1916-02-01

APPOINTMENT OF OFFICIAL.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that he had directed the Clerk of the House to lay upon the Table his recommendation and the' clerk's report respecting the appointment of Mr. C. W. Boyce as clerk of Votes and Proceedings, House of Commons.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 17, to incorporate The Canadian Indemnity Company.-Mr. Schaffner.
Bill No. 18, respecting W. C. Edwards and Co., Limited.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 19, respecting a patent of James W. Owen.-Mr. Middlebro.
Bill No. 20, respecting Queen's University at Kingston, and to amalgamate therewith the School of Mining and Agriculture. -Mr. Nickle.

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Dairy and Cold Storage Commissioner for the year ended March 31, 1915. -Hon. Martin Burrell.
List of Shareholders, Chartered Banks of Canada, as of date December 31, 1914.-Sir Thomas White.
List of certified cheques, drafts or bills of exchange, dividends remaining unpaid and unclaimed balances, chartered banks of Canada, as of date December 31, 1914.-Sir Thomas White.	,
Governor General's warrants issued since last session.-Sir Thomas White.
Expenditure on account of unforeseen expenses from April 1, 1915, to January 12, 1916.-Sir Thomas White.
Temporary loans, Dominion of Canada, outstanding December 31, 1915.-Sir Thomas White.
Report of the Ottawa Improvement Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1915.-Sir Thomas JVhite.
Report of the Royal Society of Canada for the year ended April 30, 1915.-Sir Thomas White.
Statement of the National Battlefields Commission for the year ended March 31, 1915.-Sir Thomas White.
Statement of Treasury Board over-ruling of Auditor General's decision.-Sir Thomas White.
Statement of superannuations ini the Civil Service during the year ended December 31, 1915.-Sir Thomas White.
Public Accounts of Canada for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1915.-Sir Thomas White.
*458


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of Mr. Alfred Thompson for an address to His Royal Highness the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening' of the session, resumed from Monday, January 31.
Mr. LEVI THOMSON (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I purpose to confine my remarks to one question, namely, the commandeering of wheat at the head of Lake Superior by the Government's order issued about midnight on the last Saturday in November. The leader of the Opposition referred to this question, and I was rather surprised to see the Prime Minister object. He appeared to think that if the leader of the Opposition was not prepared to make a charge, he should not refer to the question at all.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: I did not say quite what my hon. friend suggests. I said that if he did not intend to make a charge he ought not to refer to a charge. I did not say the question ought not to he referred to.


Levi Thomson: My reason for making the remark I did was the following passage in the Prime Minister's speech, which 1 think bears me out:
Well, if he had not any charge to make, it might perhaps have been in better taste if he had not referred to a charge at all.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, "to a charge' -that is what I said.


Levi Thomson: I have no charge to-make myself. I do not wish to deal with this question in any fault finding spirit, but rather with a view to eliciting information, and to stating as clearly as possible the viewpoint of the western farmer. I think my hon. friend from Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles) and my hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) have clearly shown that one class of the farmers of the West sustained considerable loss through the Government's action in commandeering the wheat. I do not intend, however, to deal with that phase of the question. I do not think that that was the most serious loss sustained by the western farmers through this seizure. The most serious loss, in my opinion, was caused by the disturbance of trade. We have been told that the Government have loaned to the millers a large proportion of the wheat that was seized. I believe that this is unquestioned. We have also been told that a large portion was loaned to the dealers to 
enable them to fill their contracts. This, however, has been denied, and I think we should be told whether it is a fact or not. If it is a fact, I think we have a right to know how much was loaned, to whom, and when it was repaid. If the dealers had to buy wheat at a higher price at a later date, whether to repay the Government or to fill their original contracts, they would be the losers unless the Government recouped them, and we have had no information so far that they were recouped. If there was a loss, who bore that loss? If I am selling goods to a purchaser who has had other lots of goods which he had bought on former occasions, forcibly seized, and if he is still in fear of further seizures, it would be -absurd for me to expect as high a price from him as if he were not afraid of further seizures.
It would be absurd for the western, farmers to suppose that they would get the same price from the grain dealers after the seizure in question, as they would have received had there been no seizure and no fear of any future seizure. It would be absurd also to suppose that the dealers did not recoup themselves from the only source from which they could do so, that is, from the farmers. That they did iso recoup themselves is clearly indicated by the fact that there has -been since the date of the seizures a tremendous increase in the spread between the prices at Minneapolis and those at Fort William. I find, on a careful perusal of the market reports from the 1st of September of last year, the beginning of the wheat season, up to the time of the seizure, that the price for the highest quoted grade at Minneapolis was on an average -about 5 cents a bushel higher than the price for the highest quoted grade at FoTt William. The Minneapolis quotations, however, are for No. 1 hard, while *the For-t William quotations are for No. 1 northern, and the Canadian spread between No. 1 hard and No. 1 northern is about a cent. Therefore, assuming that the value of the Minneapolis No. 1 hard is the same as that -of the Canadian No. 1 hard, we should ^deduct one cent, which would reduce the -difference between the two quotations to four cents. That, however, has nothing to do with my argument at present.
I find that, since the date of the seizure, -the average spread has been nine cents a bushel; or, if you deduct the one cent, it has been eight cents. -What is the reason for that increase of four cents in the spread? I do not .think the western farm-

ers will be very long in coming to the conclusion that the Winnipeg dealers are in this way making up whatever loss they have sustained. It is a simple way, and in fact, the only way in which they can. make it up. The loss to the farmers is unquestionable, but it is not necessarily unjustifiable. If it can be shown that the action taken by the Government'was in the best interest of the Empire and absolutely necessary, then it was 'justified notwithstanding any losses to the farmers or anyone else, and no one will be more ready to agree to that proposition than- the Western fannex; but I think we are entitled to some explanation of the action of the Government. We have heard what have been termed explanations, -but unfortunately the explanations do not explain. Let me refer to some of these explanations. I will quote an extract from an editorial in the Winnipeg Telegram of November 30, 1915, as follows:
Instead - of condemnation and criticism, it will be found that the Dominion Government is deserving of the highest credit for having taken an unprecedented course to protect the British consumer, overburdened., as it is by the colossal burdens of war, against the designs of the wheat gamblers who think of profits day and night and of practical patriotism, not at all.	-
One reason is given to us in this editorial; but the trouble is that it does not explain how the action of the Government protected the British consumer, and we have no explanation of the necessity of that action further than that the Winnipeg dealers are a pack of scoundrels waiting to rob the British Empire whenever they get a chance. I am a life-member of the Saskatchewan Grain Growers' Association, and have attended a number of conventions-. I have heard some pretty hard things said there of the Winnipeg grain dealers, and perhaps with some reason but I have never heard anything half as hard as this. I have never heard it suggested that they are utterly devoid of patriotism, and I do not believe that charge is true, whatever else may be said of them.
The following is an article from the Winnipeg Telegram, written by its staff correspondent at Ottawa under date of November 30, 1915:
The Government In commandeering the wheat had several objects in view: to protect the Allies against exorbitant prices, to secure to the producer any subsequent rise in wheat values, and also to demonstrate to the Allies that as purchasing agents they could he depended upon to fill orders promptly and economically.
A number of reasons are given in this article, but it does not explain how -the action taken could protect the Allies; it does not explain why it was necessary to take these steps to protect the Allies, nor how this action could secure to the producer any subsequent rise in wheat values. As was shown here yesterday, instead of securing to the producer any subsequent rise in wheat values, the Government absolutely deprives him of it. That is a publicly known fact. I think we should have an explanation as to how the action of the Government would demonstrate to the Allies that the Dominion could be depended on as a purchasing agent to fill orders promptly and economically, and how they were useful as purchasing agents in the case cited. The extracts I have quoted are at best semi-official statements; but we have some official statements; we have copies of telegrams sent by the Solicitor General to the Winnipeg Grain Exchange. One of them which I have copied from the Manitoba Free Press of the 29th of November, 1915, is as follows:
Government hopes Winnipeg Grain Exchange will realize that the action taken by the Government arises primarily from war conditions and is also actuated by earnest desire to secure timely markets for our very abundant crops. The present opportunity to that end might otherwise have been lost.
That is very fine, like most of the productions of my hon. friends of the Solicitor General, but, like the rest of them, it explains nothing. We are not told what the war conditions are which rendered this action necessary, nor how this action secured timely markets for our abundant crops, and it is very hard for us to see how it would do so.
From another official document issued by the Government some quotations were given by the right hon. leader of the Opposition. Here are some short extracts from that document-I will not read it all:
The phenomenal crop of wheat in the Canadian west has brought upon the Government the duty of assisting to the farthest extent possible in this marketing.
Further on it says:
The British Government has requested the Canadian Government to provide within a short time a very large supply of No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3 northern wheat.
And at the end of the document appears the following:
The action taken by the British Government is based entirely on war conditions, and the response of the Canadian Government has been dictated by the same state of facts.

In this statement it is nowhere said that the Imperial Government had requested this Government to commandeer the wheat. There is no doubt, however, that the statement sent that impression, abroad throughout the country, nor is there any doubt that the intention of the Government was that that impression should go abroad throughout the country. There is no doubt that tihe same impression was conveyed in Great Britain by that statement, for we find the following British statement quoted in the Manitoba Free Press of 30th November:
London, November 29.-The official Press Bureau made the following statement to-day: "With reference to the announcement from Ottawa on November 28, that the Canadian Government had commandeered sixteen million bushels of wheat at the request of the British Government, the Board of Agriculture states that the Government has made no such request and that at present they have no information on the subject."
So I say not only was the impression conveyed throughout Canada, but also throughout Great Britain, that the Canadian Government's action was at the request of the British Government. And from the last clause of. the statement I have quoted it is quite clear that whatever our Government did they failed hopelessly to keep in touch, as they should have, with the Imperial Government. While on. this subject I must refer to a point that was dealt with by the hon. member for Assini-boia (Mr. Turriff) yesterday. I refer to the calling of Mr. Crerar, President of the Grain Growers' Grain Company, and of Mr. Crowe, a prominent member of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange, to consult with the' Government. Yesterday the hon. member for Assiniboia quoted from the interview with Mr. Crerar in the Winnipeg Telegram, and I do not need to read that again. But it is quite clear that'these gentlemen were called in to advise the Government, and their advice was eminently good, but it was turned down flat. Let me quote very briefly from an interview with Mr. Crowe, published in the Manitoba Free Press of 30th November:
I argued as strongly as I could against commandeering of the wheat.
To get back to the question of the effect of this action on the people of the West: I repeat that, even though the effect were to cause loss to the western farmer, if it were necessary in the interest of the British Empire, the commandeering of the wheat would be justifiable. Further, I grant that it is conceivable that circumstances may
fMr. Thomson.]
arise under which, in order to protect the British consumer, commandeering would be necessary. But it seems to me that tihat time will come later, if ever it does come. The time of danger is when the wheat has got out of the farmers' hands. Never be alarmed about reports of a sudden rise in price when the grain is in the farmers' hands. But if the Government wishes to secure necessary supplies for the British consumer while the grain is in the farmers' hands there need ibe no difficulty about it, provided the Minister of Trade and Commerce takes the farmers into his confidence. If I may be allowed a personal word, I may say that I still have a carload of wheat in the granary on my own farm. I have sold the rest of my grain to meet the demands of the most clamorous of my creditors, but the rest of them I am holding at arm's length and trying to keep this car of "wheat in the hope of a rise later on. If the Minister of Trade and Commerce will assure me that it is necessary to the welfare of the Empire that he should have that wheat, I am prepared to send a telegram to my home now asking them to ship the wheat to the minister's order. We will not quarrel about the price, either he can pay me to-day's price, tomorrow's price, next week's price, or the price of the week after that. Nor am I alone; there are thousands of farmers in the West who are of the same mind with me. The hon. minister may say that it would not be possible to deal with individual farmers in that way. Then, my hon. friend from Assiniboia has shown him a way out of that difficulty. Let him deal with the farmers' companies, the Grain Growers, Grain Company, and the Saskatchewan Oo-oper-ative Elevator Company. Let the minister make a request of the secretaries of those companies and say that it is necessary and advisable in the interests of the Empire that wheat should he secured, and if those officials turn down the request and fail to do everything possible to assist the hon. gentleman there will he a day of reckoning coming for those officials; the next company	elections will	clear	them	out.I pain assure the minister that the patriotism of the Western farmer is enough to ensure that. I can tell him that the main difficulty in, dealing with the western farmers	is that	he	has	not	hadsufficient	confidence	in	them. He	hasbeen rather devoid	of	faith	in .them.
The greatest teacher the world ever

produced says that if we had faith as a grain of mustard seed we might do wonderful things. The lack of that faith as a grain of mustard seed is the trouble with the Minister of Trade and Commerce. " To him that believeth all things are possible," ' amid I would say to the Government: "0'h ye of little faith, wherefore did ye doubt? Why did not you deal openly and fairly with the western farmers instead of launching that thunderbolt on Saturday night or Sunday morning, whichever you like to call it, disturbing the Sabbath rest of the ' grain dealers in Winnipeg as the Solicitor General kept telegrams flashing throughout the day?" I do not see any occasion to disturb the Sabbath rest of these gentlemen Bind deprive them of the consolations of religion. I do not know that I blame the Minister of Trade and Commerce very much, for he is not in touch with the western farmers, and I do not think he understands the mind of the western farmer. But the Solicitor General, who was acting for him, is inexcusable, because, if he does not know the western farmers by this time he should. Either he does not know or he altogether ignored the facts of the case. The farmers are willing to do anything in reason for the benefit of the Empire, but we want to know why the action taken by the Government was necessary. We want explanations, that explain. We want to know how the action taken protected the consumer and the producer; how it secured markets and supplied requirements. Could not the end have been accomplished better in other ways? We want to know exactly what -was done with every bushel of wheat seized, and I think we Have a right to know that. Was grain loaned to the millers and dealers, and if so on what conditions, and how was the loan repaid? What was done in regard to. the increase in price? We are satisfied to lose if it is necessary in the interests of the Empire, but we want an explanation that explains, and we believe we are entitled to it.	.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York):: Mr-Speaker, I shall not claim the attention of the House at great length, but there are a few things I wish to take this opportunity to discuss. As to the question of wheat referred to by the hon. member for Qu'-Appelle (Mr. Thomson), I still believe that it would be good policy for this Government and for Parliament to secure the entrance of Canadian wheat free into the United States.
I have^ looked into this question rather carefully, and while arguments can be brought forward for both sides, I still believe that the western farmer ought to be the best judge of where his interests lie, and that what would be good for him would be good for the 'Country at large. Although I say this, I am still a protectionist; I have not changed my views with regard to reciprocity or what would 'have, been the effect of the freer trade that reciprocity would have brought about.
As to what is called the seizure of the wheat, I think that it is quite within the duty and competence of the Government, especially on an occasion of this kind, to take possession of wheat if they think it is in the public interest to do so. I believe also-and I think this will come out after the farmers have studied the question;- that it might be the duty of the Government of Canada to stabilize the price of wheat, the one thing that we produce more of than anything else. I do believe that it is possible to valorize the pries of wheat and in that way to get <a better price for the farmers. One step in the direction of 'Stabilizing the price of wheat is to provide sufficient elevator and storage accommodation throughout the country. I do not believe that we have enough storage accommodation for our wheat as yet; we shall need more elevators and we shall have to exercise some kind of national strategy in the marketing of this great staple product. That is all I have to say about the wheat question.
I wish for a few moments to come to the war situation. I have the honour to represent a constituency which has, I believe, sent more soldiers to the front than any other constituency in Canada. When I say that, I must ask hon. gentlemen to remember that the population of South York is much above the average constituency in Canada. There are over 100,000 people in South York now, and thousands of men have gone from that constituency to the war. I know one little mission church in that riding from which 120 men have enlisted and are at the front. I was at a little church service on Sunday last which was attended by scarcely twenty people; yet on the list of the -men who have gone to the war from that church there are nearly thirty names. All through South York is found that spirit of determination to fight for the cause of the Empire and the cause of Canada. I have been at recruiting meetings in that riding where more than fifty men have enlisted. Such

American continent, the leadership in advocating the cause of liberty, by sending their sons, as they have sent their sons, to the front; and by being prepared to spend the last dollar and to send the last man until the war is carried to a successful issue. That is to the credit of the Canadian people, and that is the new view that we are taking of our position. Therefore, anything and everything must be done by this Parliament to carry this war to a successful issue. It will take time; it will require great sacrifices, it will take any amount of money; and yet we will have to give it cheerfully, and we shall have to bear the loss of blood and treasure. By doing that, we shall rise higher in the scale of nations; we shall be doing only our duty, and we shall come out tried by the fire, a better and a nobler people.
So far as I oan gather from what I see throughout the province of Ontario and the whole Dominion, and judging by the recruiting that is going on, the people are more determined to-day than ever to bring about a successful issue of this war, and, Sir, they want to see the main energies of Parliament, and of the nation, devoted to the successful prosecution of the war. We can discuss the important question of munition contracts, and I do not obj ect to that, but there are greater questions that Parliament must deal with, and they should deal with them now and not be deferred until after the war is over. We have got to finance this war, and we h-ave got to have' a new fiscal policy for Canada, not only during the war but for the future, ajfter the wlar. ' I have taken the view that the commitments of this country are' such that we will have to change our whole currency and banking laws, as they have been changed in nearly every other country. I believe that Canada will have to nationalize the currency, and to replace the bank currency by national currency, and the sooner we do it the better. We cannot finance this country, finder the present war conditions, with a bank currency. We ought to have an absolutely national currency, and to do that we must change our laws so as to follow the example of the United States. Not only must we have a national currency, but we will have to have the system of re-discounting and reserve banks, which they adopted in the United States as an elementary and essential feature of their banking system, and which have been most successful. I have no objection to our present banking system, or, rather, I have no objection to
our banks as they are now conducted; they are doing well. But we should have a better system, and it would not injure our banks if we had ia national currency instead of a bank currency. There is a way of supplying them with a national currency, and they should have it on reasonable terms, so that they can give the country better service. We will not be able to finance Canada under these war conditions unless we change our currency and banking systems in the two directions which I have indicated.
' There is another great question that must be dealt with, and it cannot be left until after the war. I refeT to the question of getting some kind of mortgage credit loan system for the farmers, not only in the West but all over Canada. I have read a good deal about the meetings that have been held in Western Canada within the last few weeks and of the efforts that the local governments are making to get better credit for the farmers of the West. They are trying to bring about an improvement, but I wish to direct their attention to a plan which was introduced in Congress the other day by a joint committee of both houses, a committee which was unanimous in recommending this new plan to create national mortgage banks which shall have for their object the furnishing to farmers cheap money on long term loans. The ordinary bank system of this country or of the United States is not organized to give the farmer long credit. If he wants to go into the live stock business or to improve his farm, he cannot do it on short loans negotiated with the banks. But in Australia, and New Zealand, and in neatly every country of Europe, they have a system of lending money to the farmers at long dates and at low rates. They have propoised in the United States1, which has been so progressive in the matter of her banking law, a system whereby they will give mortgage loans to farmers based on the national credit of the United States. Of course they form loan bank associations, and smaller associations of farmers under them, and a mortgage is drawn on the farmer's property for which he has to pay practically 5 per cent principle and interest, hut at the end of thirty years the Whole mortgage is paid off, and he has nominally paid only 4 per cent per annum. The object of this legislation, which has the support of the Administration, is to give the farmer of the United States any sum up to $10,000, if his farm property justifies

it, practically at 4 per cent interest foT the development of his farm; and they are enabled to do it, as you will see when you get to the bottom of the system, by using the national credit for the benefit of the ' farmer, just as it has been used for supplying money -at low rates for commercial requirements. And. this Act, under which these district loan banks are to be created, contains one little clause, the sense of which you do not get until you investigate the details. It is, that these banks are made depositories for the United States. That is, the United States can deposit in - them its own notes and all the money its agents collect, with the exception, I believe, of the customs revenue. .In taking that .stock im these- great banks, the whole resources of the United States can be used, and will be used, after this law is passed, for securing for the farmers of the United States four per cent money. They have done it in Australia and in New Zealand, and on a somewhat similar system, and I see no reason why we should not do it too. What I should like to know is why Parliament is not now devoting its attention to this great question of financial reform, which may involve the nationalization of the currency of this country, and which does involve the creation of these mortgage banks for the benefit of the farmers.


Mr. MURPHY:: Is there a limit to the amount subscribed by the United States Government?


William Findlay Maclean: There is practically no limit. Its limitation is in the control of the mortgages. They must be undoubted. It has the object of creating a new and first-class security for investment in the United States, and the investor is invited to put his money in these mortgages, which are to be absolutely first-class. Of course, there is a danger of the Bill not being passed, but the Administration that adopted that great banking reform which has been tried for a year now, and which is the most successful financial revolution ever effected in the United States, has committed itself to its passage. The business men of the United States have all accepted the system of national reserve banks. This system of credit loans for farmers is not being tried for the first time. It may be an experiment in the United States, but it has been successful in Australia, as I have said, and in New Zealand, and in nearly all the countries of Europe. Ireland has been regenerated by the credit system inaugurated there

for the benefit of the farmers, and France, Germany and Russia have adopted this important reform in national finance.
What I want to see at this time is Parliament discussing these questions of financial reform. It will not do to wait until the war is over; that may be some time yet. The important thing is to get ready now, so that if we should have a great influx of settlers, as we may have after the war, our finances shall be organized in such a way that business men will be able to get what credit they want in connection with our banking system, and our farmers and settlers will get a reasonable credit to help them in the development of their farms. It will be a benefit especially to the farmers in the West engaged in stockraising. A mlan in the West ciatnimot get the money he wants from a bank for stockraising, as it involves a loan extending over three years. It is necessary, if we are to settle this country as it ought to be settled and in view of the great war, to reorganize our financial system from top to bottom; and we cannot begin too soon. I give the legislatures in the West credit for what they have tried to do. The legislatures of two or three of the western provinces have considered this question, and some of them, particularly those of Saskatchewan and Alberta, seem to think it is' within their power to create a system of credit for the farmers, based on land mortgages. Now it may be possible to work it out in that way, but to my mind it would be. better to work i-t out on the national credit of Canada, as it has been worked out in Australia, New Zealand, and in Europe. That question is calling for .settlement, -and- so also, as I have said, is the question of (refbrim in regard to our -banking. This is the time when Canada ought to place a great loan in the United States. I believe there never will be such a favourable opportunity as the present for Canada to secure her national currency by a gold reserve. We can get money to-day on the New York market at a lower rate, I believe, than Great Britain and France got their loans recently. In the United States they have unbounded -confidence in this country, land what we want is the use of their capital. We want settlers from their country, but we also want to have this country so financially reorganized that in the recovery from the war we will be able to accomplish these reforms, and ensure for Canada a new era of prosperity.
The more I consider this question the

more I am convinced that Parliament ought to be here and now dealing with it, and trying to arrive at a solution. We are creating a great war debt, and we will have to meet it. How are' we to meet it, and what is this Parliament going to do in connection with it? If we double our population we will reduce the debt by half; but we can do things now, and we ought to be doing them now. We ought to be conserving our national resources for the benefit of the country and for the payment of the war debt. We have the greatest store of nickel in the world. There is no such amount of mining wealth in any part of the world as there is at Sudbury. The part that nickel plays to-day in the world is enormous, and if we can conserve it and develop it, it will pay the whole of our national debt. What are we doing in regard to the development of that industry? So far we have allowed it to- be -controlled by an American company, and we do not know -I have studied the matter very carefully, and I do not- know-what interest -a certain group of German people have in the nickel monopoly in the United States. It is time w-e did know it, and it is time we conserved that great resource, our greatest resource. It is time we conserved it for the Empire, and refused to allow a pound of that ore to go out of this country until it is treated and reduced in this country. We have possession of it, and ought to know where it is going. I do not accept the -assurances that have been given that that nickel has not passed to Germany. Perhaps it has not, but Germans own a large section of the stock of that company; that I do know, and I would not put anything past them.- I repeat, it is high time that we controlled the nickel products of this country. It is an enbrmous asset, and I believe it should be under the Canadian flag, and not in the United States. I want to know what the Government is doing in regard to that. I am told-I see it in the newspapers-that there is a policy of some kind coming, and that it is intended to start refining industry in the province of Nova ''Scotia. I have no -objection to that 'being dope, but I want to see it done in Canada. I want to know how -much t'hei'e is of this nickel, and what the other products of nickel matite are. We do not know how much platinum there is in it, nor how big a profit this company is getting out of it; we do not even know whether they are paying their dues to the Ontario Government, -as they are supposed to do under 30
the law. We do know that their profits within the past year w-ere in the neighbourhood of twenty million dollars, and they may be double that for all we know. They control the nickel supply of the world, and they are getting over fifty cents a pound for their nickel. If Canada has the greatest store of nickel in the world', we ought to have in Canada the largest production of nickel steel in the world, and we should work out a national policy, in that direction. If we do that, and if we provide for a proper conservation of our resources, no one need fear for the future of Canada.
In the great Northwest to-day-and I now address myself to the western members-we probably have an enormous -store of petroleum, and petroleum is one of the essentials in this war. The war has established the fact that motors, aeroplanes, and traction engines of all kinds depend on gasoline. What are we doing, to find out how great a supply of petroleum we have in the Northwest, and how we are going to conserve it? If we do happen to have a large supply, are we ready to nationalize it, and use it for the pause of the Empire? I say we ought to nationalize this petroleum, w-e ought to nationalize nickel; and above all things we ought to see that none of 'these resources is alienated by private persons, or private companies, and especially by private -persons outside of our own country. We must not delay about these things. The war debt is on us now, and what are we doing to make our natural resources assume a portion of that war debt? This is a question which must be considered, -and it should not be left for discussion until the war is over. Parliament should ibe busy now on this question, as well as on conservation reforms generally.
Not only -have we great stores of nickel, petroleum, and probably platinum, all of which are essential in this war, but we are developing a great silver and gold mining industry in this country. Within *three years, I believe, two or three of the greatest mines in the world will be up at Porcupine and in the Timisk-aming district of Ontario. At present we are letting that gold and -silver go out of our country. In view of the great scarcity of gold, >and -the part that gold is playing in the eoo-mo

mics of this war, I do not know but that our Government -should take possession of our gold -and silver supplies. Some objection 'has been made to the commandeering of wheat. I -certainly would be in favour of commandeering -all the gold



and silver produced in this country, and in view of the part that these metals are playing in the war, doing everything possible to encourage production. Nothing counts like gold in this war, although the day may come when it will not be of so much importance. We know that Canada possesses these great stores of nickel, and gold, and silver, and yet we are not using them for ourselves and for the Empire as I think we ishould. Certainly a way could be found to utilize onr nickel and petroleum for the benefit of the Empire, but ol -course we -can do nothing unless Parliament takes the matter up, and Parliament should deal with it at once.
There are still other questions that -must be dealt With. For a moment I am going to refer to the railways. I have always been in favour of the nationalization of railways. The Government nationalized the railways in England as a war measure, and now that that policy has been adopted it will never be changed. Now that the necessity for conservation and efficiency and for saving wherever it can be effected has been brought home to the people of Canada, I think our people will come to see that all unnecessary overhead expense in connection with railways, all unnecessary competition, and all unnecessary duplication should be done away with. This could be done either by state ownership or by increased state regulation. In the interests of the nation we shall also have to nationalize our telegraph lines and our express companies-and that because of the war if for no other reason. We cannot afford the wastages that are taking place. There seems to be unnecessary competition and duplication of service in everything, and the people are suddenly going to rise up and say to Parliament:	What are you doing to distribute
the great war debt that has been created, and what are you doing to improve conditions in this country? I do not think we are doing all we should do. I think we are discussing questions that are not of such vital importance as the questions I have raised here to-day. I think Parliament should be prepared-to sit down now and deal with these questions, and try and find a solution, instead of thinking how soon we can get through with the business we have before us.
I also wish to say a word or two about munitions.
I should like to have seen our country get a larger share of munition orders, although it is surprising the number of orders we have got, and what we

have done. A short time ago I spoke about the improved conditions of -this country, and contrasted the present state of affairs with conditions a year ago. I see a great improvement, and probably the manufacture -of munitions in this country has bad something to do with . it. But I am not satisfied that we have done everything we could to bring orders from the Allies to Canada. I do not know that our agent-general in the Old Country has done everything he could; I do not know that we are fully seized of the importance of this question. I admit that we have done a lot, but I believe that we could do a great deal more. If 'the war is going to be -long-and we do not know whether it will or not-we shall have to go more fully into this question of munitions, -and inquire just to what extent they can be manufactured in this country. I say that the great workshops belonging to the Canadian- railways should be devoted to that purpose. We should be producing all the munitions we can, and at the lowest possible price consistent with giving -a fair wage to our people engaged in the work. It is well worthy of the consideration of this Government as to whether they should not change somewhat their policy in this respect, in order to increase the production of munitions here.
The last -thing I wish to say is this, and it also deals with the war: I have -heard a great deal of talk -about the part Canada is to play in the peace negotiations when they -come about. To me what seems of more importance, now that Canad-a is engaged in the war, is that we should -be asking -ourselves: what part are we playing in the strategy of the war, in the appointment of generals for example. Rather than be represented in- th-e peace proposals, .1 should like -to see our country placed on the status of an -ally of the Old Country, so that we could have a say in the -conduct and strategy of this war. Grave mistakes have been made in this war in the m-atter of policy, and in the appointment of generals, but no protest has gone forth. The time has come when, instead of having a s-ay in the peace proposals, it is, perhaps, of more importance that we should have a say in the conduct of the war, seeing ho-w much we are committed to bringing it to a successful conclusion. I am absolutely in favour of Canada's participation, in the war, but if the war is to be continued there should be some change in our connection with it. We

ought to have more say in the matter, and we ought to be represented in London by someone who has absolutely the confidence of the Canadian Parliament and the Canadian people; one who will take a part in the deliberations of the army council, or whatever the body may be that has under its control the direction of this war.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: I would like mjr non. Friend, because he takes a great deal of interest in this question of representation in the councils of the Empire, to elucidate a little more the point which he is making.


William Findlay Maclean: Now that I have introduced the question, I will give the hon. gentleman an opportunity of elucidating his views in regard to it. I will go this far and say, that we have not had that representation that we ought to have had. There is now a war council in which all the Allies are represented, and if we are to have a say in the peace settlement, which everyone says we are to have, I think we ought to have a say now when these urgent questions of general policy are under discussion. When I say that I come back to a short speech that I made the other day in Toronto, when I said that I believed more than ever in maintaining, the national integrity of Canada under the British Empire. That may mean a great deal, or it may not mean much, but there are people who wish to see what they call a great Imperial Federation. I do not see the necessity of that yet, but I think we ought to be an absolute part of the British Empire, although I 'believe in our maintaining our national integrity all the time, no matter what the situation may be.
As to the outcome of the war, J do not wish to assume the role of prophet. There are so-called reverses happening every day, but the cause is going on all right. The British navy is upholding its supremacy and maintaining the liberty of the world on every sea. Great Britain has been backward as regards the army as compared with the navy, but she has seen that she must have a great army, and so have her Allies. Now, that army is being created and the struggle will sooner or later have to come. We believe that the Allies will be successful in that struggle and that the liberties of the world will be preserved, although it will be a struggle to the end. This is a war between two peoples who have put themselves, the one against the other, the one to uphold liberty, and the other to assume an unfair military ascendency. I hope that the tyrant will be put down and
30i
put down forever, and that Canada will never release her efforts until that result has been successfully accomplished. But, until such is the case, this Parliament will have to make innumerable sacrifices. We shall have to stand for any amount of taxation; we shall, have to revolutionize our system of finances and our way of controlling our natural resources, and we shall have to do many things which we formerly thought we might not have to do. The people expect us to deal with these matters, and the question I ask this Parliament is: What is it doing with these great questions, in view of the situation, in view of the debt that has been created, and in view of the things that Canada must do for the regeneration of herself and for the reconstruction of the Empire after this war is over? We are not doing all we ought to do. If Parliament would be seized of the seriousness of the situation, it would pay more attention to these matters and less to questions of party. Saying that, I have said all I intended to say to-day. I may, if an opportunity is presented later on, go into some of these questions in a little greater detail, and especially into the question of financial reform in this country; but for the present I have said enough. I have tried to reflect the views of a great many of the citizens of this country in regard to the necessity of greater action on the part of the Parliament in connection with this war.


Mr. PAUL EMILE LAMARCHE (Nico-let) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, since the opening of the session, you have been tendered numerous congratulations by the mem bers who have addressed the House before me. I, as an old companion in arms, may be allowed to join in with most earnest wishes that you continue to fill with the same tact and distinction the exalted position to which you have been raised.
This year's address of His Royal Highness the Governor General of Canada, has now occupied our attention for about two weeks, and, in the course of the debate, what is known as the political truce has been largely disregarded. The usual accusations of maladministration and boodling have been bandied across by politicians on both sides of the House; and, certain opinions have been expressed and certain assertions made as statements T>f facts, which it is my duty, representing as I do a French-Canadian constituency, to refute or rectify.
My purpose is not to enter a plea in justification or explanation of the particular stand 1 have taken in this House, during

the last five years, on Canada's participation in the wars of the Empire. I feel there is no need of my enlarging on that question; my opinions are the same and the principles I uphold are those I had already laid down when I took a seat in this House.
Nor shall I stop, Mr. Speaker, at criticising piecemeal some unhappy utterances that may have slipped the lips of orators during this debate and which were rather offensive to the race to which I am proud to belong. My compatriots, I know, are above such insults.
I shall also eschew the assumption or even the mere idea that among my Englishspeaking fellow countrymen-among whom I enjoy some of my best friendships-there may be found a majority to endorse the opinions of a few extremists. My purpose in rising to-day, Mr. Speaker, is to stand up in this British country, before a meeting of free men, in order to defend two of my compatriots, ex-members of this House, against whom have been borne accusations of the utmost gravity.
I let a few days elapse in the hope that members older than myself would take the cudgels on behalf of men, to whose principles and efforts they are indebted for their seats in this House.
But, as the debate is drawing to a close, I take pleasure, before the third crowing of ithe cock to take up the task.
The fact is notorious that, in a certain section of the country, newspapers from whom we might expect fairer treatment and men who, on account of their position, should .show greater moderation, are clamouring that Mr. Henri Bourassa and Mr. Armand Lavergne be hanged or shot.
I feel like expressing to <my hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) my appreciation of the very temperate suggestion he has made, at the risk of incurring the displeasure of his friends, that Bourassa and Lavergne be merely deported to Germany. Such generosity is a credit to him and a surprise to us. Doubtless he has been moved by the humanitarian speeches of the hon. member for St. Lawrence (Mr. Bickerdike), who at the last three sessions, has preached to us in favour of the abolition of the death penalty.
I confess I feared at first that the hon. member for . Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) would, advocate incarceration into that penitentiary at Kingston, of which he has already spoken so haTshly. No better opportunity will offer for him to settle his dispute with the hon. the Minister of Jus-

tice. Once Bouras&a and Lavergne secure behind the walls of that famous jail, the hon. member for Frontenac will certainly make an end of his requests for the mitigation of the treatment imposed on convicts.	.
In any case, should the counsel prevail that Bourassa must be banished, I fully agree with the hon. member for Frontenac that, outside certain regions not far distant from us, 'Germany would be the most proper place where could be utilized the talents of a man whose life has been given to the defence of minorities and smaller nationalities.
But what is the nature of the impeachment against Messrs Bourassa and Lavergne? In different localities, it is called now high treason, now disloyalty, or simply the expression of German sympathies.
So far I know, the gentlemen in question have not urged any of their compatriots .to take up arms against their Sovereign. No citizen of this country has been guilty of such a crime. Yet t'he records of Great Britain bear witness to the fact that only recently an important .man in the Kingdom, Sir Edward Carson, has, in the course of .a religious squabble, sounded the call to arms to resist the enforcement of the laws of His Majesty's Government. But his conduct did not debar him from 'being called to fill in the British cabinet the important position of solicitor-general, whose office it is to see to the proper execution of the laws of his country. Nor, to my mind, have those gentlemen, made pronouncements nearly as serious as those 'made only recently by Sir Herbert Holt, Who, on his return from England, declared that the War Office was rotten to the core.
Those orators did not claim with the late Sir Richard Cartwright that all we owe England is Christian forgiveness for all the harml she has done us.
Have they ever gone the distance of my excellent friend the hon. member for 1'Islet (Mr. Paquet), who, in bygone days, after calling upon the steeple of his village church to crush him to the ground if ever he should fail to keep any of his pledges, could be heard to exclaim that the British Empire could be likened to imperial Rome that drained her colonies' blood.
I must acknowledge that the old communard that was then found in the hon. mepber for 1'Islet has been tamed through his coming in touch with the powers that be. The other day, in seconding the Address in reply to the speech from the Throne, he

used all possible caution anld delivered himself of all possible flattery towards the hierarchy and the clergy of his province. His words recalled vaguely his yesteryear's speeches on maple syrup, and I doubt not but such efforts will earn him his bishop's absolution. To this electors, however, is reserved the right of assigning the penance.
Messrs Bour-assa and Lavergne, as well in Lie Devoir as on the platform, have merely insisted on and developed a principle which he himself has been advocating for years, namely, that in the present state of our relations with Great Britain, Uan-ada's duty is limited to the defence of its own territory, and that this principle should not be departed from except after the country has been constitutionally consulted.
The assertion of that principle not only is not tantamount to treason or disloyalty, but it has been professed by the most eminent exponents of both political parties, who in the past have held the helm of the State.
This principle, moreover, accords with the spirit of Confederation.
My first proof of that fact is an excerpt from an address delivered at London, by Sir Alexander Campbell, at the Colonial Conference of 1887:-
An interview was held here between members of the then Government of Canada, including Sir John Macdonald (who is the Premier there-now) and I believe the then War Office authorities, and I think the Prime Minister, and the Secretary of State for the Colonies for the time being. The result was this : The Imperial Government had previously given us notice of their intention to withdraw from the colony Her Majesty's troops, and they declared their resolution to carry that out. The Government here agreed to undertake the naval defence of Canada, the Canadian authorities undertaking the land defence of the colony. Upon that basis the confederation of all the provinces was formed, viz:	that Her Majesty's troops
were to be withdrawn (the withdrawal was then in course of being carried out), and that the local authority were only to undertake the land defences.
Further on he added:-
I obtained, before I left Canada, the last return of the Department of Militia and Defence, a department which was organized after the conference of which I have spoken with the authorities here, and after we had undertaken that the confederation should rest upon the basis of our maintaining the land defences.
Such was the position taken at the time by that statesman, and such was his own interpretation and what he declared to be Canada's interpretation of the constitution.
Nobody then blundered to the point of charging him with disloyalty.
Some time later, in 1908, from his seat in this House as [Prime Minister of Canada, the Right Hon. Sir Wilfred Laurier made on his return from the London conference the following declaration:-
The Prime Minister (Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) : . . . There is a school in Great Britain to-day, especially in the official world, whose object for years past has been to bring Canada into the military organizations of Great Britain. The views of that school and their expectations were presented to us by the Right Hon. St. John Brodrick, Secretary of State for War and by Lord Selborne, First Lord of the Admiralty. But we could not see eye to eye with them, we could not approve their views, and had to propose an absolute demurrer to their contentions. I am aware that there are men, even in Canada, who use the argument that, because Canada is part of the British Empire she should take part in the large expenditure necessary to provide the heavy armaments that Great Britain has to maintain because of her dominant position in the world. I cannot see the force of that logic. It would imply that Great Britain and Canada were on a footing of equality, whereas we know that they are not on such a footing. Great Britain has powers that we have not. To mention no others, she has the treaty-making powers which we have not. And the powers not being coextensive, the obligations cannot lw' co-extensive. That argument would imply also that Canada and Great Britain have the same interest in all things. But we know by experience that we have not the same interests. The interests of Canada are divergent from those of Great Britain in many instances. This is seen in the fact that no two of the self-governing parts of the British Empire have the same fiscal policy. That argument would imply also that Great Britain and Canada are on the same footing of development. Sir, we know only too well that we have obligations in this country which Great Britain is rid of. As a consequence of our geographical position, the immensity .of our territory and the sparsity of our population, we have to assume obligations, to face difficulties and to perform works which in the parent country are left to private enterprise. But though, in all these, the position of the Mother Country and the colony may be unequal yet, in the colony there is equal national pride and constitutional jealousy of our rights. This, therefore, makes it absolutely impossible to entertain the proposition made to us. But I confess that we owe it to ourselves as a nation-as we claim to he-to assume our own defence. And, so far as that goes, if we have to spend more money upon military and naval service, I am sure that 'Parliament and the Canadian people will not grudge any sum demanded for that purpose. But .to spend money outside of Canada for military purposes is a proposition that the Canadian people, I believe, are not prepared to accept at this moment. When, in 1899, we took part in the South African war, we did it not under any obligation, not in the execution of any duty which rested upon us-and, to give Great Britain her due, she did not claim it on such grounds either-but we did it simply because we thought it was right and proper to do so. But we refused to be bound for the

future/ and the position we took then I maintain still. . . .
I am unaware that the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier was accused of treason as a consequence of these declarations.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall read a most interesting excerpt from the minutes of the Colonial Conference of 1907, held at London, and attended by the prime ministers of all the colonies of the British Empire:
Dr. Smartt (Cape Colony) : Would I be in order in moving this naval resolution after the discussion yesterday? I do not think it will take any time because it is a resolution which requires no remarks to make it acceptable to the conference:	"That this conference recognizing
the vast importance of the services rendered by the Navy to the defence of the Empire and the protection of its trade, and the paramount importance of continuing to maintain the Navy in the highest possible state of efficiency, considers it to be the duty of the dominions beyond the seas to make such contribution towards the upkeep of the Navy as may be determined by their local legislatures-the contribution to take the form of a grant of money, the establishment of local naval defence, or such other services, in such manner as may be decided upon after consultation with the Admiralty and as would best accord with their varying circumstances."
Chairman (Lord Elgin, Colonial Secretary) : I may say I communicated with the First Lord of the Admiralty what occurred, and he desires me to say he leaves himself entirely in the hands of the conference with regard to any modification or omission of the words referring to the Admiralty. Otherwise he has no objection to it (p. 541).
Sir Wilfrid Laurier: I am sorry to say, so far as Canada is concerned, we cannot agree to the resolution. We took the ground many years ago that we had enough to do in [that] respect in [our] country before committing ourselves to a general claim. The Government of Canada has done a great deal in that respect. Our action was not understood, but I was glad to see that the First Lord of the Admiralty admitted we had done much more than he was aware of. It is impossible, in my humble opinion, to have a uniform policy on this matter: the disproportion is too great between the Mother Country and the colonies. We have too much to do otherwise; in the Mother Country, you must remember, they have no expenses to incur with regard to public works; whereas, in most of the colonies, certainly in Canada, we have to tax ourselves to the utmost of our resources in the development of our country, and we could not contribute, or undertake to do more than we are doing in that way. For my part, if the motion were pressed to a conclusion,
I should have to vote against it.
Dr. Smartt:	But the public works to which
you refer are of a reproductive character which are vital to the interests of your Dominion.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier:	Some of our railways
have never paid a cent of interest or expenses.
Dr. Smartt:	Still, it is developing and opening up the country to an enormous extent. All the colonies are building and developing railways of a character which may not be revenue-producing for years. I thought the wording of this resolution would have specially met your

views because you will And to make such a contribution towards the upkeep of the Navy it may take the form either of a grant of money, or the establishment of a local defence force or other services. I understand Canada suggested strongly the other day that some of their other services were in the nature of local defence.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier: I have said all I have to say on the subject.
Chairman: I think it is a pity to pass the resolution if it is not unanimous.
Dr. Smartt: I should like very much to hear the opinions of the representatives of the other portions of the Empire.
Mr. Deakin: I have no hesitation in entering into the discussion if desired; but if we are not going to pass the resolution is it worth while?
Dr. Smartt: I think it is a. great pity we do not pass something. We have done so much in the way of pious affirmation, that I am anxious we should do something of a practical character.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier: It can be passed if there is a majority. For my part, I must vote against it.
(Translation):	The views expressed by
the members of the conference, clearly show their disappointment at the refusal of our representative, the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, to vote in favour of the resolution put forward at the conference. But forsooth nobody ever dared insinuate that the Right Hon. 8ir Wilfred Laurier had gone to the very heart of the Empire there to commit treason and display his disloyalty. This principle, after all is said, anent our participation in the Imperial wars, is .but the logical consequence of that autonomy which is guaranteed us by the Constitution of this country and which, as I find, was formulated in very clear terms by the right hon. the leader of the Oposition in his speech on the Address a few days ago:-
Such is the spirit of British institutions, such is the lofty character of the Constitution under which we live, that not even the King of England, not even the Parliament of England has the right to order a single soldier to go out of Canada or to take a dollar from the Treasury of Canada.
(Translation) : The least that may be said, even should the conclusion be reached that such principles are not logically sound, is -that, at any rate, they undoubtedly belong to the domain of free discussion, and any one in this country, especially one who occupying in this House the important position representative of the people brands as disloyal and a traitor whosoever raises such a discussion or participates in such a debate, shows his utter ignorance of the laws and institutions under which we live, or must admit that he has been blinded by his prejudices. From the outcry raised in

certain quarters, one is led to believe ttrat the position taken by Messrs. Bourassa and Lavergne on the question of Canada's participation in the war, is all a new question. Yet it is common knowledge that seventeen years ago, when the question came up as to Canada participating in the South African war, Mr. Bourassa, then representing in this House the county of Labelle, resigned and was immediately re-elected by his constituents on the same principles which he holds to-day. As proof that Mr. Bourassa is to-day advocating what he urged seventeen years ago-and of that everybody is aware who has in the least kept track of the politics of the country- I shall read an excerpt from the letter which he sent the Prime Minister of Canada in the month of October, 1899, tendering his resignation as member of the House of Commons. His words are as follows:-
We are called upon to decide whether the Canadian people will have to take part in all the wars of the Empire, with the doors of the Imperial Cabinet and Parliament kept closed against him, and without even his representatives being consulted on the advisability of those bloody conflicts.
I will never give my approval to such a retrograde policy.
As a British subject, proud of his birthright and jealous, of his liberties, loyal to England and its august Sovereign I stand ready to give of my person and my money, of my speech and of my acts, for the defence of the British flag throughout the whole extent of the Canadian confederation.
But loyal before all, above all and always to Canada, I have pledged myself to my electors that I should work for the advancement of my country without impairing the fundamentals of its Constitution. To redeem that pledge, I have given my support to your Government so long as you have remained within the limits which the Canadian people have set. I have ^approved and still approve your administrative policy. But I see in this last act the announcement of a governmental policy which has always been repudiated by the majority of your followers and upon which neither Parliament nor the electorate have ever been consulted.
Such are the principles which I should have laid down and the opinion I should have urged in the House of Commons.
As I am deprived of that right, only one course is open to me in order to assert and justify my position. It is painful for me to take it, on account of my personal admiration for you and my attachment to the other political principles which you have always followed and which it is my desire to continue to defend.
But the deep conviction I feel does not allow of any further hesitation. I therefore resign to-day my seat in Parliament and I shall seek re-election in the County of Labelle. To my electors I shall loyally explain the situation and confident in the issue of the test, await their reply before resuming my seat in the House of Commons.
I have the honour to be, sir, etc.,
Henri Bourassa.
All the older members, who had a seat in this House at the time, remember that after his re-election Mr. Bourassa advocated the same policy within these walls.
On the 1st of March, 1903, an important group of citizens of Montreal formed themselves into a league called " the Nationalists ". The principles held by this organization are well known, not only in the province of Quebec, but throughout the whole country. They may be summarized in three fundamental propositions:-
(1)	Canada to enjoy, in its intercourse with Great Britain, the widest autonomy, political, commercial and military, as is consistent with the maintenance of the colonial tie.
(2)	The Canadian provinces to. enjoy, in their co-operation with the Federal Government, the widest autonomy as is consistent with the maintenance of the federal tie.
(3)	The whole Dominion to adopt a policy of economic and intellectual development on exclusively Canadian lines.
The founder of the league was Mr. Olivier Asselin, a man endowed with great talents and great energy, and whom the hon. the Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes) has lately raised to the rank of a major in the Canadian forces.
Later on, there was introduced in Parliament the Bill commonly known as the Lau-Tier Naval Act. During the debate prior to and at the time of the passing of this Act, there occurred in the ranks of the Conservative party, then in opposition, a most noteworthy event.
The Hon. Mr. Monk, the recognized leader of the Conservatives of the province of Quebec, parted company with the Hon. Mr. Borden, the then leader of the Opposition. The reasons of the disagreement between Messrs. Monk and Borden had reference to the participation of Canada in the Imperial military preparation. The psychological moment of the severance of the partnership was on the occasion of a memorable banquet at Lachine on the 8th of November, 1900. Mostly all the Conservatives of the province of Quebec rallied around their leader in his protest against the policy of Mr. Borden.
Mr. Monk at that banquet delivered an address of the highest import in reply to a speech which had been made a few days before at London.
Among the leading orators on that occasion, who all were of one mind with Mr. Monk, I notice the names of Senator Landry, to-day President of the Senate, Mr. COMMONS
Bruno Nantel, who, if I mistake not, was later on called to the Dominion Cabinet, Mr. Philemon Gousdmeau, the orthodox leader of His Majesty's loyal Opposition in the Quebec Legislature, and Mr. Charles Beau-bien, recently appointed to the Upper Chamber by the present Government.
The banquet was presided over with much dash and dignity by one of the leading citizens of the county of Jacques Cartier, who now sits in this House -as its representative, namely, Mr. J. A. Descarries.
About that time, on the 10th of January, 1910, Le Devoir made its first appearance. It was founded precisely with a view to the propagation and defence of the principles of nationalism. Many and generous were the subscriptions, a fact that accounts for many members of this- House becoming and still remaining shareholders of that excellent newspaper.
Hon. Mr. [BUREAU (Trois-Rivi&res) (Translation) :	On what side of the
House are they found ?


Sir HERBERT AMES (Text):: Has it paid any dividends ?


Paul-Émile Lamarche: The
member for Saint Antoine inquires whether Le Devoir has paid any dividends? I may say that the paper was not founded as. a dividend producer but solely with the object of diffusing light among the people and defending certain principles.
We next -come, Mr. Speaker, to the period of agitation against the Naval Bill. Messrs. Monk and Bourassa stood together on the -same platform in defence of a common cause. It was customary at those popular meetings to take a standing vote on certain resolutions known as " resolutions of St. Eustache " 'because they were adopted for the first time ' at St. Eustache, in the county , of Two Mountains. I shall now read the text of those resolutions:-
The Naval Bill condemned, Canadian autonomy, the true Imperial unity; resolutions adopted at St. Eustache on the 17th July, 1910.
As citizens of Canada, loyal subjects of His Majesty King George V, we stand ready to defend with our blood our country and the rights of the British Crown in Canada in the same manner as our forefathers have done in 1776, against the English subjects of His Majesty, in 1812, -against the -armies of the American.Republic, and as we have done in 1886 against our own fellow countrymen who had revolted.
But, believing in the greatness and efficacy of the principles of decentralization and autonomy solemnly proclaimed and recognized for over half -a century by -the authorities of Great Britain and Canada, we are opposed to any

change of policy which would draw us into distant wars, foreign to Canada, so long at least -as the autonomous colonies of the Empire have no share with the Motherland and on equal terms in the sovereign power, which controls the Imperial army and fleet, treaties of peace, and alliances, foreign relations, the Government of India and of the British possessions.
We sincerely believe that the policy of concentration and so-called Imperial unity of which the Naval Act is a first milestone, will be productive within the Empire itself of misunderstandings, rivalries, and conflicts, that will endanger the peace and union of the many dominions, nations and races who are proud to-day of their allegiance to the British Crown.
Canada has never been for Great Britain the cause of any conflict and we believe that a policy of peace, aiming at the moral and material development of the country, is what is needed for Canada, to ensure its growth and cohesion, and, as a consequence, to enhance the glory and promote the safety of the Empire.
As free citizens of a democracy, we claim the right to express openly our opinion on this question as on all matters affecting the future and the interests of Canada, We recognize the right of the majority of the Canadian people to give a new bearing to our relations to the other parts of the Empire, provided it is with a full knowledge of the case.
But we protest against any attempt to prevent the Canadian people or any of its component groups from freely and openly discussing this serious problem.
We repudiate the statements made at Toronto last December by Mr. Alexandre Tas-chereau, Provincial Minister of Public Works, who falsely represented that the population of Quebec is willing to -accept blindly any policy for the naval defence of the Empire and we censure those members of the Provincial Government and Legislature who by their vote on the 2nd of June last have endorsed those statements.
We censure the Dominion Cabinet and the parliamentary majority who have forced upon Canada this new Naval Act, cast the country ' into the vortex of militarism, only lately denounced so vigourously by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, imperilled the peace we enjoy and diverted to the manufacture - 'f deadly weapons and to the preparation of bloody wars millions of dollars which were intended for the development of the country's agriculture and transportation facilities.
We likewise censure the position taken by Mr. Borden and those members of the Opposition, "who, with him, have clamoured for the adoption of. a policy no less subversive.
We claim that Parliament had no right thus to encumber Canada's future with a policy which was never submitted to the people whose part it will be to pay the blood tax and hear the burden of military expenditure.
We approve entirely the courageous and loyal stand of Mr. Monk and of those few members who, true to their mandate, have shown the dangers of such a policy and claimed for the Canadian people the right to speak its will before its representatives saddle it with such a heavy burden.
Those resolutions, Mr. Speaker, were carried at, to say the least, 25 public meetings in different parishes of the province of Quebec.


Mr. LAVALLEE (Translation):: The hon. member stated that those resolutions had been adopted in 25 counties of the province of Quebec. Is he in a position to name the counties?


Paul-Émile Lamarche: If my
hon. friend will only read to-morrow's Hansard, he will find that I did not state 25 counties, but 25 different parishes, and I believe that estimate is very conservative.
At any rate, if the question is of any interest to the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lavallee), I may say that I am not in a position to state that those resolutions were adopted in his county, but what I do know is that had it not been for the Nationalist propaganda, Le Devoir and Messrs. Bourassa and Lavergne, the charming features of the member for Bellechasse would never have graced these precincts.
At 'that date, Mtr. Monk was held in disfavour by many of the big wigs of the Conservative party, particularly by representatives of certain English-speaking constituencies, who requested that he be read out of the party. The annoyance even impaired Mr. Monk's strength and he had to seek in a milder climate a new lease of health. On his return, the Conservatives of the province of Quebec prepared in his honour a demonstration which took place at the Monument National; I had the honour of presiding over the meeting. Again Mr. Monk in a great speech emphasized his stand in relation to his party on the question of Canada's contribution to the Imperial armaments.
Shortly thereafter, an event occurred in our province which resulted in placing back into favour those who only yesterday had been ostracized; that was the victory at the by election of Drummond-Artha-baska. I shall not stop to narrate the events of that electoral campaign, Hansard of that year gives all the details. But I assert *without any hesitation that it spe'lls the victory of the principles of Nationalism over the Naval Act of Sir Wilfred Laurier and over the equally "subversive" policy of Mr. Borden. It' was a struggle not soon to be forgotten and for my part still unforgotten.
A few days after that memorable victory, a large meeting was held at Montreal, at the Ontario skating rink. The attendance is estimated to have been over fifteen thousand. I see in this House men who were present. A standing vote was called on the following resolution:-
This meeting acclaims the result of the election in Drummond-Arthabaska as the triumph of the principle of Canadian autonomy. This victory is a manifest endprsation of the position taken by Mr. Monk, the member for. Jacques-Cartier, on the Naval Bill and that of those metnbers who have supported him.
It is an indication that the people wish to be consulted before being launched into a new policy of Imperial militarism. This meeting approves and endorses the verdict rendered by the electors of Drummond-Arthabaska, emphasizes the determination of the Canadian people to defend the rights of the British Crown in Canada, asserts its readiness to support all measures that may be found necessary and efficacious for . the defence of Canadian territory, but holds as subversive of the principle of Canadian autonomy and of true Imperial unity, any policy which aims at forcing upon the nation, which has no voice in the councils of the Empire, any portion of its foreign burdens and of its military defence outside of Canada-the only part of the Empire upon which the Canadian people can exercise a political and constitutional action. (Prolonged cheers.)
The resolution was adopted almost unanimously, there being only four dissentient voices. Very important addresses were delivered by Mr. Monk and his friends. The meeting was presided over with great skill by Mr. L. E. Patenaude, the organizer of the election, and to-day the Minister of Inland Revenue, in the Cabinet.
Subsequent to this victory of Nationalism, the elections of 1911 came about. If it is meet, Mr. Speaker, that two of my compatriots should step to the wall to be shot for high treason, I ask equal justice for all, and if they be guilty, it is only fair that their accomplices be visited with a like punishment.
I maintain, Mr. Speaker, before this House, that about twenty members from the province of Quebec, those who make up the majority which keeps the Government in power, were elected in 1911, not only on their proclaiming, with Messrs. Bourassa and Lavergne, the principles of Nationalism but after having pledged themselves solemnly to uphold those same principles on the floor of the House of Commons. I will go further, Mr. Speaker, and claim thats if Messrs. Bourassa and Lavergne be guilty of high treason, there are equally guilty those who, although not members of this House, have by word or act, endeavoured to spread and secure the triumph of those principles which are being denounced as wicked and disloyal. I would make no exception, not even in favour of men who, being unable, through insufficient knowledge of our language to speak publicly in favour of the Nationalist candidates, contributed generously out of their pux.se, because it is no secret that the lists of subscriptions to the

elector-all funds of the candidates I have alluded to, have been filled with the names of the most eminent among the leaders of the Conservative party.
The position taken by the representatives of the people in this House is none of my concern. By their electors will they be judged. I would however render a public homage to him, who, faithful to his convictions, preferred to resign his office of minister of the Crown:	I allude to the late
lamented Hon. F. D. Monk, ex-Min-ister of Public Works.
Never did I receive greater pleasure from any statement in this House than I did when the Prime Minister (R. L. Borden) loyally declared that in resigning, the Hon. Mr. Monk was actuated by sentiments of high honour. My object in this is not to flatter the Prime Minister, but because I recognize in him, and gladly so, a man of loyalty, honesty and distinction.
The more readily do I call attention to those qualities of the hon. the Prime Minister, qualities that distinguish the true statesman, as I did not join the group who one day started a movement in Israel and who led by wise and prudent councillors, came to Moses and requested that he no longer be chief of the tribe, because he could not lead them soon -enough to the Promised Land, the land of power.
The hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) appealed the other evening to the Postmaster General and to the -Government to suppress 'Le Devoir.
The hon. member for Frontenac, has stated, if my memory serves me rightly, that Le Devoir gave expressions to pro-Ge.rman sentiments. I -do not know whether the- hon. member for Frontenac has Tea-d the articles of Le Devoir in the original or if his information is' gathered from worthless, unfair and incorrect translations circulated in certain parts of the country, but I am in a position to state that since ith-e birth of Le Devoir never was a line or -a word written in its -columns, which directly or indirectly could be interpreted by any intelligent and fair-minded reader as expressing any wish on the part of the paper or its editor other than the complete victory of the Allies over Germany. Whosoever states otherwise has been misinformed by malicious people or by persons whose knowledge of one of the two official languages of the country is defective.
For my hon. colleague's satisfaction, I hunted up precedents and found an analogous case. I will tell him how and why 
over half a century ago, a French-Canadian paper was suppressed. It is to-day the same story. It happened about the year 1806, under Governor Craig. An English newspaper of Quebec, the Mercury, thought fit to persist in wanton attacks on the French-Canadian inhabitants. The following is a sample:-
This province is still too French for a British colony. Whether at peace or at war, it is necessary for us to put forth all possible efforts to put -a stop to the Increase, of the Frenchspeaking population and to their influence. It is but just that after a possession extending over lortjy-seven years, this province be a British province.
In order to meet the attacks of the Mercury, a newspaper edited in French was founded at, Quebec under the name of Le Ganadien. Its founder and editor wias Mr. Pierre Bedard, member of the Legislative Assembly and at that time the recognized political leader of French Canada. The Governor had taken upon himself to differ from the popular assembly, which desired to debar judges and public officials from sitting in Parliament. Because of its criticism of the Gov-emor'-s position, Le Oanadien was suppressed by the high official's order, and its editor Pierre Bedard was sent to jail along with Tasehereau and Blan-ehet, who were suspected of having something to do with the paper. Panet, Bedard and Tasehereau were deprived of their -military rank and expelled from the militia, just the same treatment as the hon. member for Frontenac would have Mr. Armand Lavergne submitted to. The dispute, however, was carried to London, and the Colonial Office sided with the assembly and censured the Governor. The Solicitor-General of the United Kingdom e-ven said that the suppression of a paper on similar grounds would not -have been tolerated in England. The prisoners were set at liberty and Bedard was later on appointed a judge of the Superior Court at Three Bivers in which office he -continued to -serve his country loyally.
Should perchance the hon. -member for Frontenac -succeed in having Le Devoir suppressed, i-t Sis very likely (that we should have to go back to England to be taught again the true meaning of free speech.
In reading over that article in "the Mercury, written over a century ago, one is struck with the analogy between the pretentions of certain bigoted groups of that period and the nightmares that constantly haunt the brain of my hon. friend the member for Frontenac and his undying

fear that a French-Canadian republic will one day flourish on the shores of the St. -Lawrence and the Ottawa.
My English-speaking fellow-countrymen, for whom I have much regard and esteem, will allow me to tell them that among my compatriots 'the idea is prevalent that not a majority, but a considerable number among themselves, desire ardently the complete stamping out of the French language in Canada. They are wrong, M-r. Speaker. Instead of seeing in the French language a menace to Canadian nationality, they should on the contrary look upon it as an element of strength. The expanse of our great country is sufficient to allow the descendants of ithe two great races, (French and English, to llive side by side, pursuing their respective ideals, exercising their respective genius, working toward the same goal which is the greatest good of the nation, in accordance with those principles of equity and justice bequeathed us by the Fathers of Confederation.
It must, of course, he acknowledged that we have outdistanced our fellow-countrymen of British origin in the natural growth of our population. This would indeed be an inopportune time to blame us for this fecundity, when in many countries, notably in the United States, race suicide is branded as a plague.
The dream was entertained in certain quarters that one day we 'ooiulld Ibe sruib-imenged under the waives of an tadisorilmimaite immigration. Experience shows that your national characteristics brought into close contact with this cosmopolitan element, hastily assimilated, have suffered thereby, while ours have remained absolutely unimpaired.
Can we, I repeat, he blamed for having stood these bard tests? Some amihnigst you had been led to . believe that a race can be pent up in a reserve as Indians, and that its rights and privileges disappear as soon as it transgresses its confines.
The French race in America is too deeply rooted in the very soil of the country to allow for a single moment of the thought that it -can be uprooted or its growth in the least (Stunted.
The task may be likened to an attempt to check the natural growth of a giant tree by the building of >a stone wall. You may perhaps encroach somewhat on its shade, but its roots will interwine underneath; you may lop off its branches and cut away its boughs, still they will grow, because the sap in its arteries flows from below abundant and full of life, and some day overcoming the obstacle its branches will shoot upwards interlocked in a victorious embrace.
Our English-speaking colleagues in the House of Commons, whom I hold in high esteem, are poorly acquainted, in my opinion, with the French population of Quebec and little understand its aspirations. They believe they can safely judge our people from the occasional politicians they meet, who for the most part, in their anxiety for poweT, are poor exponents of the true sentiments of the people. They believe they know us from reading with complacency in certain of our newspapers the flattery which is dosed out to them in proportion to the pittance allowed to that press by the Government. In those papers, more harmful than beneficial to their compatriots, the leading articles seem to have been written with a fork on an over-full bread-pan. Behind the noise of their loud but hollow patriotism, is generally esconeed the mean selfishness of their shareholders.
If you would know the French-Canadian, dig down into the deep layers of the population, come to him, llive his life. Some English-speaking members of this House, among others the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) have been in close touch with the French-Canadian and they bear witness to the fact that he is respectful of the rights of minorities and deals out equal justice to all.
Our ambition, Mr. Speaker, is not to grow beyond bounds nor take a dominant position in the country. We ratheT aspire to improve our position in our sphere, to develop according to our ideals and in harmony with our English-speaking fellow-citizens, provided we aTe allowed a living place under the sun. We wish above all to continue to deserve the praise, of which we are proud, that of all the Canadian provinces, the province of Quebec has best of all understood and lived up to the basic principles of Confederation.	__
Now, Mr. Speaker, a further word, on an important statement contained in the speech of His Royal Highness. The Government purposes to apply to the Imperial Parliament for an amendment of the Canadian Constitution (allowing the House to sit beyond the legal term without an appeal to the electorate.
I, for one, am absolutely opposed to the suggestion. I can see no reason that justifies such a radical change in our Constitution. The reason is put forward that a general election in Canada would imply

certain hardships for the Empire. Since the war, Cape Colony and Australia have held their general elections. The Empire is none thet worse for it and has made no complaint.
Only a few months ago, the hon. the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) thought it in the country's interest to have polling booths in the trenches in Flanders. To-day, for motives of his own, elections are no longer desirable. As for me, it is my opinion that the proposed amendment is a mere expedient and that the true motive for the Government not wishing to account to the people, must be found in the fear of the coming day when, in the English-speaking provinces as well as in Quebec, there will stand revealed before the electors the political combination which has been in existence for the last five years, whereby representatives elected on platforms diametrically inconsistent have made an alliance in order to share the power and its spoils.
At any rate, Mr. Speaker, so far as I am concerned, above the Canadian Parliament, above even the Imperial Parliament, I recognize the sovereignty of the people. I have been elected by the people for five years, and whatever be the laws that may be passed, you shall, Mr. Speaker, at the expiration of those five years, receive my resignation as member for the county I have the honour to represent.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):: Mr. Speaker, it affords me pleasure, in my capacity as a humble member of this House and as a former occupant of the Speaker's chair, to congratulate you upon ybur appointment to that higher office. You have reached this position at a ooim-para/tlively early :aige, and Hhlave no dbrulblt, judlging by the evidence that has already been furnished to the House during the short time you have occupied that position, that you will maintain the high traditions of your position.
We are called' together in a session of more than ordinary importance. The country at this time is passing through a>
critical period. Never, perhaps, in its history has Canada been called upon to bear the burdens, that are now placed upon it. It is bearing those burdens cheerfully, and it will dio its duty, I have no doubt, to the extent that is required and expected of it.

Canada is the premier nation of the1 British dominions, and as such it has thrown upon it a responsibility which it should not neglect. If the Government gauged properly the public opinion of this country at the outbreak of hostilities precisely eighteen months ago to-day, when Germany invaded Belgium and Luxembourg, it was fortunate at that time in having at the head of the Liberal1 party and' of His Majesty's loyal Opposition in this House, a1 statesman of the high standing, the long experience, the wise views, and the exalted patriotism of the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) who now leads the Opposition. y Peopled as this country is by those of various origins, various creeds, various nationalities, working out together the .salvation of this country on lines that appeal to the majority, what would have been our position during the last eighteen months had the right 'hon. leader of the Opposition sought to adhere to the letter rather than to the spirit of our Canadian Constitution? Had he taken the view that was laid clearly before this House this afternoon by my hon. friend from Nicolet (Mr. Lamarche), that Canadians had no obligations to the Empire beyond the limits of Canada, that Canada's duties had been clearly laid- down in the Militia Act by the old legislature of Canada, confirmed by the British North America Act, what would have Ibeein the position df Canada to-day in the eyes of the Empire and of the world? We should have been rent into two camps, one for and the other against participation in this great war. Fortunately, the right hon. gentleman, with his views, which are well known in this House and in this country, did not hesitate for one moment to declare that the Government had his entire approval in the action it had taken-with, of course, the customary reserve only that a leader of the Opposition must take.
Eighteen months have elapsed since Germany began this terrible war, the worst in all history. What crimes has she not committed since that time! The world stands appalled, aghast; mankind is staggered by what has been accomplished in eighteen months. The audacity of the Hun knows no limit, as we see illustrated in what we learn to-day, that a captured vessel has reached the shores of America all the way from Africa. Those who have followed history somewhat closely are aware that the course that Germany has followed has been of long preparation. I well remem-

ber, being then about ten years of age, when the terrible conflict was waged between France and Prussia in 1870. That was the beginning of the laying of the foundation of the present great crisis. France at that time Ihfad ait its heaid, unfortunately, the liaistt of the Bonapartes, a man who was seeking more the interests of his dynasty and the repelling of the advancing tide of republicanism in France than the stabilities of the nation. He threw France headlong into the unfortunate war of 1870, when everything failed except the courage of the French soldier and the heroism of the French nation. The courage of France in *the days from July to September, .and the heroic defence put up by her under the inspiring genius of Gambetta and others, is now a matter of history. But the abandonment of France at that critical moment by the nations of Europe, and unfortunately by the British Empire, enabled Germany to take the first great step in the vain attempt she is now repeating at mastery extending not over Europe only but over the whole world. France was crushed, and Germany kept on in her attempt to achieve what Caesar failed to achieve, what Alexander failed to achieve, what Napoleon himself failed to achieve, and what William'll will certainly fail to achieve.
The position of the Canadian people was that of a law-abiding, peace-loving group of citizens, British subjects, inhabiting a country far removed from the scene of conflict. In our own province of Quebec we have led the pastoral life as our fathers did before us, and as I hope our people will do again when this terrible conflict has been put an end to and peace has been finally achieved. The outbreak was terrible; it was as sudden as it was unexpected. It was so unexpected that when it occurred the president of the French Republic and the premier of that country were absent from France upon an official visit to Russia. The crime committed at Serajevo, in Herzegovina, on the 23rd of June, led to the ultimatum by which Austria gave Serbia forty-eight hours to submit to the most humiliating conditions ever placed before a free nation. Then followed the precipitation of Germany in insisting that the conflict be limited to Austria against this small a i*l weak nation, while heT refusal to consider Serbia's offer to submit the question of dispute to any impartial tribunal or to any otheT nation in Europe, showed the evident purpose of
the Germanic military power to bring on this conflict.
The conflict has been described in this House graphically and eloquently Iby both leaders." Other speakers before me, not [DOT] only this session, but last session, and in the session of August before that, have said all that can be .said on that subject. My principal object in rising to-night is to repel some of the aspersions which have been castt on |that unfortunate province from which I come. I wish to -say a word for the province of Quebec during the . present crisis. Not that that is particularly required, because the loyalty of the province of Quebec goes far back in the history of this country. It seems to be unknown to many that even as far back as 1763, less than a year after the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, which handed oveT half this North American continent to the British Grown, General Murray organized in Quebec a regiment of French 'troops, recruited in Montreal, Three Rivers and Quebec, for the purpose of patrolling and establishing law and order in the wilderness which is now the great province of Ontario. This French regiment, organized by General Murray and commanded by one of his officers, was charged, within a year of the territory coming into British possession, with the pacification of this immense country. This . means, as every school-boy knows, that from the start the French, who had been loyal to the Crown of France .so	long as the
flag of France floated over this country, transferred their allegiance from France to England, as if by magic. It was in 1763, therefore, that the French people of Quebec were first called upon to assist the British Crown in Canada. It seems a waste of time to recall these things now, but it is just as well that I should mention them after hearing the frank and honest statement made this afternoon by the hon. member for Nieolet. Unfortunately, it may not have been understood by the majority of hon. gentlemen in this House, who, I am sorry to say, have still many things to learn so far as the French language is concerned. In 1763 Governor Murray resorted to the French pioneers of this country to maintain British rule in Canada. In 1776, thirteen years later-it seems incredible-the British authorities m this country called upon the French-Cana-dians to save what remained of British rule in North America from the English-speaking subjects of His Majesty the King of

England in open rebellion in the States to the south. In this you have the second evidenee of the loyalty of the people of Quebec to the British Crown. In 1812 they were again called upon to stand by British institutions, this time not against British subjects in rebellion, but against American revolutionists who invaded this country. They took Montreal almost by magic, and were preparing to capture the whole of the province of Quebec, when they were held up at Chateauguay by DeSalaberry, as Brock held them back at Queenston in Upper Canada, Ontario having by this time secured a sufficiently large number of United Empire Loyalists to do its share in accomplishing what the French of Lower Canada had done in previous years. In 1776, when Montreal fell, and became a prey to the American army, a couple of Canadians, De Lanaudiere and Bouchette, took Guy Carleton, the English Governor, in a canoe down the St. Lawrence to the city of Quebec, placed him in the fortress of Quebec, and with their countrymen surrounded the fortress and the British flag, and saved the British Dominion when the gallant Montgomery and his American troops invaded and climbed the citadel and fell with the snowflakes which descended on that fateful Christmas night.
In 1885 the province of Quebec was put to another test, a test which was, perhaps, even more severe than the ones which I Wave mentioned, because the people were far removed from the early days of conflict. Many citizens of Quebec had left that province to settle in the northwestern part of the country. The members of this House from the northwestern provinces will be the first to recognize the value of the French Canadian pioneer in the Northwest. A year or two ago I had the pleasure of visiting at St. Boniface the oldest priest in the world, a man ninety-four years of age. I had the pleasure of meeting near the Archbishop's palace an old nun ninety-two years of age. They had gone to the Northwest, not in a Pullman car, not on the double tracks of our Canadian railways, but in a birch-bark canoe. They had gone there in the old days when the Northwest was first opened up to settlement, and, like Lord Selkirk's early pioneers, had implanted the seed of what has now become the great West of Canada. In 1885 there broke out, in-the Northwest an unfortunate rebellion. Many of the leaders who participated in this rebellion were of French origin; most of them were

descendants of people of the province of Quebec. Naturally the sympathies of the province of Quebec went out to these people of their own blood and kin. They had heard that these men had grievances which had not been remedied; and the sentiment of the people naturally sided with those who had grievances to lay at the foot of the Throne. But when open rebellion broke out, when these people in the Northwest made an attack upon the British flag and upon the constituted authorities in that part of the country, the people of the province of Quebec, the boys of the 65th Battalion of Montreal, led by a former Speaker 0f the Bouse, amid toy Major Dugiais, who was known to the bulk of the people in the Northwest, and the 9th Battalion of Quebec, went gallantly to their duty, to fight thieir own countrymen, men of their own kin, in upholding British institutions and British law and order in this country. General Strange, who led these boys, related later how cheerfully they assumed the task which had been laid upon them; how they sang their rollicking songs-those songs that the old chasseurs, the old pioneers, the old missionaries in other days listened to with so much delight, and which were so characteristic of the early development of this country-how cheerfully these boys pulled the cannon through the muskegs, and finally got into the western prairies 'anid reached tilhe scene of conflict. That was the last instance upon which the French in Quebec were called upon to give any evidence of their active participation in warfare.
Then this great war broke out, and a hostile attack was made upon France, our former mother country; France, who has done so much for this country, who has left here the imprint of 'her genius; France, who left in this land 60,000 settlers, who now number nearly two millions of people, scattered broadcast over the continent. You will find them from the Arctic ocean to the gulf of Mexico, and from the Atlantic to the Pacific; you will find them in all callings, from the humblest to the highest.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, to the credit of the English-speaking majority of the Canadian people, that the French were able at one time to produce a citizen who could occupy the position of the King's first adviser in this Dominion of Canada. When this war broke out we in the province of Quebec had a double object in view. We saw that France was about to be crushed;

we realized that the elimination of France from the map of Europe and from the civilization of the world would be a misfortune which no one would recognize more readily than those of the English-speaking race. We felt Wat if England were attacked we were attacked; that the defeat of England meant the defeat of Canada, and that there was nothing to do but to go into the conflict. We are in the conflict now, we are in it for good, and we are in it to win.	.
Some difficulty was experienced in the province of Quebec with! regard to recruiting, and upon this point I wish to say a few words. The hon. member for Nicolet this afternoon, in the frank and honest statement which he gave to the House, related one of the causes of the difficulties which have been experienced in connection with recruiting in the province of Quebec. He described very clearly and in a very interesting manner the history of the Nationalist movement in this country. He read a resolution that was adopted at a large meeting at St. Eustache, in the county of Two idountains. The late Mr. Monk commanded the honour and respect of all members of this .House, no matter what their political opinions were. If nothing else could be said of Mr. Monk than that he resigned his office on a question of principle, Ihe would be entitled to respect. The. statement which yras made this afternoon gave us an idea of the difficulties that we have to contend with now so far as recruiting in the province of Quebec is concerned. The Nationalist movement was conceived with	the	idea	of being
the antithesis of the Imperialist idea. The Imperialist idea is that a subject of the British Crown in Canada is a subject of the Empire at large; that what strikes the Empire strikes Canada; that the duty of a British subject in Canada is the duty of a British subject in the Empire; that the defence of the Empire is a duty imposed on the citizens of Canada. That is the Imperialist idea.	The Nationalist
idea is that Canadian British subjects have no duty towards the Empire outside of Canada. The hon. member for Nicolet very clearly defined this. As he read in French the resolution adopted at St. Eustache, which explained the last campaign carried on in the province of Quebec, I shall give this resolution in English, so that out English-speaking friends can understand better the basis of the alliance that was formed during the last campaign,
in 1911, between the Nationalists and the Conservative wing of that party. The village of St. Eustache seems to have been happily chosen for the place of inauguration of this movement. It is situated in the riding of Two Mountains, represented by my hon. friend (Mr. Ethier). It is an historical point in the province of Quebec. Its old church still stands, bearing the scars of the British cannon which fired bullets against it in 1837, when the patriots of that period were fighting for the institution in Canada of responsible government. Canada is pretty well agreed to-day that th-e action taken at that time was inspired by high motives, and the course of the men who sought in the province of Quebec to obtain by means of arms-and in this many of them gave up their lives-what they had failed to obtain by constitutional methods, has been ratified by the judgment of history. Those who study the past of the French race in this country, who read the lives of Lafontaine and Cartier, will find in the lives of these men, in their actions, in their work, the germs of the inauguration of responsible Government and British institutions in Canada. This village of St. Eustache was chosen by Mr. Monk and his followers, some of whom are now advisers of the Crown in this House, for the inauguration of this campaign.
Mr. Bourassa has just published in the province of Quebec a book entitled, " What do we owe to England?" It has not yet had the honour of a translation into English, but I suppose we shall soon see it translated into that language, when our English-speaking friends will have an opportunity of better understanding the position taken by Mr. Bourassa as explained this afternoon by the hon. member for Nicolet. Mr. Bourassa explains in this book that at the time of the adoption by this House of the Naval Bill, which I had the honour of putting to the House, and which was adopted nemine contradicente, Mr. Monk was not present in his seat. He afterwards declared in the House that bad he been present he would have called for a division; but Mr. Monk, having been in failing health, had gone for a trip to the United States, and, on his return, Mr. Bourassa explains to us, he waited upon Mr. Bourassa and asked him to join him in this Nationalist campaign against this Government's naval proposition. Mr. Bourassa explained that he was willing to go into the campaign provided that certain guarantees were given to him that the

policy of both political parties would be attacked; that the policy of the Liberal party he condemned outright and that he condemned the policy of the other party as none the less nefarious-both the policy of a Canadian navy and the policy of contribution. For this reason he wanted to have his position clearly stated, and he requested the privilege of drafting himself the resolution which was to form the programme and the policy of this new party, to which the hon. member for Nicolet told us this afternoon twenty members now sitting in this House owe their election in the province of Quebec.
This resolution, adopted in the historical village of St. Eustache, on classic ground, at a large meeting attended by prominent men, some of whom are now ministers of the Crown, others of whom are simple supporters of the Administration, it is well worth while to read and to give a moment's attention to. It will enable me to show the difficulties that we have had to contend with in the province of Quebec, when one of the great political parties of Canada, as far as they could possibly do so, instilled into the minds of the people of the province of Quebec, who are not a warlike people by any means, the doctrine that they owed no duties to the British Crown outside of' Canada-that it was so stated in the British North America Act and in the Militia Act. That is precisely the position that Colonel Lavergne now takes-that, though he is now a member of the militia of Canada, he has no duty to perform outside of Canada. Let me read the resolution:
We, citizens of Canada, faithful subjects of His Majesty, King George V, declare that we are prepared at the cost of our lives to defend the soil of our country and the rights of the British Crown in Canada, as our fathers did in 1776 against the English subjects of His Majesty, in .1812 against the armies of the American Republic, and as we did in 1885 against our own fell'ow-citizens in rebellion.
Confiding in the grandeur and efficiency of the principles of decentralization and in the autonomy solemnly proclaimed and recognized for more than half a century by the authorities of Great Britain and. of Canada, we are opposed to any new policy which would carry us into faraway wars foreign to Canada, as long, especially, as the autonomous colonies of the Empire do not share with the Mother Country on a footing of equality, the sovereign authority vested in the army and in the Imperial Navy, the treaties of peace and of alliance, foreign relations, the Government of India and of the possessions of the Crown.
We believe sincerely that this policy of concentration and apparent Imperial unity, of which the new naval law is hut the first instalment, will produce in the heart, even of the Empire, misunderstandings, rivalries and conflicts which
	!	.	:	j|
will endanger the peace and the union of the various countries and the people of all races, who to-day are proud to obey the English Crown.
Never having been for Great Britain or for the Empire the cause of any conflict, we believe that a policy of peace and of moral and material development is necessary in Canada for its growth and its cohesion and further for the glory and security of the Empire.
Free citizens of a democratic country, we claim the right of expressing openly our opinion on this question, as well as on all others which affect the fate and the interest of Canada. We recognize to the majority of the Canadian people the right to determine upon any new policy in our relations with the other parts of the Empire, provided that they act in full knowledge of what they are doing.
But we protest against all attempts to remove this grave problem from the free deliberation of the whole of the Canadian people and of each of the groups which compose it.
We disavow the declaration made in Toronto in December last by Mr. Alexandre Taschereau, Provincial Minister of Public Works, who pretended falsely that the people of Quebec are ready to accept blindly any policy of naval defence of the Empire, and we blame the members of the Government and of the legislature of the province who ratified this declaration by their vote on the second of June last.
We blame the Dominion ministry and the Parliamentary majority who imposed upon Canada this new naval law, launched Canada in the vortex of militarism, denounced erstwhile with so much energy by Sir Wilfrid Daurier, endangered the peace of Canada and diverted toward the construction of murderous engines and bloody war, military preparations, millions destined to the development of agriculture and of onr transportation routes.
We condemn equally the attitude of Mr. Borden and the members of the Opposition, who, following him, have asked for the adoption of a policy none the less nefarious.
We affirm that Parliament has no right to pledge the future of Canada in a policy which has never been submitted to the people who are called upon to pay the tribute of blood and to hear the yoke of military expenditures.
We approve without reserve, the courageous and loyal conduct of Mr. Monk and of the few members who have remained faithful to their mandate, who have pointed out the dangers of this policy and claimed for the people of Canada the right to express their will before their representatives imposed upon it this heavy burden.
This is the charter, these are the conditions under which was born the so-called Nationalist party. The Conservatives of the province of Quebec had, at that moment, given up all hepe of overturning the Liberal Administration which had done so much for Canada. Seeing that there was a majority among the'people of the province of Quebec favourable to reciprocity, and-that there was no hope of overbalancing the scale otherwise, they resorted to this policy.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I love free debate; I love free discussion; I would not be a
(

Liberal if I did not stand for free speech. This question of the participation of Canada in the wars of the Empire is a question which every Canadian has a right to decide for himself. That is the stand we have taken in this country; that is the stand that the Liberal party has taken; and I am sure that it is the stand the majority of the people of Canada will take, because we want Canada to remain during the war, as she was before the war, a free country where all stand equal, and where the . right of free speech is untrammelled. But, being of that mind, that sentiment, and that spirit, we of the Liberal party did not hesitate to go to our compatriots in the province of Quebec to ask them to overlook the letter to be found in the Militia Act and in the British North America Act; to overlook the stand which was taken in the past by Cartier and Lafontaine, by Macdonald and by Campbell, as cited by my hon. friend from Nicolet, and by Sir John A. Macdonald himself in the early days of Canada. Then Canada did not have the population it has to-day; she did not have the resources she has to-day; she did not have cast upon her the responsibilities which she has to-day. In those days the people of Canada did well by the Empire in defending the integrity of this country, in developing its resources, in opening up its immense avenues for the increase of the population. We were contributing towards the Empire.
But on the fourth day of August, when Great Britain entered this war, she entered not an ordinary war like that of the Soudan, when Sir John A. Macdonald refused to Canadians the right to participate. At that time Sir John was probably fully justified. In that and other wars, there was no reason why Canada should participate. The doctrine that when Britain is at war Canada is at war is good in principle, but it is not always necessary to put it into practice. But in this war, when the principles of humanity were at stake, when civilization itself was threatened to be turned back a thousand years, when the Huns, as the Germans are so properly described by Kipling-though in the past Germany has given great things to civilization-when the Germans had so far forgotten themselves as to do what they have done within the past few months, there was no other duty laid upon the people of this country than to assume their share of the burden. We have assumed that share. The right hon. the leader of the Liberal party went to his countrymen in the city of Montreal and
opened a campaign of recruiting. He had with him on that occasion some of his former colleagues, and others, including the present Postmaster General (Hon. T. Chase Casgrain), They had to reason with some of the French Canadian people because of this doctrine which the Nationalist party had instilled into the minds of the people of Quebec, that they had no duties to perform towards the British Crown outside the limits of the province of Quebec. We have to contend with that argument to-day.
My hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) attended a meeting the other night in the Monument National, one of the largest buildings in Montreal, for the purpose of helping Major Asselin of the 150th Battalion, which is largely recruited, I must say, from the ranks of the Nationalist party, to appeal to French Canadian youth. Mr. Bourassa and those who accompany him are all clever men; those of the Nationalist party who occupy seats in this House have shown that they are clever men; and I hope that before this debate finishes they will give an instance of what they can do in this House compared with what they aTe able to do on platforms in the province of Quebec. Major Asselin appealed to the audience in Montreal for recruits for his battalion.	He
declared that he himself had been the founder of the Nationalist party. Major Asselin was the man who, in 1903, established the Nationalist party.	Its
principles summarized were three- autonomy in Canada, the autonomy of the province within the Dominion; and complete liberty in all matters affecting the Empire. That, in substance, was the programme of the Nationalist party.
When Major Asselin addressed the meeting in Montreal, he was interrupted repeatedly by many young Nationalists in the audience, who offered objections which he had to answer. The first and chief objection was to be found in the speeches in support of this resolution, and this resolution, from what Mr. Bourassa says in his book, was Supported by Mr. Nantel, a former Minister of the Crown], by Mr. Coderre, an ex-Minister of the Crown; by the present Secretary of State (Mr. Blon-din,), by the present Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Patenaude), by the members for L'Islet (Mr. Paquet), Montmagny (Mr. L'Esperanee), Chamibly-Vercheres (Mr. Rainville), Yamaska (Mr. Mondou), by the leader of the present Opposition in the province of Quebec, Mr. Cousineau, - and



by Mr. Sauve, the Conservative member for Two Mountains. This was the stand tgken by these gentlemen at that time. They may say that the times have changed-, and that they have reasons now why they should join the majority of the Canadian people, because the majority of the people support Canada's participation in this war. But they have not said so yet. In, the splendid speech, which I am sure was a treat to the House, delivered here the other evening by the hon. member for Kamour-aska (Mr. Ernest Lapointe) they were invited to explain their position, and I think they owe it to themselves, to this House, to the electors of their, province, and to the electors of the Dominion, not to allow the province of Quebec to lie under a false imputation in the crisis through which we are passing.
Major Asselin, I am sorry to say, had to meet another objection relating to the province of Ontario-and here, in the city of Ottawa, I know I am treading on dangerous ground. But, Mr. Speaker, I wish you to realize that I am sincere when I state that I want England to win this war, because the victory of Britain means the salvation of Canada, while the defeat of Britain would be our ruin. We are here to advise and support the Ministry in its war measures. The speech from the Throne states that that is the chief object for which we have met, and it enunciates the ideas which prevail in connection with this war. I may as well read one or two paragraphs as ,an introduction to what I may have to say later. The concluding paragraph of the speech is this :
The high courage, the splendid heroism, and the unalterable determination which have marked the united efforts of all portions of His Majesty's Dominions, during a year of unprecedented strain and effort, justify our supreme confidence in the triumph of our cause and in lasting affirmation of the principles of liberty and justice throughout the world. I commend to your earnest consideration the measures which will be submitted to you for aiding in , the great purpose, and I pray that the Divine blessing may rest upon your counsels.
It is because I want th& province of Quebec to do its full share, as I know she will do once she realizes the gravity of the position-though I do not admit that up to the present she has not done all that was required of her-that I wish to convey to you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to the House, the difficulties we have to contend with. I have outlined the policy that was laid down by our opponents in the campaign of 1911. We have now to face another difficulty.
[[DOT]Mr. Marcil.j
The Nationalist party, and I must say that not only they, but the Legislature of the province of Quebec, the hierarchy of the province of Quebec, the newspapers of the province of Quebec, and the province of Quebec itself, rightly or wrongly-and I hope it is wrongly-are under the impression that there is a minority in the province of Ontario which is not being fairly treated. The province of Ontario is abundantly and well represented in this House. There are men in this House who can easily guide public opinion in the province of Ontario, and it is to them that I address my remarks in the hope that they will bring about some kind of settlement of this unfortunate state of affairs, so as to help us in the province of Quebec in the noble and patriotic work which we have undertaken of recruiting the quota which that province will contribute under fair conditions.
I do not want to say who is to blame in this unfortunate bilingual school question; for it is an unfortunate question, and should not exist in this free country of ours. I am told by some people that it is a question between the French and the Irish. I am free to speak for both, because, being 'a Frenchman by my father, I am also of Irish descent. My mother's parents came from Sligo in the North of Ireland, and Carrick-on-Suir in Tipperary. My grand-uncle, Edward Twomey, first representative of the county of Drummond in 1834 in the old legislature of Lower Canada, was the only Irishman who voted with Dr. O'Callaghan for the ninety-two resolutions presented by Papineau, upon which were based the constitutional institutions we now enjoy. I ask the Irish people to be merciful to the French, as they themselves have asked for mercy very often in their conflict, which I hope now is about ended. It was with pleasure that I'-saw yesterday that Ireland up to a day or two ago had given under the voluntary system -87,000 young Irishmen to the cause of liberty-given them freely under the inspiration of Redmond and of Carson, and of the orange, and of the green, to fight for the Empire. And in this contest we know that Ireland will do what she has always done, what the Scotch have done, and what the French Canadians will do if they are given an opportunity. The Irish people of this city and of this province-I will begin with them-should not forget what the French Canadians in the province of Quebec have done for the Irish people. The Irish people

48J
of Canada have had some worthy representatives in this House. The most eloquent man, probably, who was ever heard within these walls, Thomas D'Arcy McGee, and who o.n that memorable night in March, 1869, a few nmments before he fell under the cowardly bullet of an assassin, delivered one of those eloquent speeches which has given his name to history, and who spoke nearly opposite to where I stand now, was a representative of Montreal, and the French Canadians largely contributed to his election to this House. The present Chief Justice of Canada, Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, who represented the county of Quebec, and who at that time was by long odds the foremost Irishman in Canada, as he is to-day one of the best-I do not want to hurt the feelings of others-was elected to this House for many long years by the French county of Quebec, in which there were very few Irish people. Mr. Justice Curran, who represented Montreal Centre, and was the champion of the Irish people for a decade in this House, was the bosom friend of the French element of his division. These are the facts we have to submit for the consideration of the Irish people of this city and province. Let me go a step further back, to 1848, when Ireland presented one of the most pitiful chapters in her history, when those who had to leave the old soil through famine came up the St. Lawrence, after many long and weary weeks of sailing, and became the pioneers of many Irish families in this country. Many never went beyond Grosse Isle, where they were ministered to by that humble young priest of that day, Abbe Taschereau, who subsequently became the first cardinal prince of his church in Canada. These are things which Irishmen in the province of Ontario should not forget, and I speak to them as one of their own.
Is there not some way of bridging over .this difficulty? Is there not some way in which the Conservative party of Ontario can give us a hand in this matter, and put an end to this state of affairs, under which mothers of families have to spend nights guarding a. school down in Lower Town, and two or three thousand children troop to the City Hall clamoring for their teachers to be paid. The hon. member for Nicolet (Mr. Lamarche) represented the extreme views of the province of Quebec. I ask again is there no way of bridging over this difficulty?
I hear the pretence made, and the argument set forth, that this is an Englishspeaking province. So much the better.
31 i
I know enough of the spirit of the English people, and enough of the principles of the British constitution, to know that there is no injustice that can not be remedied under British rule. Those who imagine that British rule in Canada can be maintained only by the existence of one language,, are far from the mark. In Phillips square^ in the city of Montreal, one of the noblest, monuments of our city is erected to King. Edward VII. the Peacemaker. He was imbued with the true spirit of the British constitution, and, like many of his nationality and spirit, had a broad conception of the-duties which kings and statesmen and public men have to fulfil. Parliaments-exist for the purpose of solving difficulties.. We are here not to increase the difficulties and dissensions among the various classes of the Canadian people, but, if possible, by all means to promote their happiness and prosperity. We want this young nation to rest upon a solid basis, and to stand for all time to.come. We want to be imbued with the true spirit which animated the fathers and upholders of the British constitution. We do not want it to be said that we of the province of Quebec alone uphold the true spirit of the British constitution. We saw how King Edward VII. brought about, the entente cordiale between France and England. Dear knows they had been wide apart for many centuries. They had waged war upon each other, and each in its own. sphere had battled for the mastery of the world. England obtained final success in commerce, in trade, in navigation, in, colonization, and in the dissemination, of civilization throughout the world.
But there was one thing which she could: never wrest from the French nation and which remains until to-day in the city of Paris, la ville lumifere, that it remains the-city of light, the home of art, of literature, of science, of refinement, of all that is agreeable to those who love civilization and the.-higher products of the human mind,
Edward VII, at whose picture, which adorns these walls, I often gaze during these debates, laid the basis of the present great fight which is being put up by the Allies. After the defeat of France in 1870, when she had been crushed, and the German Emperor had been able, in the palace at Versailles, to place upon his head the crown of the emperors of Germany, when he went back and created the North German Confederation for the sole purpose of [DOT] obtaining a mastery of the world, which he could not have obtained except by wrest-
4S4

ing from Albion the sceptre which she 'held, Edward VII, with his foresight, saw that the future of the British Empire rested on the bringing about of an understanding with France, and he accordingly laid the basis of the present agreement between those two great nations. Why cannot the same thing be done in Canada on a smaller scale? Why cannot the French-Canadian -children in the province of Ontario be allowed to learn French, as our boys and girls . are bound to learn English? I have often wondered what would happen in this House if vthe fifty French members from the province [DOT]t*f Quebec were to exercise the privilege which the constitution confers upon them of addressing this House in the French language, of carrying on their business in the French language, of presenting their motions in the French language, and so on. I know, that the majority in this House appreciate the act of courtesy that the majority of our French members perform every time they rise, with, some misgivings, to speak a language with which they are not perfectly familiar. We want all Canadians, as far as possible, to know two languages. Canadians on the battlefields *of Europe have shown that on the average each of them is worth two men. I would like the average Canadian to be worth at least one man, and there is no educated man in Europe to-day, or .even in the United States, but boasts of two languages. Some time ago, merely for the purpose of information, I wrote to the ministers of the various provinces of Canada to ascertain to what extent the speaking of French was being carried on in this country. The Minister of Education for British Columbia replied that it was treated >ais a foreign language-'that the students of the higher schools could learn Greek, or German, or French. I suppose the German language will be discarded after this, and Greek is somewhat out of date. But how useful our friends from British Columbia will find the French language when they go .abroad, and I know that the people of that province are of a high class, who have travelled and who appreciate a good thing when they see it.
I have ascertained that in the Northwest Provinces the people are getting on fairly well by an understanding arrived at in 1903 by this Parliament. Jibe majority of this Parliament .wisely acceded to the request made by the minority to allow in Saskatchewan and Alberta a system which the people -bad found best suited to their

own purposes. As the sections 9 p.m. of the Northwest Territories Act in regard to the school question had been changed to suit the conditions prevailing there, this Parliament very wisely at the time when they granted the constitutions of Saskatchewan and Alberta, gave the minorities in those provinces the right to have the schools which they thought were best suited for them. In Manitoba-I do not dare ispeak of the school question, I have heard so much of it-an understanding was arrived at, and as it was not altogether acceptable to the minority, they were advised by His Holiness the Pope of Borne, a man who is competent to speak on such matters, to accept the share of justice given to them and to strive for more.
It is to the credit of the M'aritime provinces that they have produced in the educational line the foremost men in Canada. I shall only mention three: Sir-William Dawson, Principal Grant and Principal Falconer. Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia have long since removed from the arena the troubled question of education. They have come to a wise agreement among themselves on reasonable terms. In New Brunswick there are to-day 100,000 French-Canadians, or close on one-third of the population. The Englishspeaking people are leaving that province -I do not know why, because they have been favoured with all that is necessary to make it a prosperous country-but the lure of the West has taken away a large number of young men who may ultimately come back, I hope, wiser than when they left; but if they do not come back, others will be found from other parts of the Empire to take their places, because New Brunswick is destined to become one of the greatest provinces of the Dominion. In 1873, the unfortunate school question in New Brunswick was discussed in this House and a very stormy debate took place, but ultimately the people of New Brunswick, in their wisdom, came to an agreement oh the question. In Nova Scotia the same thing has happened.
I wish to repeat what the hon. member for Nicolet said of the Premier this afternoon. We respect the Premier of Canada; we know him to be an honest man; we know him to be a man of conviction and of principle. Of course, he is the leader of a great party and the leader does not always lead; he sometimes is the mouthpiece of his party. In this unfortunate school ques-

lion, which is a difficulty for us at the present moment as far as recruiting is concerned, I would ask him, if he were here to-night, to state to our friends of Ontario in a few words how this difficulty was bridged over in Nova Scotia, and the difficulty would be put an end to.
I have said that I do not intend to place the blame on any side. In all these controversies many things have been said on one side or the other which should not have been said; but, Sir, there is one thing that you cannot take away from a man, and that is what he has received from his mother. The French will continue to speak French no matter what legislation you pass. The same thing is the case in Scotland. In Wales the people are going back to Welsh. In the trenches the soldiers are creating a new language. In South Africa the Dutch are speaking their Dutch. Out of the four hundred million subjects of the British Empire, forty or fifty million speak English, while the other three hundred and fifty million speak the languages which are theirs, and the French of Quebec will continue to speak French. But we do not want this unfortunate state of affairs to continue, that one of the official languages in Canada is to be quarantined in the province of Quebec. Why should it be so? Is this official language, which extends through all parts of Canada, not to be recognized anywhere but in the province of Quebec? We should not forget that this is a federation of provinces. Each province has, it is true, within its own sphere, the rights allotted to it under the constitution; but there are things which provinces should do in the interest of the whole. The province of Quebec to-day is trying to overcome the objection laid before it of its men having to serve beyond the confines of the province in the interest of British institutions. We ask the people of Ontario if there is not a way by which this difficulty can be bridged over, and, if so, it will help us immensely in the province of Quebec.
I do not want to impose upon the good nature of the House, but there are words of wisdom to be found sometimes in these old Hansards, which we never read or do not read often enough.
Within a year of his death, Sir John A. Macdonald, the greatest man that the Conservative party ever produced in this country, the man who was truly, with Cartier, the architect of our Canadian federation, delivered a memorable address. This was one of the last important speeches that he
delivered in this House, and in it he bequeathes to Canadians of English or of French origin, of English or of French speech, a political testament which I should like to see treated after the old French fashion. In France, when an important speech is delivered it is ordered to be posted on the door of every mairie in France, so that every elector may be able to read it. This custom was established before the newspaper existed. If these words of Sir John
A.	Macdonald which I am about to quote were taken to heart by Canadians of English speech and by all inhabiting the several provinces, no such difficulty would exist as the one we have now to contend with. The quotation is a little longer than I am accustomed to make, but hon. members will see that the words are particularly applicable to the crisis through which we are now passing. I quote these words, not for the purpose of stirring up difficulty, but for the purpose of smoothing out difficulty, for the purpose of bringing about a better understanding among all Canadians, so that we may be able to fulfil our share of the great duty that rests upon all people of British allegiance. The occasion of Sir John A. Macdonald's speech was the bringing before the House by Mr. Dalton McCarthy, one of the brightest stars in the political firmament, of one of the most unfortunate questions which could he brought into debate. I must state in fairness to the House that it followed a very acute campaign which had been carried on in the province of Quebec following certain events in the Northwest Territories- The campaign in Quebec had its echoes in Ontario. Dalton McCarthy, not being able to attack the British North America Act and its guarantees, proposed to amend the Northwest Territories Act for the purpose of eradicating French from the journals of the legislature of the Northwest Territories. Sir John Thompson opposed it. The right hon. leader of the Opposition, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who was then in the House, naturally opposed It. Edward Blake, one of the great men of Ontario, and other leading men opposed it. They opposed it on patriotic grounds, on constitutional grounds, and in the interest of the country. They said that it was an unfortunate question to be taken up at that time. They took the very wise stand that in a few years from that time these territories would be formed into provinces and could then decide what was best in their own interest. This view prevailed in this House. These words of Sir John Macdonald's will remain

to his honour, and I want to read them in order to bring about, if possible, a better understanding:
It is quite true, as tile hon. member for Durham (Mr. Blake) said, that a small spark might kindle a great conflagration, and we will [DOT]be. wilfully, on. a question of sentiment-on a question of feeling, which does not deserve to be dignified by the name of sentiment-hazarding the future of the country, arousing the feelings of race against race which I hope had been for ever buried in 186T, and ruining the -credit of Canada in foreign countries. Aye, and in the Mother Country too. For, what cre-*dit can we, financially or otherwise, hope to obtain if it is known in England, if it is known [DOT]especially on the stock exchange-the most fearful and timorous of ail bodies-that the two races which inhabit Canada are drawn up against each other, on matters of sentiment, feelings and prejudice, which are more important and less easy to be soothed than mere material questions. It will stop the development of this country. It will prevent its future progress, and if this country should fall from the proud position it now holds in the eyes of the work1, it will be because by our own insensate conduct we have destroyed our credit, destroyed our prestige, and iu ned our future. In the few remarks I made the other might 1 intended to have called the attention of my hon. friends from the province of Ontario to what was the action of the province of Upper Canada in 1793, but I was tired, and held it over for another opportunity. I will call attention to it now, to show what was the feeling of the people of Upper Canada a century ago. By a very unwise measure, although introduced by a very great man, Mr. Pitt, in 1790, the old province of Quebec was divided into two-Upper and Lower Canada. It was thought that matters would be simplified by [DOT] keeping the French in one corner of this vast country, and the English in another, and they divided the province of Quebec into two provinces. From that unwise measure come most of our troubles. The legislature met in 1791 at Newark, afterwards Niagara, and was composed of Englishmen. They were severed from the French, but they had a colony of French on the western frontier of the province of Canada, what is now the county of Essex. These Frenchmen were few in number, but their rights were protected at the second meeting of the legislature of Upper Canada. The province was a small one and poor, and could not afford even to print the proceedings of its legislature ; but its people regarded the feelings of their fellow countrymen. Let me read the resolution, which is still in manuscript. The original volume will be found in our library. This is the order of June 3, 1793 :
" Ordered, that such Acts as have already passed, or may hereafter pass the legislature of this province, be translated into the French language for the benefit of the inhabitants of the western district of this province and other French settlers who may come to reside within this province, and that A. Macdonald, Esq., of this House, member for Glengarry county, be likewise employed as a French translator for this or other purposes."
Are we, one hundred years later, going to be less liberal to our Franch Canadian subects than the few Englishmen, United Empire Loyalists, who settled Ontario? No, Sir. This

resolution would cast shame on men who tried to deprive our French friends in the province of Ontario of the privilege given them a hundred years ago by a body of men altogether speaking the English language. There may have been among them one member from that western district, of French origin-perhaps Monsieur Baby-
Who, I believe, was an ancestor of the Postmaster General (Mr. Casgrain).
-who for years was the sole represntative in the province of Upper Canada of that portion of the French race who were living in Upper Canada. Are we going to be less liberal? Forbid it, Mr. Speaker, in the name of humanity, in the name of civilization, in the name of the progress of this great country, I appeal to all our friends in this House, without reference to party, to forget what may be an inconvenience when they go back to their constituents on both sides, to forget that for a moment, and to merge everything in the great desire to make Canada, French and English, one people, without any hostile feeling, without any difference of opinion, further than that which arises from the different literatures and the different strains of mind that run always in different races, and which severs the Scotchman and the Irishman from the Englishman as much as it severs the Frenchman from the Englishman Let us forget this cry, and we shall have our r ward in seeing this unfortunate Are, which has been kindled fiom so small a spark, extinguished for ever, and we shall go on, as we have been going on since 1867, as one people, with one object, looking to one fu ure and expecting to lay the foundation of one great country.
That, Mr. Speaker, was one of the last declarations made in this House by the man who was foremost among all the Conservatives that Canada ever produced. We are passing through a crisis at the present moment. We are passing through a critical period in history. I invite the members from Ontario to ponder these words of Sir John A. Macdonald. I ask those who are not of my own political persuasion if, in the interests of the Empire, whose success they have at heart, in the interests of our common country and of our common cause, which we want to see triumph, they can find a way out of this difficulty? I do not wish to trouble the House by reading the resolution of the Quebec Legislature on this subject, but I shall read the letter of the chief inspector of the Protestant schools in the province of Quebec, in which he declares that no difficulty of this kind has ever occurred in that province. Although some of my friends may have read this letter, I may as well give them the benefit of it; it may assist them in solving the difficulty. It is signed by J. C. Sutherland, Inspector of Public Protestant Schools in the province of Quebec, and dated December 23, 1915. It is a public letter headed, " Ontario School Question," and

addressed to the editor of the Quebec Chronicle:
Sir,-In the admirable letter of Mr. J. G. Scott to the Toronto Mail and Empire, reproduced in your columns a few days ago, there is only one very significant sentence. Mr. Scott asks:
"How would we feel if our instruction were not in English ? "
There are very few English-speaking people who realize that if the same principle of provincial control of education, and the same prejudice against the language of a minority, prevailed in this province as prevail in other provinces, the language of instruc.on in our Protestant school would he French and not English.
In the Dominion at large, as well as in some parts of our own province, it is not as well understood as it should be that we, the English minority of Quebec, enjoy almost absolute home rule in our educational affairs. The organization, discipline and administration of our schools are determined by regulations of the Protestant committee. It is that committee which decides what subjects and languages shall be taught in the Protestant schools. In the other provinces all these matters are subject to general school laws and to departmental regulations. Yet, as the Confederation debates of 1865 plainly show, the one anxiety of the Fathers of Confederation was to provide a safeguard in the constitution for the Protestant minority of Quebec. They alone were supposed to be in danger from the handing over of education to provincial control. Hence article 93 of the British North America Act-that article which has caused so much trouble in other provinces in the last 48 years, but which has never had to be invoked on behalf of the Protestant minority of Quebec. It is a " scrap of paper" which has been most honourably respected by the Roman Catholic majority of Quebec, and I think it is the just duty of us Protestants to frankly acknowledge the fact.
As one born and educated in Ontario, but for many years now a resident of this province,
I have long endeavoured to study this question with a spirit of detachment from local prejudices of any kind, and without losing any of my regard and appreciation of the great and progressive spirit of my native province, I hold that the chief source of difficulty in the ever recurring school question, in Ontario and other provinces which modelled their educational systems upon that of Ontario including all the western provinces, is the fact that the principle of centralization is carried too far. Curiously enough, in view of the World War, Ontario derived that principle of extreme centralization from Prussia. The founder of the school system of Upper Canada was Dr. Egerton Ryerson. When laying the foundations of the system and they were most noble in general, Ryerson visited various countries, being absent on this mission from November, 1844, to the early part of 1846. The Rev. Chancellor Burwash, in his life of Ryerson " Makers of Canada " series, says that Ryerson was chiefly impressed by three systems, those of Prussia, Ireland and Massachusetts, and that in "Prussia he had seen the advantages of strong and wise central direction and authority." (P. 168).
. But " strong " centralization of the Prussian model is too apt to develop into what is in
reality very un-democratic " stringency."
That is the position in which, we now stand. We want to place the province of Quebec where she should stand, where she has always stood and where she will stand as long as this country stands. And this country will stand as long as Quebec stands, because Quebec is the keystone of the arch of Canadian Confederation. Without Quebec there would never have been any Confederation, and the day that Quebec goes out of the Canadian Confederation will see the end of that Confederation. Quebec is the connecting link between the Maritime Provinces and the west of Canada. Providence has given over to the custody of French-Canadians in the province of Quebec the gateway into this great country.
I had the opportunity some weeks ago, in the Russell theatre, of addressing an immense meeting for the purpose of inviting French-Canadian citizens in Ottawa and vicinity to enlist in the 77th Battalion, which is now, I understand, recruited to its full strength. The invitation came to me from the Canadian club of Ottawa, and I accepted it. I learned with pleasure from Colonel Street that the enrolment from the French-Canadians of this city, notwithstanding the grievances which, rightly or wrongly, they now complain of, was sufficiently large to permit the formation of one whole French-Canadian company in this battalion. I was called upon that evening to speak in company with my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, whose eloquence this House is familiar with, and whose broad views are known on all these subjects. I felt at ease in speaking to my countrymen in this locality. By a strange circumstance, I had not spoken in the Russell theatre for eight years. Eight years ago, following an invitation which had been extended to me by His Excellency Lord Grey, I attended a meeting in the Russell theatre at which the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada was present. We had met that evening not for the purpose of speaking of war, not for the purpose of calling upon our countrymen to face the stern realities, of a serious conflict, not for the purpose of oalling upon every man to consider in his own conscience and in his own heart what were the duties that he owed to himself, to his family, to those that were dear to .him, to his country, and to the flag that protected him. We were met for the purpose of launching a movement which had for its object the perpetuation of the third centennial of the foundation of the city of Que-

bee. We were met to establish upon the Plains of Abraham, upon these sacred acres wherein is vested the heirloom of the British race on this North American continent, confided to the safekeeping of the French-Canadian residents of the province of Quebec, one sublime symbol of the union which should and did unite at that moment the various classes of the Canadian people. We were gathered there that evening for the purpose of asking Canadians, one and all, regardless of their speech, regardless of the altar at which they knelt, regardless of their political views, to give their support to this worthy object. We were united that evening for the purposes of peace, to commemorate not what had been done in war but an achievement of peace, on those sacred acres on the Plains of Abraham, where Wolfe died victorious but where Montcalm met with an equally glorious death in defeat, and where to-day the memory of both is commemorated in the common monument which is the common glory of the two races whose blood now mingles so freely in Flanders and in France. We asked the people of Ottawa that evening to join this movement, and they joined in it freely, as did the whole of Canada.
The present King of Great Britain thought it his duty to come over from the other side with a British squadron for the purpose of attending the celebration of this centennial and of consecrating this ground in the city of Quebec to the great memories which it recalled and will recall for all time in the minds of Canadians. Did we in the province of Quebec take the narrow view that the celebration which was intended to be brought about in commemoration of Wolfe's victory was the humiliation of the French race? That it meant the French defeat? We did not, we had broader views, we looked beyond, we saw that the hand of Providence had decreed that when France was about to pass through the blasts of the French revolution, the germ which had been cast upon the North American continent should be freed from the dangers which had struck the parent tree. And the decree of Providence has been realized to the letter. These 60,000 men whom fortune handed over to the safekeeping of British institutions are now 2,000,000. They overran the whole continent of America. They will speak French to the end of time, because it is the sweetest language known to human lips. But, for the purposes of business, for the purposes of education, for the
 ,
purposes of constitutional government, they will speak English; they will be glad to learn English, they will be glad to spread it wherever they go.
Some fifteen years ago I went with one of the most genial, one of the most kind-hearted members we ever had in this House, at that time a Minister of the Crown from western Ontario, into his constituency, one of the most prosperous, one of the most enlightened, one of the most intelligent, and, I must say, one of the most liberal constituencies in that part of the province. I received a royal welcome, as I have always received in all parts of Ontario where I have had the opportunity of meeting the people of that province They felt, probably, that I came from a sister province, and so I was given a much better and more hearty reception tihian I deserved. At the conclusion of the meeting the mayor of that city rose and told me how sorry he was that he had been unable to find in that town, or in that county, a person who would undertake to say a few words to thank the speaker who had come from tihe province of Quebec in the French language. The mayor of that city gave us a dinner after the meeting; he presented me to his charming wife and young ladies, who informed me that they were about to take the trip to Paris that all ladies anticipate taking, and which should be taken by all those who can afford it, if for nothing else than its great educational value. But they were going to Paris without the knowledge of French. I met them two or three years afterwards. They told me they tolad learned how useful a knowledge of French would have been, and said how gladly they had set about learning it. That is the state of affairs now.
We would like to have the people of the province of Ontario enjoy the advantage we have in the province of Quebec, of knowing 'both languages. Why should we decree in any province of Canada that a man should be confined to only one language? What great advantage is there in an argument such as that which appeared to-night in the Ottawa Journal, a paper edited by a former fellow-craftsman of mine, a man for whom I have great respect, a man of good standing, a good Conservative, a good writer and a good Canadian? Why should 'hie use such arguments as this : Quebec has been given the largest territory of the Dominion; Quebec has been given Ungava-where, of course, nobody will ever go to settle; why should not

Quebec be satisfied with that? Why not speak French there and leave us alone in the English-speaking provinces? this is an English country, the English language must prevail in this country. Are these arguments that are worthy of the twentieth century? Are these arguments that are worthy of this day, when the French and British races are fighting side by side in Flanders and in France for their very existence? When the blood of these two, nations is being mingled why should 'we have to say as Major Asselin said1: "Overlook what is being done to our people in Ontario, forget these things, think only of British institutions, think only of the flag under which you live, think only of the cause for which you are fighting, overlook these things; better days will come shortly, as they have come in the past."
Some eighteen years ago, I had the honour one day of addressing a meeting in one of the eastern counties of Ontario with one of the brightest minds that Ontario ever gave to this House or to this Dominion, the late Hon. Sir George Ross. He was at that time Minister of Education in Ontario. He was a bright man, a distinguished man, a great 'Canadian. His name will live in the annals of his province. I spoke with him in a village of Russell county. He defended the bilingual schools for one hour upon the public hustings. He saw the advantage it was to the Frenchman to learn English and to the Englishman to learn French. What an immense advantage would it not be now to our boys from Ontario who are fighting on the other side if they only had the French language to carry them along?
I was reading the other day a circular issued by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, in one of the bulletins of that department, to the effect that Canadians should be up and doing to capture the foreign trade of Germany after the war. This circular started out by saying that to correspond1 in Russia two languages were required, the Russian and the French. What about the citizen of Ontario? What trade is he going to capture in Russia if he neglect French, if he is afraid to study, to learn or to use French? We live on the north part of the western hemisphere. What correspondence can we carry on with, the South American Republics in the English language? In Argentina, in Brazil, in all these other places in South America, the language prevailing is the French or Spanish language. What correspondence can
you carry on in Belgium without French? Your French letters will be understood in Italy, in any part of Europe; French being the complement of an education.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) did me the honour last year of coming to me and saying:
" Mareil, I want to enjoy an hour of relief and rest; give me the name of a good French author." Why should you deny the children of Ontario these advantages and these privileges? Why should you hem in education within such narrow bounds and such narrow limits?
I had the honour, at the opening of this session, of attending the state dinner at Rideau Hall. It is all that remains to me of my former glory. I was made a member of the Privy Council of Canada, the reward that is in store for you, Mr. Speaker, when your term of office expires.
I am speaking now from the seat of our unfortunate friend Dr. Beland. That is probably the reason that his incarceration is so long in Berlin-because he is a member of the Privy Council of Canada. When I attended this state dinner, the menu card given to us was printed in the Frenoli language. When you went to Rideau Hall under the Minto regime, under the Grey regime, at the present time, meeting an aide-de-camp, a lady in waiting, their Royal Highnesses themselves, the former governors and their wives, why, it was but elementary etiquette for them to speak French. They were always -glad to speak French. The better class in England speak French. It is universal there. The better *class in the United States speak French. Why .should this commonplace argument, this backwoods argument, be used, that Ontari<vis an English-speaking province and we must not speak *anyhing but English? I do not look upon Ontario in that light.	I look on Ontario as the
premier province of this Dominion. I look on Ontario as the province that should give us a lead in those things. It is a province that is different from ours, professing a creed which is different from ours; but it its her duty, as the biggest of the family, as the greatest British province in Canada, to give to the people of the province of Quebec an example of broad-mindedness and toleration.
Do you think you can prevent the French-Canadian from going into the wilds of New Ontario? You know that the French-Canadian axeman or woodman has opened up half of this continent. You know that

he stands second to none as a settler. You know that wherever he goes he will have a home at the end of twelve months. The French-Canadian axehian, with his numerous family, will go with his axe, will go into the wilds, and give up ten, twenty, thirty or forty years of his life, if necessary, in order to hew out a resting place for himself and his family. You find him along the shores of the Baie des Chaleurs, at the very entrance to this country; along the Intercolonial railway, in places where English settlers would not stay; along the Transcontinental, in the hardest parts of Quebec and New Ontario, where he is now electing members of Parliament. You will find him along the shores of Baffin's bay, and on the borders of the Arctic ocean. You will find him in the Yukon, where Mercier was 20 years before gold was ever discovered. You will find him in all parts of this country, where there are heavy tasks to be done. You will find him a man of sentiment, who may be misled sometimes, but a man who is sincere in his feelings. Once he has proved his attachment to a creed, or his attachment to an idea, he will stick by it for life.
In the province of Quebec the French-Canadians had faith in the Conservative party in the old days. They kept Sir John A. Macdonald in power for a whole decade against his own countrymen. They kept him in power, with Hon. Senator Sir Mackenzie Bowell, then grand master of the Orange order, on one side, and the Hon. Hector Langevin on the other. They kept that trio in power, because they had faith in the Conservative party. They had faith in the Conservative party after Confederation, because in the British North America Act they had a guarantee of the protection to which they were entitled as British subjects, the protection which Amherst said they would have when he signed the treaty of the capitulation of Montreal. They had faith in the Conservative party; they stood by Cartier and Macdonald, until they found they had been misled by others who came after them, and unfortunate occurrences took place here and there in the various provinces. New channels were formed, and other conditions presented themselves, and a change was made.
They stood loyally by the present leader of His Majesty's loyal Opposition for many years they stand by him still, and they will continue to stand by him; but they will 
stand above all to this country to the last. What Sir Etienne Tache, who was Prime Minister of this country when Confederation was brought about, said, is as true to-day as it was then; as true as it was in 1849, when the English merchants of Montreal signed a manifesto favouring annexation to the United States because their business had been interfered with:	"the
'last man on the British North American continent who will defend British interests and the British flag will be a French-Can-adian of the province of Quebec."
Other conditions may arise; you may have in the Northwest, in ten, twenty, or fifty years, we know not what-a new population entirely recruited from various parts of the world, with new interests. We may have the same difficulties when this country has 50,000,000 or 75,000,000 of a population as they have had on the other side of the line. No great nation is without its difficulties, but there is a place where British interests are anchored forever, and that is the province of Quebec. They are anchored there because we have an interest in maintaining them, -because we are intent upon keeping them; and we are intent upon keeping them because, under them, we have the freedom to exercise all the rights to which we are entitled, and because we get the protection which we had the right to expect, and which has been given us to the full.
Let me say, Mr. Speaker, to the credit of the home Government, that our difficulties in the province of Quebec have never been with them. From the home authorities we have received justice flowing ovei". Our misunderstandings have been with our own countrymen in this our own Dominion of Canada. Is it because we do not know each other as well as we ought to? Many times I have regretted that the habitant of Quebec could not come oftener into communication with the citizen of the province of Ontario. How easily they would understand each other, and how well things would get along if they could do so. At the present time they are united for the purpose of seeing this war through.
Charges have been made against the present Administration of a most startling character in connection with munition and other contracts. The French-Canadians, as taxpayers in Canada, naturally have an interest in these important questions, and they expect that the Government of Canada will realize its duty to the full in the interest

of the country and of the cause for which we are fighting. We expect the Government, before this session closes, to give the representatives of the people here a full account of their stewardship which they promised when $150,000,000 were freely voted. We are prepared to vote more. I am not going to enter into a discussion of the practical side of these questions. You have heard a great many speeches dealing with that side, and, Mr. Speaker, you may hear some more. I have tried to take up another side of the question, which is perhaps a sentimental side. But the men of my race very often look quicker on the sentimental side than on the practical and business side. I shall leave the hard-headed men and the representatives of the Anglo-Saxon race in this Parliament to deal with the question of shells and munitions. But I do appeal to them to say whether it is not right and fair that an end should he put, by some means or another, to this wrangling among ourselves in this country, especially at the present time when union is so necessary among all classes of the Canadian people. I wish to be fair to the Nationalists who are still in the House; I do not want to bear a grudge against any man, or to have any man bear any grudge against me. They may have a reason to give to this House why they have changed, why they now invite the citizens of the province of Quebec to enlist. But they owe it to this House to make that declaration, and I insist upon that declaration being made in the interests of those who are now sharing the responsibilities of recruiting. I insist further, Mr. Speaker, that our ministerial friends who are now to the right of you, with whom we are now sharing the responsibilities of carrying on this war, and who will have to face the people as we will have to face them, give the reasons which they ought to give to this House.
I have no intention of dwelling at any further length on these matters. I desire to thank you, Mr. Speaker, and the House for having listened to me so patiently. I conclude by asking my hon. friends from the province of Ontario, if for no other reason than for the sake of the good cause, if for no other reason than to help ' us in our recruiting campaign, to try and bring about a suspension of some kind of some of these regulations which have caused so much trouble among the small French Canadian minority. Even if the suspension be just for the war, it will have an immense effect not'only in the province of Quebec, but with the French all over
the Dominion. If they do that, and if our Nationalist friends will help us put into the minds of the people of Quebec the idea that Canadians inhabiting this country have greater duties than are confined within the limits of this Dominion, it will help to bring recruiting in Quebec up to what it should be; although I maintain that Quebec, all things considered, has done remarkably well. Fifteen thousand men or more have gone from the city of Montreal. In Quebec a committee has been formed with the Lieutenant-Governor at its head, with the Archbishop of Quebec as its honorary president, and with Sir Lomer Gouin and all the members of his Cabinet assisting in an active campaign throughout the province. The clergy have been instructed to announce these recruiting meetings from their pulpits, pastoral letters from the bishops have been read in all the churches, and the cures have been instructed by their bishops to~exert all the pressure they can to make the people realize that the fight that is now on is a fight for civilization, a fight for humanity, a fight for freedom, and that it is the duty of the Canadians of French origin to be first and foremost in that great fight.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (South Renfrew) :	Mr. Speaker, I will not ask the
leader of the Government to allow me to move the adjournment of the. debate just now. I know he is good natured, but I want to hurry along the business ot the House. He and I have to do a good deal of the night work in this House, and in order to make a fair equilibrium I will speak a little later-to-night than I should do under other circumstances.
After the magnificent and eloquent address of the hon. gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Marcil), I am afraid my broken remarks will appear somewhat stale and uninteresting. What he said about the loyalty and devotion of the French people . will, I am sure, find an echo in the heart of every man in Canada who knows anything of this country, and I am sure that the interests of the French speaking people of this Dominion will not suffer so long as they have such eloquent and able representatives as my hon. friend. I have read the Speech from the Throne, which, while not rich in quantity, is quite meaty in quality. To my mind, the Government has placed the issues upside down. They ask us first to consider whether the term of Parliament shall be extended; after they

have seen what Parliament has done with that, they will or will not attend to war measures. To my mind, iS'ir, the first duty of the Government should be to provide for the great need of the moment-the vigorous prosecution of the war in which we are engaged. After that, we might have discussed intelligently whether or not it would be wise, under the circumstances, to usurp the rights of the people by saying that we will remain here as members of Parliament for a longer term than that which the people have given us. But, as the Government has to my mind placed their issues upside down, I will take the Speech as presented. Let me just read to the House the words in which the extension measure is proposed, and the reasons given therefor':
The life of the present Parliament expires in the autumn of this year, and, under existing legislation a dissolution and election would be necessary in the early future. My advisers, however, are of the opinion that the wishes of the Canadian people and the present requirements of the war wohld be best met by avoiding the distraction and confusion consequent upon a general election at so critical a time.
What a change has come over the spirit of the dreams of the members of the Government ! On two different occasions the country was led to believe that the Government were lingering shivering on the brink of an appeal to the people. So thoroughly did the Government make up their minds that this was necessary that without any authority they went to the expense of printing the ballot papers and other forms, and to the further unwarranted expense of sending men across to the Old Land .with them. I think no further argument need be used to convince the people that the Government at one time at least, thought that there would be no distraction or confusion caused even by an election in the trenches. I look around for the reason why they have changed their minds, and reading farther on in the Speech L find it:
My advisers are of the opinion that the wishes of the Canadian people-
Sir, the wishes of- the Canadian people bore in on this Government in the form of telegrams and letters and personal remonstrances in such weighty quantities, and in such thundering tones, that those who were going to hold an election even in the trenches discovered that an election in this country would cause distraction and confusion all over the Dominion. I am glad that even in this Government we can have a conversion, and I am now in hopes that before we get through with this debate our

Nationalist friends will also be really converted-
The Government is asking us for an extension. At the present time I will not discuss per se, as the lawyers would say, whether that extension ought or ought not to be granted, but when the resolution is formally presented to the House, I will be prepared to take that position on it which I think the circumstances warrant, and which my judgment will dictate. For the present, I want to point out to the count and the members of this House that we must not treat this question of an extension of our own term of office lightly. It is not a small matter to ask the Imperial Parliament to change the constitution oi the Dominion of Canada. We have-just heard the eloquent address of the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil), in which he discussed the spirit as well as the letter of the constitution. Those of us who come from one of the big provinces, and I pm speaking now of the province of Ontario, must remember that the constitution provides certain guarantees for the smaller provinces in this Dominion; as, for example, the question of the formation of the Senate. We must not forget that the minorities in Canada have certain rights guaranteed to them under the constitution. We must also remember that it is a delicate thing to begin changing the foundation of our country's constitution, even in this war; because there is likely to be a suspicion in the minds of some that if it be easy to. change the constitution in this case it may be just as easy to change it in some other essentials of more vital importance, thus bringing something that may not be wanted iri this Dominion.


Mr. ROGERS:: You mean of less vital importance?


Mr. GRAHAM:: I mean of more vital importance to the individual. This is not a matter to be dealt with lightly, and when people say, "We must not have an election, change the term of Parliament,"
I say in reply, the circumstances may warrant it. The serious position in which we find ourselves in thle great conflict in which we are engaged may possibly [DOT] constitute a reason for changing the constitution; but it must be understood throughout the length and breadth of the land that we are not discussing this question lightly, because it is a serious matter to change the constitution under which this young country was formed, and by the provisions of which minorities are protected and guarantees

that must not be broken are given to the smaller provinces. If necessary, I shall be prepared to discuss the matter when the resolution comes before the House, but I think it is not unreasonable to suggest now that the Government, wthen they present the resolution, have, ready the programme which they intend to give to the House. If we are to take to ourselves an extended term we ought now to be able to tell the country, before the press discusses the matter much, wfhlat we intend to do with the extra time that we are adding to our term. In what way do we intend to employ the extra days which we are arrogating to ourselves, and what value is the country going to get for the extra salary that we are voting ourselves? I do not think it is unfair that the people, early in the session, or even before the resolution is brought down, should have some information on this point.	-
The next item in the speech is provision for the war. There is no man on either side of the House but is prepared to vote heartily for anything necessary in connection with the prosecution of the war. We have always taken that position; we propose to do so in future, and there need be no question about that.
Certain objections have been taken to criticism. There can be no real objection to criticism. The Government, through the Prime Minister, has invited us to criticise. Of course, when a man criticises you, you can not be the judge of what the critic is to say. I can not be the judge if he is criticising me. But when our expenditures are being doubled and trebled, when little regard is being paid to the value of money as long as we can get what is necessary for the war, criticism ought to be invited and administered. In the Old Land criticism of the most virulent type goes on day after day, and that in the face of the fact that the Government has taken a portion of the Opposition into its ranks. The British people are supposed to be united in the Government, and if criticism there is invited and indulged in, how much more 10 p.m. necessary is criticism in this House, and how much more readily ought it to be invited when the Government managing this great undertaking is all chosen from one side of politics and when half the people belong to the other? The people of Canada will laugh at any person who winces under criticism, or who says it is undignified or verging on disloyalty for the action of the Government
to be called in question at this or at any other time. True, I say, we must not lose sight of the great fact that, no matter what our differences or our criticisms may be,, or what errors or worse may have been committed, the prosecution of this war ought to be our first consideration. I was reading the other night something of the work of the censors, of which I believe some hon. members spoke. The newspaper business has been curtailed a good deal, perhaps necessarily so; but I have often wondered what the censors thought of theft interview or letter given out by Mr. Holt of Montreal.


Robert Rogers: Sir Herbert Holt.


George Perry Graham: After the speech of the
hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) I am almost afraid to mention the word " Sir." Although that interview was a strikingly caustic criticism of everything connected with the war, the censors, so far as I know, have said nothing about it. Perhaps it was overlooked; but we who are membersi of the press in a smaller way are pretty well tied up, and sometimes I think large things are overlooked and small things are kept out of the press which would be of absolute interest to the people and could do no possible harm to the great cause in which we are engaged.
This is the first time I have ever mentioned a personal matter in this House, and so far as I am concerned, I think it is unworthy of notice; but since my silence might be misconstrued and some hon. friends, particularly those around me, might consider that I had left undone something that I should have done in the way of speech, I wish to refer to it. The Solicitor General the other evening when the Shell Committee was being discussed, intimated that I was connected with one of the companies which had been spoken of by the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley). I admit the soft impeachment.


William Findlay Maclean: The soft shell.


George Perry Graham: I hold a few preferred
shares in the Canada Foundries and Forgings. My common shares were sold long ago at a very low price. I became interested in this company long before there was any war . There was an old established company, the James Smart Mfg. Company, doing business at Brockville before some of the members of this House were born. A few years ago there was formed between two -plants at Welland and this one at

Brockville -an amalgamation called the Canada Foundries and Forgings. Being a resident of th-e town of Brockville, I was asked to take a little stock, and wlien a vacancy occurred later I went on the board. When war broke out I was director in the company and had been for a long time, and for that I have no apology to make to any person living. There are only two things for a man who lives as I do to do, if he is to remain in public life: he must have some business outside, or he must be crooked. Now, I do not intend to stay out of public life, and I do not intend to become crooked if I can help it. Accordingly, I am going to remain in business outside this House. As long as that business is legitimate, it is nobody's business but my own, and instead of my connection with this company being derogatory to me, I am proud of it and proud of what this company has done in connection with the manufacture of munitions. Let me say- and I am not doing this to advertise- that this company has no connection with the machining of shells about which we have heard so much, that portion of the work for which $5.70 was paid, but which is now being done, I am told, for $1.75. The company in which I have a very few shares does the forging work or the initial stage in the manufacture	of	shells;
and if such companies as that did not undertake the work there would be no shells made in Canada and no machining to do.
When the question of shell-making was proposed in Canada-and I am speaking of what I know-comparatively few, yes very few, particularly of those who could do the forging, would have anything to do with the proposition at all. They had never -done any of that kind of work, and did not know what it might mean, and, besides, not many of them were equipped for the work. The question was brought up at our board by the manager: Shall we undertake tin.-: work? Some of the directors were fearful as some of the other companies were, but as a public man, and having the interest of the Allies at heart, I said to the company: I would not belong to a company of manufacturers at this stage in Canada if it was not prepared to take a chance and do what the Government wanted it to do and try to make these shells. I should have been heralded all over the Dominion of Canada as a man unfit to be in public life if, in my position, I had not used whatever influence I possessed to cause the company with which I was connected

in a small way to undertake its share of the work. They did undertake it, and they did it well. Since, then other companies -have come in. I think I am safe in saying that the deliveries of the company with which I am connected are not under criticism by the (Munitions Board. The quality has never been under criticism by either Shell Committee. And I believe so long as shells are wanted in Canada this company, having made a splendid record in its delivery, will be sure to have work to do even if some of the slow coaches do not have work. I never asked the Shell Committee for an order-never saw the Shell Committee about an order. But as a small shareholder in this concern I am proud of the part that the company has1 had in the business, and of the interest and enthusiasm shown by every member of the company to meet the requirements of the Munitions Board and give them shells as rapidly as possible.
Some say that the prices are too high. I do not know what the prices are. The company never made a price themselves, but accepted what was given them. They are prepared to meet the Munitions Board at any time and discuss prices-I understand they have done so from time to time.
I will not detain the House longer on a personal matter. But let me say, as I see it, every man who is producing anything at this period of our history is producing something for the Allies. On our farms, in our factories and in our -shops, every man in Canada who is in business and producing anything and is doing his business properly, is making a product, a portion of which is going to the Allies. Every farmer, every -merchant, every -artisan is doing something to help along the cause. Next to the supplying of men is the supplying of munitions and food for -the army as the one great requisite at this time.
Now, you ask me if I have any criticism to make of the Shell Committee. I have. At this moment not one time fuse has been delivered to the Shell Committee- or the Munitions Board. The original mistake that was made, I believe, was this: The Government, through its Munitions Board or in some other -manner, should have taken an inventory of the manufacturing -establishments of Canada that were able to turn out munitions. I think I would have gon-e further. After tests had been made and costs ascertained fairly well, any company that- would have then refused to assist should have been under pain of

having its shops commandeered and at least a portion of its plant put to work in making supplies for the Allies. The manufacturers of Canada should have been brought into one great organized group so that the best results could have been secured. If the manufacturers had been properly organized and if orders were properly placed, the output of supplies could have been increased by from forty
to fifty per cent.
Let me deal briefly with another matter. Up to the present time war orders to the extent of $2,000,000,000 have been given to the United States manufacturers. Here is the list of some of them:
Company. Material.
./Etna Exp.-Explosives .. ..
Amer. Can-Shells	
Amer. Car & Fdy.-Shells . .
Amer. Loco.-Shells	
Amer. Steel Fds.-Forgings..
Amer. Wool.-Cloth	
Baldwin Loco.-Shells ..	. .
Bethlehem-Miscellaneous .. Can. Car & F.-Shrapnel ... Crucible-Miscellaneous. .	. .
Curtis Aero.-Aeroplanes. . ..
DuPont-Explosives	
Driggs-iSea.-Miscellaneous. . Elec. Boat-Boats, etc .. ..
Gen. Elec.-Materials	
Hercules Powder-Cordite . . Lackawanna Steel-Steel. .	. .
N. Y. Air Brake-Shrapnel.. Pressed S. Car.-Cars, etc. .. Studebaker

Harness, etc. . . . Westing. A. B.-Shrapnel, etc Westing. Elec.-Rifles, etc..
Gross Amt.

41.000.	000 7,000,000
50.000.	000
18.000.	000
30.000.	000
143.000.	000
300.000.	000
146.000.	000
17.000.	000
15.000.	000
200.000.	000
40.000.	000 100,000,000
69.000.	000
25.000.	000
10.000.	000 20,000,000
15.000.	000
20.000.	000 18,000,000 94,000,000
Total
. . $1,408,000,000
Other figures given increase this to $2,000,000,000. I do not wish to be too critical, but this I do say, that what ought to have been done on behalf of the people of Canada-for we are not a separate people, nor neutral, we are of the Allies1 was, to collect the facts about every manufacturing establishment in Canada capable of turning out any kind of goods for the Allies and put that establishment at work. The surplus orders could have gone to the neutral countries. As it is, the large orders have been going to the United States and the surplus coming to Canada. Some orders are being executed in Canada today that have come to our manufacturers via New York. That is not as it should have been, and I criticize the Government that they did not at the outset, or at least *when the matter was brought to their minds, group our manufacturing establishments and see to it that they were employed to the full before any orders were given elsewhere. I do not think the war
office in Great Britain is without blame in this matter. It may be selfish to say so, though I do not think it is-we are part and parcel of the great Empire, we stand shoulder to shoulder with the rest doing our best and ready to do our very utmost in every particular, and from the war office down to the Munitions Board in the Dominion of Canada, their policy should have been to see that the Canadian manufacturing establishments had the preference-other things being equal-in everything that they can manufacture.
I spoke of fuses a few moments ago, and here is a criticism in that respect. Mr. Flavelle, the chairman of the new Munitions Board, criticises some Canadian manu-. facturers for non-delivery, and in the next sentence he says: we have far too many shells anyway. So that, from Mr. Flav-elle's standpoint, as we are manufacturing too rapidly, it would be a relief if the orders were delayed. I do not take that view; one of these days time fuses will come on with a rush. At the present moment the Russians have a surplus quantity of time fuses, and I cannot see why, with proper organization and pro- ' per effort, our shells could not be loaded with Russian fuses, because they are all going to be devoted to the same purpose, anyway. I criticise the Shell Committee for the delay which occurred in the giving of orders for the manufacture of fuses- My hon. friend the Solicitor General the other night said that some fuses had been delivered. He was right, and he was wrong; sometimes he is both in the same sentence. What are known as the number 100, or concussion fuses for the high explosives, have been delivered in very small quantities, but I was told a week ago that not a single time fuse has been delivered either in Canada or in the United States. Surely a little foresight would have impressed upon the Shell Committee the fact that unloaded shells were absolutely useless and that as soon as the time fuses on hand in Great Britain were used, our. shells would be unavailable for practical purposes until some person furnished new fuses. Orders <have been given in the United States, but the plants are just being organized there for that purpose. The largest plant on the continent of America is being organized now for the manufacture of fuses. It is a wonderful plant; I have been through it, but it was not organized soon enough. It was when shells were first asked for in Canada that the Shell Committee should have looked around in order that they

might have obtained completed, not partially completed, shells. This is being remedied in a way; but the Munitions Board are hinting that they do not want any more shells, or, at least, any rapid production; that we must hold back the manufacture of shells in Canada until the deficiency in fuses is made up. That may be a week or a month, and that may have delayed the conclusion of this war for six months. While men are being called for and are needed, to my mind what has caused a great deal of difficulty up to the present time, particularly with the Russians, is the lack of munitions and equipment. We in Canada have fallen down in this respect, and unless a great effort is made to rush the manufacture of fuses, we may by this one error have deterred the conclusion of the war for some months-which is a very serious matter. An order for time fuses has been given in Canada, and I see no reason why a company in this country cannot organize an assembling plant and operate it here just as well as any company in the United States. I am told that the company which is taking up the work in Canada is going to do more than assemble; it is going to manufacture many of the parts as well.
Another matter which may present a little difficulty is the lack of steel. I am told that the production of steel for the manufacture of shells is hardly up-to-date, and that oiir Canadian manufacturers are unable to supply it in sufficient quantity. I do not know whether or not that is correct, but I am so informed by a man who seems to be pretty well up in the steel business. It may take a little time to straighten that out, but that shows that there was hardly enough foresight in connection with the purchase of steel. Large quantities of steel should have been purchased some time ago, for two reasons: first, to have the steel on hand, and, second, to get it at a lower price than that at which it can be purchased at the present time. .
I am not speaking for the manufacturers of Canada; the fact that I hold a few shares in one company does not make me a manufacturer any more than the holding of two bank shares by another hon. gentleman would make him a( banker. But ever since this war began, manufacturers in Canada have been inclined to think that their interests have not been protected as well as they might have been by the Government. One year ago I asked the Prime Minister if he would lay on the table of the House certain correspondence that had taken place between the Manufac-
turers' Association, or an officer thereof, and himself. The Prime Minister told me that the correspondence was confidential and that he could not bring it down unless the persons concerned agreed. The House prorogued, and I did not see the correspondence. But this was in the correspondence, Mr. Speaker: The manufacturers of Canada complained to the Prime Minister that when they attempted to sell goods to whoever was the purchasing power at that time, they were not allowed to sell direct; they were invariably apprpa-ched by middlemen who wished to sell for them. Upon being asked to do so, they prepared a number of instances, and sent them to the Prime Minister. That was a year ago, just after the outbreak of the war; up to the present time that correspondence has not been made public, but that is the gist of what was in it. The legitimate manufacturers started out with what they thought was a grievance: that they were compelled to sell their goods through middlemen. When I say middlemen I do not mean an ordinary representative or agent; I mean the kind to whom the Minister of Militia referred the other day, when he said that the moment war broke out men swarmed up and down throughout the Dominion of Canada professing to have the privilege of placing orders and of getting percentage thereon. This took place in every city; case after case came up, and the manufacturers complained. I say that the manufacturers still have a grievance against the Government. That there were middlemen is now acknowledged by every body; this condition should not have existed at any time, much less in a serious time like this. The legitimate manufacturers have a grievance, against this Parliament in part, that they have been accused of doing something which might be considered dishonourable in connection with the manufacture of these munitions. On behalf of the legitimate manufacturers- not the mushroom companies organized for the purpose; not the middlemen who were going around the country endeavouring to give or to get orders, but the legitimate manufacturers who at their own expense put in all the new machinery; who did not, like the United States firms, get an advance of money, but who put up their own money-on their behalf I say that an investigation ought to be held to clear the good name of the .men who are legitimate manufacturers in the Dominion of Canada.


Mr. W. H. BENNETT:: Will the hon. gentleman give the names of the firms to whom money was advanced by the Munitions Board? I never heard that allegation made- before; even the bon. member for Garleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell) did not make that allegation.


George Perry Graham: I will give my hon.
friend privately the name of the company.


William Humphrey Bennett: But this is public.


George Perry Graham: Oh, no, it is not. it is between my hon. friend and myself. 1 know it to be true, so there is no question. I did not say they advanced money to friends in 'Canada.	-


William Humphrey Bennett: It was worse than that; the hon. member said that the board advanced money to an American firm.


George Perry Graham: I say that in one instance of which I know the Munitions Board advanced money to an American firm for a particular product, which I will explain to my hon. friend. I say that the Canadian manufacturer got no advance. I am not whimpering about that. But I do say that the good name of the manufacturers having been brought in question, I believe I am uttering their sentiments when I ask the Government to give a full investigation ; and if it is found that any manufacturer in Canada has done anything dishonourable in connection with the manufacture of munitions, I will vote to mane him disgorge what he has got dishonourably. It has been said that this investigation could not well he held without interfering with the British authorities because the money is supplied by Great Britain. In supporting that argument the South African war is taken as a precedent. In the first place, we have the word of the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) that a portion of this money, at least, that is being expended will be paid by the Canadian people. So that element is removed. But I want to give you one or two authorities which I think you will agree are reliable. I will give you the authority of the hon. gentleman who has just left the House in reference to this matter. Mr. W. F. Maclean of South York-and this was when there was no .question but that the money being expended was all furnished by the British Exchequer and no part of it by Canada-said:
This is a new doctrine of responsible Government. It seems to me that a minister must be held strictly accountable for everything he does
as head of a department, and I will not sit here quietly and allow a new doctrine of responsibility, or rather lack of responsibility, to be submitted without repudiating it. Reasons may be given for not bringing down the information asked for, but not the reasons given just now.
I give another authority which I think ought to be of the highest importance at the present moment; in fact, I think it ought to be indisputable.	[DOT]


Robert Rogers: What is the date of that?


George Perry Graham: March 3, 1903, at the
time of the discussion on the South African expenditures. I will give another authority whibh makes it quite clear that the Government ought to be responsible for what it does. Mr. Hughes, of Victoria, now Sir Sam Hughes, Minister of Militia, said:
The fair name of Canada is at stake. There are very serious scandals in connection, not only with these oat and hay purchases, but also the purchase of horses.
Sounds familiar.
I would like the hon. gentleman to understand that when our Government gives instructions to its officers, paid by the Canadian people, the people of Canada are going to inquire into the actions of these men. I hope that the right hon. the Prime Minister will come off his high horse-not one of those horses bought for $40 and sold for $150-and give the information asked for.
If I had time, I should just like to edit that a little and bring it up to date. How well it would sound! I could have the horses, the hay, the oats, almost everything in it. That was the opinion of the present Minister of Militia in 1903, when there was no pretence that any part of the money that was being expended was Canadian money. But in case you might waver at these authorities-because I admit there may be some even in the Government who would not take that last authority, and I do not think any member on the Government side would take the first one-


Robert Rogers: You might give us the answer that General Hughes got.


George Perry Graham: General Hughes did not get the information, because there was no part of the money being expended that was Canadian money, it was all coming out of the British Exchequer; but this time part of the money is our money, and we ought to know what is being done. Let me give you a higher authority to which you will all submit. As the Minister of Militia says, this is the balance wheel of the Government; while he and others may be erratic,



the Prime Minister is the balance wheel. Here is what he said in 1903:
Either the Minister of Agriculture was doing this as a Minister of the Crown or he was not. Was he doing it as Mr. Sydney Fisher, providing his own clerks, and as a matter of private [DOT] business between himself and the Imperial Government. If that be the case, we would not press the motion. But if he was doing this as a Minister of the Crown, and not as Mr. Sydney Fisher, but because he held the position of Minister of Agriculture we do not see any reason why all the information should not be laid on the Table. I do not think the hon. the Minister of Finance has suggested any. If I understand the position of the Minister of Agriculture, he was acting as Minister of the Crown of Canada on behalf of the Imperial government, using the officers under his' control who are paid out of the revenues of this country; and therefore I cannot understand what objection there can be, from any reasonable standpoint, to bringing down the papers.


Mr. BURRELL:: That was after the war.


George Perry Graham: My hon. ' friend's reason would be that the war is in progress?


Martin Burrell: Yes, there are a good many things that enter into that.


George Perry Graham: I do not see why, as I said before, we should allow anybody to break into the treasury because it is war time.


Mr. NICKLE:: Do I understand you to argue that if this money were all British money an inquiry would be out of order?


George Perry Graham: I was snot arguing that. I was arguing that the men now forming the Government, in 1903 insisted that although it was all British money, still this Parliament had a right to investigate anything its officers or ministers had done. But in this case, it being admitted that it was at least partially Canadian money, that is all solved, and there is no excuse, I think, constitutionally, etiquettieally, or otherwise, why the Canadian Parliament should not order an investigation at the present time.
Now I come to the question of recruiting. The recruiting in Canada, I think, has been going on at a marvellously satisfactory rate. We are compared to other countries -and herein I may collide with some of my good friends-in the matter of recruiting and in some other ways. But these other countries have not the conditions that we have in the Dominion of Canada. They are not attempting, as we are, to furnish the Allies with food, to furnish them with clothing so far as we can, and to furnish them, to a large extent, with raunitions, as well as to furnish them with 
men. And we must take into consideration the fact that men are needed on the* farms if we are to keep up the production, that men are needed in the factories, and, further than that, that our business, in a measure, must go on as usual, so far as possible, unless commercially we are to fall down; and if Canada falls down commercially and financially she will be a burden on the Allies instead of a help to them. The recruiting, taking into consideration all the conditions, has, I think, been marvellous, and I have the utmost faith in the people of the Dominion of Canada, that as the days go by and the necessity is pressed home upon them they will rise to the situation and1 contribute every man they possibly can to aid in this, great work. It has been said that the young native born all over the Dominion have not enlisted as did our young friends from across the sea. At first that was absolutely true. The young men from the Old Land were sons of military fathers. Some of them had served in the militia themselves. They had been brought up in an atmosphere where war was not a new thing, and the moment these young men heard the call they knew what it meant, threw down their employment, joined the colours, and rushed to the front. I say from my place in Parliament: All honour to the British-born who. were the first to enlist in large numbers in the Dominion of Canada. But now as to our own young men. They have been brought up in an atmosphere of peace; their conquests were to be conquests of commerce, conquests of peace, conquests of industry, and they had never thought of war. It took some time for it to be brought home to them ju-st what the call to arms meant, just what was the necessity for the call. But, Sir, as they have been reading and thinking and finding out, the patriotism of the young man of Canada has come strongly to the surface. It has been found that his heart is in the right place, and today the native born Canadians are flocking to the colours and enlisting as rapidly as we can possibly expect them to enlist.
My hon. friend, who spoke a few moments ago, discussed the difficulties of recruiting in Quebec. I may be pardoned for discussing them for a few moments also, though I may tell you, Mr. Speaker, that recruiting difficulties, if difficulties there be, are not altogether confined to the province of Quebec. In reference to the province of Quebec, let me say in all kindness, and I am looking right in the

faces of certain hon. gentlemen whom I have in mind-that this Government came into power having no personal service to the British Empire outside of Canada as one plank in the combined Nationalist-Conservative platform. I think that is putting it mildly. The resolution, which has been referred to, said no service of any kind, neither of money nor of men, but a little later there seemed to be a deviation from that, though I have never heard any further explanation of it. At any rate, I will give them the benefit of the doubt, and put in one word that plank in the platform on which they were elected, a plank of no personal service to the British Empire unless in the Dominion of Canada. Now it may be true that they have repented, but if those twenty-one men had not taken that stand the probabilities are that the present Government would not have been in power. If those twenty-one men had been Liberals they would not have been in power surely.


William Humphrey Bennett: Does my hon. friend think 'that that cuts much figure in Ontario which is where the Liberal party got its death blow?


George Perry Graham: We got it in a few places, and worst in Ontario, but I may remind my hon. friend that two members from Ontario were elected having as their plank "no Canadian Navy," and that Mr. Bour-as-sa went into their constituencies and gave that plank to them. I -say again that if those twenty-one men were on this side of the House this Government could not last twenty-four hours. That being the case-I am not going into that any further; I refer to it merely as a premise to what I am going to say-it is not sufficient for the Government to say: we are all right now. The best recruiting that can be done in the province of Quebec can be accomplished by those twenty-one men going throughout that province where they went in 1911, and telling the young m-en they were wrong, and that personal service was requisite for the young men of Canada. It will not do for them to merely stand up in this House and say so, because many young men would not hear them. I will give the House a little personal experience I hiad. I know the French-Canadian character perhaps as well as any English-speaking member of this House, because I associate with them a great deal. I was in Montreal a few weeks ago and had a conversation with three or four very bright and highly educated
32i
young men, none brighter in the Dominion. We began discussing the question of recruiting, and they strongly demurred to what had been said in the Ontario newspapers. I was urging recruiting as strongly as 1 could when one young man turned to me and said:	" Here is the other side of it,
Mr. Graham. In 1911 I was a youth, IT years old, just at an impressionable age. At the door of the church, which I attended, a gentleman who is now a minister of the Crown, argued most strenuously that we were not required, either by loyalty, by the British North America Act, or by anything else, to take part in lany war, outside of fighting, if necessary, on our own shores for the defence of Canada. That impressed me as a young man, and the impression has not left me. Now, I see that man, holding those views which have never been repudiated, taken into the Government of the Dominion of Canada, and I ask myself, can that man be serious in asking me to recruit in 1915?" That was the argument put up by the young man; I am not going further into it, but in all kindness to the Government, and to those gentlemen who support it, I say that the only way by. which the harm that has been done in Quebec can be undone is for those gentlemen to go through the province as they did in 1911, and, instead of advocating no personal service, to impress upon the young men the duty and privilege of personal service, and, as far as possible, take back what they said in 1911.
Now, I -come to another thing which I believe hurts recruiting in- the province of Quebec, -and that is the remarks made by the Ontario newspapers. I can speak freely on this matter, being associated with the press -myself. Nothing is to be gained in the work of recruiting by abusing anybody. You c-anmot get a young Canadian, if he is worthy the name of a young Canuck, to do anything iby abusing him; but you -can lead him to do anything if you can show him it is right to do it in the first place. In Ontario, where weiboast so much of our loyalty that we have to carry Union Jacks to be expressive enough sometimes, criticisms have been made in certain newspapers concerning the attitude of Quebec, which are hindering recruiting in the latter province in a degree second only to that I have already referred to. I -adjure the press of Ontario to -stop this carping, and to remember only this one thing: that we are not French, we are not German, we are not Scotch, we are not English; we are citizens of the

Dominion of Canada, prepared to fight for tile great cause in which we are so deeply interested.
Sir, in Ontario, we have our own troubles regarding recruiting. I go into a farming community to recruit and am met with 'the question right away, " What should I <do?" As one man told me, "my sons have all gone West but one, and either I have to reduce to a minimum the production of my ;faxm, I have to keep him at home, or else you will have to provide me with labour. 'What a<m I to do?" Really, Mr. Speaker, although I did what little I could for some months in Ontario. I was in a quandary in that case. I think that the time has come lvhen some pronouncement ought to be made by those in authority as to what is the duty of a>
young man in those circumstances. I have had young men in Ontario tell me: " We would' be willing and glad to recruit, but here is the situation: if I go, I leave my father absolutely alone on a 100-acre farm and production will stop." In those circumstances I am not so sure that the man is not entitled to stay at home. We must keep a level head in this matter, and try to do what is best in the circumstances;; and if it be better for a man to continue to produce to assist in feeding the Allies, it is very questionable whether he should enlist for he might be doing just as valuable work on his farm.
I have gone to a workshop-I am entering into details. because I have practically done nothing else since August but attend recruiting and patriotic meetings-and discussed the matter with the manufacturer. He said to me: " We are manufacturing shells or clothing or boots, as the case may be; here is our order; it is a rush order, what are we to do? My son is ready to go, or so-and-so in my factory wants to go, but if they do I must get some one else, or production must stop." I made this proposition: " Cannot some person who has advanced beyond the military age do that work?" I was taken into a foundry where they were doing a lot of work. The men were pushed, for it is very exacting work.
This man said to me: " These young men are getting out these forgings; no old men could do this work; if I let these young men go I curtail the output of my establishment, which the Munitions Board says I must speed up." You see there are very great difficulties in the way.
There are other difficulties, and this is a question which has been put to me within the last week. The men who go to the front

are not sure of the financial standing of their families while they are gone. I am not saying this in spirit of carping criticism; I just wish to bring it to the attention of the Government and before the hon. gentleman who is managing the Patriotic Fund- A man with a family is asked to enlist. He immediately wants to know whether his family will be protected. He is told that the Government provides so much in various ways and that the Patriotic Fund provides so much. But under the present arrangement if the Patriotic Fund falls down, that man's family also falls down. That is not the way to get recruits, and it is one of the difficulties that must be overcome. I am in favour of the Patriotic Fund in as large amounts as can be secured from the very liberal people of Canada, but I do say that it is the duty of a government engaged in a great national war such as this to be able to say to every man who goes to the front, and not only to say it but to guarantee the carrying out of their promise, that that man's wife and children will get a certain stated amount while he is gone. There should be no question of the Patriotic Fund entering into the amount that will be guaranteed that man's family while he is gone. The present arrangement is against recruiting, and I give this criticism in all kindness to the Government. It would help recruiting all over Canada if the Government would fix a sum sufficient to keep a soldier's family, and if the soldier was guaranteed that the Government stood behind the pledge to give that sum. The soldier would then feel that his family would not be dependent upon the kindness of neighbours whose bowels of compassion might dry up, and leave his family without the money he thought they were going to get.
I have another remark to make with reference to the various funds, and I say it advisedly. There are too many people passing the hat. I do not mean that I would advocate any lessening of effort, but I think it is time, the Government concentrated the efforts and the givings of the people into certain well-defined channels. Let me give a little personal experience. I have spoken at various towns on behalf of recruiting and the Patriotic Fund. In one place I found the town divided into two camps; one was working for one fund, and another for another, and they were actually quarrelling with each other, spending their energy fighting each other instead

of spending it collecting money for this great purpose. In another place, and this happened in more than one town, I was asked to speak at what might be called an opposition meeting. There were two camps organized for money-raising purposes, and each was trying to get its meeting in ahead of the other. A minister of the Crown and myself quite innocently nearly got into a mix-up over it. I think it is high time the Government took the direction of the collection of all funds into its own hands so far as possible, and then have the spending of those funds carried on through well-defined channels, so that the people would know when a persqn came collecting money he or she was duly authorized, and the money would go where it was intended to go-
There is another point. I think it is a mistake that the wives of the soldiers who have gone to the front should be treated in a - patronizing way when they are getting their money. I know families who are proud in spirit, and entitled to be proud in spirit, for they are among nature's noblemen and noble women, though in ordinary circumstances. Ladies with the very best intentions, with a heart bubbling over to do something, would visit these homes, and without knowing it, would leave the impression that they were peddling out a charitable pittance to some person who for some fault of their own was on the municipality or the Government. That is not the way funds should be distributed. Every man who goes to the front is earning his money more than we who are at home, and his family is entitled by right to that' money, and no person has any right whatever to treat that soldier's family as if they were getting a charitable dole to which they were not *entitled. These soldiers' wives are. not on the charity of the people. The people of Canada owe them a debt of gratitude. They do not owe the people a dollar. There should be some arrangement by which these soldiers' wives could feel the equal or superior of those who visit them at their homes and bring them the money. But that is not the ease at the present time. Men have told me that they would not enlist so long as their families were going to be patronized and treated as if they were on charity by reason of some act of omission or commission performed by the soldier.
There is another thing I would like to say with reference to passing the hat. The Minister of Militia is not here, but I will point out what I mean. Nearly every battalion, I am told, needs a few things that the Government does not provide. Why should not the Government provide these things if they are needed? Why should any company be asking a citizen to give them a kitchen with which to do the cooking for the men? "


Mr. REID :: I think the Government supplies the kitchens.


George Perry Graham: No. I thought I had' in my possession here a clipping from somewhere, but I cannot find it just now. It was to the effect that in the county of Lanark, not far removed from here, a vote-came up in the town *council of Perth, or *it may have been the county council. The-suggestion had been made that the council make a grant for the supply of a: kitchen to a local battalion. The proposal was carried on a fie vote. Those opposed to the motion said that they were not opposed to doing everything possible on, behalf of their country, but that they believed it to be the duty of the Government to supply kitchens.


John Dowsley Reid: The Government are ordering a lot of these kitchens.


George Perry Graham: I do not want to tell anything out of school, but men are being canvassed for these kitchens.


John Dowsley Reid: I am surprised.


George Perry Graham: So was I. The Government ought to supply them. If they are-supplying them, the battalions do not know it. I say that honestly, because within -the last week a certain public man was asked for a contribution towards a kitchen, and he contributed, notwithstanding he thought that the Government ought to supply the kitchen.	,


John Dowsley Reid: They do.


George Perry Graham: Possibly the Government does not know these men are being, canvassed. I say the Government should concentrate and bring together these funds,, and let the people know that the Government is supplying the necessities. Then the Patriotic Fund could be reserved for-oomforts, for looking after those who suffer-in disasters, or through the dozen and one-things that may happen to the families or . to the soldiers, which cannot be provided: against in any statute you may pass.
In regard to a few lessons from the-war, 1 think one of the first lessons we have learned is that the farmers-of Canada have succeeded by a super-

human effort in	increasing	their
production during the past	year.
If you go into some of the homes in the province of Ontario-and I suppose this is true 'everywhere-you will find that the men there., at the request of the powers that be, work longer hours and harder than they have done for a long time in order that they may produce more. This is also applicable to the manufacturers of the Dominion who1 have shown that they can speed up and compete with any people in the world. I criticised the War Office a Sew moments ago, but I am not surprised that Great Britain thought we could not do anything in this country in the manufacturing line.
I remember not so very long ago reading a document which the Prime Minister placed upon the table of the House as coming from the First Lord of the Admiralty, to explain why we could not make ships in Canada. Two of the reasons given were: first, that it required very firm ground on which to have the shipyards established; and, second, that it needed cranes of 150 tons capacity to handle the ships. These were two reasons given by the Admiralty itself, and when the Government of Canada endorsed them, of course, the War Office thought that we could not make shells or anything of that kind. They would not bother with people who had not earth strong enough to hold up a ship and who were not able to build cranes of 150 tons' capacity. They took us at our word, and perhaps that is the reason why they said to Russia and France:	Go to the
United States; Canada says she cannot do anything. I will not discuss that point any further, but I will just point out when a man starts on a wrong road where it is apt to lead him. The Government never thought, when they accepted these reasons for not being able To build ships in Canada, that so soon Canada herself, through her manufacturing establishments, would give them a direct denial and would show the people of the whole world that in Canada the artisans and mechanics and manufacturers could do anything that could be done with machinery anywhere.
Another thing that we have learned from the war is that the naval policy of this Government is of no use in time of stress. Had the policy of the right hon. gentleman who sits at my right (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) not been repudiated by the Government, the Minister of Agriculture

(Mr. Burrell) would not have been in such trouble as he was on the British Columbia coast. That brings me to the question of submarines. I am going to discuss it from another angle, because I am trying to discuss everything at some angle from which it has not been viewed previously. I am not going to argue that too much money was paid for the submarines, or that they were no good. I am going to take Sir Richard McBride at his word and follow his statement up with evidence from the Minister of Agriculture. First I will ask the question: were the submarines needed? Yes. Why were they needed? Because British Columbia, on its coast, was naked of the first vestige of defence. I think I agree with Sir Richard and the Minister of Agriculture on that point. Why was it naked?


John Dowsley Reid: The Rainbow was there.


George Perry Graham: If the hon. gentleman will read the speech of the Minister of Agriculture 'he will find that the Minister said it was somewhere else. The coast of British Columbia was naked, because the Minister of Agriculture said so. Sir Richard McBride's action in buying two submarines [DOT]-his not to reason why, his but to rush and buy-must be taken by the Government as proof that'the submarines were needed. If they were not needed it was an awful thing to buy them without any authority. They were needed. But lest you might think that Sir Richard had gone astray and got excited and did not really know the situation, I would like to give another proof that the British Columbia coast was naked,-


Rodolphe Lemieux: Be decent.


George Perry Graham: -disrobed altogether of anything that she ever had in the way of defence.


An hon. MEMBER:: Ready for swimming.


George Perry Graham: I want to quote the Minister of Agriculture to be sure of the ground on which I stand.


Martin Burrell: Be sure you have "the right date.


George Perry Graham: At page 328 of Hansard -I am going to quote the latest speech of my hon. friend because it expresses most truly his present state of mind-the Minister of Agriculture said:
I know perfectly well that my hon. friend would be quite willing to talk for half an hour if necessary, but I do not think it is necessary at all. When a man is in serious

danger of his life and finds that a rifle is the only weapon he can get to save his life, and it is a question of whether the rifle is going to cost $10, $15, or $20 he is not very much concerned whether he is going to pay $10, $15 or $20; he is going to get the rifle in order to save his life. 1 cannot understand my hon. friend into giving credit to the situation which existed in British Columbia at that time. He ought to know, as every man in this House should know, that at the particular time at which this transaction took place the declaration of war was a matter of hours, that there was no time to enter into lengthy negotiations, even if we had disputed the price of these boats. It was a matter of necessity to get them. I know what the condition of things in Victoria and Vancouver was at that time, and I know how seriously alarmed the people^ were. It was a matter not only of possibility, but of probability that the German fleet on the Pacific were liable at any time to steam in and shell the two cities of Victoria and Vancouver.
That is what the right hon. the leader ot the Opposition said in 1910 might happen, that a certain outbreak might occur, and that if the coast of British Columbia and the Atlantic coast were not provided with ships with which to protect themselves, cruisers or battleships might get into their harbours and destroy them before protection could come from the Imperial Fleet. But my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture-and he is more responsible to British Columbia than any one else- pooh-poohed that.


Martin Burrell: No.


George Perry Graham: Unless this submarine
purchase may be called a deviation, he repudiated the policy that meant protection for the Pacific coast, and he adopted the policy of contribution, which would leav.e the coast naked, as it was left when war broke out.


Martin Burrell: I do not want to make a speech, as I have made one already. The hon. gentleman always tries to be fair, and I am sure he wants to be fair now. I never was in favour of a policy of contribution. In the dispute that took place in regard to [DOT]	the defence of British Columbia,
11	p.m. I think my hon. friend will find me on record as stating that the Laurier policy of a fleet unit split up on each coast without a dreadnought was no policy at all, and that if my right hon. friend had adopted the policy proposed by the Admiralty in the first place, of a fleet unit on the Pacific coast, he would probably have received a good deal of support.


George Perry Graham: We find support for anything we do not do and no support for anything we do. My hon. friend's action in
joining this Government, which promised to repeal the Canadian Naval Service Act, and with it everything connected with the construction of ships, can be construed into no other meaning than that up to the present moment, unless the submarine purchase may be called a deviation, he has steadfastly adhered to a policy that means ships for the Imperial Navy and no Canadian ships on the Pacific coast.
The policy by which this Government got into power by the vote of a part of Quebec was:	No naval protection to the coasts of
Canada. That included British Columbia. And if British Columbia was found naked and is naked to-day except for these two submarines, it is not the fault of the men who sit on this side of the House, but of those who sit on the other side, including the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Burrell), who, owing to the alliance described here to-day by one of the Nationalists, dare not support the Canadian navy, but promised to repeal the Naval Service Act.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: Has not the policy
of Sir Robert Borden, to strengthen the navy in the North Sea, had the result of taking every German cruiser from the sea so that it is not necessary to have cruisers?


George Perry Graham: The last German cruiser driven from the sea was so driven by the Australian navy, and we should have one like it.


William Sora Middlebro: The hon. gentleman
has not answered my question. Has not the policy of strengthening the great fleet in. the North Sea had the result of clearing the ocean of all foreign cruisers, with a result that it is not now necessary to have cruisers?


George Perry Graham: As to cruisers, the cruiser that the Minister of Agriculture meant was probably the Emden. If he had had one ship of the Sydney class in Victoria harbour and.a couple of torpedo boats or submarines, would not he have felt safe?


Robert Rogers: It was all right; we had the Rainbow there.


George Perry Graham: The fact is that this Government, by its own misconduct, was caught with British Columbia unprotected. I know my hon. friend will say-and I wonder he did not say it before-that the vessels could not have been completed in time. True; if what is called the Laurier policy; now called by common consent the Canadian Commonsense policy, had been carried out there would have been in October, two

months after the war broke out, one cruiser and one torpedo boat destroyer.
You	say,	that	was	two	months	toolate.	But	if	this	Government	hadnot	tied	itself	hand	and	foot	to apolicy that meant no protection of our coast by Canadian ships, they could have operated under the Laurier policy, and before then could have had submarines by the score. They could have had submarines built in Vancouver or Victoria under the Naval Service Act. But, instead of that they promised to repeal that Act. In this House the Minister of Marine (Mr. Hazen) in answer to a question by Mr. Mondou as to whether it was the intention of the Government to repeal that Act, said, in effect:	Yes, eventually we are
going to repeal the Naval Service Act and in its place we will introduce another Act and policy and on that we will appeal to the electors of the Dominion. They did reverse the Laurier policy, but they could not get rid of the Naval Service Act. And it was under that Act that the Minister of Agriculture put the two submarines.
T think we have learned from this w-that if Canada is to take her place among the nations of the world, if her people are to remain manly and are to retain the independent spirit which now they have or ought to have, there is only one course for this Government, and that is to accept its lesson in humility and prepare to have, the number of ships built for Canada that are necessary on either coast.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member was a
member of the Cabinet at the time tenders were called for ships under the Laurier policy. Why were not those contracts let?


George Perry Graham: That has been explained so often-


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. gentleman' has
never explained.


George Perry Graham: I have explained it
twice in this House myself. The matter is plain-no matter what the other Government did or did not do, the contract was ready to sign, the money was on deposit. But this Government returned to the contractors the money that guaranteed the construction of the ships. This was done because they had terms with the Nationalists, as they themselvse admit and as was very frankly stated to-day, under which they had promised absolutely that in return for the support of the Nationalists in Quebec, the Naval Service Act would be repealed.

I am surprised that a British Columbian, knowing the feeling that existed in British Columbia over the Japanese question, should be willing as a Canadian to rest supinely and say:	I will be protetcted by
Australia, but above all I want to be protected by Japan.
The situation is a little humiliating but I hope the lesson has been learned and that we shall proceed as a young nation to do the work of a nation, as we provide men on the land, equipping and providing them munitions, so at an early date we shall provide for Canada a navy of her own to protect our trade routes in time of peace and do its share in protecting our coasts in time of war.
We have learned to know ourselves better than we did before. Whatever may be our difficulties we have discovered that the heart of the Canadian people is rising to something nobler than the making of money. I think I can say we are all one- though perhaps some of our friends the Nationalists see things through different spectacles-in our devotion and loyalty to the British Empire. We believe the destiny of Canada is to remain in the British Empire and to work out its own salvation as an independent people within that Empire. We have learned to respect one another's views more than we did at one time, and I think the lesson learned by us all will bear fruit in the future and will help to make us more united people than we have been in the past. One thing has struck me as very important, and as something that might well impress itself on our minds and that is the levelling process that has gone on throughout the Empire owing to this war. There was a time when we rather turned up our noses at the aristocrats of the Old Land. We thought that they were living on the reputation of their ancestry. But now that the testing time has come we find the aristocrat shouldering his ^un and marching side by side with Tommy Atkins or with the colonial soldier, and doing his, share in the trenches. When the history of the war is written no differences will be made between Tommy Atkins and the aristocrat who stood side by side in the war. That will weld the nation, it will help to draw the common people and the aristocrats closer together, and to bring Canada closer to the heart of the Empire than she has ever been before. We in Canada, notwithstanding our disputes and our differences and our ideas as to methods, ought never to forget that, as in the past, one of the great duties we

have to perform in the future is to continue the work of creating and maintaining harmony and of welding a'll the different races in this our great country. We who are of any particular descent, whether it be Scotch, Irish, English, French, German, or anything else, cannot stand up and say that we only are the salt of the earth, and thank the Lord that we are not as the people who came from other countries are. We are Canadians, and we must be careful, in our 'criticisms of each other-yes, in our criticisms of how the war is proceeding-that we do not utter a word that will in the future make it more difficult to weld the races in the Dominion of Canada, whether they come from France or Germany; from Ireland, Scotland or England. We	have	in Canada many	races;	theyare	truly	loyal. We ought	to be	careful not to use any words in the heat of passion or in the heat of discussion, even of this momentous question, which in the	years	to come we shall be	sorrythat, we	ever uttered. We	shall	have
to remain as neighbours; our great duty, Mr. Speaker-a duty which, if performed, will reflect the greatest credit on our nationhood-is to make this country a happy place for people to live in, no matter where they come from; to let those who come here know that when they arrive in Canada they have come to a country where all men are free and equal, and where the only essentials to success are honesty and uprightness of character and the treatment of one's neighbour as one wishes himself to be treated.
Let it be understood the world over, let it be understood throughout the British Empire, let it be understood by friend and by foe, that until victory perches on the banner of the Allies, Canada, from the East to the West, from Charlottetown to the Yukon, will stand by the Empire as one man, united in a great common cause.
On motion of Hon. E. L. Patenaude, the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Hon. Robert Rogers, the House adjourned at 11.17 p.m.
Wednesday, February 2, 1916.