1919-05-27

SENATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 96, to amend the Criminal Code so as to provide for the revision of excessive or inadequate punishments.-Mr. Tweedie.
Bill No. 120, for the relief of Eleanor Margaret Webster.-Mr. Cronyn. -
Bill No. 121, for the relief of Jean Donaldson Sifton-Mr. McMaster.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. G. W. ANDREWS (Centre Winnipeg) :: In view of the serious situation in my constituency, would the Prime Minister be good enough to state the Government's attitude with regard to "collective bargaining," which I am informed is the basic cause of the sympathetic strikes now on in Winnipeg?


Rt. Hon. Sir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime Minister):: If the hon. gentleman will permit me, I should like to give an answer to his question which will be more comprehensive than the strict scope of the question might demand. The Government are thoroughly conscious that there is throughout the world a condition of industrial unrest which in some countries has reached a very acute stage, and I am very sincerely hopeful that the condition in this country will not go so far. I might remind the hon. gentleman and the House generally that the Government some months ago had under consideration what might arise in this country in the change from war conditions to peace conditions, and by reason of the demobilization of some hundreds of thousands of men who putting aside- in a time of great need their civilian activities, had taken up military duties and served with great distinction for years in the world theatre of war. It was thought at one time that the return and demobilization of the Canadian forces would occupy at least a year, and, perhaps, longer. It was even suggested that it might take eighteen months or two years, but owing to very active and energetic measures the task of demobilization will be accomplished in a much shorter time. Having regard to all these conditions, the Government, during my absence, passed on the 4th day of April
181}
last an Order in Council by which authority was taken for the appointment of a Royal Commission to report to the Government on the following matters:-
First, to consider and make suggestions for securing a permanent improvement in the relations between employers and employees.
Second, to recommend means for ensuring that industrial conditions affecting relations between employers and employees shall be reviewed from time to time by those concerned, with a view to improving conditions in the future.
It was further provided in the Order in Council that the commission should first make a survey and classification of existing Canadian industries; secondly, that it should obtain information as to the character and extent of the organization already existing among bodies of employers and employees respectively; and, thirdly, that it should investigate available data as to the progress made by established joint industrial councils in Canada, Great Britain, and the United States.
Following that, on the 9th day of April last, these gentlemen were appointed to be members of the commission: Chief Justice Mathers, of Manitoba (Chairman); Senator White, of Montreal; Mr. Charles Harrison, M.P., a member of this House; Mr. Carl Riordon, president of the Riordon Pulp & Paper Company, Montreal; Mr. F. Pauze, lumberman, of Montreal; Mr. T. Moore, presiident of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada; and Mr. J. W. Bruce, of Toronto, member of the Labour Appeal Board.
These Orders were adopted upon a report to Council by Senator Robertson, Minister of Labour. This commission is still actively at work, and no doubt it will have to consider (if it has not already done so), and in the end report to the Government upon the particular question which my hon. friend (Mr. Andrews) has raised. He will therefore realize that any observations I may make in direct reply to his question must be in very guarded terms, although I shall have something to say about it in a few moments. The terms of the Order in Council did not necessitate, and on the other hand they did not preclude, legislation for the purpose of carrying out the report.
I have no doubt that in this country as well as in other countries tfhe stress and strain of the war have made the adjustment of difficulties between employers and employed more difficult than it would perhaps be under ordinary conditions. I do

not think there is one among us who has given any consideration at all to the subject, who will not agree that taking any nation as a whole whicfh has participated in the war-^including not only those men who have fought at the front but those who have remained at home and sought to do their duty there-the people are not quite the same, so far as imental poise and balance are concerned, as they were before the war.
I hope that both employers and employed will bear fully in mind the conditions I have alluded to, and especially the employers not overlook the principles which were adopted by all the nations represented in tlhe Peace Conference at -Paris, and which are included in the peace treaty as presented to the Germans.
I regard these principles as of sufficient importance to justify me in reading them, with the indulgence of the House:
The High Contracting Parties, recognizing that the well-being, physical, moral and intellectual, of industrial wage earners is of supreme international importance, have framed in order to further this great end the permanent machinery provided for in section 1 and associated with that of the League of Nations.
They recognize that differences of climate, habits and customs, of economic opportunity and industrial tradition, make strict uniformity in the conditions of labour difficult of immediate attainment. But, holding, as they do, that labour should not be regarded merely as an article of commerce, they think that there are methods and principles for regulating labour conditions which all industrial communities should endeavour to apply so far as their special circumstances will permit.
Among these methods and principles, the following seem to the High Contracting Parties to he of special and urgent importance :*-
First. The guiding principle above enunciated that labour should not he regarded merely as a commodity or article of commerce.
Second. The right of association for all lawful purposes by the employed as well as by the employers.
Third. The payment to the employed of a wage adequate to maintain a reasonable standard of life as this is understood in their time and country.
Fourth. The adoption of an eight hours day or a forty-eight hours week as the standard to be aimed at where it has not already been attained.
Fifth. The adoption of a weekly rest of at least twenty-fouir bourse which should include Sunday wherever practicable.
Sixth. The abolition of child labour and the imposition of such limitations on the labour of young persons as shall permit the continuation of their education and assure their proper physioal development.
Seventh. The principle that men and women should receive equal remuneration for work of equal value.
Eighth. The standards set by law in each country with respect to the conditions of labour should have due regard to the equitable

economic treatment of all workers lawfully resident therein.
Ninth. Each State should make provision for a system of inspection in which women should take part, in order to ensure the enforcement of the laws and regulations for the protection of the employed.
Without claiming that these methods and principles are either complete or Anal, the High Contracting Parties are of opinion that they aie well fitted to guide the policy of th.e League of Nations; and that, if adopted by the industrial communities who are members of the League, and safeguarded in practice by an adequate system of such inspection, they will confer lasting benefits upon the wage earners of the world.
Now, it has been alleged in some quarters that as regards the strike at Winnipeg the Government has taken sides. The Government lhas taken no sides in that dispute, except in so far as necessary executive action, to which I shall allude in a moment, may be looked upon in that light. I believe it will be obvious to all the members of the House, and, I hope, it will be equally obvious to all the people of Canada, that if the needs of the people as a whole are to be regarded we cannot have in this country a complete dislocation of public services founded upon sudh reasons as have been put forward by the postal employees of Winnipeg.
The Government of this country is in an entirely different situation from a private employer. The Government employs persons who are servants of all the people of the country. It differs from a private employer in many respects, but especially so in two important respects. In the first place, the duties for which public servants are employed have a direct relation to the maintenance of law and order and, as well, a direct relation to the operation of public services wihich are necessary for the convenience of the people. But in addition to that, it does not employ these people for any purpose of private gain or private interest; it is acting merely as the representative of the people as a whole, under the mandate, and only so long as it has the mandate of the majority of the people's representatives in Parliament. Therefore, certain considerations which .must obviously be taken into account in dealing with tlhe relations between a private employer and those whom he employs are utterly wanting when we come to consider the situation of persons who are employed in the public service. As the Government of the country has and can have no private interests to serve, inasmuch a3 it represents the people as a whole and acts under the authority of a mandate from

Parliament, by whom its acts can be corrected at any time, if -they seem to be improper or unjust, one would naturally suppose that in these circumstances the Government might be trusted to act fairly in respect of the remuneration of public servants and in respect of the conditions of their employment. But I should be prepared to go further than that and say that in appropriate cases the public servants of the country-persons usually known as members of the Civil Service-might ask for and obtain a sort of appeal against the Government of the country by arbitration or some such method; but always subject to final approval by Parliament, which is the ultimate authority so far as the Government is concerned.
In dealing with the situation at Winnipeg, there are certain fundamental considerations to which this Government is committed and which, I hope, will commend themselves to the people and to their representatives in this Parliament. In the first place, we are absolutely determined that law and order should be maintained; and, in the second place, we are of the opinion that members of the Civil Service cannot be permitted to disregard their public duties and to dislocate the public service under the conditions which have arisen in the city of Winnipeg.
On the one hand the Government directs them to discharge a public duty, a duty to the whole of the people of this country; on the other hand another authority directs them to disregard that duty. They must make their choice as to whether they will seirve the public as a whole, or whether, by disregarding that duty, they will abandon once for all the public service.
So far as "collective bargaining" is concerned, since my hon. friend who has asked this question spoke to me on the subject yesterday, I have made a good many inquiries as to precisely what that term convoys, and I am thoroughly satisfied that it has not any definite and final meaning which is recognized in all parts' of this country. I am further satisfied that in some parts of Canada, in some cities in this country, it may be understood by some persons in one sense, and 'by other persons m another sense. I want to make it perfectly plain that so far as my opinion goes, and I think it is the opinion of all the members of the Government, every possible facility should be given for discussion between employers and employed, and for the making of arrangements which will bring about industrial peace and maintain and
stabilize industrial conditions to the end that wasteful unemployment, used as a coercive measure, may be put to one side, and other methods-methods which must be so established as to do complete justice and remove any inequality-may be substituted in its place.
I should like to read, in this connection, the statement which has been made public by a minister of the Crown, Senator Robertson, and which is to be found in the morning press of this city. I knew Senator Robertson for some time before he came into this' Government, and I have known; him very intimately since he has been a member of the Government. No one can entertain the slightest doubt as to his absolute and complete sympathy with all the reasonable ideals of labour-there can be absolutely no doubt on that subject. No one who knows the man, or has been associated with him, can entertain the smallest atom of doubt as to his complete sincerity or as to his full sympathy with all the reasonable aspirations of labour. The statement which he has made public is this:
" Conditions for the right of collective bargaining which are stated *to be the cause of the Winnipeg strike seem to be generally misunderstood.
The employers, parties to the original dispute; the president of the Canadian Manufac-tui ers^ Association, and the Citizens' Committee as constituted since the strike occurred, all agree to the principle of collective bargaining as it is interpreted, namely, the right of any individual to -belong to a labour union if he so desires and the right of employees to bargain with their employers concerning matters affecting any individual plant or industry.
The central strike committee interprets tlhe right of collective bargaining to mean that the central body shall have the power to approve or reject any agreement that may be satisfactory to the employer or classes of employers and their employees, which, if granted, would have the result of enabling any central committee entirely outside the industry or craft affected to dictate the acceptance or rejection of any agreement In'stead of giving to the workmen in any individual -plant or industry the right of collective bargaining with their employers, the present plan deprives them -of the right -and places them entirely in the hands of a central -body, which principle, the Citizens' Committee of Winnipeg, Provincial and Federal Governments, agree cannot be accepted."
Now one can easily see that what is called the right of collective bargaining, if interpreted in a certain way and carried to an extreme length, might have an unfortunate effect so far as the public interest is concerned. More than that, as is suggested in this public statement, it might have the effect of placing labour men and labour unions themselves in such a situation that they could not make their own bargains except with the approval of some body that

might be situated thousands of miles away. Before the phrase "collective bargaining" is insisted upon, we ought to have, and we must have, an exact definition as to precisely what is intended by it and as to precisely what the results might be if that principle, so defined, should be adopted. On that point the Government will probably have suggestions or recommendations in the report of the Industrial Commission, which we hope to receive not later than the fifteenth day of next month. My hon. friend who has asked this question will realize that it would be out of place and, indeed, invidious for the Government to attempt, by way of anticipation, to pronounce upon questions which are properly within the scope of the duty imposed upon that commission.
I repeat once more that I hope in this country we may be able to arrange between employers and employed some understanding and such relations as will prevent the awful waste, the dislocation of public service, and what is worst of all, the intensely bitter feeling which is engendered by such incidents as are now occurring in some parts of the country.
The nations of the world have at Paris set about the task of establishing such a society as will prevent war in the future. Would it not be rather a mockery if the nations engaged in that greatest purpose [DOT]of all, should, in respect of their domestic -affairs, permit a condition to continue, and :to he perpetuated which, if it reaches the .-stage of a general strike, must obviously Involve the employment of some of the methods which are in use in modern warfare?
I most earnestly hope that the report of this commission, and appropriate action of the Government, may eventually bring about between employers and employed in Canada such better understanding, such more perfect realization of the viewpoint of one and the other, as will prevent incidents such as are now transpiring. If we cannot accomplish that all-important purpose in respect of our domestic affairs, there cannot be very much hope for that wider purpose which has been attempted in the constitution of the Society of Nations. In this country. we have a common citizenship; we live under the same form of government; we have the like ideals; we have practically the same aspirations; although sometimes different interests and sometimes prejudices may appear, but there ought to be a much more favourable condition for assuring industrial co-operation and peace in this country through the effort and co-operation 
of employers and employed fully realizing their responsibilities than is to be discovered in the foundations of the Society of Nations from which we confidently anticipate a great service to the world.
I do indeed hope that the strike at Winnipeg may be terminated amicably. I should also allude to what has taken place at Calgary and at Edmonton, and read the communications which have been addressed to the postal authorities in those cities. On the 24th instant the Postmaster General sent this telegram to the postmaster at Calgary:
Regret to learn everything points to sympathetic strike with Winnipeg on part of postal workers. Government considers such action wholly unwarranted and in violation of the plain duty of postal employees. The prompt handling of His Majesty's mails and the maintenance of the public postal service at this time is the first obligation of every employee under the Post Office Department. For euch employees to seek to embarrass or prevent the prompt handling of His Majesty's mails by a sympathetic strike is entirely incompatible with loyal service to the country and all postal employees joining in a sympathetic strike will be deemed to have resigned their positions in His Majesty's service and their places will be promptly fllledi All loyal employees will be supported and protected by the Government. Make known to. employees and keep Department promptly informed.
As far as Winnipeg is concerned, I should add that a report reached me, before coming to the (House, that seventy of the postal employees have returned to work, and that no difficulty has been experienced in filling the places of those who have not returned.	.


Mr. J. H. BURNHAM (Peterborough West):: I would like to ask the Acting
Minister of Labour a question that does not conflict at all with what has already been said. Is the Government taking steps to restore the balance between the cost of production and the cost of consumption in *Canada; or does it intend to leave that matter to be fought out by the people?


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: It is rather
difficult to answer so comprehensive a question. I can only repeat what I said a few days ago, that the cost-of-living officers of the Labour Department are daily engaged in watching the particular matter to which my hon. friend refers. In the course of a few days the Labour Estimates will be taken up and there will be opportunity then for discussing the matter at greater length than I can now go into it.


Sir SAM HUGHES:: Is that why eggs
are 70 cents a dozen?

IMr. MURPHY:	In connection with
the explanation the Right Hon. the Prime Minister gave to the House, may I ask the Right Hon. gentleman if he is in a position to state what proportion the postal employees on strike at Winnipeg bear to the total number of persons on strike there?


Robert Laird Borden: I am speaking
from memory when I say that those on strike in the postal service number between 500 and GOO.


Mr. MURPHY:: Does my hon. friend
know what proportion they bear to the total number on strike?
Mr. A. K. (MACLEAN:	As five or six
hundred is to twenty-five thousand.


Charles Murphy: It is a mere fraction.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.
Mr. 'MURPHY:	So the explanation of
my right hon. friend relates to a mere fraction, and not to the vast majority of the people on strike.


Robert Laird Borden: I endeavoured
to cover the whole situation. My explanation as to the number of people who have returned to work obviously referred to the postal employees.


Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (Cape Breton North):: The right hon. the leader of the
Government has given us the result so far as between the postal authorities and their employees and that 70 of the latter had gone back to work. Would the Prime Minister be able to give us any idea as to what progress is -being made in regard to a settlement of the general strike? What negotiations are going on in that behalf?
iSir ROBERT BORDEN:	I can only tell
my hon. friend that possibly later in the day we may have some more detailed information to lay upon the table of the House. For the present, I must confine myself to saying that the news we have received this afternoon is of a distinctly reassuring character.


Charles Murphy: Before asking any
further 'questions, Mr. Speaker, may I point-out that, as my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance, would say, certain members of the Government are not synchronizing. Yesterday afternoon I inquired what information the. Government had with reference to the strikes that were said to be pending at Calgary, Edmonton, and other places in the West. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean), -speaking on behalf of the Government, said: "There is no official information as to the probability of a strike in Calgary and other places in the West." That statement was made, although the Ottawa Evening Journal published that afternoon the following item of news on its front page:
It is understood that the Ottawa (Ministers have received formal notification of the threatened action in the western cities.
That afternoon my right hon. friend read certain telegrams that passeu on -Saturday last, the 24th inst., from the Postmaster General, a member of the Cabinet, regarding these strikes. Now I would like to ask my hon. friend (Mr. A. K. Maclean) whether the Postmaster General is likely to have any other information on these matters that he has not communicated to my hon-. friend or to the other members of the Government?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: My answer was
perfectly correct. My hon. friend asked me if a strike had actually occurred in certain cities of the West. In reply, I stated that there was no official information up to that time that there actually was a strike. Of course, I knew that a strike was probable, as indeed the papers actually stated threats had been made to that end.


Charles Murphy: My hon. friend said the Government had no information as to the probability of a strike.	.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not remember the word "probability."



GEORGIAN BAY CANAL.

Mr. JOSEPH ARCHAMBAULT (Chambly and Vercheres):: I would call the attention of the Government to an important resolution introduced in the United States Senate by Senator King, of Utah, regarding the Georgian Bay canal. I read from the Associated Press despatch.
The resolution proposes that the waterway be constructed by way of Lake Nipissing and the Ottawa river, and that costs be paid by Canada and the United States jointly. It also would -authorize the United Stated to acquire a port on the southern 'bank of the St. Lawren-ce, opposite Montreal.
I would like to know if the Government is aware of such a resolution, and if it is their intention to co-operate with the United States Government regarding the construction of such an important canal -that would benefit the whole country?


Robert Laird Borden: The Government has no official information on the subject. As far as co-operation is concerned, from what my hon. friend has read, I do not

think there is any intimation that the United States Government would be prepared to co-operate. I can only say at the moment that we shall ascertain just what the proposal is and give it our consideration.



EIGHT-HOUR DAY.

Mr.   W@: I noticed a report in the press a few days ago that as one means of abating the unrest in the country it is the intention of the Government to bring down legislation to enact an eight-hour day. I would like to ask whether such is the case?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is not within the legislative jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada to enact such legislation.



MILITIA PENSION ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
COMPULSORY retirement of officers AND MEN.
On motion of Major-General MEWBURN (Minister of Militia and Defence), Bill No. 118„ to amend the Militia Pension Act, was read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir THOMAS WHITE (Minister of Finance) to go into Committee of Supply:
Sir EDWARD KEMP (Minister of the Overseas Military Forces):: Mr. Speaker,
I ask the indulgence of the House for a short time in order that I may have an opportunity to make a statement with reference to the administration of the overseas military forces of Canada. I was obliged to go across the water before the elections took place in 1917; and in making a few observations on the subject to which I have referred I ask the indulgence of the House the more readily because of the fact that I was unable to take my place in the House last session, and also because I have not taken up very much of the time of the House this session.
When in 1914 we decided to participate in the war to the last man and the last dollar, I fancy that none of us, none of the people of this country, fully realized what the obligation we then assumed really meant. We did not hesitate; we did not stop to bargain; the one point which was uppermost in the minds of all was: What would happen- to the world; what would happen to the Empire; what would happen to

Canada, if Germany could force her will upon the world, as she intended to do? But Germany was unable to carry out her scheme to change the map of the world. It is the intention, I understand, of the Peace Conference so to change the boundaries of European countries as to make it impossible for all time to come for any European nation to undertake, with any hope of success, such an enterprise as Germany entered upon.
I venture to say that few of Canada's soldiers, who enlisted -so readily and with so much enthusiasm, particularly in the earlier days of the war, anticipated that they would be away from their homes so long or that they would he subjected to such privations, such hardships, and such sacrifices as overtook them. Neither did we expect that we would require to send such a large force overseas. If any one had predicted in the early days of the war that we should send 50,000 or 100,000 men overseas, -the estimate would have been considered a large one. Yet we have sent overseas irr all 420,913 of the best blood and sinew of Canada.
This, however, does not by any means represent the whole effort of this country. Many things were done by the people-the House is familiar with them-to help win the war. I shall no! attempt this afternoon to enumerate -them; in- fact, I would be unable to do so, because these efforts were so varied and branched out into so -many different directions and had such a far-reaching effect in bringing about a successful -conclusion of the war, that it would he an impossibility to state them in detail.
It is desirable, Mr Speaker, that the people of Canada should familiarize themselves as much as possible with the activities of Canada's army while it was overseas. I realized some time ago that it would be an almost hopeless task for me, as a minister of the Crown representing the -Canadian Government overseas, to convey to the people a picture which would accurately represent the activities of our army across the water. After the armistice came about on the 11th of November, we commenced to get out a report on the subject, and we succeeded in having that report completed. We could not do very much work on the report before the armistice, because the officers and men who were in a position to assist in the work were fully occupied. I had' the honour of laying this report on the table of the House a couple of weeks ago. While it is a large volume, comprising over 500 pages, 1 think it is fair to say that the volume could have

been much larger-indeed, that there might have been two or three volumes just as large-and yet contain, without padding, matters of very great interest in connection with the overseas forces. My task today is to touch upon, as briefly as I can, a few of the most important points in which I think the public may be interested; of course, I cannot do more than touch upon the fringe of the subject.
At the request of the Prime Minister, I went to England in November, 1917, to accept the position of Minister of the Overseas Military Forces of 'Canada. I accepted the position, with some misgivings, knowing to some extent what the responsibilities were. I realized the difficulty involved in being so far from the seat of Government and from the people of Canada, and of explaining to the people and to my colleagues the necessity for such action as was required from time to time in connection with the carrying on of the war. In fact, from first to last it has been difficult to convey to the people an explanation of the many necessary things that had to be done.
The war was conducted on a tremendous scale. It was difficult for the people of Great Britain to understand the many things that had to be done. The war was, you might say, one surprise after another to the people of Great Britain, and perhaps more so to the people of Canada, who were so far removed from the scene of hostilities. I do not know that any one has prophesied what the effect would be upon Canada of sending such a large part of our population on this mission overseas, of holding these men in restraint, of subjecting them to military discipline for such long periods.
No one, it seems to me, has carefully studied the effect which this phase of our participation in the war will ultimately have upon Canada-in fact, the effect which it is having upon Canada to-day-or the political effect, using the word "political" in its broadest sense-which it will have upon this country. It would be well for us to stop, to consider, to reflect upon the difficulties which we shall have to face in the future in relation to the great task which we undertook under the obligation which we entered into in connection with the war.
The soil of Belgium and of France will always be sacred to Canadians, particularly to those whose loved ones lie there. But out of 420,913 men whom we sent overseas, 364,599 are alive; and for that we should
be duly thankful. We rendered great ser-" vice in the war; our achievements were great. Surely we may hope that this magnificent country will reap some benefit from these sacrifices, aside from the benefit which comes from our having helped to win the war. Surely we may hope that the result will be to make Canada a better country to live in; to make our people a better people, if that be possible.
It is not my intention this afternoon to attempt to deal with the operations of the Canadian corps at the front, because in the titne at my disposal it would be impossible for me on the floor of this House to do justice to the magnificent way in which our soldiers conducted themselves in active service. From time to time in the press a record has been given of the operations that were carried out, and in the report which I placed on the table of the House, there is a lengthy record of the operations of the Canadian corps during the last one hundred days of the w;ar, which period constituted its crowning effort. The report to which I refer is a preliminary one in the view of General Currie, who was chiefly responsible for it, and who had it written. I understand from General Currie that he has some one now engaged on writing a complete history of the operations of the Canadian corps in the war, including the last one hundred days, and that history will be available at a later date.
The tasks of the Canadian corps were most difficult; the Canadian Corps was always to be found where the fighting was most fierce; and by its valour, patience and skill it brought renown to Canada; its record will endure for all time in the history not only of Canada, but of the world. Its commander, General Currie, has made a high place for himself in history; he measures up to a proud standard as compared with other great generals of the war; he was ever considerate of the men under him, and always exercised patience and foresight in dealing with iprohlems which came before him.
Demobilization is the question which is particularly before the people of this country at the moment in connection with the overseas forces, and I intend to take this question up a little later on, but before doing so, I should like to mention certain matters connected with the administration of the Canadian overseas forces before the armistice.
The question as to what control is exercised over Canadian troops at the front, and

in fact over all our overseas forces abroad, has always been one of interest to hon. members, and it has been frequently referred to on the floor of this House. The inquiry has often been made: Were they under British or Canadian control; or, what was the control? As regards Canadian soldiers in training in the British camps, the control, so far as Canada was concerned, was perfectly satisfactory; we controlled them completely. As regards the Canadian corps, and Canadian troops in France outside of the corps, the situation was somewhat different, and when I went overseas I found that that particular part of our relations with the British authorities had not been so well defined as I-should have liked. I, therefore, took the question up with the Secretary of State for War and with Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig at the front, and I had several conferences on that particular subject. We found that recommendations for promotion and advancement, recommendations for new establishments and organizations and many other things which had no particular reference to immediate military operations, were sometimes delayed by going in a roundabout way from general headquarters in France to the War Office, and from there to Canadian headquarters in London. We accordingly devised .a scheme of having, at general headquarters in France, a Canadian section, through the establishment of which the Government of Canada got as closely as possible in touch with the commander-in-chief of the British armies in France, and it was arranged that all matters in connection with Canadian soldiers, except those having for their end military operations, would be referred to this section, and that this section would com4 p m. municate direct with Canadian headquarters in London for final approval. At first the British authorities demurred in respect to this organization, but after it was formed and began working, it proved to be a success, and they were grateful that it was established, because it enabled the Canadian representative at general headquarters in France, namely, General Embury, to have conferences with different officers under Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig and to get together a staff which was desirable and necessary.


Charles Murphy: Who composed that
section?


Albert Edward Kemp: General Embury was the head of the section. He organized the section, and his work proved very successful. General Embury has been ap-
[Sir Edward Kemp.1
pointed a judge of the Supreme Court of Saskatchewan.


Charles Murphy: Were there any other members?


Albert Edward Kemp: Yes, there was a regular staff including a representative of the Adjutant-General, a representative of the Quartermaster-General, a representative of the Director of Medical Services and representatives of the other branches.


Charles Murphy: The minister has not the
names at the moment?


Albert Edward Kemp: 
Mr. DEVLIN:: Were these men acting on the Council purely from patriotic motives or were they paid a salary?


Albert Edward Kemp: The men whose names I have mentioned are the members of the staff and are the heads of different branches of the service at headquarters. They receive the regular pay of officers, but most of them were engaged in professional or business life in Canada before the war, and they sacrificed the earnings from their professions or business from patriotic motives.
The Chief .of the General Staff, Sir Richard Turner, and his immediate staff was responsible for the training in Great Britain. It might interest the House if I refer briefly to certain loans of officers to the Imperial authorities for special duties in connection with what was known as the Mesopotamia party, the North Russia party, including the Archangel and Murmansk Forces, the Palestine party, and as instructors for the American Army. In January, 1918, the British Government asked us to loan them certain officers and non-commissioned officers to proceed to Mesopotamia. Fifteen officers and twenty-seven non-commissioned officers were selected from the Canadian forces and left England during 
the same month. These men were sent out for the purpose of training and organizing an army of the natives to the north and northeast of the area where the British forces were operating at that time, to help the British meet the Turkish forces. Only 14 of this party remained to be returned to England at the end of March, 1919, tand I think by this time all have been returned.


Mr. POWER:: Can the minister give us any information as to the instructions that were given to the men that went to Mesopotamia? I understand they went on a very, very secret mission.


Albert Edward Kemp: It was a very
secret mission. The British authorities sent out a iconsiderable number of men, and we sent the force I have mentioned, which formed only a small proportion of the total force, for the purpose of training the Armenians and other nationalities occupying the territory to the east and northeast of where the British forces were operating, in the direction of the Caspian Sea. A very mixed race occupies that territory, and it was for the purpose of organizing them if possible into an auxiliary force that these men were sent out.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Is it true that the officers were obliged to pledge themselves not to communicate with their relatives for a period of one year or more?


Albert Edward Kemp: I could not say as to that; I do not think any special instructions of that kind were given. All telegrams and mail were subject to the censorship, and the officers and soldiers become pretty familiar with the rules and regulations, and as a general rule do not try to break them. The men in Mesopotamia were volunteers, as were also those in North Russia, at Archangel and Murmansk. The Archangel force was composed of specially selected personnel of five officers and eleven other ranks; the Sixteenth Brigade Canadian Field Artillery consisted of eighteen officers and 478 other ranks, and in the special mobile force on the Murmansk coast there were eighteen officers and seventy-four other ranks, making a total of forty-one officers and 563 other ranks. Archangel harbour I believe is still frozen, and on the Murmansk coast, which lies to the west the men are engaged in holding the Murman peninsula and railway which reaches to the all-year open port on the Arctic ocean. We intend to get thqse men back to England and to Canada as soon as possible.

Our men have been the backbone of that expedition, because they were physically fit and understood their work, and I have no hesitation in saying that they were the best of the troops sent there. There were a great many thousands sent there, including British, French, and American troops. Then in the summer of 1918 volunteers were called for a bridging party to Palestine, and six officers and 250 other ranks proceeded, all of whom have been returned.
There has been an impression abroad, and I have heard some echoes of it, that officers whose duties called them to carry on work in England tried to remain there as much as possible in areas where training was going on and where other necessary work preparatory to going to the front was being done. It is alleged that these men preferred to remain in England rather than to go to the front. This impression is entirely erroneous. Opt of 1,000 officers I do not think you will find one who did not prefer service at the front, rather than in England, particularly in London. Soon after I took office I instituted a policy with respect to the exchange of officers between England and France, which resulted in a continuous circulation of officers between the two countries, no matter what positions the men occupied, unless under special circumstances where one or two might be found to be of greater service in England.
During the period we have been at war it is gratifying to record that our soldiers have been awarded 17,000 medals, honours, and awards, including 53 Victoria Crosses, 1,885 Military Crosses, 19 Distinguished Flying Crosses, 1,204 Distinguished Conduct Medals, and 6,610 Military Medals.


Mr. GRIESBACH:: You say that there were 17,000 decorations. Do those which you have enumerated comprise that number?


Albert Edward Kemp: Looking at the figures here, I do not think they make that total. However, the official record is that the forces of Canada, since the time they first went into action, were awarded upwards of 17,000 medals and honours, in the proportion I have mentioned. The figures as they are here do not lend themselves to addition, but I do not think they total 17,000. I see that the Distinguished Service Order is omitted from this, also C.B.'s and C. M. G.'s so I presume that may account for the difference. However, I can get that information for my hon. friend.
After it was decided by the Government to grant a liberal gratuity to soldiers, particularly those who had served overseas, it
became apparent to us that it would be necessary to have some regulation with respect to discharges in England. The matter had always been more or less under restraint, but it was felt that there would be an anxiety on the part of soldiers-and indeed it was soon manifested after the armistice-to get home and be demobilized. So that in order that we might deal justly with all soldiers who wished to be demobilized in England, we embarked on a policy, and the conditions on which a Canadian soldier may be demobilized in England under that policy are that:
(a)	He was born in the British Isles.
(b)	He has no dependents in Canada.
(c)	He has dependents or relatives in the British Isles in such circumstances as warrant his retention there for financial or domestic reasons.
(d)	He has a bona fide offer of employment or has independent means of support irrespective of any pay or gratuity payable by the Government.
In that way, we were able to discharge those soldiers in England who justly could not be asked to come back to Canada, but it did not lead to a wholesale discharge of Canadian soldiers in England, nor could soldiers be demobilized out of their turn.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Do those soldiers lose then-war service gratuity?


Albert Edward Kemp: No, they do not. A matter of great importance to the Canadian people at the moment is the desire of relatives and others to see the graves of men who have been buried in France and Belgium, and I have received a great many applications for passes bo visit these graves. Shortly before I left England I paid a visit to France and Belgium to see for myself what waS the condition of the graves of our soldiers there, and I think it might be well to explain to the House what the situation is.	.
Those who have lost relatives in the war derive a great deal of comfort and consolation in being able to visit the graves of their dead, and as time grows on such a pilgrimage will become increasingly the custom. On the 13th of April, 1917, an organization known as the Imperial War Graves Commission was constituted by resolution passed by the Imperial War Conference, which consists of a large number of representative men. Canada's representative in that organization is the High Commissioner for Canada, Sir George Perley. There are 160,000 isolated graves on the battlefields of France and Belgium, and the total number of graves of British soldiers

in those areas is comprised as follows: United Kingdom, 452,730; Canada, 43,631; Australia, 35,131; New Zealand, 11,393; South Africa 4,450; South African Native Labour Corps, 535; Newfoundland, 888; India natives, 5,665; and British West indies, 956. This represents a total of British graves in France and Belgium of 555,379.
There are, as I have said, a hundred and sixty thousand isolated graves on the battlefields of France and Belgium, and for some time before the armistice was signed, and ever since that date, soldiers from the Dominions of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and Imperial soldiers, have been exhuming the bodies of the soldiers in those graves, and placing them in cemeteries. I am glad to say that Canada has done her full duty in this respect, and I believe Australia has also. I fancy that the British authorities have had more difficulty in carrying out their duty in this regard, owing to the fact that there were a far larger number of bodies of British soldiers than of overseas soldiers buried in these isolated graves. I would like to say that we have 'a corps of approximately six or seven hundred soldiers who since the armistice have devoted themselves to the work of exhuming bodies and placing them in regularized cemeteries. That duty fell largely to the soldiers who came over to Great Britain under the Military Service Act. It is greatly to their credit that they were willing to do this work and that they have done it faithfully and well. About the time I visited France the intention was to relieve these men of the work, and call for volunteers to take their places from the soldiers who were in England and had come over under the Military Service Act, promising them that they would not be detained any longer on account of this work, and that they would be demobilized when their turn came and their time would be occupied while they were awaiting demobilization. I have since been told that the thousand men that were asked for readily came forward and have since been sent over to France and are carrying out this duty. A great many of the cemeteries which I have visited were in excellent condition; others were not in such a good state. I fancy that after the soldiers have all returned from France it will be necessary, in some way or other, to employ civilian labour to assist in carrying on this work.
As any one who has studied the question at all will realize, the disposition of the property and equipment belonging to the Canadian Government was one of consider-

able concern to myself and to the members of the staff in England. In time of war, and when the fighting has ceased, especially in the case of this particular war, considerable quantities of stores are piled up, and when hostilities are at an end they are of very little value indeed. They are in such tremendous quantities that they constitute a burden; there is no place in which to store them and if they are left out in the open they Tust and decay. We had to take this question up and see what was the best thing to do under all the circumstances.
In the first place we had a considerable surplus of ordnance stores-clothing, equipment, and all the articles that the soldier uses and wears, and that are necessary to the carrying on of war

which run into thousands of different things. About the month of July last, or at any rate several months before the signing of the armistice, I felt that the time must come when we would have to face this question, and the Government would be under considerable loss unless some system for the disposition of these stores was organized. Therefore, I communicated with the Secretary of State for War with respect to it. We had, for instance in connection with ordnance stores, in England a corps of about six hundred men to attend to these stores. I asked the Secretary of State for War if the Imperial authorities would take these stores over and allow us the value. Then we would draw our supplies from the Imperial ordnance stores, and release the six hundred men referred to for other duties, or release them altogether. After considerable negotiations the proposition was assented to, valuators were put on the work, and stock was taken. When the armistice was signed on November 11th last, the transaction had been practically completed and a good deal of work had been done upon it. It was not, however, altogether closed, and it looked to me at one time as though the situation would take on a different aspect. However, as we were dealing with the Imperial Government, and as negotiations had so far advanced and so much work had been done, they took over our ordnance stores in England amounting in value to several million dollars, and allowed us one hundred cents on the dollar for them, with the exception of a few things which had deteriorated, and which we valued at from fifty to eighty-eight or ninety cents on the dollar. Accordingly that amount of money will be on credit with the Imperial Government to us against any in-

debtedness, or we will get the cash for the articles, in accordance with whatever adjustment may be made.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: When the minister
speaks of being allowed one hundred cents on the dollar, does he mean the valuation that the appraisers made of the stores, oj; the cost of them to the Dominion Government?


Albert Edward Kemp: I mean the value if we bought the stores from the Imperial ordnance stores of Great Britain; the figure they would charge us when we needed such stores; the price which they had fixed by valuation.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am afraid the minister did not understand my question. In stating that he obtained a valuation of one hundred cents on the dollar, does he mean the value of the stores he had on hand, based upon what those stores cost the Dominion Government, or the appraisement put upon them by the officials of the Imperial Government?


Albert Edward Kemp: 
Lawrence Geoffrey Power: How is the purchase money being paid?


Albert Edward Kemp: We are taking the debentures of the Belgian Government at five per cent interest. The debentures are due in ten years, but the Belgian Government has the right to liquidate at any time within that period if it so desires.
There is another question in connection with the matter of equipment, and it relates to property in France. We had accumulated a tremendous amount of property in France in the way of transport, transport vehicles, field guns, and everything that goes to equip an army.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: Rails?
iSir EDWARD KEMP:	Rails are not included in these stores. They were supplied by the British field authorities.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I understood that rails were also supplied by the Canadian Government. .


Albert Edward Kemp: I remember the
debates in this House on that question. I should imagine that those rails were sold to the Imperial Government. But that is not a matter that came to my attention at all. How to deal with the enormous equipment was a very difficult-.problem, because, as I have said, we had no place to store it. Therefore we entered into an arrangement with the Imperial authorities whereby they took over all this material from us, and we delivered it to them in France and Belgium at specified points. Some of this material we require in Canada. We have the privilege of drawing from Imperial stores in England material of a similar quality to that delivered in France as soon as we asertain what we require here and can find transportation for it from Great Britain.


Charles Murphy: When such sales or purchases are made as the hon. gentleman has indicated, where are the accounts kept; in

England or in 'Canada? And if any money passes, who is the custodian of it?
'Sir EDWARD KEMP: General Ross, the Paymaster General in England, takes charge of the finances. The money passes direct from Government to Government.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: In connection with the
taking over of these stores by the Imperial authorities, is any rental being paid to the Canadian Government for the use of rails or for any other equipment that is now in the possession of the Imperial Government?


Albert Edward Kemp: As I explained
a moment ago, the question of rails is one that did not come under my notice at all. These transactions are direct between the British Government and the Canadian Government.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Is any rental paid for any other equipment which is now in the possession of the Imperial Government awaiting decision of this Government as to its disposal?


Albert Edward Kemp: It is stored in
British Government buildings. We are not paying any rental.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Are the Imperial authorities making any use of it?


Albert Edward Kemp: No. The equipment comprises guns and equipment for the most part-not material that is useful in peace times.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What share have we of the war trophies?


Albert Edward Kemp: 
Rodolphe Lemieux: Has my hon. friend any suggestion to offer as to the location of those trophies?


Albert Edward Kemp: An organization, headed by Dr. Doughty of the Archives, has been formed here for the purpose.


William Antrobus Griesbach: Will all war trophies captured by our forces become the property of the Canadian Government?


Albert Edward Kemp: That is the intention.


William Antrobus Griesbach: What will the trophies amount to in round numbers, that is, field guns, trench mortars and machine guns?


Albert Edward Kemp: I have here only a -statement of those trophies which have already been shipped to Canada; others are in process of being removed from France to England, and they have not all been received in England yet; but in a very short time we will know exactly what we have got.
Early in 1918 the British authorities requested that the organization of the Canadian corps be somewhat changed. Owing to casualties-, the British army had been so xeduced in numbers that they had either to cut down the number of men in a division or reduce the number of infantry brigades in a division. They decided to reduce the number of infantry brigades in a division. That was done I believe in the German army as well as in the British. We
were asked to do likewise, but after giving the matter very careful consideration it was thought desirable not to agree to the proposal, but to maintain our organization of four divisions, three brigades to a division, and four battalions to a brigade. The idea was to break the Canadian corps up into six small divisions instead of four large, strong divisions. It was thought that the Canadian corps had rendered such splendid service under its existing organization that it would be a great mistake to accede to the request of the Imperial authorities. It was thought better to try to strengthen the corps, if possible, in other ways. The adding of 100 infantrymen to each of the 48 battalions was one method we adopted for strengthening the Canadian corps. We strengthened it also by the introduction of many other units for which there was no corresponding unit in the British army. Besides the disadvantage o^f the effect upon the morale of the Canadian corps which would be brought about by such a change as was suggested, the expense would have been tremendous.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Were our four divisions
equivalent in rifle power to six British divisions?


Albert Edward Kemp: I think so, quite, at that time. The change would have necessitated six new brigade staffs, two new divisional staffs, one additional corps staff and possibly something in the nature of an army staff to direct the two corps, all of which would have involved great expense and a heavy drain upon the available supply of trained staff officers. So that we decided to keep the corps as it was and strengthen it as I have explained. We have since had no reason to regret having adopted that course.
Another thing we always aimed at was to keep the Canadian corps together. It required a good deal of negotiating at times to prevent one or more divisions from being taken out of the corps and placed in some other part of the line. I frequently approached the War Office and the -Secretary of -State for War on this subject; on'more than one occasion I spoke to Sir Douglas Haig about it. I had the pleasure and the honour of speaking to Marshal Foch with regard to it, at a time when he was anxious for reinforcemenfe. I -told bjim that if he wanted reinforcements from Canada he should not break up the Canadian corps and in a case of emergency place a division twenty, forty, fifty or a hundred miles



away from the corps. I assured him that the best results would be obtained if the Canadian corps was kept intact. Through the representations of 'General Currie and his officers to general headquarters, supplemented by anything we oould do in England, we managed to keep the corps pretty well together, except on that occasion when the Second Division had to go down the line and was kept away longer than we desired.


William Antrobus Griesbach: The action of the British authorities in moving a division about arose out of their policy of regarding the division as the unit of manoeuvre; it was not through any desire to move the Canadians about improperly. In the Canadian corps, however, it was dsired to keep *the four divisions together under the corps.


Albert Edward Kemp: Whatever the
reasons may have been; whatever the conditions were from their standpoint, we always took the ground that it was desirable to keep the Canadian corps intact, not to move one division after the other away from time to time.
The Canadian Cavalry Brigade, which brought such credit to Canada, did not come under General Currie or the corps; it was a separate organization and operated with the British cavalry in France. General J. E. B. Seely, a very distinguished officer, a member of the British Parliament, and formerly Secretary of State for War was the first commander of the Canadian Cavalry Brigade. But the time came when we embarked upon the same policy with regard to the Cavalry Brigade as we had adopted with regard to all other establishments and units-that of placing a Canadian officer in charge as soon as a competent one was available. In this case the command was given to Brigadier General R. W. Paterson, D.S.O., of the Fort Garry Horse. The Canadian Cavalry Brigade was composed of the Royal Canadian Dragoons, Lord Strathcona's Horse, Fort Garry Horse, Royal Canadian Horse Artillery, Machine-gun Squadron, Cavalry Field Ambulance and Mobile Veterinary Section.
I would like to say this with regard to General Seely. His services were greatly appreciated; his record was one of great credit to him in connection with the Canadian Cavalry Brigade. The reason why General Paterson was made commander of the brigade was because it was our policy to place Canadian officers in charge of such units in all cases where they were available.

I should like to say a word with regard to the air force. More than eight thousand Canadians1 have held commissions in the Imperial Air Force. As the burden of the fighting and the danger falls almost entirely on officers, this is a record of which Canada may well be proud.
Mr. 'McMA'STER: How many were in the Imperial Air Force altogether, and what proportion were Canadians?


Albert Edward Kemp: I have not the figures at hand, but we could secure them. The question of what the proportion was has always interested me. At one time I was under the impression from figures which I received that about thirty per cent of the officers in the Imperial Air Service were Canadians. I am still under the impression that the percentage was at least quite twenty-five per cent; it may have been fully thirty per cent. As soon as it was possible for me to take the question up I discovered that it was desirable that we should have some better control of the record of these Canadians in the Royal Air Force and in the Royal Naval Air Service. I negotiated with Lord Weir, Minister of the Air 'Service, and we succeeded in obtaining important concessions with regard to records. The Canadian officers in the Royal Air Service are classified as follows:
1.	Officers seconded or attached to the
R.F.C., it.X,A.S., and R.A.F. up to December 31, 1918	 1,239
2.	Other ranks of the Overseas Military
Forces of Canada transferred to the aibove from June 1, 1916 to December 31, 1918	 2,721
3.	Cadets enlisted in Canada by the Imperial Authorities and despatched
to the above Services	 4,280
Total	 8,240
These were transferred to or enlisted direct by the British authorities in the Royal Air Force.
I might, perhaps, say just a word as to the repatriation of these young men. Those that were seconded from us to the Royal Air Force came back to us and were repatriated with our forces. The young men enlisted in Canada in the Royal Air Force, and also a certain number wbo were transferred outright to the British authorities, did not come back to our forces, and they are the young men who, it has been stated in the press, have not been able to get steamer accommodation to return to Canada. It is the responsibility of the Imperial Government to repatriate these officers. However, we did all we could to get steamer accommodation for them, but when

50,000 of our own troops are being returned monthly, it is impossible to accommodate everybody and somebody has to wait. We have been able -to transport 1,000 of them to Canada recently, but I should not like to say that that does not mean that some of our troops have been held back a little.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: By whom were these officers paid?


Albert Edward Kemp: Officers who were enlisted in Canada toy the British authorities and officers transferred outright by us were paid by the British, but officers, seconded by us to the British were paid by Canada.
iMr. POWER: Does that include flying pay?


Albert Edward Kemp: It includes everything.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: We pay the full pay?


Albert Edward Kemp: We pay the full pay if they are seconded by us. We finally succeeded in getting the British Minister of Air to furnish us with the following information regarding Canadians in the Royal Air Force:	.
1.	The Royal Air Force agreed to furnish the minister with a nominal roll of Canadians in the Royal Air Force, and to advise him from time to time of all accretions to and deductions from it.
2.	All Canadians in the Royal Air Force were to be peimiitted to wear a Canadian badge either on their shoulder straps or on their sleeve.
3.	It was agreed to give Canadians representation on the Royal Air Force Headquarters and Staff.
4.	A monthly statement of the exploits of Canadian airmen was to be furnished to the minister, with a view to its dissemination to the Canadian public.
5.	It was agreed in principle that Canada should have a Flying Corps of her own, which, while distinct in its organization and administration, would form part of the Royal Air Force for the purpose of operations in the field:
I should now like to take up for a moment the matter of the Canadian Air Force. It was found there was a great desire on the part of the people of this country and of some of the officers themselves in our forces overseas that we should have a distinct air force and it was felt that we should eventually have a nucleus for an air force, more particularly in view of the future development of this branch of the service, not only in a military, but in a commercial sense. We negotiated on this point with the British authorities, and it was very difficult to work out a plan whereby, if we organized a Canadian force, it could operate in connection with the Royal 5 p.m. Air Force at the front. After a good deal of negotiation, however, it was arranged that we were to have * an air force of our own, but the men did ' not have time to become thoroughly trained' organized and equipped before the 11th of' November. There are, in England two squadrons of the Canadian Air Force, these squadrons being formed in accordance with this memorandum:
1.	That the formation of two Canadian Air Squadrons should be proceeded with forthwith.,
2.	That these squadrons should be organized in England by the Overseas Military Forces of: Canada in conjunction with the Royal Air Force.
3.	That tlhe type of Unit and equipment, should be decided by the Air Council.
The fourth item is quite a long memorandum which I shall not attempt to read,, but it deals with the way in which we should get the personnel. I feel very strongly upon the desirability of, at any rate for a. time, retaining intact these two flying squadrons in the service of Canada. Canadians have shown themselves adaptable for this particular branch of the service; to-use a commonplace expression, they have-taken to it as a duck takes to water. They have made a great record in France, and it would be a pity if we did not do what other nations are doing in connection with a Flying Branch of the Military service,, not only with respect to military operations which might be considered a secondary matter, but with respect to commercial air flying in the future. In view of all these considerations and also the pride our Canadians have taken in flying, and their splendid deeds, it would be a great pity if, when these men return to Canada, they should be just demobilized and sent to the four corners of the country, without our having a nucleus for a flying corps. I hope this matter will be taken into careful consideration and that something will be done in this regard.
We have quite a nucleus for an air force. Nineteen of the latest and best air machines were presented to us by the British people, sixteen through the Overseas Club and three through the Imperial Air Fle^t. In addition to that we expect to get from the British Government ninety-two aircraft,, made up as follows:
30 only Avro two-eeater biplanes.
12 only single-seater-camels (Scout fighters).
50 only two-seater D.H. 9. Day Bombing: Machines.
This is a gift from the British Government whenever we wish to accept it, and, in fact, I understand it has already been accepted. There are many other aircraft:
182i

which are available for Canad.a. Of captured ' enemy aircraft there are 21 Fokkers, 39 various other enemy aircraft and 5 Gothas, 'which, including the nineteen to which I *referred to before, make 84. Then we have an expectation of getting 14 machines from the French Government, 16 from the Italian Government and 24 from the British Government and, I believe, there are already in Canada 50 Curtis machines from the British 'Government. Therefore, I sincerely trust that all this equipment and the training of our airmen will be made use of. not only in a military but in a commercial sense.


Mr. NICKLE:: Has the minister given
any consideration to the lines along which this air force will be developed, whether it is to be an independent force or is to carry out work in conjunction with the military and naval branches of the service?


Albert Edward Kemp: I cannot say as
to that, as my work has been in England. Perhaps the Minister of Militia might be able to give my hon. friend some information on that point.


Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure):: I noticed
in the Montreal papers last night that a German submarine had reached Montreal on- its way to the Great Lakes, having been handed over by Germany to the British authorities and by the British authorities to the United States Government. It has created a great deal of interest amongst the people of Montreal, and no doubt it will be exhibited in the different towns and cities on the Great lakes. Is Canada to be honoured in this way?


Albert Edward Kemp: My duties did not extend to the naval forces. I would say, however, that as this submarine must pass through Canadian waters, there should be no difficulty in having her visit cities on the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes.


Charles Marcil: Does not the minister think Canada should be presented with a gift of this kind ?	,


Albert Edward Kemp: If my hon. friend would put that question to the Prime Minister, who has been to the Peace Conference, he would no doubt be able to answer more definitely than I can as to what is going to be done with the German warships and submarines which are now in British ports.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Mother Country received so many of these vessels on one day last Fall, that I think she might give some to "the colonies.	.


Albert Edward Kemp: Would my hon. friend be in favour of receiving them on
TSir Edward Kemp.]
condition that they become a part of the Canadian navy?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I stand for the Canadian navy still, and I believe one, if not two, of the minister's colleagues do. Can the minister tell us how many Canadians were enlisted in the British navy during the war?


Albert Edward Kemp: I have not the figures for the naval forces. The work of the Canadian railway troops should not be overlooked. In 1915 the Canadian Pacific railway organized, at the request of the Department of Militia and Defence, over which my hon. friend from Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) then presided, the Canadian Overseas Railway Construction Corps, composed of 500 picked men of the construction forces of the Canadian Pacific railway. This corps proceeded to France in August, 1915. In May, 1916, the War Office asked the Dominion to furnish another unit, approximately 1,000 strong, for railway construction work. This unit was organized by Lieut.-Col. J. W. Stewart, who afterwards became Major-General J. W. Stewart, C.B., C.M.G.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is that Mr. Stewart, of Montreal ?


Albert Edward Kemp: No, Mr. Stewart, of Vancouver, who is well known in Canada as a railway contractor.


Rodolphe Lemieux: They say he did excellent work.


Albert Edward Kemp: Through the
methods he introduced in France he rendered very great service, and he doubtless helped to bring the war to an earlier conclusion. In the summer of 1918, after occupying the position of Deputy Director of Light Railways, as well as being in immediate command of Canadian Railway Construction battalions, Major-General Stewart was appointed Director of Construction, his duties embracing all construction of a railway engineering character in the zone of the British armies. The following table shows the comparative strength of the Imperial and Canadian Railway Construction Forces on the western front as at the dates given:
Date.
Dec. 31, 1915 Dec. 31, 1916 Jan. 30. 1917 Dec. 31, 1917 Nov. 11, 1918
Nominal
Strength
Imperial
Railway
Construction
Troops.
2,440
4,900
7.340
7.340
7.340
Nominal
Strength
Canadian
Railway
Construction
Troops.
1,617
11,562
13,772
14,877
The control of all the railway construction operations in France was largely in the

hands of Major General J. W. Stewart. In addition to the railway troops I have mentioned, there were four Canadian Railway Troops Operating Companies, with a strength of 1,087 on November 11, 1918. The total strength of Canadian railway troops in England When the armistice was signed was 3,364. During their career at the front the personnel of the Corps of Canadian Railway Troops were awarded 489 honours and decorations.


Mr. PEDLOW:: Did the minister keep
a record of the men who returned during the fall of 1917 to engage in the elections in Canada?


Albert Edward Kemp: I did not happen
to be minister at that time.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Would not a record be kept of these men?


Albert Edward Kemp: I could not say offhand.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: The figures are not embodied in this report?


Albert Edward Kemp: No. The record of the Canadian Forestry Corps is one we have every reason to be proud of. Their service has been very highly appreciated and favourably commented upon by the Imperial authorities, including the Secretary of State for War.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I understood the minister to 50V that he was overseas from 1914 onwards.


Albert Edward Kemp: My hon. friend from Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) was Minister of Militia at that time. Later Sir George Perley was the Minister of Militia Overseas. I went over late in 1917, just before the election.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: The reason why-


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order. Hon.
members seem to overlook the fact that the House is not in committee. There has been a series of questions and interruptions which were certainly out of order, and I must ask hon. members to refrain from further interruptions.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is a friendly chat.


Georges Henri Boivin: Friendly chats across the floor are absolutely out of order.


Albert Edward Kemp: I endorse your ruling, Sir, most heartily. I was going on to say that the Canadian Forestry Corps under the command of Maj.-General Alex. Mc-Dougall, C. B., deserves very great credit, indeed, for the splendid service it has rendered. The time at my disposal does not permit me to make as lengthy remarks on these organizations as I should like, but I wish to give these figures On November 11, 1918, the total strength of the Canadian Forestry Corps in France, including prisoners of war attached to units, was 18,240'.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Prisoners of war attached to Canadian units?


Albert Edward Kemp: We had thirteen companies of prisoners of war, totalling 5,021 men, attached to the Forestry Corps in France when the armistice was signed. In the British Isles at the same date the strength oi the Forestry Corps, including 1,265 prisoners and 1,182 other attached men, was 13,207. The grand total in France and the British Isles of the Canadian Forestry Corps when the armistice was signed was 31,447.
The Forestry Corps saved, the situation to a great extent in regard to shipping. Lumber is a very bulky freight and through the efforts of the Canadians, who understood forestry work and knew how to attain the best results, an entirely new situation was brought about. In 1913 Britain imported 11,600,000 tons of timber and lumber. This was reduced in 1916 to 6,000,000 tons, in 1917 to 2,775,000 tons, and ih 1918 to 2,000,000 tons. So that the difference between 11,600,000 tons in 1913 and 2,000,000 tons in 1918 is almost entirely due to the work of the Canadian Forestry Corps who supplied the difference from home-grown timber. If they had not been as enthusiastic as they were, besides being capable and efficient, that much more shipping would have had to be engaged in the carrying of timber and lumber instead of being released for the transfer of foodstuffs, etc. As my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Gries-bach) will no doubt tell you, a great amount of timber is necessary in connection with trench work and for many other purposes. The hon. gentleman knows more about this than I do, but I . may say that it was through the efforts of the Canadian Forestry Corps that this situation, of which we have reason to be proud, was met.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Did the sawmill machinery, etc., belong to the Imperial Government or to the Canadian Government?


Albert Edward Kemp: The Imperial Government. Now, 1 shall turn to the Canadian Army Medical Corps, which arose out of a permanent organization in Canada. In June, 1915, it had a bed capacity of 3,000 and in November, 1918, a capacity of 40,000. Our medical service in England and



'2870 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Prance was of greater capacity than the British medical service at the time of the [DOT]South African War, and the great efficiency which this service attained was owing to a very considerable extent-and we need have no hesitation in giving full credit to those to whom it is due-to the services of 'Canadian civilian doctors, the best of whom sacrificed their practices and went overseas to render splendid service for Canada. I suppose we scarcely realize how much the doctors sacrificed. I sometimes argue with [DOT]other professional men on the question of sacrifices in the war, and while I do not want to draw comparisons here, I think that a doctor of middle age makes a great sacrifice who turns the key in his door and leaves for England and France. He knows that from that time his income stops, and the results are not quite the same as in the ease of a man of another calling who may [DOT]have a partner or any one to assist, him. I consider that the medical profession of Canada made great sacrifices for the work they did in the war, and it was through their splendid service that we accomplished such great results overseas. In order to put this matter fairly before the House, I [DOT]desire to read a short extract from the report I laid on the Table in regard to the work of the doctors. What I shall read epitomizes the situation.
Jutet as there is " the man behind the gun," so there is the dootor and the man behind the lancet, and the nursing sister and the true Canadian woman behind the grim paraphernalia of her offtCe. And great have been the souls and stout the hearts and deft the hands, not merely of the doctors and the nursing [DOT]sisters, but all those " other ranks " who give the great machine of healing its life and its humanity. Unflinching in danger, resolute in "fluty, unremitting even in the drudgery of their *voluntary crusade against disease and death- fto these devoted men and women go but the ithanks of scores of thousands of Canadian soldiers, and the heartfelt gratitude of hundreds -of thousands who loved the men maimed in the [DOT]defence of Canada upon the fields of Flanders -*and of France.
So much for the doctors.
Just a word for the nursing sisters of Canada. Those of us who watched the great service they performed cannot fail to appreciate it at its full value, and in connection with the nursing sisters, whenever one talks of or refers to them in any way, one's mind irresistibly goes to the three frightful outrages perpetrated on them-the bombing of [DOT]the Canadian hospitals at Etaples and :Doullens, and the sinking of the Canadian hospital ship Llandovery. Castle The Germans made no mistake in regard to the bombing of the hospital at Doullens and Etaples, the former was isolated from any 
military camp; they sent their flares down and saw the great red cross; and numbers of the nursing sisters as well as the doctors and patients at the hospitals were wantonly murdered Nothing that I can say would adequately express my outraged feelings on this subject, and I am sure that every hon. member feels the same sense of indignation. In the sinking of the Llandovery Castle fourteen Canadian Nursing Sisters were sent to a watery grave in the depths of the sea 116 miles from land, and in trying to cover up the outrage the Germans endeavoured to sink the remaining life boat in order thereby to obliterate all traces.
I might refer to the splendid assistance rendered our hospitals by the municipal governments throughout Canada and many voluntary organizations, especially the Canadian Red Cross and the St. John's Ambulance Association, besides the universities of Canada which did such magnificent work in sustaining our hospitals. I might read a list of them.
McGill University-No. 3 Canadian General Hospital.
Toronto University-No. 4 Canadian General Hospital.
Laval University-No. 6 Canadian General Hospital.
Queen's University-No. 7 Canadian General Hospital.
Saskatchewan University-No. 8 Canadian General Hospital.
Dalhousie University-No. 7 Canadian Stationary Hospital.
St. Francis Xavier College-No. 9 Canadian Stationary Hospital.
The Western University-No. 10 Canadian Stationary Hospital
These universities have done nobly and have rendered tremendous assistance to the medical service.
Mr. NIiCKLE: Before the minister leaves the subject of the medical service, may I ask him a question? We have had some disquieting reports and rumours in reference to an alleged insufficiency of hospitalization in England, and it is said that Canadians in hQspitals suffered through what I might call a lack of elasticity in the administration-a lack of sympathetic coordination between headquarters and the outside administration. Is there any justification for these reports?
Albert Edward Kemp: I have not heard of such reports. May I ask the hon. member where he saw them?


William Folger Nickle: Certain gentlemen returning to 'Canada made damaging and disquieting criticisms.


Albert Edward Kemp: The administration of the Canadian Army Medical

Corps has from the first been as good as if not better than any other. Indeed, I think our hospitals on the whole have been better conducted than any others.
Mr. NIiCKLE: Then, we had an excellent medical service?


Albert Edward Kemp: There is no doubt about it in my mind. In every way it was the very best there was.


Joseph Archambault: I should like to
offer a correction in the information regarding Laval hospital. At page 396 of the Report it says:
No. 6 (Laval) Canadian General Hospital, Opened Troyes, January 23, 1917.
The unit of Laval started from Montreal in March 1916.


Albert Edward Kemp: I am very glad
the hon. member has made that correction and I shall have attention drawn to it. In further copies the necessary correction will be made.
In dentistry we also took a forward step, and in the two years, 1917 and 1918, the total number of dental operations performed in France and England by the Canadian Army Dental Corps was 2,255,442. As a result of this work a great many men were saved from being placed in lower categories and were made fit for A-l service.
The chaplain services were of very great importance in the army. The Canadian chaplains rendered splendid service under the director, Colonel J. M. Almond, C.M.G. We had in all 280 chaplains and the following statistics in regard to them may prove of interest:
426 Chaplains have served with the Overseas Military Forces of Canada.
2 have been killed in action.
1 died of wounds.
1	died while serving on Hospital ship.
2	died of sickness.
21 chaplains have been wounded while discharging their duties at the front.
20 chaplains were usually selected to accompany the troops into action.
There are services which the chaplains perform on the battlefield to those that are dying and to the sick and the wounded, which I need not describe, because nearly every one is conversant with them.
I would like also to refer to the work of the Army Pay Corps. Earlier this afternoon some hon. gentlemen asked what duties the Army Pay Corps performed, and I would like now to give that explanation.
Broadly speaking, the Canadian Army Pay Corps performs three cardinal functions :-
(1)	The paying of all debts incurred by the Canadian Government with contractors, with Imperial and other Dominion Governments, etc.
(2)	The making of all payments to the troops of the Overseas Military Forces of Canada and their dependents.
(3)	The adjustment of reciprocal accounts between the Imperial and other Governments, and the maintaining of records and statistics in reference thereto.
Now as to the Record Office. There is a Record Office in England whose duties are as follows:
Soldiers' Documents.-The collection, custody, verification and distribution of soldiers' documents involving:-
(a)	Collection and checking of documents of Drafts arriving from Canada.
(b)	Collection and forwarding to France of documents of Drafts proceeding to France, and receiving and distributing documents of men evacuated from France.
(c)	Checking Casualty Forms of Drafts proceeding to France.
(d)	Custody of various documents during the whole period' a soldier is on the strength of Overseas Military Farces of Canada, and custody of his documents while he is in France or in Hospital in England.
Casualties.-The reporting of Casualties and tracing movements wlhile in Hospital. Under this head are comprised:-
(a) The compilation, after verification, of Daily Casualty Lists from reports received both from France and from the different centres in England. This includes the reporting of transfers of Casualties from1 one Hospital to another.
(ib) Notification of the next-of-kin when resident in England.
(c)	In case of death in England or France registering the location of the grave, and obtaining details of the circumstances of death.
(d)	Making enquiries for a period of six months in respect to men reported "Missing.''
(e)	Compiling and distributing lists of men invalided to Canada and returned to Canada.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: _ Would the minister be kind enough to tell me whether it was at his request that after the armistice Lieutenant Colonel Piche of Montreal was transferred to the Record Office in London?


Albert Edward Kemp: The officer referred to was sent over to London by the Minister of Militia.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Was it impossible to find competent officers in England to do that work?


Albert Edward Kemp: The Minister of Militia informs me that that question has already been answered by him in the House.
The Director of Military Estates is Colonel Robertson, and this office has handled the wills of 300,000 soldiers during the war.
When I reached England I organized an Overseas Purchasing Commission, some-

what upon the lines of the Purchasing Commission in Ottawa. Although not very much purchasing was needed in England I thought it was better to organize a commission for the purpose, and the members of it were officers in 'Connection with our forces who were conversant with business conditions, and purchases were made by tender. Most of such purchases were from the Imperial Government, so the commission over there had not such heavy work to do as the Purchasing Commission in Ottawa.
I would like to refer for a moment to the Canadian War Records. We have a War Record Office, of which Lord Beaverbrook has had charge, which has recorded the history of the war since its outbreak. I think that owing to the efforts of Lord Beaverbrook we have the finest collection of historical documents, war paintings and photographs of any of the Allied nations, and the collection has been made at very little cost to Canada, the only expense incurred having been in connection with the payment of a few officers and O. R's., who assisted in placing these paintings and photographs on exhibition and in assisting in the work at different points. The paintings and photographs have been exhibited in London, and a prominent point in connection therewith is that the proceeds have gone" towards defraying the expenses of painting the pictures. We have had the services of the best artists in connection with this work.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How many paintings are there?


Albert Edward Kemp: There is a catalogue of them, but I could not give the number of paintings offhand. At the Royal Academy a large extent of the wall space was taken up with Canada's war pictures, which formed a considerable part of the total exhibit. Besides that, we have a number of enlarged photographs which have been on exhibition not only in England, but in France and in the United States. '


Charles Murphy: Does the minister mean to say that the cost of these paintings was defrayed by these exhibitions?


Albert Edward Kemp: Yes, by the receipts from that and other sources; for instance, we had exhibits of cinematograph films. In addition to the paintings there are also the enlarged photographs and any one who is not a connoisseur of paintings might regard them as even greater works of art, although one would not feel safe in laying 
down any such canon as that. However, the photographs were very attractive and thousands and tens of thousands of persons viewed them at the recent exhibition in the Grafton Galleries, London. These photographs, as well as other evidences of Canadian activity at the front, have been displayed in France, the United States and England, and have served to advertise Canada to a remarkable degree.


Charles Murphy: Has the Canadian War Records Office kept any track of the monies that have been paid out?


Albert Edward Kemp: The report for last year has already been tabled, as will be the next report as soon as it is ready.


Charles Murphy: The money in question was Canadian money, was it not?


Albert Edward Kemp: No, the receipts came from persons who saw the pictures, and were not by any means all Canadians. The cinematograph films, for instance, were viewed by thousands of people in England, France and the United States. They proved a great advertisement for Canada, as showing our efforts in the war, and they have caused the American people to greatly admire us for what we have done. As I say, the proceeds went to defray the cost incurred in making the paintings and taking the photographs.


Charles Murphy: If they had not been used those proceeds would have been the money of the Dominion of Canada ?


Albert Edward Kemp: As to that, I do not know. I would not want to argue the matter with my hon. friend if he takes a view which differs from mine. Lord Beaverbrook put considerable energy into the matter and has secured a collection of which this country should be very proud. By and by these paintings and photographs will come to Ottawa and we will need a large building in which to store them.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The minister has spoken about Canadian paintings. Would he kindly explain if the collection contains a painting representing a Canadian crucified by the Germans? The statement that there is such a painting has caused a lot of controversy in the press, and I would like the minister to give us the facts in that regard.
If the statement is true, well and good, but if not it should not be allowed to remain uncontradicted.


Albert Edward Kemp: I know to what my hon. friend refers, but it is not a picture.
It is a statue cast in bronze about three

feet high and two feet wide, which has been enclosed in a frame.
I saw the representation to which my hon. friend refers. The Germans took exception to this picture or statue-I forget the text book name of it-and they sent out a wireless from Germany criticising the position we had taken in exhibiting the representation and denying that such a thing ever happened. This was noted in the press, and I gave instructions that every effort should be made to ascertain if what we had represented could be substantiated. We succeeded in getting affidavits of two soldiers who witnessed the scene, and we got on the track of others who it was thought had seen it. We secured two affidavits at any rate.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Were they positive?


Albert Edward Kemp: They were affidavits by soldiers who saw the actual scene. One wore the Victoria Crpss, and the father of one of them was employed in a position of importance in London. So after that denial was made by the Germans we issued a counter statement containing the particulars we had at that time. I do not think there can be any doubt but that the Germans were guilty of this atrocity.
The Canadian War Records have also performed splendid services in issuing a little paper called the Daily Record to the troops. No doubt you have all heard of it. It contained news items from Canada and was circulated daily.
The casualties in the war up to the 31st of March have been as follows:
Killed in action, 38,767; died of wounds, 12,355 ; died of other causes, 4,755; missing, 415 ; prisoners of war, 2<2.
-Since the 31st of March I have ascertained that of those 22 prisoners of war all hav.e been accounted for except 10. Those are the only cases we have been unable to trace of the very considerable number of Canadian prisoners of war in Germany.
I had an officer detailed for the purpose of taking down statements of Canadian prisoners of war on their arrival in England after being repatriated from Germany to find out whether the stories told about the cruelties practised by the Germans were correct. That officer and his assistants interviewed most of those repatriated prisoners, and in looking over a memorandum which came into my possession I took this extract of a statement by Captain Thomas:
The verbatim statements of these men show that hundreds of British prisoners-
He refers, it will be noticed, to British prisoners, not particularly to Canadian prisoners.
.-were murdered deliberately and in cold blood in working behind the German lines in France -starved till they ate rats, cats, moles, putrid horse flesh, potato parings from garbage heaps .-sent to hospital only when they were half dead. In one specific instance a Padre, a Canadian lad, whose statement I took, knows of 117 deaths out of 150 who were sent back to a parent camp by the Germans for their comrades to pull them through If they could.
We had in Germany something like 2,688 other ranks and 130 officers at the time of the armistice, and they have all been repatriated except the ten that we cannot find.	"
The Khaki University has done splendid service both in France and in England,, and has helped many of our soldiers in their studies. I presume my hon. friends have heard all about that excellent work, so I will not attempt to take up the time of the House with a full description of the activities of that university.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How many boys have availed themselves of the courses?


Albert Edward Kemp: For the month of December, 1918, there were from the 1st Division, 2,000 men; from the 2nd Division, 2,018 men; from the 3rd Division, 2,197; men; from the 4th Division, 2,137 men- making a grand total of 8,352 men who availed themselves of the courses in France. I need not go into the different branches of study. In England the attendance for the same month was 11,755. The total attendance at lectures from July to December, 1918, was 231,000.


Charles Murphy: Are those in charge civilians or soldiers?


Albert Edward Kemp: They are largely university professors <jif Canada who volunteered their services, and to enable them to go into the army we made them honorary officers for the time being.


Charles Murphy: Drawing the pay of their rank?


Albert Edward Kemp: I do not think so. Most of the money for this work was raised by voluntary subscription in Canada. They have libraries and all sorts of educational equipment.


Mr. EULER:: Were there any conditions placed upon the soldiers as to their entrance-into this Khaki University?


Albert Edward Kemp: Do you mean in regard to fees?


William Daum Euler: No, -in regard to their educational qualifications.


Albert Edward Kemp: I think they could take any courses they pleased. The rules were not very strict. I am under the impression that it would take that much time off their courses in similar studies when they returned to Canada.


William Daum Euler: Was it necessary that they should have been university students?


Albert Edward Kemp: I do not think so. Although called university courses, I fancy some of the subjects were really elementary.
I scarcely feel like closing my observations without referring to the splendid work done by the Canadian Red Cross Society, the Canadian Military YJM.C.A., and the non-military organizations which provided hospitality overseas. Those organizations were: The Canadian War Contingents Association, the Canadian Field Comforts Association, the Maple Leaf Clubs-these clubs in London furnished beds for our soldiers, who otherwise would have had to sleep on the streets, the accommodation being so scarce-the I.O.D.E. Clubs, the Canadian Officers' -Club, the Royal Automobile Club, and the St. Dunstan's Hostel for Blind Soldiers. This last named organization owes its origin to Sir Arthur Pearson, who is himself blind. He has- had about eighty Canadian blinded soldiers under his care. I visited the place some weeks ago, and although I often wonder what passes in the minds of the blind, to all appearances those men were quite happy. They were learning various trades. Sir Arthur Pearson himself is a wonderful man and has done splendid work for Canada in connection with St. Dunstan's Hostel.
In connection with demobilization, we have had some difficulties. While the men have been anxious to get back to Canada at the earliest possible moment, yet it has required numerous organizations to prepare and get them back. The staff requirements in all the camps, the cooks and clerks, absorb the activities of -an army of men, and we have had very great difficulty naturally in persuading those men to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of others. We have had to appeal to them on patriotic grounds to do this work for their comrades, although they had just as great a right to get back as any one else. To the permanent cadres the thanks of this country are due for the splendid services they have performed in connection with the return of our soldiers to Canada.
fSir Edward Kemp.]
When the armistice came we had 268,000 Canadians on our hands overseas. We realized at once that we had a difficult problem to deal with. Every one felt that the war was over, even though peace had not been signed. These men enlisted in Canada, and they had an objective-that of getting at the Hun and fighting him. They were full of enthusiasm, and they were easy to handle. Indeed, they have always been easy to handle, and they are easy to handle even to-day. But when the armistice came their objective was changed; their one desire was to get home as quickly as they could. Men who had been under restraint for long periods ranging up to four years, or even longer, and who had been subjected to conditions of privation, suffering and sacrifice, were tired and homesick, and we found it more difficult to handle these men after the signing of the armistice than up to that time. They were not inclined to inquire very carefully whether or not ships were available, or how many ships had been sunk by submarines, and so on; they wanted to get home, not next year, but next week. We had to get the machine reversed, so to speak. We had the machine working fairly smoothly, carrying troops to the German lines; now we had to see how best we could get them back to Canada. Had there been only 5,000 men to -bring back, the problem would not have been difficult. But before I went on board ship on the other side I witnessed the magnificent spectacle of the march past in London of 12,000 Dominion troops, eight deep. It took this body of men an hour and-a-half to pass His Majesty the King; you can imagine what an army of
268,000	is. Well, we tried to do the best we could. Demobilization came upon us in the fall of the year, just before winter.
I have heard that you had the mildest winter that Canada ever had, but the people of England, France and Belgium say that last winter was the most disagreeable they have ever known-much cold and wet, and a lack of sunshine. There would be periods of a month when you would not see the sun at all in England. We had these men to house and to take care of under these conditions. Moreover, a fuel famine came upon the country after the winter had set in, and we had to supply the men with extra blankets. However, I am glad to say that the repatriation of our men has proceeded very well.
Some months before the armistice was signed I organized a demobilization committee to consider how to work out this problem when peace came, and the work of

that committee was of great service when the armistice actually did come. The Prime Minister said this afternoon that some people thought it would take two years to get the soldiers back, having regard to the number of ships that were sunk by submarines and to the great demand for tonnage. I have heard people say that it would take three years to get our soldiers back, in view of all the circumstances. I am happy to be able to say that if peace is not signed pretty soon, all our soldiers will be back in Canada before peace is signed. There will be in England after the end of this month about
80.000	Canadians. Nearly all our troops are out of France. The troops that went to the Rhine returned to Belgium some time before they went back to England. My latest report, which is dated May 19, says that at that time there were 4,516 Canadian troops in France.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Does that include Canadians in the Imperial Service in France?
Sir EDWARD KEMlP: Only those in our own forces. The 4,516 were made up as follows : Three hospitals, 1,000; details at Etaples and Rouen, 600; Infantry Works Companies, 1,300; burial party, 1,000; patients in hospital, 616. I should think that by this time most of them are in England.
We have moved from France to England since the armistice 140,000 troops. By the end of May we shall have embarked for Canada 185,216 troops. We expect that the
80.000	Canadians who will be in England at the end of May will almost all be returned to Canada by the end of July, though there will be a small remnant still to return after that date.
The matter of steamship accommodation has presented a very difficult problem. I speak with feeling on the subject, because I have had some very warm interviews with the Imperial authorities regarding it. The principle that had to be settled in respect to the transportation from England of Canadian troops was whether the Canadians should have priority over American troops, and if so, to what extent. The relations between Great Britain and the United States are very intimate, and it is desirable that they should be; but I found it necessary to establish the principle that Canadian troops should have priority over American troops, and I succeeded in having it established. We have in the service of Canada all the great Canadian liners as well as those plying on the North Atlantic whose home port on this side of the water is in the United
States. Unless something goes wrong, we shall have brought back to Canada during the month of May 52,000 Canadian troops.
The Americans will, no doubt, bring back a good many during this month, but they will not be able to bring back, I am informed, more than 5,000 on British ships. I thought, perhaps, I could finish my remarks before six o'clock, but as I have still a few things to say which I think may interest the House, if the members will bear with me for a few minutes after eight o'clock, I will then conclude my observations.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Albert Edward Kemp: When the House rose at six o'clock I was dealing with the question of demobilization so far as it affects the Canadian troops in England. I pointed out that although the weather conditions were unpleasant, the monotony of the troops was broken by diversions in the way of sports and education, and in other ways everything was done to help them pass the time as pleasantly and profitably as possible. The conduct of the Canadian soldiers during this very, very trying period has been excellent-better, I venture to say, than the conduct of any other of the British forces. If there have been slight lapses, as one might expect in such a large force, those lapses have been better advertised than similar occurrences on the part of any other of the British soldiers either in Great Britain or in France. To those of us who are conversant with the situation that has existed in France and England since the signing of the armistice, it has been amusing to read in the press of Great Britain and Canada some of the things which the Canadian soldier has been accused of. I repeat, I believe that the conduct of no other troops of the whole British Empire has been equal to that of the Canadian soldiers. I have no reason whatever to criticise the conduct of the vast majority of them. These men had been away from home for many years and were anxious to get back, and during the waiting time I think we might have expected some slight lapses, and possibly small disorders, occasionally to occur. These lapses, however, have not been any worse, in fact, nor so bad, as those that

France and Belgium with the exception of a very few,, and they were highly trained or technical men whose services could not be spared for service at the front. The members of the headquarters staff in London, both junior and senior, under our policy were, with these few exceptions, required to have served at least six months at the front; and, as I stated this afternoon, I was always being appealed to by headquarters officers to allow them to return to the front. The lot of the headquarters staff in London was unsatisfactory to them. The hours were long, frequently for seven days a week, and the work was performed under the most difficult and trying circumstances. I was assisted by those gentlemen to such a degree that I feel that the manner in which this work was executed will appeal to the people of Canada as being both effective and efficient.
I am going to take the liberty, Mr. Speaker, of running over the names of some of the principal officers who have been on the headquarters staff in London, to whom I am indebted for assistance in carrying on this work.
The first Deputy Minister of Overseas Military Forces of Canada to be appointed was Colonel Walter Gow, of Toronto, who is well known, not only in legal, but in business circles in Canada and in many other parts of the world. Canada may consider herself extremely fortunate in having had the services placed at her disposal of a man of Colonel Gow's attainments.
Through overwork on different occasions, he became incapacitated for duty, and in these periods Colonel G. 8. Harrington was acting deputy minister. Colonel Harrington is a barrister of Nova Scotia and the son of a barrister. He familiarized himself with the work in all its details to such an extent that when Colonel Gow retired he was well qualified to take up the work of deputy minister, and I appointed him to that position.
Lieut.-Colonel T. Gibson, D.S.O., who was formerly a partner of my hon. colleague, the President of the Privy Council, and later was connected with the Soo industries, had also a very wide experience in business affairs and possessed' good legal attainments as well. He was about to return to Canada, having finished his duties in France, but when he was passing through London I asked him to stay and assist in carrying on the work at our headquarters. He consented, and I appointed him to the position of assistant deputy minister. His services have also been of very great value.

Major L. P. Sherwood is the secretary of our Overseas Military Council. He is the son of Sir Percy Sherwood, of this city, and, of course, well known here.
Colonel W. R. Ward, the accountant general, is a member of the permanent forces of Canada, and has always been considered a very efficient officer.
Lieut.-General Sir Richard Turner, V.C., D.S.O., is a man of the very highest character and integrity. He won the Victoria Cross and the Distinguished Service Order as a young man in South Africa, and those who served with him there are never tired of telling of his bravery. He also showed great gallantry at the front in this war, where he commanded the 2nd Canadian Division, and when the overseas ministry was formed he was brought to London, and is now Chief of the General Staff there. He is beloved by the soldiers, and has always been recognized at the front as a very gallant officer.
Major W. Nickle, M.C., is General Turner's aide de camp. Major Nickle won the Military Cross at the front. He is the son of the hon. member for Kingston.
Lt.-Colonel C. M. Edwards, D.S.O., is a native of Ottawa and is well and favourably known in this city. He is on the General Staff.
Lt.-Colonel H. G. Mayes., M.B.E., was our Director of Physical Training, and his qualifications were considered of such a high order that the British Government asked us to loan him to them, and. we acceded to the request.
Brigadier-General D. M. Hogarth, C.M.G., D.iS.O., is the Quartermaster-General. If members of the House will take the trouble to examine the report of the Quartermaster-General's Branch they will see what splendid results have been attained through his efforts and those of his officers through the transactions we have had with the Belgian Government and with the Imperial Government in regard to the disposal of horses and stores, and very large sums of money have been saved for Canada because of his keen business insight.
Colonel K. C. Folger, D.S.O., is the Deputy Quartermaster-General. Any one who knows this part of the country would say he came from Kingston-and he does. He was a member of the Permanent Staff before he went overseas, and is a very efficient officer.
Lt.-Colonel E. C. Duffin, O.B.E., is also in the Quartermaster-General's Branch. He has splendid business qualifications and has accomplished excellent results in connection with the shipment of troops to Canada.

Lt.-Colonel S. M. Bosiworth assisted the Quartermaster-General in connection with the embarkation of troops and the allotment of shipping space. He is in charge of ocean and rail transport under the Quartermaster-General. He is a son of the president of the Canadian Pacific Ocean Services.
Colonel iT. A. Simson, C.M.G., D.S.O., is a member of the Permanent Force, and after distinguished service at the front was brought hack to take the position of Director of Supplies and Transport.
Lt.-Colonel C. M. Euttan, D.S.O., belongs to Winnipeg, as his name would indicate, and is a most capable officer in the Supply Branch.
Major-General P. E. Thacker, C.M.G., DJS.O., is the Adjutant-General, and any comments I might make as to his qualifications can be easily understood when one realizes the smoothness with which demobilization has proceeded. It was his duty with the help of the officers under him to work out the scheme of demobilization overseas.
Colonel F. S. Morrison, D.S.O., also of the Permanent Force, is Deputy Adjutant General, and two assistants are Lt.-Colonel E. W. Pope, son of Sir Joseph Pope, of Ottawa, and Lt.-Colonel G. H. Cassels, son of Mr. Justice Cassels, of the Exchequer Court.
Colonel A. L. Hamilton, C.M.G., Director of Eecords Overseas, is responsible for the system of documentation and records. Having been manager of one of our banks in Canada, he conceived the idea of a clearing house for documents in each of different areas. Through the working out of that system we have brought order out of what at one time might have resulted in chaos had the procedure on demobilization not been systematized and put in better shape.
Major Hume Blake, grandson of the late Hon. Edward Blake, is a Deputy Assistant Adjutant General.
Major-General G. L. Foster, C.B., is the Director-General of Medical Services. He wo^i distinction at the front where he was in charge of the medical service of the Canadian Corps and was brought back for this position at Head-quarters. The Deputy Director-General of Medical Services is Brigadier-General H. S. Birkett, C.M.G., Dean of the Medical Faculty of McGill University, Montreal; who is well-known throughout Canada.
The Paymaster-General is Brigadier-General J. G. Eoss, C.M.G., a member of a 183
firm of well-known chartered accountants in Montreal.
The General Auditor is Honorary Colonel L. A. Dowie. He is a very excellent chartered accountant who has given his services to the country during the period of the war.
The Judge Advocate General is Colonel E. M. Dennistoun, C.B.E., now judge of the Court of Appeal of Manitoba. He is in London straightening out many matters in connection with the final demobilization of the troops to Canada.
Major-General A. McDougall, C.B., Brigadier-General B. E. Hepburn, C.M.G., and Colonel G. V. White, C.B.E., have been responsible for carrying out the timber operations, to which I referred this afternoon, in France and in England.
-Lt.Golonel G. 6. Bobertson, a barrister of Nova Scotia, is in charge of the Estates Branch, and has had to do with something like 300,000 wills of soldiers.
I have run over these names hurriedly because I wanted the House to know the personnel of the Headquarters Staff in . London. I want to make this observation: if I wanted men in any business with which I was connected, I should consider myself very fortunate indeed if I could select, on the average, men as intelligent, as efficient, and of as high a class as these. These men are chiefly civilian soldiers; their practices in law and in medicine and their businesses for the most part-I speak whereof I know-have entirely gone from them. Some of them are in middle-life and will find it very difficult to take up the threads again when they return. They have asked me repeatedly since the armistice was signed to be allowed to go home. My answer invariably has been: "Do you propose to leave me alone here on this demobilization problem? You are not working for an individual, for a corporation, even for a Government." I appealed to them on the ground that they were working for a country which they loved; for the best country in the world; and the answer has always been: We will stick to this job, no matter what the consequences may be, until the last soldier is back in -Canada. The sacrifices made by these men in carrying out this work for their country will, I am sure, be recognized by the people of Canada; they will be thanked for it in some manner at the proper time in the future.
I have simply referred hurriedly to the Headquarters Staff in London. I do not by any means ignore or overlook the splendid' officers who have served in France and in the various areas in England. The services rendered by these magnificent men



who have served Canada so nobly both in -the Canadian Corps and in connection with -the other formations outside the Corps have been invaluable. They will not have to stay overseas as long as the Headquarters Staff will, but I repeat that they have rendered splendid service. However, their numbers are so great that I cannot very well take up the time of the House on this occasion -in referring to all of them.
We endeavoured, as far as we could, for the sake of economy, to keep the staff down as low as was consistent with efficiency. In the Chief of the General Staff's Branch, the -Adjutant-General's Branch, and the Quartermaster-General's Branch, and the Assistant Military 'Secretary's Branch, the number of officers1 and other ranks decreased as we systematized the work and improved it, as we always try to do, in the light of past experience. On December 1, 1916, the number of officers in these branches was 134, and of other ranks, 566. On November 11, 1918, the staff had been reduced to 61 officers and 319 other ranks, although the work was somewhat heavier.
I do not think I need say anything more on -that point. The matter is one which is very close to my -heart. I want to -say to this House and -to the people of Canada -that the men who have served overseas both in France and at Headquarters in England are as faithful and as honest a lot o-f -men as -could be found, and I believe they have -served -their country from the very highest motives of patriotism.
I am -one of those, Mr. Speaker, who believe -that Canada still has a big war problem on her hands, and 'that in the solution of -that problem patience and confidence will be required. On the one side there are -the men who -have returned and who naturally find it difficult to accustom themselves to peace conditions, to -get back -into the ordinary occupations of civil life, * afteT having been employed for long periods in something -so entirely different. Then, -there is the natural anxiety on the part o-f -the men about a livelihood for themselves and their families and the difficulties which they will have to overcome in this regard. As I have s-aid, I have not a word o-f criticism -to make regarding these men. I have been amongst them in their camps; I have been with them on ships on several occasions, and I believe that notwithstanding -the hardships they have endured and -the things -they have gone through while killing the iHuns, they are just tlie same Canadians as they were, and

their hearts are in the right place. The whole situation requires to be handled with patience an-d forbearance. It is our duty, the -duty of all -the men and women of Canada, to assis-t in -solving the problem which is on our hands with respect to reestablishing our soldiers and finding, as far as we can, suitable employment for every one of them.
On the other side there is the problem of absorption. These men cannot be treated in the same way that men were treated in peace time, when conditions were normal and there was work for all. They took up the great cause for Canada and for those who were unable to go. The Government is doing everything that is possible to help employment, but the Government cannot do everything. It requires the co-operation of every citizen, who must realize that a distinct obligation rests upon his or her shoulders, and employers particularly must deal with the situation in a most sympathetic and practical way. This requires patience, and we must keep the word "patience" constantly in mind; patience is the watchword now for all. In making these observations I have in -mind the returned soldier problem, and not another situation which has developed and which is outside of the soldier problem altogether.
Canada has surpassed herself in what she has been able to accomplish thus far, so let us not fail at- the end in solving still more difficult problems. If the best results are to be secured and if we are not to be handicapped in our effort at this time, there must be confidence between all classes, confidence also in a commercial sense to enable us to keep the wheels of commerce and industry moving in order that there may be, under such conditions, a maximum of opportunity for employment. A lack of confidence would at this time be irreparable. We want employment for the soldier, indeed for everybody, and one of the worst things that could happen to this country would be the development of a lack of that mutual confidence upon which commerce and industry depend.
We must realize that the war has made a new world. It certainly has made a new Canada, a very different Canada from what it was before the war. It is necessary not only for the soldier to fit himself into new conditions, but for the whole Canadian people to fit themselves into new conditions and to understand what the new conditions mean. Of all the soldiers who crossed the seas from different parts of the world to take part in this war, none of them has a better country in every sense of the word

to return to than Canada's soldiers. This is not a mere commonplace statement, for our soldiers have learned what the habits of the people are in other places than Canada, and the more we have seen of conditions as they exist in other places, the more impressed from every point of view have we become of the magnificence of the country which is our heritage. I will not detain the House any longer at this time. I feel very gratified at the attentive and courteous manner with which hon. members on both sides of the House have listened to my somewhat lengthy remarks.	[DOT]
In closing, let me say that I understood to a great extent the responsibilities which I was assuming when after some misgivings I accepted the task of administering the overseas forces of Canada. The task was a difficult one; it taxed all my energies, but I would venture to say this, that I was always desirous of, and always aimed at, administering the overseas forces in such a manner as would meet with the approval of the Canadian people, once they were in a position to understand all the circumstances.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will not detain the House at very great length after the exhaustive statement which has been made this afternoon and evening by the hon. gentleman (Sir Edward Kemp). I am sure that all the members of the House will join with me when I offer my sincere congratulations to the hon. gentleman for the calm and moderate manner in which he has presented to the House the facts in regard to his two years' administration overseas. I am glad to see him back in his seat restored to health, and ready, I am sure, at all times, to give the House further explanation when such be required from him after his very interesting report has been fully digested by hon. members.
I fully agree with what was stated by my hon. friend as regards the bravery of our soldiers in the field, as regards the officers who, from day to day, since the first contingent crossed the seas, led our soldiers on to victory. Every Canadian is proud of the record of our men overseas, and if at times there were criticisms, they were aimed, not at the men fighting in Flanders, but rather at officials far away behind the lines, and the object of those criticisms was to give the country a better military administration so that the soldiers generally might benefit by it.
My hon. friend, in closing his remarks, had to admit that the returned men were
183J
somewhat upset as they came back to Canada. We all agree that after the 9 p.m. strain of this long and terrible war, men's minds are naturally upset. But, Sir, the Government must not abdicate even if they are facing a crisis* Amongst the belligerents no Government in-the old world has abdicated, and assuredly the United States Government has not abdicated its authority because the war is ended and because an economic crisis is-passing over the world.
Returned soldiers, and the working men-of this country generally, are not satisfied' with the Government, because it has not been -able to grapple with the situation. The soldier especially is upset and angry at the Government because on his return to Canada, after having been promised- both before and during the war-a better world in which to live, he finds that -a few picked men have been rolling in golcT for the four years of the war, while at the same time for the workers the cost of living has become simply unbearable. That is the chief cause of the unrest throughout this country. It is all very well to send a roving commission from Vancouver ton Halifax to learn for this Government what is the cause of the unrest. Why, the cause is as clear as the sun is in Heaven. It is-first, the high cost of living to the poor, and second, the immense and scandalous fortunes made by the profiteers during the-war. That is the cause of the trouble, that is the cause of the clash in Winnipeg, in Regina, in Edmonton, in Vancouver* and possibly to-morrow in Toronto. The Government might just as well send a wire-to the commissioners of whom mention was made this afternoon by the right hon. gentleman, to stop stirring up trouble, because so far, they are only ventilating the grievances of the poor people. Eet the Government themselves tackle the difficulties which are in the way.
Sir, we are passing through an economic crisis, the worst we have ever seen, and yet the Government, although we have now been in session three months, has not yet given evidence of a desire to afford relief to the suffering community. I say it is a scandal that the Budget has not yet been made public, that the changes in the fiscal policy have not yet been announced. We have been here since the 20th of February and we are still marking time, while the storm has been gathering from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Is the Government going to wait until there are Soviets in every industrial centre? Let the Government assert its authority, but first of all

let it table before this House its fiscal policy for meeting the economic wants of the people. That is what I have to say to my hon. friend the Minister of Overseas Military Forces. He uttered a truism a moment ago when he said that this world is not the same old world. The Government will learn that to its cost. The people are tired of listening to rhetoric; they want action and facts. They want a policy which will relieve them from their growing sufferings. The people will never understand why Canadian butter is selling cheaper in [Liverpool and London than it is selling in the city of Ottawa. And, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people, during the last four years, have shown that they were able to face any situation with courage and fortitude. The Canadian people have accepted without murmur through those dark days the drastic laws and Orders in Council of the Government; they have accepted an increase of 7J per cent in the tariff imposed under the flimsy pretext of a war measure. But the Canadian people cannot understand why the levy on the incomes of the rich people was only paltry when it should have been substantial. The taxation is unequal. It bears too heavily on the poor, too lightly on the millionaires, and that is why, Sir, there is passing through this country a wave of unrest which threatens the future of Canada.
Coming back to the administration of the overseas military forces, while I agree with most of what the minister has said regarding the conduct of our soldiers and the patriotism and intelligence of our officers, I am bound to say that in his statement he has overlooked many things; and he cannot plead ignorance. In his ahsence some of the leading officers of the Canadian army have spoken through the press and in the legislatures of Canada, and the sentiments expressed by those officers have been voiced on the floor of this House by some hon. gentlemen. Surely the hon. gentleman has taken notice of those statements. Yet, in his long but interesting statement this afternoon and evening he made no reference whatever to the very serious charges which were1 made by those gallant officers against the administration overseas. I hasten to say to my hon. friend that those gallant officers were not members of the Liberal party, but both-one a member of the Ontario Legislature, and the other of the Quebec Legislature-leading lights in the Tory party of Toronto and Montreal respectively. I know the minister is too pious to read modern novels, but surely he reads Hansard during his absence from this House, and he

must have read in the debate on the Address a speech by the hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes). A speech of the hon. member for Victoria ('Sir Sam Hughes) is always as good as a novel. At the opening of this session that hon. gentleman-the ex-colleague and friend of the minister-delivered a long speech, in which he made a most vigorous charge, indeed, a series of charges against the administration of my hon. friend overseas. He even went so far as to attack, shall I say savagely-but at least to attack without gloves the commander of the Canadian troops? I leave the whole responsibility for that savage attack on the shoulders of my hon. friend from Victoria; but I do think that in fairness and in justice to the Canadian commander my hon. friend the Minister of Overseas Military Forces (Sir Edward Kemp) should have taken up the quarrel of General Currie and defended him against the attacks of a gentleman who was his colleague for many years in the Government and his predecessor in the Department of Militia and Defence. The hon. minister is more in a position to know about those charges than your humble servant, Mr. Speaker.


Albert Edward Kemp: May I interrupt the hon. member to say that I expressed my unbounded confidence in General Currie and my appreciation of him during the time I was on my feet.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Which means, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. friend has no confidence at all in the hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes), and that-


Albert Edward Kemp: Not at all.
Mr. LEMIE'UX: -far from appreciating, he is depreciating the hon. member.


Albert Edward Kemp: I only spoke ot General Currie. The hon. member can place what interpretation he chooses upon my words. v


Rodolphe Lemieux: As we say in law, the inclusion of one means the exclusion of the other.


Albert Edward Kemp: Well, I am not a lawyer.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I might repeat the adage in Latin. However, it is a well known principle of Roman law tnat the inclusion of one means the exclusion of the other. I am sorry that the member for Victoria is not in his seat. He ought to -be here to hear what my hon. friend has to say about this appreciation of General Currie and

depreciation of himself. 'Coming to the charges made hy General Smart, Colonel Pratt and Colonel Price, I must express regret at the fact that my hon. friend has ignored them. I do not assert these charges myself. I do no take the responsibility for them*; I have not been overseas. But I happen to know one of those officers.
I know Brigadier-General Smart is a highly respected citizen of Weetmount. He. is a public man and needs no certificate of character from me. He his well known in Montreal and throughout the province of Quebec. He served his King and country on the field most gallantly since the beginning of the war, and yet Mr. Speaker, when he came back-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I have not attempted to draw the line at all closely, but I must draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that it is a well-known rule that an hon. member cannot refer to a previous debate in the same session.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, I am
answering the statement made by my hon. friend about his administration of the Department of Militia overseas, and I am giving as an argument against that administration what has been stated by well-known officers of the Canadian militia. I think, Mr. Speaker, I am in order. I am not rehashing an old debate, but am simply refuting a statement-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have not prevented the hon. member from referring to the fact that there has been a debate, hut that is as far as he can go. He is about to cover the same ground again, which he cannot do. The debate is upon record.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If the hon. minister
chooses to ignore the very serious charges which have been made against his departs ment, let it be known that no light will be shed by the Government on this important question. However, Mr. Speaker, I accept your ruling as usual.


Mr. MORPHY:: The hon. member can
make these charges himself on his responsibility as a member of the House.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend will not charge me with cowardice, I suppose. I would make a charge if I had personal knowledge of the thing to which I refer. I said when I brought the matter up before the House that I had no personal knowledge of the facts, but I take the word of those gallant officers. Two of them are well known to my hon. friend. Does he refuse
to take the word of Colonel Price and of Colonel Pratt? I do not know them personally, but they wear the King's uniform, and I respect their word. They were not playing politics; they were simply passing, judgment on the administration of what is generally known as Argyll House.
, Is my hon. friend, then, not surprised to find' on the return of the responsible minister, after these charges having been made publicly in the legislatures, in the press, and on the floor of Parliament, that he should completely ignore them? I am sure that the robust faith of my hon. friend in the minister and in the Government generally is very seriously shaken by that very ominous silence of the minister. Suppose these charges had been laid at the door of my hon. friend. Do you th'ink for one moment that he would have remained silent? Oh, no. He is too restless for that; he would at once have risen in his place and would have courted an investigation. He would at least have denied the charges. Yet, Mr. Speaker, the minister has absolutely ignored the charges. He has not courted an investigation. Indeed, it is as though General Smart, Colonel Price and Colonel Pratt did not exist at all. Now, Sir, since I cannot go into these charges again-accepting your ruling in the matter-I must say that I was surprised to find that in the elaborate statement made by my hon. friend, he did not even mention the name of Colonel Bruce. The hon. minister paid a glowing tribute, to which I subscribe, to our Canadian doctors and nurses. But, Sir, Colonel Bruce has laid a terrible indictment, not against the medical administration, but against the fussiness of Argyll House in the medical organization in England.
It is well known to-day that there is in the possession of the minister somewhere, hidden on the .shelves of his department, or in the Government's possession, a report from Doctor Bruce in answer to the Babtie report. Yet my hon. friend will not refer to it, or will .not make it public, because forsooth if the report were published it would be very damaging to the reputation of Argyll House.
There is another report, if I am well informed, which is even more damaging than the Bruce report. I am told, on good authority, that Lieutenant-Colonel Jenkins, of Toronto, appointed to investigate the financial administration of the Medical Service, found a leakage of at least $10,000,000, and iso reported. But he has been eliminated, the report has disappeared, and



&quot;2886 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
it is as if there was no Jenkins, no report, and above all no leakage. Well, Sir, this is a public question; it has been aired in the press all over Canada. When the hon. gentleman returned some days ago-and we " were all pleased to see him back because, '"after all, he as not a bad fellow-he was asked if he had that report, and after much hesitation-and it looked as if his conscience was balancing between his extreme partyism and his usual honesty of purpose-he emitted a few words. I read his [DOT]remarks next day in Hansard, and I could not find out whether Colonel Jenkins existed or not; at all events the answer was typically vacillating and uncertain. It 'seems to me that the hon. gentleman should once for all make a frank confession. Nobody will accuse him of having pocketed the $10,000,000; but the people of this country are interested in knowing whether or not that report exists; and when its existence is no more in doubt, public opinion will force the Government to grant us an investigation. My hon. friend found some unrest upon his arrival in Canada. He finds that the soldiers are upset after four years of war. It is such facts as those I have mentioned which tend to upset the minds of the soldiers. The soldier fought for a dollar a day during a period of four .years.
Albert Edward Kemp: One dollar ten.


Rodolphe Lemieux: He left the administration of the country in the hands of hon. gentlemen opposite. The soldier was asked to vote for the Government that would send him reinforcements, and upon his return he finds that there are very serious leakages in connection with the administration of public funds. That is, Sir, one of the many causes of the existing unrest. Hon. gentlemen opposite have been rolling in millions since the beginning of the war. Now the time has come to render an account of their stewardship, and we, the representatives of the people, are here to see that the will of the returned men is given effect to.
Another question which is of interest to the country is that of the riots which occurred overseas. It is too bad that, under the rules of the House, I cannot refer to what three Canadian officers stated in public letters and speeches, because the officers in question all declared that these riots were not confined to Rhyl, but that they took place in almost every camp where Canadians were congregated. We [DOT]are also informed that riots even took place . [Mr. Lemleux.l
in the Canadian camps in France after the signing of the armistice. Have we obtained any satisfactory explanation from the hon. gentleman as regard the trials which have taken place in England as a result of those riots?


Albert Edward Kemp: Does the hon. gentleman refer to Canadian camps in France?
Mr. L'EMIEUX: No, camps in England.
Sir EDW'ARD KEMP: I think my hon. friend referred to riots that had taken place in France.
iMr. LEMIEUX: Yes.


Albert Edward Kemp: In Canadian
camps?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, and I made the statement previously in the House. I am informed that in t'he Third Division the men refused to obey the command that had been given them. When they were told that they would be sent to help in maintaining order in industrial centres in England they refused to obey the command, and that was the cause of a riot in the Third Division in France. That is the information we on this side have received, and yet nothing has been said in regard to it by my hon. friend. Now some of our men have been killed during the riots that have taken place in England, and others have been sent to jail and are still in dungeons. My hon. friend has been silent on this point. The public wants to be reassured about those facts. Many causes have been assigned for the riot at Rhyl, but there were riots in other camps as well, yet my hon. friend did not refer to them. He paid a glowing tribute to the officers surrounding him at Argyll House, but what has he to say about the men in the camps? My hon. friend stated, and I agree with him, that it was rather a difficult to transport so many hundred thousands of soldiers immediately the armistice was signed. I agree with him, but dissatisfaction at not being returned to Canada sooner was not the only cause of riots. There was a motion on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. friend from Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) purporting to mention the causes of all the riots. I cannot refer to that motion because it has been the subject of a previous debate. I am very sorry that my lips are sealed, but I would draw my hon. friend's attention to Hansard. There he will find the motion recorded and he can peruse it during his leisure hours because he has nothing to do now on this side of the Atlantic; his friend

sitting behind him (Major-General Mew-burn) is doing the whole work in the Department of Militia. Let my hon. friend read the charges made by the ex-Minister of Militia and he will find they call for action. He owes it to our soldiers, he owes it to all our men, to see that justice is done them.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to have from my hon. friend a fuller explanation of the Siberian Expedition. The Government aot-ed without thought in this matter. To show its lack of judgment, in a moment of frenzied enthusiasm it decides to send many thousand young Canadians to Siberia. The people are not consulted, the matter is rushed through by Order in Council. Then suddenly we learn after the expedition has reached Siberia that we must bring our boys back. How much has that expedition cost Canada, and who is responsible for that Siberian folly?
Major-General MEWBURN: The Kaiser.


Rodolphe Lemieux: You mean the present
Government. No one but the Kaiser or the present Government would have told those young men that they would be sent to Siberia whether or not they were willing to go; and many were sent away against their will. The Kaiser! Yes, the Canadian Kaiser did it.
My hon. friend spoke about our Aviation Corps. There are tales about those young Canadians which are simply heartrending. It is almost past belief that after the armistice hundreds of those heroic young Canadian aviators were passing the hat around in the streets of London because they had not the means to return to Canada. To obtain the privilege of reaching Liverpool to embark for Canada they had to pay with their own blood money some 'Shylocks who extorted commissions from them when they applied for tickets. Is that a charge emanating from me, Mr. Speaker? No; it emanates from the friends ot the Government, from returned officers who made the statement publicly. And yet my hon. friend has made no reference to it.
I would like to put a question to my hon. friend, which I hope he will answer in good faith, as usual. Has he read the charges made by Brigadier-General Smart, by Colonel Price and by Colonel Pratt, and does he intend to answer those charges?


Albert Edward Kemp: 1 understand that those charges have been already answered.
Major-General MEWBURN:	In full.


Albert Edward Kemp: So far as I am
concerned I never read those charges.


Rodolphe Lemieux: But you intend to
read them now?
Sir EDWARD KEMiP: No, I do not. I have something better to do.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Very well. I will report that to Brigadier-General Smart, to Colonel Price and to Colonel Pratt, and we may hear further from them.
My hon. friend has not given to the House a full explanation in regard to the Jenkins' Report. I would like from him a more apparently sincere explanation than the one he gave when he first appeared in the House on his return from England. Does that Report exist? Did he not receive it? And if he received it, why does he not make it public? It should be public property. Colonel Jenkins acted for Canada and was paid by Canada, and I do not see why, even if his Report is against the administration of my hon. friend overseas, it should not be made public. Let us have responsible Government, Mr. Speaker. It is the first time in the history of this Parliament that public reports, signed by officials, reports such as those .made by Dr. Bruce and Colonel Jenkins-if the latter report exists-have not been brought down to the House. Have we abdicated our rights and functions as a Parliament? Are we going to be told that because a report is adverse to the Government it shall not be made public? I hope my hon. friend will seriously consider the master and speak the truth and the whole truth about these two reports.



SUPPLY.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to and the House went into Committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Fisheries-Salaries and Disbursements ot Fishery officers and Guardians, Fisheries Patrol Service, and Oyster Culture, $600,000.
Hon. C. C. BALLANTYNE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: Mr. Chairman,
without wishing to detain the members of the Committee, I think it might be interesting to hon. members if I made a very brief reference to the fisheries of Canada and to the reorganization that it is proposed to put into effect. In order that I may be accurate, if hon. members will allow me I will read this brief memorandum that I have here and then they will better understand the Estimates which will be placed before them for consideration.
Reorganization of the Outside Service has not yet been effected, but a method of doing

so has been worked out and approved by the Civil Service Commission. As soon as reclassification of salaries has been completed, steps will be taken to put the reorganization into effect. It is anticipated that the reorganized service will be in complete working order by the end of this calendar year. In broad lines, the reorgtanization will be as follows:
For the purposes of Fisheries administration, Chnada will be divided into three sections, the fisheries of each of which are common in their character, viz:-The Atlantic Provinces ; The Prairie Provinces ; British Columbia.
Ontario and Quebec, so far as their inland waters are concerned, administer their own fisheries.
To assure the greatest possible co-ordination of the administrative service and the closest and most direct supervision, and at the same time to provide that those engaging in the industry may be in the closest possible contact with the Department, each of these sections will be placed under the charge of a Chief Inspector of Fisheries, through whose office all the work of that division will ibe carried on. District Inspectors will be continued as at present. Local overseers will be employed, but instead of having a large number of them with small districts and insignificant salaries, so that they must engage in other work to make a living, each overseer will have as large a district als he can efficiently handle, and he will be require-' to devote his whole time and attention to his work. He will be paid a reasonable salary. The amount has not yet been fixed by the Commission.
Special guardian's will have to be employed in some instances at certain times of the year, particularly to protect fish on the spawning grounds in the rivers. But no greater number of such guardians will be employed than is absolutely necessary, and then only for such limited period as their services are really needed. In any instances where services are required for more than thirty days, advertisements will be published calling for applications for the position.
The lobster catch for 1918 fell very much below that for 1(917. In fact it was little more than half the annual average of the catch of the four preceding years. This sharp decline should not, however, be too readily attributed to a scarcity of lobsters. The falling off was common on all parts of the coast, and a strong contributing cause will be found in the protracted spells of stormy weather and1 the abnormal ice conditions that prevailed last spring.
The total value of our fisheries for 1917 amounted to $52,312,044. This sum is more than $13,000,000 greater than the value of the fisheries for the previous year.
This brief statement will give hon. members some, idea of what we are going to do. As we proceed with the Estimates I shall be very glad to give any further information that may be required.


Mr. CAHILL:: Are new inspectors to be appointed to these new positions that are to be created? What will be their salaries. What commission does my hon. friend refer to when he says that the " commission " has not decided on the salary?

, Mr. BALLANTYNE: We have a Chief Inspector of Fisheries in British Columbia, Colonel Cunningham, whose headquarters are at Vancouver. It will be necessary to appoint also a Chief Inspector for the Maritime Provinces. All such appointments will, of course, be made by the Civil Service Commission. The salary of Colonel Cunningham, whose responsibilities out there are very heavy and who has been with the department for many years, is *54,000 a year.


Mr. FIELDING:: A large deputation waited on the minister recently and suggested some changes in the organization of the department. May I ask whether any progress has been made? Is that matter still under consideration?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The hon. member (Mr. Fielding) was present when the delegation from the Canadian Fisheries Association waited upon me. Some of the suggestions that this association made have already been acted upon. In my Supplementary Estimates I intend to ask for an amount for fishing tugs to patrol Lake Erie and to replace the steamer Vigilant, which formerly did that work. That was one of the suggestions that the association made. The most important suggestion that they made was that the fisheries of Canada should be in charge of a deputy minister who would give his whole time to that work, and that the present able deputy, Mr. Des-barats, should not act as deputy minister both for the Fisheries Branch and the Naval Service Branch. I agree with that recommendation, and I hope that before the next session of 'Parliament we shall have a deputy minister who will devote all his time to the fisheries. We intend also to employ a man who will give most of his time to the commercial side of the question, to the marketing of fish, and so on. The man I am looking for will be a bright young business man who will be able to study the markets of Canada as well as markets abroad, to look into the transportation question, and to advise the deputy minister and myself. While the volume of the fisheries of Canada is very large, a great deal more can be done, and now that the war is over an even more vigorous policy will be pursued than has been followed in past years.


Frank S. Cahill: Is the $100,000 increase chiefly for increased salaries and additional salaries to new appointees?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The appropriation is to provide for the necessary extensions of

the service and for the reorganization to which I have referred; also, for salaries and for the appointment of further fishery officers. When my fishery Estimates were before the Committee last year I said that the number of guardians would be very much reduced. I am glad to inform the Committee that this has been done. In 1917 there were 806 guardians throughout Canada; during the past year that number has been reduced to 392, and we have employed them only for the length of time that we wanted them-for one month or two months, as the case might be. Their remuneration has been increased, and we ask that the service rendered be much better- in fact, that it be such as the appointments call for. Therefore, while the number of guardians has been reduced the remuneration to them has been increased, but the cost on the whole has been lessened. The total cost for guardians in 1917 was $94,290.59, and this year, with an increased remuneration to guardians, it is only $80,818.78.
iMr. McKENZIE:	I understand that a
new inspector is to be appointed for the Maritime Provinces. Is this appointment for the three Maritime Provinces, or is it only for one? What would the specific duties of this new official be?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Only one Superintendent of Fisheries will be appointed for all the Maritime Provinces, and it will be his duty to co-ordinate the work, to have full charge of the overseers and also of the guardians, and in a general way to be responsible to the department at Ottawa for all of the Maritime fisheries. I think such an appointment will prove to be a good one. It has worked so in British Columbia, and since I have had the honour of being Minister of Fisheries, I have done my utmost to run the department free from politics and to put it on a good business basis. I do not claim to have done wonders, but my sincere desire is to get the best men we can, and to place the fisheries of Canada on an even better footing than at present and to expand them*.


Frank S. Cahill: The minister has stated that he is looking for salesmen in the interests o*f the fisheries of the country. Has he in mind that the increased expenditure will in any way reduce the high cost of living, or if it will decrease the price of fish to the Canadian consumer?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I have in mind just exactly what the hon. member has, namely,
that we shall induce the public to eat more fish, and I hope the cost of fish will also go down. The problem is, however, a very large one.


Frank S. Cahill: What are the minister's hopes based on?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: On this, that we are going to have a publicity department and to do far more advertising than has been done in the past. We intend getting out very attractive booklets about the various kinds of fish, how they may be cooked, how palatable they are and all that sort of thing, just the same as a live business concern would do. We also hope to have more steam trawlers put in use than there are in use at present, and as the volume of the output of the fisheries of Canada is increased, the cost ought to decline. But I will make no promises in that regard, because the problem is too* big a one for a minister to state definitely that he can reduce the cost. We will do everything we can to reduce it, and we can only hope we shall be successful.


Frank S. Cahill: I -should like to know
whether the Government or the minister in charge has in mind the high cost of living in this country. Every minister who has brought up his Estimates so far has had an increase in them. The minister now tells us that he has cut off some 400 inspectors and other employees of one kind or another, and yet in face of that he is asking us for an increased expenditure of $100,000. Every minister seems to be heading in the same direction of in-10 p.m. creased expenditure and of making positions for his friends. New positions in unlimited numbers are being created from day to day, but so far no minister has told us that he is endeavouring to decrease the cost of living, or that he is thinking at all about the people. It is all very well for us to vote away the people's money, $600,000 in salaries including an increase of $100,000 over last year, which will in all probability increase the -cost of living to the Canadian consumer, and the minister -tells us frankly that he has in mind no plan that will decrease the cost. It would be very much better -for the Government to spend that $100,000 in endeavouring to find some way of furnishing fish to the Canadian consumer at lower prices than those of to-day. But if the Government wishes to consider only the commercial interests of the country, without any regard to the consuming

public, we shall continue along in the same direction in which we are now going and get in deeper all the time. All the Government seems to have in mind is to spend money to do business, but that money has to be paid some day, and the ministers should turn their attention to the high cost of living and endeavour to reduce it to the poor people of this country instead of providing what are apparently political jobs for their friends. I take the minister's word when he says he is not letting politics enter into this thing, but apparently, all the ministers say the same thing and they have all found a way of creating new positions at high salaries.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I should not want the hon. member to think that this expenditure is for fishery officers alone; it is for the fishery patrol service and for oyster culture. It might interest the hon. member to know that the price of fish has very materially dropped since the armistice was signed, but I do not take any credit for that. If this new general sales manager, or publicity man, or whatever you like to call him, is the kind of man I hope we shall get, he will be able to look into transportation charges and all that kind of thing in order that fish may be delivered to fish dealers at the lowest possible cost. It is quite probable that the cost of fish will continue to go down, and we want to take advantage of meat unfortunately being as high as it is and fish low to increase the consumption of fish and to educate the people more in the use of it. As regards the consumer, the hon member will, I am sure, understand that I as well as every other member on this side of the House have the consumer in mind as much as our friends on the other side. No one knows that better than my genial friend the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster), who knows that the consumer is always the apple of our eye.


William Stevens Fielding: The curious feature of the problem is that while there has been a very perceptible reduction in the cost of fish in the wholesale trade, that reduction does not seem to reach down to the retail trade. Everybody in the wholesale trade will tell us that the cost of fish is so much lower than it was, that many fish merchants have incurred very heavy losses, but the price to the consumer in the retail shop does not vary very much.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: With reference to the transportation of fish to the retailer from the sea, is there a refrigerator service provided for in the minister's estimates?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Is there any increase for that so as to enlarge the service? That is one of the things that Canada requires more than anything else.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I will come to that in a moment, if the hon. member will wait.


Mr. LOGGIE:: For the inland trade of the Dominion of Canada it is very important that refrigeration on express cars be provided. I do not think the fresh fish business can be properly undertaken and the inland market supplied unless we have a better system of transportation by express. In the winter season the goods are shipped in a frozen condition, and after being in a heated car for twenty-four hours they arrive at Montreal and Toronto in an almost unsaleable condition, if they have to be kept any time. The moment the frost comes out. of frozen fish, the fish should be immediately consumed; otherwise, it deteriorates in value. I do not think the transportation of frozen fish by express can be undertaken in less than carload lots unless some refrigeration is provided. To encourage the transportation of fish from the sea coast to our inland cities there should be express transportation every day in the week. When it comes to delivering fish by freight in carload lots the fish can be landed in good order in Toronto in the summer season, but in the winter season you cannot bring a box of fish from the seaboard to Toronto and deliver it in good condition. In the summer the fish is packed in ioe, and even if the ice melts, it is not very material, but even in the summer season there should be some portion of the car which could be cooled by salt and ice, and then the fish would arrive in much better condition than it does at the present time.


Frank S. Cahill: Are these salaries fixed by the Civil Service Commission?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Under the re-classification they will be.


Frank S. Cahill: But they are not now? What salaries do you expect to pay to these inspectors?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I do not know what the re-classification will provide. I have in mind myself what would foe a fair salary, but the fixing of the salary is outside my jurisdiction. We shall have to wait and see in what class the officers are put.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have been informed by some of the inspectors that when a guardian is to be appointed tenders for

the position are invited, through notice being put up in the different districts. These tenders are sent to Ottawa, where the selection is made. I submit that it would be difficult for the minister or any of his officers, unless they had some private information, to select a guardian for the district, of Cape North, for instance, in the county of Victoria, if half a dozen or more applications came in from that district from men all of whom were worthy citizens and would discharge the duties of the office equally well. Perhaps the minister will explain how the right person to be appointed is determined when only one man is to be selected out of a dozen applicants.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The commission
form their opinion as to the proper man to select, largely, I presume, upon the recommendation of the local overseer or the inspector of fisheries for the district, they are not bound by that recommendation, but it is always passed on to them.


Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR:: I do not think
that is the way in which it is being done, but if the minister says so, I do not like to contradict him. I think it would be a very good arrangement if the local fishery officer had absolute power to appoint his own men without interference from the department in any way. If he is made responsible for the district of which he is overseer and can select his own men, much more efficient service will be rendered than if the appointments are made for political reasons as they have been in the past. Is it a fact that there is no interference on the part of the department in making these appointments, and that the local fishery officer has been informed that he has absolute power to make the appointment, and that the department will stand behind that appointment when it is made?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The hon. member
is quite right. The Civil Service Commission was so congested with business during the past year that the guardians were appointed by the local officers. I quite agree with my hon. friend that the way he suggests is the proper way and in so far as I have any influence it shall be used in that direction.


John Howard Sinclair: Are we then to understand that in future the rule will be that the fishery officer for the district will make these appointments independent of the department and of the Civil Service Commission?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: No, I am sorry to say. If a guardian is wanted for less than thirty days the local officer can make the appointment, but if the appointment is for a longer time the position must be advertised, the local officer makes his recommendation to Ottawa, and it is passed on to the Civil Service Commission, who make the appointment.


John Howard Sinclair: How is the Civil Service Commission to decide who is the best man when there are half a dozen applications for the position? I could understand how the local officer could pick the right man, but how the Civil Service Commission can do it is difficult for me to understand, when the applicants live a thousand miles away and the Commission knows nothing about them. Will the minister explain how it is done?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Before the Civil Service Commission took over the making of appointments, I stated on the floor of this House, last year when my Estimates were up, that I intended to leave all local appointments to the chief fishery officer in the various districts. Now, when there are several applicants for the same position, the local officer makes his recommendation to the Fisheries Department here as to the one he thinks most competent for the position, that recommendation is passed on to the Civil Service Commission, and as a rule is acted on by them, although they are not bound to do so.


Mr. McMASTER:: When last year the Minister of Marine and Fisheries promised a reduction in the number of fishery inspectors or guardians we on this side of the House gave him a well merited meed of applause. The 'minister has succeeded in doing what he said he would do. The House and the country should feel grateful to him, and I am sure they both do.
But the minister brings before the Committee to-day an item in his Estimates providing for an increase over last year of $100,000. I have listened very carefully to the discussion which is taking place to-night but have not been able to satisfy myself that the minister has made out a case for this increase. He shows us that in one substantial portion of this item he has effected a diminution in the personnel of the section of his department and an increase in salaries, which I think is perfectly right. I think that the public will be best served by having fewer and better paid officials. That is good business and common sense, and is, I am sure, what we want on both sides of the House. The

minister was kind enough to refer to me and my desire to protect the consumer. He said that he as well as myself had an eye to the consumer all the time. It is true he has an eye to the consumer, perhaps in the hope that the consumer's prosperity will enable him to get a little increase in price for what he has to sell to him. On this side of the House I protect the consumer in the hope of seeing that he gets his goods at a little lower price. But we are both thinking of the consumer, and both hope to see him happy and prosperous. Seriously speaking, however, I would like to have the minister establish his case for this increase of $100,000; because it is a truism-it is trite and tiresome but I must emphasize the fact-that we have to cut our financial coat according to our financial cloth in this country, and there has been no attempt on the part of the Government to cut down the Estimates, as far as I have been able yet to perceive. It seems to me that the ordinary expenses of this country are going to be more than they were last year, and I think we are in a very serious position.
Mr. iBALiLANTYNE :	I want to assure
the hon. member that I have no wares to sell. I formerly was in business, and when I get through with political life I shall devote all my time 'to tmy farming interests. Possibly, therefore, I have more interest in the consumer than the hon. member for Brome. But I want to say, with regard to the item, that the hon. member is quite right in asking for a little more information than I have given. The fishery service has been, I would not say deplorably weak, but it has been weak, and we are going to increa'se salaries of all those engaged in the fisheries of 'Canada. We shall engage fewer people and pay .them better salaries. Then the patrol service has to be increased also, but I have an eye to the expenditure and hope to get a Bill through the House that will allow me to increase the revenue of Canada to the extent of $262,000. So that I trust there will be no deficit in administering the fisheries when the present fiscal year is closed. I am doing my best to reduce the cost as far. as possible, and to increase the revenue and the efficiency at the same time. While the amount may seem large, I would like hon. members to realize the fact that the service was allowed to run down a little during the years of the war and we are now strengthening it. For this purpose we have to have more money for increases in salaries for fishery officers and also for patrol ser-
vice. I can go into details of the patrol service if it is necessary. The money is also required in connection with oyster culture. With regard to the patrol service, in order that hon. members may have some idea of the extent of this work I may say that we have 38 boats that are owned by the department and 18 that are hired. On the Atlantic coast there are 15 owned by the department and 9 hired; on the Pacific, 22 owned by the department and 9 hired; on (Lake Winnipeg. 1 owned by the department. These boats are engaged in preventing illegal fishing and are distinct from fisheries protection cruisers. I do not know that I can give more information than this, but if the money is voted we shall see that it is honestly disbursed.


Mr. KNOX:: Is it the intention to improve or further develop the fishing industry in the lakes in the Prairie Provinces? In the northern parts of these provinces we have some very large lakes and almost an unlimited supply of fish. And in view of the fact that these lakes are situated so near some of the cities which at present are showing signs of unrest, due no doubt to the high cost of living, it might be well to devote some attention to the possibilities of further developing this industry.
Mr. BAILLANiTYNE: I am glad that the hon. member has drawn attention to this matter, for we are certainly going to do everything we can in regard to our Great Lakes.


Mr. J. E. SINCLAIR:: Will the money that is to be spent on oyster culture be devoted to patrol work, or in what way is it to be expended?
MV. BALLAXTYNE:	There are three
reasons why we want the money. We intend to increase the salaries of all officials, and we want it for the patrol service and also for oyster culture.


John Ewen Sinclair: In what way is the money to be spent in connection with oyster culture?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: On the recommendation of Mr. Ernest Kemp, who is a specialist on oysters, it is intended to keep the public beds in proper condition. For this purpose he has to have a boat. It will also afford information and advice to those going into private oyster culture; and, further, the Biological Board will assist very materially in a scientific way.


John Ewen Sinclair: Can the minister say what proportion of the item will be used for that purpose?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Between $6,000 and


Mr. TURGEON:: The fisheries officer in the county of Gloucester died two or three months ago. The Civil Service Commission called for applications, and I know that a number of applications have been sent in. Has the appointment been made yet, and if co, who has been appointed?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The appointment 'has not yet 'been made but the matter is now before the commission.
i Mr. CAHILL: It would 'be interesting to know how much of this money is to be spent on salaries, patrol service, oyster culture, and so on. The. Committee would like to have an idea of what the different phases of this work cost, and what ds the cost of the increase of the salaries to officials.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Salaries and disbursements for fishery officers in 1916-17 .amounted to $305,000.


Frank S. Cahill: How much is it now?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I cannot say exactly now what the increase will be because we have to go carefully over the list of officers and see what increases in salaries they ought to receive. We have not yet done so. We are asking for the appropriation first and will carefully go over the list of officers afterwards.


John Howard Sinclair: Will each officer get a share of the general increase?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The Civil Service Commission will settle the wages. I hope there will be a general increase, because the fishery officers are very much underpaid at the present time. I hope that when the Civil Service Commission finally settle the matter they will give to these good and efficient officers, and on merit, the increase in salary they are entitled to.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There are a great many officers in different parts of the country- I think they are called commissioners-who have a whole county, or more, to look after. They receive a small salary and their travelling disbursements are paid. Would the minister take the four counties of Cape Breton and tell us the salaries of the different officers there and how their travelling expenses compare with their salaries? Per-[DOT] haps I should not trouble the minister to give the comparison for the whole island of Cape Breton, but let him take one county and give us some idea as to how these accounts stand as between salary and travelling expenses.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I think the hon. gentleman has reference to overseers, and in Inverness county there are eight. In Eastern Harbour the overseer gets a yearly salary of $120, and is allowed ten cents a mile for travelling expenses. In Kingsville, Mr. McLellan gets $50; in Pleasant Bay, Mr. McIntosh gets $75; and in Port Hood, Mr. John A. McDougall gets $150. These are overseers, not guardians.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister has given the salaries. I also wanted the amount paid these officers for travelling expenses, to see how the two amounts compare.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The many hundreds of overseers are allowed ten cents a mile for travelling expenses. I will endeavour to furnish the amount of travelling expenses, but I am sorry I have not the information before me at present.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am not very particular about it, because I had occasion to make a private inquiry into the subject a couple of years ago, and I find that while the salaries are very small the accumulation of travelling expenses is getting very high. Some years ago I suggested to the minister that it would be far better for the country, and in the interest of honesty and integrity on the part of the officials, that they should be paid a fixed salary and do away with the pernicious system of inviting them to pad their accounts so as to get moneys to which they are not entitled.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I quite agree with the hon member that the system is not a good one, and is liable to be abused in just the manner he states. However, we intend to do away with the system, and to give these fishery overseers a fixed amount for travelling expenses each year, a sum that would be fair and reasonable according to the district which they are covering-possibly about $200 per annum. The present system is open to criticism as the hon. gentleman has very well stated, and a dishonest fishery overseer could pad his travelling expenses. I will not say it has been done, but the possibility of doing so exists, and the system will be changed.


Mr. ROSS:: I should like to get details if I can in regard to this item, which seems to be divided into three heads: Salaries and disbursements of fishery officers and guardians; fisheries patrol service; and oyster culture. I would like the minister to tell the Committee how much was spent under each head last year, and how much he estimates is going to be spent under

each head this year; also how many officers he had under the first head last year, and how many he expects to employ under the same head this year.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Under the heading of Salaries and Disbursements of Fishery Overseers, there was expended last year $305,000, and on the fisheries patrol service $190,000. The number of fishery guardians in 1917-1918 was 806, and this year the number is 392. The overseers in 1917-18 numbered 134, and we hope to greatly reduce them next year. The number of inspectors in 1917 was 24 and in 1918, 21. As to how we are going to divide the expenditure under the increase that we have asked for, that is a matter which will have to be determined in detail later on.


James Hamilton Ross: What about oyster culture?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The expenditure for this purpose last year was $6,000.


James Hamilton Ross: How much will it be this year?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: As far as we can tell it will not be much more during the coming year than it was last year.


John Howard Sinclair: 
Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I think we would make better headway if we took the items in the order they appear, and when we reach the item of fish breeding establishments I shall be glad to answer the hon. gentleman.


John Howard Sinclair: There is no item relating to lobsters at all.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Hatcheries will
come under vote I have referred to.


James Hamilton Ross: I do not wish to be too persistent in regard to this item. But the minister told us that last year certain sums were allocated to salaries and to fisheries patrol service. Last year he asked $500,000, and this year he expects to spend $600,000 on oyster culture. That is increasing the vote by $100,000. I Would like to know which of the items get the increase. The
minister ought to be able to give us some idea of what these increases are going to be in each branch of the service.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: As far as the oyster beds are concerned, as they are controlled by the provincial governments, that will explain why'the Federal authorities do not intend to spend any more than $600,000. I have as clearly as possible indicated that the $100,000 is for the salaries of the fishery officers and the patrol service; but to get down to the actual details of how much is for the patrol service and how much for the fishery officers is something I could not do until we had actually gone into the whole matter in detail. The first thing I must do is to try and get the members of the committee to give me $100,000 and then we will distribute it under these three headings. I could not tell to a dollar how much is going to be allocated to the patrol service and how much to the officers.


James Hamilton Ross: Tell us to $10,000.


John Howard Sinclair: I would expect the Fisheries Department to make a calculation of the amount of money needed. It is extraordinary that they should make up their minds to ask for $100,000 and yet not know what they are going to do with the money. That is not the business way of voting money. In a business concern, for instance, a bank, if salaries of the officers were to be increased, and $100,000 was required for that purpose,' the directors would have a statement and would know just why the amount was required and what was going to be done with it. But it appears that in the fisheries office a lump sum of $100,000 is asked for, and afterwards the officials are going to consider what they will do with it.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The hon. member is quite right. I have been in business myself and know exactly how a body of shareholders would question a proposed increase of $100,000. They would want to know first of all what the directors were going to do with it. If I told them it was for fisheries patrol and for fishery officers they would naturally inquire further how much we expected to spend on increased patrols and how much on increased salaries. In round figures, as the hon. member has asked, it would be $60,000 for patrols and $40,000 for salaries. That is not absolutely accurate, but it is what we estimate it will be.


Frank S. Cahill: What is the cause of the great increase of $60,000 in patrols?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Because the service has been allowed to run down, due to the

war, we have not had a sufficient protective service. Now that the war is over we are increasing the number of patrol vessels and officers to give the protection that we think the fisheries ought to have. We were not able to do that during war time.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The coast lines of Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia comprise a great many miles, and I do not see how one man can travel that distance during the short season of fishing and carry on this work with any degree of efficiency. If he had the whole year it would be different; but the fishing in the Maritime Provinces begins about the middle of May and ends some time in August, and one man could not inspect all the different-fishery points during that period. I assume that the inspector will be supposed to examine the packs of lobsters, to see how the work is carried on in the lobster factories, to ascertain how the guardians are doing their work, and so on. It is absolutely impossible for one man to do that work. If it is necessary at all to have such an official there should be more than one; but I am not in favour of the idea, because if the right men are locally selected to do the work of fishery officers there will be no need of any one to oversee the work. The money that the minister expects to spend on this official would produce better results if given to local officers-not to guardians, but to inspectors and other officials throughout the several provinces. If he increased their salaries and imposed greater burdens upon them he would get more efficiency from his officers and better results generally.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I quite understand that it would be impossible for this officer to visit in a short time all the various fishery points in the Maritime Provinces, but he will do so gradually. We shall try to get a man who is familiar with conditions there and who will co-ordinate the work. According to the experience of the Chief Inspector of Fisheries in British Columbia, the move is a wise one. If one officer is not enough it may be necessary at the next -session of Parliament to ask for another; but I am hopeful that one officer will be able to handle all the work. The inspectors in the Maritime Provinces now report to Ottawa; the intention is to have them report to the Chief Inspecting Officer for the Maritime Provinces and thus co-ordinate the work.


John Howard Sinclair: I want to mention a request that has been sent to me at vari-
[Mr. BaUantyne.1
ous times by farmers living along the St. Mary river in Nova Scotia. Some years ago these farmers had the right to set nets once or twice a week half way across the river for the purpose of catching salmon for their own use. They appreciated this privilege, which had been enjoyed by their forefathers for generations. But the department decided that no more net fishing for salmon should be allowed in that river. Now, the farmer has not time to use a fly to catch salmon, as the sportsmen do. I sympathize with the minister's idea that the fishing in .that river should be preserved; but the question is whether we are succeeding in doing it by our present method. The result of the present rigid method is that many of the people in that vicinity are turned into law-breakers. They take the ground that the salmon belongs to them, not to the sportsmen, because the river passes through their farms; that the right to catch these fish as I have described is an ancient right which they had for a long time and which should not have been taken away from them.. They satisfy their consciences in this way, and they break the law by going out at night to catch the salmon. I do not believe it would injure -the fishing in the river if once or twice a week, they were allowed to set their nets in certain places half way across the river and the law was rigidly enforced against any one who would sweep the river at night or violate the regulations. That is the proposal they have made to me, and their request would seem to be reasonable. I understand that that has been done in some rivers in New Brunswick. If it is true that farmers along certain rivers in New Brunswick are allowed to set nets under certain regulations, and if that practise is not injuring the fishing in those localities, I would like- the minister to consider the advisability of extending a similar privilege to the farmers along the banks of the St. Mary river.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The hon. member
is right so far as the St. John river is concerned; it is a much larger river than the St. Mary river. The regulations in respect To the latter are that there shall not be any net fishing above the ebb and flow of tidal waters. >If the use of nets was ever permitted on that river, it must have been Buite a number of years ago. I shall refresh my memory and find out how long ago that privilege existed.


John Howard Sinclair: The St. John river is a very long one, and in places it is not much larger than the St. Mary river. If this regulation applies to the whole of the

St. John river, or to the upper waters of the St. John, it would be on all fours with the St. Mary river. 1 am aware that fishermen below tidal waters in the St. Mary river are allowed to set their nets. The peculiar thing about the matter is that the river below tidal waters is not very much wider and in some places no wider than it is above tidal water. But when we get to tidal waters, prohibition exists, and people living above are not allowed to set nets. If the St. John river is open all the way up,
I would think there would bfe no distinction made between it and the St. Mary river. What effect has this had in the St. John river? Is it satisfactory or has it been injurious to the fishing? The contention of the people who make these representations to me is that it would be of advantage to the fishing; that there would not be so much violation of the law; that they would not be sweeping the river at night, because they are now prevented from catching any fish at all excepting by fly or by hook, as they are not allowed to use nets. It might be a good thing for the fishing in the river to permit this to be done. I should like to get the experience in .New Brunswick.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The regulation
covers only a portion of the St. John river from Fredericton to Andover, and that portion of the river, as the hon. member is no doubt aware, is quite large, while the St. Mary river is small. In any event, I will look into the matter and see what can be done.
Mr. CQP.P:	I was not in the House a
moment ago when my hon. friend was referring to oyster culture. I understood that only $6,000 is allowed for oyster culture. Does that extend throughout Canada or only in the Maritime Provinces?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: In the Maritime Provinces principally.


Mr. COPP:: If the cultivation and protection of oysters is of any importance, the amount the minister is devoting to the work is very small. I hold in my hand a report made to the minister 'by some official of the department, and I notice that on page 17 it states:
The position of the oyster industry in the Maritime Provinces is an extremely unsatisfactory one. There are in these provinces approximately 10,550 acres of producing natural beds, viz., 5,000 acres in New Brunswick, 4,300 in Prince Edward Island, and 1,250 in Nova Scotia, but there are tens of thousands of acres around the coasts of these provinces that by proper artificial culture and cultivation
could be converted into highly producing oyster areas.
If that report means anything, it means that the minister is not taking the proper course in appropriating only $6,000 for oyster culture in the Maritime Provinces, because, as he knows, the beds 11 p.m. have been depleted very materially in the past few years. It is almost impossible to get oysters at all, and they have practically tripled or quadrupled in price. If there are around the coast of these provinces tens of thousands of acres that could be converted into highly producing oyster areas, the minister, instead of increasing the vote in other respects, might very well give more to the cultivation of oysters.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The reason I am not advocating spending more is because the provincial authorities control the oyster beds. The federal authorities are endeavouring to induce the provincial authorities to turn the oyster beds over to us, and if that is done, we shall be very glad to spend more money, but inasmuch as the provincial authorities control the oyster beds, the Federal Government cannot do very much.


Arthur Bliss Copp: If it is right and proper for the Government to spend $6,000 on beds belonging to the provincial authorities, it might well be argued that it should spend more, but if the Government has no control of the oyster beds in the Maritime Provinces, why spend anything?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: There are a few public beds that are not leased to anybody and that the federal authorities have control of, but, generally speaking, oyster beds are under the control of the provincial governments, and in the general interest and for the few public beds of which the Federal Government has control, we ask the small amount of $6,000. I quite agree with the hon. gentleman's views, and if .we had full control the amount would be much larger.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I do not know if the minister is aware of the fact that a private corporation in New Brunswick entered into the oyster culture business a few years ago, and I understand they got assistance from the Government. Has there been any report regarding the success of this venture?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I have not received any report about the matter.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Will the minister find out ii there is any report in his office? The matter is important.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The company has not received any financial assistance from the Federal Government.


John Ewen Sinclair: A few moments ago the minister, in answer to my question, made reference to a report of Captain Kemp. Is there in that report anything referring to a disease that is attacking oyster areas in the Maritime Provinces and especially in Prince Edward Island ?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes; Mr. Kemp did refer to an epidemic that broke out. I understand it has been overcome now, but it breaks out periodically and the oysters become diseased.


John Ewen Sinclair: Is it under the jurisdiction of the minister's department to attend to the combatting of the disease that attacks oyster areas, and will any of this money be spent along that line?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The matter of
diseases of oysters has been thoroughly gone into by scientific men, and, so far, no means have been devised to overcome the disease.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is it open to any private person who has oyster beds in front of his property, or in the near neighbourhood, to cultivate oysters without license?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: It would be necessary for such person to get a license from the Provincial Government.


John Ewen Sinclair: Would it not be wise, when we consider increasing the other two items under this heading, to increase also the item for oyster culture so as to give some assistance towards developing the beds or enabling the fishermen to develop their areas in a manner that would overcome the disease or to conduct scientific investigation so as to find out what the disease really is? Would not that come under the Biological Board ?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: That has been done by the Biological Board, as the hon. member states. I will discuss the matter with the board. I cannot discuss it from a scientific standpoint, but I will certainly offer the board a greater expenditure than $6,000 if they ask for it.
Building- fishways and clearing-rivers, $30,000.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: This expenditure is mainly for clearing the rivers of British Columbia. The salmon go up the small streams as well as the large to spawn, and

on account of the mountainous nature of the country these streams are liable to be jammed with logs.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I had some correspondence with the department with regard to a fishway in the Petitcodiae river. Has any progress been made with that work?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Plans and specifications have been prepared and the work will be carried out.
To provide for the inspection of pickled fish, $15,000.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is there not some legislation pending in connection, with this inspection? If it is the intention of the minister to press that legislation through Parliament this session I should like some further explanation about it, although I may not be quite in order in bringing up the matter on this item. The compulsory inspection of the fisheries is rather a disagreeable task to impose upon the fishermen in different parts of the country. This legislation. I speak of was before the House in the absence of the minister, and there was considerable opposition to it as far as it advanced, and I should like the minister to consider well before pressing it.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: We consulted all the interests, and the majority of them were in favour of making the inspection of pickled fish compulsory. The matter has also been discussed with the various associations that have called upon me, and as far as I know, this legislation is being introduced to meet their wishes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I pointed out to the Acting Minister of Marine and Fisheries when this legislation was up earlier in the session that the greatest possible difficulties and legal entanglements might result from tt's inspection. A man may put up 500 barrels of herring down in northern Victoria county, where there are large fishing interests. He believes it to be No. 1 herring and sells it for No. 1 to some concern in Halifax. There is no provision as to where the fish shall be inspected. The man in Halifax who buys this No. 1 herring without saying a word that he is going to have, it inspected may get an inspector to say that it is only No.
2 or No. 3 herring. Then the fat is in the fire, and there will be all kinds of trouble. The fish is sold and beyond the reach of the man who had it in his possession. If there is to be an inspection, it should take place at the place where the fish is packed; otherwise there will be all manner of trouble be-

tween the seller and the buyer, and the fishermen as a rule are not sufficiently rwell off to stand the expense of a lawsuit. There are many other reasons why compulsory inspection should not be pressed upon the people just now. There may be some large sellers of fish who are in favour of compulsory inspection, but it is not the man who buys from the fisherman all along the coast and sells again that I am thinking of, but the small man who put up small quantities of fish and who is now getting along first-rate and has been, and those before him, for the last seventy-five or a hundred years. I am not in favour of imposing fresh duties and further obligations and compulsions by law upon such a man. He has enough to contend with already. He has to fight his way into the Atlantic and battle with the elements in order to catch the fish, and after he has caught it I am not in favour of putting any more embarrassing obligations upon him unless there is real necessity for it. So far we have been putting up very excellent fish in the province of Nova Scotia;
I have heard no great complaints. It is to the interest of every fishermen to put up good fish, for he is competing with his neighbours who are putting up good fish. That is the result of local competition, which has been doing very well. Unless the minister finds that the ordinary fisherman is satisfied to have these new obligations imposed upon him, I would not be in favour of imposing them. If he is willing to submit to this inspection, that is his business, but so far I have had no evidence of that kind.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: This amount is for the voluntary inspection of fish which has been carried on for many years. It is an annual vote. When the Bill my hon. friend speaks of is before the House full opportunity for discussion will be afforded.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Does the department provide for the inspection of oysters? What protection have the public against the sale of diseased oysters?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: They have not any. I was unfortunate enough to contract typhoid fever from eating oysters, I believe. L'nfortunately there is no protection that can be offered to those who are fond of oysters.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: 'Should not the department provide some means of protecting the public from the distribution of diseased oysters, which may lead to various diseases among the consumers?
184J


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: 
John Howard Sinclair: Will the minister deal with the question of the propagation of lobsters?
Mr. BALLAiNTYNE:	I carefully considered the subject before those fourteen lobster hatcheries were closed by the Government, and consulted a number of men interested in the business, both business men and scientific men; and from the information I gathered I did not see thait they were of any practical use. The fishermen take the lobsters and after brushing off the berries the eggs are taken to the hatchery. We found that the propagation in the hatchery was only about 30 per cent, but when the propagation occurred from the female berried lobster in the natural way it was 100 per cent. The small fry are exposed in the sea, whether they come from the lobster hatchery or whether the eggs are exuded in the natural way. While the lobster hatcheries were costing the Government considerable money we found that instead of being of service to the industry they were the reverse. For that reason I recommended that the hatcheries should be closed. But I was very careful in the matter. As the hon. member said, I waited for a year, and sought advice from every available source that could be of assistance. We have sold three of the lobster hatcheries, one at Shippegan for $610, another at House Harbour for $760, and another at Canso. For the Biological Board for scientific investigation purposes we are retaining the hatcheries at Arichat, Antigonish, Bay-view, Charlottetown and Port Daniel. The remaining hatcheries are offered for sale: Inverness Harbour, Little Bras d'Or, Isaac's Harbour, Georgetown, Shemogue and Buctouche. I am not an authority on lobsters and all I could do was to consult those interested in the business in the Maritime Provinces. I was largely guided by the report of Professor Knight, and if it is a fact that there was a propagation of only 30 per cent in the lobster hatcheries as compared with 100 per cent in the natural way, it was conclusive evidence that the hatcheries wpre not performing any useful service to the country and that the lobster interests would be best served without them.


John Howard Sinclair: What proof has the minister that there was 100 per cent propagation in the natural way?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I am only quoting Professor Knight's opinion.


John Howard Sinclair: Professor Prince was opposed to the step taken by the minister and he is our authority on this matter. I do not know who Professor Knight is, but I am quite sure that no man will say that there was 100 per cent natural propagation because that is impossible of demonstration, and if any professor makes that statement he is "talking through his hat." As regards 'the 30 per cent propagation, I think that if we succeeded in securing that percentage we were doing very well. The number of eggs on a lobster is something enormous. It runs up into the millions; at all events hundreds of thousands. I cannot remember the number, but I know it is large. According to the reports of the department there were hundreds of millions of young lobsters put into the water every year from these hatcheries, and the propagation of 30 per cent was very good. They were lively looking little lobsters when they were put .out, but whether they would live afterwards was a matter of doubt and that was the question that the department never seemed to have the enterprise to investigate. These lobster fry were siphoned out on the water some three miles from the coast and after that they were allowed to shift for themselves. They were very small and I have seen them about the size of a mosquito. The theory of the scientists was that they floated on the surface for some time until they developed, when they sank and crawled on the bottom. As far as I know the department has never made an investigation to discover whether or not they survived and it was a controversy among the fishermen as to whether these young lobsters survived when they were put into the ocean. That was the question which should have been Ascertained by the department and it is surely capable of being ascertained. What I complain of chiefly is the fact that the minister undertook this matter without consulting those members interested in the fisheries. In a question of this kind, which is not a political but a business iquestion, and on which there cannot be any difference between the Government and the Opposition as regards the proper administration, is it not curious that although, we have a Fisheries Committee sitting, the minister should-
Mr. BALLANT1NE: The hon. member will surely remember that I appeared before the Fisheries Committee last year and went very fully into this matter. As to whether or not it was a good thing to do 
that is purely a scientific question. Professor Knight and the Biological Board, which is composed of some of the most eminent university men in 'Canada, including Professor Prince, strongly recommended the step, and I can only act on the advice of such eminent scientific authorities as I have quoted. But I remember having appeared before the Committee myself and having spent half an hour or more discussing this very subject.
Mr. J. II. SINCLAIR: That is true. I had not the pleasure of being present when the minister was before the Committee. But there were several meeting of the Committee, and if a vote had been taken the action of my hon. friend would, I think, have been almost unanimously condemned. The Chairman of the Committee asked us not to pass a resolution condemning the action of the department without hearing the minister. The minister appeared before the Committee subsequently and made a statement, but whether he convinced the Committee or not no one. knows; he did not give the Committee an opportunity of meeting again and coming to a decision. I understood that the minister stated that he would call a meeting of the fishermen and fish packers, and people interested in the fisheries in the Maritime Provinces and submit the question to them. He did call a meeting last year at Halifax, but he has not told us what the decision was. I was at the meeting, but I do not remember of any decision having been arrived at in regard to this question, and I think that if it had been put to a vote of the meeting there would have been a considerable difference of opinion. But we have a number of men in the House representing the Maritime Provinces and i would like to know what we are here for. Is our advice not to be listened to? Are we not to be consulted on a question like this, but is some professor up in Kingston to decide whether lobster hatcheries in the Maritime Provinces are to be closed or kept open? My complaint is that the minister, without consulting members of Parliament who are interested in the fisheries, decided to close the lobster hatcheries and to sell them. He says he has sold one in my own constituency that was doing splendid work.
I do not care what he received for it if he made ai'bad bargain by selling it. Their advice was ignored, and if the 'Committee had been consulted in my opinion they would have decided against the action of' the department.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The hon. gentleman scarcely does me justice. He criticises me

for not being present at the meeting in Halifax, when at -that very time I was attending the Imperial Conference in London, England.


John Howard Sinclair: I am not complaining about that.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: With regard to these
matters not being put before members of Parliament, I fully agree with the hon. gentleman. This whole matter was referred to the Fisheries Committee, but, unfortunately, ministers are so driven by the pressure of public business that they cannot attend these committee meetings as often as they would like. For instance, a meeting of the Fisheries Committee was called for this morning at eleven o'clock. How many appointments had I at that hour? There was a very important meeting of -the Cabinet- taking place at eleven o'clock and I was asked to be there. A very large delegation o.f labour men representing the shipyards in the East wished to meet me at eleven o'clock. Then there was the meeting of the Fisheries Committee at the same time. Well, I chose to meet the labour men, and, therefore, was unable, much to my regret, to be present at the Fisheries Committee meeting. I would like to attend all the meetings, but if any men have cause for striking it is the ministers of the Crown. Talk about working eight hours a day; we are driven from early morning until the present advanced hour of the nightj and it is quite probable that two or three gentlemen will still want to see us after we reach our hotel. I have always referred these matters to -the Fisheries Committee, and this subject was thoroughly discussed there. My good friend from Shelburne and Queen's found some fault with me a year ago for not attending a committee meeting. I really could not do so because there were so many other matters pressing for my attention. However, I am always glad to be present whenever I can do so, and that has always been my wish.


John Howard Sinclair: Did the minister get the consent, or the approval, of the Fisheries Committee for -the course he has taken in this matter?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes, as far as I
understood it. I did not hear any gentleman there opposing the suggested action, and I certainly understood that I had the unanimous approval of the Committee, after going into the matter very fully. As to the Halifax Convention, I was not there, but the department was represented by the
superintendent of fisheries, Mr. Found. He says this matter was not discussed at all; the discussion there was about the regulations with regard to the fishing of lobsters. If my memory serves me right, and I have a fairly good memory in regard to past events, the Fisheries Committee gave me their unanimous approval.


John Howard Sinclair: I question very much if any resolution was passed on the subject by the Fisheries Committee.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Logg-ie) was present and I regret very much he is not here to-night.


John Howard Sinclair: The attitude ol the Fisheries Committee was quite different before the minister did them the honour of conferring with them, and if they had been allowed to pass a resolution on the subject it would certainly have been in opposition to what the minister has done. My point is that after the meeting in Halifax the Fisheries Committee should have been called together and the members from the Maritime Provinces consulted before the minister took the step he did. However, the minister ignored those members altogether 'and acted on his previous advice. I have no doubt the members of the committee were too polite to say very much to the minister when he was making his statement before them. However, I do not think he obtained any resolution of approval from them. The matter was left in abeyance at the time in the anticipation that a meeting of the fishing interests in the Maritime Provinces would be called to decide it. As no proper decision was arrived at when that meeting took place, it was up to the minister to call the Fisheries Committee together again and give them a chance to have something to say on this important question.


Onésiphore Turgeon: I concur in what my hon. friend (Mr. J. H. Sinclair) has said with respect to the disappearance of the lobster hatcheries. The lobster hatchery at Shippigan, in my county, has been sold. Now I took great interest in my early years in Parliament, together with Professor Prince, in the operation of lobster hatcheries. I believe to-day that Professor Prince was right in his views as to the value of these hatcheries, and that it was a bad policy to do away with them. I had expected that at the clo-se of the last session of Parliament, according to the understanding of the Fisheries Committee, some offi-

eial would visit my county in reference to this matter. However, no one came to the county of Gloucester, but nevertheless the lobster hatchery there has been sold, and 1 presume for a song.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The amount paid
for it was $610.


Onésiphore Turgeon: That is about twentyfive per cent of what it is worth to anybody who wants such an establishment along the shore. May I ask who was the purchaser?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: W. S. Loggie, Limited.


Onésiphore Turgeon: The firm got a good bargain that time. Now what are we going to do in regard to the propagation of lobster?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I am not an authority on lobster propagation. It is purely a scientific question, not a business one, and the biological board is composed of the brightest scientific men we could get throughout Canada, including Professor Prince. That board recommended to the Minister of Fisheries that it was in the interest of the lobster industry to close the hatcheries. I did not take scientific advice merely, 'but sought information elsewhere, and the matter was thoroughly threshed out before the Fisheries Committee. I did not know that the Committee paid me such deference that they would not express their opinions freely if I happened to be present at their meetings. I appreciate the honour, but I hope that in future when I attend their meetings they will have no hesitancy whatever in expressing their minds frankly. If all the members of that Committee remained silent on this question a year ago when I was present at their meeting, I cannot be blamed for taking that as consenting to what was proposed. As far as I can tell the move is a wise one and in the interests of the lobster industry, but it is purely a scientific question, and I would not attempt to offer any opinion on it myself.


Onésiphore Turgeon: May I be permitted to proffer advice which I believe to be sound. The lobster hatcheries along our shores have disappeared, and there are now only two measures left for the maintenance of that fishery-maintenance of the close season and limitation of the size of lobsters taken. The close season may have served somewhat in the past, but really the maintenance of the size of the lobsters is the only salvation for the industry in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
Mr. *BALLANTYNE: And the protection of the berried lobster as well.


Onésiphore Turgeon: Last year, or two years ago, the Minister of Fisheries abolished the regulation as to the size of the lobster that could be caught and any lobsters at all were allowed to be brought in. It is pretty difficult to enforce such a regulation, and the only way is to make the packer himself responsible for the size of every lobster he buys-whether he buys from independent fishermen or whether he takes the catch of fishermen who work for him by the day. The packer ought to be made responsible for every lobster that goes into his boiler. It is better to spend a few dollars in that way, and have the guardians loou carefully into the character of the lobster pack at each factory, than to adopt regulations which would not foe enforced. I do not wish to indulge in any lengthy observations at this late hour of the evening, but I repeat that the only salvation for the lobster industry in the Gulf of St. Lawrence is to maintain the size of the lobsters. For the last twenty-five years they have not been allowed to grow in those waters. In the case of the Bay of Fundy districts the lobsters must be nine and a half or ten inches in size to find a market in the United States, and owing to that requirement their size has been maintained, notwithstanding the immense amount of lobster fishing that is done there.
We were told that our fishermen and packers would not be allowed to take small lobsters so that in a few years big lobsters would be again plentiful. I have always contended that under the conditions prevailing during the last ten years we should have stopped taking lobsters from the gulf of St. Lawrence for two or three years at least, and should have divided the district into two portions so that the fishing would not be too much interrupted. I submit those considerations to the minister, and I believe he will find that they are sound and ought to be put into practice.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I do not think my hon. friend from Gloucester has been quite fair to the packers, because he must realize that in the Maritime Provinces at least, if not all over Canada, the lobster packers have been only putting three-quarters of a pound of lobster in a pound can, and in that way have been conserving the lobster.
I do not know which of these items contains the expenses of conducting fishery investigations, but I have in my hand a very valuable report on the lobster fisheries,
,

and I want to draw the attention of the Committee to it. I find one clause in it in regard to the canning of lobsters in the province of New Brunswick. It is stated that there are 660 shippers in various parts of the province, and that their output amounted to 195,993 cases of 48 pounds each. I understand, Mr. Chairman, that there is only 36 pounds in a case of lobsters, and I contend that this report is absolutely wrong and misleading to the public when it states the measure of the amount of lobsters taken in the province of New Brunswick.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Item 230, development of deep sea fisheries, was allowed to stand. Some hon. gentlemen who are not in the House to-night wish to discuss various fishery matters, and therefore I would not wish the minister to be in any particular hurry about bringing this up for some days.
I have in mind that the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) will be away for ten days or so.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: There is no hon. member that I would like to oblige so much as the hon. member for Lunenburg, but owing to the amount of business that remains to be transacted-and we all hope the House will prorogue by the end of June -I could not promise to leave this item to stand over for ten days. I would like to finish it to-morrow.
Progress reported.


PRIVATE BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
Consideration of amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 45, to incorporate the Canadian Wholesale Grocers' Association.- Mr. Sheard.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Do I understand that section 11 of the Bill was struck out by the Senate?


Mr. SHEARD:: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: And that the other changes made are immaterial?


Charles Sheard: Y~es. One provides for the change of office being published in the Canada Gazette, and another for the insertion of the word ' Canada ' in one or two places.
Amendments concurred in.
On motion of Sir Thomas White the House adjourned at 11.45 p.m.
Wednesday, May 28, 1919.