer received the call he wired back that he had information a submarine was in his zone. Nevertheless, he was ordered back to Halifax on some paltry excuse, and when he got there he was sent out on convoy with the ship that was to take Prince Arthur of Cbn-naught to England. Whilst the fishermen were left to row a hundred and forty miles, this American destroyer was sailing out with Prince Arthur. Is that the way to treat the people of this country? That is what actually happened.
Let me'go a little further. Two German submarines came across the water last May. They operated first on the American coast. The Naval Department here knew all about them, and I might say that I sent several telegrams about the matter myself to Mr, Desbarats. These submarined sunk a number of American ships off the American coast, and gradually worked down the Bay of Fundy sinking vessels belonging to merchants of St, John, New Brunswick, some of them new vessels with valuable cargoes, The submarines next appeared off Cape Sable, then off Shelburne and proceeded down the Nova Scotia coast. In the town of Liverpool, at the time, three large vessels were preparing for sea. There were four or five in my home town, and several in the Lahave river preparing for sea, and to proceed to foreign ports These captains, notwithstanding the fact that they knew that the submarine was coming down the Nova iScotia coast, proceeded to sea on their voyage. They did not fear the submarine; they did not fear the Germans. No; it was the patrol boats and those others who were the ones that were making all the trouble. This submarine after destroying the Lux Blanca, proceeded down the co'ast off Canso. You will probably remember, Mr. Chairman, that the first ship she sank was a trawler belonging to parties in the constituency of the hon. Acting Minister of Naval Affairs (Mr. A. K. Maclean). While the American destroyer that was sent down by the United States to protect our coast was sent to Halifax to convoy a ship on which was Prince Arthur of Connaught, the submarine sank five or six Nova Scotia vessels and one American vessel, and the fishermen were ordered into their dories. Hon. members may not all know what a dory is. It is a small boat about fifteen feet long capable of containing only two men. These fishermen were given five minutes to leave the ship and take to their dories and then had to row for two days and two nights before reaching Canso. And this was the kind of protection we were receiving from the naval service of this country. The submarine proceeded down the St. Pierre banks and this is the time the Hochelaga turned tail, when the submarine was about 50 miles off Sydney harbour. As I say, she proceeded down the St. Pierre banks and several more fishing vessels anchored there were sunk. The crews had to row about 45 miles to St. Pierre and arriving there-I think there were about 110 men altogether-the Governor of St. Pierre realized that provisions were short and that it was advis-

able to despatch these men as quickly as possible, and cabled, I presume, to the Ottawa authorities, because shortly afterwards instructions were forwarded to Sydney to despatch one of the patrol boats to St. Pierre to bring the Lunenburg county fishermen to that port. My information is, and 1 believe it is correct, that on that occasion, because the boat was unseaworthy, the whole crew refused to go to sea and the captain had to get an entire new crew, except himself and the wireless operator. I do not know where he got them from, but I am informed that on the way back from St. Pierre to North Sydney, although it was not very rough, every man jack aboard the trawler was sick, except the captain and the wireless operator, and the fishing crew had to do the crew's work and help bring the patrol from St. Pierre to North Sydney. That is the kind of naval service we get in Canada.
Then they tell a story, and it is a true one, that when one of the fishing vessels was coming up in the fog off Halifax harbour the man on the lookout did not see the patrol boats, but he said he smelled ham and eggs, and shortly after the fog lifted there were about ten of these patrol boats in the shelter of Sambro Light. They did not come alongside the ship and tell them that there was a submarine in the vicinity, but allowed that vessel with twenty valuable lives to proceed on her way without notifying the captain of the danger. It seems to me that the least they might have done was to apprise him of the presence of the submarine so that the captain could put into Halifax harbour. Another method that was practiced was to get men for these ships by robbing the merchant marine. Every vessel that came to Halifax from a foreign voyage with crews that had been facing the submarine in the submarine zone in Spanish waters, in the Mediterranean and nearly every place else where the submarine was most in evidence, these men having faced these grave dangers for six, nine and twelve months, on arriving at Halifax they were arrested by the military police and put in jail. I know of one case-and I can . mention more-in which the mate of ,a ship called the Win the War was arrested and put in jail by the military police. The mate of a vessel that arrived in Halifax one Saturday morning was arrested and put in the lockup over Sunday, taken to Aldershot and kept in custody for a week until the owners of his vessel got him out. We are supposed to emulate the example of Great Britain, and yet this condition of affairs existed in spite of the fact that Great Bri-
LMr. Duff,]
tain, gave every encouragement to the members of the British marine. I have in my hand what is known as a notice to mariners for 1918 in which appears the following:
Maintenance of British Shipping.
Officers and Seamen of the Mercantile Marine (except Stewards on Passenger Vessels) are included in the list of certified occupations issued under the Military Service Act, 1916, as persons who are engaged in work of national importance and are entitled to exemption from Military Service. If Officers or Seamen receive notices to present theipselves for military service they should return the notices to the military authorities claiming exemption.
The efficient maintenance of the Mercantile Marine is of vital national importance, and Masters, Officers and Seamen should remain with their ships, and should not leave the merchant service to join the Army.
Why was that not done in this country? Was it not necessary that we should have our merchant marine available to carry our products? I think the Government would have been well advised had they followed this clause in the British Merchant Marine Act, and not arrested our boys who were returning to see their parents for a week or two after long sea voyages. I have in mind a case in my county of a young fisherman who came hoihe last September and who was arrested by the military police, although he says that at a public meeting held in 1917, at which an official of the Militia Department spoke and made the announcement that the fishermen and farmers would no{ be taken, as conscription was intended only for the province of Quebec. This man was arrested, and the reason he gave for not having obeyed the regulations of the Military Service Act was the statement that this official of the department had made that he would not be conscripted. The boy, of course, was guilty under the Military Service Aot; there is no question about that. He was taken to Halifax and before a court-martial of military officers, this pooT fisherman, who did not iknow the law and for whom there was some excuse, was sentenced to two years' hard labour in the penitentiary,-a splendid' man who had supported his mother from the time he was twelve years of age. He had engaged in fishing on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland, and off the coast of Nova Scotia from the age of twelve, and had kept a widowed mother and two sisters. He certainly did not know anything about the law, and yet a court-martial consisting of three supposedly intelligent officers, deliberately sentenced him to two years' imprisonment. However, the boy had a few frieds and they certioraried

his case to Judge Drysdale. I have not Judge Drysdaile's decision before me at this moment, but I may say that the judge decided that the boy 'Should be released. After his release he went to the barracks and told the officers that he wanted his clothes, which consisted of a pair of long rubber boots, stable overalls and an old cap, in which he had been arrested, handcuffed and taken to Halifax. But he demanded -his clothes from the militia authorities, and putting them on he walked the streets of Halifax for three days, and to every man he met he said he would not go home until the Militia Department sent him home. He went every morning to the barracks and insisted on being sent home, and at last they were so ashamed that the officers paid his fare home.
Speaking of the purchases of ships foT the so-called Canadian navy, I would like to know why the officers of the Naval Department did not adopt the suggestion of Mr. J. K. L. Ross. When the war broke out. Mr. Ross, in conversation with a certain naval officer, thought that something should be done for the defence of Canada. He went to one of the shipyards in the province of Quebec-I think it was Vickers, but I am not quite sure-and said to the manager, " How long will it take you to build five cruisers of the Bristol type?'' The manager gave Mr. Ross the information, and at his own expense, he hired a 'special train, journeyed to Ottawa, and laid the matter before the naval authorities. He offered to pay for one of these cruisers if the Government would build the other four, but his offer was turned down and he went home in disgust. When matters were in a serious condition on the Nova Scotia coast, and we could not get any protection for our shipping from the Canadian Government, I am very pleased, indeed, to say that after an earnest telegram was sent to the Department of Naval Affairs-and I want to eonvey to the member for Halifax the credit for what was done after strong representations were made to him by two business men at Halifax-the Naval Department realized that they would again have to go with their hat in hand to the American naval authorities for protection, and very shortly afterwards one or more American naval destroyers were sent to the Nova Scotia coast to protect Canadian shipping. Now, whilst I am very pleased, indeed, that we had the protection of American naval vessels-we owe a debt of gratitude to the American people and the American Government for what they did for us; there is no
question about it, their destroyers saved a lot of our ships because one of them went as far as the Grand Banks of Newfoundland and notified the fishing vessels to get into port-I say it is a shame that we should have had to depend upon the American navy to protect our coasts, our fishermen, and our shipping. Let me tell the Committee something else.- This is a personal matter, but my reason for telling it now is that I have never been able to discover the name of the captain of the destroyer who did the good work. One Saturday night I received a telephone message from Liverpool, and the gentleman on the wire informed me that he was the captain of an American destroyer. He said that a Lunenburg vessel, a foreign-going ship, was drifting five miles off Gull Rock with a disabled rudder. He said, " I left my sister ship out there to protect her, while I came in to give you the news. The captain asked me to request you to send out a tugboat to tow him either to Liverpool or Halifax." I told him to wait for an hour until I ascertained if I could get a tugboat at Yarmouth or Halifax. I kept the telephone busy but failed to secure a tugboat. I' then telephoned the captain of the American destroyer that I could not get any assistance, whereupon he said: "I will return to my ship and both of our destroyers will stand by the disabled vessel until you can send out assistance." I managed to get a towboat from Halifax the next afternoon, but by the time she arrived the American commander had commandeered an American fishing vessel, attached it to the stern of the Lunenburg ship, and fastening hawsers to their destroyers had towed the disabled vessel into Liverpool. I have never been able to find out who the captain of this destroyer was. The American Government so far have rendered no bill for the services rendered"; doubtless if they intended to do so they would have done it long ago. Now I want to express my gratification to the American commanders of these destroyers for 'the splendid assistance which they rendered. Undoubtedly these destroyers rendered splendid aid in keeping submarines away and protecting Canadian shipping, a duty which properly devolved upon the Government of this country, which should have had proper ships in Nova Scotia waters for that purpose.
Did the Americans perform any other service for us? They certainly did. They established airplane, or seaplane, bases at Halifax and North Sydney, and were about

to establish another at Shelburne when hostilities ceased. But a base was established at Halifax and on the first flight of one of the squadrons, in order to show what the seaplanes could do, the route followed was via the towns from Halifax to Yarmouth; and I had 'the honour, Mr. Chairman, as mayor of the town of Lunenburg, to receive the first letter, written Dy the Premier of Nova 'Scotia to me, which was ever delivered at that town by seaplane. These seaplanes went from Lunenburg to Liverpool, Lockeport, Shelburne and Yarmouth, and the people of the different towns along the coast turned out in full force to do honour to the brave American airmen who were protecting our coast and stopping the depredations of German submarines, which duty we should have performed ourselves. What a humiliating position for Canada 'to be placed in, to be dependent for protection on the sea and in the air to American destroyers and American airplanes.
In addition to the expenditure of $31,000,000 for naval war purposes, the Auditor General's Report sets forth that in 1918 the sum of $209,296 was spent on the dockyard and naval college at Halifax, principally for frills, furbelows, and pink teas-At Esquimalt, $244,554 was paid for gold braid and brass buttons. When I read the Auditor General's Report and saw - what this amount was for I was shocked and disgusted. For clerks, stenographers, telephones and telephone operators the sum of $168,000 was spent last year at the Halifax dockyard and naval establishment. Nine thousand, seven hundred and twelve pairs of boots were purchased from Ames Holden and the Amherst Boot and Shoe Company; 5,097 silk handkerchiefs were purchased at about one dollar each. There were purchased 57,605 pounds of ordinary soap, and 3,403 pounds of Castile soap, presumably for the lime-juicers. These are some of the items appearing in the Report. It is impossible for me to give the full details of the expenditure for these purposes, but the Auditor General's Report is worth the serious perusal of every member of the Committee. Another item which appears in the Report is $665 allowance for clergy. Mr. Chairman, I regret to say that this amount was paid to Presbyterian clergymen as well as clergymen of every other denomination, and I am ashamed that Presbyterian clergymen should have taken this money. These very Presbyterian clergymen in 1917, when I was a candidate for Parliament, said that I, and others like me, were pro-German, were disloyal and traitors fair. Duff.l
to the country. These were the clergymen who were going to save the country. I understand there are about forty clergymen in the city of Halifax and they are not overworked. These men who were so extremely loyal in the 1917 election should have gone out on board the Niobe and given their services free-that is the least they might have done. It seems a shame and a disgrace to me that ministers who endeavour to teach us to be patriotic should take the country's money for going on the Niobe and giving religious services to the sailors.
Then to show some of the acts of gross carelessness on the part of the Naval Department at Halifax I want to refer for a minute to the Halifax explosion. On December 6, 1917, the whole country from Halifax to Vancouver was shocked when it heard that Halifax had been blown up by an explosion and that some two thousand people had lost their lives and between twenty and thirty thousand injured. It is almost impossible to believe that so many people were injured, but it is a fact that between twenty and thirty thousand of the population of that city were -more or less injured by the explosion. What happened?
The steamer Mont Blanc arrived at Halifax one fine December morning. A steamer named the Imo had received instructions the night before to proceed to sea. Orders were given to the Mont Blanc to proceed up the harbour and as the Imo was coming through the narrow channel between Dartmouth and Halifax, a collision occurred, and the high explosives on the Mont Blanc created the tremendous devastation with which we are all familiaT. An investigation followed, but nothing came of it-at any rate, whatever information the' Government secured it never published it. There were plenty of rumours current, one being to the effect that the collision was due to neglect on the part of one of the naval officers in charge-and it is a fact that a naval officer was discharged from the service, he having given conflicting orders. I contend that there was absolutely no necessity for the Mont Blanc to come up to the harbour, and the naval authorities had no right to allow her to come up, -there being plenty of space in -the eastern passage to lay, whilst awaiting orders to proceed. Not only that ship but other ships containing high explosives were allowed to come up to the middle of the city both before and after this disaster and if there had been a German spy on board he could have blown up the whole city.
What do we find about this matter? I will not give my own version, but I will

quote from what a good Unionist newspaper says. This is something that happened after the explosion and after the naval authorities should have been on their job, if they were not when that disastrous collision occurred. The Halifax Herald of March 12, 1917, contained the following:
Further investigation by The Halifax Herald [DOT]in shipping and1 pilotage circles yesterday has brought additional and conclusive evidence that there must be a shake-up of no meagre dimensions at Ottawa. The pilots' story that a steamer laden with high explosives was allowed to lay in the fairway of the harbour one day last week for seven hours, was fully confirmed, and in getting the confirmation other details of a most startling nature were disclosed.
The Halifax Herald' is scrupulously careful to abide by the rules of the censorship and anything calculated to furnish information to the enemy is gladly withheld from publication. There is not a man familiar with marine affairs at this port, not a Nova Scotia captain who has gladly given his services to the work of naval patrol, not a master mariner who regularly brings in and takes out his steamer, but what has a story to tell of stupidity, of pigheaded-mess, of bungling in connection With the affairs of the port, and, following up these stories, the trail leads directly to Ottawa and reveals a heterogeneous bunch of incompetents who may know the ways of society, who may be able to judge aright the merits of various blends of wine, but who certainlly do not know the ways of ships and are not able to judge the competence of those whom they place in charge.
In times of peace we should not have such men at the head of affairs of a maritime nature. To have them in such position in these awful days of war is evidence of a laxity on the part of our people, a laxity which has already led to fatal consequences and which should, perchance, a break be made through the British fleet, lead to awful disaster. God forbid that a change at Ottawa be withheld until such a time comes.
It took one of the greatest disasters the world has ever known, to partially arouse those in authority, but those who were in supreme authority then are still in authority.
I repeat, that is from the Halifax Herald, a paper edited by no other than one William Dennis, a member of the honourable Senate of Canada.
As far as I am personally concerned, I have watched this matter for the last four or five years, and I want to say that I do not hold the present 'Minister of Naval Affairs (Mr. Ballantyne) responsible in any great degree. I believe he took charge of this thing when it was in such a mess that he realized that nothing could be done by him. I do not wish to imply that all the naval officers were incompetent. There were a number of bright, young Canadian officers scattered through the fleet, and a large number of marines and bluejackets, who, if they had been given a chai>ce, would have distinguished themselves and brought
honour to Canada, but these men were not given an opportunity so to do.
The naval conditions on the Atlantic coast were of such a disgraceful nature that it was in the mouths of everybody, and I have gathered a large amount of information which it would take up too much time to place before this Committee. The matter is of such a serious nature that I consider an investigation should be held, and I here and now ask for a parliamentary committee to be appointed, and I have the proof to place before any investigating body that [DOT]may be appointed. I had an opportunity, (Mr. Chairman, of discussing this matter with a naval officer and a number of sailors, and I got the former to give me his opinion why the naval affairs of this country were in such a disgraceful condition. He gave me ,a statement, which I will now read:-
I, the undersigned Charles Otis Julian, of the city of Vancouver, in the province of British Columbia, Lieutenant Royal Naval Canadian Volunteer Reserve, hereby solemnly declare:
That the Borden Government knowing the imminent possibilities of the outbreak of war showed culpable neglect in not having the Canadian naval dockyards in Halifax and Esquimalt in a proper state of efficiency.
That the dockyards were in a deplorable state of decay and neglect, the wharves and jetties being in need of repair, the buildings and store houses being old and unsuitable, the stores depleted and the general equipment inadequate and an no way suited to carry on effective war-time operations.
That the Borden Government showed further culpable neglect before the outbreak of war in allowing the Niobe and Rainbow to remain out of commission without proper equipment in vifew of the threatening situation in Europe. The Niobe at the outbreak of war was moored at Halifax and would have remained an ineffectual fighting ship had she not obtained crews from the Imperial ships, Algerine and Shearwater; the Rainbow would have been in the same predicament had she not obtained sufficient ratings to man her from the Royal Naval Canadian Volunteer Reserves then in process of formation and a nucleus crew from the Atlantic station.	,
That the Fishery Protection Service vessels of Canada as equipped and manned were totally inadequate to offer any effective protection to our cities on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts.
That the Borden Government showed culpable neglect in not encouraging and ordering the formation of an effective Royal Navy Canadian Volunteer Reserve and that as far back as three years prior to the outbreeak of war many representations had been made to the Government without result for the recognition and proper equipment of the force (then struggling in process of formation; and that after this force had come into being with scarce government aid, the Director of Naval Service, acting on instructions from his Government proceeded to disband the Naval Volunteers of Canada, and that a majority of men who had joined this force with a pure volunteer spirit were encouraged to leave the force and join the

C.E.F. That in the city of Quebec, directly after the outbreak of hostilities, on instructions from the department more than one hundred naval ratings were recruited carried on drill and such duties as were allotted to them by the S.N.O. at that port. These men were without equipment of any kind. Thirty-three days after its formation this force was disbanded and discharged. That no provision was made anywhere in Canada towards naval recruiting. In Toronto private efforts succeeded in recruliting a considerable number of naval ratings who were despatched to Imperial and R.C.N. establishments. Although in the British Isles directly after the outbreak of hostilities recruiting for ratings for naval brigades was carried on, no provision was made in Canada for recruiting for the navy although repeated appeals were made to the Government to do so.
That the Borden Government showed culpable neglect at the very outbreak of hostilities when unarmed enemy merchantmen were in close proximity to our coast in not endeavouring to capture or destroy these ships. The Government were repeatedly advised of the presence of these ships but made no effort to capture them although they had suitable ships available for this purpose.
That the Borden Government showed unfair discrimination from the outbreak of hostilities to the signing of the armistice against native born Canadians in all senior appointments both ashore and afloat in the Canadian Naval Service. That in the larger ships of the Canadian Patrol Fleet only one native born Canadian has been in command. In almost every instance these ships carried in the position of Navigator or First Lieutenant eprfectly capable Canadian officers. That the records of the shore establishment show that these bases were elaborately overmanned by retired, and in many cases incapable R.N. or R.N.R. English officers. The same condition prevailed at the naval headquarters at Ottawa. That the graduates of the Royal Naval College of Canada of sufficient seniority and entirely capable of taking command of Canadian patrol ships who were on loan to the R.N. were not recalled and given the opportunity to serve in the defence of their own country.
That the Borden Government's actions have occasioned a general spirit of discontent and resentment among *the officers and men in the Canadian Naval Service. That promotions have been unfairly allotted and positions of trust have been given to men of unknown and questionable ability. That seniority and previous experience have been most shamefully overlooked in numerous instances and throughout the rank and file of the service a feeling of discontent, contempt and distrust has always been entertained against the authorities at Ottawa. That the department has repeatedly broken faith most shamefully with officers and men, the notable instances being in the case of the treatment of mates. In the beginning these officers were promised toy the department that they would rank with, tout after a sublieutenant R.N.C.V.R. in accordance with clause 13 relative to rank as found in the K. R. & O. After they had served some considerable period, however, and without any cause they were reduced by Order in Council two grades lower and ranked with bandmasters, masters-at-arms, boatswains, etc. That in the case of chief skippers R.C.N., these men all holding coastwise and foreign seagoing tickets were

induced to join the service with the promise of a rate of pay of $3.50 per day. After serving some considerable time an order was issued reducing their pay to $3.00 per day. That in the case of W.T. operators, these officers were, without any apparent reason, unjustly denied any separation allowance. A considerable number were in the service before the Order in Council to this effect was passed, and these men were discriminated against in a most shameful manner. The pay for this branch of the service was ridiculously small considering that these officers had to bear a great part of their own expenses in the matter of messing and clothing. On the larger ships it was necessary for operators to live with wardroom officers and pay their mess bills out of their small pay. Until 1918 no proper school was established for their training, consequently many were unable to qualify as fourth class operators and were forced to remain "Learners" for an unreasonable length of time. The pay of a "Learner" was $22.50 per month.
(1)	In the beginning the rate of pay in the R.N.C.V.R. was fixed much lower than that given to men in the C.E.F., and no separation allowance was granted, enlistments to the Navy were therefore reduced to a minimum and great dissatisfaction prevailed among the men in the service.
(2)	That the Naval Service repeatedly made promises to mem on enlistment in connection with rank, promotions, rate of pay and conditions of service which they later failed to fulfil.
(3)	For more than a year and a half after the outbreak of the war men wearing the Canadian Naval uniform were not allowed reduced fares or any special privileges by the transportation companies in Canada, while at the same time such were enjoyed by the men in the C.E.F.
(4)	That it would appear that the Borden Government in the manner of the treatment of the men in the Canadian Navy were pursuing a policy of deliberately creating a feeling of dissatisfaction in order to justify their prewar contention that Canada could not man and maintain a navy of her own. The result of this policy is very apparent as such a feeling still exists.
That the Borden Government showed culpable lack of foresight since the beginning of the war in the method it pursued in chartering vessels, exorbitant rentals being paid for .inferior craft, so much so that in many instances the charter money as time went on amounted to much more than the actual value of some of the crafts in question. That those crafts were supplied with coal and water, besides being kept in ship-shape condition at the expense of the Government, gun-crews and signal ratings being placed on board and utilized by the owners of the craft. And with exception of a few large harbour tugs the boats proved inadequate for the duties assigned to them.
As regards small craft, the iBorden Government expended large sums of money' in a ridiculous and wasteful manner in chartering or purchasing at exorbitant rates, numerous motor boats and other small craft which were to be found at the bases at Halifax and Sydney and Esquimalt. These boats were continuously out of repair, their up-keep amounting annually to large sums. These boats being used principally for the convenience of senior officers ashore and their wives and families.

Over seventy per cent of these boats could have been dispensed with had this branch of the service been conducted in an efficient manner.
The Borden Government did not pursue the policy of other Overseas Dominions in despatching naval ratings for duty overseas-until obliged to do so by pressure in the House -and then only in a half-hearted, manner. Then the Deputy Minister, the Director of Naval Service and the Admiral Superintendent at Esquimau expressed personally their displeasure and disapproval of the policy of sending amy such naval ratings overseas.
That throughout the entire war no policy appears to have existed in regard to the vitally important work of patrolling and convoying off the coasts of Canada. As a result of their lack of policy and unpreparedness when the coasts of Canada were seriously menaced by submarines an appeal had to be made to the United States for the despatch of craft capable of protecting our coasts. That our large patrol vessels with one exception proved to be old, out of date vessels deficient in speed and gun power and were all out of order. In convoy work the Canadian fleet could not venture far from their bases and it is on record that not one flotilla ever despatched successfully carried out the orders assigned them.
That the Borden Government showed culpable neglect in regard to the gunnery of the patrol fleet, many of the boats being fitted for a considerable period with obsolete guns and no provision being made for the proper training of gun crews under experienced officers and it was not until the fall of 1917 that this most important branch of the service was taken in hand and a gunnery commander appointed. This officer experienced great difficulty in carrying out his work owing to reluctance of the Department to supply them with proper ordinance and gear.
That although the traffic regulations of the Port of Halifax were under the sole supervision of the Naval authorities proper orders were never promulgated and such regulations as were in effect were carried out with laxity.
That although the calamity that overtook the Port of Halifax on December 6th, 19117, was accidental nevertheless there can be no doubt that the actual cause can be traced to the inefficient and careless officers in charge of the Canadian Naval base at Halifax.
That many acts of heroism performed by Canadian Naval ratings received no recognition although officers and men from vessels of the Royal Navy then lying in the harbour performing similar acts received prompt recognition and declaration from their Government.



C O. JULIEN.

[Stage Direction]
Lieut. R.N.C.V.R.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I think that under the circumstances, and having regard to what I have said, there should be a full and complete investigation into naval affairs in Canada during the last four years. Furthermore, I have no hesitation in saying that owing to the black eye which has been administered to the navy, it is too late now to endeavour to do anything to put naval affairs in Canada on a satisfactory basis. At the time of the Soudanese war, when the question of sending help
to Britain was discussed in this Parliament, Sir John A. Macdonald used the expression: " Not a dollar, not a man." I repeat that statement [DOT] now without any hesitation. I say in all seriousness that Canada should not spend one dollar on naval matters for the next few years at least. One reason is that our financial condition will not warrant it, and even if we wished to do so we could not vote sufficient money to build or to purchase naval boats which would be Of any service in time of trouble.
Because of its inefficiency, the Naval Department at Ottawa should be closed up, the officers in charge of it should be paid off and the offices closed. Canada has nothing to lose by doing this, and a large amount of money would be saved the taxpayers.
In my opinion Parliament can do only one of two things: Appropriate $100,000,000 at least, to build and equip an efficient navy, or else not spend one dollar. I do not think that in our present financial condition we can afford to spend the large amount which I have mentioned; consequently I say that not one dollar should be spent and not one man engaged at the present time under the excuse and pretence that we are doing something for naval affairs in this country. Sell off the useless trawlers, drifters and patrol boats, clear up the mes£ and make the * best of a bad job.
It might be said, of course, that we have the naval bases at Halifax and Esquimalt, and that they should be kept up. My answer to that is this: If the British Government require Halifax and Esquimalt for naval bases and for coaling purposes, they should take them over and operate them at their own expense. We certainly cannot do it, and I have no hesitation in asking that the whole idea be abandoned.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The statements made by the hon. member (Mr. Duff) with regard to expenditures in connection with naval affairs in Canada are of such a serious character that we should at least have some explanation from the minister before this clause is adopted.	[DOT]
, We have the statement made here by . the hon. member, not as his own, but as a declared statement by an officer who was one of the men in charge at Esquimalt at the time, I believe, and who professes to make a declaration, equal to a statement on oath, as to what has been taking place in connection with the handling of the navy, not only on the coast of British Columbia, but at Halifax, ISydney and other

places. We have not, so far, had a word of explanation from the Government. There may be some minister or other hon. member who* can give us some explanation about this matter, but we have not had a word of explanation, and we are asked to vote $350,000,000, a large part of which is going to be paid out in connection with work of this class. While we are all anxious to get along as fast as we can with the business of this session, including the voting of money, this (Committee and the House and the country are entitled to some explanation as to the charges put forward in respect to the management of this very important department of Government. 'It is well known, in the part of the country from which I come, which is in the same province as the constituency represented by the hon. member (Mr. Duff), that moneys were simply squandered right and left; that every sort of a boat that would float at all was either purchased or hired, and that it was the sheerest mockery the piles of ships that were in each others' way in the harbour of Sydney during the last year or two doing nothing in the world except paying out money to men who were friendly to the Government and who had craft of this kind -to sell or hire. Without some departmental head here able to answer these questions, it would be useless to make-any further charges than those already put before the Committee by the hon. member for Lunenburg, and I do not wish to take up time of re-stating what has been so well said by him. But it is the duty of the Government, and particularly of the minister in charge of this Bill, if he cannot give this explanation himself, to let this matter "stand until the minister who is capable of giving the explanation is here and can tell us how many vessels were purchased or hired; from whom vessels were purchased or hired; what was the necessity of hiring vessels; how many vessels we still own; and what are they worth; and what the Government intends doing with them? I suggested to the Minister of Naval Affairs that such of the 11 p.m. vessels as are equal to the kind of work, should, if possible, be converted into fishing craft. The Canadian people would get more value and better results from those vessels in that way than in any other. I do not know that this is the occasion to discuss that, but I am mentioning it in the presence of so many ministers, that they may have at least one constructive idea in connection with the handling of those boats. I am told that [Mr. McKenzie. 1
many of the boats can be sold to advantage to fishermen who, perhaps, may not be able to pay the whole of the money at once, but a scheme could be arranged by which the Government would be sure of obtaining its money and a fishing fleet of fine proportions, well equipped, would be established on both the Atlantic and the Pacific. If this matter is inquired into at all, we shall be able to get some information from the minister on that score.
At an early stage in the evening, the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) made some statements in connection with the furnishing of money for trade purposes. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) thought that he was making a very clever answer when he told us that we were perfectly justified in voting J25,-000,000 of the people's money to Rumania, because Rumania was in debt to Great Britain and that we were in debt to _ Great Britain and the United States, and in order to square our bills with Great Britain and the United States, we should allow Rumania to become indebted to us. If that is a business proposition by which there shall be accorded any satisfaction in the payment of debts between Rumania and Great Britain, Great Britain and ourselves and ourselves and the United States, it is a system that I never heard of before and that I do not understand. The hon. member sat down absolutely satisfied with himself as having solved the whole problem and having justified the borrowing by Canada of $25,000,000 somewhere and passing that over to Rumania in order that Rumania might become indebted to us. If that is business, I shall be glad to have it more fully explained by the minister if he shall deem it proper to make any further observations in connection with this Bill.
There are different ways of promoting trade. When we were in pow'er in this country we promoted trade in the usual way. We wanted to have trade with people who. were willing to pay either in kind or in cash for our goods. In 1911, the situation in this country was excellent, but we wanted to make it better and we launched upon a comprehensive trade arrangement with the people of the United States and other countries where we could get proper trade and where we would have exchange of our goods for theirs or get their money for our goods. That was not good enough for the statesmen who are to-day in charge of affairs, and they turned it down. What have they given to us instead of it? They have given us an

absolutely new idea in trade, namely, that we are to furnish our own money and that we are to buy our own goods, and after we have bought our goods from ourselves, we are to pass them over without any security whatever to a foreign country. Will the minister explain how it is that we are going to get wealthy in that way? Supposing a man furnishes a customer with $5 to buy a pair of boots, the man comes in to his store and buys the boots and he passes over to the [DOT] merchant his own $5. The merchant has his 35 back in his till, but the boots are gone and he has nothing for them. I see many hardheaded business men sitting in front of me, and I should like them to explain how we are going to grow wealthy and expand and develop the country by such a system of trade.
The idea of a man lifting himself by his boot straps has always seemed the most ridiculous thing we could imagine, but I think such a feat is just as easily possible as the making of this country wealthy and prosperous upon the system of trade, and business generally, that is followed by this Government, and which is applauded by its Supporters as a new device which will overcome all the trade ills that the state is heir to. As a matter of fact, we have not got the money to give, but we are undertaking to find it in some way, and pass it off in the manner I have mentioned. 'I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that whether or not this will be a bribe to the manufacturers of this country, to the big combines, the big friends who own the Government according to the Government's own friends, it is capable ol being a bribe. What is happening? The Manufacturers' Association and the men engaged in big business come to the Government and say: " We want more trade. We want more money put in circulation. What are you going to do about it?" The Government says: " If you can get anybody to buy your goods we will pay for them." That is a magnificent proposition. The manufacturer is not asked what his price is, where he will deliver the goods, or anything of that kind; he is simply told by the Government: "We care not what you produce, so long as it is a manufactured article of any kind. If you will pile it on the shore at Montreal, Halifax, St. John, or Vancouver, and get a certified account from somebody whom we will appoint at these places, we will put you in the way of getting a cheque for your goods." Is not that a magnificent layout for the manufacturers? They do not send travelling agents abroad; they are free from that expense. They do not bother
about insuring their goods and sending them across the Atlantic; they do not worry about transportation or freight or anything else. All they have to do is produce the goods, and then this paternal fraternity known as the Government will furnish the cash and take full responsibility for everything. If that is not a scheme by which men who have goods to sell are capable of being bribed, I do not know what scheme you could devise that would be more capable of being used for bribery. I am not saying that that is what the scheme is for, but it is an old saying that the sight of means to do ill deeds, has ill deeds done. It would be better to let the men on this side of the Atlantic who have goods to sell do business direct with the men on the continent of Europe who want to buy their goods, instead of the Government engineering the thing so that the manufacturers can sell their goods for what they like without the purchaser having anything to say about it. When this matter was up about two weeks ago, the complaint was made that there was no proper distribution of these orders. Some person said there was no such thing at all as orders of this kind, but the hon. jnember for Haldimand (Mr. Lalor) who, I believe, is a manufacturer or .interested in manufacturing, told us all about it. He said that the orders were distributed in the best possible way, that there was no discrimination, that everybody got a share. Nevertheless, the distribution of the orders is made by a combination of manufacturers who come together and fix their own price; they divide the orders up just as they like, and then the Government undertakes all the hard work of getting the money to pay for the goods. That is not a proper or healthy way of doing business, and the sooner we get away from it the better.
I submit that we have not been given the necessary information about this money which we are going to give to foreign countries for the purpose of stimulating trade in Canada. We do not know how much we are going to give-at least I do not; we do not know how it is to be handled; we do not know how the goods are to be bought; we do not know how they are to be conveyed from this country to their destination. When we are furnishing money in this way to help out foreigners, I submit, we should know something about it. There is all the more reason for this information because of conditions to-day, when the price

not only of foodstuffs but of manufactured articles is such that if the price were reduced to normal the sales of the manufacturers [DOT] could be doubled and trebled and our men kept at work without sending goods out of the country at all. I think that before we accept the proposition of the manufacturers, there should be the closest possible inquiry into the conditions; and the method which evidently has been adopted by the Government should only be resorted to in the last extremity when nothing else could be done to carry on trade and keep our men employed.
The information we particularly desire is in connection with the expenditure on naval affairs. We also require a little further explanation about the money we are going to borrow and pass over to foreign countries. It might be somewhat difficult for the minister to give this information to-night, but as we are entitled to it, if no other hon. member wishes to speak, I would suggest that at this late hour the minister should let the Bill stand in Committee.


William Thomas White: I think I can give my hon. friend the information that he desires to-night as to the necessity of the constitution of credits for foreign export business for Canada, and as to the manner in which that business is placed- Before doing so, however, I think I should refer to the speech of the hon. member for Lunenburg.
He covered a very wide field. I had no notice that he would bring forward the matters he dealt with to-night. It would seem to me that they would ordinarily be brought forward when the Minister of Naval Affairs had his estimates before the Committee, but the hon. member was quite in order, because we were discussing the naval estimates for the coming year as embodied in this vote. This Bill which is now before the Committee is analogous to the Bills of last year and the previous year, only that the amount is smaller and its purpose is, as hon. members know, to provide for what we might call the remainder of our war expenditure, and particularly, as the war is in reality although not officially, over, for our demobilization expenditure and other outlays arising out of the war. The Minister of Militia has explained that so far as his portion of the vote is concerned, it is solely for demobilization purposes. I would suggest to my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition that as the Minister of Naval Affairs will be having his estimates before the House to-morrow or the next day,

he might deal with the statements made by the hon. member for Lunenburg on that occasion. I would submit that delay in answering the hon. member, because the minister had no notice that these matters would be brought up to-night, is not a sufficient reason for our not passing the section of the Bill referred to.
With regard to the general question of credits, let me make a rather comprehensive statement. I should like to say, first, that there is no man in the Dominion who would rather see a return to the former and normal modes of business than I. The furnishing of credits by the Dominion of Canada for the purchase of our agricultural and manufactured products is absolutely forced upon us by the exigencies of the financial situation due to the war. Take the question of our grain; I shall come to the manufactured products later. This year I had expected to have to provide a sum not exceeding $100,000,000, for the purchase of our exportable surplus of wheat and flour, but on account of the exchange situation between Great Britain and this continent by which it is impossible for Great Britain to purchase wheat in the United States and' Canada except from funds provided on this side of the Atlantic, and because no funds are available except such as we can provide in Canada, the Dominion Government has paid out up to date a sum in excess of $80,000,000, which has been loaned to the Imperial Government for the purchase ot our wheat, and it has undertaken to furnish a further $90,000,000 which will be required for the purchase of the balance of the wheat and flour products of this last year's crop. My hon. friend, I am sure, would not describe that as a bribe to the farmers. If the Dominion Government did not furnish that credit of $170,000,000-I hope it may be somewhat less, because it is a very heavy burden-then it would mean that the exportable surplus of the wheat of Canada and our exportable surplus of flour could not be bought. Under the old conditions, my hon. friend knows that the Government would not have to intervene at all, and I should be perfectly delighted if the old conditions prevailed, so that the sellers of wheat and flour would simply send forward bills of exchange with the documents attached and get their money in New York exchange. If they were able to do that there would not be to-day a 3 per cent rate of exchange against Canada as between us and the United States. So much for wheat and flour. My hon. friend would not say that we were bribing the

farmers and that we were doing, anything a government should not do at a time like this, in furnishing money which alone makes it possible for the Canadian farmer and the Canadian miller to sell their wheat and flour, and for the rest of the people of Canada to get the benefit that comes to them from the sale of those commodities.
Then as to manufactured goods. I am sure my hon. friend will not object if I ask the Committee to consider the situation with which we were confronted immediately upon the conclusion of the armistice in November last. It has often been said that preventive ability is never appreciated. People see results, but they are not aware of the cause. I have no hesitation in saying that if the Dominion Government had not faced with financial courage the situation which confronted us in November last, we should have a very grave and serious situation in Canada to-day. I believe there would have been thousands if not tens of thousands of people out of work, and I would not like to state what might have happened in Canada in consequence. If my hon. friend will go back to November last, he will realize that the entire community was greatly excited over what would happen once the war came to an end and all our war industries ceased. Directly and indirectly there were 200,000 people, men and women, engaged in munitions work and in the supply of other war material, and in other enterprises connected with those industries and in industries basic to them. That was the situation with which the Government was confronted. We had to find not only the credits with which our wheat and flour, our cheese and meat products were to be purchased, but we also had to face that very acute industrial situation which caused the utmost anxiety to the labouring population in Canada and to business generally, and to all the people interested in the welfare of the country and in the preservation of order in the community. Faced with that situation, and knowing the international financial conditions to which I have referred, the Government, at the instance of the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden), appointed an Overseas War Mission headed by Mr. Lloyd Harris, who did such successful work as head of the British War Mission at Washington in obtaining orders for Canada, and whose work was referred to by the President of the Privy Council in connection with his estimates the other evening. The Prime Minister went overseas himself, and accompanying him were Mr. Lloyd Harris, Mr. Frank Jones, Dr. Robertson, formerly of the Department of Agriculture, and Mr. Draper. The three important national interests, mercantile, labour, and agriculture, were represented.
Those men have been working over there most assiduously since November last, and I am surprised now to hear the hon. member for Maisonneuve ('Mr. Lemieux), although he paid the absent Minister of Trade and Commerce a compliment on the personal side, find fault with the minister whose work, to my knowledge, and on the reports which I have received from men who have been over there, ihas been of the most efficient kind for the benefit of Canada. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has really done admirable work in connection with the important question of finding markets for Canada's grain and meat products and other supplies, and the representatives of the Western Grain Growers and the Western Grain Exchange, ,who went overseas last fall, paid the highest tribute to the work done by him in connection with the important matters in which they were interested.
The Prime Minister has given the closest attention to the subject of the promotion of Canada's trade overseas. I have been in constant cable communication with him, and hundreds of cables have passed relating to matters of shipping, and to the general trade of Canada and its extension to Europe at this time. The purpose of the' Prime Minister in constituting that commission to London was to obtain business for Canada, and to take up the slack of the factory production which was interrupted by the cessation of the war. Hon. gentlemen can picture to themselves what effect the closing of these munition plants, on the scale that we had them in Canada, and of the allied industries immediately affected, would have, and what the result would be, unless we could replace that business by an equal, or at all events a large, volume of export trade. Remember we were manufacturing what we needed for ourselves and our productive capacity for munitions and war supplies bore relation to our export trade. Therefore, unless we could substitute export trade for what we had here, only one result could ensue, and that was that our industries could only run on partial capacity, and that tens of thousands of men would be out of work all over Canada. Mr, Lloyd Harris, as head of the Canadian Mission in London, has not only been doing his utmost to obtain trade for Canada, but has from the very first urged and insisted that Canadian industries

should send their own representatives over there in order that they might not only assist him, and have the benefit of the cooperation of himself and his office, but at the same time push to the utmost for business themselves; and I understand that some two hundred representatives of practically all the industries of Canada are in London to-day on the summons of Mr. Lloyd Harris, and working in co-operation with him for the benefit of our export trade. I think it is a mistake to say that that export trade is for the benefit of a few manufacturers; it seems to me .that it is not a fair statement of the situation. We often play politics in this House, but is it a fair statement to say that the promotion of the export trade of Canada is for the benefit of a few manufacturers? There are hundreds of millions of dollars-


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I saw the agreement that was made for Rumania, and it seems to me it is all for the manufacturers, except one-fifth.


William Thomas White: I will come to that in a moment. I make no objection to my hon. friend raising the question, because I am the last one to deny information on public affairs. This is an important Bill, and I desire to satisfy my hon. friend by making a very full statement: There are hundreds of millions of dollars invested [DOT] in important manufacturing establishments in this country. They employ hundreds of thousands of men whose families are maintained by their wages, and they in turn by the expenditure of their money , promote the business of the country. So that the getting of export trade for Canada for our manufactured goods, as well as for our grain and natural products, is not for the benefit of a few manufacturers, but for the welfare of the people of Canada as a whole. If, as .1 said before, we did not push for that trade, and if we did not get trade of that character for Canada, we should have a very grave situation on our hands to-day.
Now we come to the question of the credits which we shall extend. In the first place- and hon. gentlemen opposite I take it assent to that-we shall have to continue to make extensive loans to Great Britain for the purchase of our foodstuffs and the timber and other products which Great Britain will want from this country. In case some hon. gentlemen may not understand the situation, let me say that the burden on us this year is going to be very heavy because we are demobilizing in Canada, and con-

sequently. we have a higher expenditure in respect of our men coming upon the Treasury here than we would have if those men were overseas, and we were borrowing money from Great Britain for their maintenance in the Old Country and in France, and setting off that expenditure against the advances which we make to 'Great Britain here. I have explained that with respect to last year's wheat crop, we have found, or undertaken to find, no less a sum than $170,000,000, and I have no doubt that with regard to foodstuffs we shall have to make further advances to Great Britain, although I am glad to say that free markets are being established as quickly as possible with respect to all our commodities. Now we have the wheat crop of this year coming on, which we hope will be a large crop, and I do not know to what extent Europe will have to rely on us for credits for the purchase of that. But no matter what we have, we certainly must, and will, ensure the financing of the exportable surplus of the wheat crop of Canada for this year. My own view is that that should be the first demand to be satisfied, it is of such great importance to the entire country. Now we come to these other credits. There was common talk here in November of last year that Canada should strongly push for a portion of the re-construction business in Belgium, France and other devastated countries of Europe. Europe must be restored. Not only will food be required to maintain the population, but raw material and partly manufactured, and manufactured goods of various kinds, in which Canada can compete I think with any other nation, will be required on a vast scale. Now I submit that if the Government had not taken the step which it did in establishing the War Mission and providing credits, hon. gentlemen opposite, headed by my good friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) would to-night be most severely censuring the Government for not having done precisely what the Government has done. They would have very much better reason for censure in that case, because the conditions in this country, if we had not done what we did, would have been so serious that Opposition criticism would have counted very much more than it does now. Now I beg my friend the leader of the Opposition to take my word for it that we are not doing anything on the other side in the way of financing that we can avoid doing if we are to get the business.


Rodolphe Lemieux: To what other country is credit being extended besides Rumania, Belgium, and France?


William Thomas White: Greece.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the amount of
credit provided by the Canadian Government to date for France and Belgium?


William Thomas White: I will make a
complete statement as to that, and I desire to say to the leader of the Opposition, and to hon. gentlemen to your left, Mr. Chairman, that I find no fault whatever with the question being raised, because an important Bill deserves serious consideration in Committee, and it is not my custom to withhold information if I can furnish it.
I desire to say to the hon. leader of the Opposition that we are in good company in what we are doing. The United States has loaned, during the war, and is loaning now, billions of dollars to the nations of Europe to enable them during the war to conduct military operations, and since to buy the products of the United States. The United States must continue to do that through her Government and her financial institutions if she is to get trade. To put it another way, if Europe is to be supplied with foodstuffs and manufactured products from this continent Europe cannot pay for them, and this continent cannot sell them unless the money is found on this side of the Atlantic. There is no business man on this side of the House who does not know that that is so. The United States has been pushing very strongly for business, as my hon. friend says, but she has been in the powerful position of being able to offer credits. Her wheat, her meats and all her other foodstuffs of every kind she can sell to Europe, but Europe cannot sell European exchange against New York exchange to pay for them; Europe has to borrow from the United States. That borrowing will he done partly from the American Government and partly by the ordinary operations between banks, and by the sale in the United States of securities of European countries.
Great Britain for many years had the greatest money market in the world in London, and foreign governments came there and sold their securities, which were taken up by British investors, and in that way the money was furnished in 'London for the purchases which were made in Great Britain. Now you have this situation on the North American continent. Our people and the people of the United States are not accustomed to buying the securities of foreign governments. The United States is
14D
very slowly becoming an international money centre because her people, until this war, had not been accustomed-as were the British people-to purchasing the securities of foreign governments. Whether they will become so accustomed to doing that as to constitute New York a great international financial centre like London, in which the securities of foreign governments will be dealt in, I do not pretend to say. It will take probably a long ' time before that is accomplished. But the United States Government has been furnishing immense sums of money to the European countries, as I have said, in order that they might purchase foodstuffs and the goods required from the United States.
I think the amount loaned to Great Britain alone is between four and five billion dollars for commodities so purchased. That was not loaned in gold and shipped overseas; it was a credit given at Washington, and Great Britain by means of that credit purchased in the United States the goods she required. She wanted the goods, and she could not buy them unless she got that credit.
With regard 'to Rumania, I would ask hon. gentlemen to bear in mind that she could have kept out of the war. She came into it at a very critical period and made great sacrifices for the common cause- 1 am not prepared to say that many thousands of Canadian lives have not been saved lby the intervention of Rumania. If hon. gentlemen will look at the map of Europe they will see that Rumania, is a; great salient projecting into Austria-Hungary, exposed to attack on both front and flank-Bulgaria to the south,. Austria-Hungary to 'the north and west. Rumania risked her all in coming into this war, and she lost for the time being, but she made the sacrifice. Sentimentally, therefore, I do not think we should be quick to reflect too much upon the credit -of Rumania, devastated as she has been by the war, prosecuted by her in common cause with the Allies. Rumania is not so strong financially, of course, as Belgium and France, but she must be restored. Her fields have been devastated, her cattle carried off; and her people need food and clothing and agricultural implements. How are they going to get them? If they do not get food they will starve; if they do not get clothing the consequences will be serious from exposure; if they do not get agricultural implements their tillage cannot be restored. Rumania is a very rich country, rich in her fertile plains, her splendid forests and her great oil resources, and she will get upon her



feet rapidly once she gets a chance- Now, who is going to supply to Rumania the wheat to feed her population, the clothing to protect them from the elements, and the agricultural implements and railway equipment required for the restoration of their tillage and their transportation facilities? There is an opportunity there for some nation. The United States have seized that opportunity. Since the armistice, to say nothing of before, the United States have roamed Rumania $25,000,000-I ascertained that from Washington-and all that money is being spent in the United States.
Now, our Trade Commission in London approached Belgium, France and the other nations of Europe requiring supplies of various kinds of food and for the restoration of their countries, and ascertained that there was a splendid opening for business in the Balkans, the business that I have mentioned, good for the time being to keep our factories going and afford employment to our artisans and work people, and good in its promise for the future. Rumania, as I have said, could not purchase supplies in Canada unless a credit were established; neither could France, nor Belgium; and I pointed out that even England could not purchase unless we gave her credit. We gave a credit of $25,000,000 to Rumania; we gave a credit of $25,000,000 to Greece, whose future is of the brightest; we gave a credit of $25,000,000 to Belgium, and I believe she will speedily recover from the effects of the war. Belgium is a very rich country, and is now assured of protection by the League of Nations and by the interest which Great Britain and France notably have in the preservation of its integrity.


Rodolphe Lemieux: And France?


William Thomas White: With regard to France, I may repeat to my hon. friend what I said the other night. The first country that we approached, long before the armistice and immediately after, in relation to reconstruction business was France. The matter was taken up with the French representative at Washington, and it was taken up overseas directly with the French Government by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and Mr. Lloyd Harris, and also, I may say, by the Prime Minister; and we offered her a credit of-well, we put no limit to it. What I had in mind was a credit of from $50,000,000 to $100,000,000. No question arises of France's future. We offered her such a credit as she might require for purchases in Canada. But I

think the position of France is this, she has her own situation in regard to industries and employment, and very naturally she desires, to the extent of her ability, to do her own restoration through her own manufacturers and to give her own people employment. Consequently up to date she has not felt it necessary to avail herself of the offer of credit which I can again assure my hon. friend and this House it would have been a pleasure to us to extend to her for making purchases in this country. I have indicated all the credits that have been extended, with the exception of those which we have been giving to Great Britain and which we shall have to give. I assure the leader of the Opposition that no one will be more relieved than I shall when free markets are restored for wheat, flour, and all other commodities, so that men will carry on their business in the way they did in 1911. The hon. gentleman seemed to indicate that he thought- we were blameable because we do not do business now as we did in 1911. But he has overlooked one very important	consideration

something	for
which William Hohenzollern is responsible, not myself- and that is, the war. The reason why we have to do business in this way is that since 1911 we have had the war and we have not yet been able, as a country, to get back to the normal manner of doing business as my hon. friend described it. My own view is that as soon as industrial conditions permit, as soon as business can be done through the ordinary channels, the Dominion Government should not make any loans for the purpose of facilitating the sale of our products. The natural way is to have them taken care of through ordinary commercial and financial channels. What the Government has done it has done for two reasons: In the first place, to provide employment for those in Canada who would otherwise be out of work and to keep our factories going; and, in the second place, to extend the export trade of the country.
With regard to the -placing of orders, a point was raised the other night about commissions. I made careful inquiry of Mr. Lloyd Harris over there; he knows nothing of any commission paid in respect of the business. I also served notice upon the Trade Commission here that it was not necessary that commissions of any kind should be paid, and that no orders should be placed with firms that were paying commissions or remunerations to any outside of their own employees or organization. This business is obtained in London. The

agents of, say, 'the Rumanian Government know what they want. They deal there through the Canadian Trade Mission, and with the representatives of the various branches of Canadian manufacture. They bargain as to the prices to he paid, and they see the samples-our men are in competition with others who are competing for the same business-and then the order is placed through the Trade Commission here, which is officered by very capable and honourable men. It seems to me that we could not devise any better means of getting business for all the manufacturers of Canada than we have devised by the establishment of this Mission in London and of its complement, the Canadian Trade Mission here. It is easy to criticise, and it is hard to construct and create. But this organization which we have built up and which at the time of its inception had the commendation of the people of Canada-it was a very live question here-is to-day keeping thousands of people at work, is promoting the industry and the commerce of the country, and, 1 submit, should be commended by hon. gentlemen opposite when they get to understand it fully. At the head of our Trade Commission here is Sir Charles Gordon, a very able and honourable man, as the member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) said the other night. In London we have Mr. Lloyd Harris, who is well known, I think, to most members of this House. So far as I am aware, the Government's action is such as the Government should take at a time like this. Let us look forward to a period-I do not know how far distant; I hope not far distant-when the Dominion Government will not have to provide credits; thfen we shall have the benefit of all this connection that has been established with foreign countries. Our goods will get to be known, and an impetus will be given to all the industry of the country.
As to indebtedness on the part of one Government to another, that is usually a very honourable obligation of Governments and I have no doubt whatever that the advances which are being made by the Dominion Government, substantial sums as they are, will be repaid in due course, as soon as peace conditions permit these nations again to get upon their feet, and as soon as international exchange is restored.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the rate of interest charged ?


William Thomas White: We could have charged six, six and-a-half or seven per
1404	i
cent, but we are dealing with Governments and we did not think that it was dignified to charge an extortionate rate of interest. We charge them just the rate it costs to raise the money here-five and one-half per cent.


John Howard Sinclair: Most of these European countries are protective countries. Will the goods be subject to customs duties when they reach these countries?


William Thomas White: I cannot say as to that; but these goods are being purchased by Governments, and Governments could no doubt arrange to have them go in free of duty. Our relationship is not with individuals in these countries, but with Governments. For example, we give the Belgium Government a credit of $25,000,000, and Belgium is going to send a mission out here to purchase. The Belgian Government, having borrowed the money from us, and being, as I believe, entirely responsible, will use its credit in this country to purchase to the best advantage. I think the Hudson's Bay Company has been doing some buying for the Belgian Government. I believe that Greece also will send a mission here to purchase. Of the Rumanian credit, $5,000,000 is in wheat, another $5,000000 is in raw material-that has not yet been purchased-and the ' balance is in manufactured products, such as clothing, woollens, textiles, agricultural implements, and, I hope, some railway equipment; in other words, what they need in order to restore their country.
Hon. gentlemen may say that Canada is taking some risk in this matter. Well, let us assume that we are. Having regard to the situation in which the country found itself in November last, facing this collapse in its industries, Canada is abundantly justified in doing what the United States has been doing on an immense scale, and what Great Britain is doing. This war has caused so profound a dislocation in the world, in finance, commerce and industry, that if during this year, which, in a sense, is a war year, because we have the consequences of the war with us, we failed in courage or in resource, the situation would be different in Canada from what it is to-day. I do not believe hon. gentlemen, no matter how well informed they may be, quite appreciate what 'the Government's financing has done and is doing for this country to-day. If you take the gratuity which we gave the soldiers; if you take the payments to the soldiers that the Minister of Militia has referred

to; if you take our shipbuilding programme; if you take the immense expenditures we are obliged to make for the financing of our grain purchases and our manufactured products that I have mentioned- hundreds of dollars-and then imagine the situation if the Government on November 11 had said:	"Now we quit right here;
the war is at an end; no more credits for wheat or meats or manufactured products; let private enterprise carry on the business itself. Well, I would be taking a ticket out of the country, because I would not desire to face the situation which would have resulted. Imagine the activities of this country, stimulated as they were during .the war, keyed up to a height that none of us believed they could attain, and then everything suddenly stop. If the Government had not come to the rescue as they did, with courage and resource, and provide the credits we did, there would have been a very serious situation in Canada.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Does the minister include transportation charges in the credit?


William Thomas White: Of the $25,000,000 mentioned, there is a sum of $1,000,000, I think, for transportation. If my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) desires that this Bill should be taken up again to-morrow afternoon or evening, I have so much respect for his request that I will agree to it, and I do not think it will take very long to finish with the Bill- As regards the observations of the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. A. K. Maclean), who was Acting Minister of Marine and Fisheries, may make a brief statement, but I will direct the attention of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne) to them in order that he may take them up when his Estimates are under consideration. This is a general Bill; it follows the lines of the previous Bills, both as to drafting and otherwise, and it is for demobilization as the others were for war; and it seems that the matters referred to to-night, especially those referred to by the hon. member for Lunenburg, might very well be taken up on the Estimates.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There is no doubt the matters discussed by the hon. member for Lunenburg could be discussed on the Estimates; but I think when the Acting Prime Minister considers that he has himself admitted that the hon. member is quite in order in bringing them up on this Bill, it is on this Bill that the answer should be made, because when the minister comes along CSir Thomas White.]
with his Estimates, it will then be necessary for the hon. member to make his speech over again and put those facts before the minister in connection with another matter. We want to avoid that and to save time.


William Thomas White: The Minister of Marine and Fisheries is going into Estimates to-morrow afternoon and intends to make a statement on shipbuilding and to take up items on his Estimates. The minister will then be able to deal with the observations of the hon. member for Lunenburg and the passing of this Bill need not be delayed because of the observations of the hon. member. On Supply or on any money Bill, it is proper for grievances of any kind ,to be brought forward; it is not necessary that they should be answered unless they seem to be relevant in some way to the vote, but I am quite sure the Minister of Marine and Fisheries will be glad to speak to the observations of the hon. member for Lunenburg, and in the meantime, while I should like to get this Bill through, it ,can stand until to-morrow afternoon when ,we can take it up, and, I have no doubt, finish it quickly.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister was kind enough to direct his observations very largely to myself. He has not in any way cleared his Government from the responsibility of starting this new venture of opening credits in a foreign country with .which we never did any business before. We have done our share in connection with the war nobly and well, particularly as an ally of our Mother Country, and nobody is finding very much fault with any moneys that have been expended in that direction. But I say to the Acting Prime Minister that we are under no obligation to build up Rumania or any other country that might have of its own free will gone into the war and received some damage by reason of that fact. It is going too far to ask the Canadian people, who have not the money ,to spend, who have to borrow money for their own purposes, who cannot, by reason of the high cost of living and other matters, get all the money they require for their own purposes, to furnish this money; and the Acting Prime Minister is going too far in looking for sympathy and applause from his supporters to-night by saying that we are doing this in the generosity of our hearts and extreme loyalty in order to build up the finances df Rumania, because that country got into trouble with its neighbours and not because- of any loyalty to us.

I have no fault to find with advancing credits to Great Britain, France, Italy or Belgium because, if the Acting Prime Minister had the securities of those
12 p.m countries in his vault, he could easily raise money on them from	any	hank in this countryor in the United States. But the trade	that	we	went	after,	by and
through our Trade Mission, was the trade of a country whose securities are evidently not very good in this country, upon which securities the Acting Prime Minister cannot raise any money and which, as the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) stated, are being peddled about from bucket shop to bucket shop in London at much below par- What we should have done is to deal with Great Britain and France, and if Great Britain and France want to advance goods to those smaller powers who are under their control and who must pay for them or get into trouble, that would be good business. We could very well say to the British Government: We will give you all the credit you want; we will arrange that we send the goods to you, and you can deal with the smaller countries. We never had any dealings with those countries in the most prosperous days of Canada, and why should we now pass over the heads of France, Italy and Great Britain and seek trade with countries with which we have never dealt with before? That is the particular fault I have to find. It is stated that our Trade Mission and our Trade Ministers were so clumsy and slow and incompetent in securing trade that everything that was worth having was gone and they were glad enough at last to fall back on such trade as they could make with Rumania by offering Rumania the money. That is where the difficulty is. If our manufacturers were properly represented on the other side by live business men, they would have secured the orders that the United States manufacturers got, but we did not get them, and our representatives, in order to do something to justify their existence on the other side, had to make this masterful stroke of saying to Rumania: We will give you money if you will be kind enough to buy our goods. That is all they did for which they claim so much credit, and I do not think they have shown any great foresight or capacity because they have done that.
I want to be absolutely fair to the manufacturers. We have manufacturers in the part of the country from which I come, manufacturing rails and all kinds of structural steel. They got no help from the Government.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Will.the hon. member say what means were taken to provide the Steel Company at Sydney with orders .so that they could continue manufacturing steel rails?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The Minister of Railways found it proper, with a view to building three or four, or ten, thousand miles of railway next summer, to secure contracts for rails at a price below war prices. That is all that was done, and I am quite satisfied that any such a contract should be made with any manufacturer in the *country. The Nova Scotia Steel had to *send out their own agent to London and do the best they could to make contracts for themselves. Colonel Can'tley went to London representing the Nova Scotia Steel. The company got no help from any body. Some of their men had to be laid off for ,a couple of months because there was not enough work to keep things going; but they had good times during the war and they had to put up with the difficulties that came their way, without any help from the Government. If the Nova Scotia Steel and other concerns in the part of Canada from which I come have to forage for themselves and find a market for their product as best they can, I cannot understand why other concerns should not do the same thing.


Mr. DAVIDSON:: Is the hon. gentleman aware that Colonel Cantley was unable to get any contracts in England because of the difficulty of financing over there?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am not aware of any such difficulty. I am aware that while the men were idle for a while, they have now gone back to work and everything is going on first-class. The company did not get a cent of assistance from this Government or anybody else.


Avard Longley Davidson: Colonel Cantley was
not able to get any contracts overseas.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am not saying whether he was or not. I know he went over there to try and get contracts. I know that the steel works are now working on their own initiative without a dollar of assistance from this Government, and what they have done other concerns should be able to do. But no one will exert himself if the Minister of Finance is going to take the whole responsibility on himself and relieve him of all his difficulties. I am sure the Nova

Scotia Steel and the Dominion Iron & Coal and other concerns in Nova Scotia would he delighted to jump at such an opportunity as that, but they had to get along by themselves, and they got along fairly well, and I think that is a more healthy way of doing business in any country. I would suggest that at this late hour the Bill should stand.


William Thomas White: We will take it up to-morrow.


William Duff: When the resolution on which-this Bill is founded was before the House I asked the Minister of Finance when the Order in Council had been passed with reference to the Rumanian loan, -and he promised to give me the information. I already knew that an Order in Council had been passed, but the Prime Minister promised to get that information. A fortnight or three weeks have passed and the information has not yet been brought down as to when that Order in Council was passed granting a credit to Rumania. I understand it was passed only four or five days before the resolution was discussed in the House, but I should like to know the exact .date.


William Thomas White: I paid so much attention to the request of my hon. friend that I laid the Order in Council on the Table the next day. The Order in Council was passed as soon as the agreement signed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Prime Minister of Rumania came to hand. It could not be passed before that agreement had come to hand. I would not like my hon. friend to think I was guilty of any discourtesy.


William Duff: The minister must have laid it on the Table sotto voce. It is strange that the Government should pass an Order in Council granting a credit to Rumania when the people's representatives were assembled here in Parliament, and I wish to protest against any such action of the Government.


William Thomas White: The assistant clerk calls my attention to the fact that on the 11th of April, as I stated, I laid the Order in Council on the Table.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Hon. gentlemen laugh with great glee because the Order in Council was laid on the Table without the knowledge of a private member. I wish to say with .reference to laying Orders in Council on the Table, that that is no proper means of communicating information to

this House. I have complained about it dozens of times. Whenever an important Order in Council or .any important document is to be laid on the Table, a copy of it should be put in the box of every hon. member. We cannot hear a word in this House; I can hardly hear a word myself, and it is much worse for hon. gentlemen sitting behind. An Order in Council can be laid on the Table without any one being the wiser. We cannot always be standing over the clerk to see what is being laid on the Table. I repeat, when any information is laid on the Table of which hon. members should be made aware, a copy should be placed in every member's box, just as is done with the Estimates.
Progress reported.
On the motion of Sir Thomas White, the House adjourned at 12.15 a.m., Thursday.
Thursday, May 8, 1919.