4 and 5. Cyrille Rioux, $349; Zephirin Marquis, $373; Florian Rioux, $415; Vallier Lavoie, $500; Thomas Dauteine, $525; Louis de G. Rioux, $550; Leon Rosseau, $590. The contract was awarded to Cyrille Rioux, the lowest tenderer, who refused it. After Zephirin Marquis had notified the department that he would not be able to perform the service if his tender was accepted, the contract was given to the next lowest tenderer, Florian Rioux. .
1. Does the Honourable the Minister of Justice allow the Government Solicitor, in the Exchequer Court cases, in the district of Kamouraska, to take a counsel with him for the hearing of the evidence and to defend the Government?
2. Is it the usual practice of the Department of Justice to appoint two attorneys when very simple cases can be pleaded by only one, at this period when the war expenses are already so heavy?
1. There is no such office as that of ' Government Solicitor' in the district of Kamou-raska or elsewhere. The considerations governing the employment of counsel in Kamouraska are the same as in other parts of Canada. Out of nine cases in the district of Kamouraska since 1911 counsel were employed in only two, and these were cases involving considerable amounts and depending upon doubtful questions of law.
2. No. Counsel are employed only where by reason of the nature of the case it is considered advisable by the Department of Justice to retain counsel.
Under present regulations the classes of persons who are entitled to Separation Allowance as dependents of Officers and men enlisting for overseas service are set out in orders in council:
P. C. 2266, September 4, 1914; P. C. 2553, October 10, 1914; P. C. 2613, November 6, 1915; P. C. 1997, August 23, 1916; P. C. 2246, October 20, 1916; P. C. 2615, October 28, 1916; which have been laid on the table of the House of Commons. The regulations are modelled after the British regulations governing payment of Separation Allowance.
1. What is the reason that men enlisting for Home Guard duty are not being dealt with, as regards pay and allowances, in the same manner as men originally in the Canadian Expeditionary Force and subsequently transferred to Home service?
2. Why were the special rates authorized for the Canadian Expeditionary Force not extended to Home Service?
3. Have representations been made to the Government to have all guards placed on the same basis? [DOT]
1. (a) .The only men who have enlisted for Home Guard service are men who are serving in the Active Militia. They receive exactly the same pay as members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force, but they do not receive separation allowance.
(b) Men who originally enlisted in the Canadian Expeditionary Force, and were subsequently transferred to Home Service, were those who after they enlisted for over-
seas service became either temporarily or otherwise medically unfit for overseas service. These men are used on guard duty or on detail work of various kinds necessary in the district. When they become medically fit for overseas service, they proceed overseas. They are subject to the same regulations as the overseas forces.
2. Separation allowance was not extended to members of active militia units, as these men are used for guard duty in Canada only, and the members of these militia units are largely employed in the locality in which their homes are situated. The members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force who are being employed on guard duty in Canada volunteered their services unreservedly for the defense of the Empire, and in so doing were prepared not only to endure hardships and hazards, but to sacrifice their lives if necessary. They are therefore in most cases removed from their families by great distances, and the wives and mothers of these men, who have given their husbands and sons for the common cause, have suffered the sorrows necessitated by such removal. It is therefore considered that they are entitled to separation allowance.
3. Yes, representations have been made to the Government to have ail guards placed on the same basis.
With regard to this question, as it stood on the Order Paper up to to-day it was not in the same form as that in which it stands to-day. The answer was prepared to the question as it stood but as it reads to-day it asks whether the Government had information about certain matters. To answer the question as it stands to-day, I should have to get more information and I therefore have to ask that the question be allowed to stand.