1917-01-24

COAL SHORTAGE.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. MICHAEL STEELE (South Perth):: I wish to inquire of the Minister of Railways regarding the coal situation throughout Ontario. Speaking more particularly for the western portion of the province, the people there are face to face with the most serious coal famine they have ever experienced. Of the factories depending upon steam power, some are already closed, and many of them will be compelled to close within a very short time. Householders, too, in both town and country are very short of the necessary fuel, and in many homes the coal bin is empty. I know that the minister has had this matter before him, because through his exertions and the efforts of the Railway Commission some relief was afforded to certain sections, a few weeks ago. The situation, however, is becoming so serious again that I know the people of the provinces will be glad to be assured that every effort is being made to relieve what is a most distressing situation. I should like to inquire of the minister what prospects there are for relief in the near future.


Hon. Mr. COCHRANE (Minister of Railways) :: I will bring my hon. friend's remarks before the Railway Commission and ask them to proceed as they did before, and try and relieve the situation. I know from my experience with the Intercolonial that cars are exceedingly short on the American side, and the American railways are very loath to allow them to come off their lines into Canada; and of course we have no jurisdiction to compel them. If the roads can get the coal and bring it into Canada, we will see that it is delivered.



THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of Mr. G. C. Wilson (Wentworth) for an Address to His
6i
Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, resumed from Tuesday, January 23.
Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (North Cape Breton) (Resuming):: Mr. Speaker, before the debate was adjourned last night I was calling the attention of the House to a portion of the very important correspondence which had taken place between the Prime Minister and the ex-Minister of Militia, and in order that it may he plain to you, Sir, and to hon. gentlemen, I will take the liberty of again reading that short paragraph so as to connect up my remarks, with what I was saying at the hour of adjournment last night. This is a quotation from the letter of the exMinister of Militia to the right hon. the Prime Minister. As I stated last night, this quotation must be accepted as true because it has passed muster, in the sense of not having been replied to or contradicted by the Prime Minister during the course of the correspondence, and it has passed the further test of having been quoted by the right hon. leader of the Opposition in his speech on Monday last, which was delivered before the right hon. the Prime Minister spoke, and the Prime Minister in the course of his address did not think it proper to make any reference by way of contradiction to this paragraph from the letter of the ex-Minister of Militia. I think, therefore, I have a right to believe that this is a proper statement of the facts' as they existed between the Prime Minister and his late colleague. The paragraph I shall quote is but a mere scrap of the rather extended correspondence that took place between them. But it struck me at the time I read the correspondence, and I still so regard it, as a very serious matter, a matter that should receive careful consideration by the Canadian people, and a matter which I think should be brought clearly to their notice. The paragraph reads:
It is difficult for me to recall where you have actively supported me in the passage of any Order in Council concerning the up-building of the Militia when opposed by two members of the Cabinet usually antagonistic to anything proposed by me. As you are aware, it took up four months in the midst of this great war to fight through the principles of purchasing, for the Second Division, trucks at the lowest wholesale prices, instead of allowing large commissions to local agents who would have nothing whatever to do with securing the order.
That, Sir, is a situation which if stated by any ordinary man in this country would not be believed for a moment. If that statement appeared in any partisan news-

paper in the Dominion of Canada, I venture to say that, partisan as I am, I would not believe it at all; but coming as it does from the Minister of Militia, and having, as it has. the silent endorsement of the Prime Minister, there is nothing left for me but to believe that that was really the condition of affairs that existed at the time when the equipment for the Second Division was under consideration by the Cabinet. I submit that some satisfactory explanation should come from the Prime Minister as to why he should permit any such conditions as those here indicated to exist in his Cabinet. He may have unruly members in his Cabinet, members who will not always do as he would have them do; but as to their conduct, and the way in which they administer the departments over which they preside, the Canadian people hold the Prime Minister responsible, and will call him to account for the manner in which they respectively conduct the public affairs which are committed to them.
The Minister of Militia charges two members of the Cabinet in particular with having fought more vigorously than the others against him when he was trying to get this Order in Council through. It must be clear to this House and the country that those things could not be done behind the door, as far as the Prime Minister is concerned. The meetings of Council, of course, are always under his supervision, and he presides over them. I take it for granted that that is the case, particularly when he is here and able to preside over the meetings. It is not put forward as an excuse or in extenuation of the circumstances, that he did not preside over Cabinet meetings during the four months when this particular matter was under consideration. I have therefore a right to assume that he was aware who these two ministers were who were particularly fighting this vote, and who the gentlemen in the Cabinet were who were generally obstructing the progress of the country in connection with these very important matters. One would suppose that, instead of the Minister of Militia being driven out of the Council, those two ministers, whoever they were that were trying to obstruct him and to obstruct the business of the country, would be driven out of the Cabinet and other men brought into their places who would comply with the necessities of the country and see that proper speed was provided for the grave requirements of the VMr. McKenzie.]
war. Now that the Prime Minister has thought proper to put out of the Cabinet the man who was urging for speed and who stood firmly for the principle of business along business lines, and that he has kept in his Cabinet those two men, whoever they are, who were obstructing the business and who were wanting to do business, not along business lines, but along the line of improper	methods-this	correspondence
clearly shows that graft was intended, as the commissions, according to this letter, were to go to people who were not to raise a finger in procuring the trucks-the Prime Minister before the great jury of the people of Canada must be held responsible for the conduct of those who were opposing their colleague and obstructing the business and wanting to get this commission for men who had no right at all to receive it. It is, therefore, a matter of proper criticism, and one that should be brought to the attention of the Canadian people at a stage when we are all anxious that' the best should be done in connection with the war, and that every dollar of money and every moment of time should be properly utilized so that Canada may take her proper position in regard to the war. It is, therefore, important for us to know what position the Cabinet is taking, and if we find that the Prime Minister and the other members of the Cabinet are willing to stand pat for four months on a simple question of business, what can they expect of the large masses of the people who are not so directly responsible as themselves?
I am not so sure that the true reason has been given in regard to putting the exMinister of Militia out of office. We had from the beginning a most extraordinary kind of Cabinet: a Tory Cabinet, a Tory Government, a highly loyal Government and a highly loyal support, bearing with it at every stage the brand of loyalty and boasting of its great loyalty; but, after all, when one comes to examine into the personnel of that Government at its inception and throughout its progress from stage to stage; when one comes to its true inwardness, one finds that its personnel is not compatible with the great protestations of loyalty made in regard to it. There were two conflicting elements in the Cabinet from the beginning. There were the superloyalists, the extraordinarily loyal, represented by the former Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes) and others on the one hand, and the extreme Nationalists on the other, who fought the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden and the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Lau-

rier to the death during the last campaign, and who would have nothing to do with either of them, but who, by some wonderful light which they saw on the way to Ottawa-instead of to Damascus-underwent a marvellous change, and we had this wonderful combination forming the highly loyal Cabinet presided over by my right hon. friend. I am sorry, however, to think that they were not long together in that happy combination when the Premier found it necessary to erect stalls in the council chamber and to put the members of his Cabinet into different compartments in the hope of keeping them apart, but the partition walls were evidently broken down and he could not have peace or contentment with them at all. It is no reflection upon the Prime Minister, nor upon the Government, that it was well understood in the country that a very important loyal body in Canada was recognised in the Cabinet by the selection of Sir Sam Hughes as Minister of Militia. I have reference to the great loyal Orange body in this country. In newspaper publications it has been reported that it was because he was recognized as one of the leading men of that body that he was taken into the Cabinet as representing their wishes and will, and that the distinguished gentleman who occupied the chair which you, Sir, now occupy was taken into office and given a place of promise and high positidn for the same reason. You can readily understand the incompatibility of the two elements, the great Nationalist crowd represented in the Cabinet by men who would have nothing to do with, and who owed nothing to, England, who had no use for the British flag except tc puncture it for the purpose of ventilation-you can readily understand what sort of a happy family they would be sitting down with my good friend the ex-Minister of Militia and incidentally with the gentleman who was at one time Speaker of this House, representing the high class of loyalty exhibited by the Orange body of this country. The Government can say what they like as to why Sir Sam Hughes was driven out of the Cabinet and why the Speaker at that time, the Hon. Mr. Sproule., now the Hon. Senator Sproule, was driven out of the Chair, but the real reason was because their views were absolutely incompatible with the contentions and spirit of the Nationalist wing, and the latter prevailed, and they ate up the others and put them out of sight. That is the true reason why Sir Sam Hughes went out of the Government and why the Hon.
Mr- Sproule went out of the Chair, and it is only right that the great Orange body should understand why those plays are going on and that they should look behind the curtain and see the true reason and not be fooled by supposing that it was because the musical ear of the ex-Minister of Militia was not properly tuned and that he wrote a letter which did not quite please the highly technical ear of the Prime Minister. It was not, the Prime Minister says, because of anything that was in the letter; it was not because there was anything particularly offensive in it; but it was pitched in a tone-that grated so harshly on the highly sensitive nerves of the Prime Minister that the-tone could not be tolerated any longer because he had enough lack of harmony in the Cabinet without allowing a voice which grated so much upon his sensibilities to remain. The real cause was a sort of housecleaning for the purpose of pleasing the Nationalists and driving the Orange element out of the Cabinet, so far as they could be. driven out.
I hope, that having been done, there wilE be some harmony for a little while, and it; will remain to be seen whether the further expansion and extension of Nationalism in the Government or the new addition to it will receive the approval of the country. It is not for me to say, and I am not going to say anything about it. I will say this for the late Speaker, that, as the Prime Minister felt that he had to select from among the Nationalists, he made the best selection possible.
Before leaving this correspondence and dropping the subject, I wish to point out to the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) who, I am sorry, is not in his place, that he should have had some supervision over the financing of this second contingent when they were being held here. I am not sure of the number of men in that contingent. Let us take it at 50,000. With wages and expenses, it is not at all unreasonable to say that the expense of keeping this contingent would be $3 per day per man, and it would probably be more. At that rate, this country has had to pay out $18,000,000 to keep this contingent at a standstill for four months. And for what purpose? We would like to be able to give a reason for our doings at every turn in this crisis, andi the people naturally want to know why this-sum of $18,000,000 was expended. The reason is that a fight was going on in the-Cabinet over commissions on trucks, andi until that was decided the second contim-

gent of this magnificent army had to be held up. The Canadian people are expected to say to those who are responsible: Well done, good and faithful servants, continue to waste the money of the country as you have wasted it in holding over this contingent. It is well that the people should know the facts of the case, and it will be for them to pass judgment.
General Hughes was got out of the Cabinet. He was made the scapegoat. We are famiMar with the ritual of the scapegoat. The sins of the people were loaded upon the goat and the goat was sent out into the wilderness. The poor goat in this case was to bear the sins of the Cabinet, so you can understand how great was his burden. No doubt he was led out by two ministers. I do not know which ministers they were, but I can imagine they may have been the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers), and the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White). They went into the wilderness with the goat, but apparently they did not go far enough; no doubt they had to hurry back for fear someone would get an advantage in the Cabinet while they were away. The result is that the goat is back; he appears at times in this House. One can almost hear the horrified murmurs of the Minister of Finance on seeing that goat here, "Angels and ministers of grace -defend us!" They did not take the goat far enough, and so the old time ritual is "busted." Moses' goats did not come back; but the Borden goat has come back, and some other scheme will have to be found to get clear of it, for it is a menace to the progress of the Government. The more they beat the goat the bigger it gets. The Prime Minister seems to realise this, for in his speech the other day he indicated a desire to gently pat the goat's head and to avoid doing anything that would stir it to anger.
Throughout the whole country-or at least, certainly, in the province of Nova Scotia-matters of recruiting, encamping, training and transportation in connection with the military are run strictly on lines of political patronage. There is only one patronage committee; the 'Same committee which deals with railway matters, public works, and marine and fisheries, deals also with everything pertaining to the military. What, think you, Sir, of such a case as this? There is a rule, I understand, that when a man is discharged from the force for isome good reason, and is called upon to hand in his uniform, he is

given a suit of clothes. An officer went into a certain store with a number of men so discharged, for the purpose of getting them the clothing called for under this -rule. The goods were there and were found to fit the boys. A election was made, the goods were packed, and nothing remained but to sign the bill. The officer asked the merchant, " By the way, what are your politics"?, The merchant said, " It is well known what my politics are, I am a Liberal and always have been a Liberal." Whereupon the officer remarked, " I regret it very -much, but I have no authority to buy anything except in a (Tory store." That actually took place in one of our leading towns of Nova Scotia, and it is only a sample of how everything else is done, which shows how far this Government -and its officials will go in trying to make political capital in the province of Nova Scotia and no doubt throughout the whole country. The marvel is that the Liberal boys are going to the front in the service of their country but they do go in spite of the slaps in the face they have received from officers appointed and maintained by this Tory Government.
I say that I believe that the same thing is carried on in other provinces besides Nova Sooti-a. I have here -a clipping taken from the Toronto Globe of a few days ago. I have not heard of any contradiction or denial of the statements it makes. I have no means of knowing whether it is true or not, but quote it for what it is worth. There are hon. gentlemen here from Toronto and its neighbourhood who will know whether it is true or not; and if true, it is a fine commentary upon the conduct of the men who are entrusted with office and responsible for the state of affairs here shown:
Soldiers, Get in Line!
Is it necessary for a returned soldier in Toronto to join a Conservative ward association before he has any chance of securing a government position? Is the spoils system still in operation? Can no Liberal who has fought for his country hope to serve it in time of peace without renouncing his political creed? These questions are forced to the front by the uncontradicted statement that Sergeant Soloman, a returned soldier wounded in France, was told by Sergeant-Major Creighton at the city hall, when he applied for a position, to "go and join the Second Ward Conservative Association and get in line for a government job." The sergeant-major says he told the returned soldier to see the Conservative Patronage Committee, not to join the association, hut that is a very lame excuse.
The statement made by Soloman is all the more significant when it is remembered that the Second Ward is a part of the constituency of Hon. A. E. Kemp, Minister of Militia. Does Mr. Kemp take the view of the Government's

obligations to returned soldiers taken by Sergeant-Major Creighton of the city hall staff? Does he propose to confine openings in the service of the people of Canada to soldiers who can show cards of membership in Conservative associations? Having stood in line in the trenches against the enemies of the Empire, must Liberals who desire places in the public service now stand in line behind some stay-at-home ward heeler? Mr. Kemp cannot afford to ignore the issue raised by Sergeant-Major Creighton's remark to Sergeant Soloman.
I have stated what has been and is being done in Nova Scotia before the soldiers go away, but if this clipping be true-and it bears some evidence of trutli-it would appear that in Ontario the patronage system in operation is such that not only before the soldiers go, but after they have placed their lives in jeopardy for their country and have come back wounded, bruised or crippled, they must bear the badge of their only saviour and salvation, showing that they are Tories, or they cannot be recognized at all. This is a sad condition of things, and I really hope that the Prime Minister and those who have to do with matters of this kind will see that such things shall not any longer be perpetrated in this great country of ours. I said last night that I was not fond of making criticisms.


Some Hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am pleased, Sir, that I receive sanction and approval of this not only from my own side of the House, but clearly from the other side as well. We appeal to hon. gentlemen on the other side in respect to these matters, because the Government will not listen to us. Hon. gentlemen, will, I suppose, listen to their own friends, and so we bring these matters to their notice. I see sitting opposite me honest business men who in every walk of life outside of politics would scorn to do anything but that which was clean cut, honest and straightforward. I am sorry, however, that the bane of politics blindfolds them; they follow their leaders recklessly and carelessly, which they will do until there comes a tumbledown and they all disappear forever from view. I see opposite me to-day a gentleman for whom this country has the greatest regard and in whom it has the greatest confidence, a gentleman who has shown some independence in public life. I refer to the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle). I was thinking about him yesterday and last night when I was reading about the holdup for four months which cost $18,000,000 of the people's money, the reason being
that some Tories were fighting and strangling each other to get pelf and graft out of the blood of the people of this country.
I was thinking how he would stand before the highly-cultured people of Kingston and defend the lenten season of four months which was kept for the purpose of allowing friends of his to get a slice from these truck wagons that were being slowly produced for the purposes of the war. I remind my hon. friend of these things, so that when he has not much else to do he may carefully think over the explanation that he wlil make to his people regarding them. He has taken a firm stand on other things where the evidence was not half so clear; the evidence here is unquestioned, coming from the Cabinet itself, and I am sure that whether or not he tells us anything about it, it will not receive his sanction or approval. On one occasion the hon. gentleman did take his life in his hand; he did break away, though only for a season, I am sorry to say, from the rank and file, and kicked over the traces for a little while. He found the chafing of the traces, however, so hurtful that he was glad to get back. Having had the experience of getting his legs curled up and scratched by these traces, I am afraid that it will not be so easy to get him to kick over again. However, I remind him of this as he is a,sample of the many excellent gentlemen whom I see before me who would like to cut down business of this kind, but who may be afraid to do it. I warn hon. gentlemen that the great province of Ontario is an honest province-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: -and that the Ontario farmer will not stand for this thing. It would be better for them to cast out an eye or cut off a right hand before the day of reckoning than to stay by the crowd and suffer the fate of the man who does not cast out the eye or cut off the hand. Possibly that is enough said about this correspondence; I assume that it will be dealt with by other gentlemen who know more about it than I do.
Another matter to which I wish to refer will show how the friends of the Government and the Government itself expected to use the soldiers, not only in the way of patronage, but in the elections. It was refreshing to me to hear the Prime Minister speaking in the House on the opening day of this debate with regard to the soldiers' vote. He has made a roundabout face on

that question; but as he has made certain other evolutions of that kind, I assume that it is an exercise which he does not find #ery difficult. I shall quote what I said about this Act when it was passed in 1915 and what the Prime Minister said the other day. I am sure that if hon. gentlemen did not know the contrary they would think that the remarks were those of two men speaking on the same subject and in entire accord. What I said when this Enfranchising Bill was under discussion, as it appears on page 2273 of Hansard of 1915, volume 3, was as follows:
I do not hesitate to put myself on record here-I did not spealr on the second reading of the Bill-as being opposed to the measure. I believe that it is not workable and that it will only add to the difficulties already existing at the front.
The soldiers when they go to the front take upon themselves certain responsibilities, and we repose certain trusts in them. They are to do the fighting for us, and we are to provide for them in every way that we can. Their minds are not to be bothered about political or municipal affairs; they must have a free hand to deal with the very arduous and important matters they have before them. On the other hand, the soldier has to trust to the friends whom he leaves behind and to the people of the country that in his absence political matters shall be kept on an even keel. As we trust them at the front, they have to trust us here.
Then a little further on I said:-
We are called upon to give the right to vote to men who are far away from home, who are out of touch with the issues that will be threshed out in an election, and who have no knowledge of the qualifications of the candidates. Without taking shelter behind the assertion that I am not opposed to voting by soldiers, or behind any other shelter, I say that I am absolutely opposed to this Bill.
That, Sir, was the position I took upon that Bill when it was before the House. At that time the right hon. Prime Minister took a directly contrary view, and he was backed up by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), and particularly backed up by the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. R. B. Bennett). We were told, myself and others on this side of the House, particularly the right hop. leader of the Opposition, that we were, of course, disloyal because we ventured to say that this Act was not workable. Here, now, after thinking over this matter for two years or more, the Prime Minister himself comes back to this House and says, on page 41 of Hansard of the 22nd ' of this month:-
I know something of the conditions at the front, and I venture to put this thought before the House and the country: the men at the front will be not only practically, but actually,

disfranchised if an election does take place In this country while they are in the trenches. That is my conviction. I say they would be actually disfranchised because, although I render every tribute to my hon. friend the Minister of Tustice (Mr. Doherty) and the committee which had in hand the preparation of the Soldiers Voting Act of 1915, I am not disposed to think that the arrangements made in that Act or in any other Act that could be devised are such as to enable those men to vote, or at least any considerable number of them. You cannot predict what conditions may exist. _ Supposing an election came on in this country when the fiercest drive of the war was taking place. Do you Imagine that the paymasters of those regiments and their commanding officers could busy themselves with handing out ballots to men whose souls were engrossed and whose lives were at stake in the enterprise in which they were engaged? There is something more than that. These men at the front have it not in their disposition, have it not in their heart or their soul to consider matters of party controversy under the conditions with which they are there confronted.
That, Sir, is the position taken by the Prime Minister to-day. It is the position that was particularly taken by myself two years ago, and I feel very proud to find that the Prime Minister has come to my way of thinking in this matter, and that we are not to have the spectacle of an endeavour to have the soldiers cast their votes in the trenches, if an election should come on. I fear, Sir, that the change of view of the Prime Minister is not altogether attributable to his mature consideration of the views which I then advanced; I believe that his statement the other day was the expression of a conviction not of the soul and of the mind arrived at by logical sequence; that is not the reason for this change of heart. The Conservative party had an experience in the taking of soldiers' votes in the province of British Columbia last summer, and the plan did not pan out as splendidly as they expected it would. The cancer of votelosing started in the British Columbia election and seemed likely to develop more and more, and so they feared that if they afforded an opportunity to those men in the trenches to vote the same thing that happened in British Columbia would be repeated in an even greater degree, and that the end would be worse than the beginning.
I am afraid that that is the reason of the change of heart of the Prime Minister, and that is why we are not to be troubled with the vote of the soldier if an election takes place now, as was intended at the time the Act was passed.
I shall be told, I suppose, that I should not criticise this Government, and that they are doing the best they can. Well, I

will admit they are doing the best they can with their present personnel. But if they are doing the best they can, I do not want any better reason for turning them out, for the best they can, is not good enough for the people ,of this country; and we must have men whose best is equal to the occasion, and will give this country such a government as we had under the regime of my right hon. leader (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) during the long period when the duties of government devolved upon him.
As I have stated, their best is n.ot good enough, and we must, therefore, hope that the day is not far distant when they will realize that themselves, and do something like their brethren did in Manitoba, when they themselves discovered that the judgment of God was upon them and they moved out, bag and baggage, without waiting for any mandate from the people. We d.o not expect that here, but that will be the result, and that is what is going to happen as soon as the Canadian people have an opportunity of passing judgment upon these honourable gentlemen.
I was going to say that, after all, the only thing to the credit of this Government has been the war operations. They have not shown one iota of practical or constructive statesmanship from the time they took office down to the present moment. There are many able men on the other side of the House, and if any acts of constructive statesmanship have been performed by the Government, these able men will be able to tell us what they were. We are told that the Minister of Finance is entitled to great credit because of the manner in which he financed the affairs of the country. I do not think, Sir, that anybody would have given a great deal of credit to a man who would have come after Joseph in the old days. If after Joseph had filled the barns and the treasuries with gold and silver and grain and everything that was necessary, he had gone out of business and somebody had come along who had nothing to do but to measure out lavishly what was in the treasury, in the stores, in the barns, I do not think we would give such a man a great deal of credit. That was the position of the Minister of Finance. He came in here and found that he had come after seven fat years, fifteen fat years indeed, and he found the treasury full, he found the credit ,of the country at the highest possible pitch. In fact he found everything at his hand, in as great abundance as the heart of man could wish for or conceive. He started out to squander at a great rate, as fast as
possible, and when all of the stored treasure was gone, when he had scraped the bottom of the flour barrel, he started after the people to take from them what they had gathered up during the fifteen years of plenty whilst Sir Wilfrid Laurier was in power. Does anybody say that that was a great act of statesmanship, because after squandering $40,000,000 which we left to the credit of the country he now goes after the people to take from them what they had gathered up with frugality and care under the prosperous regime of Sir Wilfrid Laurier? That, Sir, is the only thing that stands to the credit of the Minister of Finance so far as constructive statesmanship or financing is concerned.
I submit that in the section of the country from which I come we have reason to complain of the conduct and management of this Government. I submit, Sir, that if proper care had been taken, if proper economy had been practised, if the moneys that we left had not been squandered as they were, public works and development in this country would not have been abandoned to the extent that they were. I submit that the programme laid down at that time in regard to railways and other matters in the province of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Quebec, should have been carried out, but I regret to say that everything has been dropped, and nothing has been done in that part of the country. We have not had the opportunities of developing that we should have had to put us in proper touch with the commercial growth of this country. For these opportunities we must look forward to the time when the same right hon. gentleman who was ready to give us them will again be in charge of affairs in this country. I am sorry to say that we have nothing to hope for from the present Administration along these lines, and we have reason to fear that unless there is a change soon, and a stop is put to their mal-administration, it will be many years before we get back to that equilibrium between receipts and expenditures in this country that is necessary to carry on the business of the country as it ought to be carried on.
Before sitting down, Sir, I wish to refer to a matter which particularly affects the Prime Minister himself, and which, perhaps, is not of general interest to the House. I am sorry that my county of Cape Breton has not been treated so well in connection with its representation in another place in this building as it ought to have been. I wish to point out that at Confederation the great

county of Cape Breton which I in part represent, had two senators. Ever since that time	it has been	represented
by two and sometimes three senators. I am sorry to say that the Prime Minister and the Government have thought it proper to disregard the old time practice, and to-day the island of Cape Breton is not represented in the Senate at all. The only senator for Cape Breton is not a native of the county, and is not even a native of the province of Nova Scotia.	He has no interest in
the province	of	Nova Scotia,	so
far as I	know, except a palatial
residence which he occupies once in a while in the summer time. He has no interest, so far as I know, in the development of the island of Cape Breton where you get your coal, and your steel, and where everything is big and broad and prosperous in the sphere of commercial and industrial development. I submit, Sir, that if representation in the Senate means anything at all, and it certainly means something, the great island of Cape Breton, with all its industries, should have a representative who has an interest in the county and is in direct touch with the people. I wish to protest against the course taken by the Prime Minister in connection with the recent appointments, in ignoring entirely gentlemen of ability who had claims upon the Government, and in ignoring the people of that island who have a claim to be properly represented in the Senate. We have some excellent men who have sacrificed time, money, and energy, in support of the Conservative party in the county of Cape Breton; and I am sorry that the Prime Minister and the Government have seen fit to ignore them in appointing represen-tives of that part of the country to the great body which forms a branch of the Parliament of this country. I am deeply obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, and to honour-able gentlemen, for the quiet and respectful hearing which I have received in presenting my views to the House. I have presented these views in the hope that there shall be reforms in the Government, that they will cut out patronage in handling war matters for the few short months that they may have to handle them, and that they will devote their energies to one purpose and regard us as one people, so far as these questions are concerned, so that better things may prevail during the short time that they will have anything to do with the affairs of this country.


Mr. WILLIAM ALVES BOYS (South Sim-coe):: About the only matter that I particularly desire to discuss at the moment is in connection with the existing campaign ,in Dorchester, Quebec. It does not seem to me, Sir, that this is a time when we should waste the time of the House in labouring matters which have already been mentioned or which will be discussed later on. Speaking in the House a year ago, I expressed the view, and it is still my sincere opinion, that every member of this House could do more effective work in his own home town in connection with recruiting and patriotic and Red Cross work, than he could in prolonging these endless discussions, which I do not think are contributing very much to the cause of the Allies. I had the pleasure a few days ago of reading a despatch which appeared in the Toronto Globe in its issue of January 19, under date January 18. I think it was taken from a letter written by the right hon. leader of the Opposition, as a sort of message to the Canadian people, and I want to contrast some of the statements therein made with what is being said by his apostle in Dorchester county. In that despatch Sir Wilfrid Laurier said:
The determination was general that Canada must stand behind Britain, and assist with all the strength at her command. Nor is this all. We have heard it alleged that Canada should have remained outside a conflict in which she was not immediately interested, since her territory was not actually invaded. This is the meanest and most selfish view to take of the question. .	.	. Yet there is every probability that we are still far from the end, and so long as more has to be done they have not done enough. Only the all-possible will suffice.
I want to give the- right hon. gentleman credit for sincerity when he wrote those words. But what have we to say about Mr. Lucien Cannon, who is endorsed by the right hon. leader of the Opposition? On the very same day this despatch appeared in the Globe, under date January 18, the right hon. gentleman wrote his apostle as follows:
My dear Lucien:-
How sweetly euphonious "dear Lucien" sounds. No wonder Lucien lost his head. It does not fall to many of us to receive such an endearing epistle from one occupying so high a position in the country as that of the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition.
My dear Lucien:

You have done a good act in renouncing your provincial mandate to revindicate and affirm in Dorchester the lights of outraged conscience. 1 trust the

electors will respond to your noble appeal. X wish you all success.
Your devoted friend, ,



WILFRID LAURIER.

[Stage Direction]
It is only fair to say that when that letter was written the right hon. leader of the Opposition had not, as I understand it, heard of the utterances of "dear Lucien" in Dorchester on the very night when this despatch was published. Let me quote one of "dear Lucien's" remarks:
Are we to ruin our country from the point of view of men, wealth and everything else for England? I say No, without hesitation. If you elect Sevigny there will be no limits to the sacrifices Canada will have to make.
The right hon. leader of the Opposition sends a message to the people of Canada, and the despatch was published in Toronto, where I might say there is not much occasion for it, for in the city of Toronto and in the province of Ontario and most of the other provinces of Canada the people have risen to the occasion, both in regard to recruits and contributions of money in connection with this war. I suppose in this message the right hon. gentleman intended to reach the province of Quebec as well. He says:	"Only the all-possible will
suffice." And his apostle, Lucien Cannon, who has been endorsed both by the right hon. gentleman and by Sir Lomer Gouin, his leader in the province of Quebec, utters the sentiments which I have just quoted. I wish the right hon. gentleman was now in his-place. I would ask him whether or not he approves of these utterances. If he does, he will have to swallow what he said in his despatch to the Globe of January 18. Is there a man in the House of Commons to-day who has the courage, even if he has the conviction-and I do not think there is any such man-is there a man in the House who will stand up to-day and venture to utter before the people of this country the words I have just quoted of Mr. Lucien Cannon?
Mr. GAUVREAU:: He never said it.


William Alves Boys: He did say it.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: You have no proof of it at all.


William Alves Boys: Yes, I have.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: You cannot give any.


William Alves Boys: He has not denied it.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I wish to remind the hon. gentlemen that there is only one method of addressing this House, and that is through the Chair.


William Alves Boys: It is quite evident from the interruption that the hon. gentleman does not like what Mr. Cannon is reported to have said, and well may every man in this House and in Canada blush with shame that,any man seeking a seat in the House of Commons should give utterance to any such sentiments. Such a man should rather be seeking an internment camp than the House of Commons. My hon. friend says that Mr. Cannon never made any such statements. Those statements appeared in the Montreal papers, and at the meeting following the St. Prosper meeting the same gentleman stated that he stood by what he had said and would repeat those statements, and he has never yet contradicted them. Why are they made!'' I say they are made because he believes the utterance of such sentiments is the most likely way of securing his election. It remains to be seen what will happen next Saturday. From the standpoint of the interest of the country, it would be unfortunate that any such man should be elected to the House of Commons, but from the standpoint of the Conservative party it would he the very best thing that could happen. The right hon. gentleman who started off the campaign with that endearing letter of his has not repudiated those statements. Let me read more of the noble sentiments put forth by the right hon. gentleman, as reported in the Toronto Globe:-
Let the young: and healthy enlist and those who cannot enlist will serve the country by work in the field, in the forest, in the mines, on the sea and in the shop. Every individual in the nation can work.
Noble and encouraging sentiment. As I said before, I want to give the right hon. gentleman credit for sincerity, but I must say that my views in that regard will be somewhat shaken if, before this debate is over, he does not give some intimation to the House that he disapproves of what his apostle is saying in Dorchester. Possibly my hon. friend from Temiscouata (Mr. Gauvreau) will suggest that Mr. Cannon never said what I am about to quote, although it has been said three or four times. It is true that the other utterance was hushed up because it was not doing any good, even in Dorchester.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Speak to the Chair.


William Alves Boys: This is what Mr. Lucien Cannon said:-
My attitude to National Service is this. Laurier did not approve because he refused' to join the Commission, but as a good citizen
he advised the people to sign the cards. I signed my card, but X say I am opposed to conscription, whether industrial or military.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Hear, hear. Are you in favour of conscription yourself?


William Alves Boys: I am certainly in favour of National Service.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Alves Boys: My hon. friend wants to hear from me on the subject, and I am quite prepared to let him have my opinion. As far as I am concerned, if the effort in connection with National Service fails and if it becomes necessary to fill the places of the boys who are fighting in Flanders, I am prepared, when that time comes-and it may not be far distant-to support conscription in this country. I do not know whether my hon. friend suggests that this last paragraph quoted was not uttered by the gentleman seeking election in Dorchester. What does he mean? He also stated National Service meant either nothing or conscription. If it means nothing, does he want to suggest that his right hon. leader is supporting nothing? The other alternative is: If it is not nothing, it is conscription. Does he contend that the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition approves or advocates conscription?
Let the young and healthy enlist and those who cannot enlist will serve the country by work in the field, in the forest, in the mines, on the sea and in the shops.
What does that mean? Does not that mean industrial conscription? National Service surely means serving the country in the trenches and in the various other ways that have been referred to. I say again that I do not believe there is a member in this House, either on the other side or on this side, who will venture to make the assertions that Lucien Cannon has made even in connection with National Service.
The right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition went on further and said:
Let us here and now sink passions, prejudices, vain and idle recriminations, and above all, let us bend all our energies towards making Canada an effective factor in the struggle.
And he closes with this sentence:
The heart of the nation must beat with one accord and one desire.
When I place his utterances beside those of his apostle Cannon, I wonder where the harmony, the one 'accord and the one desire are to be found. I do sincerely hope

that the right hon. leader of the Opposition will, before this debate is .over, at all events go this far and say that if Lueien Cannon did utter those statements and sentiments he is no party to them. If he will do that before the election next Saturday Lueien Cannon will not have an opportunity of taking a seat in this House.
If the right hon. gentleman wants to play a part, in keeping, in harmony and 'full acc.ord with the despatch of the 18th of January as it appeared in the Globe, I think he should say to the Premier of this Dominion: Go overseas and take part in the Imperial Conference where you will have the right, not only to speak but to vote. Go with a mandate from the people of this country such as has already been referred to in this debate, but with no such mandate as will come from Dorchester if Lueien Cannon is elected. Let him further say: You go with the full assurance that when you return, the life of this Parliament will be extended and we will give you an opportunity of placing upon the statute-book measures that may be necessary to carry out the determinations of the Imperial Conference, and while you are doing this, I will proceed to my native province of Quebec and from one end pf it to the other will, with the eloquence which I possess and which is well known to that province and to this Dominion, do all in my power to stir up that province to furnish the recruits that it is entitled to furnish and to furnish the wealth that Lueien Cannon denies. If the right hon. gentleman will do that, much as he has done in the past, he will do more than he has ever done to immortalize himself in the hearts of the people of Canada.
Is there room for the work of the right hon. gentleman in the province of Quebec? Is it unfair that these things should be referred to? Recruiting is more or less, it is true, at a standstill now in many of the provinces, and the promised 500,000 have not been secured, hut not very many more are necessary. I say that if the province ,of Quebec will rise to the occasion and will furnish the men that she should furnish according to her population in comparison with that of the other provinces, there will be no trouble in raising the
500,000	men promised by the Premier of Canada. I am not blaming the people of the province of Quebec; I blame ratheT the leaders. I believe that, if men in this House of Commons, whose ability is well known, would go into that province and would do the work which they are capable of doing, regardless of whether it pleases

or whether it does not, or whether it will produce good political results or not, the recruits from Quebec would rapidly increase. In military district No. 5, Quebec, the total number of recruits from the beginning of the war to the present time is 7,729.	-


Mr. MARCIL:: That is, in one district in Quebec.


William Alves Boys: Yes, there are two districts- Montreal or No. 4; and Quebec, or No. 5. I have given the figures for Quebec district. If the hon. gentleman wants the figures for No. 4-


Charles Marcil: Does the hon. gentleman mean the district of Quebec or the province of Quebec?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: The hon. gentleman is apt to give a wrong impression, as "Quebec" is the name of the province as well as of a military district.


William Alves Boys: I think I made it plain. I have no desire to misrepresent what the province of Quebec has done; and when I have finished I do not think there will be any room for doubt as to the figures. In No. 4 district, in which is the great city of Montreal with 700,000 people, the recruits number only 34,000. This, with the number from district No. 5, which I have already given, would make a total of 41,729 for the whole province of Quebec. The district of Toronto alone produced 85,364 recruits. I say in all sincerity to the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) who leads the Opposition, and to other members who come from the province of Quebec that, instead of wasting time in the House of Commons, they should return to their several constituencies and explain to their people the call to duty and the need that exists for recruits. If they do so, I believe the figures for recruiting in Quebec, in the course of a few months, will be more commensurate with the importance of that province and more in proportion to the number of men it should furnish.


Mr. E. W. NESBITT (North Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to associate myself with those in this debate who have congratulated the mover and seconder upon the very loyal and excellent speeches they have made. And especially I desire to congratulate you, Sir, upon your elevation to the highest official position in the land. From personal knowledge, I have no hesi-

tation in believing that you will fill that position not only with credit to the House but with honour to yourself.
Though I follow my hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Boys) I do no intend to discuss the Dorchester election. I do not know anything about it; I have not been there, and I am sorry to say I have not any too much faith in the newspaper reports, as one side represents the case one way and the other represents it the other way -I do not blame the newspapers, but that is a habit they have. I have only to say that Mr. Cannon did contradict that portion of the report of his speech which was read by the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Boys). I am aware of that, for I saw the contradiction in several of the newspapers. It is only fair to say that that contradiction was made. I leave the discussion of the matter to my hon. friends from Quebec, should they wish to take it up.
I have no personal feeling against Mr. Sevigny. On the contrary I rather admired the way he filled the Chair, and personally I was always very friendly to him. Therefore, I have nothing to say against him, except that we know what he said.
My hon. friend from South Simcoe says that my right hon. leader and the members from Quebec on this side of the House should go to Quebec and help recruiting. There are three or four ministers from Quebec in the Government and a number of members on that side of the House who might do the same thing. I have never seen much use in throwing these taunts across the floor of the House.
I do not propose to say very much with reference to our men who are fighting at the front. Their bravery has been spoken of by men much more capable of doing it justice than I am. As a native born Canadian, I am not surprised at the bravery of our men. It is bom in us to think that we are just as good as anybody else, and sometimes a little better. It has not surprised me to learn that our people are capable of competing with the German Guard or any other German, against whom they may be pitted. We naturally congratulate them that they have proven so successful in the field of battle though they were but citizen soldiers but a few days before they were sent to the front. At the same time, I am not surprised at what has taken place, because, after all, our men are Canadians, to whichever stock they may belong. And by the way, I read in the London Times a description of the work of that French Canadian battalion that distinguished itself at the battle of Courcelette. The Times apologized for drawing comparisons, but told some wonderful tales of what these men had done in the battle. It made my blood tingle to my finger tips to read of our brave French Canadian boys in that struggle. I felt as proud as if I had been reading of English speaking Canadians. The Times declared that there were no braver men on the field, that there had been no braver men in any of the battles since the war started.
My hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) said the other day that, while there was criticism from this side of the actions of the Government since the war began, it was the main result we should consider and not the details. May I say to my hon. friend that main results, both with armies and in business, are made up of details. The manager of a great business concern must take a wide view, he requires as complete a horoscope of his business as he can get. At the same time, if he did not organize and systematize details, he would come a cropper before going very far. With armies, in the same way, the details count. It was attention to details that made the German army the greatest army, until recently, in the world; that made it the terrible enemy we have had to face since this war began. While I do not believe in harsh criticism yet it is our duty to criticise and the people of the country expect us to perform that duty. Any criticism I may make of the actions of the Government, however, will be made with a view to assisting in perfecting the machine, not in destroying it; in other words, I shall try to make my criticism constructive and not destructive.
The Government generally, and the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) in particular, both in the House and out of it, have preached economy since this war began. That is quite proper. But preaching economy is not enough; it is absolutely necessary to practice it in every branch of the public service, not only for the money that can be saved, but as an example to the people. The people in my section of the country are very much dissatisfied with some of the things that the Government has done. The people from one end of the country to the other have, so far as I know, responded loyally and magnificently to the calls for money, and, I think, for men. We are a population of less than 8,000,000 people, spread over a territory 3,000 miles long and 1,000 miles wide; we have the various businesses of the country to maintain, in-


Mr. NEELY:: If my hon. friend will permit me, I can answer him at once, so far as I am concerned. The extension of leave which was granted to me to attend the session was accompanied by the intimation that all military pay and allowances would be stopped during the session.


Mr. BRADBURY:: Hear, hear; that
applies to all the rest too.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I am sure that is very satisfactory; that will stop any jarring on that head. I asked the question because other people asked me, and I was unable to answer them.
Now what about the expenditure for public works during the last season? We were told last year when the House met and
we passed the Estimates, that the public works expenditures would be cut down. I understand that a great many public works have gone forward that were unnecessary. The Parliament buildings is a case in point. When we left last year we were told that it was not necessary to tear down the old walls, and that it would cost only about one and one-half millions to repair the buildings. On that understanding we all agreed that the work should go on. But since that time the walls have been ordered to be pulled down, and this must increase the cost of reconstruction by several millions at least. I for one think it would have been quite in order to stop the reerection of the buildings when it was found necessary to rebuild throughout, and to have kept that work over until the conclusion of the war, when we all anticipate that there will be a great number of men looking for work and not sufficient work to keep them employed. I think that is one of the public works that the Government could quite properly have postponed without injuring anybody. We are quite comfortable in this building, so far as our meetings are concerned; and I have yet to find that the articles that were removed from the museum are suffering during our occupancy of this building. This is one way in which the Government could very well have saved money during the war, and that money could have been used to greater advantage after the conclusion of the war.
That brings me to the question of patronage that was mentioned by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) yesterday. If there could be any time when patronage or political favouritism should not have been indulged in, it was during this war. We are all equally taxed, we are all equally called upon for voluntary subscription, and we are all equally called upon to send our sons to the front or to go there ourselves. Therefore, while I have no fault to find with Government patronage to a limited extent as a rule, I have a great deal of fault to find with political favouritism during this war; I do not think it should have been indulged in. My hon. friend from Simcoe- and let me congratulate him on the splendid eSorts of his county in their contributions throughout the war-says that, so far as he was personally concerned, there has been no political favouritism since the war started; and that when he was asked who should be given the privilege of furnishing supplies, he gave the names of all the merchants in the town. Now, why was he



asked? That is what I should like to know. We were told that either the sitting member for the locality where troops were located, or the man who had the patronage, who was sometimes the defeated candidate, was always asked from whom the supplies should be purchased. Why? These supplies were for the soldiers. Just as many of those soldiers were Liberals as were Conservatives. Why did not the military authorities advertise in the local paper-there is always a local paper-and not leave it to the honour of men like my friend from Simcoe to say from whom the supply should be purchased? It cannot be said that all members were as straight in this matter as my hon. friend from Simcoe, by any manner of means. They did not all give all the merchants' names. There are very few places where supplies were provided by anybody but followers of the Government.


Mr. W. H. BENNETT:: I do not know whether the hon. member referred to me as the hon. member for Simcoe-


Edward Walter Nesbitt: No, it was Mr. Boys.


William Humphrey Bennett: -because in
Orillia the mayoj gave the names.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I referred to the hon.
member who spoke before me (Mr. Boys). He said, that when he was asked he gave the names of all the merchants. I think he deserves great credit for that, but at the same time I do not know why he was asked.
Another thing I should like to say to the Government-and any suggestions I make are made with a view to improvement. A great many of the young men who have enlisted complain that officers are put over their heads who should not be put over their heads, and that seniority does not count. In a great many instances they say that very young men are put over the heads of men who are much more experienced. When I say more experienced, I do not mean more experienced in war, because all the officers of this citizen soldiery of ours have had little experience in war, but are more experienced in the ways of the world, and more experienced in business. They say that this has gone so far that in some cases officers, when their commands were taken over, were immediately shifted to other commands. In one or two instances, a shift took place three or four times, but some of the men were kept here, and were not sent to the front. They were in the way of some men here who were ambitious to get to the front 
and who had enlisted in order to get to the front. I have no complaint to make on this head against the late Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes). While he may have made mistakes, in my judgment, favouritism was not one of them. In fact it is rumoured that it was because he was not willing to display political favouritism that disputes arose between him and other members of the Government. I have been told by men who have returned from England that political favouritism under the present regime is rampant there, and that the boys are not getting a fair show. I have been told that by men who have been there to see, and I bring the matter to the attention of the Government because, if there is any truth in the statement-and there must be some, for they say that where there is smoke there is fire-steps should be taken to correct the evil. My informants are men I have known for years, men in whose word I have every faith. They told me. that not only is political favouritism rampant in England at the present time, so far as our troops are concerned, but that the wastage is large, and that the expenses are out of all reason. No doubt my honourable friends on the other side of the House may not believe these statements, but they are not in a position to know.


George Henry Bradbury: It is not so.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I can bring the men to my honourable friend. I believe them, and if they appeared before my honourable friend, face to face, they would teil him in his teeth that it was so.


George Henry Bradbury: Permit me just a word. The honourable gentleman is not speaking by the book. If be knew the men who are in authority in England, he would not make that statement.


Mr. MACDONALD:: Who are they?


George Henry Bradbury: The men in authority to-day are Liberals.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Who are the men in authority?


George Henry Bradbury: General Turner was one of the strongest Liberals in Quebec.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Is Sir George Perley not running affairs?


George Henry Bradbury: Sir George Perley is the minister. If I understand the situation, and I think I do, the commanding officers make their recommendations to Sir George Perley, and I understand, and know, that,

so far as the political end of the question is concerned, the Liberal gets the best of it over in England every time.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I have the greatest possible respect for Sir George Perley's business ability, but I think he is a very strong partisan. What I stated a moment ago came from men who have been there, and they said that it was positively a fact, otherwise I would not bring it to the attention of the Government. I do not bring it forward for the purpose of censuring the Government; I bring it to their notice so that, if the ^statements are true, the matter may be corrected. I repeat that I have every faith in Sir George Perley's business ability, but I do not have sufficient faith in him to think that he would not show partisanship. I do not know anything about General Turner. I never heard of him until this war started.


Mr. HAZEN:: Surely my hon. friend
heard of him in the South African .war. He won the Victoria Cross in that war.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: willing to continue their good work, -and no doubt they will.	_
But the -Government of this -country are 'called upon above all others to see that the moneys that have been taken in are properly expended. The Minister of Fin-[DOT] ance (Sir Thomas White) has devised means for providing enormous sums of money. Now, at is just -as- necessary for -a Minister of Finance to watch the expenditure of the money he raises, as it is to raise the money, and I am -sorry to say that, in my judgment, he has not been as careful in watching the expenditure in certain directions, some of which I have mentioned -this afternoon, as he has been effective -in collecting the money	_
Let me again emphasise to my hon. friends opposite, whether they believe the thing-s I have been telling them this afternoon or not, there are a good many people in the country who d-o believe them, and it has hurt recruiting very materially -and is still hurting it. Nothing could have' hurt recruiting more in our section of the country than the establishment of Camp Borden. It sickened all the fellows who went there, and sickened them badly. They said they were perfectly willing to stand all sorts of things in the trenches, but before getting there they did not wish to be subjected to all the discomforts they had to put up with at Oamp Borden. That camp must have cost a lot of money; I do not know how much, but I -suppose we shall hear later on. At all events, i-t must have cost an enormous sum, and I Tegret th-at it hurt recruiting in the way it did. It is up to the Government to rectify all these matters I have spoken of, if my -statements are correct.
Mr. W. F. COCKSHUTT (Brantford); Mr. Speaker, I desi-re to make a few observations upon the speech from the Throne, which is. now before the House, but before doing -so I presume I may be allowed to concur -in -all the flattering expressions of bon. gentlemen with regard to the Speaker, to the mover and the seconder of the Address, -and to out distinguished Governor General. I will not take up the time of the House elaborating in that regard.
After another year of w-ar we find ourselves confronted with a situation, perhaps, as serious -as any that has confronted this Empire -in modem times. I do not desire ' to be either a pessimist or an optimist in the few remarks I sh-all make in regard -to the w-ar. I look upon the w-ar as the supreme question that is before the country, just -as it was a year ago, and the winning of the war should he the first duty of all 
Canadian citizens. The men who -are out to win the war are the men th-at ought to be esteemed for their works' s-ake, and any Government that leaves anything undone that could be done to win the war will not colnmend itself to the people of Canada, or of the Empire.
In reviewing the operations of -the past year we find that comparatively little progress has been m-ade on either land or sea. That, we must confess; and where progress has been made it has been made more in the wrong direction than in the right. The losses of the various belligerents are staggering, simply astounding. I have not heard -any gentleman who has spoken so far attempt to tell the House how many the total casualties have been. We h-ave heard the Dominion casualties placed at -about 70,000, but the casualties of the two great contending parties -have not been mentioned s-o far as. I know. I m-ade a rough estimate a few weeks ago and tried to be conservative in my figures. I figured that up to that time the casualties on both -sides -amounted to sixteen and a half millions. That seemed an astounding number, and I was afraid I had over-estimated it. A few days later, however, General Von Hindenburg, who has been heard of considerably during the war, gave an interview to the press in which he stated that the losses to the Allies alone amounted to fifteen millions. When I saw that statement, I began to think I. -had been fairly conservative in putting the figure at 16,500,000. The casualties on the German side, which are all published, amounted to upwards of 4,000,000 at the beginning of the year, according to their own lists. The French casualties are not reported, and therefore we cannot very well tell w-hat their figure-s are. The Bus-sian casualties have run into several millions, probably 6,000,000 to 8,000,000; for it must be remembered that Bussia is holding almost entirely alone about 1,000 miles of battle front with the assistance of only a small country, Bum-ania. The recent entry of Bumania into the w-ar has not brought that advantage to the Allies that we perhaps at first expected, and I very much regret that her entry into the- war should have been signalized by such severe losses as they sustained almost immediately, and which they apparently have continued to sustain up to the present time. Evidently they were not prepared for the encounter. Who was their advisor, and why they entered before they were ready, will be revealed later on, and I think it will appear as it has appeared on many other occ.as-

ions, that *me one has blundered.
Our hon. friends on the other side of the House, who- have pointed out a good many of what they consider blunders on the part of this Government, must admit that those blunders are very small in comparison with the blunders that have been committed across the water by almost all the countries engaged in the war. But that is to be expected; it is only natural. All men are human, and all err more or less, and it is to be expected that in so great a matter as this mistakes will be made. My hon. friend from North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) who has just 6poken-and I give him credit for making a speech that was fair; he has not tried to be unfair, I am sure-has told us of a few blunders that he thinks the Government have made, and among others he mentioned Camp Borden. I do not know whether he ever visited that camp or not. I hardly think he did, or he would not have made the sweeping statements he did. Personally, I spent two days at the camp and they were two of the worst days of the summer when the temperature was between 90 and 100 in the shade, and from my experience I can tell my hon. friend that he vastly over-estimates the damage which he thinks was done to recruiting by reason of the existence of Camp Borden. As camps go>, it is an excellent piece of ground, and those who put in the winter at Salisbury Plains could tell my hon, friend, if he had not heard from them already, that it would be like an oasis in the desert as compared with the mud that they endured for about six months at Salisbury Plain, and thiat even at the camp near Quebec, Valcartier, that he has referred to as being very adequate and efficient, the mud conditions were just as bad as were the dust conditions at Camp Borden.
We all regret that stumbling blocks have come in the way of recruiting, and it is only just that a good deal of attention should be paid to it. The matter of recruiting should cause us all a good deal of thought at the present time. The figures that were presented by my hon-friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Boys) a few minutes ago and which I now hold in my hand, are worthy of the study of hon. gentlemen, and I can scarcely -see, wnen we are enlisting under the voluntary system, why any member from any particular part of the Dominion should feel sensitive when the figures of his constituency or his province are mentioned, unless he- -himself feels guilty that he has not done what he should
have done with regard to his own community and has not taken the leadership of the men in -his community to enlist in this great -struggle. That -the figures speak for themselves is evident, and they tell this les-son, that while a' voluntary system may be -all right for a small war, there are a great many citizens in every country who do not realize the value of freedom, who are not prepared to make the necessary sacrifices for freedom, but who would rather stay at home and pile up wealth at their ease and let the other people do the fighting. I do not wish to speak abo-ut anything I may or may not have done in the war; I have tried to do my duty; but I am proud to say that I belong to the only division -in- that list, Division No. 2, of the province of Ontario, that has furnished its full quota of the 500,000 promised.


Mr. BRODER:: I think No. 3 has done so, also-


Mr. COCKSHUTT:: Unless- No. 3 has
caught up very recently, No. 2 i-s the only . one that has completed its full quota. Toronto, of course, is a big town and is capable of taking all the bouquets that maybe thrown to it, but Brantford is also in No. 2 Division, and it has helped Toronto a little, and so has Hamilton, which is not a small town, and so has St. Catharines. The result is that from that district we are credited with 81,537 up to the end of the year. No. 1 Division, in which London is the centre, and No. 3 Division, of which Kingston i-s the centre, have both made an excellent showing, and the figures are such that they can he read with satisfaction by any member from any part of the province. The figures for the wih-ole province are 148,914. Since the end of the year, of course, there (have been further additions, and I think the total is now nearly 180,000. Six per cent of the population of 2,500,000 would make
150,000,	so in the whole of Canada, if we are to raise the whole of the 500,000 promised, the proportion -should be not less than six per cent. The county of Brant, from which I have the honour to-come, is named after the great chief who led the forces under the British over a hundred years ago and maintained the British flag in the western part o>f the province of Ontario and saved a great part of Canada to the Empire at that time. The first man from the county of Brant who fell in the present war was also named Brant, and was an Indian from the Six Nation reserve, -showing that there are some people in the Dominion of Canada who, although they do not have British blood in their veins, know a good Government when

they see it, who know good, institutions when they see them, and who are able to appreciate what British justice and British honour means, not only in this country, but wherever the British flag floats. I mention that simply as a tribute' to an Indian tribe that has lived in the county for the last 100 years, forfeiting their rights in the States when they moved from the Mohawk valley. This should be mentioned in order that other citizens who have * come in from other countries may realize that they have a duty and should be called upon to discharge their share the same as the aborigines of this country. We have a population of about eight millions in round figures, of which probably five million are of British stock and the rest speaking anywhere from fifty to seventy-five different languages, not including, the Indian languages of the various tribes scattered throughout our North country. Therefore, we have plenty of languages that we can speak in, but very few of these people who have come into the Dominion of Canada have taken up their part as citizens of the Empire and have entered this war on the side of liberty, justice and civilization. That we regret. I do not want to be harsh in anything that I shall say. I think I may say that I have in my heart the one desire, and that is that the best shall be done that Canada can do, and that we shall sustain our part and finally win the war, but I do not think there is any use in blinking at facts, and the facts of those figures are that there are certain parts of the Dominion of Canada that, under the voluntary system, are not doing their duty. I am sorry to say that, but those of us who have made the sacrifice -and I come from a community that has done so both in men and money-and have filled up the full quota, think it is up to other parts of Canada, if recruiting is slack, to be- getting busy and doing something.
I have had the privilege of being in close communication with many men from the front ever since the war began, not only members of my own family and immediate circle, but many officers who have gone from the city of Brantford and the county of Brant. I have had from them accounts of everything that is going on, but I have yet to meet the first man or to receive the first letter that has not spoken in the highest terms of commendation of our valorous ally, the French, as they are found in old France. The feeling that is in the hearts of the boys who have gone over from
[Mr. Cockshutt.}
Canada is that, although Britain has done well and although Russia has done well, the honours of the war, so far as the Allies are concerned, must so far be yielded to the glorious land of France. Some of our boys too, very fond of our own flag, very fond of the flag that waves now, are just as ready to fight under the tri-colour of France in this war as they are under the Union Jack, and will give just as good an account of themselves. But when I say that, Sir. I want you to understand that it is the tricolour as it is unfurled by such men as Briamd, Joffre iand Nivelle at the front, and not the tri-colour as it is waved by such men as Bourassa, Lavergne or Cannon. ThaJ is the 'tri-colour that our Canadian boys are ready to fight under; it is the tricolour as it is waved in the land of France, the land of chivalry, the garden of romance, as we are told by the poet, which in this war has laid on the altar of her race every man, woman and child that can do a useful service.
When this war broke out I said: At last Canada will be a united country; nothing can keep Canada from doing her full duty to the Empire in this great war. Fancy my chagrin, fancy my surprise, when I read the figures that show what our neighboring province is doing in recruiting when the land from which their forefathers came is bleeding to death and is calling for help from her sons on this side of the water. Surely they have not forgotten the hole of the pit from whence they were digged. Surely, a call such as this should resound throughout the province of Quebec. I call upon the leaders of that province, while it is yet time-I only regret that I cannot speak French or I should be glad to go there and speak-to give their help that the dear old land of France may be brought from under the foot of the enemy. I think this call should come to them as strongly as it has come to the British province of Ontario or to the plains of the West. I believe it does, but that it has not been carried into that Province as it has been carried throughout Ontario. In our province, every school-house, every cross-roads, every platform, every pulpit, has been made use of for recruiting meetings. In the county from which I come we have recruited almost ten per cent of the total population, and most of these men are at the front or across the water. If this were done everywhere there would be no call for more men to-day. The Prime Minister has given us the figures, and for my part, I think they are optimistic,

yet they show that we are nearly 100,000 men short, and I think even that does not fully allow for wastage. So, there is still more to do. Men of Canada, everywhere, of every race and creed, let us get together to win this war. For hon. gentlemen opposite will not be in power, nor shall we be in power, if you let the Germans win the war, you can bet on that,-there will be no government of this kind in Canada in that case. The appeal comes to us now, while the war is yet in the winning, to see to it that the boys at the front are supported, and that the necessary recrujts shall go across steadily and freely.
I have spoken of the valour of France. It is written on Verdun. Verdun is the proudest spot in the whole history of the Allies in this war. I do not know whether we fully realize what the French did there, but I will occupy a few moments-and I do not often trouble the House-to read something of what Verdun has meant:
The execution of the new coup was entrusted to General Mangin in charge of four divisions respectively commanded by Generals Muteau, Guyot de iSalins, Garnier du Plessis, anti Passaga. The opposing German forces consisted of five divisions, the attack being timed for 10 a.m. on December 15. The French went through the Germans like butter, despite their inferior numbers, and simply shattered the enemy. They took between 11,000 and 12,000 prisoners, including nearly 300 officers, capturing several seemingly impregnable positions, of which * Pepper Hill was the centre, and regaining all the ground they had lost since February 24. In addition the German killed and wounded amounted to over 30,000, no fewer than 160 guns were taken or destroyed1, while the most marvellous part of this great feat of * arms were the French losses, which, all told, did not exceed 1,500.
There is a piece of work, there is something to be proud of. I would like to have that story told at every cross-roads in the province of Quebec, to show that the old race from which the people of Quebec have sprung is more than a match for the Germans to-day. And are the French of this country any less able to meet the enemy in the gate than are the French of old France?
I am glad to see that my right hon. friend who leads the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) nods to me. I am sure he knows that the French race are as valourous as any race in the world, and as valourous as they have proven themselves on many a battlefield of the past. This quarrel is more France's quarrel than Great Britain's; France has more to lose in the war to-day than has Great Britain. Britain has been immune, not one enemy has set foot
upon her soil except as a spy or a prisoner; France, at this moment, finds her most valuable territory in the hands of the enemy. Nine millions of her people have been barred from their homes and driven to find other places in which to rest their heads. Their coal and other mines, requisite for a great industrial people, are in the hands of the Germans. Is it a time yet to talk of peace? I like the style of our good old friend, Colonel Denison, in a crisis such as this. I believe he sent a cable across the Atlantic to this effect: Tell Emperor William we will not discuss peace until every soldier is withdrawn from Belgium, and France, and Serbia, and all the resources of these countries given back to those to whom they belong.
It seems a big proposition to make this war; it is going to be a bigger proposition, or at least quite as big, to make peace. When you consider the confusion into which the world has fallen, you cannot but wonder how this turmoil can be brought to an end. I believe that our Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) is going to England to attend a conference in which, possibly, peace may be discussed. Though I am not a believer in the immediate advent of peace, we cannot forget that some day the peace that we hope for will arrive. I desire to say a word on the making of peace. I was brought up in the old school; I was brought up largely on oatmeal porridge and the Scriptures and I have not forgotten some of the things that were put into me in both respects in my early days. I was taught that the man who will not work shall not eat. And recently, in discussing the position of our neighbours to the South and the stand taken by President Wilson, I thought a parallel might be made to those Scripture terms and that as we say that he who will not work shall not eat, so we might say: He who will not fight shall not say. In other words, I believe that the entry of President Wilson into the war at the present time with his pen is not opportune. That is my opinion; it may be wrong. I have some press clippings here, and I am going to read two or three of them. It appears to me that the idea that President Wilson has launched is most inopportune and most inapplicable to the situation as we find it. He told us in the document that was issued in December that he could see no difference between the aims and objects of the two sides. Well, I am rather sorry for a man who cannot see the difference, and I think that if we should point out the difference to him it would be a blessing.


William Pugsley: It is claimed in the
United States that what he said was: " as claimed by their respective governments, and as announced to their own people." That is the qualification that is put upon it there.	*


William Foster Cockshutt: Unless my hon. friend is an emissary from the President, I do not think I can quite accept his interpretation.


William Pugsley: I happened to be in the United States when, the note was >sent, and when it was quoted in the newspapers. That is the interpretation that was put upon it.


William Foster Cockshutt: My hon. friend was probably reading it in the apology for the first remarks. It is very clear to my mind, though it may not be cilear to the hon. member for St. John city, that the President sees very little difference between the aims of the respective sides. That, I think, he has made clear. He sees very little difference in the objects for which we .are striving, and he thinks it is a good time now to call it off. He says that there can be no peace with victory; that neither side will get the victory. I do not want to misrepresent the President of the United States; he is very high up and I am very low down. My hen. friend thinks that I misquoted hirri. I am not the only one who misquoted him, or misunderstood him, if that is the case. I do not care to put very much of these clippings on Hansard, but I wish to read expression of opinions held by others with regard to the utterance of the President. The following appeared yesterday in the local press, copied from the London Globe-not the Toronto Globe:-
Continuing, the newspaper says:
"And then you wrote a second note, and then a third, because you were seeking the suffrage of electors in whose ears the last cries of their drowning countrymen were smothered beneath the tinkle of piling dollars."
"You did not dare resent the piracy and murder and now, forsooth, we who have given our best and bravest by the hundred thousand and treasure by the thousand million to save the world, we must at your bidding lay down our arms and dream with you your foolish dream of peace.
"You and the great nation whose chief magistrate you are, stirred no finger to save public law from being violated. You may say, and say truly, that the United States had not the power. How, then, can you ask us to trust our lives and liberties, the future of our race, the safety of our Empire and the destinies of all mankind to the flimsy guarantees with which you would buckler the peace of the world?
"The men who tore up the scrap of paper; the men who laughed at your notes and sunk fresh ships while you were thinking of fresh phrases, will respect force and nothing else."

That is one view of a British paper. Here is a view from the land of France:-
A peace which has for its beginning the greatest crime in history will not he a just nor solid peace. First we wish 'sanctions and reparations'-if President Wilson accepts these indispensible guarantees, the future is easy.
This French paper thinks that we would be building a peace on the greatest crime in history. I have only one other expression of opinion here; it is that of a man who *has occupied the same position as President Wilson and is, therefore, entitled to some consideration. I refer to Colonel Theodore Roosevelt, who should know something about what the attitude of a president of the United States should be. The article says::-
The colonel bitterly announced that until an emphatic stand is taken by the American (government on the Belgian deportations any statement about our "stand for righteousness in the nebulous future is both ridiculous and insincere.''
"It is well, however, unless the words of our Government in this matter are to be accepted as the most empty of all idle and empty words, jo remember two or three plain hits of homely fact.
"The first is that it is worthless to make promises about the future unless in the present we keep those we have already made.
That is a truism.
Unless this Government is prepared at this moment to take emphatic position as regards such a hideous outrage as the deportation of the men and women of northern France and Belgium, it is both ridiculous and insincere for us to mouth about standing for righteousness in the nebulous future.
"Moreover, unless this Government can bring the peace of justice to Mexico it had better not talk about securing the peace of justice throughout the world'.
"As regards freedom of the seas, the most important element in it is freedom from murder, and until this Government has taken an effective stand to prevent the murder of its citizens by submarines on the high seas, it makes itself an object of derision by speaking for the freedom of the seas, Interfering with life is worse than interfering with property.
That is ipart of what ex-Piresident Theodore F.oosevelt has to say about it. It seems particularly unfortunate, therefore, that our esteemed fellow-citizen to the south, President Wilson, should have felt called upon to interfere in the^ battle that is going on among pretty nearly all the nations of Europe. One of the proverbs of Solomon comes to my mind just at the moment; it is this: "He that passeth by, and meddleth with strife belonging not to him, is like a man that taketh a dog by the ears." He will get bitten on the right and he will get

bitten on the left-and behind, an hon. gentleman says.
We would have been delighted to see President Wilson and the great nation that he represents get into the water while the swimming was good. In other words, we would have been delighted to have them cast their lot with the Allied nations who are fighting for civilization, for humanity and for the right of the smaller nations of Europe to live. He had a good chance to do it. He now has a Utopian idea that he wants to introduce and that he wants incorporated in the peace which is to come. Well, although I believe that this war will terminate within the next two or three years, I believe that if we have to incorporate President Wilson's Utopian idea in the peace arrangements, we won't have peace in a hundred years. I do not believe that it will be accomplished. It is not for this world; it is for the millennium. It belongs to the next world entirely, and will never be found here. The views of President Wilson are entitled to our consideration, but, as we are reminded by Theodore Roosevelt, he has a think coming as to these guarantees he purposes giving us with regard to a future peace forevermore. I like the sound of that; it is a great and glorious phrase: glorious peace forevermore, and no more great wars.


Mr. BURNHAM:: Is that the peace that passeth all understanding?


William Foster Cockshutt: The hon. gentleman is getting up into the seventh heaven; I was dealing with the present war. I say that the peace which has been proposed is a Utopian idea that has never been yet established in the world, and I think that President Wilson will have been long forgotten before it is established. Theodore Roosevelt reminds him of one fact, in this article that I have read, when he talks about guarantees for the future. He says he is ready to join every one of the nations in a guarantee for future peace for all time. That sounds mighty big and mighty good; but unfortunately Theodore Roosevelt calls his attention to the fact that the United States is one of the signatories to the Treaty of the Hague and to the neutrality of Belgium; and if their guarantees for the future do not prove to be more valuable than their guarantees of the past, I would not advise anybody to put much faith in them.
My friend beside me (Mr. Middlebro) says that theirs is the first signature with
regard to the neutrality of Belgium-the very first signature. Have they now, after two years of war, raised one single protest against anything that Germany has done either in Belgium or in northern France? Outrages that are unspeakable have been committed by the enemy, but I have yet to learn that President Wilson, from his high seat, has ever raised his voice or made one protest to Germany with regard to the outrages which have been inflicted on these people in Europe-and they guarantors of the neutrality of Belgium! They appear to think# that pen and ink is all that it is necessary to use. President Wilson is evidently a thorough believer in the idea that the pen is mightier than the sword; but I think that in a war like this he will find, if he gets on the battlefields of Europe, that the sword is still supreme, and that the pen which may be very mighty in the office of the President of the United States will not cut much of a figure on the battlefield. This is a war of iron and blood; there are more men engaged in this war than have been engaged in war since the world began. Our Finance Minister made some time ago an estimate that if all the wars of all the ages were added together they would not make a war of the size of this war. I have shown you that the casualties have run up to nearly 20,000,000, and there are perhaps
20,000,000 of men in the field at present. I tell you that in my judgment all this talk about peace, and all this talk about the enemy being starved to death, is, at the present time, simply moonshine, and is calculated to stop us in the enterprise of getting our recruits in line and continuing the war. We should not pay any attention to such talk, but should prepare to go on with the work and to fill up the ranks. We are a long way from the finish yet, if we may judge from the present position, and we cannot afford to take any chances with regard to this war. All we have is at stake.
I have been asked many times what I thought we should do after the war. I have been asked by newspapers to give my opinion as a business man as to what I think is going to happen. In every case I have been obliged to say that in my judgment there is only one question for me to be thinking about at this time, and that is the winning of this war and the relieving of the world from the terrible load that it is carrying of the tyrant's heel that is simply pressing on the neck of every nation, big and little, that he can put his foot upon, and grinding out their life, their liberty and all that stands for right. I say there

is but the one question. To talk to-day of peace and what will be done after the conclusion of the war, is simply to ignore the conditions with which we are confronted at this moment. If I may for a moment, for illustration, place myself in the position of the nation, it is as if my wife, my children, all my possessions, including the heirlooms that I have inherited from a long line of ancestors, were in my house, and my house were on fire, while I and all my friends were straining every nerve and using every means at our disposal to extinguish the fire, some foolish man from the street rushed in and said to me: I have a plan for a new house for you, what do you think of this? If I had the strength, I would chuck him out of the front door as fast as he came in- that would be his answer. We must know what we are going to have left after this war is over before we can chalk out any plans, and the winning of the war is the first necessity of the case. We will have no land to give away if we do not beat out the enemy; we will have no invitations to send overseas for people to come from here, there and everywhere, from all quarters of the earth, if we let ourselves go down under the heel of the enemy. Under that condition these would all be his possessions, and we would be taxed for generations to come to pay an enormous indemnity, which some of our enemies have already set at a figure as high as twelve to fifteen billions of dollars. We know the way the enemy have taxed Belgium and the cities of northern France, and 'Serbia and Rumania. Everything moveable in the way of valuables, everything in the way of art, everything that can be removed has been removed, and in addition to that immense taxes have been placed on all the towns and cities of which they have obtained possession. All that has already taken place.
Now are we going to let the enemy beat us out? Because that is what it means if we stall now, and we seem to have become somewhat stalled. I am sorry to say it, I am sorry to confess it, but recruiting is today almost dead. The feeling that was rampant a year ago with regard to enlisting exists no more, and we have not done our part, and we have not won the war. Great Britain is straining every nerve. There they have reconstructed two Governments already, and men, no matter how good they were, such as Asquith and Sir Edward Grey, have been put out of power. The name of Lloyd George is on the lips of every man to-day, and we hear such expressions as: 
Here is a victory Government and a victory loan. We want a victory Government and a victory loan. I believe that our Government are doing everything possible, but if anything can be done to strengthen their hands, let us all do it. If anything can be given to increase their resources for carrying on the war successfully, let us all give it, let us not hang back, because there will be no place of repentance found though they seek it carefully with tears, if we are beaten out in this war. It is now or never. We have a heritage worth defending. We have a heritage to preserve for which we ought all to be ready to sacrifice everything possible. Are we going to rise to the occasion? Are we going to do what we ought to do?	[DOT]
I could go on, but I do riot think it is wise to say more with regard to the war. I have one or two suggestions to make, although I do not know whether they are very valuable or will receive any attention. It is now eighteen months since I introduced a resolution in this House with regard to the control of food-stuffs, both as to prices for home consumption and as to export. I received a good deal of calling down from my own side with regard to this resolution, though I offered it as a business opinion. I may say that during the interval my views in that regard have not changed. I think that if the Government had taken a little of the advice which I endeavoured to offer to them at that time, but which was not accepted, it would not have been amiss. I am referring now to the control of food prices. This is carried on in almost every country that is at war. I do not know of any country except Canada that has not done something along that line; if anybody does know of such a country I should like him to mention it. Every country has been obliged to do it, and we in Canada may yet be obliged to do it. I am not sure that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Crothers) has not committed himself somewhat along that line. At any rate, .a good many of the people whose interests he looks after have done so, and I have received documents from several labour organizations with whom the pinch in regard to food is a live question now. The pinch is being felt in some of our cities and towns. And this is not a question in relation to food alone. If clothing is too high I am quite prepared to have the Government take any measures they may think necessary to control prices during war time. Let me mention one item, one that appeals to the heart of every Irishman particularly, as well as to us all-potatoes1. The situation

in regard to potatoes seems to have become very .acute not only in Canada, but throughout the world. Prices that were never before dreamed of are being obtained for potatoes in these days. I am sorry that my hon. friend from Garleton (Mr. Carvell) is not here to tell us about the New Brunswick potatoes.


An hon. MEMBER:: He is here.


William Foster Cockshutt: We have bad New Brunswick potatoes An the district from which I come for the first time in our history, and I am . sorry to say that the people of New Brunswick are not sending the best they have. If they are, then their best are not so good as the potatoes we can grow in Ontario.


John Douglas Hazen: Perhaps my hon. friend is prejudiced.


William Foster Cockshutt: I may be prejudiced, but fifteen bags of New Brunswick potatoes were got recently foT a small Home of which I happen to be chairman. They looked nice and re/i and rosy, and appeared to be perfectly sound, but the matron telephoned me the other day that she regretted to report that about half of the potatoes were bad. I only mention potatoes as one item, but it is a big item in the workingman's daily food, and I think that if the Government could make a few suggestions to our friends who sell potatoes that two dollars, or two and a quarter dollars, or two .and a half dollars per bag is too high .a price, they might have some effect. I for one believe that if we were to prevent the export of potatoes the same as every other item necessary we could control the prices. We are a food exporting country, and are in exactly the opposite position from that of Great Britain, which is -a food importing country. She produces very much less than .she requires for the people, she grows only from thirty-five to forty per cent of her requirements, while we in Canada grow far more than we require. All we have to do to regulate prices is to prevent too much of our food going out of the country.
Mr- CARVELL:	What about the home
market that we heard ,so much about some years ago?.


William Foster Cockshutt: I am finding fault
because you are not supplying potatoes at a reasonable price. You are supplying them at two and a half dollars a bag from New Brunswick, and that price is too high.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend talks
about the Government taking charge of
potatoes and regulating the prices which the farmers would get; would he also approve of the Government taking charge of the flour mills of the country so as to regulate the price of flour?


William Foster Cockshutt: My idea is, as I set it forth in a resolution ever eighteen months ago, that whenever any of the necessaries of life are unduly advanced in price either by speculation, or by the holding of immense quantities, the Government should say that no export should take place of any of those articles until such and such a price is reached. It has been done in Australia; it is being done there now. It has been done in India, and in Great Britain, and in other countries of Europe. There the prices of food are being controlled by government. It is a proper proposition, and the workingmen, in weeterp Ontario are very much concerned about it at present. I have had several communications in that regard. The Government may be a little hesitant; it is a drastic measure, but in war time you cannot expect everything to go on the same as in peace times. We are at war, and we must adopt war measures. If it is necessary to prevent exports, we must prevent them; if it is necessary to prevent imports, we must take the necessary action. Whatever is necessary ought to be done, because the winning of the war should be our first object. The Government have interfered a little, but only a very little, with exports. Let me give one example, the exportation of electricity. That is a matter which we would like to push a little further in our section of the country- The hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. G. C. Wilson) referred to that. About ten years ago I delivered a speech in this House on this very question. That was in May, 1906, I think, and you may find it by reference to Hansard. A full discussion took place with regard to the exportation of electricity from Niagara to the United States and the handling of the power from Niagara Falls. We in western Ontario have been denied the necessary power because the Americans are getting what ought to he coming to Ontario. That is not as it should be. The power is wanted in the munition factories, and in other ways- The Government have a regulation; they issue, licenses from time to time, and these are regulated from the Department of Inland Revenue. They are within their rights in doing that. The Government have the power to regulate the export of electricity, and my contention is that it would be proper for them and competent for them to

exercise that power in regard to other matters. I l'ook for a very acute crisis with regard to some foods in the near future, and particularly with regard to potatoes. Where the farmers in our section of the country are going to get their seed next spring is a problem. Many farmers who had from two to three acres of potatoes in our district did not dig enough potatoes to give them the seed, owing to the conditions that prevailed. I live in a part of Canada that grows in normal times an enormous quantity of potatoes for export. Some farmers grow eight or ten acres of potatoes and make an excellent profit at seventy cents or seventy-five cents a bag. This year the price is two and a half dollars a bag, and potatoes are almost unobtainable. What is going to happen in the spring in regard to the seed, I do not know; it cannot be found. I make the suggestion to the Government that they consider the necessity of regulating the export.
"We have heard a good deal about pulp and paper. I am not sure that some regulations are not already in force with regard to these articles. If not they can easily be put in force. I am merely mentioning these articles with the view of suggesting to the Government the advisability of regulating the exports.
I do not know that I need detain the House at any greater length. I may just refer to the trade returns that have already been the subject of considerable comment. I think they are perhaps the most outstanding feature of the war situation, indicating as they do the tremendous prosperity that has accompanied the war, so far as (Canada is concerned. Our total trade imports and exports, is somewhere in the neighbourhood of two billion dollars for the twelve months. This is beyond the, expectations of the most sanguine. Whether or not honourable gentlemen opposite are ready to give a meed of praise to the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) it appears to me that he has handled the situation very well. It seems to me that there could not have been very much wrong with the trade conditions of this country. My honourable friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) said 'he did not see how we could stomach the amount of trade we had had with the United States, and he accused the Conservative party of having declared during the last election that there should be no truck or trade with the United States. I think he was totally misrepresenting the 
situation so far as our intentions at that time were concerned. What we did say was that the trade conditions between the United States and Canada were already sufficiently good without us bargaining for and buying favours that we did not think we needed. The Yankee may be trusted to look after himself. We were doing quite enough trade with him already without giving him additional facilities. Their proposition was to buy further advantages in a market where, in my judgment, they were already doing too much business. I think we should do more business with Great Britain, Australia, and the other dominions, and our Allies, rather than with the United States. But we were going on trading with the United States and increasing our imports and exports, though, after all, a very large part of the increase in our exports has been with Great Britain herself and our ATies. We are doing an immense and very satisfactory trade with them.
In conclusion, if any of my fellow-members in the House think some of my remarks rather harsh, I hope they will take it from me that I was actuated solely by a most sincere desire that Canada, a great country in itself, should live up to what is expected of her, and that the 500,000 men that have been promised or suggested as our contribution to the war should he speedily raised, and every united effort made to win the war that is now raging in Europe.
I might say a little with regard to criticism that has been made of the way our boys are advanced at the front, or the way they are held back, but I think probably no good could be done by that. A great many of these cases have come under my attention, and I have taken many of them up, and I know they must be very bewildering to the Government. I think the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), must know that it is not possible in an army such as ours to have all the men majors and captains and colonels; we must have privates as well. That is about the situation. There are just as many good men probably in the ranks as are occupying the posts of lieutenants, majors, captains, etc. We cannot all be commanders; some of us must follow; some of us must be privates in the ranks; and that is the reason why many of the requests that have been made from time to time have not been listened to.
I think you, Mr. Speaker, for your kind hearing, and I trust the remarks I have

made -will be received in the -spirit in which I have endeavoured to make them.


Charles Marcil: Mr. Speaker, it affords me verymuch pleasure to congratulate you upon the appointment to the high position which you now occupy. I have had the honour during the last four Parliaments of being a member of this hon. House, and have myself passed through the experience that you have had as Deputy Speaker, and now as Speaker. Knowing you by reputation before you entered the House, and having followed your progress since, I have not the least doubt that you will maintain the high traditions of the position to which you have been elected. I have had the pleasure in the past of visiting your con- stituency, one of the finest in the Maritime Provinces, and in this case the County of Cumberland is worthily represented by the first Commoner of Canada.
I do not wish to offend the feelings of the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Boys), or of the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cock-shutt), but -as the time in which I have to make my remarks is very brief, there being no evening session to-night, I shall confine myself to <a calm review of the situation arising from the speech from the Throne, which deals with the war almost exclusively. In fact, the one great question at the present time is the question of the wai;, and all Canadians, regardless of their origin, regardless of the province in which they reside, are one in wishing that the Allies may soon win -a great victory, the victory of civilization and of humanity. It so happens that both mother countries of Canada *are engaged in this war. It was .a fortunate thing* that Providence allowed that to happen, because had it been otherwise I do not know what might have taken place in Canada. We have extremes in both elements of our population. We have in the province of Quebec men of extreme views; they have been called Nationalists in this House. On the other side, also, in Ontario -and other parts of Canada, are men -of extreme views. These men of extreme views have never been the main strength of Canada. Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir George Cartier had to contend with them in the past. These extremists will never be of much use to Canada until they modify their views. The present leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), because of his origin, because of the high position to which he was called by the generous will of the majority of the Canadian people who were not of -his
creed, of his nationality, or of his origin, has himself oftentimes been placed in a difficult position when he -had to deal with these extremists on both -sides of the fence, some from Quebec and others from Ontario and other provinces. But he always -steered the middle course and naturally ran foul of the men who g-ave birth to the Nationalist idea in the province of Quebec. I shall not deal with the extremists from Ontario, because I should have to go -too far back in history, some three hundred years, probably starting with the history in Ireland, where the movement -had its inception. But in the province of Quebec the extremists are of a more recent creation, -and their history can more easily be traced. It -so happens that the hon. member who seconded the motion which you now have in your hand, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Descarries), who is a man very subtle and very skilled in -conforming himself -to most difficult -situations, has, in my experience, been an Ultramontane, at other times -a Nationalist, a Conservative, and now a true blue. If hon. -members will read in -last year's Hansard the speech of the former member for Nicolet (Mr. Lamarche), they will find something very interesting -about the seconder of the motion which you now have in your hand, Mr. Speaker. But, en passant, I do not like to mention Mr. Lamarche's name without paying -a tribute, if not of admiration, -at least of appreciation, of the act which he has done. Mr. Lamarche was a Nationalist who remained true to his ideas. Canada, of course, is a free country. We -are a part of the British Empire; w-e have not yet been absorbed into Hun-l-and or Bosche-land. Some people in this country are against the war, just -as there are some against it in England. All political opinions are permissible in this country. Mr. Lamarche did not have the same views that we have, and he opposed us, and when the Conservative party came into power he remained true to what he had preached in the province of Quebec.
Some reference has -been made to- the Dorchester election, and I shall have an opportunity of saying a word about that later on. If the present Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Sevigny) -had preached in 191l' the same gospel to the electorate of Dorchester that he preached in 1917 he would have been elected by -acclamation, -as was the late Postmaster General (Mr. Casgrain) in regard to whom the leader of the Liberal party implored the Liberals of Quebec not to oppose him, but to let him in by acclamation, beno

cause the late Postmaster General was a sincere, thoroughbred Tory; he stuck to his views and we respected him. But the electors of Dorchester to day are not dealing with a man of that kind, and that is the sole reason why he is being opposed.
The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Descarries) is the gentleman who, in the month of November, 1909, at Lachine, in his constituency, presided over the banquet which gave birth to the Nationalist party of the province of Quebec. I quote the words of the hon. member for Nicolet (Mr. Lamarche) at last session:-
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 Sth 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. Bruno Nantel, who, if I mistake not, was later on called to the Dominion Cabinet, Mr. Philemon Cousit neau, the orthodox leader of His Majesty's loyal Opposition in the Quebec Legislature, and Mr. Charles Beaublen, 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.
Then he goes on to speak of the preparations for the issue of Le Devoir a month later, and proceeds to explain why Le Devoir was founded to advocate a policy of Canadian autonomy as against Imperial participation in war, and he gives the text of the resolution that was adopted in the parish of St. Eustache, in the county of Two Mountains, at which meeting Mr. Bourassa, Mr. Monk and the three present French-Canadian members of the Cabinet were present, or if not present, advocated and supported the resolution all through the province of Quebec. This resolution was the basis of the formation of the Nationalist party in the province of Quebec. I have already read it once in this House, but I think it might be worth while to read it over again so as to find the cause of our

trouble in the province of Quebec, if recruiting has fallen short; and I want the true Britishers in the province of Ontario to know whom to strike if there has been any shortage in recruiting in our province. The place was well chosen. St. Eustache is a historic locality in the province of Quebec. Away back in 1837 the people of Quebec, and those of Ontario to some extent, were clamouring for responsible Government. They had some demeles with the troops around Montreal, and the habitants of the county of Two Mountains, who were chased over the ice by the troops, took refuge in the old church at St. Eustache. When the British troops came up, they asked the habitants to surrender, and the local doctor, Dr. Chenier, refused to surrender and was killed. The soldiers set fire to the church, riddling it with bullets, and the ruins stand there as a historic monument to-day. The Nationalists chose the locality well to cement the union . between the French Conservatives and the Nationalists, without which union this Government would never have been created. Twenty-eight Conservatives were elected in the province of Quebec, and on the 21st of September, 1911, every one of them subscribed to this policy that I am going to read to you now, and which has been the cause of so much trouble in our recruiting propaganda in the province of Quebec. It is the inculcation into the minds of the people of the province of Quebec of the proposition that outside of Canada they owe no duty to the British Crown, and that participation in British wars of any nature would be fatal to the autonomy of this country, which has caused the trouble. The resolution was drafted by Mr. Monk himself, and when Mr. Monk came to Mr. Bourassa for his approval of his resolution, Mr. Bourassa said: I will not accept it unless the policy of Borden is equally condemned. You will find in it the passage that wae inserted about the nefarious policy of Borden. Bourassa consented to join because at that time the late member for Jacques Cartier, Mr. Monk, who was a respected man-a man who has the courage to resign his seat in the Cabinet on a question of principle is entitled to the respect of everyone, no matter whether one shares his views or not-was the forlorn leader of a forlorn hope in the province of Quebec. Twelve or thirteen members were lost on the back benches of this House, and the dreamy member for Jacques Cartier said that as long as Sir Wilfrid

Laurier remained at the head of the Government the province of Quebec would always remain loyal to him. Bourassa was dissatisfied with the Liberal party. Why? Because it went to the support of the Empire in the South African war, because the Liberal party gave to Britain the first effective aid which was ever given to the Empire outside of this country, because it set aside the principle which Sir John A. Macdonald had laid down in the Soudan campaign and in other campaigns in which it was urged Canada should send over contingents which Sir John A. Macdonald refused. Bourassa left the Liberal party because the Liberal party had shown itself to be too loyal, and because Sir Wilfrid Lau-rieT was too English for him and those who shared his views.
There are members in this Ho use yet who will remember in the old House when the qutstion of non-participation came up, that three members rose to call for a div ision, those members being the member for Labelle, Mr. Bourassa; the member for Ohar-levoi, Mr. Angers; and the member for La-prairie-iNapierville, Mr. Monet. And two Tories joined to make five, in order to call for a vote of the House. That was the state of the Nationalist Party, but what was the origin? The party was originated because Laurier was held to be too Imperial and too English. It makes one's blood boil, knowing the facts as we do noiw, to hear misinformed men-I have no doubt they are misinformed because they would not do so deliberately-charge the Liberals of the province of Quebec with want of loyalty to the British flag and British institutions. The contrary is true. The Liberals in the province of Quebec have worked by day and by night, especially under the leadership of their present great leader, to inculcate into the minds of the people of that province that the province of Quebec forms part of the Dominion and that the Dominion is the greatest of the sister nations of the Empire. That is the gospel that the present leader of the Opposition preached in the province of Quebec and it was against that gospel that Mr. Henri Bourassa and Mr. Monk protested with all those nationalists who were elected in the province of Quebec at the last election, amongst them being the present Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Sevigny), the Secretary of State (Mr. Patenaude) and the present Postmaster General (Mr. Blondin). They themselves will admit now that they are trying to undo the work they did then. The first thing that the Minister
of Inland Revenue did when he arrived at the station at Quebec the dither dlay was to tell his friends. You find me m a new role, in a new position; I have changed my mind; but there are other people who have changed their piinds; look at Lloyd George; he has changed his mind. What instance did he give of the change of mind on the part of Lloyd George? He said:	Lloyd
George was against the South African war and now he is in favour of the war against the Germans. There is however, not much similarity between the two cases. The people down in Quebec now call him Lloyd George Sevigny as a kind of reminder of that statement.
When the Dorchester election came on the feeling in that constituency was very strong. The representative in the Legislature of the county of Dorchester is a young man of great talent, one who has every prospect of a great future. He is a man of high principle and comes of a good stock, being a son of Mr. Justice Cannon, one of the leading men of Quebec, known to all those who follow municipal matters as having presided over the famous Cannon investigation into affairs in Montreal. Mr. Cannon had been elected by a majority of 500 for a term of five years, four years of which had yet to run. It would have been easy for him to say: If you want to oppose the Minister of Inland Revenue, find another candidate. But he was willing to make the sacrifice. He threw up his mandate and sacrificed the four remaining years of his term in the Legislature because of the unanimous wish of the Liberals of the county of Dorchester, that he should be their candidate to oppose the election of Hon. Mr. Sevigny because of the change in the policy of that gentleman. I do not wish to pose as a prophet, but I think this House will not be much surprised should Mr. Sevigny be defeated, and if he is defeated it will be in vindication of a great principle, a principle which should be respected, not only in Canada but everywhere. That principle is that public men must be true to their declarations. If a public man makes a public declaration, that is a promise to his electors, it is an undertaking with them that in the Legislature he will advocate and maintain a certain policy. It is necessary for the proper carrying on of the public business that public men should be held to the promises thus made by them. When the ex-member for Dorchester was invited by those on the Government side

I think he is entitled to as much credit as rs the British boy-if not more-who is simply going back home.
The hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cock-ehutt) spoke about the French race not haying degenerated on the battle fields of Europe. France has shown that she still remains the first nation of continental Europe: she has shown that she still has in her veins and in her very heart the force that has at all times placed her at the head of Europe. She has repelled the Hun at Verdun after a fight which is the admiration of the world and will be its admiration for all time to come. It is merely a repetition of what they did eight centuries ago at Poitiers when Charles Martel repelled the Saracens and Mohammedans who were over-running Europe. The member for Brantford says: I hope that the French people in the province of Quebec will ibe as good as the French are on the other side of the Atlantic. The French on the other side of the Atlantic are defending their homesteads and all that is sacred to them. Place the French of the province of Quebec in a similar position. The invader has invaded the province of Quebec on two occasions. You, Mr. Speaker, as a student of history, know that but for the activity of the French population in 1776 and in 1812 there would perhaps be no British flag to-day in North America to defend. The province of Quebec is ready and willing and prepared at any time to do its share, and it has done it3 share. When the Prime Minister went to Quebec to call for recruits Sir Lomer Gouin, the Premier of the province, stood by his side. Was not the venerable leader of the Opposition himself at a meeting in the city of Montreal, the first public man in Quebec to call upon his compatriots to enlist? Was not the member for Bouville (Mr. Lemieux) one of the public men who was chiefly instrumental in organizing Major Asselin's Tegiment? There a mistake was made. This gallant band of French, Canadians who were anxious to go to the front were sent to Bermuda, to do the work of the coloured men in that place. After having been kept there six or eight months they were finally sent over to the other side; and what happened to them when they got to the other side? The same thing that happened to Our Irish friends from Montreal and our Scotch friends from Nova Scotia; they were disbanded, broken up and sent any where at all to fill up the gaps. These are mistakes that have been committed by the Militia Department and by the general organization, but there are 
others, .so I shall not occupy my time in discussing them now.
But I want to say that the province of Quebec has done remarkably well, 'all things considered. Our provincial Government has given a splendid example. The Legislature of the province of Quebec voted $1,000,000 only .lately to the Patriotic Fund. Last year I think it was the first province in ' Canada to make a grant of half a million dollars. At the very beginning of the war our hierarchy, led by the venerable Cardinal Archbishop of Quebec and every other archbishop and bishop of the province, called upon the people to come forward and enlist and defend the cause, the British cause, for if there is anybody in this country who has reason to he loyal to the British flag it is the French-Canadian. I want you and the members of this House to put this down deep in your hearts, that the last gun to be fired here in defence of the Union Jack will be fired by a French-Canadian, because for us the British flag means all that we have. To us it is our language, it is our creed, it is our standard as an element in the Canadian nationality. If we can -speak in this House the beautiful language that France has spread throughout the world, the language that still remains the official language of the world, it is due to the British flag that 'these rights have been recognized. Those are principles fox which we wish to contend and to fight. But is the Government of the day blameless if the province of Quebec has not given the number of recruits that should have been given? Did the Government of Canada, did the Prime Minister-against whom I have not a word to say personally, because I think he is a high-minded citizen who means well -did the Prime Minisiter of Canada not commit a fatal mistake when he took into his Cabinet an element of public men from the province of Quebec who did not represent the majority of those people? If the Prime Minister were here I would ask if the reception which was given him when he came to the Monument National in Montreal to speak in favour of National Service was not a magnificent reception? Sir Wilfrid Lauriex himself would have received no better. The organizer of the National Service (Mr. B. B. Bennett) can say the same thing. But when the Secretary of State (Mr. Patenaude) rose upon that platform to advocate, almost to adore, what he had condemned a few years before, the conscience of the young French-Canadians of Montreal practically prevented him from being heard. But what happened two or

three days afterwards? The Premier of Canada went to Quebec, but he was not accompanied by the Secretary of State, nor by the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Sevigny) * he took a thoroughbred Tory witn 'him, the late Postmaster General, who we all regret is no longer with us. The people of Quebec do not object to a Conservative. The province of Quebec was Conservative for forty years, ever since we had public institutions in that province; in fact, without the support of Sir George Cartier, Sir John Macdonald could not have carried on the Government of Canada, because in those days Ontario was a Grit hive, it was 'largely Liberal. Sir Oliver Mowat kept power there for thirty-two or thirty-three years. Often the strength of the Liberal party in the House of Commons came from Ontario, but the members from the province of Quebec, the old bleus, who were here under the leadership of Sir George Cartier and Sir Hector Langevin, made the Conservative Government possible. Without the French Conservative support from the province of Quebec Sir John A. Macdonald would never have held power in this country as long as he did, and Sir John, in his political testament in 1891, one of the last speeches that he delivered in the old House of Commons, declared that in this country we were all upon an equal footing, that there was no conquered race here, that we all spoke the language that we were accustomed to, that French and English had the same status in this House, and that without the hearty co-operation of the French people of the province of Quebec Confederation would never have been possible. And today it stares you in the face. There is Quebec, the keystone of the arch, the connecting link between the Maritime Provinces on the East and the far West. But, if we in the province of Quebec are not to be treated as fellow countrymen, if we are to be treated as pariahs, if we are to be dubbed with all the misfortunes and all the mistakes and held responsible for all the shortcomings of the present Administration, if the whole thing is to be laid on the back of the province of Quebec, how can you expect that the province of Quebec will respond to the call which is now made to it? The province of Quebec is prepared to do its duty; but we are faced with this alternative: You have declared, and your public men, members of this Government, have declared, that the man at home, producing upon his farm, or the man in a munitions factory, working at the produces
tion of munitions, is doing as effective work for the Empire as if he were on the battlefield itself. I had the honour last year of addressing a meeting of my compatriots in the Russell theatre here, in company with the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White). I had not spoken in that theatre for eight years before, the last occasion being one when I appeared with Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Lord Grey to ask for support for the movement for the creation of the battlefields at Quebec into a national park to commemorate for all time to come the union of the French and English races in Canada. We thought then that, on the rock city of Quebec, near the spot where Wolfe had died in the arms of victory, where Montcalm had shed his last drop of blood for the flag that he had defended so long, where France closed her glorious chapter on this continent-we thought then that in that place we had cemented forever the races and had put an end to these dissensions between the French and English of this country. But apparently we had not. I heard the Minister of Finance on that occasion say that enlistment and recruiting was a matter of conscience. He said, in effect, although I do not pretend to quote his exact words: I am not here to ask you to enlist or to ask you to enroll yourself; but if you do so you will have done a noble thing, a noble deed. Here is the cause we are defending, here is the cause which we ask you to go and defend upon the other side of the ocean; but if you feel that you can be of more service at home, if there are ties that keep you here which cannot be broken, I consider that the man in the munitions factory, or the man who is producing on a farm for the supply of this country and the supply of the Allies, is doing as effective work for the Empire as if he were in the firing line.
I represent a constituency which is peopled largely by French and English. One-third of my constituents are English. Probably three hundred men from my constituency have gone, although many of them enlisted in New Brunswick regiments. These people would have been the first victims if the Huns had crossed the ocean. Entering the St. Lawrence the invaders would have fallen upon the coast of Gasp6 and Bonaventure. My people knew what the war meant and what support of the Empire means. They know that we are fighting for ourselves in fighting for England.

To-day I received a resolution from the municipal Council of .St. Alexis de Meta-pedia, which I translate as follows:
Province of Quebec, Municipality of Metapedia,
At a special session of the municipal council of Metapedia, convened by special notice, for this fifteenth day of January, nineteen hunt dred and seventeen, at seven o'clock of the afternoon, and held at Mr. Ludger Galant's place:
There were present:	Mr. Thomas Levesque,
Mayor, and Messrs. Benoit Martin, Alexis Arsenault, Ludger Gklant, Jean Martin, councillors, the whole forming a quorum under the presidency of the Mayor.
The Mayor read a letter from the Director of the National Service addressed to the Municipal Council and asking said Council to help him to promote all measures taken in the interest of the Empire, during the present war.
After deliberation, on the motion made by Mr. Alexis Arsenault, seconded by Mr. Benoit Martin, it is resolved as follows:
Whereas the parish of St-Alexis in the' municipality of Metapedia is an agricultural parish;
Whereas the voluntary recruiting for military service already produces a shortage of hands for the proper development of agriculture, and besides has undoubtedly enhanced! the cost of living; and whereas this council is of opinion that forced recruiting, or in other words, forced obligatory military service in, Canada would hurt the development of agriculture and thereby the' agricultural production asked for by the National Service;
The Municipal Council for the parish of St-Alexis of Metapedia, whilst affirming its loyalty towards our Sovereign, His Majesty King George Y, manifests its formal opposition to any law of conscription for military service in Canada under any form whatever, as being detrimental to agriculture.
Whereas the municipal officers do all in their power so that the National Service cards be returned in perfect order, the secretary-treasurer of this municipality is ordered to forward a copy of this resolution to the *secretary of the National Service and to our member of Parliament, the Hon. Charles Marcil.



THOMAS LEVESQUE,

[Stage Direction]
Mayor.

[Stage Direction]
Sec.-Treas.
What are you going to do about it? Are you going to ask these men to abandon their farms? Are you going to ask the only son or the second son who remains on the farm to abandon his farm, to abandon his property and to go into Montreal or Quebec and enlist? The Government should say one thing or the other.	They have
decided to send 500,000 men. That is one alternative. Lord Shaughnessy said that that could not be done except by crippling the economic resources of the country. But, if you want to send your 500,000 men, do not say at the same time that
there is a shortage of munitions. The chairman of the Imperial Munitions Board says that he has 600 factories at work in Canada at the present time, and calls upon the manufacturers to fulfil their contracts, as that is the most effective way of helping the Empire. What are we going to do? Are we going to drop production, or are we going to drop recruiting? In the province of Quebec there was no system of organization in regard to recruiting. Recruiting in that province was the result of the efforts of private individuals, of many public-spirited individuals in Montreal, Quebec and elsewhere, who undertook the organization of battalions. They have organized a number of battalions and sent them overseas.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the rule.
Thursday, January 25, 1917.