PENSIONS.

Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: As mentioned a a few days ago, a draft Order in Council has been prepared containing an amended scale of pensions. It is not necessary that there should be any legislation making these effective, because, so far as troops in Canada are concerned, pensions are fixed under the provisions of the Pension Act and the scale can be altered from time to time. The Minister of Justice has advised us that the scale of pensions proposed with regard to troops serving in Canada can he applied under the War Measures Act to troops serving overseas. It is, however, desirable that the House should be made acquainted with what we propose, and that an opportunity should be given for discussion, if desired; therefore, I wish to lay upon the table of the House a copy of the proposed Order in Council. It has not yet been passed, and will not be passed until the House has an opportunity of making suggestions and expressing an opinion upon it. It is in the final form which we propose, with the possible exception of a minor modification which has been suggested to me within the past day or two by the Deputy Minister of Militia and Defence, and which I have not yet had an opportunity of considering. I 
will send a couple of copies across to my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition in order that he may make whatever suggestions he may desire.



LAKE OF THE WOODS TECHNICAL BOARD.

Robert Laird Borden: I should like to give the House some information which, in reply to an inquiry made a day or two ago either by my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition or by the hon. member for St. John, I promised to bring down with regard to the work which is being done in regard to the Lake of the Woods.
The Lake of the Woods Technical Board was formed by Order in Council on the 2nd of March, 1914. It consists of five permanent officers of the various departments: Mr. Chapleau, representing the Department of Public Works; Mr. Fraser, representing the Department of Marine and Fisheries; Mr. Challies, representing the Department of the Interior; Mr. Stewart, representing the Department of Naval Service; and Mr. Acres, representing the Ontario Hydro-Electric Commission. The work assigned to it is a study of conditions on and around the Lake of the Woods both before any artificial works were placed in the watershed and since, with a view to advising the Government as to the best course to pursue in the interests of Canada itself. For this purpose it is necessary to gather all the available information from dominion, provincial and private records, relating principally to the water levels, to ascertain what may be called high water, what may be called low water, and what may be called mean water. So far as possible, records for discharges and supply must be carefully examined so that the board may know what is the available supply of water, and what quantity may reasonably be expected for power purposes. When the hoard has sifted these records and the information, it will be expected definitely to fix the range within which the level of the various lakes of the watershed will be controlled, and of course advise as to whether the conservation of all the water will necessitate the flooding of any of the shores, and, if so, to what extent.
So far, the board has had the services of only one engineer and an assistant gathering this data. It has fortunately been able to avail itself of old records and surveys made by various departments. The gauge records, which are of course of the utmost importance, have not been very well kept in the past, and their co-relation has necessitated a great

deal of labour, but it is hoped that during the coming year everything will be straightened out.
This information has been furnished me in the shape of a memorandum by Mr. William J. Stewart, who is a member of the commission, and who is acting in a special capacity, as has been explained to the House, with the purpose of assisting the Government in connection with matters that come under the consideration of the International Joint Commission.



FIRST READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 86, respecting the Grain Growers' Grain Company, Limited.-Mr. W. II. Sharpe.

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

Mr. TURRIFF:: 1.	Have any reductions been made in wages
paid to the following employees in connection with the construction of the Hudson Bay railway, viz.:	engineers, firemen, conductors,
brakemen and watchmen?
2.	If so, what wages per hour did each class receive?
3.	What wages per hour does each class receive at present?


Mr. COCHRANE:: The Department of Railways and Canals is investigating the matter.


TARIFF ON FERTILIZERS.
Mr. PUGSLEY:: Have the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Customs and the Minister of Finance, or any of them, received letters and telegrams from the Minister of Agriculture of New Brunswick protesting against the increased tariff on fertilizers?	.


Mr. CODERRE:: The Minister of Agriculture received a letter suggesting that the tariff on fertilizers should not be increased and this letter was referred to the Minister of Finance.


COST OF LIVING COMMISSION.
*Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: 1.	What has the commission appointed to inquire into the high cost of living done?
2.	Has it made a report? If so, will the report be laid on the table of the House this session?
3.	What has said commission cost?


Robert Laird Borden: 1 and 2. One of the commissioners has been obliged to take a holiday on account
88*
of indisposition. It was expected that the report of the commission would have been brought down before this, but it has been delayed on account of the indisposition of this one member. It is hoped that he will be able to return to his duties within a very few days. In that case the report will be laid upon the table of the House immediately.
3.	I do not think the cost can be determined until the report has been made.


AMHERST DETENTION CAMP.
Mr. COPP:: 1.	What has been the cost of fitting up the Malleable Iron Works at Amherst, N.S., as a detention camp for alien prisoners?
2.	Who was the contractor?
3.	Were tenders called?


Major General HUGHES:: These are matters pertaining to the British Government.


AMHERST MILITARY PREMISES.
Mr. COPP:: 1.	Who was paid . the cost of fitting up the Canadian Car and Foundry Company's Shops at Amherst, N.S., for military purposes?
2.	What are the respective amounts paid or agreed to be paid?


Major General HUGHES:: Lumber: Brookline Lumber Co., $7,355; Rhodes Curry, $80; Canadian Car Co., freight, $27; Victor Wood Working Co., $1,828.
Plumbing: Jas. White, $2,300; Loughrey and Crocker, $260.
Hardware: Dunlap Co., $200; Douglas and Co., $275.
Sand and metal lathing: Canadian Car Co., $50.
Cook ranges: Amherst Foundry, $1,300; Chapman and Flinn, $80.
Heating and lighting: Canadian Car Co., $2,000; day labour, $8,242.
Supply of labour and material, 10 per cent: contractor, Robert Mitchell, $1,663.


DISMISSAL.
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1.	Has W. W. Wade, of Bear river, N.S., been recently dismissed from the service of the Government?
2.	If so, what were his duties, on what grounds was he dismissed, and upon whose recommendation ?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Yes, by Order in Council of the 26th February, 1915.
2.	Shipping master; political partisanship; Minister of Marine and Fisheries and A. L. Davidson, M.P.


PETITE RIVIERE FISHERY GUARDIAN.
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1.	Who is the fishery guardian for Petite RiviSre, Lunenburg county, N.S.?
2.	When was he appointed, what is his remuneration, the total number of days service, and the total amount paid him for the fiscal year 1913-1914?
3.	What is the total amount of payments made to such official since his appointment to December 31, 1914?
4.	If the said official is remunerated on a per diem basis, on what grounds was the former system of payment of $35 per annum abandoned?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Benjamin Ramey.	.
2.	He was first employed for the fiscal year 1912-13. In 1913-14 he was paid $50 for the services required of him throughout the year.
3.	Tn 1912-13, $40; in 1913-14, $50; in 1914-15, $51.
4.	In 1914-15 he was paid $1.50 for each day he spent on patrol work. It was considered that this method of remuneration would result in more satisfactory work.


LIEUT.-COL. STRUAN ROBERTSON.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. KYTE.
1.	Was Struan Robertson, of Westville, Pictou county, N.S., commissioned Lt. -Colonel?
2.	When was his commission gazetted?
3.	What command in the overseas volunteer forces was given him?
4.	When was Lt.-Col. Robertson relieved of his command?
5.	Has Lt.-Col. Robertson any position in England under the Government of Canada at the present time?
Major General HUGHES:: 1.	Major S. G. Robertson, 78th Regiment, was provisionally appointed to command the 17th Battalion, Canadian Expeditionary Force, with rank of Lieut.-Colonel.
2.	His commission was not gazetted. Commissions in the Canadian Expeditionary Force have not appeared in the Canada Gazette.
3.	Command 17th Battalion, Canadian Expeditionary Force.
4 and 5. No data.


AMHERST POSTAL REVENUE.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	What were the receipts of the Amherst post office for each of the last three fiscal years ?
2.	How many employees have been engaged
during those years, and what has been their respective salaries?	.
3.	What were the receipts of this office for each of the three years previous to 1912, and what was the number of employees engaged during these years, and the remuneration paid to each?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	1911-12, $21,892.84; 1912-13, $23,943.24; 1913-14, $24,753.58.
2.	1913-14. Letter carrier service was established at Amherst on the 3rd April, 1913, with eight carriers at $2 a day each, and the office was changed from the revenue to the semi-staff basis on the 1st October, 1913, with five clerks at $400 a year each and one messenger at $2 a day. The postmaster was given a salary of $2,000. For the years prior to the 1st October, 1913, the postmaster employed and paid his own clerks, and the department has no information as to the number he employed or the salary paid them.
3.	1908-1909,	$19,549.37;	1909-1910,	$19,-
246.10; 1910-1911, $20,082.31. As stated in answer to No. 2, the department has no information as to the number of employees in the office during these years, or the salaries paid them by the postmaster.


THE STEAMER NOREEN.
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1.	Is the steamer Noreen chartered by any department of the Government for service at Halifax ?
2.	If so, (a) who is the owner, (b) from whom is the said steamer .chartered, (c) what services does the boat perform, (d) what is the price paid per day, (e) what are the number and the names of the crew, and (f) what wages do they receive?
3.	Who provides the coal, oil and supplies?
4.	(a) On what date was this steamer first chartered, (b) what is the total sum so far paid to date for such charter, and (c) how much money has been expende'd by the Government since then in the repair and maintenance of the said steamer?
5.	Does the charterer or the Government pay wharfage charges ?
6.	(a) Was the Noreen formerly called The Lily? (b) If so, was she then condemned by the Government steamboat inspectors?
7.	Did the Government sell the Lily? If so, when, and to whom, and for what price?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Owner, A. B. Crosby, (b) Charterer, A. B. Crosby, (c) Is employed transporting Marine Department employees between Halifax and Dartmouth, (d) Price, $20 per day. (e) Charterer supplies crew of three men. (f) No information as to names or wages. Government provides one man to handle moorings, gangway and freight.
3.	The Government provides coal and water, the charterer oil and supplies.
4.	(a) 18th September, 1914. (b) 18th September to 28th February, $2,800.	(c) Coal
and water, $506. This vessel was employed August 31 to September 5, 1914, six days at

$25 per day transporting equipment from dockyard to Dartmouth. Owner provided crew and all supplies.
5.	There are no wharfage charges.
6.	(a) Yes. (b) To be answered by Department of Militia and Defence.
7.	To be answered by .the Department of Militia and Defence.


MONCTON SUBWAY.
Mr. COPP:: 1.	Did the Department of Railways call for tenders for the construction of a subway in the city of Moncton?
2.	If so, from whom were tenders received, and what was the amount of each tender?
3.	Has a contract been awarded? If so, to whom, and at what price?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	F. W. Sumner, Moncton, D. G. Kirk, Antigonish, and William Cooke, North Sydney, $69,992; Smith, Merrithew Company, Fredericton, $68,832.50; Henry J. Phillips, R. E. Mutch, Archibald McLean, Charlottetown, $66,501; E. B. Evans, Montreal, $65,593; F. L. Boone, St. John, $55,353.60; Messrs. Sherwood and Sherwood, Toronto, $49,834.70; Messrs. Charles Billy and W. A. Hall, Pembroke, $48,259.10; Kenneth McLaggan, St. Marys, John T. Mc-Bean, Nasliwaak Bridge, and E. A. Bell, Fredericton, $47,525.90; John W. McManus Co., Ltd., Memramcook, $46,091; Messrs. Soper and McDougall, Ottawa, $45,866.60.
3.	Yes. Soper and McDougall, at $45,866.60, their tender being the lowest.


WAR SUPPLIES-HAY AND OATS.
Mr. PROULX:: 1.	How many persons, firms or companies have contracted with the Department of Militia to press hay for the use of the Canadian and British forces?
2.	Where is the hay being pressed?
3.	Are the plants and machinery furnished by the department to the contractors, or do they furnish their own plants and machinery?
4.	What price do they get per ton for pressing the said hay?


Major General HUGHES:: Nil.


Mr. PROULX:: 1.	How many tons of hay were purchased in the county of Prescott since the 1st August, 1914, by the Department of Militia and Defence?
2.	What was the price paid per ton?
3.	Who purchased the said hay for the department, and what remuneration was allowed to the purchasing agents?
4.	How many bushels of oats were purchased in the county of Prescott since the said date by the Department of Militia and Defence, and what was the price per bushel paid?
5.	Who purchased the said oats, and what remuneration was allowed to the purchasing agent?


Major General HUGHES:: No record
that any hay or oats were purchased in the county of Prescott by this department.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. K. Maclean: For a return showing the names of all persons from whom lands have been purchased, the quantity of land so acquired, and the amount paid therefor, in connection with the Dartmouth and Dean's post cilice branch of the Intercolonial railway since the date of return numbered 128 made to Parliament at the last regular session thereof?
Mr. Boulay: For a copy of all agreements or contracts made by the Government of Canada with the Great North Western Telegraph Company, in virtue of which telegraphic apparatus have been placed in the towers and lighthouses belonging to the Government along the St. Lawrence.
Mr. Hepburn:	For a return showing the
number of steam vessels purchased by the Government from 1896 to October 15, 1911 ; where purchased, and from whom ; the names of the vessels, and the prices paid; the number of steam vessels purchased by the Government from October 15, 1911, to February 1, 1915; where purchased, and from whom; the names of the vessels, and the prices paid.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir ROBERT BORDEN the House went into committee, Mr. Sevigny in the Chair, to consider the following proposed resolutions:
1.	That it is expedient to provide that a sum not exceeding one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) be granted to His Majesty towards defraying any expenses that may be incurred by or under the authority of the Governor in Council during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1916, for:
(a)	The defence and security of Canada;
(b)	The conduct of naval or military operations in or beyond Canada;
(c)	Promoting the continuance of trade, industry and business communications, whether by means of insurance or indemnity against war risk or otherwise; and
(d)	The carrying out of any measures deemed necessary or advisable by the Governor in Council in consequence of the existence of a state of war.
2.	That the Governor in Council be empowered to raise by way of loan, temporary or otherwise, such sums of money as are required for the purpose of making any payment authorized by any Act founded on these resolutions.
3.	That the principal raised by way of loan under this Act and under the War Appropriation Act, 1914, and the interest thereon shall be chargeable on the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
Robert Laird Borden: The statement which has been given to me in regard to the expenditures by various departments of the

Government under the appropriation, up to the 30th January, 1915, is as follows:
Department.	Expenditure.
Justice	$	10,900 14Trade and Commerce.	.	3,005,540	56Militia and Defence	.	.	32,221,980	00Naval Service	
3,090,000	00Dominion Police . .	.	.	101,024	27Secretary of State. .	.	.	11,489	28Privy Council	
9,436	64External Affairs	
1,588	99Post Office	
15,000	00Finance	
147,333	33Internment operations.	.	60,365	63Total	
$38,674,658 84
It is possible that some other amounts may be required to be charged against this vote; for example, some further items of expenditure by the Department of Naval Service and possibly some items by the Royal Northwest Mounted Police. The Department of Finance is now preparing a statement to a later date, namely, to the 28th day of February, 1915. I shall have that ready by the time we are in committee on the Bill founded on this resolution, and I will then communicate it to the House.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: We have no objection to offer at all. We may require some explanations with reference to these expenditures, but we can take that up on the naval and militia estimates.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes. I have asked the various departments to make a memorandum for me of all information that we could foresee as likely to be called for. If the right hon. gentleman would be good enough to give me a memorandum of any information which he would desire, and which perhaps we might not foresee, I will have special inquiries made as to that.


Wilfrid Laurier: 
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: I suppose it would be quite agreeable if, on the naval and militia estimates, one were to make suggestions as to the method of expenditure, or departmental policy as to details, and to discuss it upon that occasion?


Robert Laird Borden: I would be very glad indeed to have some suggestions from my hon. friends on the other side of the House. As fari as this vote is concerned, we regard it as not a vote for any particular department of the Government, and therefore as a vote as to which the Governor in Council has a special and important responsibility. Consequently the expenditures under it have been required to be authorized by Order in Council. That principle was necessarily departed from in the first two or three weeks of the war, because expenditures which were properly chargeable to this vote had been made before the vote was actually passed by Parliament. These expenditures were made principally by the Department of Militia and Defence, and the course taken was this. The department made a complete report of these expenditures, with, I think, all the important vouchers. That was presented to Council and was referred by Council to the Treasury Board, which made a pretty careful investigation into it as far as they were able to. do so. Then, the report of the Treasury Board in regard to these expenditures was submitted to Council, and, if my memory serves me correctly, was ratified by Council. It was then provided by Order in Council, which I think was laid on the table of the House, that no expenditures under ! this appropriation should be made except under the authority of Council. That course has been acted upon since. I am obliged to my right hon. friend for his suggestions as to the information which is desired, and I must say that his request in that regard is entirely reasonable. I will ask the several ministers, who have had anything to do with the matters which he has mentioned, to be prepared with the necessary information when the House is in committee on the Bill.

As far as the defence and security of Canada are concerned, I might say one word at the present moment. In connection with the military defence of the country, of course there are many matters that are of a confidential character; but I should be very glad indeed, with respect to these confidential matters, to communicate any facts of importance to my right hon. friend or to any of the members on the other side of the House who might desire to be made especially acquainted with them. One subject Ithat necessarily engaged our attention in the early part of the war was the security of public buildings and structures belonging -to the people of Canada and under the control of the Government. The course which we took in that regard was this: An Order in Council was passed directing that any department of the Government which might think it necessary to have military protection for the buildings or works or structures in question, should communicate with the Department of Militia and Defence, and the department was instructed to provide, and undertook the responsibility of providing, any military protection which might be necessary. As far as other buildings, works or structures were concerned, it might happen that the department would feel that police protection would be more advisable than military protection. The same Order in Council provided that if such was the opinion of any department of the Government, then the minister, or the officers of that department, should communicate with the Minister of Justice, and the commissioner of Dominion Police was given all necessary power and authority to add immediately to the police force under his charge as might be necessary for carrying out the requirements of any department of the Government.
In regard to " the continuance of trade, industry and business communications," my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) has had a great deal of work and a great deal of responsibility in that regard, as to which he will be prepared, either now or when the House is in committee on the Bill, to give full information to the House and to the country.
If any hon. gentleman on either side of the House should suggest that there is any information which it may be desirable to afford when the House is in Committee on the Bill, I shall be glad to have him mention it now or to send me a memorandum, and the Government will of course deem it
its duty to afford all such information, so far as it is not of a confidential character.
Resolutions reported and concurred in.
Sir ROBERT BORDEN thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 87, for granting to His Majesty aid for Military and Naval Defence.


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

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. C. J. Doherty (Minister of Justice), Bill No. 79, to authorize certain extensions of time to insurance companies, was read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Sevigny in the Chair.
Mr. CARROLL:: Does this apply to all insurance companies?


Mr. DOHERTY:: The only modification
made by this Bill is that it provides a method whereby a company that has not yet taken out its license, and which may be in a position where it expects to be able ' to do so before the next session may, upon payment of one hundred dollars, obtain an extension until next session from the Superintendent of Insurance. The reason for this Bill is that it was anticipated that present conditions might bring about applications for a large number of extensions by special Bill for each company, and it was thought desirable to avoid that by making a general provision in this Bill.


William F. Carroll: I wish to bring to the
attention of the Minister of Finance a matter which is disturbing many of our business men in eastern Nova Scotia, and it is that the fire insurance underwriters in that province have given notice of their intention to increase the premiums by 30 per cent. I understand that there is no machinery under our law by which the Government can interfere, and that it has been the policy of all Governments to allow fire insurance companies a free hand in this matter, the reason being that there are numerous fire insurance companies in this country, and that they will in the ordinary course of business not unduly increase their premiums because of the competition. The fact is that in the various provinces insurance is controlled entirely by three or four men, and in that way any competition which there might be between the companies is avoided. I was speaking a day or two ago to the Superintendent of Insurance, who is a very cordial

gentleman, and who, I believe, understands his business thoroughly, and he tells me that fire insurance companies in the Maritime Provinces are losing money. It is a very serious thing for the business men in eastern Nova Scotian towns, Glaca Bay, Sydney, and I think every town with the possible exception of Pictou, that they should be called upon to pay what I consider exorbitant fire insurance premiums. If the premiums received by these companies up to the present have enabled them to carry on business with a fair margin of profit, I think there should be some machinery brought into force by which they should be prohibited from attempting to raise the premiums to such an enormous extent as 30 per cent. I fear that very many business men will in consequence be unable to obtain the privilege of insuring their buildings and property. I suppose it really comes under the Department of Finance, but I would ask the Minister of Justice if there is no way by which these fire insurance companies, when they make application for renewal of their licenses, cannot have it brought forcibly to their attention that they should conduct their affairs on ordinary business principles, and that they are not to be permitted to increase the premiums so enormously. I would impress on the Finance Department the necessity of taking control over fire insurance companies, in so far as their premium rates are concerned. I have been receiving six or seven letters every day from towns in my constituency, containing protests against the insurance companies, and the people believe that there is power in the Department of Finance to control and regulate these premiums. I think it would be a good thing if the Government would take such power at the very first opportunity. Fire insurance companies are institutions which are absolutely necessary in the business life of the community, and when we give them extensive privileges to do business they should not be allowed to do anything like charging exorbitant insurance premiums. There is not the great necessity for persons carrying life insurance as there is for business men carrying fire insurance, and consequently the life insurance companies and fire insurance com-paies are not in the same position, but in my view there certainly should be some control over the fire insurance companies.
I am taking this opportunity of bringing this matter to the attention of the Government, because perhaps an opportunity may not arise again. The Superintendent of Insurance told me that he would send me 
a statement showing the business standing of the insurance companies in the Maritime Provinces; and when I get that, I would like to submit it to the Minister of Justice for his perusal. If he thinks they are going beyond what is a fair business proposition in raising those rates, the department should take the matter into consideration.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The present Bill merely provides a method of extending the time for the taking out of licenses by companies which have not already taken them out. I am not aware of anything that can be described as a combine amongst the companies to raise rates unduly. If there were, it might be possible for some action to be taken. Furthermore, so far as my information goes, I do not believe that fire insurance companies are making a great deal of money out of their business at the present rates. Should, however, the hon. member obtain,the information that he hopes to obtain, and communicate it to me, as he suggests, I shall be very glad to look into it and consider whether there is any possible action that would be called for and justified in our department.


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

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. W.. T. White (Minister of Finance), Bill No. 75, to amend the Customs Tariff, 1907, was read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Sevigny in the Chair.
On section 1-Short title:
William Pugsley: Before we take into consideration the different sections, I would like to call the attention of the Minister of Finance to the question of the duty upon fertilizers. I was very much pleased at the Minister exempting fertilizers from the increase in the duty and restoring nitrates to the free list and also putting some of the ingredients of fertilizers upon the free list; but I would respectfully urge upon him the desirability of putting manufactured fertilizers upon the free list, that is, of going a little further than he has gone. It would be in the interest of the country if that were done. A very earnest and energetic campaign is being made by the officials of the Department of Agriculture in regard tc increased production. In view of the necessities of the country and of the Empire so far as foodstuffs are concerned, even householders

who haye opportunities for gardening are urged to go into the raising of vegetables.
I noticed within a day or two an advertisement issued by the Department of Agriculture urging those who have hack yards even to utilize them as vegetable gardens. Such work cannot be done with any degree of success except by the use of fertilizers. The duty is not very large-only some $60,000; but it is paid very largely by the farmers in the Maritime Provinces. I do not think that, in proportion to the population, fertilizers are used to the same extent in Ontario as in the Maritime Provinces. In the West they are hardly used at all; but to the farmers and gardeners in the Maritime Provinces the question is a most serious one. The duty at present amounts to something over $2 per ton. That is quite a burden upon the farmers. At this time, when such an effort is being made on the part of the Department of Agriculture to stimulate the farmers to increased production, it is desirable to grant this request. I have been urged by those who take an interest in the subject to bring the matter again to the attention of the Government.
I do it in the hope that it is not too late to consider the matter favourably. I am informed-and I have no doubt that it is the case-that this is the only country in the world which imposes a duty upon fertilizers.. In the Commonwealth of Australia, not only has the Government made fertilizers free, but the Government railways carry fertilizers to the' farmers absolutely free of any charge whatever. In view of that, this Government might very well act upon my suggestion and place fertilizers upon the free list.


Mr. W. T. WHITE:: As my hon. friend knows, the Government has exempted from the operation of the war tax both unmanufactured and manufactured fertilizers. Under item 662, unmanufactured fertilizers, including phosphate rock, German potash salts and German mineral potash, bone-dust, charred bone and bone ash, fish offal or refuse and animal or vegetable manures, are left as they were upon t!he free list. Under item 663, fertilizers compounded or manufactured, n.o.p., were formerly subject to a duty of 10 per cent general and 5 per cent British preferential. I think that item is left as it was.


William Pugsley: My remarks are based upon that item.


William Thomas White: Therefore, the former
tariff is in effect so far as manufactured and
unmanufactured fertilizers are concerned. The Government also, as my hon. friend has observed, has exempted from the operation of the war tariff rate acid phosphate of lime, sulphate of ammonia, nitrate of soda, muriate and sulphate of potash, imported to be used for fertilizing purposes. With regard to the latter item, some of these articles are manufactured in Canada. The duty upon the compounded. fertilizers of 10 per cent general and 5 per cent British preferential is a very small duty. It has been in the tariff for some time. My hon. friend,
I hope, has not overlooked the fact that there are a number of establishments in Canada engaged in the manufacture of fertilizers. By reason of the war taxation that we are imposing, the cost of manufacturing these goods is increased. If the duty was not unfair to the consumer before, and as we have increased the cost to the manufacturer of fertilizers in Canada, our allowing the tax to remain as it was is certainly not unfair to the consumer. The Canadian manufacturer has to compete with the American manufacturer in the Canadian market. The amount of duty is not large. I am satisfied that the farmers would not have complained, having regard to the object . of this extra taxation-to provide revenue for war purposes or for the purposes of Government in time of war and due to the exigencies of the war-had we allowed the proposals to stand as they were. But, having regard to the fact that the Department of Agriculture was carrying on this propaganda which has been referred to by my hon. friend, and that it had been drawn to our attention in connection with that propaganda that it might facilitate the work of the department and increase production this year, we are glad to take the action which I have described and exempt from the war tariff rate the fertilizers, manufactured and unmanufactured, that I have mentioned. Giving the matter the best consideration of which I am capable, I think our action will not be complained of by the agricultural community, but that,' on the contrary, they will approve of what we have done. My hon. friend will not overlook the fact, I am sure, that there are in Canada numerous establishments engaged in the manufacture of fertilizers and employing a great number of men. It will be hardly fair to diminish the very small rate of duty at present existing under the tariff of 1907, especially in view of the fact that we are increasing the cost to these manufacturers
. 1402


COMM OKS
[Stage Direction]
of their coal, their machinery and other things used in connection with their enterprise.
William Pugsley: I do not know that mv argument would raise the question whether the farmers would complain or not. That is not my point; my point is that agricultural production should be stimulated by this Government. We cannot stimulate production merely by advertising in the newspapers. If we wish the farmers to produce more, the way to stimulate their production is to assist them and to cheapen the cost of implements and the other things they have to use, including fertilizers.
12 noon. I believe that the Government will spend in this campaign for increased production a larger sum of money in preaching to the farmers than the whole duty on fertilizers will amount to. You can stimulate production much better by putting fertilizers on the free list. My bon. friend speaks of the manufacture of fertilizers in Canada. I do not believe that the principle of protection should be considered at all in the question of plant food, that which gives life and growth to plants, and fertilizers are essentially plant food. I believe they should be absolutely free from duty, and the farmer should be permitted to purchase fertilizers wnerever he can get them and at the lowest possible cost.


William Thomas White: Fertilizers were plant food in 1907, and in the years up to 1911, just as much as they are plant food to-day. But the hon. gentleman seems now to have suddenly reached the conclusion that fertilizers are plant food and should be entirely exempt from custom duties. He says he has not called attention to this matter by reason of any consideration of whether the farmers will complain or not. It is perfectly obvious to me why he has called attention to it. I thought we had concluded the political discussion of these tariff duties on the second reading of the Bill. But if the hon. gentleman wishes to discuss the question of what this Government has done for the farmers compared with what the former Government did, I will be ready to go into that now or at any other time.
I confess it does not seem to me particularly desirable to do so. The Budget I have brought down is a budget eminently favourable to the farming community. The hon. gentleman is aware that this Government last year reduced the duty on harvesters, reapers, binders and mowers 
from 17) per cent to 12) per cent. In explaining to the House that we have exempted these items from the war tariff rate, I explained also that we were ready to do it because of the drawback to the manufacturers of these implements upon the amount of duty paid in respect of raw material entering into the production. The tariff proposals which we have brought down also exempts binder twine. I have pointed out that fertilizers, manufactured and unmanufactured, have been left precisely as they were-in other words, they have been exempted from the operation of the war taxation. I should also mention the exempting of ditching machines. I may say in a word that the tariff proposals are made having regard to the promotion of agriculture, which this Government has always had very much at heart. If my hon. friend has any doubt as to that, I would suggest that he look at the Estimates of expenditure on agriculture under this Government, as contrasted with their predecessor. Nor will he fail to bear in mind the ten million dollar Agricultural Bill introduced and carried into legislation by my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Burrell). I do not agree with my hon. friend from St. John City that nothing can be done by urging increased production. I am of the opinion that a great deal can be done by urging increased production, on the ground that at this juncture of the Empire's affairs it is a patriotic duty as well as an economical advantage to increase production. I think there has been a splendid response to the appeal made by the Department of Agriculture and the Government for increased production in Canada during this year; and I shall be very much surprised if results are not exceptionally striking when the returns of this harvest come in: The Department of Agriculture will continue its propaganda, and, as I say, I think its effects will be very striking. So far as the tariff proposals are concerned, I am anxious to avoid, if possible, the discussion of political questions in committee, but if my hon. friend desires that the issue shall be discussed now, I am prepared to discuss it, as I was prepared to discuss it when the resolutions were under debate in the House.


William Pugsley: I raised no political
question; I simply raised my voice on behalf of increased production in this country, yet I am met with an intimation from my hon. friend that if we attempt to make any suggestions to the Government as to improving the condition of the farmers and

relieving them from the burden which the tariff imposes upon them, we will be charged with discussing political questions and my hon. friends be tempted to enter into a long disquisition as to what the Government has been doing for agriculture.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend has a perfect right to raise any question he desires; I am not challenging his right to do so.


William Pugsley: Then why does my hon. friend lecture me when I raise the question? My hon. friend says that the Government have considered this tariff and, in effect, that they have made up their minds that they will not budge one iota from the position that they have taken, no matter what suggestions may be made. My hon. friend had that same frame of mind when the Budget was brought down, but before the discussion was over he was compelled to budge from his position and to grant concessions and to make reductions and exemptions. Although I am a member of the Opposition, and in the minority, I represent a large portion of the people of Canada, and it is my duty to submit for the consideration of the Government any views which I entertain with reference to the tariff or to other matters.


William Thomas White: I agree with my hon. friend in that.


William Pugsley: While I agree with the minister that the propaganda which is being carried on by the Government in favour of increased production is a good one, I wish to point out that the farmers will engage more heartily in the work of increased production-which means more machinery, the employment of more team work and of more help, and the buying of more fertilizers-if the cost of such production is reduced to the lowest possible figure. The Government are spending a larger sum of money in advertising this propaganda in the newspapers than these duties upon fertilizers will amount to; if they really want to stimulate production they will place fertilizers on the free list. My hon. friend says that fertilizers were plant food some years ago, just as they are to-day. So they were, but some years ago there was not, from the standpoint of Empire, the demand for increased production in Canada that there is to-day. It is poor policy for the Government to plead with the farmers to engage in increased production and at the same time to tax them for the plant food which is necessary to bring about
that increased production. That is the argument which I make, ana my hon. friend cannot turn the attention of this House or of the people of Canada from that question by saying thai I am introducing politics. I appeal to the minister in good faith and with the utmost earnestness that he take into consideration the advisability of doing away with this burden upon the people. At this time, when the production of foodstuffs is of enormous importance, surely it is an invidious and deplorable position for Canada to be placed in that she is to-day the only country in the world which imposes a duty upon fertilizers. I believe that every country in the world admits fertilizers absolutely free of duty, recognizing that it is in the interests not only of the farmers but of the whole country that plant food should be placed at the disposal of the farmers at the lowest possible cost.


Mr. ROBB:: Will duty be collected on
f.o.b. basis at point of purchase or on value established where the goods cross the frontier?


William Thomas White: I am unable just at the moment to quote the precise words of the Act, but duty will be collected upon the fair market value of the goods in the country of origin or at the place of exoort. If the goods were bought in New York, the duty would be imposed upon the fair market selling price of the goods in New York.


James Alexander Robb: The other evening in discussing the Budget, the hon. member for Calgary said that cement can be purchased in England at GO cents a barrel and in the United States at 80 cents a barrel. Would duty be collected on cement coming into Canada on the basis of 60 cents a barrel, or would the cost of freight be added to that to establish the value for duty purposes ? During the few days that the Government were collecting duty on cotton seed meal, I had complaints from a Canadian purchaser of that commodity who had purchased cotton seed meal at $29 delivered in Montreal. Cotton seed meal had been worth $24 f.o.b. at point of shipment in the South, but owing to an advance in price, when it reached Montreal _the price was $29 delivered. The Customs Department collected duty on the basis of a ' valuation of $34. Will this method be followed when the new tariff goes into operation ?


William Thomas White: The Government has not changed the basis upon which the new

tariff will operate; it will be subject to the provisions of the Customs Tariff of 1907, of which it is an amendment. I am unable to express an opinion upon' the particular question to which my hon. friend draws attention, for the reason that I have not all the facts before me; it is a matter of administration by the Customs Department. Referring to the question of the purchase of cement in the United States or Great Britain, the duty would be levied upon the selling price at the place where the goods were bought. If the cement were bought in England or in the United States, a customs entry would be made showing the cost price at which the cement had been bought, and subject to the dumping provisions of our legislation, duty would be imposed upon that cost. Of course the consumer would have to pay freight, but customs duty is not imposed upon freight charges.


James Alexander Robb: The minister can see from
his own statement that during the few days the Customs Department were collecting duty on cotton seed meal they did not collect the duty on the basis now laid down by the minister, because this cotton seed was originally purchased at equal to $24 f.o.b. in Tennessee. In the meantime cotton seed meal advanced, it is true, and the department ruled that the fair market price of cotton seed meal in the states of Vermont and New York where it crossed the border was $34. They collected the duty on a valuation of $34, but even after that ruling the freight was $5 a ton, so that the value of that cotton seed meal should not have been placed at $34, but at not more than $299 a ton.


William Thomas White: I should not like to be taken as expressing any opinion upon a particular transaction. The Commissioner of Customs is an exceedingly well-posted man, and I am quite satisfied there would be some explanation of the action taken by the Customs Department in the case referred to by my hon. friend. If he is interested in pursuing the subject, I would refer him to the Customs Act.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have always understood, and I know that it is so, that the duty is collected upon the selling price in the country of origin. In the case which has just been called to my hon. friend's attention, the country of origin of cotton seed meal is the United States, the place of origin being the state of Tennessee, and there the price was $24 a ton. But the 
United States is a very large country, and it may be that the Vermont price would be very different from the Tennessee price. I would imagine that under such circumstances the ruling price of the customs appraisers would be the price paid in Tennessee, not that paid in Vermont. There may be some cases that would have to be investigated, but I would imagine that it ought to be the ruling price in the place of origin that would govern for purposes of valuation.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: I think that
would lead to a great deal of difficulty and a good deal of imposition. The country of origin is what rules, not the single locality in which the article is sold to the purchaser who brings it into Canada. My hon. friend will easily see that otherwise mistakes would be apt to happen. In the first place, it would be almost impossible to have any uniformity in the tariff, so far as the imposition of duty is concerned, if you had recourse and reference to each separate locality. That would be a great deal of trouble and make the tariff almost unworkable. You might have in a single locality a set of circumstances in reference to which the ruling average selling price would be cut down on account of special circumstances, and that would scarcely be fair. My right hon. friend is exactly right, it is the country of origin that rules; and where you have different localities in a country there is some machinery by which the Customs Department gets at what is the fair average value.


Wilfrid Laurier: Such a ruling would be very unfair in a country as large as the United States. It is impossible that an article of this character which is produced in only one locality can have the same ruling price in the north as in the south; there must be a difference, and under some circumstances it seems to me that the country of origin ought to be limited to the place where the article is grown or manufactured.


George Eulas Foster: They have no doubt some general ruling in the Customs Department which they follow.


William Thomas White: I think they have.


Wilfrid Laurier: Here is a case in point. The hon. member for Huntingdon represents that an article which was purchased for $24 a ton in Tennessee, when it came to be appraised was appraised at $34.

That is an advance of $10. There is something there which cannot be explained here, and I would advise my bon. friend to go to the Commissioner of Customs and see what is the reason.


James Alexander Robb: The matter will be made right because now the Government have notified importers that they are going to refund the duty and there will be no loss. But the United States imports large quantities of Canadian bran, and the Ontario millers practically are cut out of that business so long as the man west of the Great Lakes has bran to sell because the duty, I think, .is now 10 per cent-it used to be 20 per cent-and the bran is sold on a basis of f.o.b. Fort William and on that basis Washington rules they should collect the duty; whereas when bran would be $16 Foil William, the Montreal miller would have to sell it at $19 Montreal, so that it practically shuts out the eastern man.


William Thomas White: Section 40 of the Customs Act says:
Whenever any duty ad valorem is imposed on any goods imported into Canada, the value for duty shall be the fair market value thereof, when sold for home consumption, in the principal markets of the country whence and at the time when the same were exported directly to Canada.
What I said therefore must be taken as subject to this section of the statute, which govern the Customs Tariff, 1907, and will govern in the case of this special war taxation. We are not changing the basis upon which the taxation is levied.


Mr. SCHAFFNER:: That means the retail market price, I suppose.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.	.


SPECIAL WAR REVENUE BILL.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. W. T. W'hite (Minister of Finance), Bill No. 76, to supplement the revenue required to meet war expenditures, was ' read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Sevigny in the Chair.
On section 1-Short title:
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is it the practice to use the word "war" in such a Bill, or merely to designate it as a revenue Bill? I am not objecting.


William Thomas White: The Government's view is that this is a war revenue measure; that view has been advanced in the debate on the resolutions, and we think that this
might properly be called "The Special War Revenue Act, 1915."


Mr. MARCIL:: Although no part of the revenue will be used for war purposes?


William Thomas White: My hon. friend, I am sure, does not desire that we should traverse the ground we went over in the debate.


Wilfrid Laurier: No, we will not open up old sores; let us go on.
On section 4, paragraph 3-tax on trust companies upon gross amount of interest and income:


Wilfrid Laurier: Why do you say that every company carrying on business shall pay a tax upon the gross amount of "interest, the property of the company, from loans and investments in Canada"?


William Thomas White: There are a number of loan companies carrying on business in Canada which have their offices, let us say, in the United Kingdom, and which carry on the major part of their business in some other part of the world. It was thought we should levy the taxation only on the interest from those investments in Canada.


Wilfrid Laurier: If a Canadian company derives interest from its investments on its business outside of Canada, what then?


William Thomas White: They are not taxed in respect of that business; they might, of course, be taxed abroad.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think some companies tax Canadian investments abroad.


William Thomas White: I am not aware of that.


William F. Carroll: Would the definition of a loan company include an insurance company which lends money on the hypothecation of a policy, for example?


William Thomas White: The power of an insurance company to loan money is an incidental power; an insurance company is not incorporated for the purpose of making a mortgage loan. By the provision of the Act passed last year, it is left to the Minister to determine whether a company is a loan company or not, and I would rule that an insurance company carrying on business in the ordinary course is not a loan company.
On section 5-Insurance premiums other than life:


William F. Carroll: Is there a penalty on
any insurance company doing business in Canada without taking out a licence?
140tS


William Thomas White: Under the Insurance Act they are required to take out a license.


William F. Carroll: Is there any penalty?


William Thomas White: I think there is under the Insurance Act.


Mr. PROULX:: Would the selling of annuities be included under "other business"?


William Thomas White: Offhand, I should think that is not insurance business.


Edmond Proulx: Some of the life insurance companies sell annuities.


William Thomas White: That is connected with the business of life insurance.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The minister would have to decide that.


William Thomas White: I would not like to give
an opinion offhand, but I do not think it would apply.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On part 2, section 8, subsection 3-charged and collected by company:
Charles Marcil: If the client pays the tax, what does the company pay?


William Thomas White: If the client pays the tax, the company will not pay anything at all. The company is made primarily liable, but it will collect from the client.


Charles Marcil: Is there the same rate
on a 50-cent message as on a message costing $100?


William Thomas White: Yes.


Charles Marcil: Is that fair?


William Thomas White: I pointed out the other
day that it is not advisable that cable messages should be enhanced in cost to the public.


Charles Marcil: There is a discrimination against the poor people. Large corporations get cable messages frequently, but poor people get them very rarely. Very often a poor person will get a message announcing the death of some one or some other very important event. On the north shore of the St. Lawrence, on the Gaspe peninsula, on the Magdalen islands and in parts of British Columbia, there are Government telegraphs. I do not think the minister settled the point last night as to whether or not tolls would be exacted on messages coming over those Government lines.


William Thomas White: I am of the opinion that
the tolls would not be payable because by this Bill we have not made the Crown specifically liable to pay them.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Government would require power to recover this tax from the sender of the message; otherwise it would have no authority.


William Thomas White: Yes.


James Alexander Robb: Will the minister tell us
under what basis of equity he imposes an extra tax upon postage and upon telegrams and exempts telephones?


William Thomas White: I thought I explained
that here the other day. No doubt my hon. friend was absent from the House on that occasion.


Wilfrid Laurier: He was present, but he was not convinced.


William Thomas White: At all events, I gave the
explanation. We had under consideration the question of taxing telephone messages throughout Canada.


Charles Marcil: The minister means longdistance messages.


William Thomas White: I am speaking of telephone messages generally. There are joint stock companies engaged in the telephone business; there are co-operative telephone companies, and in the three western provinces there are Government-owned telephone lines. We do not think it desirable to tax tne co-operative telephone companies, nor to attempt to tax, because it is doubtful whether we have the power, even if we so desired, the Government-owned telephone lines. Having regard to these considerations, wo thought it would be undesirable to place a tax upon telephone messages. After all, whatever benefit comes from our refraining from imposing such a tax will belong to the public, because they will not be charged.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
At one o'clock, the committee took recess.
The Committee resumed at three o'clock.
On section 9, subsection 2-tax on railway and vessel tickets or right of transportation :
Mr. GRAHAM:: How will the charge be made on commutation tickets?


William Thomas White: It will be on the price paid for the commutation ticket. If tb,e commutation ticket costs $2, the tax will be five cents.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
On section 9, subsection 18:
If, by reason of non-compliance with any of the requirements of this section, any sum of

money required by its provisions tr collected and paid is not so collected and paid, the person selling the ticket, right, berth or seat shall nevertheless be liable to pay such sum: provided that nothing in this subsection shall be construed to impose any liability upon the Government of a province.
Mr. MACDONALD:: What is the meaning of the limitation that nothing should impose any liability on the Government of a province? Does that mean that the duty of prosecution shall not rest on the Attorney General of the province?


William Thomas White: Take the case of a province operating a line of railway. The taxation is imposed upon the purchaser of the ticket, and the person selling the ticket must make the return; but it is questionable whether it would be open to the Dominion Government to impose this taxation upon a province operating a line of railway. It was to make that clear that this provision was inserted.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 12-stamp duties on cheques and certain other instruments:
William Thomas White: There are certain modifications which I have to suggest in this part of the Bill. So far as they relate to section 12, which covers stamp duties on cheques and certain other instruments, the following explanation may be helpful to the committee:
Stamps on cheques and other instruments had, as the Bill stood on first reading, to be affixed and cancelled by the person issuing the cheque. Such cancellation was to be effected by the party writing on or across the stamp initials or other marks of identification, together with the date of such writing. With the change the stamp will still be affixed by the party issuing the cheque, but the cancellation will not be effected until the cheque reaches the bank for payment, when by simply impressing lines across the stamp at the time of payment the bank will cancel it. We desire to avoid inconvenience to the public. I think the explanations will be readily comprehended by the committee.


William John Macdonald: Would the minister mind repeating that? The wording is somewhat obscure towards the end?


William Thomas White: In the United Kingdom, as my hon. friend knows, there is a stamp tax on cheques and promissory notes and bills of exchange. There is a provision in their legislation whereby those stamps are
to bo affixed by the party drawing the cheque or bill of exchange or promissory note; and he is required to cancel the stamp by writing across it his initials, together with the date on which it is cancelled. The legislation there, I believe, is general. Our legislation is confined to the case of cheques drawn upon banks, as defined in the Act, and promissory notes and bills of exchange negotiated through banks. In order to avoid inconvenience to the public-because it is an inconvenience for a man issuing a cheque or a promissory note or bill of exchange to write his initials across the stamp and the date on which the stamp is cancelled-it occurred to us that we would simplify matters by providing, as I have indicated here, that the party drawing the cheque or bill of exchange or promissory note should affix the stamp but that it should be cancelled by the bank paying it or negotiating it, just as the postmaster cancels a stamp upon a letter.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is an improvement.


William Thomas White: Therefore, if the committee will permit, I should like to move these amendments:
In subsection 2 of section 12, in the fourth line, after the words " of the value of two cents," strike out the remainder of the subsection and insert:
Every adhesive stamp affixed to a cheque shall be cancelled by the hank at which the cheque is payable at or before the time of payment.
The following amendment to subsection 3, line 38, after the first word, " and," strike out the remainder of the subsection, and insert:
Every adhesive stamp affixed to a bill of exchange or promissory note transferred or delivered as aforesaid shall be cancelled by the bank at the time of transfer or delivery.
In subsection 4, line 5, all after the word " and " near the end of the line is to be struck out and the following inserted :
Every adhesive stamp affixed to such receipt shall be cancelled by the bank at the time the money is paid.
In subsection 6, in the 4th line, after the word " Part," insert: " Or authorized to be used in lieu thereof/'; and in line 24, after the word " stamp," strike out:
By writing on or across the stamp initials identifying the bank, together with the date of such writing.

In subsection 7, line 30, after the words " two cents," strike out the remainder down to the words " shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding fifty dollars."
In subsection 8, line 45, after the words " two cents," strike out the remainder of the subsection down to the words: " Shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding fifty dollars."
In subsection 9, line 9, strike out the words "and over" and-the remainder of the subsection down to the words: " Shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding fifty dollars."
Then, strike out subsection 11 and insert:
Every bank which omits or neglects to cancel, in accordance with the requirements of this section, the adhesive stamp affixed to (a) a cheque, a bill of exchange or promissory note, (b)' a receipt for money, shall be liable to a penalty of $100.
I am sorry that all these changes are necessitated by the modification in principle which I have explained to the committee.


George Perry Graham: It is better to change them than to let them go through.


Wilfrid Laurier: The change is certainly an improvement. It will save a lot of worry to those who have to affix the stamp, and the revenue cannot suffer from it, because a cheque cannot be paid until the stamp is erased. But I rose especially to call the attention of the minister to paragraph 4 of section 12:
" Bank " means any one receiving money he repays by honouring the cheques of the person from or on whose account the money was received.
Is it the intention of the minister that this should apply to country merchants or notaries public such as we have in the province of Quebec, who receive money on deposit, or to whom will it apply?


William Thomas White: If any one acts as a banker, if he holds money on deposit for his customers subject to cheque, the Act will apply. Otherwise you would have one law applying to banks and financial institutions and another to private individuals receiving money upon deposit. That would hardly be fair. We gave the word "bank" a wide definition, so as to cover not only the chartered banks but banking institutions and private bankers receiving money upon deposit subject to cheque.


Wilfrid Laurier: The difficulty is to know where to draw the line. I understand very well that every one who

acts as a private banker, or who receives money on deposit and who does a regular banking business, should be subject to this Act, but my hon. friend is aware that in the province of Quebec merchants and notaries are in the habit of receiving money on deposit. Is it intended that they should also be subject to this Act?


William Thomas White: The test of a bank, as I understand it, is that the party receiving money on deposit undertakes to pay by honoring the cheque of his customer. If a private individual receives money on deposit subject to cheque, he will be regarded as a banker. If. on the other hand, he receives money which he repays in some other way than by honoring the cheque of his customer, or if he has engaged to pay in some other way than by honouring the cheque of his customer, I would say that he would not be a banker.


Wilfrid Laurier: 1 am afraid that will lead to some confusion.


Mr. GERMAN:: According to the reading of the Act it appears that every man who has money in the bank on current account, and who is chequing it out in amounts of $5, $10 or $20, has to put a stamp on every cheque that he draws in order to get his own money out of the bank in which he has deposited it for safekeeping or as a matter of convenience.


Mr. WTHITE:: Yes, the Bill imposes a stamp tax upon a transaction of that kind.


William Manley German: Does not my hon. friend appreciate the fact that that will prevent people from depositing their money in the bank? A man will not put money in the bank if he has to pay to get it out.


William Thomas White: The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) will be able to tell my hon. friend (Mr. German) that there are probably more deposits than in any other place in the world in a tight little Kingdom in which the stamp tax has been known for a considerable time. We made pretty careful inquiries as to the effect of this tax, and it has been found that no such, untoward results as those feared by my hon. friend have ensued.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: It is a very great pain to me to disagree with my deskmate (Mr. German), but I am bound to say that if a man puts money in the bank he does not put it in to take it out. He should leave it there and then he will only pay upon cheques when he issues to other people.


William Manley German: I have not very much to put there, but I will not put in any more if I have to pay to get it out.
(o) " Promissory note " does not include notes of a bank payable to bearer on demand and intended for circulation.


William John Macdonald: You do not give any definition of a cheque as distinguished from an order. Is that necessary?


William Thomas White: I think no such specific definition is required of the word "cheque." A cheque, of course, is a hill of exchange, but it has also a special, popular meaning as a bill of exchange 'drawn by one who has credit, or a deposit, with a financial institution. My Assistant Deputy informs me that in the Bills of Exchange Act, the word "cheque" has a definite meaning assigned to it.


William John Macdonald: I think there is a definition there, but my hon. friend has modified the usual definitions with reference to "bill of exchange" and "promissory notes." There might be confusion in regard to what would popularly be called an order. Take the case of a merchant doing a general business who receives orders as against either credit or actual money. Orders of this kind might be on his books to the credit of persons with whom he was doing business. Would each one of these orders, which, technically, are cheques, be subject to taxation? Technically, under the wider definition of the word "bank," a person who receives money and pays it out either in pursuance of an order or of a cheque would be within the meaning of the Act.


William Thomas White: The only thing we are taxing is a cheque drawn upon a bank as defined in the Act. A bill of exchange may be drawn upon A by B either for value received or in case A has an under. standing with B whereby he may avail himself of the credit he may thus obtain. We are imposing the Stamp Act upon a bill of exchange of that kind only i' it is negotiated through a bank. We apply the same principle in the case of a promissory note which, as my hon. friend knows, is different from a bill of exchange technically considered.


William John Macdonald: Take paragraph iv of section 12 and see how it works out in the actual business of the country. A bank is defined by paragraph iv of section 12 as 89
[DOT]-any one receiving money which he repays by honouring the cheques of the person from or on whose account the money was received.
Take the case of a solicitor or notary who might have in his hands a sum of money for distribution. The person who would be entitled to that money would give an order to some other person to receive it or there might be numerous orders. Technically, would that not come under the meaning of subsection 4; would not the custodian of the fund who paid it out be a person who had received money which he had repaid by honouring a cheque?


William Thomas White: It refers to money paid
by a bank.


William John Macdonald: I refer to the definition of " bank " in subsection iv.


William Thomas White: That is intended to cover the case of an individual who is acting as a banker, who receives money on deposit which he repays by honouring the cheque of the person owning the money.


William John Macdonald: But it does not say " receiving money on deposit."


William Thomas White: He pays cheques drawn
upon him.


William John Macdonald: That in ordinary
parlance is an order.


Mr. NESBITT:: Do I understand that
drafts in the ordinary ' course of business would have to be stamped?


William Thomas White: Yes, if they are negotiated through a bank.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: They are all sent to
banks.


William Thomas White: Then they would be subject to the tax.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: If I am administrator of an estate and I gave a cheque to the heirs, I would have to stamp the cheque?


William Thomas White: Yes, if it is drawn on a bank.


Charles Marcil: What about promissory
notes of exchange between individuals that never go to a bank?


William Thomas White: Notes between individuals not negotiated through a bank are not subject to the tax.


Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: What about receipts as between individuals?


William Thomas White: They are not subject to
the tax unless it be a receipt for money received from a bank.


William Manley German: Why should not the
notes between individuals be subject to the tax as well as those that go through a bank?


William Thomas White: There are a number of
transactions throughout the country in districts where they may not be aware of ithe law, and where the transactions are small, and it was thought they might be exempt on the ground of convenience. The revenue derived would be small and there would be great difficulty in enforcing the legislation.


Charles Marcil: Where will these stamps be on sale?


William Thomas White: They will be on sale with postmasters and Inland Revenue officers, and others, as may be found necessary.


Charles Marcil: There are some sections of the country where there are no banks and it would be a great inconvenience to tax the people there.


William John Macdonald: The definition of the word "bank" is pretty wide; where is the limitation?


William Thomas White: 1 am informed that the definition here is the true legal definition of a bank.


William John Macdonald: I am not very clear as to how far that definition goes. I suppose that the words "any other body corporate" would apply to a trust company that receives deposits. Suppose I as a solicitor had money in my custody, and a person sends me an order which may be a cheque legally, would I be justified in refusing to pay that order or cheque unless there was affixed to it a stamp?'


William Thomas White: I am quite clear that a firm of solicitors would not be a bank under the provisions of the Act. If an order were given for payment by an individual, that order is not a cheque. A cheque is defined in the Bills of Exchange Act, and this Act as an instrument drawn upon a chartered bank, or upon a body corporate receiving money and honouring cheques for the person on whose account the money is received. An individual is a person who receives money which he retains to be honoured on a cheque. My hon. friend has no difficulty about a chartered bank and a corporate body which acts practically as a bank, but then we get to the case of the private banker, who may be in competition with a loan company, or a trust company, or a chartered bank. There are private banks in different

parts of the country which receive money on deposit, and they honour the cheques of their customers and under the English law they are undoubtedly carrying on a banking business, and we have sought by this definition to embrace them, because otherwise their customers would enjoy an advantage over the customers of banks and those other corporations which carry on practically a banking business. I can assure my hon. friend that there will be no attempt to enforce this Act as against a firm of solicitors acting merely on the order of some party to pay money, because that in my opinion would not be a cheque.


William John Macdonald: A practice exists in some of the eastern provinces where parties take a large number of promissory notes for articles sold at a sale, and they go to an individual to discount these notes which are usually for nine months or a year. Should the party who discounts these notes insist upon a stamp; would he be a banker within the meaning of the law?


William Thomas White: No. ,


William John Macdonald: Then there is no
reason why any one should not carry on the business of discounting notes without taking them to a bank at all, if he was able to recover them outside a bank?


William Thomas White: If a bank is not concerned the taxation is inoperative.


William John Macdonald: I quite agree with that, but the trouble is as to the limitation.


William Thomas White: This refers only to an individual who receives money which may be paid by honouring a cheque, so that a cheque can be drawn upon him as a bank; in other words, a private banker. It is not intended to carry this further.


William John Macdonald: A man might not have his sign out that he is a private banker, but there are men who indulge in the business of what is called shaving notes, and the private individual to whom the notes are endorsed can go on without putting stamps on the notes which he receives.


William Thomas White: He would not be a banker in my view; it would be a transaction between individuals.
On section 12, subsection 4-stamp tax on receipt for money paid by bank:


William John Macdonald: What particular
class of documents does the minister intend to reach by this subsection?


William Thomas White: Savings bank receipts. A
party goes into a bank and, instead of drawing a cheque in order to get money, he asks for a certain sum of money and gives a receipt for it. It is obvious that, unless we inserted this, we should lose revenue, because, instead of drawing a cheque, he would simply draw money and give a receipt. My assistant deputy minister tells me that that is the practice in some banks with regard to savings bank deposits. It is also the practice with certain loan companies carrying on a deposit business. They do not allow cheques to be drawn on them, but a customer goes in and asks for a certain sum of money and gives a receipt for it. It is a privilege, and we impose a stamp upon the receipt.


William John Macdonald: Does the subsection
apply to deposit receipts? In that case a customer does not sign a receipt, but endorses his deposit receipt.


William Thomas White: It would not apply to that.


Charles Marcil: What savings banks are
affected? There are two in Quebec, the City and District Savings Bank of Montreal, and the Caisse d'Economie de Notre Dame de Quebec. Are there any others?


William Thomas White: I cannot say as to Quebec. There are a number of loan and trust companies in Toronto whose customers will be affected by this legislation. It is fairly general.


Edmond Proulx: Will this include cooperative societies? There are some in Quebec and Ontario which receive deposits from their members.


William Thomas White: If they receive deposits
subject to cheque, it will.


William John Macdonald: Does this apply to
the Government Savings Bank?


William Thomas White: No. Not being specifically mentioned, it would not be affected.


William John Macdonald: Does it apply to post office savings banks?


William Thomas White: No.
Subsection agreed to and section agreed to.
On section 12, subsection 7-issue of cheque without stamp:


William John Macdonald: I was not in the
House when the minister brought down this Bill in the morning. What arrangement 891
has been made to convenience the public in regard to issuing cheques so that one would not be liable to a penalty under the law? This legislation is to come into effect on the 15th of April. Throughout the country, in the different offices and in the hands of individuals, there are cheque books. It is-quite within the bounds of probability that a man might issue cheques out of those cheque books without thinking of stamps, and he would in that case be liable to a penalty under the law. How are those stamps to be made readily available?


William Thomas White: We have given consideration to that question, which is of great importance. I call the attention of my hon. friend to section 19, subsection 1 of which reads as follows:	'
The Minister, except as herein otherwise provided, may direct stamps to be prepared for the purposes of this Parliament of such kinds and bearing respectively such devices as he thinks proper, and all sums received for stamps and paper stamped by means of a die under this Parliament shall form part of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
Then I call my hon. friend's attention to subsection 4 of section 19 in the Bill before him, which will become subsection 5 under an amendment which I intend to propose:
The minister may appoint any collectors of Inland Revenue, postmasters or other officers of the Government or other persons to sell stamps.
In addition to that provision, which we thought would readily enable the public to purchase stamps, we propose a further amendment, which I shall move when we come to section 19, as follows:
Postage stamps of the requisite value may in lieu of the stamps prepared under subsection 1 of this section be used in fulfilment and discharge of any requirement under this Parliament that adhesive stamps be affixed.
For the convenience of the public, if there is not ready at hand a war stamp so-called, a one-cent or a two-cent postage stamp may be used. Between now and the 15th of April we will endeavour to give as wide publicity as possible to the fact that this legislation will come into force on the 15th of April. While there may be some eases such as those that my hon. friend has in view, we hope that it will be fairly well-known by that time that this legislation is in force.


Charles Marcil: What is to be the design on the stamp?


f 4152 COMMONS
William Thomas White: I have not had time to
turn my mind on that at all.


William John Macdonald: I do not think it wise in the interest of the country that we should be putting upon the statute-book laws which make certain actions crimes within the meaning of the law, where the operation of statutes of this kind could be obtained without the creation of an offence. The minister makes ample provision for the collection of this tax by providing that the banks must see that this stamp is on before the money is paid; but if my hon. friend constitutes a new crime in this country by declaring that a man for instance, who may be living some distance from a town, who has a cheque book in his possession and who issues a cheque without putting a stamp upon it any time after the 15th of April, shall be guilty of a crime.


William Thomas White: A penalty.


William John Macdonald: The law will treat it as a crime; it will be as a matter of fact a crime. I am not captious in making the suggestion that we ought not to create a statutory crime if it can be avoided. Does not the minister sufficiently secure the collection of his tax by providing that the bank shall not cash cheques without a stamp, without creating this offence so that a person who may issue a cheque in good faith may be liable to be proceeded against under the wording of this section?


William Thomas White: The hon. gentleman knows that in the case of one who acts in good faith and without knowledge of such legislation, it would be open to the magistrate to impose no penalty or a very small one. As in the case of all taxation there must be sanctions for its enforcement. I am given to understand by my assistant deputy that a penalty is enforced in other countries, in Great Britain for instance, in the case of stamp taxation. It is hardly probable that any hardship will arise. I would be willing to take into consideration the suggestion of my hon. friend that it will be sufficient to provide a penalty against one of .the parties, but I think it would be no harm to leave the section as it is so as to provide that there shall be a penalty for failure to put on a stamp not only on the part of the bank but on the part-of the drawer of the cheque, bill of exchange or promissory note. My present thought is that no harm will result from it and that it is an additional safeguard to the collection of our revenue.
I Mr. Marcil.]


William John Macdonald: I point to the danger which I see as a lawyer. Under section 20, subsection 3, the right is given to any one to proceed for penalties this part of the Act. Then, subsection 5 provides that
Any penalty collected and paid under part three may be divided with the person laying an information or otherwise aiding in effecting the conviction of the person accused, in such proportions as the Treasury Board in any case or class of cases directs and appoints.
The result is that prosecution may be instituted by one who is not an official representative of Government. I say it is unwise for Parliament to make what we might call an artificial crime.


William Thomas White: Before the reading of this Bill the third time, I shall be very glad to take into consideration the suggestion of my hon. friend.


Charles Marcil: Some time ago the Legislature of the province of Quebec passed an Act the effect of which was to compel incorporated companies to register in the court house. A number of companies, having other things to attend to, neglected to register. As a part of the fine went to the party who was the means of securing a conviction, many actions, known as qui tarn actions, were brought in Montreal for the recovery of the penalty. In this way a regular system of blackmail grew up. I am afraid that it will prove the same in this case if the Bill is passed in its present form. Unless the Government confines the penalty to the banks, I can see great danger of this evil arising.


Edmond Proulx: I understand that this
will make no change in regard to the sale of ordinary postage-stamps, but in the case of stamps on cheques and notes,
4 p.m. sold by postmasters, the minister will lose 50 per cent of his revenue, because the postmasters get 50 per cent commission for the sale of stamps.


William Thomas White: The same commission is given under this Bill for the sale of war stamps as for the sale of ordinary stamps.


Charles Marcil: Do I understand that letters mailed to foreign countries which are members of the Postal Union shall not require war stamps?


William Thomas White: The postage plus the war
stamp must not exceed five cents. In the case of a letter directed to a party in the United States or Great Britain, an additional one-cent war stamp would be necessary.


Charles Marcil: The five-cent rate to
France will still remain at five cents.


William Thomas White: Where there is a five-cent rate now, no additional stamp tax is imposed.


Mr. WILLIAM CHISHOLM:: Why should not the contractor or the person writing to the Government or to a department of Government on business, or peeking a job, he obliged to pay the extra war tax?


William Thomas White: My hon. friend will observe that we are exempting letter- and postcards now entitled to the privilege of free transmission.


William Chisholm: But why should you
do that? I agree that letters sent from the departments on Government or official business should be exempt; but take the contractor, for instance.


William Thomas White: Take a member of this
House.


William Chisholm: Take even a member,
if he is writing to a department when the House is not in session. But leaving out the members-


William Thomas White: Why leave out the members ?


William Chisholm: Becauses when a member writes to a department of Government he usually does so in the interests of his constituents. On the other hand, when a contractor writes to the Government, invariably he does so in the interests of Mr. Contractor, and I do not see why he should not be obliged to pay the extra postage.


William Thomas White: Where the Post Office Act now provides for the free transmission of a letter or a post-card, it is obviously intended to be in the public interest, not in the interest of an individual. I cannot conceive that the existing legislation, which provides for the free transmission of letters, has in view the well-being of individuals. The provisions in question are designed in the public interest, the idea being that letters will be transmitted free when sent by any person to a minister or department of Government. The same argument would apply to the case of letters sent by members of this House. No individual interest is served; under this arrangement his constituents may receive letters, papers and *documents that they would not otherwise receive. I have no hesitation, therefore, in providing under this legislation for the
exemptions which are now made by the Post Office Act.


William Chisholm: But you are changing the Post Office Act; you are increasing the postal rates.


William Thomas White: We are not changing the
principle.


William Chisholm: So far as the principle is concerned, I can understand why a member of the House writing letters on public business should not be obliged to-pay the extra tax, but why should the extra tax not be paid by a private person who is writing in his own interest? It may be argued that the amount collected in this respect would be so small that it would not be worth while re-drafting an amendment to cover the case, but I cannot see that any principle would exempt the contractor or private person in the case to which I have referred.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: I am told that in the case of drop letters the extra tax may have the effect of decreasing rather than increasing the revenue. Large business concerns may employ messengers to deliver letters upon which they would have to pay two cents, whereas if the rate were one cent, as formerly, they would drop the letters in the post office. I should like to have the minister's view as to whether or not he expects to obtain a larger revenue through the imposition of the extra tax upon drop-letters than he would get if the old rate were continued.


William Thomas White: The measure was considered! carefully by the Post Office Department and their opinion is that we shall receive a substantial increase in revenue from this source. My hon. friend is no doubt aware that open letters, or so-called circular letters, are not subject to the extra tax. I speak not with certainty, but I believe that the post. office has a monopoly in the distribution of letters, and while an individual may use his own service, I have doubt as to whether a service could be organized which would successfully compete with the post office.


Charles Marcil: Why are newspapers and the parcel post exempted from the operation of the Act?


William Thomas White: I think it will be agreed that it is desirable that newspapers should be delivered to the public with as little expense as possible.


Charles Marcil: But in the case of newspapers mailed by individuals; why should the war stamp not be used in that case?


William Thomas White: I suppose the same argument applies to newspapers as that which applies to open letters. I have great doubt as to whether we should increase the revenue in respect of so-called circular letters if we imposed a war stamp tax upon them. That is the view, I understand, of the Post Office Department.


Charles Marcil: I presume the same explanation applies to the exemption in respect of the parcel post?


William Thomas White: We did have under consideration the question of imposing taxation on parcel post, but out of consideration for the public interest we determined that it would not be wise to impose such a tax.


Charles Marcil: This decision was not arrived at for departmental reasons, I presume?


William Thomas White: No.


Mr. SINCLAIB:: What is the meaning of the words "within Canada" in the second line of subsection 5?


William Thomas White: This wording is taken from the Post Office Act. My hon. friend will observe that this provision applies to letters or postcards for transmission by post for any distance within Canada; therefore it would cover every letter posted in Canada.


John Ewen Sinclair: No matter what their destination may be?


William Thomas White: No matter what their destination may be.
On section 13, subsection 6-distribution of prescribed stamps:


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
William Chisholm: This section states that the Postmaster General Shall make arrangements for the distribution os postage stamps. What arrangements is it proposed that he shall make?


William Thomas White: This is also the language of the Post Office Act with regard to providing for the distribution of stamps. I think the language is very apt. The Postmaster General has officers throughout Canada; the arrangements he will make will be to supply them with stamps so that in turn they may supply the public.


William Chisholm: Not to create new officers?


William Thomas White: I should think not. I should think that the existing staff would be able to take care of it, but, if not, the staff would have to be increased.


Wilfrid Laurier: Evidently my hon. friend has made up his mind to carry out his intention of requiring that two stamps shall be affixed to letters. This legislation, call it what you will, simply provides for increased postage. Why compel the people to affix to each of their letters two stamps instead of one?


William Thomas White: While we provide for & war tax stamp, we also provide, under the amendment made to section 19, that ordinary stamps may be used in the event of war stamps not being available. It is still the intention that a two-cent stamp shall be affixed to a letter where two cents is the postage, and that an additional one-cent stamp-not necessarily a war tax stamp-shall also be affixed.


William Manley German: Why not use a three-eent stamp instead of a two and a one ?


Charles Marcil: The war would be forgotten, perhaps, if there was not a war stamp; the Government wants to impress upon the public the fact that this tax is for war purposes.


William Thomas White: In view of my hon. friend's suggestion, I take it that it is his opinion that the fact should be impressed on the public, and that there should be a war tax stamp.


Charles Marcil: You say that the war tax stamp should be used, and then you say that the people need not use it.


William Thomas White: I do not say that they must use it. The Government thinks it advisable that a war stamp should be used in connection with this legislation. It is not the intention to increase the postal rate upon letters and postal cards. It may be said that in effect that is what we are <ioing, but what we are doing is to provide a war stamp on account of the war. If there were no war, this war tax would not be imposed.


John Ewen Sinclair: If the war ceases in June, will the tax -cease -also ?


William Thomas White: The tax will not cease
automatically, but it would not be the object of this or of any other Government to continue special taxation longer than is necessary. As to what time in the future the necessity for its imposition will cease, I am unable to say. I cannot forecast the future so far as the war is con-

MARCH 24, 19i5
cerned-its contingencies, vicissitudes, or duration-nor do I know what the situation may be when the war is at an end.


John Howard Sinclair: Is it intended to continue the collection of this tax after the war is over ?


William Thomas White: I hesitate to give an expression of intention at the present time, because I do not know how long the war is going to last.


Michael Clark: You do not know how long the Government is going to be in power.


William Thomas White: I have a better idea as to that than I have as to how long the war will last. If this taxation, however, were to remain in force throughout the incumbency of the present Government, I am afraid there might be a protest against it on the ground of its lasting so long. With regard to this special taxation, which is imposed to meet the exigency of the war, I think it has been the principle of governments generally not to continue special taxation in effect longer than is necessary. Naturally, at the end of a war they have to consider the situation which is left by the war, and it would be extremely unwise to make any statement in advance as to what a government would do when a war comes to an end. What any government is obliged to do when a war comes to an end is to consider the situation that then confronted it and to deal with that situation as may seem proper. It would be unwise, therefore, for me to make any statement as to what the Government will or will not do, except this: that no government desires to continue special taxation in effect longer than is absolutely necessary.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is not the point. The House has resolved by solemn vote that there shall be an increase in postage. Call it war tax, or call it what you will; the fact remains that the postal rates are increased. But why subject those who use the facilities offered by the post office to the vexatious proceeding of affixing two stamps to a letter instead of one? Why not have one three-cent stamp? But my hon. friend is not satisfied with that; he wants everybody to put the usual two-cent stamp on his letter and to affix also a one-cent stamp bearing the words " war-tax." Is that not a vexatious proceeding? Everybody knows that this is a war tax, so-called; why subject the people to extra inconvenience? My hon. friend says the Government will be a long time in office,
but I suggest to him that the electors will damn the Government, if I may use the expression, because of their being compelled to adopt this inconvenient and vexatious procedure. My hon. friend cannot deny that the issue and sale of a three-cent stamp would be the most convenient method of collecting the tax, but he wants to impose this useless proceeding upon the public simply to make it appear that this is a war tax.


Michael Clark: 
Charles Marcil: Another advantage of the three-cent stamp is that it would be in keeping with the Conservative policies of former days, when taxation was three cents. It would remind the people that they are back to the old system.


William Chisholm: If, as the minister says, the object of the war stamp is to keep the public alive to the fact that this tax is due to the war, why does this section not state that there shall be impressed on the stamp the words " war tax " ? Why say " may " ?
It might be difficult for parties sending letters, or making use of war stamps under the provisions of this Act, to obtain those war stamps notwithstanding the wide distribution that will be accomplished by the Inland Revenue Department. Therefore, it is provided by an amendment to section 19 that postage-stamps of the requisite value may be used in lieu thereof.


Mr. W. M. MARTIN:: That is only until the others are ready.	-


William Thomas White: I make a change in section 19 by providing that postage-stamps may

be used in lieu thereof. It is for the public convenience. My right hon. friend has spoken of the trouble and inconvenience which will be occasioned the public if we make them put on these stamps. I do not agree with Mm. My right hon. friend is sitting in the cool shades of Opposition and he will continue to adorn the Opposition benches, I hope, for many years to come. If we do not complain about putting on an additional stamp I do not believe that my hon. friend, who has nothing to do except criticise, should complain about being obliged to do the same.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is not the Government I pity; it is the electors.


William Thomas White: I think my right hon. friend's pity is wasted on the electors because the electors in time of war will not complain about putting on an additional stamp. I think the public will gladly put on the stamp, and they will be pleased to use the war stamp tax instead of the ordinary stamp that we are permitting them to put on. The hon. member for Bonaven-ture (Mr. Marcil) suggested that we were going back to the old system. It must be gathered from what he said the other day that he would like the impression to go out that this Government is raising the postage upon letters. We are not raising the postage upon letters.


Charles Marcil: The effect is the same.


William Thomas White: The effect may be the same, but that is not precisely what we are doing. We are allowing the postage to remain as it is and we are providing that a war stamp shall be placed upon each letter and a tax collected in that way upon each letter. There is a difference between the two things. If we use a three-cent stamp or a two-cent stamp instead of a two and a one, or two ones respectively, my hon. friend would represent that we had raised the postage. We have not raised the postage. We are imposing a special tax upon all letters which will be gladly paid by the people of this country in order to assist the Dominion to do its share in carrying on this war, and I do not believe that the public will complain. I do not believe that my hon. friend writes sufficient letters to put him to any particular inconvenience. If it is a difficult thing for him to moisten these stamps, because he referred to it the other day, why he has his secretary. There is no reason why he should have to discharge that

unpleasant task; or he could get a moistener.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not want to impose upon my secretary what I do not like to do myself.


William Thomas White: We will get my right hon. friend a moistener.


Mr. COPP:: Does the Bill provide that the stamps shall be supplied at the post office?


William Thomas White: Yes.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I understand that you can use an ordinary one-cent stamp instead of a war stamp?


William Thomas White: Yes.


Arthur Bliss Copp: If a man put on two one cent war stamps and a one cent regular stamp, what effect will that have?


Mr. HENDERSON:: There will be more licking still.


William Thomas White: My deputy, who has given close attention to the matter of this legislation, assures me that this letter would be sufficiently stamped.


Charles Marcil: Does the minister take power to recall this stamp tax by proclamation, or must he wait for the meeting of Parliament?


William Thomas White: There is no power taken to recall this tax. It will remain in effect until next session at least.


Michael Clark: I do not think this clause should pass with the last remark which the committee had from the minister. He says that this is not an addition to the postage. That is a very bold position to take up. War is an incident in the history of a country, just as much as a bad or extravagant Government is an incident in the history of a country, and whether, because of war or of an extravagant Government-I am taking a suppositious case- you may have to impose addiional taxes. In Britain or in any other country one has seen taxes raised as a result of war or from some other cause, but when an additional penny was put on the income tax, was it in order for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to get up and say: This is not an addition to the income tax?


William Thomas White: No, this is a tax.


Michael Clark: This is a war tax, but my hon. friend says it is not an addition to the postage.


David Henderson: Neither is it.


Michael Clark: You pay three cents on a letter instead of two, and yet you say it is not an addition to the postage? It is perfectly open to my hon. friend the Minister of Finance to say that this additional postage is for the purpose of raising a revenue for war, but to say it is not additional postage is to say something which verges very closely upon nonsense.


William Thomas White: In subsection 5 of section 13 my hon. friend from Red Deer may read the following:
On every letter and post card for transmission by post for any distance within Canada and on every letter and post card not Intended for transmission through the mails but for posting and delivery at the same post office, there shall be levied and collected a tax of one cent.
That is a tax; it is not a charge for postal service.


Michael Clark: I was not dealing with that at all; I was dealing with the language which I think Hansard will prove the minister used. It is not additional postage, he said.


William Thomas White: It is not additional postage; it is a tax.


Michael Clark: All postage stamps are taxes. .
Sir WILFRID LAUR1ER: The name by which you call it makes no difference; it smells no better.


Mr. McKENZIE:: Do I understand that the department will keep a separate account of the moneys that are collected on war stamps and on regular postage stamps?


William Thomas White: As far as we can.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: My hon. friend from Westmorland (Mr. Copp) asked if you could use an ordinary one cent stamp instead of a war stamp, and the minister said "yes>" and he also said that a two cent stamp and a one cent stamp would be good enough, or that three ones would be good enough. Ordinarily the whole of the money derived from postage stamps accrues to the Post Office Department. If three one cent stamps are used instead of a two cent stamp and a war stamp, the whole of the money goes to the Post Office Department and stays there. Therefore, I cannot see what this is except an increase in the charge for the carrying of letters. The present idea is that there is a quid pro quo. You have a letter to be sent from Sydney to British Columbia, and the contract you have with the Post Office Department is that they will carry your letter to British Columbia for
two cents. If you put three war stamps on the post office gets nothing at all. It carries the letter for nothing, the idea being that all the money collected is a tax, and the department gets no quid pro quo for carrying your letter, but if the charge is three cents for carrying your letter, then it is simply the old contract made a little clearer to the people. I think the distinction is rather finer than the ordinary man will understand. It would be more convenient if the sender of a letter were obliged to put only a three cent stamp on, instead of being compelled to carry two sets of stamps to be put on the one letter.


Charles Marcil: Is the minister advised by the experts of the Post Office Department that the volume of letters will remain as it is to-day, or will there be a falling off?


William Thomas White: My advice from the Post Office Department is that the imposition of additional taxation on closed letters and postcards would result in a very substantial increase in the revenue,


William Chisholm: It should
not be difficult to keep the accounts separate so as to be able to determine how much is paid as war tax and how much for ordinary postage. If this were done I think it would be found that the business of the Postmaster General has gone down, and that the business of the Minister of Militia, who is the embodiment of war, has improved vastly, because it will be the war tax stamps and not postage stamps that will be put on letters. What means will be taken to show what is war tax and what is ordinary postage rate?


William Thomas White: It will have to be a matter of estimate by the Post Office Department. By reason of the provision that the postage stamp may be used in lieu of the war tax stamp, the accounts could not be kept separately. There will have to be an estimate made by the Post Office Department.


William Chisholm: It can only be a guess.


William Thomas White: I should say it would be a very likely guess.


William Manley German: Will three war stamps
carry a letter?


William Thomas White: Three war stamps would
carry a letter and the postage would be credited with two.


William Chisholm: What is the percentage allowed the postmasters for selling stamps?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Fifty per cent up to
one thousand dollars; thirty per cent from one thousand to ten thousand dollars; and twenty per cent above ten thousand dollars.


William Chisholm: You impose a penalty of one hundred dollars on an express company which issues a money order or cheque without a stamp, or which fails to cancel the stamp. That seems drastic. Suppose an express company accidentally neglected to affix a stamp, would the company be liable to a penalty of one hundred dollars?


William Thomas White: The company would be liable according to the statute, but no doubt if it were sought to impose the penalty the court would have regard to all the circumstances.


William Chisholm: Why not insert the words "or who wilfully neglects to affix the stamp?"


William Thomas White: It would be gross negligence [DOT]on the part of an express company to issue a money order without a stamp; we must assume that the company would carry out the provisions of the Act.


William Chisholm: Suppose in the hurry of business they were issuing a number of express orders and the company omitted to stamp one.


William Thomas White: An express company is a public service corporation, and if it makes a mistake it should pay for it.


William Chisholm: Why not provide that the penalty shall not exceed *one hundred dollars, or any sum you like to state, and then leave it to the court to determine according to the evidence what the fine should be. [DOT]


William Thomas White: In the case of persons who are liable to a penalty we fix the penalty at an amount not exceeding a certain sum; but in the case of an express company, if it makes a mistake we want it to-'pay one hundred dollars. We want to ensure that it will not make a mistake, because there is no reason why a company organized as an express company is should make a mistake.	[DOT]


William Chisholm: Then, in that case you should make the penalty five hundred dollars, because a company can pay five hundred dollars for its mistake more easily than a person can pay fifty dollars.


William Thomas White: If an express company is fined for an infraction of this section, it will make it more careful.


William Chisholm: Would it not be more logical to fix a penalty not exceeding five hundred dollars or a thousand dollars if you like, and then the magistrate in his decision could decide what the penalty should be.


Edmond Proulx: Will the war tax stamp and the ordinary postage stamp be combined? Suppose a postmaster sells a thousand dollars' worth of ordinary postage stamps he would be entitled to a commission of five hundred dollars, and then if he sells five hundred dollars' worth of war tax stamps, he would be entitled to a remuneration of two hundred and fifty dollars, if they are kept separate.


William Thomas White: The two will be added together.


Mr. BURNHAM:: I would point out to the hon. member for Prescott (Mr. Proulx) that he has not yet asked the minister whether people will have to pin on the stamps instead of licking them.


Michael Clark: Does my hon. friend suggest that we should keep all the licking for the Germans.


George Eulas Foster: That is only a pin-prick.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I would like to have an expression of opinion from the minister as to the penalties mentioned in sections 10 and 11. Does the minister understand that the court has no discretion in these cases?


William Thomas White: The intention there is, in the case of an express company, that there is no discretion, and that it incurs a penalty of one hundred dollars if it violates the provisions of the statute.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I register a complaint against that because after all a corporation is nothing except an entity which has no personality, and the minister must not forget that the corporation will fall back upon some individual clerk in the long run, and if that clerk makes a mistake he will have to pay the hundred dollars and likely lose his position as well. It is hitting at some poor clerk who may make a mistake and not at the larger shareholders. Discretion should be left with the court in a case of that kind as in any other case.


William Thomas White: In the general statutes I
understand there is discretion with the

Governor in Council to deal with particular cases of penalties. Apart from that, the Bank Act provides that a bank, for failing to comply with the provisions of the Act, becomes liable to a penalty. The principle should be different in the case of individuals from that in the case of institutions such as express companies. If an individual violates this legislation, discretion should be left with the magistrate as to whether he will impose the maximum penalty or not. If on the other hand an express company, which is organized for the purpose of doing the business to which we refer here, fails to carry out the provisions of this Bill-and it is very necessary that there should be penalties to ensure their proper carrying out-the imposition of a penalty of $100 is not extreme. That is my view; but I shall be gl~d to take into consideration the suggestion of my hon. friend, who has had a good deal of experience in the matter of imposition of penalties under the criminal law, with a view of seeing whether the penalty should be modified or not. At present my view is that it should be allowed to stand. I will take the matter into consideration between the present time and the third reading of the Bill.


John Howard Sinclair: How are stamps cancelled on express orders? There does not seem to be any definition of the word " cancel."


William Thomas White: There is a definition of the word " cancel " later on in the Bill.


Charles Marcil: I would like to call the attention of the Minister of Finance and the Postmaster General to a suggestion made at the beginning of this session by the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux), who unfortunately is very ill. I understand that letters coming from the boys at the front now come into Canada free of postage. His idea is that letters mailed from Canada to the boys in the trenches should also go free. Has the Government given that matter any consideration ? The other night I moved a resolution in regard to that, and I allowed it to stand at the request of the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) in the absence of ft he Postmaster General, and at the request of the Prime Minister, who stated that the matter had not been considered.


William Thomas White: That matter comes more particularly under the jurisdiction of the Postmaster General, and I should not like to express an opinion on it, because I have
not looked into ilt, nor have I had it before me in any way.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: We have considered the question, and it was our desire to facilitate as much as possible the sending of mail to the soldiers at the front. We found this difficulty in the way, namely, that the mail would be carried not only by the postal authorities of Canada, but by the postal authorities of Great Britain and of France. Therefore we would have to have some arrangement with the postal authorities of Great Britain and of France. That arrangement we have not tried to make, because we did not think we would succeed.


Charles Marcil: Is not the attempt worth while ? I am sure it woidd be appreciated.


William Pugsley: Members of this House and officials of the different departments send letters to France that go free, the Government putting the stamp on so far as that country is concerned. If it is considered desirable to grant the same privilege in respect of letters going to our boys at the front, I do not see why it could not be done..
Must this alleged war stamp be put on letters which are franked or on letters going to Canadian soldiers abroad on foreign service? If so, it seems to be rather anomalous that the friends of our boys who axe fighting the battle of Canada in the trenches, should have to place a war stamp on letters which they send to them. The suggestion of my hon. friend the member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux), which has been supported by my hon. friend the member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil), that letters mailed	to our soldiers	inthe trenches	should go free	of
postage and also free of this war stamp, should be carried out. Is this war tax intended to apply to all letters which are franked, that is to say to letters which are sent by or to members of Parliament or the different departments of the Government? I think it should apply to them, but I am inclined to think that the. Bill in its present form will not make it apply. Those who are entitled to frank their letters today will be able under this Bill to send them free of the war stamp tax.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend was out of the House when that matter was rather fully discussed a little while ago. He is correct in his conclusion that, under the provisions of this Bill, the tax of one cent
142(

imposed in addition to the postage shall not be levied or collected on any letter or post card entitled to the privilege of free transmission under the provisions of the Post Office Act.


William Pugsley: Is that an amendment?


William Thomas White: That is in subsection 5 of section 13 of the Bill. I pointed out-and it is not necessary for me to amplify my remarks in view of the fact that the discussion took place in the House a little while ago-that the exemptions under the present Post Office Act are by reason of considerations of public interest. The reason why letters are allowed to be transmitted free is not in the interest of individual members of this House so much, as in the interest of the public, in order that members may send not only letters, but papers and documents to their constituents. The provision for free transmission of letters to the departments of the Government was, 'I think, originally conceived on the same principle, namely, out of consideration for the public interest and not out of consideration for the particular individual who happened to be communicating with the Government. That answers, so far as I can answer, the last question propounded to me by my hon. friend the member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley).
To come to the question of letters addressed to soldiers-my hon. friend says " in the trenches "[DOT]-he knows that the Government, as has been pointed to the House, is putting itself behind the soldiers in the trenches. Personally, I should be of opinion that the friends and relatives of the soldiers would be only too glad to pay the additional war tax, knowing that it is provided for the purpose of enabling this Government to better support the soldier in the trenches. To ease the mind of my hon. friend, if he has any doubt about it, I pointed out a little time ago that, by reason of another provision in this Act, namely, that the tax is not to be levied if contrary to the Universal Postal Convention, this war stamp tax does not apply on letters on which postage of five cents is required. In other words a letter sent to France, five cents postage being necessary, will not have to bear the war stamp tax, because five cents is the limit under the Universal Postal Convention.


Charles Marcil: The minister will understand that the Government gets no credit for that, because it is out of their power
[Mr. W. T. White.!
under the terms of the convention, to impose a tax on a letter going to France. I thought this question of sending letters free of tax to the soldiers was not a party question, but would be approved by the House, especially as the letters from the soldiers come free of postage. That being so why cannot one who receives a letter from a soldier at the front have the same advantage in answering?


William Thomas White: That is another question.


Charles Marcil: I may tell the Postmaster General-perhaps he does not know-that letters sent by Canadian soldiers and coming to Canada are. free of postage. Why cannot the reply also go free of postage?


William Pugsley: Perhaps I may be allowed a word here and then the Minister of Finance can answer both my hon. friend and me. The hon. minister says that I may free my mind of any anxiety with regard to letters to Canadian soldiers in France being obliged to bear the stamp tax because the postage on letters to France is five cents, and in consequence of the Universal Postal Union arrangement no postage beyond five cents can be collected. Does that apply in this case? The minister has told us that this is not postage; that this is a war tax. That being so, the International Postal Convention would have no application. So, if the minister wanted to exempt such letters from tax he should have a section in the Bill especially providing for it. He cannot depend on the International Postal Convention, according to his own argument.


William Thomas White: We gave consideration to
the views the hon. gentleman has put forward which are rather obvious to one who considers the matter. There is no doubt that this is not additional postage; it is a war tax imposed upon letters. But even if it were as clear as noonday that the Government had the right to impose this war tax upon letters in addition to the postage without violation of the Universal Postal Convention, my view would be that the Government should not impose it. And we do not propose to impose it; we propose that the postage plus the taxation shall not exceed five cents. At the same time I would say what I have said, I think, at least a dozen times before-expressing my own view of course, and my hon. friend is quite open to put forward his view in contradiction-that this is a war stamp tax.

It is so stated in the Bill and is so intended; it would not be imposed unless war existed. So far as I am concerned, arid without disrespect to my hon. friend, I will not discuss what I consider a quibble any further. It is a war stamp tax, and it seems to me it is idle to discuss that question.


William Pugsley: Quibble or no quibble, I run not discussing that question. I am assuming that it is a war tax, that it is not a payment for postal service. Thus I am giving the hon. minister the full benefit of what he says. If, then, this does not increase the postage, the Universal Postal Union regulations have no application to the case. But the minister says that the Government does not intend to accept anything beyond the five cents, and where the postage is five cents and is paid on a letter, as in the case of letters for
5 p.m. France, there will be no further war stamp tax imposed. What I would like to know is whether there is anything in the Bill which so provides. If there is not, then the Government is going to do what, in my opinion, it has no power to do; it is going to act contrary to the statute, for it will pass a regulation which the Act gives the Government no power to pass. What the Government ought to do is to provide for that in the Bill. If the Minister is not going to regard this as a mere quibble, but as something that members of this House have a right to inquire about, I would like to know where in this Bill authority is given to the Government to exempt from the stamp tax a letter with a five-cent, stamp upon it from the stamp tax? It may be in the Bill, hut I have not seen it there.


William Thomas White: I have no objection to giving the matter consideration and getting the opinion of the Justice Department. My own view is that it would be impossible to impose this additional tax, if in substance and in spirit it is opposed to the Universal Postal Convention, in other words, if the postage of five cents is exceeded. If there is anything in the draft,-ihg inconsistent with that-but I do not think there is-I will reconsider the drafting.


William Pugsley: Perhaps the assistant-deputy could inform the minister where the provision is.


William Thomas White: Subsection 5 of section 13 is as follows:
Such tax shall not be levied or collected on any letter or post-card entitled to the privilege of free transmission under the provisions of the Post Office Act, nor on any letter or post card if the levying and collecting of such tax would be contrary to the provisions of the Universal Postal Convention concluded between Canada and certain other countries.
That, is to say, if the levy is contrary to the provisions, then it will not he made I do not believe that language more proper to express the meaning could be found.


William Pugsley: "If it is contrary?"


William Thomas White: That is a question of fact and of law. So far as this Bill, which will become a statute, is concerned, it is perfectly clear that if it is in conflict with the Universal Postal Convention, then the tax will not be imposed. If, on the other hand, it is not in conflict with the terms of the postal union, then the tax could be imposed.


William Pugsley: Will it be?


William Thomas White: That is a question which
we will consider in due course. In the meantime, this Bill is perfectly clear in that if the tax would be a violation of the terms of the postal union, it will not be levied and collected.


William Pugsley: That is clear, if the imposition of the tax would be a violation, but it is not clear that it would be.


William Thomas White: I suggest that the hon.
member look the matter up and come to a conclusion for himself.


William Pugsley: I will do that if my hon. friend will promise to put into legislation my suggestions in the matter, but what is the good of my looking it up? The responsibility is not on me; it is on the Government. I repeat that it is clear that if the tax would be a contravention of the postal union, it cannot be imposed, but it is not clear that the imposition of the tax would be a violation of the terms of the postal union. If the Minister of Finance holds to the view that this is not postage at all, but simply a tax which, for convenience, is collected through the sale of postage stamps, then the exaction of the tax would not be a contravention of the universal postal union. However, if my hon. friend will look into the matter, that is all I ask.


Charles Marcil: Do I understand that the Government's decision in the matter of free letters to soldiers is final?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I am sorry the hon.
gentleman is putting that question now; it is a matter which is engaging the attention of the department. As I said before; it is our wish to send letters free to the soldiers at the front, if it is at all possible and consistent with the necessities and requirements of the Post Office Department. I may supplement the information which I gave the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) respecting the vending of stamps by saying that when stamps are sold in post office lobbies, the remuneration to the vendor is up to two cents on the dollar. In other words, the allowance made to those who sell stamps in post office lobbies is up to two cents on the dollar, according to the discretion of the postmaster. In cases where stamps are sold by druggists and others, their renumeration is one cent on the dollar.


William Thomas White: Without intending to prolong the discussion-because the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) has intimated that he is satisfied with my saying that we shall be glad to give the matter consideration-I would call his attention to the fact that in the postal convention, article 5, the English version is " the rates of postage," whereas the French version is " les taxes." This circumstance must be borne in mind in giving consideration to the question as to whether this provision of the Bill now under consideration is a violation of the convention.


William Pugsley: But the minister has said that it is not a tax.


William Thomas White: Both seem to be provided for here, and that would lend strength to tlhe view which I expressed that the rate of five cents should not be exceeded, because in the French version the expression is " les taxes."


William Pugsley: The hon. minister will remember that when a gentleman on this side spoke of postage as a tax, he said that it was not a tax; that postage was a consideration for the performance of the service. He said, however, that this war stamp tax is something entirely different. My hon. friend cannot blow hot and cold at the same time.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
On section 14, subsection 1-consumers:
Wilfrid Laurier: Yesterday I raised the question as to our power to tax champagne, having regard to the French

treaty. My hon. friend told me that he would consult the Department of Justice in the matter; has he done so?


William Thomas White: I shall read tne opinion of the Department of Justice, which I have obtained in pursuance of the right hon. gentleman's request. It is as follows:
Ottawa, 23rd March, 1915.
Dear Mr. Ross,-Referring to your letters of 19th and 20th instant, submitting a question as to whether the imposition of stamp duties upon wines as proposed by the Special War Revenue Act, 1915, Bill conflicts with the French Convention scheduled to chapter 28 of the Acts of 1908, and in which you allude to a contention that there may he special ground for immunity of champagne because it is not like a product of Canadian origin, and state moreover that you are advised that there are concerns in Canada manufacturing what they call champagne and selling it as such, I may say that upon the best consideration which I have been able to give to the subject the proposed legislation does not conflict with the stipulations of the convention. It will be perceived that the stamps are required to be attached only upon sale unless the importer be also the consumer, in which case the stamps must be affixed after importation and while the wine is in customs. It was agreed by article V of the Convention that certain French wines should upon their importation into Canada enjoy the benefit of stipulated customs duties, and it was moreover in effect provided by article XII that these wines when imported into Canada shall not be subject to any other duties of exicse, internal consumption or octroi than those which are or may be charged upon like products of Canadian origin. The tax now proposed is not, as I have shown, a tax upon importation, but a tax to which native wines are subject equally with imported wines. It is an excise or Inland revenue tax as distinguished from a customs tax, and it is 1 think intended to be imposed in strict conformity wtih the obligations undertaken by the convention. Indeed I do not see how it can be contended that these stamp duties in their general character can be aptly included within any proper definition of customs duties. Whether or not Canada produces or can produce any wine corresponding to " les grands vins de champagne" may of course be very doubtful, but it appears that Canada does produce a wine sufficiently like champagne to bear its name and have many of the same qualities. It may also be observed that the stamp duty of twenty-five cents a pint is imposed not upon champagne alone but upon sparkling wines generally, Irrespective of the place of origin, and sparkling wines are I believe admittedly produced in Canada. But independently of this question I do not find any clause in the convention intended to exempt French wines from duties of excise or internal consumption upon the ground that like wines are not produced in Canada, but I think that if any such intention existed it should have been expressed or at least necessarily implied by the language used. I do not see any necessary implication in article XII, and this question is referable only to that article.
Yours faithfully,
E. D. Newcombe.

In connection with this opinion I have here a card of the Pelee Island Wine and Vineyard Company, and I find that they advertise for sale, among other wines and liquors, a registered brand of champagne "extra dry" and "sec." cases, 12 quarts, $18; cases, 24 pints, $20. There seems no doubt, as the Deputy Minister of Justice has stated, that sparkling wines are manufactured in Canada. I give this information because it may be useful to the committee in considering the opinion which I have just read upon the subject.


John Howard Sinclair: The minister refers to medicines manufactured by any occult art. The dictionary describes witchcraft as an occult art, and I wondered why the minister found it necessary to use the word in this Bill.


William Thomas White: "Occult" means hidden, not disclosed. I would not say that the word was exclusively confined to witchcraft or any of the allied arts. It is of much more liberal application that to the art of witchcraft. Its general meaning is "not divulged or made public," and that is the meaning we have in mind.


Edmond Proulx: Then coloured water passed off as medicine would be liable to the tax?


John Howard Sinclair: Occult sciences are defined in the dictionary as follows:
Those sciences of the middle ages which relate to the influence of occult qualities or supernatural powers, as magic, necromancy, alchemy, witchcraft, etc.


William Thomas White: That is the narrow meaning.
On section 15-stamp tax on patent medicines, perfumery and wines.


William Thomas White: I have an amendment which will consist in the insertion of a new subsection 3 and the changing of the present subsection 3 to subsection 4. The amendment is necessitated on this account. It has been found that there are certain wine growers who, operating under licenses of the Inland Revenue Department, use the wine which they produce in making some sort of medicinal preparation, the resultant not being subject to any special tax. As the Bill stood on first reading it was only when wines were sold to a consumer that they became subject to a tax. A subsection has been added to section 15 to meet this case, under which every producer of wines who uses his productions in producing some other article of value has to pay the tax. The new subsection will read as follow:
3. Every manufacturer or producer of - (a) a proprietary or patent medicine (b) perfumery (c) wine of the grape, non-sparkling or (d) champagne or sparkling wine, who is a consumer, shall, under regulations made by the minister, before using any such article in producing therefrom any other article of value, affix an adhesive stamp of the requisite value as mentioned in the schedules of this part, to the bottle or packages containing such article.


Wilfrid Laurier: I understood from my hon. friend that is to apply simply to wine growers.


William Thomas White: Yes.


Wilfrid Laurier: Can my hon. friend give any idea of the nature of the article of value produced? Is it a medicine?


William Thomas White: It may be a medicine. *


Wilfrid Laurier: There are certain wines called medicinal wines?


William Thomas White: That is it.


William Manley German: I wish to raise my protest against the tax which is proposed to be put on proprietary medicines. I do not see any reason why there should be a tax on them any more than on the prescription that a person takes to a druggist and has filled. I do not think medicines should be taxed, even for war purposes. A man gets medicine when he is sick; he does not take it as a luxury as he does champagne or candy; and the Government are proposing to hamper the man who is sick in his endeavour to get well. Besides his doctor's bill he is being hampered with the payment of a tax on a patent medicine which many people believe to be more efficient in aiding recovery than even the doctor's prescription.
Mr.- WHITE:	This legislation is not a
precedent in the taxation of proprietary medicines; it exists in other countries. Wherever an exclusive right, or monopoly, exists where large profits are made-although that is not universally true in the case of patent or proprietary medicines- there is a proper field for taxation. Taxa tion in other countries to which I have alluded has not been regarded as a hardship on the community, nor do I believe that the imposition of these taxes will be seriously objected to. There are numerous exceptions to this taxation. It occurred to me that in the case of patent or proprietary medicines, for which an exclusive rigid to manufacture exists or where a patent or proprietary article is held up to the public as being a specific or cure-all, the state might very well say that a tax must be

paid for the right. Governments continually impose taxes upon people for the right to exercise certain callings. Doctors have to pay fees before they are permitted to practise their profession and lawyers are in the same category. If a vendor holds it up to the public that he is selling a specific or cure-all, if he is representing himself to be a physician, I see no reason why a small tax should not be paid to the state for the privilege. Patent medicine proprietors are practically permitted to exercise the calling of a physician.


William Manley German: The great difficulty I see with my hon. friend's argument is that he is assuming continually that the vendor of the patent medicine is the man who will pay the tax. He is not the man who will pay the tax at all. It will be the sick man who buys the medicine in order to improve his health. He is the man who will pay the tax, and it will be burdensome to him. If the manufacturer of the patent medicine had to pay the tax, and it was to come out of him exclusively and not out of the man who is ill and requires nourishing treatment, there would be something in the hon. gentleman's argument. The hon. gentleman imposes a tax, and the statute, in its very terms, says practically that the purchaser is the one who shall pay the tax, because the stamp is only to be attached to the commodity at the time of sale to the consumer, not to the retail druggist, but to the man who desires a medicine, whatever it may be-not a cure-all-but a specific, for the treatment of a certain disease.
. Mr. MAROIL: For man or beast.


William Manley German: For man or beast, as my hon. friend suggests. It is not a cure-all, but a specific for some particular ailment which happens to afflict the man at the time. He has to pay the tax. It is an injustice to, and an imposition upon, a large class of the community.


Charles Marcil: As between the hon.
Minister of Finance and my hon. friend from Welland (Mr. German) I should say that the fair way to have imposed taxation on these medicines would have been to have stipulated that there should be no increase in the price to the consumer. Patent medicines, I understand, have a very large margin of profit. Prescriptions, I understand, are exempt from taxation?


William Thomas White: A compound made from a doctor's prescription is not taxed. It is not a proprietary medicine.


Charles Marcil: What would happen if a doctor prescribed a proprietary medicine?


William Thomas White: If he prescribes a patent or a proprietary medicine and it is purchased, there is no doubt that the stamp tax will be payable. But if, on the other hand, a proprietary medicine is used as part of a mixture compounded from a doctor's prescription, then the mixture is different in character from the proprietary medicine which forms a part of it, and there will be no tax payable upon that compound or mixture.


John Howard Sinclair: The minister has not answered the argument of my hon. friend from Welland (Mr. German). The argument is that there is no good reason why a man who uses a patent medicine should be taxed, while the man who takes a doctor's prescription should go free. The reason why a man uses patent medicines is generally that he cannot afford to get a doctor's prescription. The patent medicine is the poor man's medicine. The minister ought to consider that question, and show us a good reason why he imposes a tax on patent medicines and refrains from imposing a tax on medicine that is prescribed by a physician. I agree with my hon. friend from Welland, and I wish to record my protest against this tax.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend is assuming that the public will bear the whole of this tax.


John Howard Sinclair: There is no doubt about it.


William Thomas White: There is nothing in the Act that makes that clear. Presumably patent medicines and perfumes are selling now at as high a price that they tean be sold at. How that tax will be borne, and what its incidence will be, neither I nor any one else can quite tell. My own view is that it will probably be absorbed by the different interests concerned. A slight part of it may possibly be paid by the public, a part may be paid by the wholesaler, and a part may be paid by the manufacturer. The incidence of the tax cannot quite be forecasted. We will have to wait the result of the taxation to find that out. We may not be able to find it out accurately, even after the measure has been in force for some time, but my hon. friend is considering it from the hypothesis that the consumer will have to pay the whole of this tax. I do not agree with him.


John Howard Sinclair: I think there is no doubt about it.


William Manley German: I think the minister expresses himself most accurately when he says that he is imposing a tax and does not know where it is going to strike. The Government have done that with regard to the whole of the tariff resolutions. They have made a horizontal increase in the tariff, and I venture to say that they do not know how it is going to affect the revenue or what interests it will affect beneficially or detrimentally.


William Thomas White: In regard to the horizontal increase, I can tell my hon. friend that if he opposes it in his own constituency, it will strike him.


William Manley German: I can tell the minister that I am not afraid of the horizontal increase or of him either.


William Thomas White: It will strike him. Speaking generally in regard to taxation, either direct or indirect, it is not quite possible to say precisely or accurately just upon whom it will fall. We have our opinion that it will fall in a certain way. But any tax has some uncertainty in its incidence. My own view is that this tax may be absorbed, and that the public will only have to pay, if any, a very small part of it.


William Pugsley: The minister makes a statement which seems to me to be somewhat extraordinary. He says that if my hon. friend from Welland takes an independent position in Welland, this horizontal increase of the tariff will strike him in that district. Perhaps the minister will he good enough to explain what he means by that statement.


William Thomas White: My language is perfectly clear.


William Pugsley: Is it because the horizontal increase is a protective tax?


William Thomas White: My hon. friend keeps on guessing.


William Pugsley: I cannot imagine any other reason than that. Then the minister lets the cat out of the hag when he says that the tariff is not merely to raise a revenue, but it is for the purpose of protection. My hon. friend's constituency is a manufacturing district, and therefore if he has the independence to raise his voice in this Parliament against what he himself believes to be an unjust tariff, it is going to strike him because the manufacturers will resent it. That is what my hon. friend's statement means if it means anything.


William Thomas White: Among the arguments used by hon. gentlemen opposite against this 90
taxation was that it might incidentally assist the " Made-in-Canada " movement, and if my hon. friend would get up in his constituency and belittle the made-in-Canada movement, I think he would not be advantaged politically.


Michael Clark: The greatest opponent of the made-in-Canada movement is the minister himself, because he deplores the depression which exists in Canada because we have not imports. He has himself, in paragraph after paragraph, explained that he has not income sufficient for his wants because we have not been importing so much as we were importing, and he has deplored the loss of revenue and the necessary resort to taxation in consequence. So that when he taunts any one of us with being the opponent of the made-in-Canada movement, I do not think he understands our position; I am sure he does not understand mine. I claim him as being in agreement with me unless he says that the cutting off of exports was a good thing, and that the loss of revenue was a good thing. I do not understand his Budget statement in that sense.


William Pugsley: Then too, we all remember in 1912, when the Minister of Finance made his Budget speech and when this country was going forward under the momentum it had received during the years of prosperity when the Liberal Government was in power, how the Minister of Finance rejoiced at the increase in imports and the consequent increase in revenue. The hon. gentleman took a very different position then from that which he takes now. As has been said by my hon. friend from Red Deer, the hon. gentleman knows he cannot have revenue unless he has imports. The Minister of Finance has justified the tax on patent medicines upon the ground that many of these patent medicines are owned by those who have made a good deal of money in the past, and when he is driven into a corner-if you will pardon me for using that expression, but it is not quite so offensive as the word " quibble " which he used- when he is driven into a corner-


William Thomas White: By whom?


William Pugsley: By the fallacy of hi* arguments; by the fact that he has made most fallacious arguments in support of this tax upon proprietary and patent medicines. When he is driven into a corner he is obliged to admit that he doesn't know whether this tax is going to be



borne by the sick man and the poor man who uses these patent medicines, or by the manufacturer. If it is to be borne by the consumer, then I say, as other hon. gentlemen have said, that it is a burden upon the poor man and upon the sick man. It is only the sick who use these medicines, as a rule; of course they may use them when they are not very sick, but it is sick people and poor people who use patent medicines, as a rule. These medicines are largely used by people in the country diS' triets who live a distance away from a medical man and find it 'desirable to have relief against pain. It does seem to m? that the protest of my hon. friend (Mr. German) is properly made, and it certainly ought to be considered by this Government. They ought to pause before they add still further to the burdens which are placed upon the masses of the people of this country.


Wilfrid Laurier: This says
that cancellation may be made by writing initials, or "other marks of identification" across the stamp. What is the meaning of those words?


William Thomas White: This is regarded as a
necessary safeguard to the Inland Revenue, and it is taken from the English Act. If there is any suggestion that will simplify the cancellation and at the same time guard the revenue, I would be glad to consider it.


Wilfrid Laurier: Up to the present in this Bill, we have provided, as should be provided, that all stamps should be erased, and the method hitherto provided has been by putting on the initials of the party who has to do the erasing, and the date, but here you give an alternative when you use the words "or any other mark of identification."


William Thomas White: A provision similar to this ran through the Act before and we changed it by providing that the banks shall cancel, in the case of cheques, bills of exchange, and promissory notes. This, of course, does not pass through any bank, and it has been regarded as a necessary safeguard to the revenue that this provision should be inserted.


Wilfrid Laurier: I understand that, but in addition to the means hitherto provided for cancellation you say that the person whose duty it is to cancel the stamp may use " other marks of identification."


William Thomas White: In the case of stamps on these proprietary medicines and patent medicines, and wines, and perfumery, the provision is the same as in the English Inland Revenue Act. This is a new provision and it is considered necessary.


Wilfrid Laurier: I see now that
it is a new provision; my attention was called to it by the fact that I did not observe it in any of the sections of the Act previously. This section gives the power to the minister to say what the value of certain commodities is; is not that a very wide power?


William Thomas White: On proprietary and patent
medicines and perfumery, the retail price being twenty-five cents or less, the stamp tax is one cent, and as it becomes necessary that there should be some certainty in the imposition of this tax, this provision gives the minister power to determine the retail value so that the tax may be imposed in the event of any dispute arising. It is provided elsewhere in our legislation, notably in the Customs Act, that the decision of the minister shall be conclusive on certain points for the sake of uniformity and to put the question beyond controversy, and thus make the measure effectual without resorting to the courts.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is similar to the power of valuation in customs for taxation purposes only.


William Thomas White: Precisely, in order that
there may be a conclusive value put upon an article by the minister in any disputed case.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The price that the minister would fix would not control the price which the vendor would charge the public?


William Thomas White: I do not think so.


Wilfrid Laurier: This power
would become operative if fraud were attempted upon the revenue. That would be the case if a medicine, which to-day sells for 25 cents or 50 cents, were to be sold at a lower price for the purpose of evading the tax.


Charles Marcil: The profits are very large in this business. In Montreal there is great competition amongst the druggists. There are cut-rate druggists. Recently I saw a certain proprietary medicine advertised as follows:

Usually sold for 25 cents; now one bottle tor 25 cents, two bottles for 26 cents.
What is the minister going to do in such
a case?


William Thomas White: I should think the ministei would fix the price of each bottle in a case of that kind, probably at 25 cents.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 17-penalty for neglect to affix stamp:
William Pugsley: There is an omission in the last clause of this section. By subsection 3 of section 15, it is provided that:
The person selling and the importer, whose duty it is to affix a stamp under this section, shall at the time the stamp is affixed cancel the same.
But there is no penalty for not cancelling. In section 17 should not the words " and to cancel the same " be inserted after the word "part "?


William Thomas White: Section 18 provides for
that.


William Pugsley: There is also something wrong with section 18. It does not provide for cancelling the stamp.


William Thomas White: If in section 18 we substitute the word " part " for the word " section," it would be right.


William Pugsley: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 20, subsection 1-recovery of taxes:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Does not the.minister think there should be some venue in these trials. It may be a great hardship for a man a thousand miles from Ottawa to be obliged to meet a charge before a court sitting in Ottawa. On the other hand, as the Government has its agents everywhere, it would be no great inconvenience to the Government if the Bill provided that the action must be taken in the county or city in which the cause of action arises.


William Thomas White: If the hon. gentleman will observe the last words of section 1, it provides that the case shall be tried in the Exchequer Court or " in any other court of competent jurisdiction."


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: But that does not define the venue. It should be laid in the county or city in which the cause of action arises.


William Thomas White: I understand that the Exchequer Court is a circuit court. And it 90}
would be open to the Government to take the action before any court of competent jurisdiction. I should think my hon. friend might rely upon it that a Government would not seek to put an individual to inconvenience by its selection of a tribunal to try the case. This, I may say, is in the usual form of such statutes.


Charles Marcil: Is the minister going to
state in regard to these stamps how they are to be used-the amounts in which they are to be used and so on? Is the stamp to contain any such directions?


William Thomas White: These will be the same as postage-stamps, and postage-stamps do not contain any direction as to how they are to be used.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Does the minister regard the Exchequer Court as a court of criminal jurisdiction? These are quasicriminal offences, and I did not know that the Exchequer Court would have jurisdiction in matters of that kind.


William Thomas White: I am informed by my
assistant deputy that the Exchequer Court has been given the right to adjudicate in other matters in which penalties are sought to be imposed.
On section 20, subsection 3:
All penalties imposed by this Act may be sued for, prosecuted and recovered with costs by His Majesty's Attorney General of Canada, or, in respect of penalties under part one, in the name of the Minister of Finance, or, in respect of penalties under part two, in the name of the Minister of Inland Revenue, or, in respect of penalties under part three, in the name of the Minister of Inland Revenue or any other person.


Wilfrid Laurier: Why not say that these penalties shall be recovered by the Attorney General of Canada instead of naming all these others?


William Thomas White: While there is much to be said for that point of view, my assistant deputy tells me that this is the practice in other legislation.


Wilfrid Laurier: But this is a war tax, and we have never had it before.


William Thomas White: In the different departments the right of action is vested in the minister.


William Pugsley: You might say " or any other person."


William Thomas White: I will consider that before the Bill is taken up again.
Bill as amended reported, and amendments read first time.

Mr. WHITE moved that the amendments be read the second time and concurred in.


Charles Marcil: When amendments are made in a Bill so important as this, it is usual to have it reprinted. Will that be done in this case?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There ought to be quite a number of copies of this Bill printed for distribution.


William Thomas White: I shall not ask that the Bill be read the third time until to-morrow or some future sitting of the House, that we may have time to see that it is in the proper form.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: But when the Bill is passed a large supply should be printed.


William Thomas White: I will bear that in mind.
Motion agreed to and amendments read t'he second time and concurred in.
At six o'clock, the House took Tecess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


JUDGES ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. C. J. Doherty (Minister of Justice), the House went into Committee, Mr. Sevigny in the Chair, to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Judges Act, chapter 138 of the Revised Statutes, 1906, to provide for the salary of an additional judge of the County Court of the province of British Columbia, at $3,000 per annum, and to provide for the salaries of three additional judges of the District Court for the province of Alberta, at $3,000 each per annum.
George Perry Graham: In Ontario the province decides upon the number of judges it requires, and asks the Dominion Government to appoint them. Does that practice prevail throughout the Dominion generally?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Alberta has applied for three additional district court judges; one at Medicine Hat, one at Red DeeT, and one at Sfettler. British Columbia has provided for an additional judge at Cariboo. I have information not only from the provincial authorities of both these provinces, but also from numerous other sources, that heavy additional work necessitates the appointment of these judges.


George Perry Graham: I suppose that when the Bill founded upon this resolution becomes

law, the minister will be able to tell us who the judges are to be.


Charles Joseph Doherty: After it has gone
through.


William John Macdonald: Is the salary of
$3,000 the same as that received by other judges in these provinces ?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


William John Macdonald: There is a difference between that amount and the salaries paid in some other provinces.
Resolution reported, read the first and the second time, and agreed to.
Mr. DOHERTY thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 93, to amend the Judges Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Sevigny in the Chair.
Department of Militia and Defence; salaries, etc., $174,000.
['We do not send them as regiments but as hospitals. It depends on the nature of the hospital, whether it is a base or a stationery or a field hospital, whether we send nurses with it or not.\nProgress reported.\nOn motion of Six Robert Borden, the House adjourned at 11.25 p.m.\nThursday, March 25, 1915.']
Mr. KYTE:: I desire to bring to the attention of the committee certain matters having relation to the 17th Battalion, Nova Scotia regiment, which left Valcartier in the month of October for the front. In making these observations I desire to place myself upon record as not having in mind any intention to make an attack upon the Minister of Militia and Defence. So far as I am personally concerned I can only say that in my judgment, in the discharge of his duties in connection with the equipping and sending to the front of a Canadian force to assist the Allies in the great conflict which is going on at the present time, he has manifested marvellous energy and very great ability. I think, however, that it is only just to the persons in Nova Scotia who are interested in the 17th Battalion, made up, as it is, of Nova Scotians, that these matters should be brought to the attention of the committee and of the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence, thus giving him an opportunity of stating his side of the case. Certain documents have been placed in my hands; they come from Colonel Robertson, who is in charge of this battalion. These I desire to read; they are as follows:
Valcartier Camp, Sept. 13, 1914.
The undersigned officers and non-commis. sioned officers of the Nova Scotia regimental contingents now in camp having as they believe an honest grievance on behalf of themselves,

the militia and citizens of the province of Nova Scotia, arising from treatment received from the Militia Department, desire to lay the following facts before you for your earnest consideration in the confident hope that some remedial action will be taken in their behalf.
After leaving Amherst, N.S., the officers on board the troop unanimously agreed that a request be made to have the Nova Scotians formed in a battalion under the command of the officers with the contingents. Major Robertson was asked by his senior officers to take command in event of the request being granted, and telegrams were despatched from Moncton to the Prime Minister, Colonel Hughes and Senator Dennis.
On our arrival near the camp ground on Saturday, August 22, 1914, we were obliged to find our way by inquiry to camp site. Neither rations nor tents had been provided or allotted. Owing to heavy rain on Friday night, had we not asked for leave to remain on board the train at LSvis, we would have been brought into camp in the rain and dark to forage for ourselves. No rations were issued to us until Sunday, August 23. This condition of affairs was due to headquarters having overlooked the sending of advance parties.
We were then placed in a battalion under command of an officer from New Brunswick whose character was then under investigation, and who had never shown any interest or activity in the militia. Although the Nova Scotians comprised the larger part of the provisional battalion the staff officers had been selected and the list was posted in the orderly tent No provisions had been made for a representation of any officers from Nova Scotia.
Owing to those facts Major Robertson, at the request of the Nova Scotian officers wired the Minister of Militia as follows:
" Valcartier Camp, August 23.
"Colonel the Honourable Sam. Hughes,
"On train from Quebec to Ottawa.
"Officers and men of Nova Scotian regiments comprising contingent desire to be formed into a Nova Scotian regiment commanded by Nova Scotian officers. The three officers senior to me ask me to take command. Do not wish to be merged with New Brunswick and lose identity. Consider that military qualifications and interest in militia should count. Seventy-eighth first to volunteer from Maritime Provinces. Have sacrificed all private interest for _ service and feel our request reasonable and should be granted.
"(Signed) Struan G. Robertson."
No mention of the number of men was made, it being a matter of record at Headquarters, Ottawa. The following reply was received:
" Ottawa, Ontario, August 24. "Col. Struan G. Robertson,
"Valcartier, Que.
"Please get move on and organize as suggested.
"(Sgd.) Sam. Hughes."
On or about September 1, the Camp Commandant, in the presence of all the officers commanding contingents in camp, spoke in a contemptuous maner of the move on the part of Nova Scotians for a battalion and said in effect that we had not men enough to form a battalion, thought ourselves too good to be
jointed with others, and that he would not allow us to recruit Nova Scotians from other regiments in camp or at home.
Repeated requests had previously been made for leave to recruit Nova Scotians in camp and had been refused, although the privilege had been extended to other units or they were doing so with the knowledge of the Commandant. No consideration was given the Nova Scotians, while obstacles were thrown in their way. They were not even asked to be present when the provisional battalions were made up, but tney were allotted to two separate battalions without being asked as to their wishes. With the consent of all of us an appeal was then made to the Prime Minister, but with the exception of a gracious interview on Sunday last, nothing has been done.
Two paragraphs follow to which I do not subscribe, but, in order to make the article consecutive, I will read them:
The Minister of Militia, however, by deliberate misstatements of fact, interlarded with profanity unbecoming an officer or soldier, has sought to place the province of Nova Scotia and her citizen soldiery in contempt.
On Wednesday, September 9, the Nova Scotia units were paraded before the minister and told by him, in the presence of his staff, that their officers were cowards and wire-pullers, that the province was a two-by-four province, that he would send us back to do garrison duty on our farms, and many other things unbecoming an officer.
The minister then stated that he was, as a matter of grace, going to represent Nova Scotia on the first contingent by a company in place of a battalion and would put Captain Allen in command, because John Stanfield had asked him to do so, a statement manifestly unfair to Captain Allen inasmuch as his competency and efficiency were overlooked altogether.
We can view this move on the part of the minister in no other light than that from motives of petty spite he wished to apparently honour in dishonouring Nova Scotia and break up our establishment by buying over part of our forces.
Although the units had never had an opportunity of acting as a battalion, the minister called out three senior officers to exercise the separate companies as a battalion. In a spirit of fault-finding and with intent to lower the officers in the opinion of their men he attempted to find fault with the orders given, and by doing so made a public exhibition of his own ignorance of Rattalion drill, which was apparent to even the corporals in the ranks and was detrimental to the general efficiency of the Canadian forces.	1
While we left our homes in defence of the Empire at great personal sacrifice, we do not feel that any man has a right to consign us to Hades or damn us before our time.
We hutnb'y submit that the minister and his Adjutant General are, by reason of their unfairness, partiality and proneness to use profanity, quite unfitted to organize or command forces made up of patriotic Canadians whose only desire is to serve their beloved Empire as best they can.
While we may by injustice be prevented from discharging our duty, we desire to call attention to another matter of even greater importance

in that it affects the entire force: we refer to the efficiency of the Ross rifle at present in the hands of part of the force. Some of us, having the honour to belong to the 77th and 78th Regiments which in the competitions of last year stood first and second in all Canada as rifle shots, we think we have a right to speak. In our opinion the Ross rifle is not a weapon of sufficient perfection to place in the hands of our soldiers in time of war. Among other defects we note the following:
First. The locking device of the " holt " so lacks in robustness that it is readily put out of action and renders the weapon unreliable.
Second. The magazine and loading mechanism frequently fails to function properly.
Third. The springs holding the cartridges in the magazine are inefficient; the cartridges frequently jam or are all vertically ejected.
Fourth. The mechanism whereby the cartridge shells are . withdrawn not infrequently becomes inoperative.
Fifth. The sights are inaccurate and useless over 1,200 yards.
To arm a force and send it Into battle with such a weapon is to court disaster and is criminal in the extreme. It is bur duty to make it known to you without fear or favour, knowing that our fellow soldiers from Canada may have to pay the price with their lives.
All of this we most respectfully submit for your earnest consideration.
(Sgd.) 

,
Lt.-Col. 78th Regt.
C. A. Andrews,
Lt.-Col 75.th Regt.
Struan G. Robertson, Major 78th Regt.
C. E. Bent, Captain.
L. R. Cutten, Captain.
In addition to that I have a copy of a letter from Lieut.-Col. Robertson himself which I am informed was addressed to Mr. F. B. McCurdy, M.P. It reads:
Jellalabad Barracks,
North Tidworth, 4-2-15.
F. B. McCurdy, Esq.,
Halifax, N.S.
Dear sir,-I have the unpleasant duty of reporting that the battalion known as the 17th Battalion Nova Scotians is to-day practically non-existent saving the officers, non-commissioned officers and some nineteen privates. As this condition of affairs has in my opinion been brought about by the unrelenting antagonism of the Minister of Militia to the battalion from its inception, I desire merely to lay the facts as I know them before you and allow you to judge whether or not we have reason to complain.
On organization at Valcartier, authority for which was delayed until the very last moment in defiance of Sir Robert's expressed wish, there was a scarcity of necessary equipment and stationery. There was no Oliver equipment to be had, only rifles, belts and bayonets without scabbards. They could only give us 1,000 attestation forms, while we needed upwards of 2,000, as they require to be in triplicate. No medical history sheets were available. Assignments of pay and separation cards were completed ; but, owing to a mistake in the printed
fMr. Kyte.]
form of the latter they were returned before leaving Valcartier and new forms issued for completion on the voyage.
This of course was all excusable owing to the exigencies of the case. We were promised that this would all be remedied on arrival in England.
The separation cards were sent to the pay and record office, London, on arrival in England, but were returned to us, and new cards had again to be made out and forwarded through proper channels to pay and record office, along with nominal roll of officers and men. Application was made by me repeatedly for attestation forms, but none were to be had.
On December 12, 1914, two months after our arrival, I succeeded in getting 150 forms of attestation, sufficient to attest 50 men. ' Later I got a supply sufficient to complete the battalions, but then unfortunately we had no less than 140 men in isolation on account of spinal meningitis. Medical history sheets were at length supplied us on January 14, 1915. Oliver equipment was also issued to us in January, 1915.
On arrival at -Devonport I was advised by officers on the staff that, while our discipline and appearance was excellent, Colonel Hughes had said that we were a political battalion of Sir Robert Borden's and that he had nothing to do with us and that we would never get to the front.
On arrival at Pond Farm Camp my officers and I were refused mess privileges. Harrod's manager told me that no arrangements had been made for us. By providing our own cook and waiters we were eventually given a corner of the mess room.
Repeated application for a wagon to haul supplies was made to the proper authorities and refused. Finally a wagon was borrowed and for two months it had to be used for drawing all rations and removing refuse from the lines. After sickness had broken out in our lines three wagons were given us in January, 1915.
On the removal of the 4th Brigade from Pond Farm Camp, we were kept for at least two weeks cleaning up the mess the 4th Brigade had left behind and levelling the ground. For this work we had only 9 shovels, though the establishment allows 222 shovels per battalion.
About November 20, 1914, we moved to Bustard Camp to occupy lines vacated by the Princess Patricias. Found lines in a filthy condition and only 29 tents erected for 800 men, although my orders in writing were that tents were all ready for us.
December 5, 1914, we moved to Sling Plantation. Were given only 18 huts for 800 officers and men. Huts only supposed to accommodate 30 men had to be crowded to 60. No accommodation for officers apart from their men, as in the other battalions. Result overcrowding. No officers' mess or kitchens of the men. Cooking had to be done in mud and mire, while all the other battalions of the 4th Brigade were equipped with splendid cookhouses and ranges, we were in a mud-hole. In ten days time we had 200 sick. First death from spinal meningitis December 17.
Medical officer was taken from us on Xmas day and since then we have had no qualified medical officer up to this date. With the assistance of two medical students in the battalion, four inspections a day of the huts, we came through with six deaths from meningitis and one from pneumonia.

During the whole period since our arrival in England the battalion was never once inspected by the G.O.C. or any divisional officer. We were left absolutely to our own devices. Every complaint possible was made against us and not one substantiated. Only one was investigated, and proved a complete farce.
Irf December my wife wrote me from Pictou that it was reported in Pictou I was to be sent home. On January 11, 1915, I had an interview with the G.O.C. He said that the authorities were down on me, that I had better resign, as they would get me sooner or later, that being his experience. On hearing my statement the G.O.C. said, " It is not fair of them to ask me to do this kind of thing." I declined to resign and asked for an investigation. The G.O.C. said, " there are no charges." I consulted other O.C.'s, whose advice, was not to think of resigning.
On January 22, 1915, I sent in the resignations of three of my officers who had been charged with being drunk on January If. The resignations were attached to statement of evidence taken before me. I did this solely, out of consideration for their families.
According to regulations an officer is not allowed to resign in order to escape Court Martial. The resignations were accepted, but I was relieved of my command on January 28, 1915. On Sunday, January 31 all the men of the 17th Battalion were drafted into the Highland Brigade to make good the losses from death, sickness and desertion.
My personal case is a small matter compared to the manner in which the officers and men of the battalion have been used. If a statement of our wrongs were to reach the public of Nova Scotia it would be disastrous to our party In Nova Scotia. Whether General Hughes is to blame for the discontent in the contingent or not, he certainly is blamed, as all seem to lay their grievances at his door.
The G.O.C. is a very weak man. He does not seem to understand human nature. He makes no effort to get to know the officers or men.
The contingent is certainly seething with discontent, and if the Government has any idea of extending the franchise to us, my advice would be decidedly : Don't
As for efficiency, the 120 men that we sent to the Princess Patricias are proof of that, and had we only been allowed a draft from Nova Scotia to complete the battalion to strength, we would to day have been part of the Canadian Highland instead of being a reserve battalion brigade for it without men. Our typewriter was taken from us, and I am obliged to use the pen.
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd.) Struan G. Robertson,
Lt.-Colonel.
I understand that this Colonel Struan E. Robertson is one of the officers who went oyer to Europe with the hon. Minister of Militia two years ago and was part of the rather magnificent and numerous entourage which accompanied him on that occasion. Colonel Robertson performed what I must admit was a very patriotic duty in forming a Nova Scotia regiment to be forwarded as a unit to the front to take part in the war. He was unable to complete the unit at Valcartier, and he left with 700 men. I am informed-I do not know whether the information is correct or not-that he was promised that 400 men would be forwarded to him to complete his regiment. Some weeks ago I brought this matter up in the House, my attention having been called to a certain article which had appeared in the Morning Chronicle of Halifax, signed by their special correspondent at Salisbury, Mr. Horatio C. Crowell. The right hon.'the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden), stated that having received information from the acting High Commissioner in London, he was in a position to say that the charges of Mr. Crowell were absolutely untrue. The article written by Mr. Crowell in the Halifax Chronicle had reference to the treatment accorded to the Halifax regiment not only at Salisbury but at Valcartier. It was stated that the Nova Scotia regiment was disbanded, that the officers had not the privilege of the mess, that medical attendance was not available for them and that on the whole they were treated in an extremely unfair way. As a consequence the regiment broke up and a number of their men were drafted into other regiments. It is only fair to Mr. Horatio C. Crowell, the correspondent of the Halifax Chronicle, that I should put upon the records of the House the correspondence which I have just read. The correspondence emanates from Colonel Struan Robertson himself. He is a person in whom the military authorities in Canada had sufficient confidence to nominate for a very high military office when they placed him in command of the Nova Scotia regiment. If there is any misstatement of fact it is traceable to Colonel Robertson himself and certainly not to the correspondent, who satisfied himself as to the truth of the statements before he despatched them to this paper.
I stated a moment ago that Colonel Robertson was a man holding a high position in military affairs in the province of Nova Scotia. Not only that, but he is a gentleman who occupies a very high professional and social position in the county of Pictou, where he lives. He is the gentleman upon whom distinguished political honours have been-conferred by the party in office. As a Conservative he was the unanimous choice of the Conservative party in the county of Pictou in the last Dominion elections. He was the candidate who opposed my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr.Macdonald) in that election. Under all these circumstances I do think that these statements are entitled to some respect, and call foi

some explanation from the Minister of Militia. I have not brought this matter up for the purpose of reflecting in any way upon the minister, but I felt that it was only right in his interest, as well as in the interest of Colonel Struan Robertson and of the other officers who signed the protest which I have read, that an explanation should be made to the House by the minister.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman has adopted a somewhat unusual course this evening, particularly in reading to the committee and sending broadcast through the country an attack upon the general officer who is now commanding the Canadians at the front. However, he has the responsibility of that, and those who have advised him to this course, if there be any, have the responsibility of it also. I do not propose to answer the hon. gentleman in the spirit, very evident from the tone of his remarks, in which he has brought the matter to the attention of the committee. As far as he has desired to use this letter for the purpose of making an attack upon my hon. friend the Minister of Militia and Defence (Major General Hughes), that may be a legitimate method of party warfare if my hon. friend so considers it. He will have to take the responsibility of that also. But I have again strongly to deprecate his course in assuming to ask for information in such a manner as to cast a distinct reflection and aspersion upon the character and capacity of the general who has been selected, with the approval of Lord Kitchener, to command the Canadian division now facing the foe in the trenches.
As to the action taken with regard to Col. Struan Robertson, I regret that anything should have occurred which would lead to his being relieved of his command. I can only say that the responsibility for that rests entirely and absolutely with the War Office and with General Alderson. If my hon. friend (Mr. Kyte) desired to suggest that the authorities who are referred to in that letter mean any authorities on this side of the water, such a suggestion is absolutely without foundation. From first, to last, since our troops from all parts of Canada went across the water, we have absolutely abstained from any attempts whatever to interfere with the command or otherwise; the responsibility in regard to these men as Imperial troops has been left with the War Office and with the general in command, where it properly belongs. If the general in command did

use the language as to "other authorities," he certainly was not referring to any on this side of the water.
If the officers and men of the Nova Scotia battalion had any proper grounds of complaint of their treatment, it would seem to me that a military inquiry might have been had. I am not aware of the procedure in such cases, but I believe there is a procedure which would lead to an investigation and to the redress of any grievances, if grievances existed. I have had some correspondence on this subject, and I am at liberty to state to the House again that General Alderson and the authorities of the War Office, if they took any part in the matter, are entirely and absolutely responsible for the course which has been taken in regard to Col. Struan Robertson. The letter which has been read finds fault with the treatment of the Nova Scotians both at Valcartier and at Salisbury Plain. I have made careful inquiry as to their treatment at Salisbury Plain, and I think I have exhausted every source of information on that score. My hon. friend is mistaken in saying that I contradicted of my own knowledge anything that was said in Mr. Crowell's letter. I did not undertake to do that, because I have no personal knowledge of the matter.


George William Kyte: Will my hon. friend pardon me? I certainly did not intend to say that; I referred to the document the right hon. gentleman received from the acting high commissioner in London.


Robert Laird Borden: I laid before the House the information which was forwarded to me in response to my inquiries, and since then I have had further communications on the subject, some of which 1 am prepared to bring down, although some I would prefer not to bring down for personal considerations. I do not wish unnecessarily to wound the feelings of any man in this House or outside of this House.
The treatment accorded the Nova Scotia regiment on Salisbury Plain, if my information is correct, was exactly of the same character as that accorded to the other regiments from different parts of Canada; and indeed that is not very hard to believe, because who for one moment could imagine that General Alderson or the authorities at the War Office would select a particular regiment from Nova Scotia for the purpose of discriminating against it or ill-treating it? There could be no possible motive or reason for that, and until

evidence is afforded to me to the contrary I am disposed to take the word of the authorities at the War Office, the word of the general officer commanding, the word of Col. Carleton Jones, that there was no * discrimination against these men in their treatment on Salisbury Plain.
As to the organization of the regiment at Valcartier, it was desired, and indeed hoped, that additional men might be recruited from the province of Nova Scotia which would enable the regiment to cross the Atlantic at full strength, and I discussed that with my colleague the Minister of Militia. If a little more time had been afforded before the sailing of the contingent,
I have no doubt that would have been accomplished. But the question arose at that time whether it would be better for the regiment to remain and not go forward with the contingent, thus affording them an opportunity to recruit (to full strength or whether it had better go forward on the strength it then possessed with the rest of the contingent. In discussing that with the officers, my recollection is, and I think it is absolutely correct, that the conclusion was reached that it would be better for the Nova Scotia regiment to go forward at somewhat less than strength, as they thought they would not like to be left behind when all the rest of the contingent had gone. Therefore the Nova Scotian regiment went forward as it was. As to sending forward a further contingent for that particular regiment, my hon. friend will remember, .and the House will remember, that there was a very great indisposition on the part of the War Office and the Admiralty to permit a body of armed troops to cross the Atlantic, except under special and adequate convoy. From time to time the despatch of further troops has been delayed for that and other considerations. In every case we have been governed by the representations made to us by the War Office and the Admiralty as to the times at which troops should go forward and as to the numbers in which they should go forward.
Am I to understand that the letter which my hon. friend read in the first instance was one addressed to me?


George William Kyte: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not sure,
but I will inform the House later, after making absolutely sure as to what I am about to say. I know (that one letter addressed to me and signed by several officers was withdrawn as far as some of the
officers are concerned. There may have been more than one communication to me, but I have a very large correspondence and I do not want to trust to my memory too definitely. I know that one letter of a somewhat important character which came to me, signed by some of the officers of the Nova Scotia contingent was, upon further reflection and information, withdrawn by at least one officer who had signed it in the first instance.
It seems to me that the course which my hon. friend has taken is not on the whole a very desirable course to take, for the reasons I have given. Any information of a confidential character or otherwise, with regard to this or any other regiment, will be placed before hon. members of the House who desire merely to procure information.
It is unfortunate that the Nova Scotia regiment was not recruited to full strength in the first instance. They were a very fine body of men, a very fine body of men indeed, and the disposition of the province .of Nova Scotia to send men to the front has been amply demonstrated by what has since taken place. One of the best regiments that could be seen anywhere in Canada was assembled at Halifax last December, and I had the privilege of seeing them on parade and of inspecting them. The Minister of Militia, Who saw the Halifax regiment after I had come hack, assured me that among the regiments he had seen in all parts of Canada there was certainly no better regiment than that assembled at Halifax.
Further than that, he has told me since that he knew perfectly well, from information that he had collected from different parts of the province, that if two additional regiments were desired from the province of Nova Scotia, they could be raised without any difficulty, and that they would be of a character which would compare very favourably with any regiment raised in any other part of the country. There was no disposition on the part of the Minister of Militia, so far as I observed, to discriminate in any way against the Nova Scotia regiment. Along with the Minister of Militia I met the officers of the regiment when I was at Valcartier, and I venture to say that every one of them who was present at such interview will say with me that the minister treated them in a very considerate way, and offered to do and tried to do everything that was reasonably possible under the circumstances to bring the regiment up to full strength and to have it go

forward. He left it to the option of the officers themselves as to whether the one course or the other would he pursued, and the course pursued in sending the regiment forward at less than full strength was the one which the officers themselves thought it most desirable to adopt under the circumstances.


George William Kyte: I am not quite sure whether the right hon. gentleman was in his seat when I began my remarks. If he was present, he would not say that I had interjected anything partisan or of a party *sentiment into my remarks. I distinctly disclaim any desire to make any reflections upon the Department of Militia and Defence in this connection. This matter matter has caused considerable notoriety, not only in the province of Nova Scotia, but in other provinces of Canada. Ill addition to the communication sent by Mr. Crowell, the special correspondent of the Halifax Chronicle, communications were sent by Lieut. Frank Mynott to the Ottawa Evening Journal and the Toronto Star dealing with the same subject, so that not only the readers of the Halifax Chronicle, but the readers of those other largely-circulated newspapers had an opportunity of judging whether or not there was a substantial grievance in respect of the Halifax battalion. I regard this as a public matter in which every person is interested, and we all desire a statement from the Minister of Militia and Defence as to his responsibilities, if any, in regard to the complaint made by Colonel Eobertson. Mr. Crowell is a very respected newspaper correspondent in the province of Nova Scotia, where he has a reputation for veracity of which he is very proud, and he is entitled to have given to the House by me the authority upon which he made the complaint in the newspapers. That is my justification for the remarks that I have made.
With regard to Colonel Struan Eobertson,
I hold no brief for him. He is no friend of my political party; he is a friend of the party of the right hon. gentleman himself; and any honours, distinctions or emoluments which he has received at the hands of the people of the province of Nova Scotia have been received by him as being a supporter of the right hon. gentleman's party.


Sir BOBEET BOEDEN:: My hon. friend has enlarged upon the fact that Colonel Struan Eobertson is a Conservative in politics, and that he has been a candidate in the interest of the Conservative party. I may

say more than that, that he has been known to me for many years and that he is a personal friend of mine. I should be very sorry indeed to believe that any injustice had been done to him, either at Valcartier camp or on Salisbury Plain. The better course in such matters on the part of a military man is to follow the usual course of procedure, in case of any grievance, of making a demand for a court martial, or for an investigation. In so far as his being a Conservative or a Liberal is concerned, I would resent any injustice to Colonel Struan Eobertson if he were the strongest Liberal in the country, just as much as I would under present conditions. The question whether a man who goes out to fight for his country is a Conservative or a Liberal, in respect of any matter of this kind, weighs not one single grain in my estimation. I do not quite appreciate the motive of my hon. friend in putting forward the fact that Colonel Struan Eobertson is a Conservative. If my hon. friend desired to make a protest in this House in respect of an alleged injustice to any one of those men who happened to be a strong Liberal, I would deem it just as much my duty to take the matter up and make inquiries and have any necessary investigation as if the complaint were made in respect of a man who had 'been supporting the party to which I belong. Possibly my ihon. friend did not mean anything by stating that Col. Eobertson was a Conservative. I am quite willing to believe that such is the case. It is undesirable to attach any blame to men who are responsible for military command of our forces now facing the enemy in France until the question as to whether any fault has been committed or any grievance exists has been dealt with through the ordinary rebognized military channel. As I have already explained to my hon. friend from Eichmond (Mr. Kyte), I sent a request to the High Commissioner for Canada that the substance of those complaints should be .laid before General Alderson and before the War Office, coupled with the desire on the part of the Government of this country that, subject to ordinary military usage, which, of course, must be observed in certain matters, an investigation of the alleged grievance be made. I hope that it will be made.


William John Macdonald: In this connection, I understand that a number of the officers of the Nova Scotia regiment, who do not agree

with the views of Col. Struan Robertson, and who, according to the letter read by my bon. friend the member for Richmond, are in barracks at Tidworth, and have for some reason or other not been permitted to be attached to any of the other battalions or regiments, I understand that some of those men would like to be given an opportunity of becoming attached to some of the regiments going to France. I would ask whether something cannot be done in that regard.
I feel sure that what was done in England in regard to any of the men who went over there would be whatever was decided upon by the General Officer Commanding and by the War Office, and that fibey alone would direct anything that would be done in regard to the Nova Scotia battalion or any other battalion. I do not fancy that the military authorities in Canada would have anything to do with the direction or control of the personnel of those battalions after they reached the other side. I know some of the men of whom I speak. I have seen them in camp and I know their worth as officers and as men. Apart from any statement that Col. Struan Robertson may have made in regard to ill-treatment, those men do not share his views, and they ought not to be treated prejudicially on that account and ought to be given an opportunity of doing something.


Robert Laird Borden: I concur entirely in my hon. friend's appreciation of the officers whom I met at Valcartier. I thought them a fine body of men. I am no more qualified than is my hon. friend to judge of their military qualities.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


An hon. MEMBER:: Is that complimentary?	.


Major General HUGHES:: You are both honorary colonels.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps my
hon. friend (Mr. Macdonald) and I will have to reconsider our attitude on that. However, I did have a little military experience, and I suppose my hon. friend did also, years ago. More years ago than I care to think about. I went through the military school at Halifax, then under the command of General Laurie, under the direct supervision of a good old British officer, very stem in his way, called Col. Milsom, and obtained a certificate to command and drill a company at company
drill and a battalion at battalion drill, though I am afraid that my knowledge in that regard has become a little rusty since then. But with regard to the surplus officers-because more officers went over than were actually required-the situation has not been an easy one, and I have felt a great deal of personal concern in meeting a number of them who returned from England some time in December last, and whom I had the opportunity of seeing on the train. They were, beyond question, very fine men, and I should judge very capable men, and a number of them were men of experience. They could not be provided with commands in Great Britain. The course which the War Office thought it best to pursue under the circumstances and that Gen. Alderson followed, was to return them to Canada, with' a view to their being employed in some later contingents; and I have said to the Minister of Militia that, as far as possible, consideration should be given to these men, because they had volunteered for service abroad, had been sent to Valcartier and afterwards to Great Britain, and were very earnest, their whole hearts being in their desire to serve their country.
So far as the men at Tidworth barracks are concerned, my hon. friend from Pictou will realize the difficulty of otir making suggestions with regard to the appointment of men after they have gone to the other side as Imperial troops. For example, if we should be of opinion that certain officers were very competent and capable and worthy of consideration, the authorities of the War Office or the General Officer Commanding might not concur in that opinion-it would be undesirable that any such state of affairs should be brought about. Subject to that consideration, the importance of which the hon. member for Pictou, I am sure, will be the first to recognize, I should be very glad, and I am
9 p.m. sure the Minister of Militia would be very glad, to assist in any possible and proper way to carry out the suggestions which the hon. gentleman has made. If my hon. friend would send me a memorandum giving the names of the officers, I should be glad to confer with the Minister of Militia with regard to the matter, to see if anything can properly be done to meet the suggestion. It would be my most earnest wish that something could be done.


William John Macdonald: I am advised that
these officers of the Nova Scotia regiment, who are in barracks at Tidworth, occupy an

altogether different position from those officers who returned about the beginning of the year from Great Britain.


Robert Laird Borden: They went over with commands-the hon. gentleman means that they differ in that respect?


William John Macdonald: Yes, and differ in
their status, as their services are not being dispensed with. They simply remain there occupying positions as supernumeraries. It is not suggested that they come back. I should be glad to communicate to the right hon. gentleman the names of some of these officers whom I know, with a view to having the matter dealt with. 1 do not think the right hon. gentleman should blame the hon. member for Richmond for calling the attention of the House to this question, for I think he had a perfect right to do it.


Major General HUGHES:: With the
motives of the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte) I have nothing to do. With the remarks he has made and the contents of the letter he has read I have to do. He is correct in stating that a year ago Major Struan Robertson accompanied me through the fields of Europe and saw the various manoeuvres, which would show to an ordinary observer that I could not have a very vindictive feeling towards that gentleman. The fact that Major Struan Robertson wired me on the way up with the Nova Scotians that they were coming in strength and asking to be formed into a Nova Scotia regiment with himself, Major Struan Robertson as Lt.-Golonel, was cheering to me, especially when followed up with telegrams from the same gentleman and from other distinguished gentlemen from the province of Nova Scotia, stating that they had fifteen hundred men from that province coming to Valcartier and asking that we should recognize them as a Nova Scotia regiment. Nothing gave, me greater pleasure than to wire back that I would constitute them a Nova Scotia regiment. On their arrival m camp it transpired that they had less than half a thousand men, not quite enough for half a battalion. I saw Major Robertson and discussed the situation with him and asked him what he proposed doing-should we recruit more men from Nova Scotia? He said that what was meant by the statement that they had fifteen hundred men from Nova Scotia was that, considering the number of men they had brought direct ik'om the province, together with the number of those in the battalion from other

parts of Canada, they could recruit a regiment upwards of a thousand strong. To tihis proposition I personally made no objection. I pointed out, however, that many of these men had lived for years in the West and had made their homes there, and that there was an attractiveness about the prairie life and the mountain life, and I warned him that he would find difficulty in winning these men away from the corps to which, they belonged. I told him that if he attempted to win men away from these corps from the West he must do it with the consent of the officers of the corps. I think that was only honourable. As a matter of fact, while there were a very large number of men in other corps who came from Nova Scotia they preferred remaining with their comrades with whom they had come to Valcartier rather than leave and join the Nova Scotia battalion under Major Struan Robertson. The next proposition he made to me was to recruit up at home; but that was deemed impossible within the time at our command. I need not enter into the detans of the hurry of getting troops away by the 1st of October, but it was regarded as impossible to carry out that recruiting, especially as not only from the troops in camp but also from the reports that were coming from the militia in Nova Scotia, it was found that Major Struan Robertson was not regarded as the. best leader of men from that province.
At the last moment we permitted Major Robertson to recruit men from Toronto, from the Maritime Provinces, or from any part of the country in which he could get them, and in that way he increased the strength of his regiment up to 650 or 700 men.
Let me say here that a more athletic, bright-eyed or soldierly looking lot of fellows than the Nova Scotians could not be picked up anywhere under the sun. We recognized that; they knew it without our recognizing it. An arrangement seemed to have been entered into, however, by two or three of the senior officers, without consultation with the company officers or with the men, that they should form a little close corporation of their own, and tolerate nothing which would not have the effect of keeping these men at its head. The proposal that the regiment should remain behind, enlist to full strength and go across the water later, was not received with favour. Many of the officers and men expressed the view that if this suggestion were carried out they would be looked upon as

dodging the issue, shirking their work, or showing the white feather; and these were qualities which they did not wish to have attributed to them or to their province. That proposal was, therefore, rejected. Perhaps before mentioning this phase of the matter I should have referred to the fact that Nova Scotia and New Brunswick had each half a battalion of home men. It was proposed that there should be a Maritime Province battalion similar to the one the formation of which was recently started but not completed, the idea being changed to that of giving each province a battalion for the third contingent. The proposition to have a Maritime Province battalion, while acceptable to a great number of officers and men, was indignantly rejected by Major Struan Robertson and the two officers who were associated with him. The reason was evident. Colonel McLeod, being the senior officer, would take command of the regiment and these other gentlemen would be relegated to subordinate positions. That proposition, therefore, also fell through. Week in and week out, until the week before the troops sailed, I did my level best to bring about a happy solution of this Nova Scotia difficulty, but any suggestion, the carrying out of which would not keep Major Struan Robertson in command, and the officers associated with him in second and third positions, was rejected. I made the suggestion that, as it was desired that Nova Scotia should be definitely represented in the first contingent, one composite or individual company-that splendid company from the town of Truro, for instance-should be sent as representing the province, and that the others should remain at home and recruit to full strength. That proposal was also rejected; therefore the regiment had to be allowed to sail. The regiment was gazetted, Major Robertson was put in orders as Lieutenant-Colonel commanding, with Colonel Cameron as second in command and Colonel Andrews as junior major. The regiment sailed, and from that hour up to the present I have neither directly nor indirectly had anything to do with the matter. I have received scores of letters from officers and men complaining of the treatment	accorded them; I have never
answered these letters. I did send a cable in answer to Captain Allen, declining to receive any communications from him, and advising him that the commanding officer, General Alderson, was the proper person
to whom to send any complaints or any communications upon matters affecting the regiment. I did not interfere with the regiment, either directly or indirectly, when the accountant and paymaster general of the Militia Department was asked why the returns from the regiment came in so late. He communicated the definite reply from Colonel Ward, paymaster of the regiment in England, that Colonel Ward had tried to get from the Nova Scotia regiment the commanding officer's attestation papers, but that up to the middle of December he had failed to do so. He commented in very strong terms upon the incapacity of this officer. However, I have had nothing to say in the matter; for various reasons I declined to interfere.	-
Reference has been made in the communications which have been read to the committee as to my having made some re: marks to the regiment. I would like to have had those remarks reported. I admit frankly that I did not compliment the three officers who had, in these and other cases, prevented the formation of the regiment in such manner as to reflect credit upon the service. But the men, as I said then and say now, were in every respect a credit to the province of Nova Scotia, in conduct, in drill, in rifle shooting, in soldiery bearing, in all that goes to make up a good soldier.
Twelve regiments were selected for the front from Salisbury Plain. A division is made up of twelve regiments, and it was known before the troops left Canada that several regiments would have to remain behind when the troops went to the front. When the division was formed at Salisbury, five regiments were left behind. One of these has been formed into a cavalry regiment; four regiments, therefore, of the original lot of 33,000 men, are still in England, and will from time to time make up losses in the regiments at the front. Unfortunately, casualties are occurring from day to day; these men will in turn, be drafted over to take the places of those who have suffered casualties. A number of the Nova Scotia boys have already gone to the front and are doing splendid service with the Princess Patricia regiment. I understand that some of the officers also have been taken. I have every faith in the Canadian officers in command of the troops, and I have sufficient confidence in the British officers to be able to say that no injustice would
143?

be done to any Canadian regiment. The units of the Canadian forces are all treated as being on an absolutely equal footing.


John Howard Sinclair: I was inclined to think, when I first read it, that the publication if the article by Mr. Crowell was a mistake but I did not know at that time that he had so much evidence to justify his statements. It seems to me that while it is not wise to ventilate these military matters too much while the war is in progress, there is sufficient evidence before the minister to require a full and clear explanation, not only on the part of the officers and the men who have gone to the front in this battalion from Nova Scotia, but also on the part of the numerous relatives of these officers and men in that province who are very much disturbed over the statements that have been made in the press. I think it is due to the minister that these matters should be cleared up and that the truth should be given to the public, who are so deeply interested. It appears that at the time -Mr. Crowell wrote the letter for the Morning Chronicle he had ample evidence before him. The letter that was addressed to the Prime Minister contained the statements that are made in Mr. Crowell's letter. The other letter addressed to the hon. member for Queens-Shelburne (Mr. McCurdy) contains the same statements, and they must have been in the possession of members of the Government now for some time. A memorandum has been placed in my hands which gives some further proof corroborating the statements of Colonel Struan Robertson and the other two or three officers who signed that document. A large number of other parties, many of whom are now in Canada, and no doubt could be produced as witnesses, have corroborated what Colonel Struan Robertson said, and what was published in the Morning Chronicle. Let me read this memorandum:
We, the undersigned officers, non-commissioned officers and men of the 17th Nova Scotia . Battalion, having- read the article published in the Morning Chronicle of Pebraury 25, 1915, signed by H. C. Crowell, do hereby certify it to be a true statement of the facts concerning the treatment of the said battalion, so far as our knowledge goes, and we have a personal knowledge of most of the facts therein stated: Halifax, N.S., March 16, 1915.
Begt. H. Simpson, 374 Dundas st., Toronto.
Pte. William Robertson, 103 Grange avenue, Toronto.
H. Clarson, 849 Oxenden avenue, Montreal.
G. Goble, 617 or 618 Albert st., Stratford, Ont.
G. Friend, 128 Priel st., Ottawa.
[Mr. Sam. Hughes.l
W. F. Sudlbury, South Side, Prince Edward Island.
C. W. Ren, 990 Verdun avenue, Montreal.
W. H. Smith, Victoria, B.C.
Lawrence Sheridan, 62 Besserer st., Ottawa.
H. Lawson Davis, 1946 City Hall avenue, Montreal.
W. A. Robida, 44 Gillespie st., Sherbrooke, Que.
Edmund James Clark, Annapolis Royal, N.S.
Prank Sentner, Trenton, N.S.
David Walters, Cayuga, Ont., Box 63.
P. C. Potts, 2136 15th street west, Calgary, Alberta.
A. E. Ryder, 13 Morris ave., Hamilton, Ont.
H. Dobson, 557 La Salle Road, Verdun, Montreal.
S. Hunter, Hamilton, Ont.
W. Wilde, 248 Dellivers st., Montreal.
W. Young, Toronto, Ont.
F. Whymps, Montreal.
H. Beaudon, Montreal.
Corp. Steve Johnstone, 711 Indian Road, Toronto.
J. Carroll, 136 Young st., east, Hamilton.
Norman Case, 140 Victor avenue, Toronto.
W. H. Stearn, Lakehurst, Ont.
It appears that Colonel Robertson was permitted to recruit men from other parts of Canada, as the minister has stated, and he did recruit a number of men. I presume the men who have signed this memorandum were among those recruited into the Nova Scotia regiment from other parts of Canada. I do not feel satisfied with the minister's explanation. Are we to believe that the statements that are made by Colonel Struan Robertson in regard to the minister's own conduct at Valcartier are all true and must be accepted by the country? If they are true it is an extraordinary position that the minister has taken. Why, let me ask, did the minister take such a position in regard to the soldiers who were sent from that province to fight for the Empire? I am not complaining as to what took place at Salisbury Plain because the officers responsible at Salisbury are not here and are not represented here. I have not a word to say about what was done at Salisbury Plain; but I think it is due to the House and to the country that the minister should give a better explanation than he has as to what took place at Valcartier. It is stated in the letter read by the hon. member for Richmond that on the 9th of November the Nova Scotia regiment was paraded before the minister, and that the minister said, in the presence of his staff of officers, that the Nova Scotia officers were cowards and wire-pullers, and that Nova Scotia was a two-by-four- province anyway. I can hardly believe that a man occupying the position of Minister of Militia would so far forget himself as to make statements like that in the presence

of officers of other battalions. How could he expect these officers of the Nova Scotia regiment to respect him or to serve him as the head of our forces if he used such language as that to them in the presence of other officers? I think the language is very unbecoming, and I do not think the minister has at all justified himself in regard to that matter. What right had he to say that they were cowards before they had had an opportunity to show their courage? At that time they were simply in camp at Valcartier. How can he tell whether a man is a coward or not? I want to tell him that the men sent from Nova Scotia are not cowards, and also that Nova Scotia is not a two-by-four province.


Major General HUGHES:: Did any of
these men refuse to go with the first contingent? They wanted to go, not like his breed.


John Howard Sinclair: Then, why call them
cowards, that the minister had no right to say to any soldier who offered his services to the Empire at a time like this and prior to his having a chance to show his mettle on the battlefield that he is a coward, and I resent such an expression on behalf of the officers of the 17th Regiment. I do not wish it to pass without giving my views on it. I do not know what right the minister has to say that Nova Scotia is a two-by-four province. I want to tell him that the smallest man in Nova Scotia is not afraid of him, and that he would not be afraid to attempt to knock the stuffing out of him if he got a chance. He might not be able to do it, but he would try; and if he did knock the stuffing out of him, if we are to judge by his appearance here to. night and the- exhibition he has made of himself in this matter, there would not be much left.
There seems to have been ample proof in the hands of Mr. Crowell at the time he published the article in question that he had a perfect right to publish it and that it was his duty to do so. I think it is extraordinary. I expected the minister to give us some explanation; I did not expect him to allow such statements to go on record without either explaining them in some way or giving some reason for his extraordinary conduct. It appears that he admits the statements were correct-that he did call the officers of the 17th cowards in the presence of his other officers and spoke disrespectfully of the whole province of Nova Scotia; and I want the people of
Nova Scotia to know what the minister has to say about them.


Robert Laird Borden: I regret that my hon. friend has found it necessary to procure and read in the House statements reflecting upon the treatment of Canadians by the authorities of the War Office. 1 do not understand what his motive can be unless he desires to inspire in the people of Canada a distrust in the Imperial authorities at this juncture in our affairs. If that is his motive-and I do not know of any other motive that he could have had in procuring the statements and reading them to the House-then I say it is a motive which does no credit to him under present conditions.


Major General HUGHES:: It is generally well known that no one in this House, either on this side or the other side, pays much attention to anything the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) says.


Wilfrid Laurier: Order.


Major General HUGHES:: Does'the hon. gentleman dispute it?


William Pugsley: Yes, it is disputed.


Major General HUGHES:: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sinclair) must not put words into my mouth. I distinctly denied having made any such speech, but he cannot draw me into any dispute over the matter contained in that letter. The letter carries on its face its own condemnation. The hon. gentleman is good at boasting of his bravery. He is not at the front; he has never volunteered for this or any other service.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is well
known that in this country, as well as in the Mother Country, the military power is subject to the civil power. Military men, like men in civil life, are not infallible. My hon. friend brought to the attention of the committee information which he has had that certain language had been used by the Minister of Militia on a certain occasion. If the Minister of Militia had used such language everybody must admit that he would have been greatly in the wrong. The minister repudiated it. He says that he has not used such language, and we have to accept his word.	-


Major General HUGHES:: The minister
repudiated it before the hon. member for Guysborough spoke.


Wilfrid Laurier: He brought
this to the attention of the House and gave the minister an opportunity of repudiating it. My hon. friend now states that he did not use the language. If the minister states that he did not use such language, that is enough for everybody.


Major General HUGHES:: It should have been, but it was not.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend says that he did not do it, and we must accept his statement, but we say that if he had done it he would have been greatly in the wrong.


Robert Laird Borden: I might add to what my hon. friend the Minister of Militia has said that when this letter, which has been read in the House, came to my attention it contained some statements attributing to the Minister of Militia language of that kind in regard to the officers in question and in regard to the province of Nova Scotia. I brought the matter to his attention, and he most indignantly denied to me that he had ever used any language of the kind.


Major General HUGHES:: I might say- not that I care a snap of the finger for the whole matter-that one of the officers who signed it did so because he was asked to do so. I have a declaration-I did not think it worth while to bring it to the House -stating that the whole thing was a tissue of falsehoods and that he was asked to sign it in order to get a set of flags for the regiment.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend the Minister of Militia must not snap his fingers so easily as that. My hon. friend can lose his temper, and I think that is what has happened to him. The atmosphere has been thick with the rumours and reports of strong language used at Valcartier. They may be true or they may not be, and if the hon. gentleman says that this is not true we must accept his word. So far the incident is at an end, but it is right that upon the floor of Parliament the minister should repudiate having used any such language if he has not done so. It is better for himself, and it is in the interest of his department that he should have an opportunity of setting the matter right as soon as it could be set right.


Major General HUGHES:: The right hon. the leader of the Opposition must remember that I am not finding the slightest fault

with the hon. member for bringing the letter up. The only thing I find fault with is that an hon. member, who does not happen to be a military man, should read a letter in this House casting an aspersion upon General Alderson. Without a vestige of proof as to the truth of the statements contained in the letter, the hon. member for Guys-borough (Mr. Sinclair), with characteristic fairness, tried to make a political attack.


John Howard Sinclair: I listened very carefully to the hon. gentleman speaking in the first instance. I expected he would deny the statement in the letter read by the hon. member for Richmond. But I feel quite certain that if he examines Hansard he will find that he did not deny it, and my reason for putting it so plainly to him was that he had not denied it. I am quite certain that he made no denial. He admitted that he had used very strong language .and he admitted also that he had not complimented the officers. I referred to it only because the hon. gentleman had failed to deny it in his speech, but if he says now that he did not make these statements I must accept his denial. ,


Major General HUGHES:: I said that I spoke in strong terms of the conduct of three officers-


John Howard Sinclair: Why?


Major General HUGHES:: -but that I spoke in the highest praise of the rest of the officers and men. That was in my first statement. That would have been shown to be the fact had my language on that occasion been reported.


John Howard Sinclair: I would like to know why the minister spoke in strong terms of those officers. What reason had he to speak in strong terms of the officers of this regiment? If there is a reason let us have it.


William Pugsley: What do you call strong terms?


Mr. CARVELL:: I would like to ask the minister a question. I do not want to ask him anything that I ought not to ask in his capacity as a military officer. Would he give the committee the status of the 12th battalion ?


Major General HUGHES:: That is one of the details of the brigade which was left at Salisbury.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Why was the New Brunswick battalion as well as the Nova Scotia battalion left behind? Probably he may say that this is a matter for the officers at

Salisbury Plain to decide. But if the minister has any information I can assure him that the people in New Brunswick would like to know the reason why. There has been a great deal of adverse comment in New Brunswick on account of it, along the same lines as the comment respecting the 17th. We never heard that the regiment, asv a regiment, had been treated unfairly, but there is a great deal of wonder and comment in New Brunswick as to why this regiment, which certainly contained as good material as would be found in any part of Canada, had been left in England while practically all the rest of the force had gone across the water. We know that certain other corps forwarded from New Brunswick the engineer corps, for instance, were taken across and have been at the front because we are receiving letters from the boys and we know where they are and what they are doing.


Major General HUGHES:: The artillery
too.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The artillery were taken across, and there are a lot of good men in that corps. But it is a remarkable fact that the infantry regiment have been left in England. It looks as though there had been something like discrimination and that is why I think the minister should take us into his confidence, and tell us the reason why the infantry battalion were passed over or treated so differently from the engineer and artillery corps.


Major General HUGHES:: I have no explanation whatever. We had nothing whatever to do with picking the regiments that were left at home. They are all good, all magnifieient riflemen. There is no New Brunswick regiment, I may inform my hon. friend there are a lot of splendid fellows from New Brunswick, and they are allied with the boys from Quebec, the British and French stock from Quebec, and they constitute one of the best regiments in the service. The only thing that can be suggested is that Colonel McLeod was taken ill with pneumonia; he was laid up for some time, and therefore was not able to keep in touch with matters. We have had nothing to do with the question as to which regiments should be taken and which left.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There are other officers besides Colonel McLeod. I do not know that I would be doing myself justice if I did not state that the gentleman, who I understand, is second in command, Major Guthrie, is just as good 91
an officer as Colonel McLeod. Perhaps I may be pardoned for saying that there are a good many people in New Brunswick who have just as much confidence in his military ability as they have in the military ability of Colonel McLeod. It does not seem that the temporary illness of Colonel McLeod ought to be sufficient excuse for these men remaining where they, were. Is Colonel McLeod still in command of the regiment?	[DOT]Major-General HUGHES:	I understand
so; I have heard nothing to the contrary.


Robert Laird Borden: There is naturally a good deal of impatience and regret among all the regiments which have been assigned to duty in England, that they were not allowed to go to the front at once. We have reason to know that, and it is greatly to the credit of the officers and men that they should have so keen a desire to proceed to the front and engage in active service. Assuming, as we are bound to assume, that the efficiency of all these regiments is practically the same, my hon. friend (Mr. Carvell) will remember that it was absolutely necessary that some should remain in Great Britain, whose services would be utilized in the way the Minister of Militia has described. I took the responsibility at the Valcartier camp of deciding that all the forces there assembled should go forward, and I took that course for the reason that they were assembled; that they were all ready, and that they were all keen to go. There was no arrangement made in Canada as to which should go to the front first, and. it was believed at that time that our men would go to the front much earlier than actually happened. We knew from the information afforded to us by the War Office that very large reinforcements might be required in the immediate future, and as the men were assembled there, and as .transports and convoys for a large fleet of transports could be secured, it seemed best that they should all go forward to Great Britain, complete their training, and be available in the immediate future to furnish reinforcements which could reach the front within five or six days. It was with that idea, after consultation between the Minister of Militia and my colleagues and myself that the whole force went forward. When the troops arrived in England, they did not go to the front at once, and naturally those who did not form part of the division when it did proceed were greatly disappointed. I am sure the people of this country will realize



that it is absolutely no reflection on those who remained behind that at the moment they did not go forward with their comrades, but I think they can have the assurance that at the first possible opportunity the War Office will avail itself of their services.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The Prime Minister makes a very plausible apology for the Minister of Militia.


Robert Laird Borden: I was not
apologizing.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If I should ask for any information which the Minister of Militia or the Prime Minister does not care to give to the House, I will have no fault to find with them for refusing it. As I understand it, these regiments which are left behind in England will cease to exist as battalions, and I believe the 12th and 17fih have already ceased to exist as such. Then, as I understand it also, when these men go forward they will not go forward as battalions, but simply as drafts to fill up vacancies in other battalions. Am I right in understanding that?


Robert Laird Borden: These are all matters that must be determined by the authorities at the War Office and by the General Officer Commanding, so that it is useless and undesirable for us to attempt to decide them here. As my hon. friend, who I understand is a military man-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am not.


William Pugsley: He is a colonel.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No.


Robert Laird Borden: Not even an honorary colonel?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Not even honorary.


Robert Laird Borden: Then he is not in the same class as my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) and myself.


William Pugsley: There has been a great discrimination in that.


Robert Laird Borden: Prompt steps should be taken to remedy a discrimination of that kind. Our overseas forces are under the direction of the War Office. They were enlisted as Imperial troops, and-the direction of them must remain with the War Office.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I suppose that is all the information the ministers feel like giving,

and I do not wish to ask for more than they are willing to volunteer. Let me ask as to the status of some 150 or 160 officers who went over with the contingent without being attached to any particular corps, and some of whom have returned. I understood the Prime Minister to say that it was on his recommendation that these officers were allowed to go forward. I know that some of them have returned and I know that some have not, because there were three officers from my own neighbourhood who were included in the number, and two have come hack and one has not. Is anything being done to find places for these gentlemen?


Major General HUGHES:: Of course, the hon. gentleman refers now to the officers who have returned and who are capable officers and who are recommended. We are finding places for them as rapidly as we can. A great many of them have already been placed and we are doing our best to place them here, either as instructors or in the third contingent. Those who have remained in England are also being utilized to the best advantage. A number of them have taken service with British regiments, some have beejj drafted into other regiments, some went with the Patricias, and I am sorry to say that the casualty lists from day to day show that these details will not have long to wait before they will be in the firing line at the front. Some of the officers who have returned naturally feel aggrieved at not getting positions, but we are utilizing every man in some capacity or another. We do not know the exact number who are not yet employed, but they are very few.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Have all these officers been provided with pay and subsistence? .


Major General HUGHES:: They are all under pay.


Edmond Proulx: I wish to ask the Minister of Militia if Dr. Mignault, of Montreal, and some of the officers of the 65th regiment have asked permission to organize a Freneh-Ganadian contingent, ahd if so why did be refuse their request?


Major General HUGHES:: I have great pleasure in correcting my hon. friend. There was an offer on behalf of a number of French-Canadian gentlemen for an hospital corps which we transmitted to the War Office which has charge of all these matters. The War Office cheerfully granted that request, and the corps is now formed. I da

not know who is at the head of it, but it is entrusted to the distinguished gentlemen of French-Canadian nationality, who are connected with the medical profession in Montreal. That hospital corps will soon be organized and ready for the front. As far as the French Canadian regiment is concerned, Dr. Mignault was active in organizing it; but like an old war-horse, he fell back to his old profession and went into the medical service instead of into the combatant service. He has done splendid work in organizing the 22nd Regiment, and he has already done splendid work in organizing a hospital corps, giving of his time and of his money.


Edmond Proulx: When he, with some military men from Montreal, came on a deputation last fall to see the Prime Minister and the Minister of Militia, did not that deputation ask permission to form a French Canadian contingent?


Major General HUGHES :: I think so, and we gave them permission and they formed a splendid regiment. It is under Colonel Paquet at Amherst.


Edmond Proulx: Was not permission given to form only a regiment?


Major General HUGHES:: That was all
that was asked for.


Edmond Proulx: Did not they ask permission to organize a brigade?


Major General HUGHES:: I have no recollection of their asking permission to organize a brigade. They would have to organize a regiment, because a brigade is composed of regiments. Our French-Canadian fellow-countrymen gave splendid service in the first contingent. The Maritime Provinces Regiment, the Quebec Corps, the Montreal Corps, the Northwest Corps and some of the Ontario Corps have a number of our French Canadian fellow-countrymen with them giving good service. Colonel Meighen speaks in high terms of them. Colonel Farquhar spoke in the highest terms of Lieutenant Papineau. Those who have written home from the front all speak in the highest terms of the French-Canadian boys. We have the 22nd Regiment; we have another regiment organized under Colonel Archambault, who was given command some days ago. Colonel Paquet is going to form another one. It will only be a few days until it is formed. That will make three regiments composed solely of
French-Canadians. I venture to predict that they will do splendid service at the front.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am very glad to hear the minister make that statement, because there has been a campaign carried on in certain portions of Canada for the last six months alleging that the French-Canadians have not done their duty in this war.


Major General HUGHES:: And the Eng-lishGanadians too.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have heard it dozens of times. I have read it in the newspapers in the Maritime Provinces friendly to the Government, and it has been the one unpleasant aspect of the discussion of this war in the public press of Canada. In the first place I am glad that the hon. minister makes that statement, and in the second place I congratulate him very highly for having the manhood to stand up and tell the exact truth. I hope that when this war is over, we shall hear no more in Canada about the French-Canadians not having done their duty.


Major General HUGHES:: There has been all sorts of tittle-tattle, but we do not pay any attention to it. There are some who say that the British-Canadians have not done their duty. Some of the first regiments which went forward were chiefly made up of British-born men who had settled in the West, but they were practially Canadians, having lived in this country for five or six years or more. I can point to many French-Canadians and British-Canadians who have done splendid service. I just want to say that there is nothing whatever in the stories that have been sent out. Every Canadian whether British or French, has done his duty splendidly.


Mr. DAVIDSON:: 1 would like to point out to the hon. member for Carleton that it is iquite usual for persons to criticize, perhaps not too wisely, persons engaged in military matters. I recall to mind a verv distinguished officer who was very roundly censured and was referred to in this Rouse as an Englishman by the name of French; but it did not hurt his reputation or injure his status at all in the British army or in the opinion of his countrymen.


Edmond Proulx: I am glad that the facts have been elicited, and that the hon. minister has acknowledged that the French-Canadians have done their duty as well as those of other nationalities have done. I can corroborate what my hon. friend the member for Carleton has just said. I have

read in many English newspapers in this country allegations that the French-tCana-dians have been very remiss in enlisting and in doing their duty towards the Empire. The other day the Saturday Post, of Winnipeg, cast a reproach upon the FrenchjCanadians for not enlisting. What I did not like last fall was that the minister was too lax in acknowledging the fact that the French Canadians had enlisted in large numbers. The first time that he admitted the fact was when a deputation from Montreal, composed of Dr. Mignault and some of the officers of the 65th regiment, came here to ask permission to organize a brigade. Before that, some important newspapers like the Evening News of Montreal had stated that very few French Canadians had enlisted. That was done for a purpose. There was talk of an election at that time, and reflections were cast on my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition. Endeavours were made to create the impression throughout the country that the French-Canadians were not loyal, and that my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition could not be trusted to form a Government while the Empire was at war. My hon. friend the Minister of Militia and Defence had a knowledge of the facts all that time, and he never admitted them until he. was forced to do so when the deputation came here.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am somewhat obliged to my hon. friend the member for Annapolis (Mr. Davidson) for referring to a remark which I made in the House a year ago. Fortunately I have before me every word that I said. I am going to read it now to the .House, and I hope that my hon. friend will be daring enough to go back to his newspapers and ask them if they will publish every word instead of the garbled reports w'hich they have been publishing throughout this country for the last six months. Perhaps my hon. friend the minister does not know it, but in one of the campaign sheets which his friends sent out as far back as November last, was a report of the statement that I made in the House on the first day of June. I oast no reflections whatever upon the honour, ability or integrity of Field-Marshal Sir John French. I was discussing in this House on the first day of June last the general staff of the minister, and I had discuss-ed it in this House before; and the general staff that is in existence now was not the product nor the result of the conduct of the present minister. I condemned it before he became minister,

and I have condemned it since, and I condemn it now. I am not going into any discussion of if; but I think, if I wanted any justification for my remarks a year ago, the results of the last six months have amply justified my opinion. That, however, is a matter which we may discuss later on in this debate. For the benefit of my hon. friend from Annapolis, I will read what I said about Sir John French. My hon. friend will find my remarks on page 4620 of the Revised Hansard under date of June 1, 1914. I sent out 'a few moments ago for the unrevised Hansard, but .1 was told that the distribution office did not have it. I can assure my hon. friend that there has not been an " i " dotted nr a " t " crossed between the unrevised and the revised. This is what I said about Sir John French:
I am glad to hear the minister admit that he can get along with a smaller engineer service corps, although he refers only to the regular corps and not to the militia.
In my humble judgment he could get along without a whole lot of militia engineer companies that he has at present. The principal cause of the trouble with the minister and his top-heavy militia is the report of a general by the name of French, who came to this country some years ago, and in my judgment his visit was one of the greatest misfortunes that has befallen Canada.
Some hon. MEMBERS :	Hear, hear !


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Just at this point my
friend's friends all over Canada stop. They have not given the rest of what I said, but L am going to give it now. I know my friend from Annapolis is the last man who would have the manhood to get up in his constituency and repeat what I stv about to read.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.
MrT5 CARVELL:	No "Order" abotn it.
He deserves this. (Reading):
General French may be all right from the English standpoint. He is a general of distinction, but he is a man who has been educated entirely along different lines from those which thje conditions in Canada present. His life has been spent soldering, he is a born soldier:
Do hon. gentlemen opposite find any fault with that? Do they send that out in their campaign literature? Not by any means. (Reading):
.-he does not believe a man has any business working on a farm or in a factory or anywhere else, except a few who should work in order to make money to keep the soldiers. If you had half the people in the Empire in the army you would not have enough to satisfy General French. I told the late Minister of Militia publicly and privately that in adopting the ridiculous and unreasonable report made by this

gentleman, he had committed a great mistake. It might be all right if General French was reporting on the conditions in Bulgaria, or Russia, or Germany, or even in Italy, hut when ' it comes to a country like Canada where there is not a possibility of trouble, his ideas are ridiculous* There is .no more possibility of a war breaking out between Canada and any country in the world than there is of the Minister of Militia or myself committing suicide between now and tomorrow morning.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.
Mr. CARVELL.:	Let my friends just
have patience. The trouble is they have not read what I stated. (Reading):
There might, of course, be a possibility of the Empire being at war and we might find it our duty to volunteer, as in the case of the war in South Africa.
The Empire war has come. And we have volunteered. And I want to tell my hon. friend from Annapolis that within a fortnight after the war broke out I personally went to the Minister of Militia and volunteered my services as an officer, and told him that if he would allow me I would raise a battery of artillery and would take it. I went back to him before Christmas and repeated my request. I wonder if my friend from Annapolis has done as well as that. Why, he would run so that you could not see his heels for dust. Talk about the man from Annapolis volunteering to fight anything! The idea is preposterous. No wonder he grins like a Cheshire cat over there. I hope he will have the manhood to go back to his constituency and read what I say here tonight, and read also what I said on the 1st of June last. Then I want him to be man enough to offer his services or try to do some little thing to maintain this Empire in this great war, and not come here and be small enough to throw mud at the men who have tried to do something for the Empire's 'cause.


Charles Marcil: I desire to ask the Minister of Militia a question for information with regard to the enlisting of French-Canadians. I understand that in the first contingent there was a very large proportion of French-Canadians. What was the number?


Major General HUGHES:: We have never made up the statement on the lines of nationality.


Charles Marcil: I understand there were
fully 2,500.


Major General HUGHES:: I do not know. We have not taken the figures that way.


Charles Marcil: I understood that three
regiments were being x'ecruited. How many would that represent.


Major General HUGHES:: That would
mean 3,000 men besides those
10 p.m. who went in the first contingent, or with the various artillery corps, the medical corps, the army service corps-oh, they have done splendidly.


Charles Marcil: There were many French-Canadians from New Brunswick and a lot from the Northwest.


Major General HUGHES:: Not that I am impressed by the sympathy of my hon. friend from Prescott (Mr. Proulx), but I have always been proud of my fellow-countrymen, the French-Canadians, especially since the outbreak of this war. They knew that. I have said behind the scenes what I state openly, that I am proud of the splendid way our men have come forward. For the first contingent the country boys all over had no opportunity to enlist, for it was raised very rapidly; the news hardly reached the remote settlements before the regiments were full. I passed a French-Canadian station between here and Val-cartier and saw on the platform a lot of fine young men. I asked if any of their men had gone to the front. They said: " No, we can't go." "Why?" '"No men are being taken from here." I said: " All you have to do is to enlist." But they did not know how to enlist. I had the matter brought to the attention of the officers, and inside of a week fourteen of those boys joined the corps. There was a splendid response wherever the boys had an opportunity. The same was true of Ontario among the English-speaking population. But they had really no opportunity to get into the first contingent.


Charles Marcil: I take it that, from what the minister has said, allowing for the number who volunteered in the first contingent, the French Canadian regiments that are being formed, the men enlisting in the Maritime Provinces and the West, and the men who went with the medical corps and other bodies, close upon 10,000 French-Canadians must have enlisted for this war.


Major General HUGHES:: I could not give the figures, but there are 3,000 infantry men and 4,000 or 5,000 others and probably more.


Charles Marcil: I make this remark in justice to the men who have enlisted and to the province of Quebec. Many things

!
appear in the French Canadian press which are not read in the other provinces. Our people read the press of the other provinces, but unfortunately the people of other provinces do not read the French Canadian press of Quebec. They do not get the information which they ought to have. Last night I congratulated the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) upon the contributions from Port Colborne, in his constituency. But the remarkable fact is that the province of Quebec has contributed $1,450,000 to the Patriotic Fund, while Ontario, with a population of about a million greater, has contributed only $1,200,000. Taking into account the population and resources of the people, I think Quebec has done magnificently.


Mr. SAM SHARPE:: Can the hon. gentleman tell us what proportion was contributed by Montreal and what by the rest of
the province?


Charles Marcil: I cannot; Montreal is included as a part of the province of Quebec.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Yes, but the financial institutions there contributed a considerable proportion.


Charles Marcil: I thought the hon. gentleman would be glad to know that Quebec had made so good a showing in such a patriotic way.


Avard Longley Davidson: I desire to make a few remarks in comment upon the very characteristic utterance of the hon. member for Carleton, New Brunswick (Mr. Carvell.) I made what I supposed was an innocent remark and was somewhat surprised to find that it met with such a vivid retort; though, knowing his disposition, I suppose I ought not to have been surprised. The hon. gentleman made a very great display of courage. I do not know that I could object very much to that if he had not seen fit to institute a very unfavourable comparison between himself and myself in that regard. I do not pretend to be anything of a lion, but I do with the greatest emphasis assert that I object very much to having it understood that I have not ' as much courage as the hon. member for Carleton. I do not pretend to be brave or warlike, but when it comes down to	hard	courage Ithink	I possess	quite	as much
of that commodity as my hon. friend. He asserted that he was very anxious to act as an officer when this war broke out; that he offered his valuable services in that

capacity, and that they were not accepted. I am not surprised that his services were not accepted. A gentleman w(ho would say that the well-considered report of the man who is in command of the British forces is nonsense, a man who would criticize Field Marshal French in the terms which he read to the committee tonight, would, I think hardly be a fit and proper person to serve under this commander. If my hon. friend were to enlist, I am afraid there would be a movement on fjoot among his friends to have him supersede Field-Marshal French. If my hon. friend had been animated with so much patriotism; if that courage, an exhibition of which we had to-night, did so consume him, he would have had an opportunity,. I am certain, of serving his country; he might have gone into ithe trenches, in a capacity which would be more commensurate with his ability; a place where he might do some good. My hon. friend objected to my reference to his speech. I 'do not see that anything that he read from Hansard established the fact that my reference was unfair; I think he even made a bad matter worse. I noticed, however, that certain remarks that he did make in the course of his speech, he did not read to the committee. My hon. friend last year was incensed with, a great horror of war, a great, objection to things military. Anything in the shape of a soldier was very offensive to him. Referring to the brave men who today are at the front fighting our battles, he used these words: " The men there are dudes, lying around and drinking booze." He attacked Field-Marshal French; he said his report was worthless. He referred to him in what I regard as an insolent manner: "an Englishman by the name of French." He attacked members of our militia, and, not satisfied with that, he proceeded to attack even the good old Fenian raid veterans of Nova Scotia, charging that they were perjurers and that sort of thing. But now my hon. friend, who so despised anything military last year, comes forward before his leader and goes through this by-play of offering to act as an officer, when he knows that he would not be accepted. My hon. friend to-night assumed the roar of a lion, but concealed merely the bray of the jackass.


The CHAIRMAN:: After these two
speeches 1 think it is my duty to remind the committee that the item under consideration is $174,000 for salaries.


George Perry Graham: I think it is as well, after the speech that we have just had, that, lest the attention of the country be called away from it, emphasis should be laid upon the fact that in this country no distinctions of nationality are drawn as between the different classes of men who are volunteering for service. There is a higher and broader standpoint from which to look upon this matter than that of any little political capital that may he made, one way or the other. There is no difference of opinion between our nationalities in this country as to what our duty is and as to our willingness to perform that duty. I think what has been said to-night will stop any talk along that line. Tt was with regret that I had these things said to me in the course of private conversation; on such occasions I have endeavoured always to straighten them out and to point out that these things might be considered in a light which would be absolutely unfair to portions of the community. Some people forget that to the Canadian boy war was a new thing; the situation in which we were placed was so new to him that he was not, for the moment, seized of his duty. Our friends who came to us from the old land were reared in a different school. Immediately upon hearing the sound of the alarm, they understood its meaning, and many of them enlisted at once. As soon, however, as the Canadian-born boy's duty was impressed upon him, no matter what his parentage, he rose to the occasion and is now ready to do his full duty just as well as the British-born subject does his.


Major General HUGHES:: I have never brought these questions up; frankly, I have always dodged them, as I believe that it is in the public interest to discuss them only when the issue is properly before the people. I would point out that many of the splendid Englishmen, Scotchmen and Irishmen who came to Canada were single men, whose relatives were not with them. They were living on homesteads in the Northwest, working on the railways, in the mines and forests, as labouring men or farmers; as mechanics in the cities and towns. They had no incumbrances, and the moment the call to arms came, they were ready to jump into harness. Our boys on the farms had to think about it. They did come on in splendid numbers, though; the regiment commanded by Colonel Watson of Quebec, which comes from the eastern part of the province of Ontario, was made up entirely of boys from the farms of Ontario; so with other Ontario
regiments. Here is another phase of the matter:	read the Canadian casualty lists
and you will be amazed when you observe how many United States-born volunteers are fighting with the Canadian troops. A couple of dozen of persons from the United States have already fallen at the front. There are hundreds of Americans in the service, fighting not for the adventure, but for the principle of liberty. From the outset I have recognized, publicly and privately, that our French Canadian fellow countrymen have done splendid service. We are organizing another French Canadian regiment; another could be filled inside of a week and fill another one immediately afterwards, if it were required. They are doing their duty splendidly.
Allowances, active militia, $130,000.


George Perry Graham: Since the outbreak of the war there have been several promotions of officers in the inside service of the Department of Militia. I am free to admit that the officers of the Militia Department have had thrust upon them a great responsibility and an immense amount of work. I feel that I can speak for every member of the House in saying that the honours thus conferred on the officers of the Militia Department have been worthily conferred and I would like to offer my congratulations to the officers of the department, beginning with the minister himself and including the deputy minister, on the promotions that have come to them. No matter how we may differ as to the manner in which some of that work devolving on the officers of the department has been performed, the work has been of a most arduous character; and I can readily understand that they have been at a great nervous tension for a good many months. I think the honours which have been conferred have been worthily bestowed.


Major General HUGHES:: On behalf of
the officers I thank the hon. member for what he has said. Referring to the item before us, the allowances are for command pay, drill instruction, postage, and trumpeters' and signallers' gratuities on qualifying. A great many extra trumpeters and signallers have qualified and they receive a small gratuity on doing so.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The minister referred to members of the active militia qualifying. Would he tell me whether, if an officer goes to Kingston or Halifax and takes a qualifying course, that is charged up to the ordin-

ary revenue account or the special war vote? From the returns it would appear that almost everything in regard to the militia has been charged to the war vote.


Major General HUGHES:: The expenses of officers for the militia are charged to the training vote, and for overseas to the war vote.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Does it not appear to my hon. friend that he might reduce the $130,000?


Major General HUGHES:: These are for the militia officers all over the country.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: One would think that practically all the militia training now would be with a view to overseas service. I understood from the minister that these expenses are defrayed out of the war vote.


Major General HUGHES:: Oh, no. I have the details by divisions for command pay, drill instruction, etc. For that alone there was a considerable increase. The new corps that have been established involve quite an addition to the expense.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Are non-coms, and men of the ordinary active militia being trained except with a view to overseas service? For instance, take the expense for drill instruction. The annual drill has been abolished, and I think rightly, and I congratulate the minister on dropping that $2,000,000 of expenditure. Why is it necessary, then, to keep paying out money for drill instruction?


Major General HUGHES:: This is for command pay and drill instruction. We must keep these officers, they receive so much each year for care of arms and drill instruction.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My own old corps, the 10th field battery, has no officers; there is no battery and there are no arms.


Major General HUGHES:: I understand they are training officers for that very battery, and that applications have come in.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I did not know that, but I know that the battery has gone to the front.


Major General HUGHES:: Every corps that has been depleted for the front is being filled up again as rapidly as possible, and some of them have been filled two or three times over. Corps with a strength of 700 or 800 have already sent to the front twice as many men as their regular establishments.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That course has not been carrid out in regard to my own old corps, the 10th Field Battery.


William Pugsley: This is the first opportunity we have had of discussing militia matters in general, because we have had no discussion when the Speaker was in the Chair, as we on this side of the House have not, insisted upon our rights, but have been quite willing to take up the Estimates whenever the ministers were ready. Might it be understood that on some of these items we might discuss all military matters if we desired to do so?


Major General HUGHES:: As far as I am concerned that could be done.


William Pugsley: What arrangements has the minister made as to the appointment of censors throughout Canada?


Major General HUGHES:: Wherever
there is a cable or Marconi station we have censors, and we have some at headquarters here.


William Pugsley: What are the average salaries paid them and how many are there?


Major General HUGHES:: There are 13 censors, 40 assistant censors and 78 decoders. There is a cable station and a Marconi station with officers receiving cablegrams. The deputy chief censor receives S10 a day; the censors, $9; the as-sitant censors, $7; and the decoders, $3.50.


William Pugsley: Is $10 a day paid to the chief censors all over the country ?


Major General HUGHES:: There is only one-Lieutenant # Colonel Hamilton.


William Pugsley: Is he obliged to give all his time to the duties which he performs for the Government ?


Major General HUGHES:: Night and day; his office is open all the time.


William Pugsley: It is rumoured that he has been engaged in writing party pamphlets for the Conservative party since he has been appointed.


Major General HUGHES:: I am in the fortunate position of having never seen a party sheet, either of the boozorium literature or the Tory literature.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend is wise in not paying attention to verbal or newspaper criticism, because if he did he would find that the criticism of him has not been greater on the Liberal side than on

the Conservative side. My hon. friend is wise in not paying much attention to the grumblings and complaints that are made in regard to his actions in the discharge of his important duties. Are there censors at St. John?


Major General HUGHES:: Wherever there *is a MaTconi station there are censors. I understand that there are three at St. John.


William Pugsley: The other evening my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen), who is usuahy very intelligent and. very well informed, was putting his Estimates through and I made inquiries as to the censors at St. John. The minister was unable to tell me anything about them, but he said that the Minister of Militia would be able to give me that information. So now, I avail myself of the opportunity of asking the Minister of Militia how many censors there are at St. John, what salaries they are receiving and what their duties are.


Major General HUGHES:: I received the information from my hon. friend the Minister of the Naval Service, who has been kind enough to tell me that there are three.	-


William Pugsley: What are their salaries?


Major General HUGHES:: There are
three censors at Partridge, island, and they receive $7 a day. I do not know their names.


William Pugsley: I am told that their names are: Mr. Shaw, who is a young lawyer and a very deserving gentleman, Mr. Masters an insurance agent, also a deserving gentleman, and Mr. Crockett. I do not know his occupation, except it is that of a party friend and worker.


Major General HUGHES:: Are they
Tories ? As a rule they are Liberals.


William Pugsley: I do not know, I am sure, as to that. My hon. friend can guess as to their political complexion when he knows that they were recommended by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. He would not be so forgetful about the claims of party friends as to recommend gentlemen on our side. I do not blame him for that. What are the duties of these censors and how many despatches go through the wireless station at Partridge island in the course of a day ? The feeling of a great many people is that three censors at Partridge island are entirely unnecessary. The statement made to me is that each of these
censors performs his duty about two days in the week and rests from his arduous labours during the remaining five days.


Major General HUGHES:: I will be
only too glad to get the information as to the duties of these gentlemen. They revise all the despatches that go through. Anything of an improper character will be stopped. They have to send a copy of every one of these despatches to the chief censor daily for criticism. They are supposed to give all their time to their duties. I will make inquiries.


William Pugsley: I would like to find out how much has been paid to each of these gentlemen from the time of his appointment to the present and the number of despatches censored weekly.


Major General HUGHES:: We will find that out.


William Pugsley: It may be that my information is entirely unfounded. It may be that these gentlemen are earning, by the power of tlfeir intellects, not by the sweat of their brows, the salaries that they re" ceive.


Charles Marcil: I had a question on the Order Paper the other day winch the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) refused to answer on the ground that the information was confidential. The question had reference to the anchoring of the fleet in uaspS bay. I wanted to make the best showing I could for Gaspe bay; it is a magnificent sheet of water, and I wanted to bring out its good points. I asked certain information about the number of boats that were anchored there while transporting the Canadian contingent, but I was unable to get a reply. However, I have received from Salisbury a post-card giving tne names of all these boats, tha depth of water at the anchorage and so on. The information is entirely public. The Prime Minister said that these matters were confident.al and that he did not like to answer my question. I want to call the minister's attention to the fact that tne Montreal Star, the aay after the contingent arrived in England, published a page or two containing much more information than I asked for in my question. I do not know whetuer tne Star did this under censorship -r whether the censorship as to Canadian newspapers was in force.


Major General HUGHES:: There were
one or two parts of the question asked by my hon. friend (Mr. Marcil) that did not deal merely with tnese matters of anchorage

the best showing I could for Gaspe bay; and the like of that and which it was tnought we** not to answer. As far as Gaspe basin is concerned, every one knows wnat it is; -he charts show it. But I did not think it desirable to answer the other questions that t**e hon. gentl man asked.
Mr. MARCH,:	Was it the censorship
that was exercised over the Canadian papers which enabled them to publish this information only after the contingent had reached England?


Major General HUGHES:: The papers
have been very good. It was not deemed advisable that any reference should be made to the sailing of the Canadian contingent and the Canadian papers have been very loyal in observing the requests of the censors in this respect. It was requested that they should publish nothing about the sailing of the contingent until after they had arrived in England. The daily papers have done splendid service.


Charles Marcil: Is the censorship still in existence?


Major General HUGHES:: Yes. I had
the privilege for the first time of seeing Gaspe basin when the boys went away, and I entirely agree with everytning the hon. gentleman has said. It is one of the most magnificent sheets of water that it has ever been my privilege to see.


George Perry Graham: Will the pensions be paid according to the rank which the man held in the militia of Canada, or according to the rank in which he is serving in the war? There are many officers in the Canadian militia who are serving as privates in our overseas force; will they be pensioned according to their rank here or their rank on active service?


Robert Laird Borden: In the absence of any special provision, 1 think the regulation would be construed as meaning the rank which they held while in active service.


George Perry Graham: Here?


Robert Laird Borden: No, at the front. Suppose a mail holding the rank of captain or lieutenant in the Canadian militia, finding it impossible to get a commission should go to the front as a private, I should think under the construction of these regulations as they are framed at present although they are not yet passed, the pension would have to be determined by the rank held at the front. The pension regu-

lations have not yet been passed, and I jyould be perfectly willing to consider any suggestion with regard to that matter. I did not ask that the pension resolutions should be considered to-day, as I thought it would be desirable to have suggestions from hon. members before we finally decided on their form.


George Perry Graham: As the resolutions are at present drawn, I should think that a man who. enlisted as a private, no matter what his rank in the Canadian militia, and who served as a private at the front, would only get the pension allowed to a private. I was asked the question by one of the men to-day, and my impression was the same as that of the Prime Minister. Whether or not it would be proper to change that I do not know.


Charles Marcil: If a Canadian serving in the militia of Canada is a captain in good standing, and has rendered good service to the country, and not being able to get a commission to go to the front, his patriotism impels him to go as a private, I think the country should recognize the position he held in the Canadian militia.


Robert Laird Borden: Something might be said on the other side, but I will not argue the other side for the moment. I shall be glad to consider it. We have examples of a great many men of high commissioned rank in the Canadian militia, who have gone to the front in very subordinate positions, rather than not have an opportunity to serve. Examples of that character are not confined to this country, because I understand there are two rear-admirals in Great Britain who, having no opportunity for active service in their rank, accepted service as commanders and as juniors to about 250 commanders, who previously had served in a rank far below them. It occurs to me that it would be rather difficult, indeed almost impracticable, to work out any arrangement as to pensions other .than that which I have mentioned. But my mind is open upon the subject. My hon. friend and colleague, the Minister of Militia, has had his time so much taken up with other matters that I have been obliged to give my personal attention to the question of pensions, and I have had it more under consideration than he.


Major General HUGHES:: A good many officers accepted service as privates, but that practice we have stopped. Realizing that a number of' splendid men have ac-

cepted active service in a rank much below their rank in the militia of Canada, we have in every case guaranteed these men their rank and their status when they return from the war.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Why are officers not now permitted to enlist as privates?


Major General HUGHES:: The law is
that before an officer can enlist as a private he has to resign his commission, and it was upsetting the internal economy of the force to have a man regarded as a private in one place and as a captain in another. In any event we thought we could utilize these men as officers, and we are watching that pretty carefully.


William Pugsley: What is the Minister of Militia paying for automatic pistols, 45 calibre?


Major General HUGHES:: I think it is $18.50.


William Pugsley: I wish to call attention to the fact that on the -22nd of September an order in council was passed on the recommendation of the acting minister- who was acting minister at that time?


Major General HUGHES:: I really don't know.


Robert Laird Borden: I may have been the guilty party, but I am not sure.


William Pugsley: On the 22nd of Sephyn-ber an order in council was passed on the recommendation of the acting minister, giving authority to purchase for the Canadian military forces 1,000 automatic pistols at a price not exceeding $18.50. What does the minister pay for ammunition for these automatic pistols?


Robert Laird Borden: I think I know what my hon. friend alludes to. A report came in from the deputy minister with regard to the purchase of ammunition which contained a clerical mistake, which was rectified as soon as discovered. I signed the report to council upon the recommendation of the deputy minister, not knowing the particulars, and the next day or the day after, the deputy minister discovered that there was a clerical error in the price fixed for th^ ammunition, and it was corrected in a subsequent order in council.


William Pugsley: The correction appears to have been made on the recommendation of the minister.


Robert Laird Borden: I presume the minister had returned in the meantime.


William Pugsley: It should have been $18.50 instead of $40.00?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.


William Pugsley: That explanation is satisfactory. As I understand it, .303, mark vii, small-arms ammunition, is the favourite ammunition.


Major General HUGHES:: It is the
latest.


William Pugsley: How many millions of rounds of that ammunition are now under order by the department, being manufactured for the Canadian Government?


Major General HUGHES:: 20,000,000
rounds-5,000,000 and 15,000,000 from the Dominion Cartridge Company. There is also an order for 10,000,000 from an American firm.


William Pugsley: What are the prices charged by the Remington?


Major General HUGHES:: $34 on some orders and $35 on others.


William Pugsley: And by the Dominion Cartridge Company?


Major General HUGHES:: $34 and $35.


William Pugsley: What was the price early last fall?


Major General HUGHES:: Last fall, in
August or September, I was negotiating for some ammunition for the Imperial authorities. The price asked by one concern in the United States was $42.50 per thousand, and by another concern in the United States $37.50. That was the lowest price obtainable at that time. An offer was then obtained for 75,000,000 rounds at $33, the lowest price at which ammunition has been obtained from the beginning of the war. I understand that $47.50 has been paid.


William Pugsley: Who gave that order?


Major General HUGHES:: The British
Government.


William Pugsley: Through whom?


Major General HUGHES:: The Minister of Militia for the Dominion of Canada.


William Pugsley: Was it given by my hon. friend personally or through another party?


Major General HUGHES:: It was given by the Minister of Militia personally.


William Pugsley: Verbally or in writing?


Major General HUGHES:: There was a regular signed contract.


William Pugsley: Would my hon. friend bring down the correspondence with reference to it?


Major General HUGHES:: No, I will not. It does not concern the Canadian Government. I am following the custom of my good friends opposite at the time of the South African war. Anything of that kind will have to be obtained from the Imperial authorities. I shall be only too delighted to forward any request that my hon. friend may make. The matter, however, concerns the British authorities.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend was good enough to tell me there was a written contract made through my hon. friend?


Major General HUGHES:: I was the agent.


William Pugsley: When was that contract made?


Major General HUGHES:: In the latter part of August or early in September.


William Pugsley: Was that contract
negotiated in New York by Mr. J. Wesley Allison and associates?


Major General HUGHES:: I have no hesitation in saying that Mr. J. Wesley Allison was the gentleman through whom the reduction from $42.50 to $37.50 was negotiated, and then from $37.50 to $33. The country owes him a large debt of gratitude.


William Pugsley: Who appointed him?


Major General HUGHES:: I did.


William Pugsley: Has my hon. friend any correspondence with Mr. J. Wesley Allison which he will bring down?


Major General HUGHES:: I have nothing which should be or which need be brought down. There is nothing to be brought down.


Mr. PU  GSLEY@: There was no correspondence with Mr. J. Wesley Allison?


Major General HUGHES:: No.


William Pugsley: Will the minister give the names of the firms from which those
75,000,000 rounds of ammunition were purchased?.


Major General HUGHES:: The Remington Arms Union Metallic Company of the United States.


William Pugsley: Only one company?


Major General HUGHES:: One company. I do not know where they got the ammunition.


William Pugsley: I would like to call the attention of the minister to the fact that there appears in these memoranda, on page 38, a copy of an Order in Council of the 4th September, 1914, as follows:
The committee of the Privy Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Militia and ' Defence, advise that a contract be made with the Dominion Cartridge Company, Limited, of Montreal, for the manufacture of 5,000,000 rounds of .303, mark vii, small arms ammunition, at $31 per thousand rounds.
Does my hon. friend say that at the time when the order was given to the Dominion Cartridge Company for 5,000,000 rounds of small arms ammunition at $31 per thousand rounds, the price in the United States was the price which my hon. friend has stated, namely, $42.50?


Major General HUGHES:: This $31 was for
5.000.	000 rounds from the Dominion Cartridge Company. It was a couple of weeks subsequent to that date that the American prices were obtained. This bargain, although the Order in Council was passed on September 4, 1914, was entered into many weeks before that date. The company have already made the ammunition.


William Pugsley: The first order was for
5.000.	000 rounds at $31 per thousand. When was the next order given in Canada to the same company?


Major General HUGHES:: The next order was given in my absence, possibly in the month of October.


William Pugsley: At page 41 of the memoranda, I find an order of the 17th of October,, given to the Remington Arms Union Metallic Company, of Bridgeport, United States, at $33 per thousand, for the Canadian Government. Was that the next order given?


Major General HUGHES:: That is the American order. There was another order for 15,000,000 rounds at $35.


William Pugsley: Which company?


Major General HUGHES:: The Dominion Cartridge Company.	*


William Pugsley: What page on the
memoranda.


Major General HUGHES:: That order
was subsequent to the printing of the memoranda.


William Pugsley: What was the date of
that order?


Major General HUGHES:: We will ascertain the date for the hon. member.


William Pugsley: What compensation was given to Mr. J. Wesley Allison for his services?


Major General HUGHES:: Nothing whatever. Mr. Allison declined any remuneration so far as anything connected with the Dominion of Canada was concerned. The case is different so far as Russia or Great Britain is concerned.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend said that Mr. Allison was acting for the Imperial Government on the appointment of the Minister of Militia, and that he made this contract on behalf of the Minister of Militia and on behalf of the Imperial Government for
75,000,000 rounds at $33 per thousand. Does my hon. friend know the place at which the contract between Mr. Allison and the Remington Arms Company was entered into?


Major General HUGHES:: I entered into the contract myself. Does the hon. gentleman wish to know the exact spot?


William Pugsley: It is not very material.


Major General HUGHES:: It is a little
station called Moira in the Adirondack mountains. The contract was entered into at seven o'clock. I had not had my dinner then. Does my hon. friend wish to know any other details about the matter?
Mr. PUGSLE1T:	My hon. friend made
the agreement with the Remington Arms Company which resulted in the signing of the contract?


Major General HUGHES:: Mr. Allison has been instrumental in bringing the prices down.


William Pugsley: I did not ask my hon.
friend for that.


Major General HUGHES:: Mr. Allison did not make the contract; I made the contract, and it was entered into at that spot.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend said that the negotiations were carried on by Mr. Allison. I would ask the minister whether or not Mr. Allison carried on the negotiations in New York?


Major General HUGHES:: New York State?


William Pugsley: I mean the city of New York. But perhaps the minister knows nothing about that.


Major General HUGHES:: I do not know.
It is a matter of no importance-New York or anywhere else.	,


William Pugsley: I will tell the hon. minister what I have been informed; and he will be able to set the rumours at rest if they are not true. I have been informed that previous to Mr. Allison appearing on the scene representing the Canadian Government and the British Government in the purchase of ammunition, the manufacturers of this class of ammunition had practically fixed the price at $36.50 per 1,000 rounds; that Mr. Allison entered into correspondence in New York with the manufacturers, with the result that the manufacturers broke their contracts with the gentleman who was about to purchase for the British Government, and the price was reduced to $33 per 1,000 rounds.


Major General HUGHES:: Would the
hon. gentleman have any objection to stating the name of his informant. If he gives the information, he ought to be willing to give the name of the one from whom he got the information.


William Pugsley: If the minister will
promise to investigate the matter, I will give the name of my informant. He will find on record the proceedings now pending in one of the courts of New York in which the question is raised as to these manufacturers having broke their contract with the gentleman who was about buying for the British Government. I will give what information I have, because I am sure the hon. gentleman will not willingly be a party to anything like that. That is the statement-that Mr. Allison with the gentlemen associated with him went to New York, took apartments at the Manhattan Hotel, and put himself forward as the representative of the Canadian Government and the British Government and ready to negotiate-


Major General HUGHES:: I am in a position to state that there is not a word of truth directly or indirectly in what is stated by the hon. gentleman. If he will permit me, I will tell him the facts.


William Pugsley: I shall be glad.


Major General HUGHES:: He is up the wrong tree.	-


William Pugsley: Which is the right tree?


Major General HUGHES:: The lawsuit
to which the hon. gentleman refers does not concern this affair at all. It has to do with a Yankee concern called Flint & Co., that is claiming something on ammunition, ordered for the British Government, with which Major Allison and the Canadian Government had nothing to do. I do not know the details-do not want to know them. But I understand they are entering 11 p.m. an action against the Remington Company, claiming a commission on twenty or forty million rounds of mark vi ammunition ordered by the British Government. I would nbt, as representative of the British Government, be found guilty of ordering mark VI ammuni tion. It is obsolete. And as to the price, I do not know-


William Pugsley: It was $26.50.


Major General HUGHES:: If that is the price for mark vi ammunition, all I have to say is that it is very high. Mark vii was ordered in advance of the war, and the price of it was $31 at that time. At the time the negotiations were carried on through Mr. Allison for me, and when the contract was arranged with the British Government-the hon. gentleman is not entitled to get this information, but I am giving it to him.


William Pugsley: It is very good of the
minister to give it.


Major General HUGHES:: Very good.
The price was $42.50 by one concern, and $37.50 by Flint & Co., which was the lowest we could get it; but it was arranged at $33, which,is $4.50 less than the lowest price ammunition lias been purchased for in America.


William Pugsley: That was accomplishing a great deal for the British Government. Can the minister tell me how he came to employ Mr. Allison to make these negotiations?


Major General HUGHES:: He has been for thirty-five years my personal friend, and he is a gentlemen in whom I have every confidence. He is absolutely well-posted, and I have found him the soul of honour. He is also most patriotic. At a time when certain gentlemen were negotiating for the transfer of a water-power on the St. Lawrence to an American organization on terms under which ninety-five per cent of the power would have been used in the United States and five per cent in Canada, [Mr. Pugsley.l
Mr. Allison carried on at his own expense- with your humble servant-the opposition to this scheme much to the discomfiture of these gentlemen.


William Pugsley: Did Mr. Allison formerly have an office in New York?


Major General HUGHES:: I do not know.


William Pugsley: Is this the J. Wesley Allison who had a celebrated patent shovel, and who had material brought over in the night from Waddington?


Major General HUGHES:: He is the man who, at the outbreak of the war, learning that the British Government was getting large supplies from the United States of America, made arrangements that neither the British nor the Canadian Government could improve upon; had the materials shipped in, in daylight-he is not a man who operates in the dark or behind the scenes; had it brought in bond to Canada and sent across to the British Government; and later instructed the authorities that the material could be shipped direct from New York without the circumlocution .-of going through Canada. Does the hon. gentleman want any further information?


William Pugsley: Yes, on botn shovels and ammunition. Will the minister tell me what quantity of ammunition, described as .303, mark vii, small-arms ammunition, was purchased in the United 'States by Mr. Allison for the Canadian Government?


Major General HUGHES:: He did not purchase for the Canadian Government.


William Pugsley: Who made that purchase?


Major General HUGHES:: I was in
Europe at the time.


William Pugsley: I speak of the ammunition purchased pursuant to the Order in Council of the I7th October, 1914.


Major General HUGHES:: It was the same arrangement, I am informed, as I carried on for the British Government.


William Pugsley: I thank the minister for the information he has given. Perhaps he will give me more by bringing down the correspondence in regard to the purchase of ten million rounds pursuant to the Order in Council of the 17th October, 1914.


Major General HUGHES:: Yes, I have nothing to hide.


William Pugsley: I am not suggesting that there is anything to hide. But the minis-

'ter must see that it looks strange that a middleman should be employed to secure this ten million rounds. It may he capable of explanation, hut he will he given the opportunity.


Major General HUGHES:: After the hon. gentleman has been insinuating-


William Pugsley: When?


Major General HUGHES:: I am told that he made the statement that this ammunition could have been had at $26 instead of at $33. That is erroneous.


William Pugsley: That is my information.


Major General HUGHES:: It is absolutely wrong; and I can tell the hon. gentleman that there was no middleman in the case. Mr. Allison is not a middleman.


William Pugsley: Not a middleman?


Major General HUGHES:: He was not a middleman. He is my friend, just as Mr. Ellis is my friend, who engaged in purchasing field-glasses, and whom I trusted to carry on this work and obtain these goods for the British Government and break down the grafting rings that were seeking to rob both Canada and Great Britain, and to get these goods at a fairly representative price.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Is Mr. Powell included in that category?


Major General HUGHES:: Mr. Powell is not employed by the Minister of Militia.


William Pugsley: Do I understand that the minister draws a distinction between middlemen; that Mr. Allison was not a middleman because he was a personal friend of the minister?


Robert Laird Borden: I think the hon. gentleman is misrepresenting the Minister of Militia; I hope he is not doing so purposely. The Minister of Militia has explained that a contract for 75,000,000 rounds of ammunition was made personally by him at the request of the British Government. Before he entered into that contract he asked Mr. Allison to obtain, and Mr. Allison did obtain, information for him as to the price at which it could be secured, and as to the sources from which it might be obtained. The contract was made by the minister; Mr. Allison had no interest in the contract by way of commission or otherwise, and received no remuneration for his services.


Major General HUGHES:: The hon.
gentleman will readily understand that
there were any number of agents here from the United States, and the lowest price which could be obtained in respect of this . ammunition was $42.50 per thousand rounds. I knew that the price was outrageous, and I refused to order. The two firms with which negotiations were had were Peters, of Cincinnati, and Flint & Co., of New York. Flint & Co. finally came down to $37.50. I knew that that was still too high, so I sent for Mr. Allison, knowing that he knew these gentlemen and knowing that I could trust him. In less than a week Mr. Allison had negotiated the price down to $33.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend will agree that the enormous quantity of 75,000,000 rounds was the biggest order given for many years, if not the biggest order ever placed with this firm.


Major General HUGHES:: An order for
300.000.	000 rounds had been given a short time before that by the British Government.


William Pugsley: To the same firm?


Major General HUGHES:: No, to other firms, and they paid far more for it.


William Pugsley: Will my hon. friend bring down the correspondence with regard to the 10,000,000 rounds ?


Major General HUGHES:: As to our
10.000.	000, certainly.


Mr. BOULAY (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, some time ago I asked a question which reads as follows:-
Who had been appointed to purchase in the province of Quebec from the 1st of July to the 1st of December, 1914, the horses required for the militia, or for the first contingent?
In reply it was stated that the chief veterinary surgeon and his assistants had been purchasing these horses. I would like to know the names of this chief veterinary surgeon and of his assistants in the province of Quebec.


Major General HUGHES:: The veterinary for the province of Quebec was Colonel Piche.


Herménégilde Boulay: Had instructions been given this Mr. Piche to purchase horses in certain specified parts of the province of Quebec, or did he have a free hand in making those purchases?


Major General HUGHES:: Arrangements have been made whereby every part of the province of Quebec will be visited. It was reported that the district of which my

hon. friend speaks did not produce good artillery horses, but it has been found that horses quite suitable for artillery purposes may be obtained from my hon. friend's province.


Charles Marcil: I saw a corps parading the streets of Ottawa the other day; thousands of horses just as good could be obtained in the counties of Bonaventure and Gaspe.


Major General HUGHES:: That has not been generally known, but the buyers have been informed. They are good horses, well fitted for all kinds of rough climatic conditions.


James Joseph Hughes: What proportion of the regular militia have volunteered for active service ?


Major General HUGHES:: I have not the exact figures before me. Judging by the returns, in many localities whole corps have volunteered. Of course, every regiment contains a certain number of men who have families; others we will not part with because we require them at home for instruction purposes. The response of the active militia has been simply magnificent.


James Joseph Hughes: In some localities that has not been the case.


Major General HUGHES:: Probably due to local causes. '


James Joseph Hughes: It is said that in some places the active militia did not respond in this crisis as they should have done, arid that a much larger proportion of persons who were not members of the militia responded to the call.


Major General HUGHES:: I did know one case in respect of which it was that that charge could be made, but on inquiry it was found that the eolonel and senior major had gone to the front, the junior major was absent for some reason, and the next in command was not as aggressive an officer as he might have been. We placed the next senior captain in command, and since that time the regiment has turned out much better.


Mr. McMILLAN:: Is it the intention of the Government to bring into Ottawa volunteers who are assembled in small centres like Alexandria, Brockville and Smith's Falls?


Major General HUGHES:: During the winter months the men have been mobilized at the various localities. We have no place

to drill them during the winter season, but With the coming of spring and the disappearing of the snow, they will be mobilized in the larger centres. The snow in the West has disappeared, but not in the East, and the camps are not fit for occupation. It is our intention, however, to take them into the camps where they will get rifle shooting and all the advantages of manoeuvring.


John Angus McMillan: An article appeared in the Ottawa Free Press of Marchl7, headed: " Little Towns Want to Keep the Soldiers; Politicians are Delaying Mobilization of Contingent." Further down it says:
The men at these different centres received, besides their pay, sustenance allowance of 75 cents a day.
In the case of Alexandria this means more than $500 a week to be spent on board and lodging. Brockville is slightly under this while Smiths Falls benefits to a considerably larger extent. The soldiers who always know where the next pay is coming from spend quite freely. At present they have little work to do and have lots of time to get out and squander their money. Certainly politicians who see the advantage of this to the towns and likewise the Government, are anxious to have the condition continue as long as possible.
Speaking for Alexandria and the soldiers there now, I do not suppose that the soldiers training in Ottawa give one-half the time to their work that soldiers training in Alexandria do at the present time. We have a gentleman there who spent 21 years in the British army and I question if there is in Ottawa his equal in the drilling and training of men. We are out in the country and in our county we have not a single hotel license, so we are perfectly dry. When you talk about the men getting out and squandering their money, I do not know how they are to squander it.


Major General HUGHES:: Ice cream?


John Angus McMillan: Ice cream and champagne cider I suppose. I think in fairness that the Militia Department should hesitate about calling these men in. Until the season comes when you can concentrate them at some larger camp they can do quite as well if not better in the small towns. We have quite as good discipline and the outside attractions are not many. I think it would be too bad to take away from the small towns the little advantage they may gain by having soldiers centered there, we think mat we are entitled to some consideration. Ottawa is not entitled to every-tning. li ceriainly has its share of soldiers and I would ask the minister, before

recalling the men from Alexandria, to look into the matter very closely.	.


Major General HUGHES:: We have
given it a greau deal of study and the people have been assisting us to do so; the officers have been demanaing that the men be mobilized and the localities nave been demanding that they-be kept there, the object being the monetary advantage which my hon. friend has reierred to. At the local centres the men cannot be finally passed medically or finally uniformed and equipped or properly organized. The officers who are now over them will not be over them in the regiment when it is formed. It would take two or three weeks to do that. We have held them back in these localities all winter and I am pleased to say that Alexandria is one of the finest portions of the Dominion of Canada. There is a splendid drill hall there which my hon. friend was instrumental in having built, and he has given every assistance to the cause in his locality. We have received complaints that we have kept the men in these localities a week or two weeks too long. Areas are now open in the larger centres for drilling and the officers want to get the men' in uniform and test them, which takes a week or two. My hon. friend knows as well as I do that our object is to get the men ready for service, not to benefit localities. We have tried to play the game both ways, to keep them in the localities during the winter; but now that spring is coming on we are bringing them to the mobilizing centres and organizing them to get them into shape for the camp as soon as the weather opens up, in two or three weeks time.


Charles Marcil: Will the minister have
another Valcartier?


Major General HUGHES:: In the case of the first contingent there was a rush. The second contingent, without mentioning any Rate, will probably go before the St. Lawrence route or Valcartier will be ready. This will not be till about the middle of May, so that it would be impossible to concentrate the camp for the second contingent there.


James Joseph Hughes: Is the editor of
. the Toronto Telegram an officer?


Major General HUGHES:: I am not sure.


James Joseph Hughes: He is very much in favour of having the drill take place in the smaller places.



Major General HUGHES:: His views are different from mine.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am sorry to disagree
with my hon. friend from Glengarry (Mr. McMillan) but I am assuming that the minister is looking at this thing entirely from the standpoint of the militia and not from that of the local merchants and local aspirations. I have heard a great many complaints from different members of the army because they have been kept at local headquarters and not placed in a central camp. I speak from my own experience, because years ago I was a member of the militia for a great many years, and I always found that the training we got at local headquarters, while useful, was not of great service when we were brigaded with other forces at large camps. A great deal has been said about Valcartier, and there is no doubt there were many mistakes made in the equipment of that camp, but for all that I am very strongly of the opinion that the larger the camp of training that the minister can organize the better for the soldiers, and after all that is the important thing.
I know that many officers have complained to me during the past two or three months that they are getting tired of remaining in local headquarters and the men are demanding a change. I am very much of the opinion that the minister will do well to get them together in as large bodies as possible, and it does seem to me that he could not do better than go to Valcartier. There must be enough units under arms to-day in Canada to tax the capacity of a place like Valcartier. I am sure that the minister'will find the consensus of opinion of the militia themselves and the officers is that they should be got together in as large camps as possible.


Major General HUGHES:: I agree with what my hon. friend says. Two weeks ago I had men visit Valcartier and they found three feet of snow on the ground there then. There are two and a half feet there now, and there is no chance that that snow will disappear in time for the camp. Otherwise I think my friend will have no fault to find with my plans.


Mr. G. V. WHITE:: I might tell the Minister of Militia that there is no snow at Petawawa. -


Major General HUGHES:: Will my hon. friend tell us where Petawawa is?


Charles Marcil: We have heard of the number of men who have volunteered for ser-


EDITION
[Stage Direction]
vice overseas. In justice, to the fair sex, I think the minister should inform the country how many women have volunteered for service as nurses or in other ways.
Major General HUGHES:: 2,500. I may say that the women have been the best recruiting officers we have. The splendid spirit displayed by the women of Canada has been a credit to Canada.


Charles Marcil: How many have been accepted?


Major General HUGHES:: All the British Government asked for. We do not send them of our own accord, only the number they ask for.
Mr. .MARCIL: Is the minister not sending any nurses with the regiments going this summer?


Major General HUGHES:: We do not send them as regiments but as hospitals. It depends on the nature of the hospital, whether it is a base or a stationery or a field hospital, whether we send nurses with it or not.
Progress reported.
On motion of Six Robert Borden, the House adjourned at 11.25 p.m.
Thursday, March 25, 1915.