1917-07-17

Rt.   H@: of the Lords, Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-
1.	Notwithstanding anything in the British North America Act, 1867, or in any Act amending the same, or in any Order in Council, or terms or conditions of Union, made or approved under the said Act, or under any Act of the Canadian Parliament, the term of the Twelfth Parliament of Canada is hereby extended until the Seventh day of October, 1918.
2.	This Act may be cited as the British North America Act, 1917, and the British North America Act. 1867 to 1916, and this Act may be cited together as the British North America Act, 1867 to 1917.
All of which we humbly pray Your Majesty to take into your favourable and gracious consideration.
He said: In rising to present this motion to the House, I beg to call to the recollection of honourable gentlemen that on the 8th of February, 1916, I presented a similar motion. That motion for the extension of the term of Parliament from 7th October, 1916, to 7th October, 1917, was unanimously adopted at that time. In the speech from the Throne this year reference was made to a similar resolution, which would extend the life of this Parliament from the 7th of October, 1917, to the 7th October, 1918. Accordingly, the resolution which I now have the honour to propose was placed upon the Order Paper in the latter part of May, and it now becomes my duty to present it to the House, in order that it may be considered and dealt with.
In my judgment, the reasons for proposing this motion are quite as strong today as they were in 1916, and perhaps stronger. They are fully set forth in the remarks which I addressed to the House at that time. I need only summarize them now. In the first place, there would be, consequent upon a general election, disunion and discord throughout this country. There has, up to the present time, been at least a seeming unity. Outside and inside of Parliament men have worked together without regard to party or race or creed. I believe that party political questions have not been -tfery much in the minds of the people during the last three years, and I would hope that we might, on this occasion, arrive at some conclusion which would prevent the controversy and distraction consequent upon a general election. More than that, the minds, the thoughts, the energies of the people would be diverted and turned aside from the supreme purpose of aiding in this war, and would be concentrated on political issues of relative insignificance. In short, a general .election would leave, at least 
might leave, a divided nation. Besides that, I desire to emphasize the fact that the time and the energies of the ministers of the Crown during a general election would necessarily be diverted from the [DOT]conduct of our country's participation in the war to the activities of a political campaign. It goes without question that members of the Government could not remain silent under attack. They would be obliged to speak and to use their best efforts to justify themselves and the administration for which they are responsible. In short, they would be obliged to take one course or the other; either to devote their energies largely to the necessities of a political campaign, or to let that campaign take care of itself, and continue, as they have been doing in the past, to devote their entire energies to the duties which are imposed upon them by the necessities of the war.
More than that, there is the fact that we have about 300,000 men overseas at the present time. It is impossible for any one of us to anticipate with any reasonable degree of certainty what proportion of those men would have the opportunity of exercising their franchise,, and what proportion would not have that opportunity. That would depend altogether upon the character of the operations in the field at that particular time. These men are the best elements of our population. They assuredly have a right to be heard in the selection of a parliament which will control the affairs of this country during the next five years; and, indeed, I might ask, what right would we have to entrust the affairs of this country for five years to a Parliament in whose selection these men might have so comparatively small a voice.
More than that, I believe that the discussion of political issues, the intrusion of party politics upon the gallant and heroic men fighting our battles at the front and walking daily hand in hand with death, would be regarded by them as odious and indeed insulting.
There is another consideration I must place before honourable gentlemen of this House, and to me it seems of some significance. Very eloquent appeals have been made by honourable gentlemen, chiefly, I think, from the other side of the House, that before the Military Service Bill, which has been under the consideration of Parliament for some time, shall be put into operation, there shall be a united and earnest effort of all parties and
JUL'i 17, 1917
all interests in this country for the purpose of endeavouring to obtain by voluntary enlistment the reinforcements which we seek to raise by the Military Service Bill.
I have listened to those appeals with a great deal of interest. I have given very attentive thought to them.
I should be willing to give them every consideration consistent with the certainty of providing the necessary reinforcements for the Canadian troops at the front, but I do not understand how it would be possible to have a united and earnest appeal of that nature, or how it could possibly be effective, under the imminence of an approaching general election. I hope, therefore, that hon. gentlemen, in coming to a conclusion upon the resolution which I am now proposing, will hear that in mind. The unity which would be necessary to make that appeal possible or effective could not be expected during a general election, or during the imminence of a general election; and so it would seem to me that if an election is forced upon the country at the * present time, such a proposal must be abandoned.
As to precedents, I alluded to them when I spoke in this House on February 8, 1916. The Parliament of Great Britain has extended its life on three successive occasions, and its term now stands extended until November 30,	1917. New Zealand has
extended its parliamentary term to December 19,	1918 - a very long extension. Australia was precluded from carrying out an extension by disturbing political conditions which unfortunately prevented her representation in the Imperial War Cabinet. I referred, in speaking on the motion of last year, to the precedent in Great Britain, when in 1716 a Parliament which had been elected for only three years, extended its term to seven years. In every self-governing nation of this Empire since the commencement of this war it has been found impossible to preserve the same regard for constitutional conventions as in time of peace. Extraordinary powers have been conferred upon the Governments of each of these nations by their Parliaments, and indeed, hon. gentlemen in this House know that here in Canada powers of a very extensive character have been conferred upon the Governor'in Council by the War Measures Act of 1914, an Act which, reposes in the Governor in Council practically all the powers that could be exercised by Parliament under the British North America Act, except the power of taxation and of appropriation of public revenue.
It may be urged that this proposal involves an alteration of the constitution. 1 regard it rather as a temporary suspension of but one feature of the constitution. Surely it is not a very serious step, for it merely provides that in Canada during the necessities of the war we shall have a parliamentary term of seven years instead of five years. Great Britain had a seven year term for her Parliament during a period of more than 150 years, and I am content to accept in that connection the view expressed by my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) who in speaking on this motion in February, 1916, said:
It is not proposed here to alter the principle of the constitution. It is not proposed to override the control which the people have over Parliament. It is simply proposed to suspend for the time being the operation of the co-n-stitution. If it were proposed to make away altogether with that principle which is embodied in the Constitution, certainly I would oppose such attempt with all my might. But no such thing is proposed. This measure simply proposes that the constitution shall be suspended for twelve months, at the expiration of which time it will resume its full force.
It is not necessary, I am sure, that I should dwell upon the gravity of the situation with which this country, the whole Empire, and, indeed, the whole world, are presently confronted1. When I spoke in. this House on the 8th of February, 1916, we had sent 125,000 men overseas. To-day, our casualties are rapidly approaching that figure, and since my return from Great Britain on the 14th of May last, just about two months ago, they number 12,000. Since the extension of the term of Parliament sanctioned on the 8th day of February, 1916, Canada has sent no fewer than 200,000 men across the ocean to fight for liberty and civilization. We must realize, in dealing with this resolution, that our country, in common with the whole Empire, is facing a supreme test1. The existence of the Empire, its institutions, and liberties, are in peril. More than that, the foundations of civilization itself are endangered.
It would be impassible to overstate the transcendent issues which are hanging in the balance, and I am content to have them portrayed in the eloquent words which my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) addressed to this House in February, 1916, when he spoke thus upon this motion:
There was nothing for Canada to do but to do what she did; to illace at the disposal of England all her resources in men and money. Men there are to-day who sneer at the thought of Canada exhausting her resources to defend the Empire. Sir, who talks of the Empire

House and the country to-day, I am discharging as best 'I can the responsibility and duty thus devolving upon me.
It will be lor my right hon. friend to see for himself the path of his duty, and under the responsibility which appertains to him to act as he may think that duty demands. So, my final word of appeal to this House is that this motion may be passed with that practical unanimity which will enable us to present it to the Imperial Parliament for necessary action and ratification, and I believe in doing so we shall take a course which none of us, at any time in the future, can regret, a c,curse absolutely in the interests of this Dominion, of this Empire, and of the great cause for which our gallant troops are to-day fighting at the front.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (South Renfrew) : I trust none ,of the hon. members of this House will think I 'am unduly intruding myself at this juncture in the discussion. What the right hon. gentleman has said concerning the desirability of Canada prosecuting this war so far as in her lies, until it is brought to a successful conclusion, finds an echo in the heart of every man. Canada did not enter this war lightly. She entered it of her own free will, without compulsion -I might say, without invitation-fully believing that on her, as part of the Empire, rested a duty, and on her shoulders as a young nation there rested also a privilege to join hand in hand with the free citizenship of the world in doing her best to maintain the rights, the privileges, and the liberties, for which our fathers and our grandfathers fought. We are in the war, and we propose to stay in it until victory finally perches on the banners of the Allies. There is no desire, no thought, of shrinking from what is before us.
Our experience during the past three years has been sad, but it has been stimulating, it has been encouraging, because we in this part of the Empire, we in this young nation of Canada, have discovered ourselves during these 'three years of great struggle. We have discovered within us those elements of greatness, of manhood, and of citizenship that always were there, but were, in a measure, allowed to remain latent until this great opportunity was given to us to bring them forth in all their grandeur and in all their strength. We have risen to the occasion. I am not of those who believe, or who hint for a moment that Canada has not risen to the occasion. She has sent her men, she has sent her women, she has sent 
her money, she has made sacrifices great and voluntary, and she is prepared to make any sacrifice that may be requisite for the completion of this war in a proper manner.
I do not propose discussing what my right hon. friend has said, because I intend moving an amendment to the resolution. It is possible that we are losing our sense of proportion. The great question before qs is the winning of the war-the Prime Minister has made that very plain- and we ought as a Parliament to support all measures necessary to accomplish that end for the cause of civilization. The Prime Minister has rightly and eloquently said that the conditions at the front demand our greatest energies. With that I absolutely agree. But, they demand our energies in more ways than one. I said a moment ago it was possible that for the moment we wrere losing our sense of proportion. We have discussed, and passed almost to completion, a measure of military service for the providing of men-and though we have differed on it, yet Parliament has acted. Before that is quite completed the Prime Minister introduces a resolution for the extension of the term of Parliament, which term does not expire for nearly three months. While the discussion of the extension of the term of Parliament is necessary and right, while the introduction of that measure is proper, I submit there is a duty incumbent upon the Government which demands more immediate action than the discussion, or passing, or withdrawal, of such a resolution. We have three months yet before this term expires, and during that three months-yes, even now-this Parliament ought to manfully grapple with the conditions at the front and with the conditions existing in iGanada, and prove itself equal to working out a plan by which the conditions will be fully met.
One part of that programme has been dealt with. The other part has been left in abeyance. The second part of the programme, to my mind, is of little less importance than the first. The winning of the war being our great object, vte should not be so desirous, three months ahead of time, to discover whether we are going to extend our own term or not. Our chief business to-day is to see that we are' going to stand by the boys in the front in every particular. I have supported, and I intend to support to its conclusion, one branch of this programme and I am going to ask this House seriously if it is not

their duty now to proceed with the inauguration and the completion of the other part of the programme which is necessary for the carrying on of the war.
The amendmept which I intend to move has not been sprung upon this House. I gave notice of it several weeks ago, intending to move it on going into Committee of Supply but, not succeeding, as an opportunity was not afforded me to move that resolution, I take the opportunity of moving it to-day. I may say frankly that I did not care to move this on the third reading of the other Bill to which I have referred. Had I done so, a great many hon. gentlemen would have said that the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) was retarding the Military Service Bill. Consequently, I am moving it today in the proper place and, I believe, at the proper hour, and I would ask serious consideration of the few observations I am going to make.
It is useless to send men to the front, either voluntarily or forcibly, unless we are prepared to back them up. We must feed, finance, equip and clothe men,


Mr. W. H. BENNETT:: Is the hon. gentleman still of the same mind as he was the other night, that the pay of the soldiers should not be increased as proposed by the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Copp).


Mr. GRAHAM:: I never made any such suggestion or gave any intimation to that effect and the hon. gentleman knows it.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. gentleman had a chance of voting for it.


George Perry Graham: The . hon. gentleman
speaks more frequently than I do and he takes it for granted that if one does not speak on a resolution one way or the other he must be counted against it. My hon. friend will allow me to proceed. I do not know on which side he is on any of these questions. We not only have to finance, feed, clothe and equip these men at the front, but we have to finance ourselves, and we have to feed the people of Canada. In addition to that, we have to produce all the food possible to asist our Allies. In all the discussions that have taken place in the United States, in Great Britain and in France, the questions of food supply and finance have been considered only secondary to the question of the supply of men. We in Canada appear to think that we have done our duty if we have passed a measure providing for the raising of a certain number of men. We are



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
not helping the Allies one iota if we provide men and do not provide to fully feed and equip them. Instead of helping the Allies, we are placing a burden on them.
Let me take up the question of finance for a moment. Hon. gentlemen will see, when I move the amendment, that it is merely to defer the discussion of the question raised by the Prime Minister. There is plenty of time to discuss it before the term expires, while we deal with something that is more important, to Canada and to the boys in the trenches. I am not going to say that the finances of Canada are in an unhealthy state. Canada has powers of financial recuperation, has resources, has virility in her people, has energy, courage and ability to carry her through any financial responsibility that may be placed upon her by Teason of this war. Nevertheless, the fact remains that at the present moment we are incurring very heavy financial liabilities. And rightly so. But the question arises: Should we not, at this time of what may be called artificial prosperity, take advantage of the situation to more nearly pay our way as we go during this war? Why should we leave all the expense of this war to be borne by posterity, by the men who come back from the front, and by the sons and grandsons of these men? Why should We not, at the moment, look about us and see if there do exist sources on which the people of Canada can draw in order to meet the expenses of this war. There is not a man in this House who will not agree with me that in his own circle of acquaintances there are men who are able to pay and who are not paying according to their ability.
The hon. the Finance Minister (Sir Thomas White) said the other evening that the time might come when an income tax would be imposed. The time has come now when something ought to be done along the line of securing from those best able to pay their full share of the financial burden of carrying on this war. That has not been done in its entirety. You ask me what I would do? I do not intend to keep the House more than a very few moments, because I discussed this question at great length some two weeks ago; but this I do say-that the men enjoying large incomes ought to be taxed on those incomes. It has been said that those receiving smaller incomes and those with small deposits in the banks have become alarmed. There is no need of alarm on account of any action that I would propose or on any action that this Parliament would take. No person

[Stage Direction]
understands better than I do the necessity and desirability of financial stability, and of doing nothing which will interfere with the financial progress and commerce of the country, because to do that would be to interfere with our financial status at home, and make us a burden instead of a help to the Allies. But, there are in this country many men who are not contributing their share. The poorer men and poorer women of the country are contributing their share. There is not a man in this House, there is not one man of ordinary means, who is contributing at all in comparison to what the washerwoman is contributing who pays fifty cents to the Patriotic Fund, and there are many of them. I do not minimize for a moment the splendid contributions that have been made to the Patriotic Fund, the Red Cross and other worthy objects. Many Canadian men and women have risen nobly to the requirements and have contributed liberally. But there are still sources that ought to be tapped, and this Parliament will not be doing' its duty if it ends this present session without devising means by which every man, and every woman, in Canada, who is able to contribute, is made to contribute his or her full share towards the cost of carrying on this great war. There are men who receive large incomes from mortgages and other securities, and on these incomes they are not paying one farthing towards this war.
True, they are paying some small amount to the municipality, which is given authority to collect such a tax by provincial legislation. But I say again there are men in Canada with large incomes, drawn from sources which relieve flhem absolutely from contributing one farthing for the carrying on of this war-<and you will find them in every community. They do contribute to the Patriotic Fund-all honour to them- but in most cases, if a well-graded income tax were imposed, we could affoid to let them keep all they give to the Patriotic Fund, and we would gain a thousand fold by adopting the other method of collecting. I would not impose a tax on the man of the ordinary income. Heaven knows he has all the troubles he can carry mow, under the high cost of living, in keeping his family. But mem who enjoy the larger incomes, I would compel to pay into the coffers of this country in order that we might borrow less and approximate more nearly our revenue to our expenditure as we go along. We aTe mobilizing men. That is proper, absolutely right. But if we quit with the mobilization of men, our duty is half performed and we [Mr Graham.]
are not doing what in us lies to make the issue of this wiar a 'success for ithe Allies.
I spoke the other evening of several things. Allow me, without wearying the House, to mention one or two. First, the transportation facilities of Canada. To win the war, as the Prime Minister has well said, is the transcendent issue in the Dominion of Canada. Nothing should be allowed to- stand in the way of our transporta-4 p.m. tion facilities being so efficient that our produce of the farm and from otheT sources can be carried with all speed to the place of embarkation. No matter who criticises or who does not, this Parliament will be responsible if we do not see that the railway companies of Canada are equipped with the rolling stock to carry the crop of 1917 to the seaboard. The fact that the heads of the companies or - the Board of Railway Commissioners give as a reason why that was not dome that they had not rolling stock, will not excuse this Parliament for not seeing to it that they have the rolling stock-and differences can be settled afterwards. Then, when we get the food to the seaboard, we only 'have it partially to the Allies and to our boys at the front. To-diay the British Government, through the Imperial Munitions Board, is manufacturing ships all over Canada. This is proper and right; but I opine that, even if all the shipyards of Canada are busy, we in Parliament ought to sit down and devise a scheme whereby ships for the carrying of Canadian produce for out own boys will be built, and built without delay. That should have been dome .months or even years ago. It is useless for the farmer in the West or in the East to raise immense crops; it is useless to cry "production," unless we devise a scheme by which the products of Canada can be taken to the point of consumption across the sea. The discussions that have taken place in the press during the last few days of certain reports indicate to us that we have a work .to perform along other lines in the matter of food production at home. I submit-and I want to give the Government full credit^that during the past few weeks they have started out along a line that the people of Canada have been discussing for a year or more. A food controller has ibeen appointed; a fuel controller has been appointed. I am net going to criticise because this was not done before, but we seem to be working without concentration of effort, every man for himself. Some scheme should be devised by which all this would beJ co-ordinated and all would work, one with another, to attain the best

possible results, with the minimum of expenditure.
I could discuss natural resources as I did the other evening, 'but I do not want to detain the House. But I do. want to impress on the House that the winning of the war being the chief object, the great thing in view of all Canadians, of all lovers of the liberty which we enjoy, is that we should devote our energies to first things first; and I submit that the question which I have outlined in a very few words comes before the discussion of the extension of Parliament. If the winning of the war is the great object which we have in view, I ask the Government to accept this motion: to defer further discussion of the resolution for the extension of the parliamentary term and to bring in legislation along the lines which I have suggested. Let us get it on the statute books of Canada and proceed to operate under it. I may say, in all friendliness, that I believe there is nothing that could be done by this Parliament which would bring as great satisfaction to the people of Canada as would be given us if, after passing the other measure to which many objections have been raised, we were to proceed to show that we were in earnest in this matter and pass a measure providing for the mobilization of all our forces in order that no. effort may be lacking to carry on this war to a successful issue. Believing this, I have the honour to move this amendment, seconded by Mr. Pardee:
That all the words after the word "that" in the said resolution he struck out and the following he substituted therefor.
'.In the opinion of this House the consideration of the terms of said resolution should he deferred until the (Government brings before Parliament measures providing that those best able to pay will he asked to contribute their full share to the cost of the war and by which all .agricultural, industrial, transportation and natural resources of Canada will be organized so as to insure the greatest possible assistance to the Empire^ in the war, and to reduce the cost of living to the Canadian people.
Mr. SPEAKER:: I shall put the amendment, which is entirely new to me, reserving the right to rule later as to its relevancy.


Right Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, I have listened [attentively to my hon. friend (Mr. Graham'), and I must express my feeling cf great disappointment at the small amount of really definite suggestion that has resulted from his fifteen or twenty minutes' talk. From beginning to end it
220J
has been generality, generality, generality'-I ask any member on either side of this: House to take his pen or pencil and Hansard to-morrow morning, and go over the address of my hon. friend, and try to find, in it one single lineament of a definite-proposal to be carried out by definite' methods and in a definite manner, and if he succeeds then he will find what I have' been unable to find whilst I have been attentively listening to it. As to the relativity of this motion and its pertinence, I have been cudgelling my brains to ascertain where they came in. As to its consistency with the stand the hon. gentleman has already taken, I am equally puzzled.
This Government to-day, and this Parliament, as a working body behind the Government, has a lease of a little less than three months of life. Perhaps one might easily answer the question in any line of business as to how much vigour, how much strength, how much optimism, and how much real action he could put i'nto a new proposition, faced by the fact that within three months his vital cords will have been severed, and he himself will have ceased to exist. He would be trying to make peace with his Creator; his remaining time would be spent in endeavouring to foTget, if possible, his sins, and in coming to a recognition of better ways of living, so as to better the prospects of his future. My hon. friend has very well stated that there are three things that are necessary for the carrying on of the war. The first is men, the second is food, and the third is munitions and equipment. The Bill upon which we have been most earnestly engaged for the last two months in this House has been framed to provide the first great essential, men. We took that up first. We pursued it definitely and uniformly, because in our heart's heart, whatever may have been upon our lips, we felt that the one thing needed at the present time at the front, as far as Canada is concerned, is men. There are our four divisions; they have no recess and no holiday. Day after day, night after night, they take their places in that grim struggle, and not an hour passes by day or by night that death does not visit their ranks, and men fall, never to rise again. They are in the trench, in the dug-out, going over the top, passing No Man's Land, bombing the trench where the enemy, when the bar-age of fire is lifted, is to 'be found. Death faces them at every step, and casualty sows every path they tread. How long-and every man's heart responds to the question-will those four divisions of ours at the front.

under that constant pressure day and night, week in -and week out, month in and month out, with no surcease, be able to sustain their own courage, to maintain their faith in the country that sent them there and pledged to them its support? As man after man goes down by death or casualty, and none come to take his place, hope and courage are apt to sink. My hon. friend says that Canada has risen to the occasion. God grant that we may stay risen to the occasion.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: Of all the pities and of all the deep disgraces, no pity would be greater and no disgrace deeper, having once risen to the occasion, than that we should cease on the path of duty, of fervour, of courage, of sacrifice and of support. 1 agree with him when he says that Canada has risen to the occasion. My prayer now is that Canada may not decline from that lofty, proud, honourable and glorious position. But let there be no mistake at all. My hon. friend felt that we might have a disproportionate idea of these different factors in the contest. So we may. But today we will not have a disproportionate idea of the different factors in that contest if we stand by the conviction of these last three years, and the conviction of most men's hearts to-day, that what is needed on the other side at the present time is men prepared and skilled for the work of the trenches. Although it is a fact that no man can fight without arms and without food, yet neither arms nor food are of the slightest use, unless the men are there to use the equipment and the food which is produced for them.
Let Canada make no mistake about her position, and the supreme factor in the long line of factors which are fighting for liberty and civilization on this long battle front. Let Canada make no mistake that for her, and for the cause for which she is fighting, the important thing to-day is men, and every delay, dilatory or otherwise, which intervenes to prevent the calling of men, the drilling of men, the transport of men, the preparation of them for the final trench work, is just so much which impedes the path to victory, and delays the coming peace, which can only follow a victory on the front fields of battle. Just at this moment, when we have passed the Military Service Bill which my hon. friend (Mr. Graham) supports, and which he, as others, declares is necessary in order that there should be no gap, what is this that I see in the paper to-day, if it rightly states what

the dissident Liberals have concluded as their pronouncement, to fill the gaps without delay? Will my hon. friend tell me how it is possible for this Government, with a bare three months of life left (unless this Parliament extends its term) to organize, to gather, to drill, and to send to the front men to fill these gaps, which are daily becoming wider, and which the men at the front are calling upon us to fillup instantly? How is it possible for the Government, which has but three months of life left to it, unless Parliament extends the term, to go forward and fill those gaps without delay? If there is one thing which is pressing, if there is one thing, above all others, in this Parliament that is now pressing, it is to know whether or not the term of this Parliament is to be extended, and the Government of the present day, or the organized Government which shall come afterwards-if a reorganization there be- should know at once what its term of life is to be. Without that knowledge it seems to be impossible for strong, vigorous and effective action to be taken, and yet when we come to decide that question, my hon. friend interposes with this motion of his. It seems to me that he might have put that motion into a chink where it would have greater relationship to some question in hand. He might also have placed it where it would not have stood in the way as a delay to this very necessary motion now before this House. I do not want to characterize my hon. friend's speech in strong terms.


George Perry Graham: That is immaterial to
me.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend has been a politician so long that his hide is thick. I do not wish unnecessarily or str.ongly 'to criticise his speech, but it struck me as being but one of the very many generalities -wbioh are glittering in themselves, but which, not 'being brought down to definiteness, have no weight or meaning.
Broadly speaking, my hon. friend's speech is twofold. He wants accumulated wealth to give an immediate and effective contribution. The motion of which he previously gave notice was in those very words. The first part of that motion he has changed somewhat, but the meaning is probably just about the same. His first branch then is this, that accumulated wealth should give immediate and effective contribution to the cause of the war. That is based upon the assumption that accumulated wealth has, up to the present time done little or nothing in the way of contributing

to the war. The same assumption is made by others than my hon. friend. It is an assumption which is made too much in general and at large, probably mainly from a lack of thinking out what has been done in Canada during the last three years and the part that accumulated wealth has played in doing what has been done.
What has accumulated wealth contributed during the last three years of war? It seems to me to be a baseless assumption that it has done nothing, and almost equally baseless that it has done little. A fair statement to make would be that accumulated wealth in Canada is doing and has done wonderful things in the last three years of war. Has there been in Canada a period of greater activity than that which has intervened between the opening of the war and the present time? Has there been a time in which the manufacturing industries, the producing industries of nearly every kind in Canada have been busier at work, and have made greater outturns and output than during the last three years? And what, Sir, pray you, has been one great factor in that activity and outturn? It has been the factor of accumulated wealth. There was capital in this country, and when the war broke out that capital applied itself to the resources of the country and worked with enterprise and skill, and with the splendid co-operation of labour, in (Order to produce that astonishing wealth of production which it has turned out from the 1st of August, 1914, until the present date. I am not going to labour that question. Hon. members know that this has taken place, and that accumulated wealth, by virtue of its employment as capital in all these different lines of production, has contributed not a small, but, on the contrary, a very great share towards the general output and special war equipment of the country.
Accumulated wealth has done more than that. It has paid its share of a large and increasing general taxation. The war tax, the increased customs tax, the increased excise tax, have all been imposed on this country since the war commenced, and accumulated capital has paid its share of those taxes under the general law of consumption, and payment for that which is consumed, and accumulated wealth is notably a large consumer in this country. Outside of customs and inland revenue taxation, special financial taxes have been im-pased upon banks, upon corporations, upon different enterprises and industries, upon instruments of credit, upon the various
things upon which they have been imposed, and - from those taxes revenue has been taken in. That is therefore a contribution that has been made by accumulated wealth.
I noticed in a speech made not long ago by the Minister of Finance the statement, that the added taxation imposed in those different ways on this country for the purposes of the war will this last year total some $200,000,000. That amount of taxation has fallen on accumulated wealth, as well as upon other branches of industry, production, and earnings. Then there is the special profits tax, the business mens' profit tax which is heavier than any similar taxation imposed by any other country of which I know. Leaving out agriculture and insurance, it takes in every business which has a capital .of not less than $50,000, and it takes in businesses which have a capital of less than $50,000 if over 20 per cent of the business of the corporation or person has to do with war equipment or war munitions. It allows 7 per cent of a profit to the business- corporation. All the profits over 7 per cent in the years 1915 and 1916, it taxes 25 per cent. You may look through taxation schemes, high and low, and you will find no taxation scheme on business profits which takes in a larger percentage than is taken in by the Canadian legislation of 1915 .and 1916 in that respect.
By the legislation of 1917, a profit up to 7 per cent is allowed to the business corporation or person. Of profits from 7 per cent and up to 15 per cent, 25 per cent is taken by the Government; of profits between 15 and 20 per cent, 50 per cent is taken, and profits over 20 per cent 75 per cent is taken. Therefore, there is no doubt or dispute that there is no business profits tax that I know of, or that I think is extant in the world to-day, which approaches in severity the business profits tax in this country. In 1915, that tax produced $15,000,000. In 1916-17, it will produce $20,000,000. In 191718, it will produce $20,000,000 or over. That i3 a direct tax upon accumulated wealth.
Taking all these things into consideration let us modify our views, at least to this extent, that we shall not run away with the idea in general that accumulated wealth has done nothing to aid the Empire or to carry on the war during these three years.
But accumulated wealth has done a very special work. To whom would we go for loans if not to accumulated wealth? Since the war began, the Dominion of Canada has issued, and the people of Canada have taken.

$350,000,000 in domestic loans. Before the war, how much of the money that Canada required for her great expenditures was raised by loan in this country? How many of our people thought, before the war, that Canadian accumulated wealth was able to bear the burden of loans to that extent? It is because there was accumulated wealth, and because appeal was made to it, that $350,000,000 of loans have been raised in Canada forHhe purpose of the war and the purpose of the nation. But that is not the end of it. Accumulated wealth well knows that there are more loans to be issued, and accumulated wealth in Canada is willing to take more loans, and still more loans, as necessity demands. That much must be allowed to he .accumulated earnings which make the wealth of the country. I state these things simply for the purpose of correcting an impression which, perhaps, is too widespread in this country, that the accumulated earnings of the Dominion have contributed little or nothing to the general work of the war and to the general interests of the Empire.
Let me go a little further along that line. What is accumulated wealth? Can we separate it into divisions which will be fairly definite? I think we can. We can take the first division of accumulated wealth as consisting of cash, liquid money which a man owns and keeps in the bank, or invests in short loans. That is cash more or less completely liquid, which the individual owns and uses as he pleases. That division of the accumulated wealth of Canada is not touched by our present special taxation.
The next division of accumulated wealth may be taken to consist of that property which belongs to an individual or to companies, and which is in a fixed, condition, Take as a simple illustration the home a man owns and lives in. His earnings have accumulated and have been invested in a home for himself and his family. To that extent those earnings have become wealth, but it is wealth that is not productive in the economic or business sense. That wealth is the home which shelters, nourishes, and feeds the man, and gives him strength and vitality for his daily work; but the investment itself is fixed and is not productive of yearly returns. You can apply that illustration to numerous other things which appertain to the individual and to the aggregation of individuals the whole country through, and which form a vast portion of the accumulated wealth of the country-wealth which is in a fixed condition, which produces nothing, and

which cannot readily be turned into productivity.
The third division is that portion of che accumulated earnings and wealth of a country which invests itself in resources, and each year produces more or less of earnings, and consequently adds to the sum of the accumulated wealth of the country. These, I think, without being too nice about it, are the three great divisions of accumulated wealth.
Now what does my hon. friend propose to do? If he wants to make accumulated wealth in those three divisions contribute immediately and effectively to the work of the war and of the Empire, how does he propose to go about it? Will he conscript the fixed wealth of the individual?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend has been arguing for fifteen minutes about a term that appears nowhere within the four corners of my resolution. There is nothing about accumulated wealth, near or remote, in the whole resolution. It says, "those best able to pay shall contribute."


George Eulas Foster: That is very good. My hon. friend gave notice of his resolution, and a copy of that resolution was put in my hands at 11 o'clock this morning. It dealt with accumulated wealth, and demanded that accumulated wealth should make an immediate and effective contribution to the cost of the war; that was his confirmed and reasoned meaning of his resolution. Aliy hon, friend .since then, perhaps feeling himself impelled to get his resolution a little more into relativity with the question in hand, has changed the first part of it. But between the first part as it now is, and the first part las it was, there is no generic difference, and the argument I am making is the argument used by my hon. friend himself and by many others all this country over who have argued in like manner. I prefer to keep the term "accumulated wealth," my hon. friend's own choice in his cool moments. I propose to stick to that in order that my 'argument may be even with the argument which has been made by members of this House and by people outside of this House.
It is a perfectly proper use of the term and quite germane. What were the actual words of my hon. friend's resolution as originally proposed? To-day is July 17. On July 16, a letter was addressed by Hon. George P. Graham to Sir Robert Borden, giving notice of the resolution which he proposed to move to-day. It is in these words:
That in the opinion of this House it is desirable that steps should be taken forthwith

by the Government to provide that accumulated wealth should contribute immediately and effectively to the cost of the war.


George Perry Graham: That is not the resolution before the House.


George Eulas Foster: The resolution
which was fixed a month ago, which was unchanged and on July 16 has within a few hours been changed to read:
That in the opinion of this House the consideration of the terms of the said resolution should be deferred until the Government brings before Parliament measures providing that those best able to pay-
That is a euphemism for accumulated wealth.
-will be asked to contribute their full share to the cost of the war.
I do not think I need tarry any longer by the way with these two companions. A little ribbon or a bit of feather may have been taken out of the hat of one and put in the hat of the other, but essentially they are the same; the cap-piece is a little different, that is all.
Now my hon. friend proposes that accumulated. wealth should contribute, or to use his euphemistic language, that those best able to pay shall contribute their full share. How does he propose to do that? Ie there more than one way in which it can be done? My hon. friend may be perfectly clear in his mind that there is only one way, and I will do him the credit of thinking he believes there is but one way; but that is not the impression which is very general in the country. There is a general opinion-too general-in the country that in some way or other you ought to conscript wealth, and that it is possible to conscript it, and that it ought to be conscripted forthwith, and that unless it is conscripted justice will not be done by the Government and Parliament to the people. Then it is pertinent for us to ask the question; How are you going to>
do that? Will you take a man's fixed property, which is unproductive, and have a certain part of it appropriated by the state and made part of the property of the state, to be, if possible, immediately transmuted into money and used for the purposes of the state? To ask that question shows it is an impossible proceeding to adopt. Are you going to take a portion of that accumulated wealth which exists in timber lands, in agricultural lands, in mineral lands, in fishing rights, in any other form of natural resources- are you going to take a certain share of those lands, those privileges, those possessed Tights and forfeit them to the Crown,
and if possible transmute them into current coin to be used for the purposes of the war? To ask that question, is to answer it.
Now, do not the answers to those two questions drive ue back irresistibly to this -that the only things you can properly lay your hand on in this country is the earnings of property and of wealth? If you conscript capital-if you take a portion of capital from the aggregate of that actively employed, what are you doing? You are by that much depleting and depressing the productive power of the country, you are taking away its working capital. Without labouring Ifhiat for a single moment .more, is it not indisputably true that the only way in which you can economically and wisely tap the national resources of property and capital is by ascertaining their earnings and taking the state's fair share of them, leaving the capital to go on and do its work of production? Otherwise you would be in the position of the farmer who instead of keeping his productive stock to produce more, and estimating his financial position by his production, should sell off or do away with one-half of his stock and yet expect to have his earnings just as high in the end. It is against the interests of the individual, and of the community and the nation to deplete the capital of the country even by one single dollar. It is to the public interest to keep capital active, that its earnings may be as great as possible. Then the nation may take its share of those earnings for the services and expenditures that are necessary.
That brings me down to this-and with it I conclude, that if you are going to get after that small number of persons who are not to-day taxed under any of the present forms of taxation, and wtho do not give their proper quantum to the State for its purposes, the only way you can reach tlhem is by an income tax, and an income tax it is the intention of this Government to introduce in this Parliament at its present session and pass through this House.
Tlhat is all I have to say on that branch of the question. I come now to the second branch touched upon by my horn, friend, the organization of the resources of the country. In the remarks made by my hon. friend with reference to the crying, pressing necessity for the organization of the resources of this country, I leave it to the judgment of the House if he did not seek to create the impression - and otherwise his argument would have had no force at all -that nothing, or very little, had been done in that respect up to the pres-

ent time,, and that by some method or other we should put on the shelf all the UTgent legislation which presses upon ua to-day, and takes up the elementary work of organizing the natural resources of this country. That is a large phrase to use. It is a splendid talking phrase. I have used it myself, and so have most of the hon. members of this House. There is a vast truth lying in it. Has nothing been done in the organization of the natural resources of the country up to this day when my hon. friend asks for this delay-while he keeps the gaps from being filled up in the trenches, in order that we might take some days or weeks to organize the natural resources of this country? Is there not the natural, the methodical, the sequential organization of the resources of the country which has been going on from primeval times, and which has grown up in a natural way? Take for instance agriculture. Agriculture cannot be learned by rote. It cannot be put on a full-fledged and economical basis just at an hour's notice. What are we to do to Te-or-ganize the agricultural Industry of this country? All the farmers in Canada are at work, and have been most diligently at work. All the societies, agricultural and otherwise, for mutual improvement, help and co-operation, have been at work, and are today most diligently at work. All the local Governments I know anything about have their bureaus, their administrators, their experimental farms, their teachers, their experimenters; and in every province of the Dominion the farmers are to-day, and have been for years past, as busy as nailers on productive work along agricultural lines.
What has this Government been doing? My hon. friend never has given and never will give this Government the least credit for having done anything. But, suppose I take the agricultural interests, ,amd aak my hon. friend to cast a glance over, what has been done. Have we been entirely negligent? Have we delayed in doing anything? My hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Burrell) has been a wideawake, land persistent, and tireless Minister of Agriculture. I know a good deal of what he lias done, and I can give .him that credit which is his due. The Minister of Agriculture has done many things, which I will not take time to detail to this House. I will, however, mention two or three' In 1914, after the war had commenced, we had the misfortune of having a bad harvest. In our Northwest we not pnly had a bad harvest but we had a harvest so ill-dispersed that large sections were absolutely

without seed and food. The Minister of Agriculture, and the Minister of the Interior, backed by the Government, spent $12,000,000 in buying and distributing seed, in giving fpod where there was poverty, in giving feed where there was none for the animals that do the work of agriculture, with the result that in 1915 these wide waste districts were seeded, the farmers with their animals in good condition got upon the land and in these very districts the greatest harvest was gathered that Canada has ever known I think all this is greatly to the credit of the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister ,of the Interior That is only one of the many things in which they have co-operated. But does my hon. friend (Mr. Graham) wish this, or any Government, to go to the -agriculturists of this country and say: You are not doing your business properly; we are going to organize the farming industry; throw down your tools -and let your machinery stand idle; we will take this land, put it under cultivation and hire you to do the work if you will come in and take our wages? There is only one thing to do, and that is to retain the -skill -and the brains now devoted to agriculture, to retain the men whose interest it is to stay by the farms and -make them productive -and to co-operate with these men teaching them by experiment, by example, and by. the help of other men, to en-able them to do the best work possible. But, let the farmers do it. Do not let the Government take the -agricultural land and put the organized farming industries, under the control of the Government. The best results will be g-ained under the natural method. What holds in reference to agriculture, holds in reference to industrial business as well. It is much better for those industries, aided as they have been in various ways, to work out their own salvation under as favourable conditions as may be given them, than that the Government should undertake to run these industries. I know there are people in this country-there may be some in this House -who, under the pressure of this war, are trying to realise a pet theory of their own, that the Government should own, manage and operate everything for the benefit of the State and that individual effort, and all individualism in industry should be blotted out. I am not one of these. I do not believe that that is the proper policy. I do not believe that it has been or ever will be successful. I think that all these industries are organized upon sound lines. One proof of this amongst others is that within the last thre years these different in-

dustries have had larger outputs than they ever had before. I have not time to go into that subject, buit if any man wall trace the history of the manufacture of military equipment, munitions and supplies of war during the three years that have passed, he will be astounded at the amount of the outturn, as well as at the organization and methods of co-operating one with another which have led to this great production.
My hon^ friend mentioned two other things. First, he said that the railways should be co-ordinated. The railway question will be before this House within a very short time, and some of its phases are to be discussed and settled. But if my hon. friend means by the motion that the railways shall be taken by the Government, organized, furnished, controlled and run by the Government for the benefit of the state, he is face to face with some questions, financial and economic, which he had better carefully solve before he begins the work he proposes. He must know, if he has watched things, that there is a co-ordination o>f railway work and activity in this countr'y under that admirable board the Board of Railway Commissioners, and that the benefits of that co-ordination have been manifest in the added effectiveness of the railways. But my hon. friend says that the Government should immediately equip these roads with locomotives, cars and everything that is necessary. Let my hon. friend be made "controller of railways " and given authority to go out into the wide world and give an order from any manufacturer who will undertake, under contract and bond, to supply him with the amount of rolling stock that is necessary to fully equip all our roads, and do it inside of two years- say nothing of the delay of this Bill meantime. My hon. friend, light and airy as usual, says that this Government ought to build ships enough to carry the products of Canada. Will he sit down and with pencil and paper and tote up the products of this country that go over the water, tote up the number of vessels that are ready to carry them, estimate the length of our season and find out just how many vessels of from 3,500 tons (to 11,000 tons will be necessary to carry these products? Then let him search this wide world through, like Japhet in search of a father, to find out the manufactories and workers anywhere that could give him, not the ships, but the steel for the manufacture of those ships, in anywhere from 18 months to two years from the date he places the order. Though my
hon. friend has been a member of a Government, he has at the best a very faint idea of the financial responsibilities which are facing this country. It is so easy for a man who has no financial responsibility to talk glibly of $100,000,000 or $200,000,000 being put into arrangements for the building of ships for Canada-when you cannot get the steel; when you cannot get the labour; and when, if you had the money, you could not get your ships inside of two years. Even if you could find the men and material for such a work, you might perhaps be surprised at what it would be necessary to pay for them. Before we talk so glibly about organizing the resources of this country, we must take into account the conditions as they are.
Now I have spoken altogether too long, and I am going to stop almost immediately. My hon. friend proposes all this for the sake of the war, for the sake of the Empire and for the sake of reducing the cost of living. I had intended dwelling a little upon that last item._ I shall content myself with this simple remark: From what study and thought I have given to what is called the high cost of living, I really do not think that any prescience or organization or knowledge of human beings within the bounds of the Dominion of Canada could have had any very material and tangible effect in keeping the prices of staple foodstuffs and articles at lower figures than they have been in this country. No matter how diligently men put their minds to the task, no matter how wisely they organize, there are certain great world conditions that must govern. You cannot take forty millions of combatants out of the field of ordinary world's work and expect production to go on as before. You cannot subtract twenty or thirty or forty millions more as subsidiary helpers, doing nothing but aiding those who are combatants by furnishing equipment and expect beneficent production to go on as before. You cannot tread with hoofs of war some of the finest producing portions of t'he world info powder and mud and muck and expect that productive capabilities will be as great as before.	You cannot abstract all those
virile men and leave old men and women and children to do the work of agriculture and expect it to be as well done; you cannot kill off your stock; you cannot deny your fields the nourishment of fertilizers; you cannot militate, as you do in war, against everything that tends to successful agriculture and yet have as great productivity in the world as

in times of peace. Facts are indisputable There are more to be fed than there is food to give. The supply is less than 5 p.m. the demand. And in the wild waste of this war, added to everything else, there is the menace of the submarines, with all the attendant cost of transport, and loss of supplies. So it is impossible for us to go on normal lines through a period of three years of war and not expect food prices to be raised.
I have no sympathy whatsoever with the food hog or the food hoarder-either of these is a reprehensible being, who ought to be condemned and suppressed by the whole nation. But to my mind there has been remarkably little of that in this country. We have already appointed a food controller. My hon. friend gave us credit for that, but said it might have been done earlier, although he said he would not criticise that particularly. We must take into account the fact that food eaten by somebody is raised by somebody else. Somebody else will not raise it unless the inducement is sufficient to make it profitable for him to do the work. For 3,500 miles our country is bounded by the fields of a great agricultural people, with their prices, their profits, their modes of living and their methods of trade. It would have been well nigh impossible for us to have done much in the matter of controlling the price of staple foods raised by farmers unless there could be co-ordinate action between ourselves and the people to the south. That co-ordinate action is now within sight. As soon as Congress shall have given the p'owers that are under way, I believe that the conditions will be such that, by agreement and co-operation between these two countries, the prices of staple foods can be regulated and controlled in some fairly effective way. But do not let us come to the conclusion that we could go through a world-wide devastating war and not pay in food and in every other means of the sustenance of life.


Hon. WILLIAM PUGSLEY (St. John):: Mr. Speaker, it certainly is very depressing to hear the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) express the view that, after all, it is doubtful if anything effectual can be done, or rather if anything can be done without the co-operation of the United States, to reduce the cost of living in this country. I intend to make some reference to this phase of the question as discussed by the minister. I desire first, however, to deal with the resolution which my right hon. friend the Prime Minister has pre-
[Sir George Foster.!
sented, and to endeavour to express the reasons which I think ought to influence the House in refusing its consent to its adoption. My right hon. friend has, it is true, said, and I have no doubt said with great propriety, that he would await the declaration of the opinion of my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) as to the desirability or otherwise of passing this resolution, before he would take action upon it, either by putting it to the decision of the House or withdrawing it. The Prime Minister, as I have said, very properly stated that. Therefore in the expression of my views, I shall have no expectation that my opinions will have any very great influence, either upon that side of the House or upon this, in arriving at the decision to which my right hon. friend refers. Nevertheless, I have very strong views upon the question, and I think it desirable that I should state them to the House. My right hon. friend refers to the speeches which were made last session by himself and by the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). He said at that time, and very truly, that there was an unanimity on the part of members on both sides of the House. He referred to the fact that during the progress of the war there had been great unanimity among the members of the House and among the people of this country. The reason for that was that there had been some respect paid to and some appreciation shown for the views of a large number of members of this House and a large section of the people of this country. The reason for that condition of affairs was that there was a manifest desire to avoid great controversial questions; questions which would divide province from province, and one section from another section, upon racial lines.
There was evidently, up to that time at all events, a desire to avoid any such action as this, and that was wise, Sir. My right hon. friend proposed that Parliament should grant to the Government an extension, because that is what it amounts to. It was not granting to this Parliament a further term of life, but it was granting to the Govetnment, which had the confidence of the majority of this Parliament, an extension of its term. My right hon. friend asked this House to grant the Government a renewal of their confidence. There did not seem to be any important questions which would divide the people. Parliament and the people of this country had a right to expect that the same policy which had been pursued previously in this war should

be continued, but the position to-day is entirely different. My right hon. friend, without any notice, without any consultation with the people of this country, and I believe without any reason to justify such a course, has thrown upon this House a measure more controversial, more calculated to array one section of the country against another, more calculated to array one class of the people of this country against other classes, and more calculated to raise racial cries in this country than any other question which could possibly have been precipitated. Yet the right hon. gentleman asks this House to give this measure its unanimous support. Notwithstanding the fact that the Government has acted contrary to the solemn pledges which the Prime Minister made to this House, and has more than once made to the people of this country, the right hon. gentleman comes forward with a coolness which, in any one else but my hon. friend, would excite surprise, and asks this House to pass a resolution renewing the confidence of this Parliament in his Government. It is astonishing that the right hon. gentleman should do that, when he knew perfectly well, before he presented the resolution, that it could not, by any possibility, be accepted by the unanimous judgment of this House. I say to my right hon. friend that, no matter what might be his views, with all his power and all the influence which he is entitled to command among the people of this country on account of the long and valued service he has given to the State, no matter how much he might endeavour to influence public opinion with his great persuasive power, I doubt if he. could convince any large number of the members sitting on this side of the House -and I am sure, Sir, that he would not be able to convince a majority, even of the people of this country-that it would be desirable to renew the confidence of this Parliament in the gentlemen who sit upon the treasury benches.
My right hon. friend says that he has been urged by many influential people to' press through this resolution as a partisan measure, and send it to the Imperial Government, and ask the Imperial Parliament to pass it. No one knows better than my right hon. friend that if he were to have this resolution adopted against the views of any large section of this country, the Imperial Government and the Imperial Parliament would refuse to carry it into effect. That is why the right hon. gentleman will not risk the passing of this resolution by a majority vote of this Parliament. They could ask a majority of the members of this House, which they command, to pass it, if they dared to do so, but they know it would be waste paper when it was passed. It might cross the ocean, but it would never find a place upon the statute books of the Imperial Parliament. My right hon. friend, in view of the pressure which has been behind him in certain quarters, makes the announcement that he will withdraw the resolution, unless it meets with the unanimous approval of this House, because he knows that it would not be carried into effect. And why? The reason was well stated by my right hon. friend, the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laur-ier), and his words were quoted by the Prime Minister, that the Imperial Parliament would not think, for a single moment, of altering the constitution, unless they had evidence that it was with the unanimous, or practically unanimous, consent of this Parliament, which would mean the consent of both sides of the House. My hon. friend says we ought to bring our minds to a conclusion to adopt this resolution, because in times of war people ought not to pay special attention to the provisions of the constitution, and that these constitutional rights should not be regarded too solemnly.* Well, Sir, that is exactly what the Kaiser said after the war broke out. The Kaiser made up his mind that it would be of enormous advantage to get through Belgium on the triumphant march of his army to Paris. Belgium refused to let the German army pass through, and the German Government said:	"Oh, in
times of war, treaties are but scraps of paper, we will have no regard to the treaty under which we are bound to protect Belgium, because these are war times, and in war times one is justified in resorting to any measure in order to accomplish one's end.'' And so my right hon. friend says these are war times, and no regard should be had to the constitution. I regard the British North America Act as a compact between the different provinces of Canada, which cannot be broken, except by the consent of every province which became a party to that compact. That is the view which has -been taken by great public men who have addressed themselves to the question since Confederation. That is the view which has been held by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the highest appeal court in the Empire, and that is the view which generally prevails among constitutional lawyers. It	is	a	pact,
and cannot be broken by the voice

of three or four or five or six of the provinces of Canada, but it can only be broken by the unanimous vote of all the provinces which entered into the pact under which Confederation was formed. As I am taking a different position to-day from that which I took when I agreed to an extension of the life of Parliament at the last session, I desire tb say that one of the grounds upon which I take my stand to-day is that this Government, in utter breach of the pledge which was made to this Parliament, at a time when the Prime: Minister of Canada knew what was the view of one province of this country as to,the necessity of standing by the constitution, that there would be no compulsory service in Canada, is- attempting to force upon the country a measure of compulsory service, without the people of Canada being allowed to have any voice in it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Pugsley: Under these circumstances, as I indicated when speaking on the motion for second reading of the conscription Bill, I will vote against the resolution for the extension of the life of Parliament. At last session, we took an extraordinary course; but as I have said, up to that time, all was harmony; there had been no discord; there had not been thrust into the political arena any questions calculated to arouse our people either upon national or upon racial issues. But it was a step which, even for the other considerations I have mentioned, one ought to hesitate long before taking. The fact that we took that step once ought to be no precedent for our taking it again.
Why was the term of five years fixed in the constitution under which the provinces of Canada were united? Why was it not left to this Parliament to determine what should be its life? The Imperial Parliament can determine its period of life; the New Zealand Parliament and the Parliament of Australia can do the same thing; but for good and substantial reasons, for reasons which at the time seemed to be sound, the Fathers of Confederation placed in the constitution the provision that it should be beyond the power of this Parliament to extend its life. The circumstances in this country are peculiar. We have two races of equal prominence and with equal rights, two races which stand equal before the law. It could not be foreseen what might be the action of Parliament in reference to questions in which either race might be particularly concerned, and the

Fathers of lOonfederaion therefore determined that there should be a limit to the life of Parliament, and that from time to time at periods not longer than five years apart, Parliament should be dissolved and Government and Opposition should be obliged again to appeal to the people That safeguard was put into the constitution, and it should not lightly be interfered with. My right bon. friend said that it would be objectionable to have an election because it might be impossible to -take the votes of the soldiers at the front. Not many sessions ago a Bill for taking the -soldiers' votes was under consideration d-ay after day, and when -hon. members on this side dpubted the possibility of taking their votes, hon. gentlemen on the Treasury -benches replied th-at it would be the easiest thing in the world to do, and one prominent member of the Government declared publicly at that time that the whole country was crying in thunderous tones for an election -and that the soldiers' votes must be taken. The Soldiers Voting A-ct w-as therefore passed to make ample provision to that end. Yet when hon. -gentlemen opposite do not want an election; when they are afraid to submit their record to the people; w-hen there is -this issue, unclouded by any other issue, when 'they think they can raise questions which will enable them to speak eloquently of the sacrifices of our brave boy-s at the front; when they think they will be -able to sway the multitude by waving the Old Flag and thus making the people forget their wrong-doings during the past six years during which they have held the reins of office in this country-they introduced this compulsory measure, and at the same time they ask us to extend -their parliamentary lives. They are doing this -as a -means of escape from the wrath of the people in case the extension should be refused, as they knew when they introduced this resolution that it was not unlikely to be refused. We were elected fpr five years. It i-s now pretty nearly s-ix years since the people sent us here as their representatives. Many seats are unfilled; thousands of people in this country have never had -an opportunity of voting for members of this Parliament, and they -are entitled to representation. My right hon. friend, in connection with the taking of the soldiers' votes said: Many of our -brave boys at the front will not have an opportunity of voting if a general election is brought on. Of the 300,000 men who h-ave been sent -across the seas, how many have ever had had an opportunity of voting for the present members of this Parliament? The last census was taken in

1911, six years ago. Of the hoys who are now from 20 to 25 years of age and who are at the front not one has had an opportunity of voting for members of this Parliament. They were boys of from 14 to 19 when the census was taken and when the lists of 1911 were prepared. They are like thousands of other young men in this country of similar age who have never been permitted to exercise the franchise. They are entitled to exercise it. This Parliament does not represent them.
Let me present the matter in another way. What right have we, of our oWn motion and by our own votes, to extend our term of office? Hon. gentlemen on the other side who think they are little political gods, who think that they and they alone are capable of managing the affairs of the country, who think that they and they alone have a proper conception of the duty of a government in these war times, say it is for the best interest of the country that they should continue in office. That is exactly what the late ruler of Russia thought. He thought he could rule Russia much better than the people could rule. He thought he- knew much better than the people of Russia what was in their best interest. But Romanoff is now doing garden work inside the walls of a prison in southern Russia, endeavouring to increase the production of that country. His fate, however, does not dampen the ardour of hon. gentlemen opposite, nor does the fate of other autocrats who have endeavoured, without a constitution, to rule the people. I can imagine no greater evidence of a desire to continue a state of autocracy in this country than that this Government and this Parliament should Tefuse to consult the people. Hon. gentlemen opposite say: Oh, the people do not know nearly so well as we what is in their best interest; it is in their best interest that we should manage the war for them without consulting them; we set ourselves up above the people, and, therefore, because we think we can manage far better than they, it is desirable that the life of a Parliament should be extended for another year. If it is extended for another year, why not extend it still for another year? Does this Government give us any assurance that the war will end in one year from now? When the war broke out they thought and by their do-nothing policy they acted as though they thought, the war would be over in a few months. But they can give us no assurance now that the war will be over in a year. We all pray that it may be, but if it continues for still
another year, will they again ask for an extension? And if the war continues for two years, will they come again and ask for a still further extension? If they are the only people capable of governing this country, why not? If they are the only people who know how the war should be carried on, why should not they come again, and again, and again, although ten years may have passed away since the people have had an opportunity of casting their ballots?
For these reasons, I do not hesitate to say that I, for one, shall find it impossible to vote for this resolution, if I am to do justice to my conscience and perform what I believe to be my duty to the people. While I have not been over many parts of Canada,
I have had an opportunity of meeting quite a large number of people of my own province, and I have not met one single man who thinks it desirable or proper that the life of this Parliament should be further extended. That remark applies to Liberals and Conservatives alike. They say: "Let us have an election; the people ought to rule in this country; you gentlemen at Ottawa are only the servants of the people, who have chosen you for five years, and no longer, to do our work. This is our country, not yours; the interests at stake in this great war are ours, and not yours alone, except as you are part of the people. We have given you a mandate for five years, at the end of which time you are to come back to us and render an account of your stewardship, allowing hs to decide who shall represent us in Parliament for another term of five years." Does not that strike you, Sir, as a reasonable proposition in this democratic country? I think it should appeal to you and to every man in this country who has the faintest idea that it is the right of the people to rule.
I should like to address a few remarks to the amendment moved by my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham). If this amendment should be accepted by the Government and effect be given to it, I think it would be very much in the interests of Canada, and would do a great deal towards winning the war. I therefore hope the amendment will be carried. My hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), in view of the magnificent things which he says and of the few things which he does, is entitled to be regarded as the most eloquent dreamer that we have in this whole Dominion. He says that this resolution is general in its character.


George Eulas Foster: It was the
remarks of my hon. friend, and not the resolution, that I characterized as general.


William Pugsley: I am glad that my hon. friend, when he came to consider the amendment, saw that it was in concrete form and not so general in its character.


George Eulas Foster: I have not passed any opinion on that.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend was to keep clear of that. Let me read the amendment, which strikes me as being a mighty good one to propose at this time, and one which will commend itself to the people of this country:
That all tihe words after the word "that" in the said resolution be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
In the opinion of this House the consideration of the terms of the said resolution should be deferred until the Government brings before Parliament measures providing that those best able to pay will be asked to contribute their full share to the cost of the war and by which all agricultural, industrial, transportation and natural resources of Canada will be organized so as to ensure the greatest possible assistance to the Empire in the war and to reduce the cost of living to the Canadian people.
I am particularly glad to be able to support this amendment. It seems to me to be particularly in the interests of the Canadian people. I am glad to support it because it breathes the spirit which ran throughout all the speeches which were delivered by hon. gentlemen on this side of the House in favour of compulsory military service. They, with hardly an exception, while supporting the Bill for conscripting the man-power of this country, took the ground that there were other things beside the man-power of Canada to be sacrificed; that there should be a mobilization of the resources of Canada as well; that the man-power of this country should be diverted into the best channels for the production of food, for increasing transportation facilities, for the putting of fuel on the market at lower prices, and for reducing the cost of living, which has risen at an appalling rate in this country. The first part of this resolution urges that consideration of the Government's resolution be deferred. Surely no harm could come from that. As has been pointed out,* it will be some three months, or even more, before the term of Parliament will expire, and Parliament can be kept together very easily without any one suffering greater inconvenience than any man should be

willing to put up with in the interests of the country. The amendment urges that consideration of the resolution be deferred until the Government brings before Parliament measures providing:
"That those best able to pay will be asked to contribute their full share to the cost of the war and by which all agricultural, industrial, transportation and natural resources of Canada will be organized so as to ensure the greatest possible assistance to the Empire in the war and to reduce the cost of living to the Canadian people."
My hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce says: Oh, Mir. Speaker, is it not a horrible thing to ask us to do this, when we have only three months of life before us? -when we can actually see our graves yawning before us, waiting for us to fall into them, is it not horrible to ask us to undertake this great work? Why did not the Government, undertake it long ago? This war has been on isince the 4tih of August, 1914, but these gentlemen thought it was. going to be over in a very few weeks or a few months at most. They have told this House on more than one occasion that there was danger of the Empire being at war with Germany. They told us so when, they wanted us to engage in that chimerical scheme, the building of dreadnoughts by Canada. They toild us in the August session of 1914 that Germany had been preparing for this war for forty years. Well, if they had kept in touch with the British military authorities, as was their duty, they would have known that such was the case. Do they pretend that they did not know? Did they think the war would be a triumphal march to Berlin within two or three months' time? Sir, as reasonable men they ought to have known that this war was likely to last a number of years; but whether certain that it would last a number of years or not, it was their duty to prepare for whatever eventualities might occur. Ought they not to have known that as millions of people were diverted from productive life into the ranks of the consumers, food products would become scarcer and the cost of the necessities of life would be likely to rise?
And if there is any advantage in appointing a Food Controller and a Fuel Controller to-day, was there not the same need of appointing such guardians of the people's welfare shortly after the war broke out, and was that not the time to appoint them-long before prices had soared to the enormous figures they have reached, figures which have become so alarming and which are so out of all proportion to what they



J TIL'S 17, 1917

[Stage Direction]
should be that people in ordinary circumstances find it difficult to keep body and soul together because they are unable to meet the cost of the necessities of life.
My right horn, friend says: What could we have done in the way of transportation? Should they not have thought for a moment that Canada is capable of becoming the granary of the world, and that with proper production and proper transportation Canada could supply the allied armies with all the flour they might require? As prudent men should they not have thought- of the future, and should they not have taken steps to endeavour to increase production, provide more transportation, and decrease its cost as far as possible? But, they have done nothing.
During last season the farmers in the West had the greatest difficulty in getting the cars necessary to, transport their products to- the markets of the world. My right hon. friend says:	"Are we to take
charge of the railways and operate them?" Not at all. Hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House are now fond of referring to what has been done in the United States -although it was not always so with them. What was done in the United States immediately after the war broke out? Within a -few days the Government wired to the ninety-one, presidents, of the railway companies in that great country, asking them to meet at Washington in order to confer upon the steps that should be taken to make the railways of the country as efficient as possible. On the day appointed 86 out of the 91 presidents- attended. The representative of the United States Government said: "Now, gentlemen, we want you to put all the railways in this country under one control. We want to operate all the railways of the United States just as if it were one great system, and if cars of one road are not particularly needed, but are required on another, these cars may be transferred at a moment's notice, irrespective of the wishes of the particular railroad. The 86 railroad presidents said: "We will gladly meet your views." By six o'clock that evening an agreement had been drawn up and signed, embodying the wishes of the Government, and since that time the railroad systems of the United States have been operated as if they were controlled by one company. An executive board was chosen consisting of five of the ablest railway men in the Upited States. They have their offices in Washington, and everything is directed by them. In this country there has been a shortage of cars or a shortage
of locomotives on one railroad, and a surplus on another, but there is jealousy between the companies here, and there is no disposition amongst them to assist one another. The Government has no control over them, and no agreement with them. I think the example of the United States in this particular instance might very well be followed. Perhaps I should not say followed, although it may not be too late to follow it. In any event, that is the course which ought to have been -adopted by this Government at the beginning. If this had been done the Government would know what rolling stock was available, and the railways should have been induced by persuasion or by assistance to piocure -all the equipment necessary to meet the transportation demands of the country. It would not have been costly to the Government, because this rolling stock could have been placed with the companies under the trust system, by which the Government would have been properly secured.
My right hon. friend says, "Think of the great number of ships which would be required to transport food to the Allies." Is not that the very reason why we should have done our part? Surely the more ships required, more obligatory would it be upon the Government of Canada to do their share of the work necessary to facilitate and cheapen transportation across the ocean. However, the Government has not done anything. Hon. members on this side of the House have pleaded in cur humble way. We have pleaded especially with the Minister of Trade and Commerce to engage in building ships in Canada, as a government undertaking. Unfortunately our appeals fell upon absolutely deaf ears. One would not have "known that the Minister of Trade and Commerce was born in a maritime section of the country. One would not have known from his inaction

I will not say his action-that he was familiar with shipbuilding. One would not have supposed for a moment that he came from a country where twenty-five, or thirty, or forty years ago there were not only hundreds, but thousands, of wooden ships constructed, which were the pridi -of that portion of Canada, and which sailed upon every sea, carrying commerce between Canada and all the countries of the world. Yet in the city of St. John, even since he and I. were boys together at college, I have seen 1,200 ablebodied men working in one shipyard. There are scores, hundreds-nay, I am almost safe in saying, thousands-of places in the Maritime Provinces which could easily be turned
[Stage Direction]
into yards for the building of -wooden vessels. The hon. minister says: We could not do anything, so many were required. Is that an answer to make at this late date? Consider the way in which our people are suffering from the high cost of fuel. Take the cities in the Maritime Provinces facing upon the ocean, in open water communication with the great anthracite mines of Pennsylvania. It costs far more to bring the coal by water from the mines to those cities than it costs t'o buy coal at the point of production. This is simply because vessels are so scarce.
We have pleaded with my right hon. friend to engage in tire building of ships even for the coastal trade of Canada, even to save onr people from being frozen to death in the winter, or from 'being reduced to a state of poverty by the high price of fuel. Coal can he bought at the mines for $6 a ton, yet it has cost our people between $15 and $16 a ton. Notwithstanding this, the Government feels that no duty rests upon it to engage in the building of ships, either for the coastal service of Canada or for service across the Atlantic.
Take the cost of the other necessities of life. I will not refeT to the cost of goods kept in cold stores, because quite recently we have had a very strong report upon that subject. Take the cost of flour, for instance. My right hon. friend says, in effect: We could not control the cost of flour because some people must produce what other people eat; therefore, as somebody must produce the wheat, somebody must grind it into flour and take $15 a barrel for it, because it must be raised and milled. He promises what he is going to do when the war is over; he is going to b^iild ships. After the war is over, he is going to have a great programme for shipbuilding, but during the war the task is too mighty for him or his Government to undertake.
-Take the case of flour. It is beyond all reason, it is a disgrace to this Government that it has been allowed to jump from dollar to dollar, to jump by leaps and bounds, until it has reached a cost beyond the means of the people to pay. There was no need of it if this Government at the start had taken the proper steps-I do not mean by compulsion-but had taken steps to supervise production. If the farmers and those great associations of grain growers had been seen, a harmonious arrangement, to which they would have been glad to agree, could have been made by which the price of wheat would have been fixed at a reasonable sum. Then the

Government should have seen the mill-owners, and they should have arranged that the cost of milling would have been so much. The millers are patriotic if you approach them in the right way. They would have made a proper arrangement. If they had known that you were to approach them altogether, they would have agreed to such an arrangement-so much for the wholesale dealer in flour, so much for the retailer, so much for the baker, and all along the line from the point of production upon the farm until the flour reached the house of the consumer. In this way you could have made an arrangement which could have materially reduced the cost of living. That is the process that is being undertaken by the very eminent controller of food in the United States, Mr. Hoover. He feels that by that system he can enlist the sympathy and support of the whole people, and that the cost of production can be kept down.
The amendment speaks of organizing the industrial resources of this country. Why should that not be done? It should have been done long, long ago. Why, Sir, we have in this country great Government workshops, situated at Transcona, near Winnipeg, at a point near Quebec, and at Moncton. These could have been enlarged to such proportions as might be necessary; they have the most improved machinery, and in these shops the manufacture of munitions for the Empire could have been undertaken and carried on as a national work, paying the men a reasonable wage for their work, and allowing no profits such as have been allowed to the manufacturers of munitions under the arrangement which has been made.
Mr. LALOR:: Is any country in the world doing that to-day?


William Pugsley: I do not care whether there is any country in the world doing it or not. In other countries the influence of the profiteers may be as great as it is in Canada but there is no reason why it should not be done. I will tell you why it is not done in Canada. The Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) says: Let us make this war pay for itself. He does not do it, oi course, because he is putting the burden upon posterity, but he says: Let us make the war pay for itself. He says to the manufacturers of flour: "If you can get $15 a barrel for your flour, take it. Then you have to render to me an account of yojir profits. I will let you have twenty, forty-five or fifty per cent and I will take the

balance and put it into tbe treasury? Then, I will boast to the people the enormous revenues that we are getting from the business interests of this country." What does it mean to the Minister of Finance if the Lake of the Woods Milling Company makes $1,200,000 or $2,500,000 excess profits? The larger the excess profits, the greater the revenue to the country, the more satisfactory is the Budget that he brings down and the louder will be the cheers from hon. gentlemen opposite. If there were no excessive profits, there would not be this large business tax, and there would not be this vainglory on the part of the Minister of Finance who is making this increase in his revenue out of the misery and the want of the common people of this country.
. Mr. LALOR: Where does that want or misery exist?


William Pugsley: That want and misery is all over this country-not with the canners -no-but with the common people. That is where it exists. My hon. friend has to do nothing more than go into the homes of the people of Canada, to go to the mothers, the wives and sisters often of the soldiers who have gone to the front, to visit families who are receiving an allowance, to find want and complaints as to the high cost of living which exists among the ordinary, common people.
With regard to the industrial resources, why should not the Government in a reasonable manner have taken control of the industries which are more especially engaged in making goods for the nation? Why should they not do it now? It was not the policy of this Government that they should do it. You will remember that only a year ago, on information which I had received, I made the statement in this House that under the contracts which had been given by the old Shell Committee, the baby of the then Minister of Militia, upwards of $80,000,000 of the money of the people of the Empire and of Canada had been uselessly spent and that that large amount might have been saved if economical, prudent and businesslike methods had been pursued. I made that charge standing in my place in this House and I risked my seat in Parliament upon my ability to prove what I had stated. Hon. gentlemen on the other side, led by hon. gentlemen sitting on the treasury benches, laughed me down or tried to do it. They said: We will have none of that, why, thlat is not a crime; that is only want of judgment; that is only waste of public money; you fellows upon the other side
are charging us with extravagance and waste; why should we bother about that; $80,000,000; what is that; unless you charge that somebody stole it, we will not investigate the matter because we do not think it worthy of being investigated. I referred to a gentleman in Hamilton who had received such enormous profits that he actually became surfeited with them and became ashamed to continue making them. He offered his munition plant to the Government when Mr. Thomas was here from England. The Government did not accept his offer and they ridiculed the idea of his making these enormous profits. But later on when the same gentleman sent to the Government his cheque for upwards of $700,000, representing the enormous profits that his conscience would not permit him to keep, they took off their bats to Mr. Bailey and said: This is a great patriot and his conduct is deserving to be followed by a great many of the other munition manufacturers in this country.
So far as I have seen in the public press, that example has not been followed by others. I have just a few words to say after recess, and perhaps we had better call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILL.


[Stage Direction]
Rill No. Ill, to incorporate the North American Accident Insurance Company.- Mr. Pardee.

[Stage Direction]
The order for Private Bills having been exhausted, the House resumed consideration of the proposed resolution of Sir Robert Borden (Prime Minister) for the extension of the paliamentary term, and the amendment thereto proposed by Mr. Graham.
William Pugsley: Before recess, I was endeavouring
to reply to a statement by my right hon. friend, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) that this Government could not do anything more than it had done. It seems to me that, so far as shipping is concerned, the Government has utterly failed to discharge its duty to the people of Canada and to the Allies. It has been stated on several occa-



sions by members of the Government that, because the Imperial Munitions Board are building some ships an Canada, the Government is relieved of any obligation in that direction. I take >a view entirely contrary to that. A great many people think that this Government is building ships, and are disposed to give it some credit for this action; but the Government are doing nothing of the kind. They absolutely declined to do anything, though they -were urged over and over again by members pn this side of the House to engage in this moat important work. The work has been, to a limited extent, taken up by the Imperial Munitions Board, who have laid down the standard, and are having some vessels, m.ostly wooden vessels, built in Canada. But they are by no means exhausting the facilities which exist in Canada, or the men who are available. I have the knowledge, Sir, that quite recently different people have communicated with a shipbuilding director of the Munitions Board offering to build ships, asking for contracts, and they have been told that the board are not in a position to give any more contracts at the present time, and that they have no authority to give contracts, and only to-day I met some gentlemen from the Pacific coast, who informed me that the same statement was made to them by the Imperial Munitions Board. That corroborates the statement which was made to gentlemen in the Maritime Prov-incese who are very desirous of engaging in the work. If this Government, even at this late day, were to offer contracts for the building of wooden vessels, to be owned by the Government-so that the freight rates could be kept down within reasonable limits, which would perform enormous service to the country-I have no doubt they could find plenty of people, both on the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts, on the St. Lawrence river and on the Great Lakes, who would be willing to engage in the work, and who would gladly accept contracts from the Government. Therefore, when the Government, through its Minister of Trade and Commerce, says that it can do nothing in the way of shipbuilding, it is confessing its own inability to carry on in an ordinary businesslike way the affairs of this country.
With regard to the farming interests, the minister says: Oh, see what we have done for the farmers. They have done only what they were doing in peace times; they have not changed in any way from what they were doing before the war broke out. They have been following largely along the line 
laid down by* their predecessors. It is true they have been giving encouragement to agriculture, but that is all. There has been no organization of labour, no special encouragement given to the farmer, nothing more done for the encouragement of agriculture than 'has been done in peace times, when there was not the same demand for food.
The .minister iasks: Wlhat can be done? T!he question is, what has this Government not done for the farmer? What they have not done would fill volumes, and what .they have done would fill only a page ot two. In the matter of fertilizers, other countries aro giving great encouragement. We know whait (Germany and Australia have dope. 'So far from doing anything to encourage farmers to get cheap fertilizers and abundance of them, this Government has actually imposed a tax upon fertilizer, taxing the most essential raw material of the farmer. Is that giving proper encouragement? Is that stimulating food production? Then, any one who has given any attention to agriculture to-day knows there is nothing of greater importance, as fax as food production is concerned, than the extensive use of tractors. I do not mean the large tractors used by wealthy people, but the smaller tractors which can be bought at a reasonable price, a price which the ordinary farmer will be able to .pay. But when a farmer attempts to obtain one of these tractors, he finds he is met with a duty of from 25 to 30 .per cent. I am within the knowledge-and I am sure within the judgment-of my horn, friends who come from the West when I say that a reasonable encouragement 'by taking the duty off these tractors would enormously stimulate the production of grain in our western country. The Government have not responded to the demand made by the farmers. Not long ago the )hon. member from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) introduced a resolution in the House urging that the duty upon farm implements, including tractors, should be removed. That resolution met with a determined opposition from the Government and its followers, and it was voted down by the Government majority in this House. Is that the way to encourage the farmer? Yet that is what this Government has done. They have imposed this heavy burden for the protection of one or two large manufacturers who are making these large tractors in Canada, preventing the farmer from getting them iu from the United States on the easiest terms possible. To-day we have in every

province in Canada 'hundreds and thousands of men who are not familiar with horses, men living in the cities, towns and villages, who would be glad to get on the farms and be glad to operate these tractors, in order to do this essential work of farm production. Yet the Government give no encouragement whatever in this direction.
Then, with regard to the development of the West, if the Government, early in this war, had placed wheat and wheat products, and oats and cattle upon the free list-particularly wheat and wheat products, which would' have ensured a free entry for those products info the markets of the United States-it would have had the effect of encouraging the farmers to engage more vigorously and enthusiastically in farming upon a larger scale, because they would have had assurance that, even if the English and Canadian markets were to fall off, there would still 'be a market in the United States, and when prices went down there would be a demand which would always ensure a fair return for their products. It would have had an enormous effect, and yet because these gentlemen are tied to the principle of a high protective tariff they refused, and have refused over and over again, the offers which have been made on behalf of the people of the West by members upon this side of the House, and they have voted down resolutions urging that encouragement in this direction should be given to agriculture.
With regard to men, what have they done? Have they endeavoured in any way to organize the man power of this country for the purpose of assisting in agriculture? Not at all. They make admirable speeches upon the subject; they make appeals to the farmers to produce all they can; but, so far as organization is concerned, they have utterly failed to do anything. How easy it would be to look over this country and find out where farm labour could be secured, and have that farm labour distributed where it is most needed. That is a way in which something might be done to organize the agricultural forces of the country. Only to-day I saw in the newspapers that the Prime Minister, having been waited upon by farmers from Ontario, made an appeal to the young men of the cities to go on to the farms and assist the farmers. But, so far as organization or effective work is concerned, the Government have failed to do anything.
Having made these remarks with regard to the amendment, which, as I have said, commends itself to me as one member of
221i
this House, and which I shall be glad to support, I should like to revert to the resolution itself. My right hon. friend has put forward, as a reason why we should extend the political lives of the members of this Parliament and the life of the Government, that an election at the present time Would be very objectionable because it would distract the people's attention from work in connection with the war. If this Military Service Bill goes into effect, there will he no need of any voluntary effort on the part of the people. The mandate of the Government has gone forth virtually stopping voluntary enlistment in this country. Unfortunately they will not want the people at large to pay any special attention to voluntary enlistment, because the young men of the country, if this measure goes into effect, are to be compelled by force of law to enlist in the army. The services of the Government will not be required very much in connection with the working out of the Military Service Bill, because there are provided throughout the country tribunals which will determine questions of exemption. The Government have created a Hospitals Commission; they have created a Returned Soldiers' Commission; they have Sir George Perley as overseas Minister of Militia; they have commissions for everything which can be conceived of under the sun to attend to all matters to which a Government would ordinarily he supposed to attend. Therefore, I do not see any great reason why the services of some of the ministers at all events might not be given for the purpose of enlightening the people of the country in case a general election should come on.
A suggestion has been made that a general election will divide the people. Can the people be more divided than they have been by the compulsory measure which has been brought down in this Parliament by the Prime Minister? A general election, as compared with the enforcement of the-Military Service Bill by a moribund Parliament 'with no mandate of the people- legislation which a large section of the population, of this country believe this Parliament has no right to- enact-would be, in comparison with the present condition,, like a Sunday school picnic as compared; with a circus. I do not fear any disastrous results from a general election. Why should there be? The people of this country know their rights; they know it is their right to go to the polls and deposit their ballots silently for the candidates of their choice.

They will, under ordinary circumstances, do that quietly as good citizens, and therefore I see no reason in the world to fear any great disturbance amongst the people in case of an appeal being made to them. A general election is the only safe course to pursue. A majority in this House, in the exercise of its judgment, has determined that the question of compulsory service shall not be left to the people to decide by means of a referendum. Some of us think a referendum: would have been the 'better course to pursue, because, after all, if you want to havie a peaceful, well-satisfied and contented people, you must let them realize that they are the rulers of the country, and that their voice is to prevail, Had this question been left to the people by means of a referendum, the most beneficial results would have been brought about; but as a large majority of this House has thought otherwise, the only solution of the important questions which have arisen is to submit those questions to the people at a general election.
The view that I am compelled to take is that this _Govemment must in the national interest dissolve Parliament and go to the country. To take any other course w-ould be disastrous to the future of Canada. I do not see why, when an election comes on, it -should be necessary to incite the people to any action which might be regretted. I do not -see why all the people should not go to the polls quietly and prayerfully, in view of the great crisis which confronts this country as a part of the Empire, and exercise their right with a just regard for the welfare of Canada. They 'have a great and splemn duty to perform, and I believe they will perform it prayerfully and -in the best interest of Canada and of the Empire. I feel most sincerely and deeply that if this Government attempts to bring into force this compulsory measure, to which a vast section of our pe.ople is bitterly opposed, it will lead not merely to national trouble, but to national disaster. It is unfortunate that that should he the case; but it is the case; and are we, as members of this Parliament, who, although we are living beyond our term perhaps have the right to speak for the people, to leave it an the power of these gentlemen to plunge this country into that dreadful condition which for generations would be deplored? The only hope of the country is that -these gentlemen shall face their master and ours; that they shall go -before the people in -order that the people m-ay have an opportunity of saying who shall.govem this coun-
[Mr. Pug;slev.l
try in -the future. These gentlemen know that while they are temporarily in command of the ship of State, they are driving to-wards the breakers. They are like drunken sailors in charge of a ship who are wilfully running their ship on the wrong course and directing it towards the breakers. It is -the right of the people-and I as one member' of this House, purpose doing my part towards allowing the people to exercise their right-to remove these gentlemen from the ship and place in charge of it men in whom the people will have confidence.


Mr. BUKEELL:: Might I be permitted to make a small correction of a remark made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) ?


George Perry Graham: You are not going to try and correct all his mistakes, -are you?


Martin Burrell: The Minister of Trade and Commerce was good enough to refer to my department in his remarks this afternoon, but unfortunately he gave me credit in regard to a certain feature where credit was not really due. It is true I was in the West at the time of the drought in 1914, and at the Prime Minister's request investigated conditions and discussed the situation with the provincial governments. I recommended a vigorous system of relief, and our officers ably assisted in the seed inspection, but it is to my hon. friend and colleague, the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Roche) and his department, that the credit for administering this relief work was due, which practically resulted in the economic salvation of the southwestern portion of the western provinces.


Mr. MURPHY:: It was within the family anyway.


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, there has been standing on the Order Paper since the 23rd of May the resolution which the right hon. leader of the Government moved this afternoon, after this long delay. For three years this country has been engaged in a great war and has called upon her citizens to contribute an enormous number of men to assist in the cause of the Allies. My hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) presents a resolution this afternoon urging that before the House proceeds to consider the terms of the resolution introduced by the Prime Minister, the interests of the country and our position with regard to the war demand that certain steps should be taken. To that the Minister of Trade and Commerce makes an answer in which he eulogizes the services that have heon ren

dered by our men at the front, and declares in the apt and eloquent language of which he is a master, that the necessity for putting into force the Military Service Act is very great indeed which was no answer at all to the argument made by my hon. friend from South Renfrew; in fact, it was entirely irrelevant, and particularly inapropos in view of the reasons advanced by the Premier as to the imperative necessity of passing the Military Service Bill. If that Bill is of such an imperative character why has it been laid aside since last Friday? Its third reading has been absolutely postponed and its passage through this House and Parliament delayed in order that my right hon. friend might move his resolution for the extension of the parliamentary term.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: It was postponed at the request of the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), who said that he spoke on behalf of the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier).


Mr. OLIVER:: May I mention for the information of the House that my request on behalf of the leader of the Opposition was that the Bill be left in committee until hon. members had a reprinted copy.


Robert Laird Borden: That is what I mean.


Frank Oliver: So there was no need for the Bill to stand beyond Friday.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It was well understood that the only reason for asking that the Bill remain in committee was that hon. members might have a reprinted copy showing what changes had been made. The Bill was printed and circulated among hon. members on Saturday, and my right hon. friend could have gone on with the Bill on that day, and it could have received its third reading; but he delayed the consideration of this imperative measure to submit this resolution which has been standing on the Order Paper since the 23rd of May. I am sure hon. gentlemen must be struck by the peculiar circumstances surrounding my right hon. friend's action. His suggestion that the delay is due to my hon. friend from Edmonton is one which will hardly be taken seriously by hon. gentlemen behind him. The House well knows that that was not the true reason why the third reading of the Military Service Bill was not proceeded with. I repeat, the Bill should have been disposed of before this resolution was introduced, and my right hon. friend should have stated to the House
what legislation he proposes to introduce before prorogation. Surely this Parliament has a right to know what action is contemplated by the Government in regard to such important legislation as the railway situation-a situation which the Minister of Trade and Commerce bad already told the House would be dealt with by a measure to be submitted to Parliament. The introduction of this particular resolution at this particular juncture, having regard to the Military Service Act, does not indicate that my right hon. friend has altogether forgotten the art of playing politics. '
What have we done in the last three years? We have given liberally of our men. The call to service made throughout this land has been responded to in a magnificent manner, and when at the end of three years of war my hon. friend from South Renfrew asks Parliament to declare that certain things are essential and must be done, can any hon. gentleman complain that his resolution is unreasonable? In his resolution he asks that those best able to pay shall contribute their full share to the cost of the war. The Minister of Trade and Commerce argued, eloquently that .there should be no contribution from these gentlemen, and then wound up by announcing that the Government proposed to bring down an income tax. Now, if an income tax is a good thing today, if it is right that the wealth of the country should contribute towards the carrying on of the war, why is it that the Government have postponed dealing with this problem until they were compelled at the point of the pistol presented by the hon. member from South Renfrew? Three months ago hon. gentlemen on this side of the House urged the Minister of Finance to deal with this question of accumulated wealth. We urged that the men of wealth who had not contributed in man-power should be made to contribute of their wealth; in other words, as my hon. friend: from South Renfrew proposes in his resolution, we urged that those best able to pay be made to contribute their full share to the cost of the war. And what did the Minister of Finance say? He said that some time, perhaps, in the future they might take up this question, but he was opposed to an income tax; it would cost too much to collect. Do you want me to tax a few wealthy men in this country, he asked, and he argued that the municipalities were already taxing the people, and this Government, therefore, should not tax them. We have been told frequently since the war began

that everybody should carry on business as usual. We have heard hon. gentlemen opposite speaking in laudatory terms of tjie Minister of Finance, telling us that he had done wonderful things in connection with financing the war and that he was in fact a paragon of financial wisdom. In the face of such a record as that, in the face of his declaration repeated over and over again in this House that he was opposed to making those best able to pay* contribute more than they were then doing, the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to-night that it was the Government's intention to introduce an income tax requires a little more explanation before hon. gentlemen in this House can accept it with any degree of certainty. If it is the Government's intention to introduce a measure of this kind, why doek not my hon. friend tell us just what they propose to do?
If you follow what the Minister of Finance indicated he would do, you would have a measure so absolutely parsimonious and so absolutely incomplete that it would be a taxation measure in name only, because I assume the Minister of Finance talked by the book and laid down what he deemed to be his policy when he spoke here in May, and that we are not going to have another complete somersault upon this question and another taxation measure put in force entirely different from the one the Minister of Finance asserted never could be put on the statute. It seems to me that this proposition is one of such a serious character that before this House passes upon the matter as to whether extension should be given to this Government we should know whether or not that class of people are going to be compelled to do their share in the war, either under the Military Service Act or by the conscription of wealth. As to what will be done we have nothing to go upon but the record of the Government during the last three years, and the House and the people will not have to be told what that record means.
In regard to the question of organization referred to in the amendment, what has been the situation for three years? Absolute and complete disorganization in every matter that relates to national welfare and national interest. When the United States entered the war, there came across the ocean experts from each of the Allied countries, who consulted with the United States experts representing the Government. They laid down a programme in regard to agriculture, industry, transportation, and natural resources, which in-IMr. Macdonald.1
eludes minerals. The United States, in conference with all these gentlemen representing the Allied countries, proceeded to organize the country to render the fullest service in every one of these matters. Up to date that has not been done in Canada. My hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce told us what the Government had done in regard to the farms. Does any one seriously suggest there has been any organization, either in regard to agriculture or in regard to anything else, whereby we should render the best possible aid to the Allies? My hon. friend cannot be serious in that suggestion. Why have we not done in Canada what was done in the United States? Why did not those delegations which came across from the Allied nations visit Canada? Why was not a conference held, not merely with one gentleman down in Washington, but with all the representatives of the varied interests in Canada, so that we might be able to organize to send food and minerals to Great Britain and the Allies? But the Government stands before the country with reference to every one of those propositions absolutely without any organization, absolutely without any combination by which the full services of Canada might be rendered to the Allies.
So in regard to the question of the cost of living. The Minister of Trade and Commerce argued that you could not deal with the problem of the cost of living during the war, and with that amplitude of language which is at his command at all times, proceeded to declare the task was an impossible one. Yet there has been laid upon the table of this House and placed in the hands of the honi members a document prepared by this Government's own officials declaring that in regard to the production of bacon and ham one concern alone has been permitted to make over three million dollars of profits which they should not have been permitted to make. Still this Government sits supinely, and has sat since that report was brought down.


George Eulas Foster: Does my hon.
friend hold by that word "profit" or does he wish to revise it?	,


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I hold by the word; as far as I can gather from the documents I perused, and from other information I have obtained, which indicates to my mind that there was a profit of two and a half cents per pound over and above the cost of production, cost of storage, and cost of handling, upon 95,000,000 pounds of bacon

sold by that concern. That is the meaning of this report, if it means anything.


Mr. GLASS:: I noticed in the paper a
statement from this concern, saying their profits were less than, one cent-.95 of a cent.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend has
only made a suggestion which indicates the necessity of having this matter cleared up. The statement I speak of was not made by an opponent of this Government, but by an official of the Department of Labour who was appointed for the specific purpose of making an investigation into the whole problem of the cost of living. If there are any errors in the statement, why did the Government give this document to the House and to the country and stand behind it? After finding the conditions as disclosed in this report the Government did nothing for a week-did not even verify the facts. They should have acted upon the report of their official at once, if they had confidence in him, and should have dealt with this subject in such a way that t'he poor man would know that profiteering was not to be mixed with patriotism in war time. Go 'to the figures given by the Department of Labour, go into the homes of the people, and you will find second only to the question of the war as a problem of pressing practical importance is the problem of the cost of living. Yet this Government says through the Minister of Trade .and Commerce: We passed an Order in Council some time ago. He said nothing whatever about Mr. O'Connor's report, but practically concluded by saying:	We can do
nothing. My horn, friend from South Renfrew (Mt. Graham) in the light of these facts, asks this House to declare that legislation for the purpose of providing against these conditions and for remedying these abuses should be placed upon the statute-books of this country before this Government asks for an extension of term. I say the proposition is one which is so reasonable that this House should be bound to agree with it, and if the House does not agree with it, I think the country will.


Mr. F. F. PARDEE (West Lambton):: I wish to occupy the attention of the House for a very few minutes only. In the first place, to my mind the resolution which was introduced by the Prime Minister to-day should not have been introduced. These are times when, as we all know, there is much unrest politically, socially and otherwise, and it does appear to me that in
view of the grave question which has been before the House for some considerable time, and upon which the minds of all have been focussed, it would have been only right and propeT .and in the national interest that a motion for the extension of the life of this Parliament should have been postponed until the Bill had passed its third reading and become law of the land.
Had the motion of my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) declaring that the consideration of the extension of the term-of Parliament is inopportune at this time, been brought in on the third reading of this Bill, it would have been considered by the Government, and rightly so, a want of confidence motion, and it would therefore have been voted down. But let me read this amendment as it stands:
That In the opinion of this House the consideration of the terms of said resolution should be deferred.
That is all the motion asks and that is all my hon. friend asks-that it should be deferred. I claim the right to say what I propose saying in the light of my remarks upon the second reading of this Bill. May I as one who voted for conscription, for which I make no apology, say that this House and this Government should not, when declaring that they should spill the blood of men, be afraid to spill the rich man's money. That position I take tonight just as absolutely, as consistently, and as sincerely as I did on the occasion to which I have referred.
I listened to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) this afternoon. I always listen to him with interest. But, during his speech to-day, it did appear to me that he put up straw men simply to knock them down. He accused my hon. friend from South Renfrew of saying that there should be taxation of accumulated wealth and then he asked: "Would you take the mines, the minerals, the timber, the capital and all those various other things, how could you tax accumulated wealth as far as they are concerned?" In that I wholly agree with him but within the four corners of this amendment there is not one word or sentence about the taxation of accumulated wealth. The only thing that the resolution does say, and properly say, is that those who can pay shall pay. The Minister of Trade and Commerce says: "I admit the sentiments are good but they are entirely irrelevant to this motion; in my humble opinion what we need is men and more men and the men must go." Now, I absolutely and entirely agree with him but I want to ask him in

all seriousness if men and more men are to go, if men are to be drilled, equipped and sent overseas for the defence of this Empire, as they ought to be, where is the money coming from to do these necessary things? The minister says: "You will see that we have in reality conscripted wealth; look what we have done by our business tax-in 1915-16, $20,000,000 and in 1916-17 another $20,000,000!" I want to ask any hon. member within sound of my voice if he thinks that throughout the great and broad Dominion of Canada $20,000,000 a year is the sum and substance of what the rich men ought to give by way of a tax for the purpose of carrying on this war. Where is Canada and where is her wealth?
In so far as the Minister of Trade and Commerce has to-day declared on behalf of the Government that an income tax will be instituted in this country and will be brought before this House, and in view of the further fact that a food controller has been appointed by this Government, a man of ability who ought to do well, I am quite free to admit that the Government have gone some considerable way down the road towards the amelioration of conditions and the shaping of affairs as they ought to be. Provided that income tax is fair and equitable, I shall have no hesitation in supporting that particular measure.
Speaking for myself personally, as the only one for whom I can speak, I have been for a long time, and am to-day, in accord with the idea that union, or national government should have been instituted in this country. I do not believe that with the great problems that have confronted us since the war broke out, and that are facing us to-day, Canada has any right to be governed by a partisan, or party, government. The issues are large, the issues will be larger, and had it been possible, I believe we should have had, call it a union, national, or other kind, of a government, in which the very best brains of the Dominion should he united for the purpose of taking care of the affairs of this country, neither for one part nor the other, but purely in the interest of Canada and the Empire. Although I have been strongly in favour, and perhaps an advocate, of that system of government,
I believe honestly and sincerely that with the different elements on both sides of the House of Commons to-day, a national, or union government is not possible.
One reason, and not the only reason, why it is not possible is that this Parliament has now continued for six years; it has outlasted its time longer than any other Parliament in the history of Canada. Many
I .Ur. i'arde?.!
great questions have come up for consideration, and the mandate with which we were sent here in 1911 has expired. The Government have been in power for the same length of time, and their actions have not been submitted to the people for approval nor has their mandate been renewed. This Government has been in power for that length of time and has endured such a stress and strain as no other Government has endured. It has had to deal with new questions, great questions, greater than have come before any other Government in Canada. I say that the people of this country are of the opinion, whether rightly or wrongly, that there are many questions upon which they desire to pronounce. They, say that, in so far as this House is concerned, in view of the recent redistribution of seats, there are forty-three seats vacant in this House to-day; in other words one-fifth of The great Dominion of Canada is unrepresented. Taking all those things into consideration, the firm and well considered judgment of the people of Canada is, that, whether we have national or party Government, the will of the people should be asked and the will of the people should be obeyed, whatever it may be. I utter those sentiments and those opinions in absolutely no party spirit whatever.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: My hon. friend from Sim-coe (Mr. W. H. Bennett) could not under- ' stand that line of talk; his mind is too narrow.


William Humphrey Bennett: Mr. Speaker, just by way of personal explanation, I did not laugh at the hon. gentleman, although I will confess that it is the first 9 p.m. time I have not laughed at him whenever he has addressed
the House.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I would expect absolutely nothing better from the hon. member from Simcoe. His thoughts and his ideas are so built that he cannot change them. Let me say that I offer those observations in absolutely no party spirit. I have endeavoured, as a member of this House, upon whom some responsibility rests, to feel the opinion of this country as well as I might, and more especially to feel the opinion of the province of Ontario, a portion of which I represent, and I may say to you that I am firmly convinced that the great heart and will of the people of the province of Ontario is for the war and in favour of doing whatever may be

done, in men or money, to win the war. I believe that they desire to give their verdict at the polls and to say-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) this afternoon referred to the declaration of some Liberals, who had met. He said that we had said to fill the gaps. Let me say to him now, Sir, that no man stands more ready, irrespective of political life, to fill the gaps than I do, tout that I do believe sincerely that to put upon one portion of our people the sacrifice of life and blood and to leave to the rich man who is enjoying his riches by reason of the fact that those men are bleeding to death to protect those riches, is not what a House of Commons, or a Government should do.
For those reasons, Sir, I believe that the amendment moved by the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) is in the right interest, that it is in an interest that helps the boys at the front and their mothers and daughters and wives. We and they should at least know that, if the sacrifice of life is asked of them, we in this House of Commons are men enough to ask, to demand, and to insist upon the sacrifice of the rich men's money.


Mr. RICHARD BLAIN (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I do not rise for the purpose of making a speech, but simply to make a statement in respect to the issue now before the House. I listened to the remarks of the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) this afternoon as he presented a request to the Parliament of Canada that the term of this Parliament should be extended for twelve months. I shall read the main part of the resolution:-
1.Notwithstanding anything in the British North America Act, 1867, or in any Act amending the same, or in any Order in Council, or terms or conditions of Union, made or approved under the said Act, or under any Act of the Canadian Parliament, the term of the Twelfth Parliament of Canada is hereby extended until the seventh day of October, 1918.'
I regard that as the only question before the House this evening, and no matter what hon. gentlemen opposite may say, no matter what efforts are made to becloud the issue, this House and the people of Canada understand that this is the issue before them now for consideration and settlement. I differ with my hon. friend, and I say that the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) does not speak for the people of the province of Ontario when he says that the
people of Ontario are in favour of a general election in war time.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I did not say that.


Richard Blain: Ball,	McLeod,
Barnard,	Meighen,
Bennett (Simcoe),	Middlebro,
Best,	Morphy,
Blain,	Morris,
Borden (Sir Robert),	Morrison,
Boulay,	Munson,
Bowman,	Nicholson,
Boyce,	Nickle,
Brabazon,	Northrup,
Bradbury,	Patenaude,
Burnham,	Paul,
Burrell, .	Rainville,
Carrick,	Reid,
Champagne,	Robidoux,
Clark (Bruce),	Roche, .
Clark (Red Deer),	Rogers,
Clarke (Wellington),	Schaffner,
Cochrane,	Sevigny,
Cromwell,	Sexsmith,
Crothers,	Shepherd,
Currie,	Smith,
Descarries,	Steele,
Doherty,	Stewart (Hamilton),
Donaldson,	Stewart (Lunenburg),
Fisher,	Sutherland,
Foster (Sir George),	Taylor,
Girard,	Thoburn,
Glass,	Thompson (Yukon),
Green,	Thornton,
Hanna,	Wallace,
Hazen,	Webster,
Henderson,	Weichel,
Hughes (Sir Sam),	Wilson (Wentworth),
Jameson,	Wright-78. .
Lalor,	
PAIRS .	
Ministerial.	Opposition.
Marshall,	Neely,
McCurdy,	Maclean, A. K.,
Hartt,	Thomson,
David^n,	Chisholm,
Kemp,	Robb,
Cockshutt,	Charlton,
Clements,	Knowles,
Stanfield,	Macdonald,
Chabot,	Beland,
Elliot,	Hughes, J. J.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I was paired with the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Stanfield). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens). Had I v.oted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mt. E. LAPOINTE:: I was paired with the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. LEVI THOMSON:: I was paired
with the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Hartt). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. A. W. CHISHOLM:: I was paired
with the hon. member for Bants (Mr. Tremaine). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The question is now on the main motion.


Right Hon.   S@: tion in the fall of 1914, but we have proof of their intentions in the spring of 1915.
In the spring of 1915 the Government brought in a Bill to give the soldiers the Mght to vote during the war. The title of the Bill was: " An Act to Enable Canadians on Active Military Service During the Present War to Exercise Their Electoral Franchise." Section 12 of this Bill say si
This Act shall remain in force during the present war.
What did tlhis mean, if it did not mean that the Government was at that time determined to have an election? And what was the purport and the object of this election? I assert now the design was to have an immediate election, and if I wanted any proof of that it would be sufficient for me to Tecall the famous words of the Minister of Public Works, when he stated on the floor of this House on the last day of the session of 1915 that the people of this country demanded an election in tones louder than thunder, in order to protect their liberties which were in danger. In danger of wihat? In danger because the other branch of the legislature had ventured to amend a Bill presented and passed by this House. That was the reason for which we were to have an election. As soon as Parliament had been prorogued they set to work to prepare for the election. The special ballots which had been authorized by the Bill were printed, and were sent with the boxes to England, and a gentleman appointed by the Government followed them. This gentleman was Mr. Daly, of Winnipeg, a disciple of the Minister of Public Works, and like the Minister of Public Works well versed in the art of winning elections.


Sir SAM HUGHES:: I know my right
hon. friend does not wish to do any injustice to the young gentleman. He came from Vancouver.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: My hon.
friend is wrong in his facts. The gentleman may have come from Vancouver at the time, but he had been brought up under the aegis of the Minister of Public Works, and from him he learned the lesson in the art of winning elections. There is an art of winning elections. We do not know what it is. Men of the age of my hon. friend and myself-if I may put him in the class in which I am-were taught in our day that elections meant simply the expression of the voice of the people, and nothing else. But the art of winning an [Sir Wilfrid Laurler.l
election is to have not the voice of the people but the voice of the manipulator of the election.


Six SAM HUGHES:: If the leader of the Opposition will permit me, he is using language, quite unwittingly, which I am surprised to hear him use. I am very much surprised to hear him talk so of Major Daly, who is as straight and as honourable a young gentleman as is to be found in the Dominion of Canada.


Wilfrid Laurier: If I have
offended the feelings of my hon. friend, it was unintentional. I can assure him I would not offend him or any one else under any circumstances. However, that is neither here nor there. I was saying that in 1915 the Government intended having an election, but the voice of the people spoke, and spoke in another way, and the expression of their feeling was so loud and unmistakable that the elections had to be put off.	'
Then there was a complete somersault, and the gentlemen who had been asking for an election came back to this Parliament with a request for the extension of the life of Parliament. I had to pronounce upon it, and I pronounced myself in favour of the extension. The same request comes to us to-day, and again I have to pronounce myself upon it. I have already stated that the conditions are not such as they were last year. My right hon. friend to-day made a special appeal to me, and stated his ultimate -object would have been to have, if possible, a coalition government and an extension' of the term of Parliament. As far as a coalition government is concerned, if my right hon. friend wanted to have it, I can only repeat what I told him on a previous occasion, that I regretted he did not speak to me sooner than he did. My right hon. friend will permit me to tell him that the way he should have proceeded if he wanted to have a coalition government was not to frame a policy by a party government first and then present it to me to accept it. That was what was done. My right hon. friend announced on the floor of the House that it was his intention to introduce a measure of conscription, and when he had committed himself he called upon me to assist him in carrying it out. I do not want to take any party political advantage out of this, but I may say to my right hon. friend in all sincerity, if his intention had been to have a coalition government, and if he had asked me before he had committed himself to the policy of conscription, I would have told him with all

the energy I possessed to abstain from conscription and to try and find some other basis upon which a coalition could take place. I would have told him it was possible-and I still believe it would have been possible-to get by voluntary enlistment all the assistance we could have wanted in order to carry on our share of the war. I say to my right hon. friend that when he introduced the policy of conscription, in my humble judgment-and time will tell whether I am right or wrong- instead of helping the cause he did it the greatest possible injury he could. There is something more important even than the object which he has sought, that is to maintain the unity of the nation, and the unity of the nation is seriously compromised today. At this very moment my right hon. friend asks me to give my support to the resolution he introduced extendipg the life of the Government. My right hon. friend knows full well it is impossible for me to give my consent to such a proposal.
I told my right hon. friend, and I repeated it on the floor of this House, that it was an injury to the country to have this Conscription Bill passed by this moribund Parliament. I told him this moribund Parliament had the power to pass the Bill, but it had not the right. So long as a Parliament exists, so long as it is not exhausted either by efflux of time or the will of the Governor General, it has the right to pass all the measures it can pass for the compulsion of the country or for any other nefarious design, but it has not the authority. Having taken that position I would be recreant to my own convictions if I were to consent to the extension of the life of a Parliament which has so abused its authority and its power.
But, there is much more than this. The condition to-day is not the same as it was last year, because last year there were many things which were suspected, but of which we did not have the proof. To-day we have the proof in the dismissal of the ex-Minister of Militia. The correspondence between the ex-Minister of Militia and my right hon. friend the Prime Minister has opened the gates, and a flood of light has shown us that the administration of the Government is responsible for the enormous losses in blood and in treasure which would have been avoided by proper administration. Is the indictment too strong? Is it not justified by the language which was used by my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Militia on the floor of this House within the hearing of every one now listening to me, and by
the letters he addressed to the Prime Minister? Did not the ex-Minister of Militia say, within the hearing of every member now within the sound of my voice, that from the time war was declared until the time he left office he had been interfered with by his colleagues; that his recommendation to Council as to contracts had been held up in Council in order to get increased prices? That all the purchases of equipment which he made, and all the equipment he sent over to England had been rejected and scrapped, although it was not only serviceable but better than the material by which it was replaced? Did he not state moreover that the financial loss caused to the country amounted to millions of dollars? Did not everybody hear this? Those things have been said Some of them have not been denied, some have been denied mildly. They have not been probed, and I say until those matters are probed we should not grant the motion which is now before us for an- extension of the life of this Parliament.
All these are things which we have to take into consideration when we are asked to vote upon the resolution now before us. But, there is still far worse than that. We would count our losses small if they were only losses in money, but there have been losses in blood for which this Government cannot escape responsibility-losses	in
blood which should not have taken place, and for which I charge the Government of the day, and I think I shall prove my statement by what has occurred, and what is on the table of the House already. When our troops crossed over they were equipped with the Boss rifle. Everybody knows that from the time the Boss rifle was first manufactured it was subject to very serious attacks. It was a matter for experts. Some experts condemned the rifle, others approved highly of it. Amongst those who approved of it highly was the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton (Sir Sam Hughes) who was afterwards chosen to be Minister of Militia in the Government by my right hon. friend. To his credit it must be said he was always loyal, and spoke with a seriousness which characterized him. He defended his opinion, and stated over and over again that the rifle was serviceable, and one of the best weapons and perhaps the best weapon of the kind. He was a member of the Militia Council which helped it from Mark I to Mark II and from Mark II to Mark III. When war was declared, our soldiers went to the front equipped with the Boss rifle.

It must be said, and everybody knows it, unfortunately, that in most of the engagements in 1915 the Eoss rifle did not give satisfaction, and that it jammed in the hands of those who held it. The truth was known to the Government; in fact, reports were made by experts and others, who said that, at the most critical time of the battle of St. Julien, when the Germans were coming and when they had to be repelled, the rifle jammed and our soldiers were unable to use it. They could not advance because their weapons were useless; they would not retire, but with tears of rage and grief in their eyes they threw down their rifles in the mud and took the Lee-Enfields that their comrades could dispose of.


Samuel Hughes: Where did that occur?


Wilfrid Laurier: I was told that it was at St. Julien.


Samuel Hughes: Not a word of truth in it.


Wilfrid Laurier: If it was not at St. Julien, then it was at some other battle.


Samuel Hughes: Is the right hon. gentleman not aware that it is known beyond peradventure that the ammunition was at fault and that the English rifle jammed worse than the Ross rifle?


Wilfrid Laurier: I will come to that. Of course, my information is not official; it is such information as I can collect and such as comes to me through correspondence and otherwise. If I am wrong as to the battle, if it was not St. Julien, it was some other battle in which the soldiers in tears and rage threw down the Ross rifle and took up the Lee-Enfield. To quote from the poet, Walter Scott:-
But woe awaits a country, when She sees the tears of bearded men.
The Government saw the tears of these bearded men, but they did nothing to correct the condition of things that existed. The commander in chief, Sir John French, had to take notice of the situation. He did not wait to report to the War Oflflce, but he instituted an inquiry, and on the 19th June, 1915, he made his report. After having stated that rumours with regard to the Ross rifle had come to him, and that he had appointed a committee to investigate, he proceeded :- 1
(1)	To the unanimous opinion of my committee that the Ross rifle could not he relied upon to work smoothly and efficiently in rapid fire with any ammunition other than that of Canadian manufacture;
m [Sir Wilfrid Laurier.J
(2)	to the fact that no ammunition of this nature was available in this country, and that sufficient supplies could not he obtained from' England, and,
(3)	to the want of confidence in the rifle which a large number of the infantry evidently felt, as evidenced by the fact that over 3,000 had, without authority, exchanged their rifles for those used by their British comrades, and taken from casualties on the battlefield.
I did not feel justified in sending this Division into battle with the Ross rifle, and ordered the re-arming of the infantry of the Division with the Lee-Enfield rifle, which was carried out before they went into action on the 15th instant.
Sir John French said that he armed one division with the Lee-Enfield rifle. Now, I come -to the interruption made by my hon. friend from Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes). Sir John French goes on to say:-
6. I would, therefore, suggest that the Army Council should send to this country one or more of the most highly qualified experts obtainable to make the necessary tests under service conditions and report whether ammunition of British manufacture is or is not suitable for use with the Ross rifle. For this' purpose a supply of ammunition of Canadian manufacture should be brought out for comparison.
I have expressed and acted on my opinion, that, so far as I can judge, the ammunition of British manufacture is not suitable for use with Ross rifles, and that there is a large and growing feeling of want of confidence in their rifle on the part of the men in the Canadian Division, which is amply justified by the report of the committee.
My hon. friend (Sir Sam Hughes) was right. It was not the rifle which was condemned, but the dissatisfaction arose from the fact that it was not supplied with the proper ammunition. The fact is that the Ross rifle jammed, and the men were left without any weapons to defend themselves. That is the charge I make against the Government. The General Commanding wanted a test made, and a commission was appointed to make that test, but to this day, in so far as my knowledge goes, and in so far as the information brought before the House shows, there never was a test made of the Ross rifle with proper ammunition.


Samuel Hughes: Is my right hon. friend not aware that there were three brands of British ammunition that failed when used with the Lee-Enfield rifle, and that not one division but fifty divisions of British troops were shot to pieces by the failure of the Lee-Enfield when using these three brands of British ammunition? These same brands were supplied for use in the Canadian rifle.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is not an answer to the charge I make. The charge

I make is that the Ross rifle did not give satisfaction, and there never was any ammunition sent over to make a proper investigation. Upon this point I should quote the testimony of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) himself. During the present session, in the month of January last, my right hon. friend, speaking upon this question, said:
The situation which confronted the Government in the summer of 1915 was this:	We
knew that Sir John French had concluded that the First Canadian Division ought to he re-armed with the Lee-Enfleld rifle. He based1 that conclusion very largely upon the consideration that the men of the First Division, or a considerable number of them, had lost confidence in the Ross rifle. He took the view, in which I am sure we all concur, that no rifle, however effective, would be useful to the men if they had lost confidence in it. He said, in that same report, that he did not condemn the Ross rifle-that he had no data upon which he could condemn it; and he said further that the difficulty had arisen by reason of the fact that the ammunition supplied in this country, which might have made the rifle useful, could not be supplied in sufficient quantities.
What a statement to make ! In the first place, I must say that Sir John French had not condemned the ammunition made in this country. Quite the reverse. He asked that the rifle should be tested with ammunition made in this country, but my right hon. friend stated that ammunition could not be supplied in this country. So that there may be no ambiguity, let me repeat his words:
He said, in that same report, that he did not condemn the Rosa rifle-that he had no data upon which he could condemn it; and he said further that the difficulty had arisen by reason of the fact that the ammunition supplied in this country, which might have made the rifle useful, could not be supplied in sufficient quantities.
What a statement to make, Sir, that we could not supply cartridges in this country! We have established no less than two hundred plants for the manufacture of shells. Is it more difficult to manufacture cartridges than shells? If we can manufacture shells, why not cartridges also? We have a cartridge factory in Quebec; it has been there for years, and yet we are told that ammunition could hot be supplied for use with the Ross rifle. No test was made of the Ross rifle.


Samuel Hughes: Is that General French's statement?


Wilfrid Laurier: That is General French's statement commented upon by Sir Robert Borden.


Robert Laird Borden: What page of Hansard is that? .


Wilfrid Laurier: Page 148. This matter went on during the whole campaign of 1915. The report of Sir John 10 p.m. French was not acted upon.
Instead of having the Ross rifle tested with the proper ammunition, there was an order made to have the rifle fitted with new chambers.
The attempt was made; new chambers were manufactured, and the Ross rifle was tried again with the new chamber. The consequence was that, instead of being useless, it became dangerous, and some of the rifles exploded. That is my information. At all events, nothing was done during the campaign of 1915; and the Canadian troops, except one division, in the campaign of 1916 again took the field armed with the Ross rifle. On the 28th of May Sir Douglas Haig sent the following letter to the War Office:
Sir,-I have the honour to inform you that I have satisfied myself, after extensive inquiries carried out throughout the Canadian Corps, that, as a service rifle, the Ross is less trustworthy than the Lee-Enfield, and that the majority of the men armed with the Ross rifle have not confidence in it that it is so essential that they should possess. The inquiry on which these conclusions are based, was the outcome of an urgent application from a battalion of the 3rd Canadian Division for rearmament with the short Lee-Enfield rifle, in consequence of a high percentge of jams experienced with their Ross rifles during a hostile attack on May 1, 1916.
This report was such that it should have moved the Government to take some action; yet nothing was done, so that on the 28th of June Sir Douglas Haig again wrote as follows:
I have the honour to inform you that the efficiency of the Ross rifle has been thoroughly tested by actual fighting in the field, and the application conveyed in my O.B./174 of May 28, 1916, was made after very careful consideration of all the evidences available.
2. I have again consulted the General Officer Commanding Second Army in case any fresh points have come to light during the recent heavy fighting by the Canadians near Tpres. He tells me that his experience of the working-of the Ross rifle during the last fight has only confirmed him in his opinion that the Canadians, in the 3rd Division at all events, have lost confidence in their rifle and he recommends that the rifles in this division he exchanged.
This was on the 21st of June, 1916. That should have moved the Government to take some action, hut again nothing was done. On the 24th of June the following telegram was sent by Sir Robert Borden to Sir George Perley:
Most confidential, secret.

Mark .the gradation-confidential, most confidential, secret. You oan imagine that there was something very important when so much discretion was required-confidential, most confidential, secret. Well, it was perhaps not so much the importance of the despatch as the novelty of it which suggested this secrecy. Sir Robert Bordeu telegraphed to Sir George Perley:
We have had under consideration since January last an order for one hundred thousand additional Ross rifles, none of which can be delivered before April, 1917. If we decide to order the additional one hundred thousand-company requires nearly a year's notice before commencement of delivery in order to secure necessary material of various kinds for which there is great demand at present. Several months ago the Master General of Ordnance strongly recommended immediate action, but we have delayed by reason of doubts raised as to efficiency of rifle. Time has now arrived when immediate decision should he made.
" Time has now arrived when an immediate decision should be made." On the '24th .of June, 1916, nearly two years after the war .broke out, the time has arrived for a decision as to whether the Ross rifle should be continued or some other substituted ! The time has arrived for some action, and apparently some action was being considered, but there was immediate repentance, because the despatch continues:
To this end it is important that we should have a definite, reliable and thorough report upon the merits of the rifle.
Here we had the communications of the two commanders in chief, General French and General Haig, asking that some .action be taken. No action had been taken, and after two years the Government ask for another report. SiT Robert Borden goes on:
If it is so defective as to forbid its use at the front, or if confidence in its efficiency has been undermined in our troops, it would be a waste of public money to give further orders. Please consult Aitken, with whom I have had much correspondence on this subject and advise me whether any such report as above mentioned exists. If not, it should be made immediately for our guidance.
That was on the 24th of June, 1916-a request for further reports. The answer came from Sir George Perley that all hesitation was at an end .and that the change must be made:
Sir Douglas Haig remarks that although reports from Second Division not to same effect he is of opinion Lee-Enfield rifle should he issued to all three Divisions Canadian! corps. Army Council agree with this opinion and have his proposal to exchange rifles Second and Third Divisions for Lee-Enfleld pat-1 tern and steps will be taken forthwith effect exchange.

So at last, after two years vacillation and hesitation, and nothing done, the exchange was made of the Ross for the Lee-Enfield. We may be thankful that at last a decision was reached, but I am far from sure it was a wise ending. The ex-Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes) stated over and over again, stated in this House not long ago, that the Ross rifle was the best rifle in existence and should have been kept. I charge against the Government this, that the experiment which was asked by Sir Joiin French never was made, so fax as this correspondence shows, and I charge therefore that no justice was done to-


Samuel Hughes: May I say a word?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Except with the consent of the right hon. gentlemen-


Samuel Hughes: I asked his permission. If he does not choose to give it I will be silent, but if I have his permission I wish to speak.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, you oan speak to-morrow.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has given permission.


Samuel Hughes: The right hon. gentleman will remember that a report was presented to this House of the official tests in England, rifle for rifle, in the hands of experts for both rifles, in the hands of possible point, accuracy, rapidity of fire, freedom from jamming and everything else, the Ross rifle, out-distanced the Lee-Enfield three to one.


Wilfrid Laurier: I said I believed the hon. gentleman was right. I believe the Rosss rifle was the better of the two, but I have to say to my hon. friend that for some reason or other they came to a different conclusion; and I have to say further-and in this he will agree-that the test which was asked of the rifle with proper ammunition never was made, and therefore it is no wonder the rifle was condemned. But this is only reinforcing the point I make against the Government, that they did not discharge the duties they should have discharged. They should have ordered that test and applied it to the rifle and then we should have known which was the best weapon. There was no Canadian ammunition available and so the decision had to come that the rifle of the troops should be a Lee-Enfield. Be this as it may,

this in, no way discharges the responsibility of the Government, and I say to them that they are responsible for the blood which was lost on the battlefield when the troops were either not supplied with proper rifles or not supplied with proper munition. Is it conceivable that these troops were sent to the battlefield, that they were sent to meet the Germans, not properly equipped and not properly armed? They should have had not only the rifles, but the ammunition as well. They had the one but not the other. And what was the consequence?
The Government, in the face of these things, come and ask for an extension of time. Have they any right to it? Can they say: We have done our duty to the country. Do they come to Parliament with clear consciences that they have done everything they could? The record is against them, and, Sir, against that record no defence has been made which can relieve them from the strong condemnation which they receive at the hands of the Canadian people. Sir, there are many other things which I might urge against the Government, but I do not wish to press them.
Charges of graft have been made, but I do not intend to deal with them, and I will simply pass them over. I shall deal with the main point that I placed before the House, and that is that the Government cannot escape the responsibility for blood lost on the battlefield, which might have been spared, nor for the suffering of brave men who went to the battlefield, and gave up their lives and who were not properly supported by the Government that sent them.
But there is another matter, to which my hon. friend referred to-day in his speech. He made a statement in which I agree with him: that the country is in a dangerous position. In consequence of what? In consequence of the policy which has produced to-day this conscription measure. There is division among the people, and an election may create a further division. I say to my hon. friend that, for my part, I believe all these evils can be remedied by an appeal to the people. I agree with my hon. friend that there is. today a cleavage among the people in the country. The fact is there, and we cannot ignore it. It is too late to lament, and we must face it as resolute men. In a free country the only way to decide a question, and to cure all the evils that arise, is in an appeal to the people. I know that if we are to have an election, it will be one based largely upon appeals to passions and
prejudices. This is not the first time that such a thing has happened. It has happened in every election since I have been in public life, in my province and other provinces. We have been accused in one end of the country and in the other, but notwithstanding all this, it does not shake my faith in popular institutions, and I maintain that the only thing to do is to appeal to the people and ask them to pass judgment. We pretend to fight for democracy, and indeed we are fighting for democracy. The issue of the conflict which is now going on in Europe is democracy, and it is the voice of democracy which has inspired my attitude towards the Government on this question. My heart was very deep in this question, and when war broke out I stated, without hesitation, that Canada was in the war to the end, and I repeat, after almost three years of war, that Canada is in the war to the end. But when I stated that I did not believe in compulsion-nor do I yet-it was not under compulsion that we went into this war. We went into it from higher and nobler motives, to take our share of the sacrifice to promote a good cause. We did not go into it under compulsion, and I would have hoped that, to the end, we should have remained in that position, and acted upon those higher principles, never resorting to compulsion, in order to do our share in this war. I still believe it would be possible to do our share by voluntary enlistment, by appealing to the great heart and soul of the Canadian people, all provinces included, I except none whatever.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Wilfrid Laurier: The Government have come to another conclusion. They said that they would resort to compulsion. When they made that statement, I said that, for my part, I did not believe in that policy. I would rather stand by the policy of the Australian people, who rejected conscription, but are in the war, as we shall ourselves be, to the very end. I asked them to refer the question to the people, after the method of the most advanced democracy, and that request was rejected. Not content with rejecting the request which I made for a referendum, today we are asked to discard altogether the sacred right of the people which is guarded by the constitution. These are no longer British institutions; these are simply, not German, but Prussian institutions, and to agree to the resolution of my hon. friend under the circumstances would be an abdication of responsible government



and a denial of democracy and of the rights of a free people.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK (Red Deer):: I
rise to put myself on record in opposition to a considerable portion of the views which have been advanced by my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). I do so, Sir, as I think every one in the House will admit, with perhaps the clearest record for consistency upon this question. My right hon. friend has referred to the fact that there was a great deal of evidence at certain times during the war, that there was a disposition, on the part at least of some of the hon, gentlemen who sit opposite, to have an election. It would be pertinent for me to ask my right hon. friend, did he approve of that disposition when it was shown on the other side of the House? I do not think he did. There was a time when every one in this House was in agreement with me on this question, and at that time my right hon. friend disapproved of the election tendency of certain hon. gentlemen opposite. He now fixes his approval by imitating their course of action. Personally, I have no brief to defend those who wish for an election during war time. They sit upon that or upon this side of the House. I am certain that the course of this debate will be viewed with very considerable surprise by the people of this country. Those of our people who are gifted with any fair amount of imagination and of memory cannot fail to contrast the proceedings in this House a year ago with the proceedings which have taken place to-day. Up to a certain point, I am bound to say that the proceedings today were an exact replica of what happened a year ago. I do not think the Prime Minister of this country has ever delivered a speech with which he should have more reason to be satisfied than the speech with which he presented this resolution to the House. It was a consistent speech. It was cogent in its argument. It was manifestly sincere, and when, the events of to-day are read and weighed by the people of this country, I believe the opinion of the people will be recorded in favour of that potent and consistent speech.
I do not want to amplify-I am sure I pould not improve-most of the arguments in the speech of the Prime Minister. I will, however, take the liberty of referring to a few of them and in doing so try to meet some of the points that have been raised by my right hon. friend. There was much that he said to which I can take no exception. The position of this question is not quite the same as it was last year.-
fSir Wilfrid Laurier.]
We cannot go on extending the term of Parliament indefinitely. But, if so far as the battle-front iis concerned, there is any difference between the position of last year and that of this year, it is that the position of Canada's Itroops on the battle-front to-day is vastly more precarious this year than it was last year. This beinig the fact on .the battle-front, I am bound 'to say to my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) that I personally have not ithe necessary acrobatic qualities to take a position diametrically apposed to that which I took last year.
My right hon. friend, in the course of his remarks, said that he did not attach undue importance to the constitutional question. In his impassioned and eloquent peroration, he made the constitution everything. He stood upon the constitution of this country and upon it alone. That is an inconsistency which I leave with himself, but I take the liberty to refer, nevertheless, to the constitutional question. Does my right hon. friend, or does any hon. member on this side of the House, contend for a moment that they have no regard for constitutional or parliamentary procedure in Great . Britain? Where did we-where did the world learn constitutional and parliamentary procedure? I have heard my right hon. friend discourse, in terms the most eloquent, on the mother of parliaments, which we all imitate. What are the facts about the mother of parliaments? The people of Great Britain do not forget the constitution there. They have Zeppelin raids over the city of London. They have bombs dropped amongst the children in the schools there. They know what the war means, and they are apprised, as my right hon. friend was for two years apprised, of the war's seriousness. The Parliament sitting in Westminster today has been seven and one-half years in office, and next November, when its present terms expires, it will have been eight years in office. That is my answer upon the constitutional question. They knew something of constitutional and parliamentary procedure in Great Britain, and that is what they have done.
I want to pass on to endorse a few more of the positions of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister. He said, very correctly, that the inevitable result of a general election would be a division of the country. We have that now, I admit, and the fault for it does not lie in Alberta, but I am prepared to contend that we would have not only a divided country, but a paralyzed country as the result of a general election.

My hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugs-ley) says that we have division now, and that an election would he a Sunday school picnic compared with the division we have. He says that the 'business of getting recruits has been taken out of the hands of the Government; that it has been taken out of the hands of Parliament; that it has been taken out of the hands of the people. Is that the only war work that is going on in the country? What about the Patriotic Fund, *a fund in support of which Liberals and Tories throughout this country, forgetting their party differences and centering their activities only upon the great issue which is before the world today, the greatest which has ever occupied the attention of civilized man and civilized nations, have united in public meetings and are uniting every week, almost every day of every week, in public meetings and in picnics to raise money voluntarily, and so shoulder at least some of the terrible burden that is being borne by our boys in the trenches? Does my right hon. friend contend that during the two months during which an election is going on those meetings will be held? Those people who are at present engaged in those meetings will then, on the contrary, be engaged perhaps in the discussion of the respective blame attaching to the two parties as to the merits of the Ross rifle. Has my hon. friend from St. John not heard of Red Cross work? Has he not heard of Belgian Relief? I contend that the inevitable result of a general election during the war will be to paralyse the efforts of our people along all those lines, yes, and to paralyse them in a way which will make it almost impossible to resume them.
I go further that that. What is to be the issue in an election? What is the dividing issue upon which we are to fight? On the great and pverwhelming question of to-day there is only one issue. It is " Win the War." Every one on that side *says so-not every one on this side says so. But, my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) says so. He has said so in so many words in the speehh which he has delivered to the House to-night. Then, there can be no issue before the people on the main questions, the only questions which are engaging the attention, not only of this country, but of the civilised world to-day. Then, what will be the issue? What *is the alternative policy to winning the war? There is only one possible answer. It is " Winning the elections." If we analyse these things down to the bottom, we are
222J
compelled, with all charity, to conclude that this election is being forced on at this time by a refusal of extension, with a view, not to helping the war, not to saving the Empire, but to exchanging the people who are in office for those who are opposed to them for the purpose of securing the sweets of office. In other words, those who are notoriously doing least to win this war are forcing this country into the turmoil of a general election, when the world and all that is best in it are being animated by the spirit of service, of sacrifice, and of unselfishness, and those people are doing so for the most selfish of all reasons-the satisfaction of petty, personal ambitions, when the isafety of the world and of civilization is at stake.
I, Sir, should hesitate to stand as one of a group of the only utterly selfish men to he found in the British Empire or in the civilized world at the present time. If there is no issue of policy in an election, upon what does an election necessarily turn? We have not been left in any doubt in this House to-night as to that point. The election necessarily turns on personalities. It must do so. If there is no difference of principle-and there is not between my two right hon. friends, because they both say: We want to win the war- the election inevitably degenerates into a strife of personalities. We have had ample evidence of that to-night. The die is cast on the principle laid down by my right hon. friend (Sir Robert Borden) and endorsed by my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). We are going to have an election. The leader of the Opposition has got his work in early; he has delivered his first election speech to-night. I do not purpose following his example very far. At the same time, the merits of the Ross rifle constitute a subject upon which my right hon. friend is skating upon very thin ice. I do not know exactly what he thinks about the Ross rifle, because in one breath he told us that its use had cost us the lives of many of our boys, and then in the next breath he agreed with the ex-Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes) that it was the better rifle of the two. I suppose he remembered at that moment that the Ross rifle was the precious pet of an hon. gentleman now gone from us who for many years was Minister of Militia in the Liberal Government. If he does not remember it, I remember very well hearing the hon. member for Pic-tou (Mr. Macdonald) engage in an impassioned defence of the Ross rifle in this House of Commons, and indulge in jeers at those in England who ventured to ques-

tion the omniscience of the Government, it being the Government of my right hon friend who now leads the Opposition. I do not say that to get the other side of this [DOT]argument right, I say it to give an illustra tion of what is going to happen in a general election. If you cease to fight on principles you descend to personalities. Does my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) view that with equanimity? That question is bound to be asiked. If we come to that-point, does my right hon. friend contend that with the driving force behind him, if he becomes Prime Minister of this country, he will have a more coherent force, a more determined force for the winning of the war than is now sitting behind my right hon. friend the Prime Minister? Does the coherence of his force, does the strength of the determination of one considerable portion of his force, show itself by driving a Cabinet Minister who is at present in favour of winning the war into the refuge of a cabin on board a steamer, for taking a particular view as to how it should be won. Does my right hon. friend contend that he will derive enormous strength for the conduct of this war from people who chase a British soldier from Fletcher's Field in Montreal, into a tramcar, and then break the windows of the car? There will be many more subjects arise when we descend to a personal fight than the subject of the Boss rifle. If it was left to the question of the Ross rifle, I am not at all sure that my right hon. friend would not have the better of the argument.
But the question will inevitably be asked, if you determine to settle this on the line of personalities:	Who are the people most likely to conduct this war to a satisfactory conclusion? And I venture to say that, so faT as clearness of motive is concerned, so far as determination is concerned, so faT as working in season and out of season, day and night, with a single eye to victory, for the great principles that are at stake upon the battlefields of Europe to-day, there is no man in Canada who is fit to stand in the same company as my right hon. friend the leader of the Government.
We have ample evidence given to us that the faults of the Government will be the main subject of a general election. Will the exposure of the faults of the Boss rifle from the Atlantic to the Pacific, will the detailing of incidents or supposed incidents such as have constituted the first electioneering speech of my right hon. friend the
VHr. M. Clark.]
leader of the Opposition, help to win this' war? Will it encourage recruiting? I venture to think that a campaign conducted by my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, pure as are his own motives, great Imperial statesman as he has been-and I say it without one single reservation, I say it with a full heart and with full sincerity-but pure as are his motives he knows that to expose these facts from, one end of the country to the other must have the effect of deterring recruiting and making people wonder whether this w.ar is worth pursuing; and paralysed as his hands will be during the war by what must be one of the main origins of his power; lacking the driving force on grounds that I do not want to amplify, but which I look upon with sorrow, he will not be in a position, he cannot be in a position, to go on with this war with the determination that has characterized the composite supporters of the war.
For the good of the country, for the purity of our politics, the next general election ought not to be fought upon the faults of the Government. Every Administration suffers for its faults, and this Administration will be no exception to that rule. But when, the exposure of the faults of the Government take the mythical form of stories of the jamming of rifles and the weeping of men in the trenches, it constitutes not only an ignoble campaign but an obstacle to the further successful prosecution of the war, and I venture to think that a general election carried on by my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) along the lines that he has taken to-night will not only divide Canada, but will paralyse Canada; it will put Canada out of the war and mark her as a degenerate and inferior portion of the British Empire.
Now I come to another of the arguments of my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) as to the absence of the soldiers and the impossibility of taking their votes. My right hon. friend descanted eloquently upon democracy. Has he no regard for that portion of democracy that is across the seas? Has he no regard for the 400,000 men who have given up everything they have, or are prepared to give it up? My deepest rooted objection to an election in war time -and this was the ground upon which I opposed the Soldiers' - Voting Bill, because I held there should be no election during the war

is that we propose to conduct an unseemly wrangle for jobs from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and concerning how the

country should he governed in the absence of those heroes but for whose efforts we should not have any country to govern.
I have tried to amplify a few of the arguments of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister. I hhve said that in the presentation of those arguments, the debate lost nothing in dignity from its character of last year. This afternoon when the Prime Minister sat down, I expected a repetition of what happened last year. I expected a repetition at least to this extent: that my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition would have followed the right hon. gentleman who leads the Government. I thought we had come to the moment of abdication on the part of my right hon. friend. Last year the speech of the Prime Minister was backed up by the leader of the Opposition in a speech of moving and stately eloquence. Canada was committed to undivided efforts for the winning of this waT, and that speech of moving and stately eloquence was so able and so cogent that it deprived the rest of this Assembly of any desire to speak. But what happened this year was that a lieutenant (Mr. Graham) of my right hon. friend arose and made what I venture to characterize as a dilatory and by no means straightforward motion; that is why I voted against it. Everybody in this country, fortunately for myself, knows that I favour the substance and principle of his amendment, but it was a right amendment introduced at a wrong time. Having sp far endeavoured to attain, and I think having attained, .some character of straightforwardness in the minds of the Canadian people, I thought I could venture to run the risk of any misinterpretation that *might come by my vote, by being straightforward still and running no risk of being thought to have taken part in what after aP was more trickery than statesmanship. I am naturally precluded by the rules of this House from saying anything on that amendment, and I had no great desire to speak to it because I have spoken on it again -and again, and the people of this country know where I stand on the question of direct taxation and the conscription of wealth to the war. Following the speech of the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) we had a speech from my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley), and then finally we come to the main subject before the House.
I did think when I rose, that I would make an appeal to the right hon. gentlemen who lead the respective sides in this House. I cannot help contrasting what
happened last year with what has happened this year. No one can turn his back upon his previous opinions with more delightful grace than my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). Long practice brings one to perfection along certain lines. However, I am bound to say that if the people of this country will read the speeches of last year and will read the speeches of to-night they will come to the conclusion that the Prime Minister's position is the same, that the conditions are the same in the main, that the needs are the same, but that the change is in my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition. What that change is, I have already characterized, and I do not think the people of this country will be in any doubt about it.
I wish that, even now, the two right hon. gentlemen who lead the respective parties in this House would consider a moderate proposition. I have stated, taking my illustration from what was said by my right hon. friend who preceded me (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), that an election on the grounds I have mentioned would be a misfortune for the country; I have said that it should not be fought upon the faults of the Government; I have said that it cannot be fought upon a difference of issue as to policy, because both sides pretend to have the same policy. It would be a splendid thing for this country if, even now, moderate counsels should prevail, and a course of procedure that would redound to the lasting honour of Canada. What should the next election be fought upon? When .the war is nearing an end, of which there is no sign at the present moment, the question of the reconstruction of Canada will come up for consideration, because it must be remembered that the party returned to power in an election now will be in power for four or five years and will have the direction of the destinies of this country along certain lines of policy. When the war is nearing a conclusion, and when the passions raised by it are being hushed by the process of time, the issues of reconstruction will arise; and then old divisions, old landmarks dividing the one party from the other would re-appear. I say it would be a splendid thing for this country if we have maintained our union as to the war to the finish-such union as we have had-if we had kept our people at least united, because after all it must be remembered that any disunion there is, is largely inside this House. Our people are still united. I get as many protests against an election in war time from Liberals as 1 do from Conservatives. I may say I get even more, be-

cause Liberals naturally writ-e to me. Our people are still united, and it would be a splendid thing to have kept that union up until the end of the war, and not allowed those other issues to arise. Fix a time-a more limited time than the Government proposes, if you like-and let those issues be debated at another session of Parliament, knowing that those are the things which divide the two sides of politics in this country; and having put our policies of reconstruction before the nation, go to the country upon them.
The Government is asking for a year's extension. The longest extension which has ever been given in the Old Country is eight months. The two right hon. gentlemen have a great responsibility. One has discharged his responsibility. I leave my Tight hon. friend beside me (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) to deal with his in his own way. They enjoy in an unparalleled degree the confidence of their fellow-citizens, and I say it would be a great thing for Canada and the Empire if they could get together yet and agree to an eight months' extension, which would take us over until next June. In all probability by that time the war will have passed out of its acute stages, and the considerations which arise to-day will not then exist. I put this to my right hon. friends in the best spirit, as a patriot, as a lover of the country, as a lover of the Empire, and as a lover of the great cause at issue in this war. I feel, however, the appeal will be in vain. If they do not come together, we are going to have a general election. Well, in that case, we shall have to say, let it come. Let the graves of our dead be desecrated. There are twenty thousand or thirty thousand Canadian soldiers at present lying in British and French hospitals. Let their hearts be wrung, as their bodies have already been wrung-so that we may settle which side is most to blame for the Ross rifle, and whether it would not be well to have a change in the personnel of the Government at the present time. My views as expressed in these few words are perhaps better put in an article in the London Daily News and Leader, of April 18 last; which I will read to the House,-The Daily News and Leader is not too indulgently friendly to the present Government at Westminster, and April 18 was the day after the extension was carried in the British House. It said:
The Bill further prolonging the life of the present Parliament passed its second reading yesterday. There was no serious opposition to the proposal, and there should be none. An election at the present time would be an out-TMr. M. Clark.]
rage, which the country would very justly resent. There is no issue before the constituencies, and there is only one task for Parliament. It is to get on with the war. An election, so far from promoting this object, would very gravely interfere with it, and would' raise political issues which the country does not want to see raised now and which cannot be settled in the midst of the dominating preoccupations of the war. We hope this will be the last extension necessary, but this extension is, on every ground, imperative.
As I said, I have not much hope of my appeal bearing fruit, after the very firm and determined stand taken by my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, and we shall have to face an election. We shall have to go on with it. Well, the responsibility will be fixed by the people of this country, and I do not think that, after the issues are fully debated and the circumstances fully understood, there will be much doubt as to where to place the blame or how to judge the motives which have brought about the election. For my part,
I would say, if the die is cast the sooner this debate comes to an end the better. Let us clear our minds of cant, and let us clear our conduct of sham. Let us get to the election. If there is to be an issue, let us get to it. If this matter should go to a vote, I would vote for the extension of Parliament. I should be afraid to do otherwise. I should be afraid to take any step, and I have not taken any step during nearly three years; which would cast ' any doubt anywhere that any but one public object I cared for at the moment, and that is the winning of the war.
I should be afraid to take any step which would lead me to fear that the thirty thousand Canadian corpses in France and Belgium might possibly rise out of their graves in the shape of ghosts and point their gaunt fingers at me as having at the end of the third year of the wan given up the great task, or tried to persuade Canada to give up the gregt task of being a united country and doing her full share for victory, peace, freedom, justice and humanity.


Frank Oliver: Mr, Speaker, it has certainly been a most interesting experience to find our most pronounced and thorough democrat in this House (Mr. M. Clark), or, I suppose he would claim, in the Dominion of Canada, appealing to the dead in France and Flanders as the justification for his opposing the most elementary principle of democracy. For all of my hon. friend's approval of the speeches and actions of the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden)-and I am willing to agree with him as to the high

motives and great ability of the Prime Minister-I want to say to him that it is not the Prime Minister, it is not this Government, it ,is not this Parliament that is fighting this war. It is not they who are paying for this war. It is the people-the common people-of Canada, the taxpayers, the men and women who have fought the war as far as it has been fought, who will have to fight it as far as it will yet have to be fought, iand whom we will have to trust to fight it. Surely these are people whom we can trust to govern themselves. Are the people of Canada to be guided by the precedent of England in all matters political? It has seemed good to the people of England to go through a portion of this war experience without a general election, although a general election was due.
It has seemed good to us in Canada to do the same up to the present time. But there is this radical difference. In
11 p.m. England every constituency that became vacant has been filled at a by-election. The opinion of the people has thus been taken from time to time. But there are twenty-three seats' in Canada vacant to-day; some of them have been vacant for ,a year or two years, and there has been no by-election.


Michael Clark: Whose fault?


Frank Oliver: I think it must be the fault of the Government, the fault of those who have the direction of our affairs. I cannot imagine whose fault it can be if not theirs. Certainly, I must say, on behalf of the members of the Opposition, with whom I am sorry to say my hon. friend is so disassociating himself, it is not our fault.
Why is it we have no responsibility in the matter if the people of Canada have not yet been consulted? The urgency of united action is greater to-day than it was a year aigo because of conditions at the battle line. Because the administration of the affairs of Canada, in military as well as in civil matters, has been such as to bring about a condition for which it is the right arid the duty of the leader and members of the Opposition, and people of this country, to hold responsible those who have been given the responsibility. There is no escape from the conclusion that if our system of voluntary enlistment of men for military service has broken down, it is because of the lack of foresight, the lack of management, the lack of inspiration, the lack, Mr. Speaker, of common honesty and common deceny on the part of the Government. Are the people of
Canada to be blamed? Is tbeir patriotism to be challenged? Is their willingness to sacrifice to be challenged? Are the people who, in the face of such mismanagement as has disgraced this country, military mismanagement as well as civil, have sent nearly 350,000 men across the seas, to be challenged, or is their patriotism to be called in question? I say, no. It is not against the people of a country which has sent so many men, which has sent such good men, which has stood the sacrifices that Canada has made, that such a challenge can be thrown. It is because the Government has failed to give that leadership, that inspiration, that direction to our affairs, both civil and military, that would enable that enthusiasm, that spirit of sacrifice to Still go forward, that the condition has arisen with which we find ourselves confronted to-day.	_	_
My hon. friend has suggested that it is beneath the dignity of the people of Canada, that it would be a calamity to our country, if not to the Empire and the world, if the question of the efficiency of the weapon with which our soldiers were armed should be considered or discussed, or should be laid at the charge of the Government at the present time. Is that a light thing, is that a subject for the laughter with which my hon. friend's very witty sallies were greeted on the other side of the House? Is it a subject for laughter that we placed in the hands of our sons, our brothers and our fathers, a weapon that failed them in the hour of danger? Is it a light thing, I say, that having the authority of a General of the British army that that was the condition of affairs, we send division after division into the field to face the Germans armed with the same rifle and suffering the same losses, and keep that rifle until a second general made the same report a year after the first report was made, and when we had lost thousands of men in Flanders, beginning with the battle of Langemarck and ending with the battle of Zillebeke? My hon. friend has, may I say, peculiar ideas as to what is matter for light consideration. These are not light considerations, as far as I am concerned. And, charged as I have been in this House during past years with some measure or share of responsibility for the direction of the affairs of this country, the knowledge lies heavy on my soul that I did not take stronger measures to bring this state of affairs to the attention of the country, and to cure that terrible condition sooner than it was cured.

We are not to have an election because if we have an election we shall not be able to collect for the Patriotic Fund, for the Belgian Relief Fund, for the Red Cross Fund. Is that a reason why the people of Canada should, not enjoy the same right of selfGovernment as the people of any other part of the British Empire? Surely the reason given is not sufficient. We need an election so that we shall not have to gather money for the Patriotic Fund, so that we shall not have to pass the hat and dispense charity, charity to the dependents of those who are giving their lives for that liberty that we profess to prize so highly. If there is one thing of which more than another Canada should be ashamed in connection with this war it is the fact that the dependents of its soldiers have to depend on benevolence, on charity, for a considerable portion of that which is necessary to their actual existence. I do not know what is the case in England, I find no fault with the conditions in any other country; I care not what they may be. W'e owe the men who are fighting our battles a debt;'we owe a debt to their dependents; and we have not been paying that debt as we should have paid it. We should not dole out charity to the dependents of the men who are giving their lives; we should not send busybodies around to the houses of these women to find out whether they spend a dollar here or a dollar there, and threaten that if they do not spend to suit us what we have given them, they will be deprived of it in the future. Supposing our men at the front were to take the same attitude as the gentlemen and ladies who dispense the Patriotic Fund and say:	We will go
over the top if we like, and we will not if we do not like. If they dealt'by us as we have dealt by their dependents, the credit of Canada would not stand so high in the estimation of the world. We want a general election; put it up to the people of Canada whether or not they want to do the right thing by their own people. We cannot get an assurance of that from the Government of the day. When such a proposal was made to the Government we were told that it was a dilatory motion. We were told that we were delaying the sending of men to fill up the battle line in France because we wanted to get the assurance of the Government- that the dependents of soldiers would be protected.
An election is spoken of as a calamity, something that will do permanent injury to' the country. What has happened to the people of Canada since 1911? What has happened to the people of Canada, who have

made such sacrifices as they have made in the years that have intervened, that they are not to be trusted to cast their ballots, to express their opinions? Surely, if any people in the world ever earned the right to govern themselves, the people of Canada have earned that right. Surely the people of Canada have earned the right to do as a nation what they have done by provinces in nearly every province since the war began. Why should not the same people in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec-in every province but one-why should not these same Canadians who are able to conduct their provincial elections during this time of war without any Catastrophe occurring to the country-oh, I beg pardon, there was catastrophe, and that was it. I understand -that that is where the calamity is to occur. What happened in Manitoba, what happened in New Brunswick, what happened in British Columbia -is liable to happen in the Dominion, and it would be a calamity that it should happen? It was not a calamity that the people turned the -rascals o-ut in British Columbia, it was not a calamity to turn them out in Manitoba, it was not a calamity to turn them out in New Brunswick

and it will not be a calamity to turn them out in the Dominion.
My hon. friend made a suggestion as to what would happen in the prosecution of
the war because of the character of a portion of the support upon which the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) would depend if he were called to power. It seems to me that the allusion was somewhat unfortunate, because, if there was anything wrong with that support, that is to say with the support of the French people from the province of Quebec, -surely it has been -wrong with our friends' who are in office to-day. They had the support of twenty-eight out of sixty-five seats in the province of Quebec. And does my friend recall how they-got that support and held it? They got it by proclaiming that Canada owed nothing to England. They persisted in that claim, and they are claiming it today, and the men who are most vociferous in claiming it to-day are the very men who by their claims in 1911 were aJble to place the friends of my hon. friend in power and to keep them there. There is a difference, however. The right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) does enjoy the support of the majority of the- electors

of the province of Quebec, has. the support of a majority of the representatives of that province in this House; and my right hon. friend knows, and every reading man in this country knows, that the men who support him were elected on the policy of active assistance to the British Empire on land or sea in case of war, elected against every effort, every eloquence, every misrepresentation, that those from that province who support my hon. friends on the other side could bring to bear-financed in large part by those others supporting our friends on the other side who trade, year in and year out, on their loyalty to Great Britain.
.Mr. McKENZIE:	And knighted for doing it.


Frank Oliver: Yes, knighted for doing it


William Pugsley: And raised to the peerage.


Frank Oliver: Yes. - There we have, in a nutshell, the difficulties with which this country is faced at the present time, in this present crisis-we have had a party in ppwer who, before they came to power, hut still more since then and since they have had control .of patronage and control of means to gain support, have systematically in one part of the country cultivated a campaign of race and religious prejudice, and in another part of the country cultivated the same kind of a campaign in the opposite way. And after that Government has been in power for six years, they are still assiduously cultivating those two campaigns, one centering in Toronto and the other centering in Montreal. During the period of the anguish and agony [DOT]>! the world, they did not stop. They kept going a little harder on that account; and at last we come to the point that an election must be faced, or the people of Canada will be deprived of their rights and liberties. It is because of this condition, which our friends on the other side deliberately created, that the difficulties of to-day exist. That may be a reason why my hon. friend, as a loyal Britisher, as .one who wants to win the war, thinks that this Government should be retained in office, that these people should he maintained in positions that will enable them to still further and longer carry on their campaign. I am sorry that I have to disagree with him.
I believe that the time has come when Canada needs, as it needed in 1896, a leader who can direct by union, and not by disunion. A Government that holds power because of its ability to create strife between section and section must give
place to a Government whose business it is to bring about union between section and section in this country, because by disunion comes depression or destruction, just as by union, and by union only, can success come. We all have the light of past events to guide us in the present crisis. In 1896 the condition was almost parallel to the present condition. Our country was in a state of terrible economic depression, and our people were animated by race and religious prejudice in the same two sections of the country where those factions are governing to-day. Fortunately, when the issue was put to the people, they made a wise choice. They selected as the leader of the Government my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), who has devoted his life and his attainments to the great work of building up a united Canada. And when in the fullness of time the power was placed in his hands, from 1896 to 1911, under a policy of union there was progress, and Canada made her greatest develop-nent since Canada was Canada. She progressed from greater to greater, until in 1911, when my hon. friend was defeated at the polls, he was defeated on the cry ''Let well enough alone." May I hope that this condition will be repeated when this election which my hon. friend refers to takes place, because surely, if we needed a change in 1896, we need a change ten times more in 1917. We did not have to face those world conditions of crises that we - face to-day. But we must face those conditions to-day, and we can only do so with credit to out-selves by the establishment of union and efficiency, and we can only get that union and efficiency by retiring from office those whose business it is to create disunion, and those whose administration from the day they took office to the present time has been an example of inefficiency such as this country never saw before. I will not discuss the inefficiency of this war time Administration, but I say that, when the election is held, no amount of flag-waving, and no amount of shouting patriotism, will prevent the people of Canada, who have made their sacrifices of money and blood, from demanding an accounting from those who are responsible for the conduct of our affairs during these years. We make no apology for demanding an accounting at their hands.
My hon. friend was. worried about the impossibility of the soldiers at the front being able to cast their votes in any


Michael Clark: It has slipped mine too. .


Frank Oliver: It had relation to-I am afraid after all that my hon. friend made so many turns in his argument-


Michael Clark: Do not blame me for your bad memory.


Frank Oliver: I am afraid my hon. friend made so many turns in his argument that some of the corners have escaped my memory. I was so interested in following my hon. friend, whom I had known as the most pronounced pacifist, the most pronounced free-trader and the most pronounced advocate of sound and honest Government and British precedent, in his reversal of all those positions, that I am sure he will pardon me if I have not been able to recall all of the many turns in his argument.
The House divided.
The motion of Sir Robert Borden was declared carried on the following division:

Messieurs:
Brouillard,	Marcil (Bonaventure),
Buchanan,	Marcile (Bagot),
Bureau,	Martin,
Cardin,	Michaud,
Carvell,	Molloy,
Copp,	Mondou,
Delisle,	Murphy,
Demers,	Nesbitt,
Descarries,	Oliver,
Devlin,	Pacaud,
Douglas,	Papineau,
Ethier,	Paquet,
Fortier,	Pardee,
Gauthier	Patenaude,
(St. Hyacinthe),	Power,
Gauvreau,	Proulx, [DOT]
German, '	Pugsley, .
Girard,	Robb,
Graham,	Ross,
Kay,	Seguin,
Kyte,	Tobin,
Lachance,	Truax,
Lafortune,	Turgeon,
Lanctot,	Verville,
Lapointe	White (Victoria, Alta.),
(Montreal, St James),	Wilson (Laval).-62.

Ames (Sir Herbert), Armstrong (Lambton), Armstrong (York, O.), Arthurs,
Ball,
Barnard,
Bennett (Simcoe), Best,
Blain,
Borden (Sir Robert), Bowman,
Boyce,
Boys,
Brabazon,
Bradbury,
Burnham,
Burrell,
Carrick,
Champagne,
Clark (Bruce),
Clark (Red Deer), Clarke (Wellington), Clements,
Cochrane,
Cromwell,
Crofchers,
Cruise,
Currie,
Doherty,
Donaldson,
Fisher,
Foster (Sir George), Fripp,
Glass,
Green,
Guthrie,
Hanna,
Hazen,
Henderson,
Hughes (Sir Sam), Jameson,
Kemp,
Lalor,
Lewis,
Macdonell,
McLean
(Queens, P.E.I.), Meighen,
Middlebro,
Morphy,
Morris,
Morrison,
Munson,
Nicholson,
Nickle,
Northrup,
Paul,
Reid,
Robidoux,
Roche,
Rogers,
Schaffner,
Scott,
Sevigny,
Sexsmith,
Shepherd,
Smith,
Steele,
Stewart (Hamilton), Stewart (Lunenburg), Sutherland,
Taylor,
Thoburn,
Thompson (Y ukon ), Thomson ( Qu'Appelle ), Thornton,
Turriff,
Wallace,
Webster,
Weichel,
Wilson (Wentworth), Wright-82.
Ministerial.
Marshall,
McCurdy,
Hartt,
Davidson,
Kemp,
Cockshutt,
Stanfield,
Chabot,
Elliot,
Alguire,
Opposition.
Neely,
Maclean, A. K.,
Thomson,
Chisholm,
Robb,
Charlton,
Macdonald,
Beland,
Hughes, J. J-, McMillan.


John Howard Sinclair: I was paired with the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens). Otherwise I should have voted against the the resolution.


Ernest Lapointe: I was paired with the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White). Otherwise I should have voted against the resolution.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I was paired with the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Stanfield). Otherwise I should have voted against the resolution.


Mr. McMILLAN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Alguire). Otherwise I should have voted against the resolution.


Mr. McCURDY:: I was paired with the junior member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean). Otherwise I should have voted for the resolution.
Messieurs:
Main motion agreed to.
Achim,
Barrette,
Bellemare,
Boivin,
Bourassa,
Boyer,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Lemieux,
MacNutt,
McCoig,
McCrea,
McKenzie,
On motion of Sir Robert Borden, the House adjourned at 11.58 p.m.

Wednesday, July 18, 1917.