1917-06-19

BEPOBT PKESENTED.

[Stage Direction]
Annual report of the Topographic Sur- veys Branch of the Department of the Interior, 1915-16.-Hon. Mr. Boche.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. FKANK COCHEANE (Minister of Bailways) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 91, to amend the St. John and Quebec Bailway Act, 1916.
Some hon. MEMBEBS: Explain.
Hon. Mr. COCHEANE:: This measure is to grant an extension of time to the company for the completion of the road.


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


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Sir EOBEKT BOEDEN:: I beg to lay upon the table of the House copies of Order in Council approved by His Excellency on the 16th instant, providing for the appointment of an officer to be known as Food Controller for Canada. I have further to inform the House that the Hon. W. J. Hanna, Toronto, has been asked to accept the position of Food Controller, and he states that he is free to do so upon the condition that no salary shall be attached to the office.


Sir WILFKID LAUEIER:: That is something new.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: His Excellency, the Governor General, has been pleased to approve of Mr. Hanna's appointment.



MILITARY SERVICE ACT, 1917.

[Stage Direction]
debate continued on motion for

[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of the right hon. Sir Robert Borden (Prime Minister) for the second reading of Bill No. 75, Military Service Act, 1917, resumed from Monday, June 18.
Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, having occupied the position of Minister of Militia for a considerable time during the war, -tl am more or less familiar with matters concerning recruiting, how it is carried on, and why it fell off, and possibly I may be in a position to give some suggestions as to what in my opinion, at all events, would be the proper method to adopt for the future. I may point out that I gave notice on May 8, that I would move the following resolution.
On the first opportunity on going into Committee of Supply, I shall move:-That in the opinion of this House the hest interests of Canada, of the Empire, and of humanity, will be served by the application of the Militia Act, or by other action, to raise troops for compulsory overseas service.
This was not intended as a "want of confidence" motion, although I wrote the Prime Minister on the 17th October last strongly recommending compulsory service. I spoke about it at meetings all over the country during October, and I have consistently advocated it ever since. If the Prime Minister has no objection, I shall read the letter which I sent him on the 17th October last.


Robert Laird Borden: I have no objection.


Sir SAM HUGHES:: The letter reads as follow:
October 17, 1916. Dear Sir Robert,-	.
Regarding Compulsory Service.
The following are my own personal views and I alone wish to be held responsible for them; that is, I do not wish to profess to express any one's views but my own; others, however, let me hope, may hold the same ideas.
As you ara aware, I have always been in favour of universal training and service. If the Federal Government had control of the schools and educational institutions of the country generally, I would, as I have frequently stated, so far as I am personally concerned, favour compulsory training for the young lads and young men.
As I have, also, frequently pointed out, this training, even if war might never come, would 
be a great benefit to them from the manhood viewpoint. They would be better physically, mentally and morally. A higher standard of manhood -would be established for Peace, and in case War should ever come, the Nation would be ready to defend its loved ones and its honour.
Since the outbreak of the War, Canada has raised considerably more than four hundred thousand men for all military purposes. This is about one hundred thousand men for each million of British birth or descent. After deducting the number of enlisted soldiers of other than British birth or descent, this still shows a higher percentage of enlistment than has oc-cui red in Great Britain, or, I believe, any other country. This has been under the voluntary system.
But the War has assumed gigantic proportions beyond what was anticipated. It is no longer a War of peoples or nations, it is a War of the sacred principles of human liberty against Prussian autocracy and tyranny. It is a question of men and munitions. At last the munition problem is being fairly well met. The men problem is not yet solved. Sir William Robertson, Chief of the General Staff; Mr. Lloyd George, Secretary of State for War; Mr. Bonar Law, Colonial Secretary; Mr. Asquith, the Prime Minister, as well as His Majesty the King, have each and all pointed out that it is now a question of "men and. still more men."
There are parts of Canada which have not yet been successfully reached by voluntary enlistment. Whether or not the influences against voluntary enlistment are backed up by Prussian gold, is a question as yet not fully determined.
There are, in Canada, of all British origins, vide the last census returns, less than 3,900,000; there are of French origin upwards of 2,000,000 ; German origin about 400,000 ; of Austro-Hungarian origin about 130,000, etc., etc.
Britain at the outset of the war, resorted to voluntary enlistment only; but after having exhausted every available means that could be used under the voluntary system, the Nation, in the end, has had to resort to Compulsory service. On every hand, able-bodied "slackers" were seen. Families would send one, two three, and sometimes more, sons to the Front, while the neighbours would remain at home, filling the positions vacated by those gallant boys.
The same principle has been carried out in Canada, only on a broader scale. There may be some excuses for those of German and Austro-Hungarian descent hesitating to enlist ; there can be none for any other nationality. However, to their credit, a considerable number of gallant Canadians of these nationalities have enlisted and have done splendid service at the Front.
I have evidence in my possession, that there are distinct movements abroad, in parts of Canada, whereby persons are urged not to go to the Front; not to fight, but to let these of British descent go away and leave open their positions in order that those who remain as "slackers" should fill them.
Such condition is certainly unfair to the gallant fellows who have risked their lives in the service. In short, one might as well claim that the paying of taxes should be voluntary, as the defending the Empire, in such a crisis, should be voluntary.

Of course, proper exemption should be made for the maintenance of our great industrial, agricultural, commercial and other requirements at home; but this exemption can only be arrived at after complete inquiry and registration. .
I, therefor, have the honour, in view of all the circumstances, to recommend that the gravity of the situation, the justice of the cause, the preservation of the Liberties of our Canadian people and the successful issue of the War require a system of compulsory service, with careful observation of the above safeguards.
Will you kindly give this your best consideration andr should you agree with the principle involved, may I hope that effect will at an early date be given thereto.
Faithfully,
(Sgd) Sam Hughes.
The Right Honourable,
Sir Robert L. Borden, G.C.M.G.,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Canada.
I received no answer to that proposition. It is also well known that prominent members of the Cabinet, up till a couple of weeks ago, declared that, there would be no compulsory service. It is further asserted that shortly before the Prime Minister sailed for England, definite pledges were given to certain dignitaries against conscription. In the presence of the Prime Minister during last December, the Chairman of the National Service Commission several times declared that compulsory service was out of the question; that to introduce it would mean civil war. The Minister of Militia, Hon. Sir Edward Kemp, quite recently declared in the House that the question of compulsory service had never been considered by the Cabinet. I have always pursued the educative line, realizing that men who are not informed on the subject tend to cater to fads and fancies of the public mind. They forget that under responsible government ministers must have the courage of their convictions-as was pointed out by the Minister of Trade and Commerce yesterday, in theory-and be leaders of public opinion; that only under autocratic forms of Government should advisers of the Crown be influenced by agitations forced upon them, and that the duty of members of Parliament is to educate kindly. Therefore, have I pursued a moderate line.
Had my aim been personal advancement or influence, or my desire to injure or embarrass the Government, it would have been easy early in the session, when such a motion would not have been accepted, to force it on the House. But my ambition is solely to help the boys at the front to win the war; therefore I took no action until I
felt that the Cabinet and the country were well educated up to the line. Again, therefore, knowing the trend of a government to await being encouraged to act, have I pursued the educative policy, my aim being the success of my plans.
The day after the Prime Minister's return to Canada, with this same end in view, I sent him a letter. As it is not personal, I assume that there is no objection on the part of the Prime Minister to my reading it.


Robert Laird Borden: No.


Samuel Hughes: It was as follows'
May 16, 1917.
Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden,
Prime Minister,
.	Ottawa.
Dear Sir Robert:
I have waited until your return before taking action in relation to our efforts in the war, or rather our lack of effort in the. war.
I have given notice of a motion on going into the Committee of Supply in favour of compulsory service. This is not intended to be a want of confidence motion, if you cart give me any assurance that the Government will seriously take up the question itself, and that energetic and effective action along right lines will follow.
X shall be glad if you will arrange a date this week, or early next, when this matter might he discussed in Parliament.
Faithfully,
(Sgd.) Sam HughtsH.
The Prime Minister responded in his speech on the following Friday, enunciating the principle of compulsory overseas service. I, therefore, heartily endorsed the proposition he then made, and have hoped that the details of the measure would be such as to receive general approval. I had one, and only one, aim in all this business: to win the war; let Canada and Canadians, each and all do our duty, our full duty; let us maintain our civilization; let us not weary in well-doing, but stand or fall by the boys in the trenches. To raise troops for compulsory overseas service was the watchword.
Let us put a few questions. First, has Canada the authority to put in force a measure of compulsory service? The right hon. leader of the Opposition says that Canada has not that authority, and on that point we! must cross swords with him. Second, what does that mean? Third, what does it involve? Fourth, what are the advantages? Fifth, what are the disadvantages or objections? Sixth, can it be accomplished, and with what consequences? Seventh, should there be exemptions? If so, of what nature? Eighth, how soon can it be ac-

complished? Ninth, will such soldiers be suitable? Tenth, why is a compulsory service necessary? Why not continue the voluntary system?
Let me refer to the first question: has Canada the authority? Section 15 of the British North America Act says:
The Commander in Chief of the Land and Naval Militia, and of all naval and military-forces, of and in Canada, is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.
" The Queen " here means, of course, the Governor General in Council. Section 91 of the British North America Act says:
It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Canada, in relation to all matters not coming within the classes of subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces; and for greater certainty, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing terms of this section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this Act) the exclusive legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all matters coming within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,-
Sub-Sec. 7, Militia, Military and Naval Service and Defence.
That is all the British North America Act has bearing on the subject. The Militia Act goes further. The interpretation clause, section 2, says:
(b) 'Emergency', means war, invasion, riot or insurrection, real or apprehended.
(g) 'On active service,' as applied to a person subject to military service, means whenever he is enrolled, enlisted, drafted or warned for service or duty, during an emergency, or when he is on duty, or has been warned for duty in aid of the civil power.
Then section 4 deals with the command in chief.
Inasmuch, Mr. SpeakeT, as this legal aspect of the question was largely set forth in an address which I had the honour of delivering to the House in January, if it is permissible, I would like it to be taken as read.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Perhaps it would be better if the hon. gentleman proceeded in the usual way.


Samuel Hughes: All right. Section 4 says:
The command in chief of the militia is declared to continue and be vested in the King, and shall be exercised and administered by His Majesty or by the Governor General as his representative.
" Governor-General " means, of course, the Governor-General in Council. Section 69, which deals with active service, provides:

The Governor in Council may place the militia, or any part thereof, on active service anywhere in Canada, and also beyond Canada, for the defence thereof, at any time when it appears advisable so to do by reason of emergency.
Section 72, which deals with command in time of war, is as follows:
In time of war, when the militia is called out for active service conjointly with His Majesty's regular forces, His Majesty may place in command thereof a senior general officer of his regular army.
That has been the case at the front; we have had a senior general officer in command of the Canadian Expeditionary Force.
Section 74 of the Militia Act (Army Act and Regulations) is our charter for our service beyond the seas, just as the British North America Act covers the administration of Canada. Section 74 reads:
The Army Act for the time being in force in the United Kingdom, the King's regulation, and all other laws applicable to His Majesty's troops in Canada and not inconsistent with this Act or the regulations made thereunder, shall have force and effect as if they had been enacted by the Parliament of Canada for the government of the militia.
I would like the right hon. leader of the Opposition to note this. Thus Canada has full authority at any time to enrol and train her militia. The Government, if they chose to do so, could, in time of peace or in time of war, call out 300,000 men and train them; they could do it to-morrow. Canada has authority to send them overseas, for the defence of Canada, in an emergency, and "war" is an emergency, according to the interpretation clause of the Act.
Canada" has full authority to equip, officer, and manage her forces as she pleases while they are within her borders. Beyond her borders and within her own laws, Canadian authority for management and control is wanting, except by adopting the Army Act. Canada has no constitutional authority, as I interpret it-and, of course, I am giving my own interpretation-to administer or control our men once we send them beyond our border until we adopt, as the law provides, the Army Act and the clauses relating thereto. After we have adopted the section of the Army Act in this regard, that section is as much a part of our constitution and law as is the British North America Act, and this Government and Parliament have as much authority to carry on the management of the militia under that law as if it were part and parcel of the British North America Act. But the British military law, especially the Army Act, gives that authority to Canada. The

statesmen and war officers of Great Britain have foreseen such situations as now present themselves. Not only in cases where the colonial Governments raise the troops and pay the cost, but even where Britain enrols and pays colonials, the British Government has by law safeguarded, in every conceivable instance, the rights, privileges and liberties of the colonials. Therefore the Canadian forces are in no sense "British regulars." I come now to a consideration of the British military law, 1914. I refer first to the Army Act, section 190, subsection 23, page 557, which says:
The expression "colony" means any part ol His Majesty's dominions exclusive of the British Islands and of British India, and includes Cyprus and any British protectorate, and where parts of such dominions are under both a central and a local legislature, all parts under the central legislature shall, for the purpose of this definition, be deemed to be one colony.
Chapter XI., page 194, military law, provides that the military forces of the Crown shall consist of three classes, British, Indian and Colonial. Colonial forces are defined by section 3 as follows:
The colonial forces are of two classes, namely, the forces raised by the government of a colony, and the forces raised in a colony by direct order of His Majesty to serve as auxiliary to, and in fact to form part for the time being of, the regular forces.
I should like the leader of the Opposition to take note of this, because later on I intend to point out a flaw in his argument. There are two classes of colonial forces. I have no record of the Canadian Government having sent a despatch to the British authorities asking that sections 175 and 176 of the Army Act be made applicable to Canada, but I presume they did so. There was no necessity, however, for doing that unless we desired to let the British authorities enrol troops in Canada and pay them. The Governor General in Council might pass a thousand Orders in Council in regard to those sections, but they would not be worth the paper they were written on, because sections 175 and 176 refer to other classes of colonial troops raised by the British Government with the consent of the colony and paid for by the British Government. They do not apply in any sense to the Canadian Expeditionary Force. I did not know that that action was taken until the leader of the Opposition so stated the other day, but that is why I have claimed from the outset that those troops were under the control of the Minister of Militia, that is, under the control of Canada, and should be controlled by Canada, because sections
175 and 176 deal with the class of colonial troops that are not referred to here. If the British authorities were to enlist men in Canada for aeroplane service or anything of that sort and pay them and control them, then they would come under sections 175 and 176, but not otherwise. Section 177 is the section which applies to us, and I will refer to it a little later on. Chapter 11 of the military law goes on to state:
The first class of colonial forces-those raised by the government of a colony-are only subject to the Army Act when so provided by the law of the colony and when serving with part of His Majesty's regular forces, and then only so far as the colonial law has not provided for their government and dicipline, and subject to the exceptions specified in the general orders of the general officer commanding the forces with which they are serving. The Army Act, however, section 177, provides that the colonial law may extend to the forces, although beyond the limits of the colony where they are raised.
The second class of colonial forces-of which the West India regiment, the Royal Malta Artillery, the West African Regiment, the non-Europeans of the Fortress Companies, Royal Engineers, at Hong Kong and Sierra Leone, and the Hong Kong Singapore Battalion, Royal Garrison Artillery, are examples-is referred to by sections 175, subsection 4, and 176, subsection 3, of the Army Act. Their pay and maintenance are voted annually by the Imperial Parliament, and they are in fact Imperial forces, although serving in a colony.
Section 177 is one which gives to Canada supreme control of her troops, not in Canada, as we have it here under the British North America Act, but in England and at the front. The Army Act, section 177, page 539, provides:
Where any force of volunteers, or of militia, or any other force, is raised in India or in a colony, any law of India or the colony may extend to the officers, non-commissioned officers and men belonging to such force, whether within or without the limits of India or the colony; and any such law may apply, in relation to sudh force and to any officers, non-commissioned officers and men thereof, all or any of the provisions of this Act, subject to such adaptations, modifications and exceptions as may be specified in such law, and where so applied this Act shall have effect in relation to such force, subject to such adaptations, modifications and exceptions as aforesaid; and where any such force is serving with part of His Majesty's regular forces, then so far as the law of India or the colony has not provided for the government and dicipline of such force, this Act and any other Act for the time being amending the same shall, subject to such exceptions and modifications as may be specified in the general orders of the general officer commanding His Majesty's forces with which such force is serving, apply to the officers, non-commissioned officers and men of such force, in like manner.
This section shall not apply to any officer belonging to any such force when attached to or doing duty with, or to any non-commissioned officer or man belonging to any sudh force when attached to or otherwise acting as part

of or with, any portion of the regular, reserve, or auxiliary forces in the United Kingdom.
That sub-section means this: Prior to 1914, we were in the habit of letting some of our forces go overseas for the purpose of taking part in tournaments, the Queen's Jubilee, etc. The leader of the Opposition will remember instances of that. Although our troops wore the British uniform, they were not under British military law, and they were not under the law of Canada, because until we adopted section 177, we had no control over them beyond the three-mile limit. The section was enacted so as to meet this difficulty, so that while those soldiers were in England, while no Canadian law would cover their case, they would be attached to the British command and would be subject to that command for the time being.
I hesitate to differ from the leader of the Opposition, but I respectfully take the ground that it is admitted that Canada has the right to call out the whole militia, or any part thereof, to-morrow, whether in times of peace or war, for training purposes. It is admitted that Canada has the right to train, officer and arm these troops for the defence of this country, whether within or without Canada; and if we send these troops one inch beyond the three-mile limit of Canada we might just as well send them 3,000 miles away to the German frontier, because Canada's defence is not restricted to one inch, or one mile, or one thousand miles distance'from her coasts, but is wherever Canada is threatened. I take the ground that we have the authority to do all these things within Canada, and in view of section 177 of the British Army Act, we have legal authority to control these men ourselves beyond the three-mile limit of Canada.
Secondly: What does compulsory service mean? It does not prevent the citizen who prefers to be recorded as a volunteer from enlisting as such. If he does not volunteer the Government .should select men on a basis fair to all. These men must be trained and some of them sent overseas, but Canada must control and pay them there as well as here.
Thirdly, it involves the responsibility to the Canadian people for every man and every dollar. We have the responsibility now, but responsibility without the power to control constitutes an intolerable condition. Canada has already lost much in this regard. Compulsory service gives us this power.

The advantages of compulsory service are:
(a)	Under the volunteer plan the basis is' enthusiasm, love of liberty, intense patriotism, the setting aside all else for the cause- home, loved ones, position, wealth, aye, even life itself-and all for his personal love of a principle. The volunteer offers all, risks all, sacrifices all.
(b)	Under compulsory service the State adjusts inequalities, and instead, for example, of taking .all the boys in a family, leaving the neighbour's boys all at home, as frequently occurs under the voluntary system, the duty of service is fairly and evenly distributed. Tens of thousands of good Canadian fellows, willing to serve, are still in mufti because they do not think it fair for them to go and leave at home neighbours just as eligible, secure in comfort and drawing high pay in various industrial pursuits. After the war the one might be penniless, without a position, possibly shot to pieces and unfit to earn a livelihood, while the other would live in comparative luxury and health, enjoying the liberties so dearly earned by the former. '
(c)	Every citizen owes duty to the State; he must pay taxes, must be personally responsible fpr a share in the administration of justice, etc. So also, in every land, each is liable for service for the defence of homes and loved ones and against a common enemy to mankind.
(d)	Compulsory service dpes not imply a vast standing army, as I regret to say a few labour leaders are endeavouring to make it appear, and I was going to add, a few labour leaders bearing all the earmarks of being in the pay of German agents in the United States. My system implies training from ten to sixteen years of age in schools; then occasional brushing up in after years. But Canada in this emergency has not the preliminary training done; so other conditions must be applied.
(e)	'Conscription as in- Germany takes from his home and business in the best two pr three years of his life, in peace times, every male citizen. The man becomes lost ini the machine; under the brutal German system he becomes mentally and morally debased.
Under my proposal for compulsory overseas service, the men would be called out, and after preliminary training would cross the peean. The drawbacks attending the German system would be avoided. No autocratic class would be created; each soldier would have before him, by merit and fitness, the possibility of rising to senior position. The training would benefit each for

peace after the war; and above all, Canada would do her duty to the gallant fellows in the trenches. I venture the assertion that after a few weeks' training, the proudest men in Canada would be these lads, and they would all regret not having joined three years ago. When the war is over each will return to his duty as citizen, proud to have helped to overthrow the greatest autocracy that ever 'blighted humanity
(f)	There are only two free governments upwards of a century old, namely, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and the United States. Why? Rulers become autocratic, selfish, corrupt, sycophantic, mere creatures of corporations and of so-called democratic organizations -because the greatest tyrant and autocrat is the so-called democrat, irresponsible to the whole people. It has been asserted that people's representatives in national assemblies too often become mere pawns on the checker-board. Even in Canada men are found who suggest-nay, who go farther and assert that two great corporations-one railway, and the other a financial group- control this Government and the business and administrative ends thereof. I am not endorsing this assertion, but merely giving vent to the rumour.


Mr. GRAHAM:: Simply putting it on
Hansard.


Samuel Hughes: For ordinary wars
the voluntary system would usually more than suffice. This war, however, staggers humanity. It is beyond all former. comprehension; it is the bitter, tenacious, desperate struggle of dark-age autocracy against free democracy. For thirty years the autocratic German machine has been planning, getting ready, While the free democracies of France, of Britain, of Italy, and now of Russia and the United States, have been living in a fool's paradise, unprepared. Free democracies, properly trained and directed, will ever defeat autocracies. A good illustration of that is found in the old athletic days, when the amateur team always proved superior to the professional whether at lacrosse or football. _ The same is true in every land and under any circumstances, but the men must be trained. It is difficult, however, even in tree Canada to instil the idea that discipline is not repression; is not the breaking down of one's will; is not the restrictive limiting principles, 'but is the upbuilding, the educative, the 'strengthening, the controlling, the developing, the
training to control and to command idea. Canadians at the front have been so trained; hence the free, self-reliant Canadian citizen soldier has come out triumphant, although more or less weighted down by the machine idea and incubus of regular service systems.
What are the disadvantages worthy of note in a proper compulsory service system? I look at this thing from one end to the other and frankly I must confess that I do not find any, except such as are created by agitators for a special purpose, and these agitators will soon disappear for the people will not tolerate them.
Can compulsory service be accomplished? The right hon. leader of the Opposition says that it cannot. I again show my faith in the Canadians and cross swords with him.
I have every faith that it can he accomplished, and accomplished just as easily as rolling off a log, as the Yankee says. If taken up in the correct way the plan will he generally acceptable. It would be well of course that the public should be fully instructed in a kindly way as to their duty to serve in defence of homes, loved ones, free institutions and liberty. It might also be impressed upon some, a very limited few, that this is:
No time for wile or long intrigue,
Our country to her children cries,
Those who're not for us are against;
Better as foes than false allies.
According to Canada's census in 1911 there were in this country 1,700,000 males from 18 to 45 years. The immigration from 1911 to 1916 of persons from 18 to 45 years of age was 500,000. That is only an estimate but it is an estimate based on all the information at my disposal, because, out of the nearly 1,700,000 people who came to Canada during the years since the last census, of 1911, up to the present time, I estimate that 500,000 would be of the fighting age between 18 and 45. Then I accept about
100,000	less than the estimate of the statistician who prepared these figures as to the natural increase. I have put the amount of the average natural increase in population at 200,000 although, if I heard the figures correctly in. th,e House yesterday, it was put at over 300,000. The result is that Canada to-day has 2,420,000 fighting men between 18 and 45 years of age within her borders and at the front.
We have enrolled 420,000 men, which leaves two millions of men between the ages of 18 and 45 free for service. Of these two million men, 1,200,000 are single. I do not know how these figures compare with

those which were furnished yesterday, but, at all events, such is my estimate.
Of course, there will be certain exemptions and exceptions, but Canada could send another 200,000 men to the front and yet not weaken to any perceptible extent her producing capacity.
Should there be exemptions? I do not propose to enter into the details of the Bill to-day. My desire is that the Bill should go through with as little delay as possible and without any more discussion than is consistent with the proper consideration of the measure. But the exemptions would need to be very carefully looked at, and if I might here interject an idea, it is that one of the great objections to the conserip-tive Bill is the form of the tribunal that is to administer it, but that is a matter the Prime Minister said could be amended. There should be exemptions. The Militia Act provides for them and this Act also provides for them.
The next question is: How soon can the force be enrolled? I am not trying to bring in Valcartier at all, but I believe that an ordinary man capable of taking hold of this matter could have this force ready to go overseas within the next four months. Within the next four months Canada should raise, equip and train 150,000 men, and hy October they should be in the trenches. I do not think it would be much of a trick at all.
Will such soldiers be suitable? We have heard a good deal about boys not being fit to fight and not fit to do this and that. I have always had great faith in the boy. I was a boy once myself-you may not believe it, but it is true^and I still like to keep the boyish confidence. The most notable examples of bravery in this war have been afforded by lads mostly undsr 18 years of age. Thousands and tens of thousands of British, Canadian and Australian boys have displayed marvellous heroism and bravery. They fear nothing; they are ready to do anything. Then, to the question:	Will such soldiers Ibe suitable?-I say most assuredly, providing they are trained as citizen soldiers, and not repressed and dwarfed by permanent corps or regular service training. Discipline must not be regarded as repression but as development, education, polish, fitness. Train the boy to be self-reliant and fearless rather than to be an abject sort of machine.
It is sometimes supposed that young men do not make good soldiers. Let me once more impress upon the House that it was

the boys of the Welsh regiment who smashed the famous French cuirassiers at Quatre Bras. The average age of the battalion, old and young, was below 20. Upwards of thirty per cent of Wellington's heroes at Waterloo were under 20 years of age. Twenty-five per cent of the warriors who climbed the heights of Alma, and fought in that misty morn at Inkerman, were also under 20 years of age, many of them under 17, and they were dandies. They were trained to fight in those days with cudgels. In this present great war, many of the most heroic acts have been performed by mere lads of 18. There is no fear but such soldiers will be suitable in every (respect.
Why is compulsory service necessary? Compulsory service is necessary because the voluntary system, after accomplishing almost marvels, is exhausted. I have no exact evidence of it, but there is the best of reasons for believing that German gold, cleverly applied, did the trick. I do not for one moment believe that Bryan was bought by German gold in the United States but he was influenced by men who were bought by German gold. Henry Ford was approached by gentlemen who have since admitted, and sworn to it, that they were in the pay of the German agents who were influencing these gentlemen to take the line they did. I presume that if the evidence could all be brought out here, we would have some very interesting stories. I repeat that German gold, cleverly applied, did the trick. The records of American courts show clearly that the labour agitations, the contraband demands, the food riot movements, the "peace at any price" agitations, have all been controlled and directed by German gold. We have instances where gentlemen occupying high journalistic positions in this country were in receipt of money from the United States of America and it is now known, and it has been proved in the United States courts, that peace organizations in that country were to a very large extent maintained by German gold for years before the war. Early in 1916, when Canadian recruiting was at its zenith, whispers were heard from all Canadian centres-the work was skilfully done-dreading that workmen could not be found for the various industries and services in Canada. This matter was up in the House once before. I must here say in justice to the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) that it had been intimated to me last night that he had stated that I had been a party to helping the munition workers to smuggle men out

for munition work instead of sending them to the front. I never did anything of the kind. The Prime Minister referred to this matter some time ago in the House and there is no harm in referring to it again.


Mr. OLIVER:: I merely read extracts from Hansard and I had nothing whatever to say on the point myself.


Samuel Hughes: I thought that the hon. gentleman made a comment coupling me with the Prime Minister in stating the claims of the munition workers.


Frank Oliver: I merely read what the minister said.


Samuel Hughes: I will deal with that matter a little later. The dread was expressed that workmen could not be found for the various industries and services in Canada and it gradually took head. At the time I suspected German gold, and so informed the Prime Minister. The movement grew in force, and the Imperial Munitions Board, and the Finance Minister, each became anxious and restrictive. Finally the head of the Canadian Pacific Railway was influenced by the agitation, and while the Imperial Munitions Board and my hon. friend the Minister of Finance had limited themselves to impressive personal conversations with the Prime Minister and many others, Lord Shaughnessy went farther, and not only privately, as did the others, but openly, proclaimed himself in an address before the Board of Trade of Montreal. Lord Shaughnessy had been regarded in railway circles as a man of sound judgment; he had been trained under the greatest railway man of the age, Sir William van Horne; but he had not the breadth of judgment, had not the force of character, had not the fearlessness in face of trial of the great master, Van Horne.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: He was not affected by German gold?


Samuel Hughes: One would imagine from the wishy-washy criticism of the financial critic of the Opposition that there was some influence at him.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Samuel Hughes: Whether that was a pat on the back or not I do not know. At this juncture I should point out that these agitations manifested themselves all over the country. The Prime Minister was bombarded with them. He was an easier mark than I. I would throw them out of my office. I
might recite this incident; the Prime Minister will not object. A very distinguished gentleman, head of one of the largest organizations in Canada, the manager of the Dominion Iron and Steel Company of Sydney, came to the oflice and, with tears in his voice and some in his eyes, begged us not to enlist and take the men away. I had chanced to visit that institution many years ago, and as I then went along the lines of furnaces and down through the coal mines,
I saw as handsome a lot of fellows as ever stood inside jackets, Highland Scotchmen every man of them. I had gone through it in after years and found hundreds of men not one of whom could speak the English tongue, and almost every one of them an alien enemy, in time of war. I asked the manager, as the Prime Minister may remember, what had become of these gallant fellows that he was now asking us to restrain from enlisting, in order that they might shovel coal and handle furnaces in Sydney. I pointed out that his foresight should have been exercised years back in keeping gallant Canadians of British descent in our country, in place of driving them out to the four winds of Heaven and filling their places with aliens from the mines of Germany and Austria.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The ex-Minister directed in writing that a young man in the city of Halifax be not permitted to enlist for service.


Samuel Hughes: The gentleman has wakened up; I am glad to see it; I was not aware that he had enough vitality. The young man to whom he refers, I understood, had been a soldier, and as long as I was Minister of Militia or acting in any military capacity and a soldier undertook to act as that gentleman did, he would not be allowed to remain in the 4 p.m. service. But I learned afterwards that he was not a soldier at the time he had written the articles referred to, and accordingly I observed the law and I think I made him an officer. I know I gave him a chance anyway.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: You prevented
him from enlisting.


Samuel Hughes: I did not. He was dismissed from the forces, that was the order I gave.	'


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: You gave directions that he be not enlisted.


Samuel Hughes: No, I gave directions that he be not appointed an officer.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The ex-Minister directed the officer commanding at Halifax that a certain individual there be not permitted to enlist as a private.


Samuel Hughes: I do not remember the details. I do remember that this man had gone to the Old Country and had there written some of the most slanderous falsehoods; and I gave an order that if he was a soldier or an officer at the time, he should not be permitted to enter the forces of Canada, at all events until we had reason to believe he had learned his proper functions.
This agitation went on, then, about the labour question, and would you believe it, this man, the man who was in here demanding, with tears in his eyes, that we do not take the soldiers from Sydney, inside of two months was after me to give him command of a 'battery himself, and to take these very fellows away. The whole thing has been piffle from one end of Canada to the other. The Prime Minister, however, yielding to these influences-and I admit they were very serious, I was pestered with them until I threw them out-suggested to me a letting up in the recruiting. It was in vain that I protested and met the fallacious arguments.


Robert Laird Borden: On what occasion was it that I suggested letting up on re-.cruiting?


Samuel Hughes: The leader of the Government on more than one occasion-take the very day when Mr. McDougall was present, the leader of the Government asked me again if I could not lot up on recruiting; and, moreover, the right hon. leader of the Government later on pointed out-if he wants the whole story I will be glad to give it-pointed out that there was a tremendous agitation in Toronto over the subject, that he had had various communications from Toronto, that the Finance Minister had told him there was a perfect storm brewing there, and that agitation was due to the fact that men could not be obtained as workers. Mark Irish, of the Imperial Munitions Board; Mr. Flavelle, of the Imperial Munitions Board, and others had been insistent in their demands that these men would not be taken. If the Prime Minister will permit me, I will read letters that will cover the thing, letters from himself.


Robert Laird Borden: I would be very glad.


Samuel Hughes: I would like the
Prime Minister to see one of the letters before I read it.


Mr. CARROLL:: As a matter of fact, was not recruiting called off at Sydney and Glace Bay over a year ago?


Samuel Hughes: I did not call it off. I will show the Prime Minister a copy of the letter; I have not the original here.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman can go on with his speech; I will make my reply.


Samuel Hughes: Before I sailed for England in March, 1916, knowing that the Prime Minister had communicated his fears re the labour situation and the Quebec question to others-I might mention to Mr. Godfrey, of Toronto, and a number of others- and it being the transition period between winter billeting and spring encampment, I yielded to his request and partially let up o<n recruiting. I told the Prime Minister that the only excuse I could make was that it was between winter billeting and spring encampments at the time, and the records will show that we did not draw a man out, we did not give any men to the munitions; our officers simply did not exert themselves as vigorously as formerly, owing to the fact that we had no place to put the men without going to great expense, and spring camp6 were being formed.
It may he noted, incidentally, that these same organizations and gentlemen with affiliated interests, while prominent in patriotic and philanthropic professions, have, nevertheless, not been unmindful of the profiteering aspect o.f the war, hence, probably, their intense' interest in the labour question. Only this week the' head of the Munitions Board has taken it on himself to write a letter to the manufacturers of this country practically demanding that recruiting shall not interfere with his munitions, when every day if I go to. any big factory in Montreal or Toronto I can see hundreds of men clamouring for work. I have seen five hundred men around the entrance to a factory in Montreal in the morning looking for work, at the very time these gentlemen were saying that we were taking away their workmen. There are
10,000	women in Toronto to-day, and hundreds of men, anxious for work in munition factories, and yet these gentlemen tell the public and the Government that we are interfering with the work of the factories, when it is perfect nonsense to say 60.

Other contributing causes in the failing off of recruiting are, the abusive tone and language of many speakers at publio meetings, calling indiscriminately all those not enlisting "slackers," "cowards," "shirkers," and thus forcing honest men to get their backs against the wall and become negative instead of positive.


Mr. MACDONALD:: Speaking at Lindsay, Ontario, on April 28, regarding the conditions of which he spoke and the agitation, the hon. gentleman said:
This unfortunately had an effect upon the Prime Minister. The result was that I was asked in March, 1916, not to press recruiting, and recruiting to-day has been dead in Canada for fighting purposes.
Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that the statement made by him in Lindsay is quite correct?


Samuel Hughes: I am quite surprised at the hon. gentleman asking any such question. That speech is issued by myself, and I am not in the habit of issuing statements that I do not endorse. I will prove it before I have finished.
I had just referred to the abusive tone and language of many speakers at public meetings as one of the contributing causes in the falling off of recruiting. Many of these speakers were well-meaning gentlemen, fellows with their hair parted in the middle, coming out of the cities and towns, many of them not over the fighting age themselves, men who should have been in the trenches; and these men would lecture the fellows in the country. It is a pleasant task for city chaps to lecture country boys on their duty. I could mention fifty men from different places, all of fighting age, who had the hardihood to go out and lecture men who, from one cause or another, were not going to the front.
I may say that thus far-and I have had a good deal to do with it-whilst I have encouraged recruiting in every legitimate way by enthusiasm, along patriotic lines, I have never asked a man to go to the front. I have no right to do so. The actual action of certain prominent people in directing men not to go, but to stay at home, and secure the places of those going to the front, unfortunately has had its effect. Since the ex-Prime Minister, the hon. leader of the Opposition, is so wedded to his beloved province Quebec, I regret to say that that is a charge which he might well inquire into, relating to the common clergy of his own province.
The removal from Ontario, or rather the establishment of industries in Quebec province, because, as the excuse was, "labour is scarce in Ontario, so many having gone to the war; but plentiful in Quebec, whence few have enlisted"-this regard I took up the question, upon representation from Col. Thomas A. Duff, with Sir Joseph Flavelle, and Sir Robert Borden, with the result that these industries are now more fairly distributed, and the British provinces are not so much penalized because of their enlistment.
I thought it well to present to the House a memo on that subject. A very large industry is being erected at Maisonneuve, and the reason given by those who are establishing it was that they could not get labour in Toronto, so many men had gone to the front, but they could get plenty in Montreal because none had gone. This came to Colonel Duff's attention, and he sent me the correspondence, which T forwarded to Sir Robert, and I think action has been taken on it. The following is the letter which I sent to Mr. Flavelle:
October 30, 1916.
Dear Mr. Flavelle,-
From Colonel Thomas A. Duff of Toronto, one of the most worthy and reputable citizens of Ontario, the following letter has been received :
"3 Maynard Ave., Toronto.
October 26th, 1916.
"Dear Sir Sam,-
"In the belief that you are not aware of the action outlined herein, I desire to present to your notice, the following:
"Recently, it is understood, the Imperial Munitions Board, under the leadership of Mr. J. W. Flavelle, of Toronto, and Mr. Gordon, of Montreal, has let a contract with an American firm for munitions, involving the erection of a plant for the manufacture of fuses in Canada. These commodities are, of course, for the British Government, and the contract is let by that Government through the Imperial Munitions Board in Canada.
"I understand that the Board expressed the desire that the work should be done remote from the Atlantic seaboard-at Toronto or other suitable interior centre. It is further reported that this American firm declined to go to Toronto, or in Ontario, because it was said workmen could not he obtained, so many men having gone as soldiers to the war.
"Rumor has it that this great industry will, therefore, he located by the Imperial Munitions Board in, or adjoining, the city of Montreal, where labour is plentiful.
"Now, sir, how does this matter stand? Wise military precautions require such industries to he removed from the seaboard.
"The excuse is put forward that labour cannot be obtained in Toronto. Why, sir, this is absurd. Toronto has many returned soldiers who have manfully done their duty for King, country and liberty, and who are competent for such work. There are many


Mr. DOUGLAS:: The hon. gentleman has not mentioned the 49th and 51st Battalions.


Samuel Hughes: These battalions, which were raised long before that, were not mentioned by the member for Edmonton. I am merely quoting the statement of the member for Edmonton r.nd dealing with the battalions that he mentioned as having been recruited in Edmonton at the same time.
There has been a lot of guff, privately and publicly, along this line. I remember that the Minister of Finance on one occasion became excited over the raising of three battalions in Toronto. If the Prime Minister does not object, I purpose reading some letters dealing with these battalions. There is one here which is marked "confidential"; I will let the Prime Minister see it.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not care to examine letters in the House. If my hon. friend desires to read confidential letters, one would suppose that the proper course would be to show them to one in advance. The hon. gentleman will have to take his own course in the matter.


Samuel Hughes: Well, I am prepared to take my own course in the matter; I shall not read the letter. It has been referred to in the House, however. There is nothing in my letter that I am ashamed of, and it also is marked confidential. However, if the Prime Minister does not wish the letter to be read-


Robert Laird Borden: Was it a letter written to me?


Samuel Hughes: It was written by the Prime Minister to me.


Robert Laird Borden: As to reading it, my hon. friend will have to take his own course.


Samuel Hughes: Certainly I will take my own course; I will not read it.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the date of it?


Samuel Hughes: This does not imply that we would string all our men out in one long firing line. We might hold no more of a front than we now do but we should have behind these trenches battalions, brigades, divisions and even corps, taking their turn in the trenches to get trained. Then, should exhaustion take place, it would be time enough to amalgamate a little at a time until elimination would occur, and until victory or defeat would be ours. We would then have our men practically experienced and the original intention in raising the soldiers would he carried out. So far as recruiting for the future in Canada is concerned, your promise of half a million men could easily be fulfilled. But it will not be fulfilled if you permit yourself to be hampered by raising little drafts here and little drafts there sent over in charge of junior lieutenants.
This work is carried on by inspiration, not by fatheads, muddleheads or woodenheads. There has been a clean-cut system from the beginning. Every possible effort has been made in certain quarters to interfere with the force and keep it down to serfdom, to mistrust it and to humiliate it. That sort of thing must cease.
Bonaparte, as well as every other soldier of genius, recognized that dividing the soldiers' maximum efficiency into four parts, only one part depended on the actual man. Pride in himself, faith and confidence in his cause, belief in his leaders, etc., constituted the other three. Bonaparte had no use for wooden-heads. He always claimed that-give him French officers, with a mixture of British soldiers, not English alone, but British, and these included large forces of Scotch, Irish and Welsh, in his wars-he would trim the World.
The Prime Minister stated that he thought if I wanted to read a letter, I should have consulted him first. Last October I sent him a letter in regard to compulsory service, but he never took the trouble to reply. Early in May I had a notice of motion before the House, but the Prime Minister did not pay any attention to it. I think, therefore, that I need not go out of my way to consult him in regard to reading letters in the House. I am ready to say on the floor of the House anything that I have to say, and as soon as the Prime Minister treats me in a courteous manner, I will act in the same way towards him.
History records that free governments, that is, responsible governments, gradually yield to petty bickerings; these to uncontrolled dogmatism; that to autocracy, and to dissolution. Nations and peoples forget that " Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."
It has frequently been asserted that a responsible government is unfit to manage a nation in time of war, and that it should then give place to a dictatorship, or an autocracy. I have never believed in any such doctrine, and I hesitate not to affirm
ISir Sam Hughes.]
that no condition of affairs can arise which cannot be met efficiently under proper responsible government. The bases of popular government are intelligent, independent, interested, free men and women; Canada has these in millions. Secondly, the jealous guarding of the rights, first of ourselves, and then of others; this is not always properly observed in Canada, I regret to say. Thirdly, popular government demands equal rights and equal laws for all, and special privileges for none; this is not observed in Canada. Lastly it demands loyal, unselfish level-headed statesmen, who will not be misled by personal ambition or any other improper influence; Canada is not altogether deficient in this respect.
In either war or peace, the Cabinet should be properly controlled. No 'Government could possibly last under a system where each minister would be privileged to dabble and meddle in the details, not only of his own department, but of every other one. The Prime Minister should be familiar with all matters, except routine, being informed by the minister of the particular department; but only great questions of policy should concern the other departments. Non-observance of this principle, owing to the fact that following the Canadian Cabinet rule for generations, no minister has the right to manage his own department, but is subject to meddling, hindrance, and interferences from all other minsters' besides the Prime Minister, has primarily caused the failure of the volutary system of enlistment.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh.


Samuel Hughes: It is the same with every Government. There is not an hon. gentleman opposite who managed his own department when he was minister. We have the evidence of one man that they " fought like blazes." It is a Prime Minister's right, and his only, to be satisfied by the minister of a department on matters other than that of policy.
It may not be amiss here once more to review voluntary enlistment. For the First Division my action was unique in history. All red tape was thrown aside and paternalism, which is one of the many banes of regular service systems, was entirely removed. Canada's citizen soldiers, not only then, but since, manfully proved my faith in them. In my absence in England, the debilitating plan of draft was resorted to, but I cancelled it on my return.

For the Second Division, during the winter months and at leisure, battalions were organized in various centres.
During 1915, it became evident, the war was more serious than anticipated', and that more men were needed. I resorted for the fall and winter of 1915-16 to the Home Locality System of recruiting. Nothing in history ever surpassed its success. I had plans laid for four hundred thousand men. Meantime the Prime Minister pledged five hundred thousand men. Personally, I have never seen why any limit should be fixed. We are in the war to establish human liberty and overthrow Kaiserism; and if it takes a million men for Canada's share they certainly should he sent. To complete the balance, however, of the five hundred thousand, the country was informally divided off so as to give, in general terms, about twice the area assigned for a battalion in the Home-Locality System. In short, for the Home-Locality System, a district of about forty thousand population was allotted to a battalion. In the last plan the unit was increased to about one hundred thousand This would have given between 525,000 and
550,000	men. During the winter of 1915-16, however, petty interferences began to hinder the work. These continued on into 1916, till finally, no battalion could be organized without delays. For example, before I left for England last June, I ordered the formation of three battalions in Manitoba. On my return in October they had not yet run the gauntlet of the Treasury Board and Privy Council. The three battalions have never yet been properly completed. Under my system they would have been ready to sail for England by the time they were finally authorized. However, I raised upwards of four hundred thousand men directly and indirectly with very little friction, and with the most marvellous good conduct and efficiency on the part of the soldiers.
Then, however, came the action early in 1916 regarding the labour question, and that was the beginning of the end of voluntary recruiting.
More than a month has elapsed since the Prime Minister's return, and his announcement of " Selective Conscription ". The Militia Act, which, according to the Prime Minister has all the powers of this Bill except " selection ",-or, to use his own words, " Thus, the pnly new feature proposed is the method of selection " to my mind is far more easy of application, broader and better adapted to the situation
than this Bill. I do not favour selection by tribunals under the Justice Department;
I prefer the ballot under the Militia Department. Under either plan troops will be allotted to a score of different departments in the actual militia service. Under the Bill they cannot be allotted to other employment. The Prime Minister read a list the other day of fprty different branches of employment to which men could be allotted under the Bill. Under the Militia Act, however, men could be allotted to any national service, such as farmers, mechanics, miners, business men, etc. All would receive military, uniform rates of pay. Under this Bill, however, the man at home nightly in a feather bed may receive from $7 to $10 as a mechanic, while his brother in the trenches receives $1.10 for hard work and being shot at. Under the Militia Act the men could be now undergoing training in Canada, for I have yet to learn of the man objecting to training our men to defend homes, principles and loved ones.
Meantime, therefore, while the next few months are being wasted in discussion of this Bill-in appointing the machinery to carry out its measures, in hearing the tedious judicial appeals, in organizing the training camps, and in conducting the elections 

let Canada act as she can act under the existing Militia Act until this Bill becomes law. There need be no delay, np friction, no need of compulsion to go overseas. The only compulsion would be to train, and no one cpuld object to. that. The machinery is ready. If the 'Government are actuated by honest desire to help on the cause they deserve credit. But I pass by every objection; set aside esveTy obstacle; blot out every adverse claim; refuse to heed any criticism against the principles of the Bill. 1 stand for the Bill, and will help to make it a success-if such is possible. I wish tp give it every chance; improve it, without loss of time; get it into operation forthwith, so that our beloved boys at the front may be properly suppprted, and the great cause of human liberty may be triumphant.
Let me appeal to the veteran leader of the Opposition to join, after pointing out his objections to the Bill, in having it become effective; grant a year's extension pf Parliament, and have action such that our land under this Act may be in the firing line by the end of September.
I turn for a moment to some of the remarks made by the leader of the Opposition yesterday. He suggested that the Gov-


Frank Oliver: Perhaps the ex-minister might tell us how many Boss rifles are now in use by the Canadian forces at the front?


Samuel Hughes: I do not think there are any; I am not sure about that. All I know is that the Boss rifle is 'better than -the Lee-Enfield, but when the Prime Minister spoke to me about withdrawing it I knew the agitation that had gone on and which had been promoted by men who did not know that it was the ammunition that was the cause of the jamming. Although I know this quite well, I did not want to send soldiers . into the trenches, who, by reason of this agitation, might not have confidence in the rifle. Therefore, inasmuch as the agitation had caused a want of confidence on the part of some of the boys, and in the interest of all parties concerned, I thought it would be well not to have a fight during the progress of the war over the matter, but to withdraw the rifle and allow it to be used for training purposes.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: Who started the agitation?


Frank Oliver: Would the ex-minister say what was the number of casualties amongst the Canadians in the battle of Zillebeke? [DOT]


Samuel Hughes: The number is available but surely the hon. gentleman knows that the battle of Zillebeke was a shell fight. Our fellows were pounded by shells and there was not a rifle shot fired at them. It was long range fire and shells by the hundred were rained on them, the trenches were flattened out-I was there and saw the

place-it was worse than any ploughed field, and the boys went down. Harry Baker's battalion was there, it was long range fire and high explosive shells were sent over.


Frank Oliver: The question of the efficiency of the Ross rifle is a serious question to the people of Canada. I have asked the minister how many Canadians lost their lives in the battle of Zillebeke. The Canadians were armed with Ross rifles on that occasion and General Sir Douglas Haig reports that in that battle the Ross rifle jammed in the hands of the Canadians.


Samuel Hughes: The Canadians were not armed with the Ross rifle at the battle of Zillebeke last June. The third division never were armed with the Ross rifle there. I do not know that there were any Ross rifles at the battle of Zillebeke. I have great respect for Sir Douglas Haig, but it would not matter one particle to me, knowing the facts, if all the reports in the universe said to the contrary. The hon. gentleman is altogether wide in his remarks. The first division that had been armed with the Lee-Enfield rifle for months found that the rifle jammed just the same as the other did but the cause was bad ammunition.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The hon. gentleman
spoke of an agitation against the Ross rifle. Who started the agitation against the Ross rifle?


Samuel Hughes: The hon. member looks for information. I refer him to the pages of Hansard long years ago to gratify his thirst for knowledge. He knows as well as I know, and I am not going to take up time or dig up "dead corpses" here to-day. Let the hon. gentleman rest patient. He looks innocent, but he is anything but innocent.
Mr. Speaker, we are at war. Our boys have done magnificent work at the front, second to no troops in the world-I will not say better, but second to no troops in the world. They are suffering heavy losses. The Prime Minister has been at the front. I waited for his return. I knew he would be impressed by what he saw there. What may have been his views in the past on compulsory service, I know not and care not, but to-day he has brought down his Bill and is going in for compulsory service. I do not like the term conscriptive selection; but a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, and that is a matter of detail. I do not like the form of the measure; I should have preferred the Militia Act, which, I think, would have worked more

smoothly and been quicker in its operation. There is scarcely anything, if there is anything at all, in this Bill that could not have been carried out under the Militia Act. It must be remembered that we would not be called on to ballot for every soldier under the Militia Act. It would be possible to pass an Order in Council under the War Measures Act and so to call
5 p.m. out any class. But, in any event, we can call the militia out for training under the Militia Act, even if we do not send them overseas, and, in the name of Heaven, while this discussion is going on in the House, and if there is to be fighting while we are making our explanations here, let the boys be called out in the meantime and be trained under the Militia Act. That can be done and no one can object to it, and then when the Bill passes in some proper form we can apply its provisions and send them overseas if they do not volunteer. But I have faith that the boys called out for training would nearly all volunteer for service overseas. I will not throw a single impediment, directly or indirectly, in the way of the passing of this Bill, but will help on in every proper manner its passage through the House, in order that the boys at the front may be fully and properly protected and supported in their great struggle.


Mr. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington) :: Mr. Speaker, coming to a conclusion in my own mind in regard to the Military Service Bill now under discussion in this House on motion for second reading, I regret to say that, in regard to the principle of the Bill, I find myself in rather serious conflict with the opinions of my leader, and I think also with the opinions of the large majority of my political friends sittting upon this side of the House. Under ordinary circumstances I would feel very deep regret, very sincere concern, if that were the case, and had it not been for the kindly, generous and patriotic words of counsel and advice which my honoured leader has addressed not only to me but to all his followers with regard to this measure, I might feel some embarrassment, and not a little unpleasantness. His words of advice to the whole of us were that in regard to this measure he himself would prefer that each member should be guided solely by the dictates of his own conscience, entirely without regard to the ordinary and well recognized ties of party. For this reason I feel the more free to express without any reservation my own views and conclusions in regard to the

measure, dictated alike by my conscience, my heart and my judgment. And, after having given to the Bill the best consideration it is in my power to bestow upon it, I find that I cannot agree in the conclusions so ably expressed, so forcibly uttered, by my honoured leader in the House yesterday.
One is, I think, bound to consider every sentence, every word uttered by the right hon. leader of the Opposition in regard to this matter. We know that his learning on the subject is most profound, we know that his parliamentary experience is not only the longest, but I think undoubtedly the most brilliant, in the annals of this Canadian Parliament. But, notwithstanding these things, acting upon my own judgment, judging the measure as well as I can, I have come to the conclusion that my support should go to this Bill and that it should be a whole-hearted support. In my opinion, the principle involved in the Military Service Bill at this very moment is one to the advantage of the people of Canada, to the advantage of Canada herself, to the advantage of the Empire and to the advantage of our Allies. For these reasons I intend to support it. While I make that general statement in regard to my support of the Bill, I still leave myself free in regard to criticise some of its details. I think that in many respects the Bill may yet be usefully amended, and if I correctly understood -the Prime Minister when he introduced the Bill into this House, and also when he spoke on the second reading of the Bill yesterday, he expressed a sincere desire on behalf of himself and of his Government, that he should receive any serious and useful suggestions by way Of amendment to the Bill-


Robert Laird Borden: Hear, hear.


Hugh Guthrie: -in order that the proposal, so far as possible, may in its operations be rendered absolutely free from partisanship, political prejudice, bias, or other baneful influence. And when the proper time comes I think I may be able to make some suggestions which will not operate as voiding the principle of the Bill, but will, I think, smooth its operations, and will perhaps place it in greater favour with the public at large.
There is just one observation I might make here, and that is that I have one other reservation to make, and to my mind it is a very important one; that is with reference to the question of conscription in general. I cannot bring myself to believe that this Bill is the full Government
policy in regard to the question of conscription. I cannot bring myself to believe that this is the last word on conscription in the proper sense of the word that we are to have from the Government during the present session of the present Parliament. Conscription, to my mind, involves the taking of more than manhood, more than flesh and blood.
I wpuld vote to withhold the operation of this Bill unless the Government is prepared to go further, and, during the present session, bring in concurrent legislation which would operate as a conscriptive measure upon the wealth and resources of Canada in general for the purposes of this war. This is a matter which, I think, touches my heart almost as much as any phase of the war. I do not like to feel that we, in this Parliament, think lightly of the flesh and .blood of the people of Canada, and think highly of the accumulated wealth of, the country, and that we will touch the one and dare not touch the other. May it never be said in Canada, or of Canada, in the words of the late Thomas Hood, the English poet: " Oh God, that wealth should be so dear, And flesh and blood so cheap."
I believe the people of Canada, when they speak of conscription in the meetings which have been held, where they have applauded the doctrine of conscription, meant something different from the conscription provided in this Bill. I believe, in the minds of the people, conscription of wealth, conscription of industry, and of resources, are included, and I trust that, during the present session, the Government will take steps to bring in concurrent legislation, more appropriately, no doubt, embodied in another Bill, which will let the people see that flesh and blood are noit lightly held, and that wealth is not lightly exempt. I can place before myself the picture that any hon. member in this House can conjure up, if he so desires, of the man over military .age, snugly settled in his own household, checking up his profit ledger, his stocks, bonds, debentures, mortgages and other investments, knowing that he has nothing very much at stake in the war at the present time, agreeing readily that the youth of Canada shall go to the front, and shall fight our battles, and that, so far, he has been practically exempt from any burdens of the war.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Hugh Guthrie: Some of those men live more cheaply than the ordinary middle class man. They are not taxed more than

the other man is under the tariff. They pay nothing directly into the treasury of the Government for the purposes of the war. This is a thing I would like to see remedied.
I believe the people of Canada would be willing to be placed-nay, desire to be placed-upon an equal footing with the people of Great Britain, with regard to this war, and I, for one, cannot understand why so able a man as the Minister of Finance of Canada has, from year to year, postponed this question of taxing wealth. He has taxed the industries. He has clipped the manufacturers' profits, rightly or wrongly. He has taxed munition profits, and I believe they can bear more taxation. Why he cannot adopt that system of righteousness and equality in regard to the income of the rich man, I cannot understand. The Minister of Finance is a strong, man. He understands the situation in Canada, and knows the public feeling. If he were given a free hand, he might act, but there must be some withholding force on the action of the Minister of Finance in regard to this matter. What that force is, I do not know, but people will conjure up certain things in their minds, when they get no explanation, because, at the opening of the war session in August, 1914, the matter was mentioned; and in the sessions of 1915 and 1916, and again this year, the matter has been brought most pointedly to the attention of the Minister of Finance. Each time he has put it off. He has procrastinated, and given reasons, which satisfy him, apparently, why the wealth of the country should not be taxed, but the time is coming when the people will imagine certain influences are behind the minister, unless he takes action. I trust that he will do so this session. If the Government will combine the conscription of wealth and resources of the country with the conscription of men for the firing line, I believe they will be backed, almost from one end of the Dominion of Canada to the other.
Having wandered, perhaps, a little from the Bill immediately before us, I will make a very brief survey of the position of Canada in reference to the war, from its outbreak in August, 1914, to the present time. I desire to make a consecutive statement, in order that the voters, whom I have the honour to represent in Parliament, may know my reasons for supporting this Bill, which emanates from the Government side, as it has not been very much my custom to support Government measures in the past seven years.

Most happily, Canada's experiences of war have been of very modest proportion and at long intervals, until the fata] day in August, 1914. War in 1914 found Canada and all or many of the present allied countries in a comparative state of unpreparedness, or perhaps, I would be speaking more nearly the truth if I said in a complete state of unpreparedness. The best prepared of the allied countries never dreamt of the terrific onslaught which was launched against liberty, humanity .and civilization in August, 1914. None realized at first the awful significance of that outbreak, least of all, perhaps, the people of the dominions beyond the seas. We were safely and snugly situated, many thousands of miles from the actual 6cene of conflict. Our first enrolment in Canada proceeded upon the principle of voluntary enlistment. In Great Britain, after the regular army had been utilized, volunteers were called for until that system had reached its limit, and I think the system we adopted in Canada was adopted also in every other of the selfgoverning British dominions. In Canada, the first call for volunteers met with what, in my opinion, was a magnificent response;
33,000	men responded within six weeks, an equal or larger number in the next'four or five weeks, and well do I remember, in the short session of August, 1914, standing on the corner of McLeod and Elgin streets, Ottawa, when we saw the Princess Patricias march proudly past. Well do I remember, on the 25th August, standing in front of the old Parliament Buildings, when we all cheered for the men from British Columbia, who were in service ready to go to the front just about twenty days after the call had gone forth for volunteers-and splendid fellows they were, many of whom have fought their last fight. They certainly answered the call in the most speedy and noblest fashion. I know that it is chafrged by many that our system of voluntary enlistment was a great blunder from the beginning, and that at the very outset we should have taken a course such as that recently adopted in the United States. Well, Mr. Speaker, we are all inclined to be very wise after the fact. It may be quite true that the United States has gone about the question of enrolment in a better manner than that adopted by us.
But the United States has had the opportunity of profiting by our experience and the experience of many other countries. In August, 1914, I think we were all in accord with the voluntary system being

the proper system of enlistment in Canada. So far as my recollection goes, no one suggested any other system. If in our decision we blundered, the blunder was confined not to Canada alone; it took place in every other British Dominion. But I do not agree with any critic who says that the voluntary system in Canada has been in any degree a failure; I rather think that from beginning to end it has been a magnificent success. But conditions have changed since August 1914. Perhaps I might illustrate that change by relating an incident that occurred during the short session of 1914. I well remember a remark made by one of the two Conservative friends with whom I walked one day down the broad way leading from the Parliament Buildings. He said: If I were Prime Minister, my policy would be, $100,000,000 and
100,000	men-and I would dissolve Parliament and go to the country on that policy. But the other man said: No; what is the use of promising something that you cannot perform? It looked like a monstrous promise at that time; we did not know what was before us. Let me give you another instance. We thought we were doing mighty well in August, 1914, when we made a contribution to the Mother Country of a million sacks of flour. We thought that that was wonderful-and under ordinary circumstances it would have been wonderful. Little did we dream then of the conflict that was to come; little did we anticipate then the millions of dollars that we should contribute and the hundreds of thousands of men who should leave Canada. I mention these matters merely to show that we thought somewhat lightly of the war or of the prospects of a lengthy conflict when we first started upon a volunteering system.
The charge so often made that our system of volunteering has fallen down is, in my judgment, absolutely unfounded. The voluntary system is a good system, but like all other human systems, it has its limitations. I am inclined to think that we have now come almost to the limit of that system in Canada. I have been pretty much of that opinion since last November or December, about the time of the campaign on behalf of national service. The figures in Tespect of volunteering were falling off very rapidly. I myself held meetings in the campaign for national service, and I heard many \ expressions of opinion in Tegard to what the 'Government should do in the way of securing more recruits. In fact, when I came to Ottawa at the opening of
this session I had a motion prepared on the very question of conscription. When I came back after the adjournment I learned that my hon. friend (Sir Sam Hughes) had placed such a motion on the Order Paper. Knowing full well that the remarks of a man of his standing and knowledge on this subject would have far more force and effect than anything that I could say, I thought no more of the matter.
To my mind, this is not a new question. Last spring recruiting in Canada had fallen so low that we did not have sufficient recruits to make up the actual wastage in Canada. Any man who has the war at heart-and I believe we all have the war at heart-must acknowledge that Government or Parliament must take some definite step to get more men, and to get them as speedily as they can be procured.
The figures which we hear from day to day in the House are, I think, not well known throughout the part of Canada which I have the honour to represent. I desire, therefore, to place upon Hansard a statement of the present disposition of Canadian troops as given in a return made in this House on the 15th of this month. The following is a statement of the troops Available at that date:
In France, 136,400; in the Near East and the West Indies, 877; in England and en route, excluding troops in hospitals and convalescent homes, 108,736; in Canada, 17,353. This makes a total of 263,366. If we add to that, casualties estimated at 100,000, and medically unfit and discharged, 43,053, we have a total enlistment from the outbreak of the war to the present time of 406,419 men. This is a splendid showing in a country of Canada-'s size.
The figure which I have given as the number of medically unfit and discharged soldiers, which was taken from a return brought down on March 31 last, is made up as follows: Discharged in Canada, 26,658; returned and discharged, 11,917; discharged overseas, 1,478; a total of 43,053.
I should like to make also a brief statement of the number of men of military age available in Canada, exclusive of the
406,000	who have already enlisted. According to the census of 1911 and to the figures presented to the House yesterday by the Prime Minister, we have in Canada between the ages of 20 and 45, 760,453 single men and 823,098 married men, a total of 1,583,549. The following is a statement of male population according to age classifications in the Military Service Bill:

Age.	Single.	Married.	Total.20-24	319,610	66,247	25-29	205,125	165,369	30-34	112,011	198,838	35-39	68,144	189,731	Total	704,890	620,185	1,325,075


William F. Carroll: Has the hon. gentleman any figures to show the number of men on duty and in training in Canada who are not of the Canadian Expeditionary Force?


Hugh Guthrie: Except the statement
furnished in the House on the 15th of June, I have not any figures, hut that statement shows the number of men in . Canada to be 17,353. What strike's me from these two statements ,is, that we have ample power in Canada if we can utilize it, and the purpose of this Bill, if I understand it aright, is to utilize that manpower, not only for military purposes, but for all the necessary purposes in connee-tion with the war.
I am gping for a moment or two to discuss one or two sections of the Militia Act which seem to have given rise to some controversy in this House. I was always under the impression that under the Militia Act the Government could, in the case of an emergency, call out and send abroad to any quarter of the world all the manhood of Canada from eighteen to sixty years of age, simply upon an Order in Council and upon another condition that, if Parliament was not then in session, Parliament should be convened within fifteen days thereafter. I believe I was correct in that impression and that I am correct now. At the time of Confederation, at least in 1868, the law was that all the male population from eighteen to sixty years of age could thus be called out. I remember when the amendment to that Act was before the House in 1904 and the discussion that took place on that occasion. If my memory serves me aright, because I have not looked up the debate, on that occasion we added a clause especially relating to service of Canadians abroad on the order of the Governor in Council, and we placed in the statute that condition that Parliament must be convened within fifteen days after any such order was issued. That section, which is section 71 of the Militia Act and which is still in force in Canada, reads:
Whenever the Governor in Council places the militia, or any part thereof, on active service, if Parliament is then separated by such adjournment or prorogation as will not expire within ten days, a proclamation shall he issued for the meeting of Parliament within fifteen days,, and Parliament shall accordingly meet and sit upon the day appointed by such pro-
CMr. Guthrie.!
clamation, and- shall continue to sit and act in like manner as if it had stood adjourned or prorogued to the same day.
The reference in the section is to 4 Ed. VII, chapter 23, section 71. That section was placed in the Militia Act of Canada when my right hon. leader was the head of the 'Government and I, one of his humble supporters. That law has remained in force ever since, and if my memory serves me aright, when the Naval Service Bill was before the House in 1910, a special section was inserted in that Bill and the defence of the section by those who approved it, when it was attacked by those who objected to it, was that they had inserted the precise language of the Militia Act in the Nav-al Service Bill. I am prepared to stand by that section at the present itime. So far as the conscription of men is concerned, there is wider and more drastic power in the Militia Act of Canada passed in 1868 and amended in 1904 than there is in the Military Service Bill now before this House. The only objection I have to that power is that it is too drastic. The Governor General, on the advice of his Cabinet, could, under that Act, call out the whole male population of Canada between eighteen and sixty years of age and could send them overseas, but I doubt very much if he could call them out for any other purpose than military -service. It might be possible that, under the guise of the term " Military Service," -men might be employed in the mines, or railroads, or other industries of that description, but the meaning of the law is that those who are called out shall be utilized for military purposes. That power is on the statute book, and it is a power that the Government can utilize today. What is the objection to the old Militia Act? Simply that we want to avoid conscripting men for a single purpose. We want to provide that every purpose pertaining to the war shall be supplied, and, to my -mind, that is the chief feature in this Military Service Bill. We have been told by parliamentarians, by the press of the country, from the pulpit and at almost any meeting one can go to in any city, town, or village, that one of the first duties of this country is to produce foodstuffs. The farmers have been told, through their farm newspapers and through the general press; it has been dinned into everybody's ears, and everyone in this House knows that one of the great demands in this country, from the Atlantic to the,Pacific, to-day is -for agricultural labour. The men from the townships of Ontario have not volunteered in

the same proportion as men from the cities, but I can speak best of the county of South Wellington, whence I come, and I know that not only in South Wellington, but in North Wellington every. township is well represented in the infantry battalions and batteries at the front. They have contributed their full share, and what is the result? On every hand we hear the cry for hired help. Last week I returned home, and a man of thirty years of age, with 250 acres of land and 80 head of fine cattle, but with no hired help, said to me: " What has conscription to do for me? Is conscription going to take me?" I said: "No." He named in the county of Halton a farmer with two sons who owned 100 acres of land, and my suggestion would be: Might not conscription bring one of these sons from the small farm to the man who had 250 acres and no hired help?


Mr. NESBITT:: Where does the Bill provide for that?


Hugh Guthrie: In the selective feature. At least I have so argued and so understood. If men who enroll for service under the Military Service law are better adapted for agricultural service than for military service, agricultural service is what they will be put to.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That is not provided for in the Bill.


Hugh Guthrie: Then that is a detail that should be remedied, but I understand that is the real purport of the Bill, and I have told some of my agricultural friends that in so>
many words. I do not believe you can get another man to-day from the farms of western Ontario without injuring the production which we say is only second in regard to our necessities for the war-men at the front coming first and production second. That is one reason why I prefer the Military Service Bill to the present Militia Act.
I believe there is a large number of men available in the cities and towns and villages of Canada who cannot be reached except by this Bill. I have probably addressed more recruiting and Patriotic Fund meetings in the province of Ontario than any other member of the House, except perhaps the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) and the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, and any one who has tried as hard as I have must have come to the conclusion that the men whom you want to reach are the very ones who do not attend recruiting meetings. At one town
in western Ontario somewhat of a joke was perpetrated not long ago. A recruiting meeting at the market house was to be addressed by a sergeant from the lower provinces. He was an excellent speaker, but as there were hardly any men present the meeting was adjourned, and the recruiting sergeant received permission from the manager of the picture show at the other end of the town to make his speech there. Many of the men at the theatre felt quite insulted and complained to the manager that if such a thing ever occurred again they would no longer patronize his show. The fact is, the men you want to enroll do not attend the recruiting meetings. I am speaking only of the places I know best, and am not referring to other parts of Canada at all. I am sure that if this Bill is passed a great many men now in Guelph will go to the front and probably volunteer before conscription comes in. I look in the banks and see able-bodied male clerks doing women's work. I see them also in the dry goods and retail stores, in the counting houses and a dozen other places where female labour could easily do the work. These men cannot be aroused to enlist either by personal interview or by speeches at meetings. I think there is no way of getting them unless by some measure of force. The city of Guelph with a population of 18,000, has given almost 10 per cent of her population, or about 1,700 men. That is a pretty good showing for a town of that size, but there are still 300 or 400 more men in that city who could be reached by a measure of this kind, and who will not come forward unless compulsion is used. I suppose conditions are much the same in other cities throughout Canada
I much prefer this Bill to the Militia Act. I am in favour of it because, for one reason, it will enable every necessary branch of labour to be supplied. In this connection I wish to refer to a circular which I think has been sent to every member of the 'House from the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, dated June 11, 1917. This circular comes from a body of men for whom I have the highest respect and regard. During the seventeen years I have sat in the House there have been very few occasions upon which I have not been able to see eye to eye with the'Trades and Labour Congress of Canada. I believe that union labour in Canada represents an exceedingly valuable body of our population. Not only are they good workers, but clear
/

and level-headed men of good judgment and common sense. Sometimes they make mistakes as other people do, and I believe that in this circular they are labouring under some misapprehension. There is not a great deal of difference between the Trades and Labour Congress and myself in regard to this circular; in fact, we are very close together except on one point. One paragraph of the circular says, under the heading of Conscription:
On December 27th, 1916, Premier Borden informed the executive of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, that if conscription should prove the only effective method to preserve the existence of the State and of the institutions and liberties which we enjoy, I should not hesitate to act accordingly.
The Trades and Labour Congress followed that up with this clause of their own:
We are positively of the opinion that this situation has not arrived.
With that statement I certainly take issue. The next paragraph says:
The necessities for the effective conduct of the war are food, munitions, shipping, and military man power, and Canada is geographically well situated to supply the first named three essentials, and can do much to assist in winning the war by developing her production in these essentials to her fullest extent.
The only exception I take to that is the order in which the necessities are put. They have put last what I would put first, namely, military man power. I would entirely agree with them if the order were reversed thus:	military man power, food,
munitions and shipping. I entirely disagree with them when they say that the time has not arrived, and I believe that when the Trades and Labour Congress thoroughly understand the situation they will see that I am right and they are wrong. If I were simply to endorse their statement- and that is their statement-they would have mighty little respect for me and I would have mighty little Tespect for myself. Union labour in this country has furnished our forces with a tremendous number of men. It is entitled to very great credit for what it has done to back up our men at the front and' our war operations generally. But we have now evidently reached a line of cleavage, and upon this question I and my friends of the Trades and Labour Congress do not -agree. I believe that the time has come for putting a Military Service Bill into force; the Trades and Labour Congress take the opposite view, that the time has not yet arrived.
[Mr. Guthrie.!
There is another organization with which I have not so much sympathy, known as the British Columbia Federation of Labour, and -another organization known as the Social-Democratic Party of Canada. The British Columbia Federation of Labour went on record as being opposed- to conscription on the general proposition that:
Military or industrial conscription is the imposition of a form of servitude which is obnoxious to a so called free people.
I do not think it is worth while taking up the time of the House discussing propositions of that kind. So far as the Social-Democratic party in this country is concerned I take no interest in it. I do not think it is helpful in any way. I desire to say a few words in regard to the amendment moved by my right hon. friend and leader that the opinion of the people should be taken with regard to this Bill upon a referendum.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 84, to incorporate The Canadian Divisions of the Aerial League of the British Empire.-Sir Herbert Ames.
Bill No. 86, respecting The Western Life Assurance Company.-Mr. Schaffrier.
Bill No. 88, for the relief of George Maisey.

Mr. Wilcox.
Bill No. 89, for the Telief of Herbert Featherstone Conover.-Mr. Henderson.

[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the proposed motion of Sir Robert Borden for the second reading of Bill No. 75, Military Service Act, 1917, resumed.
Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Speaker, just before six o'clock, I was endeavouring to discuss some of the selective features of the Militia Bill which is now before the House. My attention was called during the adjournment to some of the language which I used, and on further examination of the Bill, I concluded that perhaps my language in regard to agricultural labour was broader than the terms of the Bill would warrant. I notice that the Bill in its preamble mentiohs the question of agricultural labour and says:
.TUNE 19, 1917
And whereas, by reason of the large number of men who have already left agricultural and industrial pursuits in Canada to join such Expeditionary Force as volunteers, and of the necessity of sustaining under such conditions the productivity of the Dominion, it is expedient to secure the men still required, not by ballot as provided in the Militia Act, but by selective draft.
Then on referring to section 11 of the Bill I find it provides that:
An application may be made, by or in respect of any man in the class or subclass called out by such proclamation to a local tribunal established in the province in which such man ordinarily resides, for a certificate of exemption on any of the following grounds:-
(a) That it is expedient in the national interest that the man should, instead of being employed in military service, be engaged in other work in which he is habitually engaged;
(b) That it is expedient in the national interest that the man should, instead of being employed in military service, be engaged in other work in which he wishes to be engaged and for which he has special qualifications.
I must say that on reading this section again, the language I used before adjournment at six o'clock seems to he rather too broad. My understanding. of the Bill at that time was that, under the selective system, a board would have (power to supply agricultural labour just to the same extent as it would have power to tell a man to serve in the military forces. On reading the Act more carefully, I find that this exemption is to be granted only at the request of the man himself. I think that is a detail of the Bill which may well be looked into, and amended, if necessary, when we come to the' committee stage. In every city, town , and village in Ontario, farm labour has become scarce for two reasons: First, by reason of enlistment; and, secondly, by reason of the attractive wages paid by manufacturing companies during the present war, and particularly by munition factories. If a man, by making an application, can continue earning $4, $5 or $6 a day in a munition factory, he will not, as a matter of choice, return to the farm, although he is especially qualified to do farm work. I think the board having control of these matters should certainly be entitled to conscript that man's work, and have him engage in agricultural labour if he is not going forward for military purposes. That was my understanding of the Bill when I spoke, and if it is not the letter of the Bill, I think it should be made plain, because the farmers are suffering very gravely from the want of help from the two causes I have mentioned. I maintain that the farmer in the back concession of a back township who makes two blades of grass
grow this year where but one grew last year, is doing a patriotic duty, and is serving his country to the utmost of his capacity. That man needs help and should be helped, and there should be something in this Bill to supply him with labour ordinarily called agricultural labour, which has flocked to the cities, towns and villages, where manufacturing industries pay much higher wages than are paid in the country. This is the sacrifice the individual will have to make.
There are other great lines of industry that may have to be helped also. I doubt very much if you will get very many men from the transportation companies or from shipping companies. I hear on every hand that men are becoming scarcer and scarcer upon the railways, and that great difficulty will be experienced this year in securing crews for both lake and ocean shipping. It may be that, for transportation purposes, men may have to be taken from [DOT] other callings, and I think that the board dealing with these matters should be given power under this Act to arrange to furnish a supply of labour for transportation and shipping companies. There is, of course, a great deal of necessary and essential labour that must be performed in Canada. We are dependent for our food, our raiment, and our shelter, and need a tremendous number of men, whose services will be required for 'the production of articles required for consumption in Canada alone. Notwithstanding that, there are so many industries in Canada to-day that are producing what at any time we would call luxuries, in addition to the men whom I mentioned earlier in my address, that I have no doubt the classes enumerated 'in the first four section of this Bill will readily yield all the men that are necessary, and more, within the present year at all events, for military purposes, and that the different industries which are essential to the proper carrying on of the war may all likewise be supplied.
Now a word in regard to the amendment moved by my right hon. leader (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) upon the question of a referendum. Upon this point I cannot agree with the view taken by my leader. I have never been favourable to the principle of referendum. I think it is antagonistic to our ideas of responsible Government. We are elected to this House by our electors to pass necessary legislation, to adopt necessary measures, according to the judgment and ability which we have, and if we make mistakes, if we blunder, if we do wrong, our responsibility is directly to our electors, who can



turn us out at the first ensuing general election.
If you adopt the principle of a referendum, you are going to find the Government of Canada in this position: that upon every difficult question the Government will adopt the referendum if, for no other purpose than to avoid any conflict of opinion in regard to itself. Our system is, and has always been, founded upon the doctrine of responsibility. The Government is responsible to Parliament and the people; and members of Parliament are responsible to the people, and if the people desire a change they have a right to make it. While it is said the system of referendum and of initiative and recall are more or less favoured, particularly in the Western States, and to 6ome extent in the western provinces of Canada, I believe the constitutional method of dealing with the question is for Parliament to decide it, and the people then have the right to review our work at each general election. My right hon. leader took that course on more than one occasion, notably in 1911, on the reciprocity issue. He might have had a referendum on that r question and continued to hold power, but I submit that would not have been'constitutional and not good British parliamentary practice in that case, nor would it be good practice at the present time. I remember also', when the Navy debate took place in the House, in 1910, the question of referendum was brought up once more. My right hon. leader might have sheltered himself under the referendum, instead of allowing himself to be involved upon this question in the election of 1911. But he took the course a statesman would take, and said, "No, when the time comes we will appeal to the people," and he did appeal to the people, and on that and other issues, was defeated. The Government takes its own course in these matters, and if blunders or mistakes are made, the Government is responsible to the people. For that broad reason, I do not favour a referendum.
Then, again, I think, upon this question a referendum is entirely unnecessary. In my view of the matter, the first duty of the people, and the first duty of Parliament, is to defend their country. That is a natural duty, a natural right, one that we are bound to assume and perform. If we take our oath of loyalty, we assume that obligation. We require no mandate for the performance of a paramount duty.
Another objection is that, instead of threshing the question out in this House-

and it is a difficult question-we would transfer the contest to the platforms of this country, where it would be a more difficult question and might cause very serious disturbance. There is no reason for referring it for decision to the electors. Why not, in a manly way, settle it ourselves? I believe also that it is not possible at the present time to have a fair referendum. I would never consent under any conditions to have a referendum which did not include the men who have volunteered and gone abroad in the 'Service of the country. If my memory serves me, the total vote in the election of 1911 was about 1,200,000. When you consider that something over 400,000 have enlisted, that means that 33 per cent of your electorate is out of Canada. How are you going to take the vote of these men r It cannot be taken. When the Soldiers* Bill was introduced by the present Government I was suffering from illness and was not in the House, but I thought if ever a Government went the extreme length in trying to poll the soldier vote, it was the present Government. I did not believe at the time that the Government was serious, nor that they would poll that vote if they could. But apart from that, is it possible to take the soldiers vote, are-you going to poll the vote of the men in France? Are you going to cease firing and pass the ballot boxes around? You must remember there are 136,000 loyal Canadians at the firing line. How are you going to take the soldiers' vote in England, where we -have 28,000 troops at present, probably-on their way to the front, and 80,000 intraining, the balance being in hospitals and convalescent homes. Do you think that vote could be polled? What have you on this side of the water? You have a population which says, "We will not enlist." Do hon. gentlemen think that men who will not enlist will support a compulsion on referendum? The proposition would be defeated. The -men who did not want to go to defend their country would vote -against it. I do not think that would be a fair vote. I believe, if any one is entitled- to vote on this question, it is the men who are overseas, and I see no way of fairly taking their votes without a tremendous expenditure of time, if it be possible to take it at -all, I believe that is one-fundamental reason for opposing a referendum upon this question. Never would I consent to have a -slacker at home vote,, and a man at the front be deprived of his, vote.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Hugh Guthrie: However, the difficulty can be overcome in another way. If you allow this Bill to pass without a referendum, you may consult the people afterwards, when the boys come home. You may then get some fair expression of opinion on the question, which I do not believe you can ever obtain until the war is over, and the boys return. A referendum to my mind would leave the decision of one of the most vital questions which has arisen in Canada to the very people who have neglected to volunteer, and to the parents of those who are so timid as not to permit their sons, who would otherwise volunteer, to enlist for service. I will never consent to have the question submitted to such an electorate.
These are, substantially, my reasons for opposing the amendment moved by my right hon. friend, and leader. He has referred to another question, which I will discuss very, very briefly; that is that this Parliament is in the nature of a moribund Parliament, or, as he described it,, a rump Parliament, his contention being that, on that ground, this House should not deal with it.
I do not take that view of the matter. My view is that this Parliament is in every respect legally constituted. I do not think that I am telling any secrets or betraying any confidences when I say that in February, 1916, I was about the only man on this side of the House, except some members from the province of Quebec, who were opposed to the first extension of the term of Parliament. I thought that there should be no extension. I pointed out then to my friends: if you grant extension this year, what are you going to do next year, when the war may be more serious than ever? Last year we on this side of the House committed ourselves unanimously to the granting of an extension. Both Houses of Parliament agreed to the extension and the British Government, as our supreme authority, amended the British North America Act so as to extend the life of Parliament for one year. That extension was strictly constitutional; it did not limit our authority in any way. If anything, it was an enabling Act, to enable us to carry on our national affairs. It could not and did not restrict our rights; every Act that we could legally pass a year ago we can just as legally pass to-day. The Parliament of Canada sitting here to-day is legally constituted for all purposes and
157S
can deal with full power and authority with the Military Service Bill or with any other Bill which may be brought before it. The question is as to the wisdom or the propriety of any course that is proposed and not as to our constitutional right to pass this, that, or 'the other Bill.
. I have noticed in the newspapers during this month the reports of many of the church congresses of Canada which usually meet in the month of June. I have read the report of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church in Canada, representative of that church from the Atlantic to the Pacific. I have read the reports of the Methodist Conferences held in various parts of the Dominion; of the annual meetings of the Baptist church, and of various meetings of the Anglican Synods. - Speaking generally, each of those church courts has passed almost unanimously motions in support of the present Military Service Bill. In some cases they have added that which I believe to be exceedingly important, namely, that wealth and other resources should likewise be conscripted; but in no>
case have I seen anything like a proposal for a referendum or a general election. The Minister of Public Works (Hon. Robert Rogers) in the month of June, 1915, put his ear to the ground and heard murrnur-ings and rumblings, which gradually increased to tones of thunder, and he told us that the people demanded an immediate election. I may tell the hon. gentleman that if he puts his ear to the ground now he will still hear murmurings and rumblings, growing louder and louder until they become like tones of thunder. They ask, however, not for a general election, Ibut that we have no general election at the present time. A referendum on this question would' be the equivalent to a general election, and to that I am opposed.
It is asked, is there any demand for a Conscription Bill of this kind? Apart from the church courts, the municipal bodies, and the boards of trade that have passed on the question, I do not know that there is any general demand among the people on the subject. We have read reports of meetings at Toronto and elsewhere, at which resolutions endorsing the principle of this Bill have 'been adopted, but I do not know that among the people themselves there has been any general demand for such legislation; in fact, I am inclined to believe that the demand has been the other way. I havq received only a few letters on the subject, and none of them have been decided in

their expressions of opinion, and none of them have been signed. I think that there are a good many people who do not want to show their hands in regard to conscription. My suggestion would be that if we are to have a referendum on it,.the people should vote as we vote in this Parliament, by standing up, or showing their hands. I would favour the old open vote, in order that we may know just where the people stand with regard to the referendum. I have not received any petitions against the proposal except the one directed to me by the Trades and Labour Council. But there certainly is an urgent call for men. Every man on this side of the House knows it; every man on the other side knows it. The question is, how are we 'going, to get them? So far, nobody has told us; nobody has suggested how we shall get the necessary men-that is, aside from the adoption of this Bill or the enforcement of the Militia Act. I thought, perhaps, my right hon. friend and leader might make some suggestion, but he did not. Perhaps as the debate goes on some suggestion may come from somebody, but personally I see no way of getting more men unless we adopt some compulsory system.
There is a clause in the proposed measure which .provides that the legislation shall come into force upon the proclamation of the Governor General in Council. Whether that is a wise proposal I do not know. I would prefer that .a definite date be fixed, *say two or three months hence, rather than that the coming into force of the Act should be left altogether to the whim of the Government. If a date two or three months hence were fixed and the Bill were passed the result might have a good effect upon recruiting. There is no doubt that after the Prime Minister made his first statement in the House with regard to conscription, a larger number of recruits presented themselves at the various recruiting offices than had been the case for some time previously. I am sorry to say that the results of the presentation of recruits was not in all cases very satisfactory. In one case where 29 men presented themselves .two days after the speech delivered by the Prime Minister the local board who examined them rejected 23 as medically unfit and accepted 6. Another board in another city passed upon the same 29 men on the following day and reversed the figures, accepting 23 and rejecting 6. The Prime Minister must safeguard this Bill in that respect. Local influences may and will be used; I am strongly opposed to the appointment of anything like local

boards. It will not cost much to establish boards here and there in different places throughout the Dominion and move them from time to time so there may be no chance of partiality in their decisions. That is my only reason for mentioning this matter.
But, as I have said, the call throughout Canada and the world is for men. The call comes from every quarter; it comes from the men in the trenches and in the hospitals, from the returned soldiers and perhaps also from the dead. There is no doubt that the people of Canada are under the most solemn pledge that men or women could give to support the men who have gone into the trenches; we cannot avoid that responsibility whatever else we may avoid. I shall place on the records of this House a poem of noble thought and sublime inspiration which tells of that call from the dead. A young man, a school friend of mine, Jack McCrea, of Guelph, now as Captain John McCrea, serving at the front with a detachment from McGill University, is the author of this now celebrated poem. It was first published in Punch in London and was afterwards copied in many British, American and Canadian newspapers. One paper said it was perhaps as pure a bit of poetry as had ever been written in the English language. Another paper said that there was more direct appeal in the few lines than there would be in a volume of large dimensions. These lines, I believe, should be in every school-book in. this country, and I read them that they may be printed in Hansard:
In Flanders' Fields.
In Flanders fields the poppies blow Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place, and in the sky The larks still bravely singing-, fly, Scarce heard amidst the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow, Loved and were loved, and now we lie In Flanders' fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe,
To you from falling hands we throw The torch,-be yours to hold it high ;
If ye break faith with us who die,
We shall not sleep though poppies grow In Flanders' fields.
Surely, in those beautiful words, there is an appeal from the dead. There is a condition which we must meet soon, or it will not be very long before Canada is unrepresented at the front. I have my own ideas on this matter, and I am going to conclude by stating them.
Perhaps I stand by myself on this question, but for a long time I have been and

still am in favour of co-operation between the parties in this House, not only at the present moment, but as long as the war lasts. I favour coalition; I favour an extension of the term of Parliament, and I favour this Bill. I do not believe this Bill will be successfully put in force by a single political party; I fear it will not. We are all agreed that we must have men. I have read very carefully the correspondence which has passed between the Prime Minister and my right hon. friend and leader on the question of a coalition Government. To the ordinary mind, no insurmountable objection was presented in the correspondence, nothing that a little compromise could not overcome. We have certain facts before us, and we are all agreed on them. On the one hand we have on the statute book now a Militia Act which can be enforced at any time and which is more stringent in its terms than the present Military Service Bill. On the other hand, we have the Military Service Bill providing for conscription on the principle of selection. If I read the correspondence aright, the leaders of the parties in this House could not come together on the single question of conscription. As I have said, I do not consider that an insurmountable objection; I believe if the two leaders really intended to agree, they could agree upon this question. There must be some give and take, some compromise in such a matter. Why not have a consolidation of the two Bills, leaving the Canada Militia Act practically as it stands, but adding to it the selective clauses of the present measure? Conscrip-tive legislation is on the statute book now; we are neither introducing nor passing it. It is there and has been since 1868. The selective clauses are new. I am quite satisfied that the Prime Minister has no thirst to hold on to power, and I am just as confident that on the part of my right hon. friend and leader that he has no keen desire to attain power. I believe both leaders are both absolutely sincere, but something which I think could be and should be overcome, stands between them. What an example it would be to the whole of this country if the two great political parties came together and settled their differences. I do not mean past disputes; I do not mean questions of the management or mismanagement of the war in the past three years; I mean that only from this time forward. If an agreement could be reached on the main question and nothing taken up save
measures which pertain to the war, it would be a happy day for Canada. Then after the war, we can fight out our differences.
I cannot approve the suggestion of the Prime Minister, as set out in the correspondence, that a coalition should be formed; that this Bill should be passed, and then that an appeal be made to the people for a mandate. What we want to avoid is a general election, not to bring one on, what we should do is to come together and have the term of Parliament extended and carry this war to a successful conclusion, and then if the people condemn us, let them condemn us and turn us out. So long as we have done our duty, we need not fear. The time is not too late for the leaders to come together. This matter is so serious that I can scarcely put my thoughts into language. I know that in every corner of Canada the people would approve it if our leaders came together. This Bill, if it is passed, is going to get us nowhere; no one party will be able to enforce it successfully; it will cause strife and discord in many parts of Canada. Perhaps if some of those less prominent members on either side of the House were to take up the matter of coalition it might not be a bad thing. I believe that all the brains of this House of Commons are not to be found on the front benches of either party. Perhaps if a few of us back-benchers could sit down for half an hour or an hour, we might work out something feasible which our leaders might accept, but I most sincerely ask that negotiations be not concluded at the present time and that another effort may be made to secure coalition. I know there has in the past been a great deal said, particularly in the newspapers, which is hard to overlook; that insult has been heaped upon insult by the press of both parties. These things sting and smart; but when we are face to face with a fight to a finish, with a world conflict, when my leader's sentiments are that Canada is in this war "to the last ditch" and, some years ago "to the last man and the last dollar," and when these are also the sentiments of the Prime Minister, surely these worthy gentlemen can come together on this question, upon some ground acceptable to all Canadians.
If not, could not a committee be got together which might perform some useful services? There need be no quarrel over names In any coalition government; put it on the basis of the members of His Majesty's Privy Council in Canada. There are plenty

o;f able men of the Privy Council in this House well qualified for .office. Let them get together and set about to win the war. When the war is won let us have a general election, and if the people do not approve the arrangement they can turn it out of power. That is my suggestion, and I make it as seripusly as ever I spoke in my life.
Hon. EODOLPiHE LEMIEUX (Eouville): Mr. Speaker, first of all may I be allowed to congratulate my hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) upon the very eloquent address which he has just delivered. It is the glorious privilege of Liberalism not merely to differ from Conservatism, but to be at times individualistic to the point bf differing with its own friends. Although I admire the general form and tenor of my hon. friend's remarks, with many of his statements I am bound to take issue.
In discussing this question I intend to be moderate as usual, but to be firm also, because I believe this is the most complex problem that has ever been approached by the Canadian House of 'Commons since Confederation. Although it is distasteful in -debates where there is such a sharp cleavage of opinion to have to produce a loyalty passport, I wish to say once for all that in taking the stand I intend to take on this Bill, I yield to no one in my loyalty to His Majesty the King. The hon. member for South Wellington spoke a moment ago of the oath of allegiance which the members of this House have taken, and of the danger . to unity if this measure were brought direct before the people in the shape of a referendum. Let me remind my hon. friend that there is at the antipodes another British *dominion called Australia, which is just as loyal and law-abiding as is Canada. In Australia a referendum was taken on this very question, and I think a greater service was rendered to the Empire in that, way than if Mr. Hughes, Prime Minister of Australia, had forced his conscription measure on an unwilling electorate.. Need I say that all of us, whether we are of the Conservative or of the Liberal party, whether we belong to the great province of Ontario or to- the old province oJf Quebec, whether we are from the East or from the West, are united on the question of winning the war. We all . are anxious to win the war, and win it as speedily as possible. In the year 1914 a pledge was given on behalf of Great Britain, by That great British statesman, the Hon. Herbert Asquith, then Prime Minister, in which, defining the issues before the British people, he used the following language:
IMr. Guthrie.]
If I am asked what we are fighting for I can reply in two sentences. In the first place to fulfill a solemn international obligation,- an obligation which if it had been entered into between private persons in the ordinary concerns of life would have been regarded as an obligation not only of law but of honour which no self-respecting man could possibly have repudiated. I say secondly, we are fighting to vindicate the principle which in these days when material force sometimes seems to be the dominating influence and factor in the development of mankind, that small nationalities are not to be crushed in defiance of international good-faith by the arbitrary will of a strong and overmastering power.
The reasons Mr. Asquith gave at the beginning of the war why Great Britain came into this stupendous struggle hold good to-day, and the Canadian people, whether they belong to the French-speaking or English-speaking nationalities, stand and abide by those lofty principles. Canada sided cheerfully with Great Britain and the Allies, and I maintain that all the war measures that have been presented by the Government since August, 1914, have received practically the unanimous consent of the House. It was furthermore stated oveT and over again that in all these matters we would act constitutionally, that our aid to Great1 Britain and the Empire would and should be voluntary; and our aid has been voluntary. .
Let me tell my hon. friend from South Wellington that I personally have as much at stake in this war as he has. I am one of those who have given up an only son to fight the battle of liberty. At the age of 18 he left the University classroom to fight for his King and country, but he went with unfaltering steps to fight as a volunteer, not as conscript; the two things are quite different. Perhaps it is because I have French blood in my veins, but I make quite a distinction between voluntarily offering to fight and fighting under compulsion. That is the essential difference between my hon. friend and myself, and it is quite a difference, I am free to admit. If the cause is great and noble, let us concede at once like men and patriots that Canada has done wonderfully well since the beginning of the war. She has done as nobly as any country of her size and population could have done under similar circumstances. A few comparisons, actual and historical as well, may be useful. The effort of Canada in this war is not to be compared with that of Great Britain or France as regards numbers, because you cannot apply the law of averages as between a country with a population of 7,000,000 and countries with a population running from 35,000,000 to 50,-

000,000. We have heard about compulsory-service being adopted by the United States of America, and of the armies which that country is going to levy in this war. Have you ever thought, Mr. Speaker, of applying the law of averages as between the effort of Canada and the effort which the United States of America are going to make? I do not think our population at the present time amounts to 8,000,000, but placing it at that figure, and the population of the United States at 112,000,000, which are the latest figures I have seen in the American press, I find that Canadian troops are equivalent to American troops in the following proportions, according to population:
Canadian troops.
American troops.
80,000] 160,000 (
320.000	f
400.000
Equal to
1,120,000
2.240.000 ' 4,480,000
5.600.000
Sir, I am not afraid to compare the potential effort of the United States and that of Canada. Let me give the evidence of a gentleman whom we know well, the ex-Presi-deni of the United States, Mr. Taft, who spends his summers at Murray Bay, in the province of Quebec, and he is none the worse for that. Mr. Taft, speaking the other day at the National Conference of Charities and Corrections on the subject of " International Adjustment After the War,"
declared that:-
The United States would have to put billions of money and millions of men into the struggle.
Mr. Taft paid a splendid tribute to the patriotism of the British colonies.
Canada alone has sent about 400,000 to Europe out of a population of not more than
7.000.	000. If we are to do our part in the same proportion we must send not less than
6.000.	000 to the front.
That is the true test as between what has been done by Canada and what shpuld be done by the United States of America.
But let me pass from actual to historical comparisons. If I had time I could, by quoting history, memoirs and statistics, establish that Napoleon Bonaparte, in France, during the First Republic, during the First Empire, and until after Waterloo, never used, under the power of conscription, more than four per cent of the available population of France, while we in Canada, with less than 8,000,000 people, have raised through the voluntary system more than five per cent of the total population. With reference to the conscription system under Napoleon, let me remind you
that in 1800 the population of the French Republic was 33,111,000. During the Consulate 210,000 men only were raised in France from 1800 to 1803. During the most successful years of the.First Empire, under Napoleon Bonaparte, from 1804 to 1809, there were 746,000 men raised by conscription out of a population of nearly 35,000,000. During that period we know that, unfortunately, the most sanguinary battles were fought- Montebello, M.arengo, Hohenlinden, Elchin-gen, Austerlitz, Saalfeld, Jena, Auerstadt, Eylau, Friedland, Abensberg, Eckmuhl, Essling, and Wagram. And these cam-paignss Marengo, Ulm, Jena, Peninsula, and Wagram.
From 1808 to 1812, during the decline of the Empire, through conscription, 517,000 soldiers were levied in France. In 9 p.m. 1812 the population of France was 45,700,000, making the percentage of the population, serving under conscription one and one-quarter per cent during the three-year period. Under those circumstances, and in view of the comparisons I have given, may I not say that the effort of Canada has been noble, generous, ample, and that before adding through conscription to the numbers she has already sent to the front, it is only just and fair that we should at least pause and consult the people.
I listened with gTeat attention to the very eloquent speech delivered by my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) yesterday and also to the speech of	my	hon.	friend	from	SouthWellington (Mr. Guthrie) this afternoon on the interpretation to be given to these words contained in section 69 of the Militia Act "beyond Canada" and "for the defence thereof." Let me read the section, because I believe	my	hon.	friend	from	South
Wellington was in error when he argued that the principal change at the time of the revision of the Militia Act in 1904 was made in section 71. There were three chief modifications of the Militia Act as brought down by the late Sir Frederick Borden in 1904. The first was one concerning the commanding officer of the Canadian militia. Until the year 1904 the command of the militia had to be given to a British officer, whilst since 1904 the command can be given to a Canadian military officer. The other change has regard to the raising of the militia of Canada in times of emergency to be sent without the country. The change made in that clause consists in the addition of the words "for the defence thereof." Let me read that section-

The Governor in Council may place the militia, or any part thereof, on active service anywhere in Canada, and also beyond Canada, for the defence thereof-
These words were added. They were not in the old statute. They were added for a reason which I shall explain in a moment.
-for the defence thereof, at any time when it appears advisable so to do by reason of emergency.
The third modification was made 'by section 71, and it has reference to the calling of Parliament. It reads as followsi;
Whenever the Governor in Council places the militia, or any part (hereof, on active service, if Parliament is then separated hy such adjournment or prorogation as will not expire within ten days, a proclamation shall he issued for the meeting of Parliament within fifteen days, and Parliament shall accordingly meet and sit upon the day appointed by such proclamation, and shall continue to sit and act in like manner as if it had stood adjourned or prorogued to the same day.
Nobody takes exception to that very wise clause having been inserted in the Militia Act. It is not in question, at all events. The only point at issue is whether or not we sho,uld give to section 69 of the Militia Act the interpretation which was given yesterday by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the hon. member for South Wellington. Before the enactment of section 69, there was nothing in the Canadian statute which indicated clearly whether Canada, or the Parliament of Canada, had the right to send troops abroad for the defence of Canada or for the defence of the Empire, if you please. The question was debated at considerable length during the session of 1904.
I .am rather surprised' that the right hon. the Minister of Trade and 'Commerce (Sir George Poster) and my friend for South Wellington. (Mr. Guthrie) should not have read over again the debate which took place on that occasion. They might have found enlightenment; they might have discovered that the words "for the defence thereof" were embalmed in that section in order to clear a situation which heretofore had been obscure. Let me refer to the father of the law itself, let me refer to the ipsissima verba of Sir Frederick Borden when explaining the clause which was numbered 77, I think, as the Bill was introduced. I quote from the debate:
Mr. W. A. Maclean: Am I to understand that clause 77, (now clause 69) limits the Canadian militia in their service outside of Canada to the defence of Canada?
Sir Frederick Borden: Tes.
Mr. Maclean:	Not for the defence of the
Empire ?
Sir Frederick Borden: No.
[Mr. I.emicux.j
Mr. Maclean:	Then the active militia of
Canada under this proposed Act could not be sent outside this country by the Government to take part in the defence of the Empire except under a special contract as in the case of the troops sent to South Africa?
Sir Frederick Borden: Tes.
Mr. Speaker, I could proceed and quote column after column of Hansard on the same subject.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: My hon. friend appears to have read! that debate. Does he not know that Sir Frederick Borden said over and over again that the change he proposed to make made no difference in the law as it then stood?


Rodolphe Lemieux: On the contrary, he said that he had consulted the Imperial authorities, that he had scanned the legislation of all the various provinces before Confederation, but that he found that in none of the statute-books was there a constitutional obligation for those provinces to send their soldiers outside of their own territory.


William Sora Middlebro: At the same time he also said that it made no change whatever in the law as it stood prior to that amendment.


Mr. E. LAPOINTE:: That is correct, he said that.


Rodolphe Lemieux: And what he said was true, as there was nothing in the statute before this amendment providing for the sending of our troops outside of our territory except for the defence of that very territory.


William Sora Middlebro: Why does my hon. friend base any argument on the change made in 1904?


Rodolphe Lemieux: He made the statute clearer. There were many people, as the debate will show, for instance my hon. friend's leader, the ex-Minister of Militia and Defencei(Sir Sam Hughes), the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean), and the late Mr. Gourley, who contended with very great vigour that of course we could send our troops to any part of the world the moment the Empire was at war. Sir Frederick Borden said:	No, you cannot
do that under our law, but because there is an impression that that may be done,
I shall make the law clear. I have consulted the authorities in London and they have agreed to that modification.


William Sora Middlebro: The Minister of Justice said, yes, they could.


Mr. HAZEN:: What did Sir Charles Fitzpatrick say on the subject?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have not his words here, but Sir Charles Fitzpatrick would not have said otherwise than did the statute, which is very clear. Besides, Sir Frederick Borden was very emphatic. Here are his words in answer to the late Mr. Barker who was playing the part of my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen), out-Heroding Herod:
The hon. gentleman has asked with an affectation ot much anxiety, what the world will think, and what the rest of the British Empire will think of Canada-though I have told him over and over again that upon the Statute-book of every colony of the British Empire is to be found precisely the same provision as he is now criticising. And. Sir, upon the Statute-book of the Mother -Country herself, the hon. gentleman will find this section 12, part 3 (presumably of the Army Act) "any part of the militia shall be liable to serve in any part of the United Kingdom; but no part of the militia shall be carried or ordered to go out of the United Kingdom."
So that in every British colony, in every province before Confederation, even in the Mother Cbumtry, militia troops could not be dispatched outside of the territory except for the defence of the territory itself. That case is made abundantly clear. And, Mr. Speaker, why should we be discussing this point? Has not the Prime Minister himself, as was made so evident yesterday by the dispatch Tead by the right hon. leader of the Opposition, admitted the force of the view taken by Sir Frederick Borden as he introduced that legislation in 1904? He said through the Governor General to the home Government that Canada contemplated aiding the Mother Country in that great struggle, but that, unfortunately, they were handicapped as to their right to dispatch troops outside of our own territory. As a result, Sir, an Order in Council was passed at the request of this Government by the Imperial authorities incorporating our troops into the Imperial army. This fact is unchallenged, and I do not see the object of discussing whether or not constitutionally we have a right to send our men outside of Canada except for the defence of our own country. I do not say that Canada will not, I do not say that Canada may not, but that Canada must, makes in my opinion, all the difference in the world.
Sir, on this grave issue I stand upon the bedrock of our constitution, and I claim that England has accepted the Canadian contention that there is no constitutional obligation upon us to take part in wars outside of Canada, except for the defence of our territory. I am proud to say that we
have taken part in this stupendous struggle for liberty, but it is on the principle of the voluntary system, and it is on that principle that I, as a Canadian, desire that Canada shall continue to the end to be with the Allies. I may say at once to the father confessor of the Tory party, my good friend, the Solicitor General, that I am opposed to compulsory service, and I do not understand his anxiety in asking every member on this side of the House to state whether he will support conscription or be against it, if a referendum be submitted. I say to him that conscription for Canada is the Milner system-the autocratic system.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Every man in this free British country has a right to his own opinions, and has as much right to be against the compulsory system as has the Quaker, the Mennonite, aye, as much right to his opinion as Sir John Simon, Mr. John Mor-ley. No one either will question my hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) the right to his opinion in favour of the compulsory system.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am opposed to compulsory service, and why? We have entered this war on the principle of voluntary service, and the pledge of the Government to that effect is positive, direct and binding. The honour of Canada, the honour of the Government are at stake. The Prime Minister and his colleagues, from the highest to the humblest, have repeated, from one end of the country to the other, the statement that there would be no conscription in Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Rodolphe Lemieux: They have repeated it
in public meetings, on every platform; they have repeated it here time and again before the assembled Parliament. I need not quote the pledges of the Prime Minister, as he will not deny them. Shall I say, Sir, that when the National Service cards were issued, the Prime Minister authorized some of his colleagues to declare that the people might sign those cards as they did not mean compulsory service. I say to him that he has authorized some of his colleagues to make that declaration to the Archbishop of Montreal, who issued a letter, inviting the faithful of Montreal to sign the National Service cards, because, he had the assurance .that they did not mean compulsory service. He distinctly accepted

the pledge and the word of honour of the Government that there would be no compulsory service. In what position to-day is that dignitary of the Church?


Mr. MURPHY:: Hear, hear.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend, the
Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Sevigny) stated in the county of Dorchester, to his electors a few weeks ago, that there would be no conscription. The members of Parliament who took pairt in that contest heard his statement. He was elected on the strength of that pledge, and the paper which speaks for the Conservative party in Quebec, L'Evenement, the organ of my hon. friend (Mr. Sevigny) stated most positively that there would be no conscription. Let me translate one of the last articles published by that paper before polling day. I forget the date, but the words are as follows:
The heading of the article is:
"Un tiens vaut mieux que deux tu l'auras."
The only translation I can make of that old adage is: "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." The article proceeds:
The electors of Dorchester are now well notified. They know that they will never have conscription from the Conservative party. They do not know what they will have from a Liberal government, the party of conscription.
And, Sir, on the 26th January, 1917, whilst that election was raging, the following article appeared in that same paper:
If the Borden Government had been In favour of conscription, conscription would have been decreed, but the Government have declared that they will not have conscription, that they do not desire to have it, as they can organize up the defence of Canada without having recourse to conscription. If the electors of Dorchester were to elect a Liberal member, and that conscription would come afterwards, they then could not complain, they would have been notified. They know what they will have from a Conservative government. They do not know what they will have from a Liberal government. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. That is the wisdom of the nation which thus speaketh.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Rodolphe Lemieux: So that, Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister, his colleagues And the latest addition in the Cabinet, my h.o-n. friend the Minister of Inland Revenue and his organ in Quebec, all pledged the honour of the Government that there would be no conscription through the Tory party, but on the contrary they announced that conscription would come through the Liberal party. Mr. Speaker, that is not all. I
[Mr. Lemieux.l
could read many other speeches which have been delivered by members of that party. This is however too serious a question to revel in personalities. What I want to convey to the House is this: since the war has commenced I have addressed meeting after meeting in the province of Quebec, in the district of Montreal, and in the province o! Ontario. I have addressed at least a dozen meetings with the right hon. the leader of the Opposition, appealing to our fellow countrymen in the great cause for which we are fighting at the present time, and I am surprised to hear the very ungenerous reflection which has been cast on the attitude of the right hon. gentleman since the beginning of the war.


Charles Murphy: Surprised?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I appeal to my hon.
friend the Minister of Justice, because at least I should expect justice from him. Is it not a fact that the right hon. gentleman has, from the very inception of the war, on many, many occasions addressed his fellow countrymen in the province of Quebec, in order to stimulate their zeal in the great cause that we are fighting for to-day? I know that my hoin. friend cannot deny this assertion. I, personally, addressed meeting after meeting in my riding of Rouville, in the district of Montreal, in the province of Quebec generally, in Ontario and also in the Eastern Townships. On every occasion, basing my statements on the pledges given by the Government, I told my electors and my fellow-countrymen that the aid which Canada was giving to the Mother Country was purely voluntary; that the people of Canada would never be required to serve the Mother Country under compulsion. Sir, if to-day I were to support a measure of compulsory service I should be a deceiver of my fellow-men. I and my friends around me are not afraid to swim against the current. We are quite ready to. take an unpopular stand for the sake of a princi-unpopular stand for the sake of a principle. We did this in 1909, in 1910 and in 1911.


Mr. SEVIGNY:: Does my hon. friend say" that the course which he is now taking is unpopular in the province of Quebec?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not say that, but I do say that public opinion in the province of Quebec is a respectable and above all a constitutional opinion. Since my hon. friend interrupts me, let me quote for his benefit what the Manchester Guardian said on this very question a few days ago. My hon. friend knows that the Manchester Guardian is the

leading organ of radical opinion in Great Britain; in my humble judgment, it is the most honest and most respectable of all the papers published in Great Britain. I can safely say this, as Lord Northcliffe has not yet reached Ottawa. The Manchester Guardian said:
A year ago conscription fbr Canada was agreed to be impossible. Various things have combined to remove some of the difficulties, but grave obstacles still stand in the way. When the National Service scheme was first launched, its director said conscription might lead to civil war.
A well informed paper!
That so soon afterwards it should be' in fact proposed shows the striking effect on Canadian opinion of the entry of the United States into the war. Two courses are open to Sir Robert Borden-either to utilize the Militia Act to secure a large extension of the home forces-thus releasing other men for the front

or to put the issue of compulsion direct before the people. The latter method was adopted by Australia and though that Government failed of their aim, it is so clearly the more honest procedure that the Canadian Government is not likely to incur the odium of foregoing it.
May I not say to the Minister of Inland Revenue that after all the province of Quebec is not in such bad company when in the old country it finds such a supporter as the editor of the Manchester Guardian? It is true, Sir, that the larger proportion of the people of Quebec province are against compulsory service. But how does that happen? The leader of the Opposition gave a little bit of history yesterday; let me also refresh the memory of my hon. friend. He evidently forgets how that public opinion was nurtured in his native province, how it was hammered at meeting after meeting, through resolution after resolution, on platform after platform, by the very men who surround him, and of whom he was one of the leaders. My hon. friend has had the courage to. confess that he was wrong. He was wrong, he says, because he was young-he was only thirty. I accept my hon. friend's admission that he was young at thirty and that he was wrong because he was so young! But what can we expect from him when, at fifty, he will have the illusion of being young, and will still Ibe making mistakes? In 1911 we had to swim against the current. My hon. friend will admit that; we stood like men by our guns.
Mr. 8EVIGNY:	You did it in a very
clever way.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend's cleverness is, of course, greater than mine, but I shall always prefer my own which, at least, is honest and logical, as compared
with his. My hon. friend in 1911 paraded from one end of the province to the other, holding in his youthful hands the banner of the Nationalist party, on which were emblazoned the principles of that party. What were those principles? I call the attention especially of the member for St., Antoine (Sir Herbert Ames) to the principles which he, above all others propagated in the Eastern Townships, in the counties of Northern Ontario and of Western Canada wherever there was a sprinkling of French Canadian electors to be seduced. These were the principles: First, no participation by Canada in Imperial wars outside her territory. Second, to spurn any attempt at recruiting for British troops. Third, to oppose the establishment in Canada of a naval school with the help and for the benefit of Imperial authorities. Fourth, control over our militia and our military colleges in time of war as in time of peace and for the defence of our territory exclusively. Fifth, refusal to grant leave of absence to any military officer in order that he may take part in any Imperial wars.


Charles Murphy: What was that second
one, again?


Rodolphe Lemieux: To spurn-the word is
so euphonic and does convey so much-any attempt at recruiting for British troops. My hon. friend propounded that principle in the province of Quebec, and the member for St. Antoine did more, he financed the Nationalist party to propagate it at that time. In 1911 I pledged my word of honour-and the right hon. leader of the Opposition and other Liberal members also pledged their word of honour-when bitterly and eloquently as-, sailed by the hon. gentleman and his friends, that under our naval policy there would be no conscription. About half the province of Quebec followed the lead of the Nationalist orators, and half

perhaps a little more-followed the lead of my right hon. friend. Events have proved since that the right hon. gentleman was right, and that the other gentlemen were neither right nor honest.
Sir, I repeat that, if to-day I were to support a measure of conscription, I would be a deceiver. I would rather relinquish my privileges as a member of this House, in which I have sat for now nearly 21 years, than he a deceiver of my electors, of my province and of the people of Canada.
I am opposed to this military Service Bill because, before conscription of manpower, the least the Government should do is to enact a Bill for conscription of the

*accumulated wealth in this country. There are shocking inequalities in the various taxation measures which have been voted by this House since the beginning of the war, and can we ignore the circumstance that the cost of living in this country is abnormally high to-day? The June report of the Department of Labour reveals the fact that the cost of living is still increasing. In C retail prices of food, the cost of the weekly food budget, including some 30 staple foods, of the average workingman's family, rose from $10.37 to $11.82 during the month of May. Of this increase of $1.45, one-third occurred in meats, one-third in bread and flour, and one-quarter in potatoes. Rice, beans and sugar also showed some increases: cheese was a little higher, but milk and butter declined, although only slightly, whereas the increase is usually substantial. And no relief is in sight for the consumer. The present Bill is all risks for the poor and all immunities for the wealthy. It is said, and rightly so, that equality of protection carries with it equality of obligation of service. This is a fair principle. When the other day this measure was introduced by the Prime Minister, he said that he realized that the future of civilization and humanity was at stake and he added:
All citizens are entitled to equal protection ot the laws, and upon them is imposed an equal obligation. There can he no national unity unless this principle is accepted. I cannot bring- myself to believe that any class or community will expect to assert for itself the right or the power to defy the law, and to set up for itself different standards from those which are applied to the people as a whole.
This is a fine doctrine, preached by the Prime Minister, but does it apply merely to man-power? Cannot accumulated wealth he called into the service of the nation? There is as much obligation on the well-to-do people of this country to give service to the Crown and to the country in this emergency as there is obligation of service on the part of the man on the street. By this Conscription Bill you confiscate the liberty of the subject, and yet by ignoring the accumulated wealth of the country, you release that wealth from the obligation it owes to the country in which it has been made. Not only does the Government, in this drastic measure, ignore in a friendly way the accumulated wealth of the country, but the Government, in the course of this session and of the preceding session, have practically created in Canada" on account of the war, what I will call a bonded aristocracy. The Minister of Finance, an able man-I agree with my TMr. Lemieux.]
hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie)-yes, he is an able man to tax the poor, Ibut a very unable man to tax the wealthy to their due proportion. He was forced to borrow money from the United States, the country with which a few years ago he would not truck nor trade. Finding, however, the financial market of the United States a little stiff, he came back to Canada and borrowed millions and hundreds of millions of dollars from the Canadian people. I am told that the great financial institutions, the large investors, the millionaires, have exchanged their securities for Canadian bonds, and for what reason? Because under the legislation passed by this Government, through this eminently able Minister of Finance, those bonds are exempt from all taxation, and thus of the remaining wealth little will be left to develop the resources of this country after the war. The Minister of Finance will have to come yet to an income tax, but the clippings will be very few on the coupons of the wealthy, as they will have been exchanged for war bonds of the Canadian Government. Again, I say that before enacting a law for the conscription of -manpower, it is the duty of the Government to first enact a law for the conscription of accumulated wealth in Canada. If Brown, or Jones, or Smith must be conscripted as regards his blood, the least we can expect is that the plutocrats and-the war profiteers should be conscripted as regards their accumulated wealth. I may be told by my hon. friends opposite that this is the language of a demagogue. I am no demagogue. My hon. friend (Sir Herbert Ames) nods his head as much as to say that I am a demagogue. I will give him the opinion of a Toronto paper, edited by a good Tory editor, a financial authority from Toronto, but with a conscience. This is from the Financial Post:-
Not only are the taxless Government bonds likely to create a new aristocracy who will take their revenue from the nation and pay no share of it themselves, hut, if other bonds and stocks are subject to heavy taxation, there will be direct discouragement to the upbuilding of that productive capacity so necessary to create the required national wealth. To-day there is a movement on the part of the millionaires-
The Ames, Holden and cithers.
-to take their funds out of Investments where they have a productive capacity and put them into Government issues where, for their lifetime they will be free from taxation.
Their action may be due to patriotism ; but if so they should be willing to subscribe and still pay their share of future tax burdens which it may -be necessary for the country to Impose. To prevent the sinking away in this

[DOT]2471
manner of immense blocks of wealth upon which the country may have no future call, provision should be made now that tax immunity apply only to holders of reasonable amounts of Government bonds, say up to $100,000.
The editor of the Financial Post is very modest; he is going to give them some leeway to the extent of $100,000.1 thought there were no demagogues in the good sanctimonious Tory jingo party in Toronto. Sir, if it is the act of a demagogue to preach equality of taxation I confess I am in good company, with Adam Smith and Mr. Thiers, the greatest statesman, indeed the liberator of France after the Franco-Prussian war. Has the Government done anything to equalize taxation in this country since the war began. They started by adding 7 per cent to the general tariff, and by cutting away the British preference; that is what this party of super-loyalists did. Since then they have taxed a little here and a little there, but have never come whole-heartedly to the rescue of the poor consumer. I repeat that the issue to-day is not conscription of blood, and I call the attention of my hon. friend from St Antoine particularly to this-


Sir HERBERT AMES:: Do you want to know what I think? I think that instead of wasting our time here we should send men to the front. Now call on me again.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend is very anxious to send other men to the front. Will he finance them as he financed the Nationalist party in 1911? Notwithstanding the assumed superiority of my hon. friend, I repeat that the issue before Canada to-day is not conscription of blood but the control of foodstuffs. Let us see what other countries have done as compared with Canada. It was only this afternoon that we heard of the appointment of a food controller in this country. The United States on the very first day of entering the war appointed Mr. Hoover as food controller. Great Britain in the very first year of the war established one fixed maximum price for foodstuffs, decided what unnecessary imports should be debarred to make room for essentials, established the eight hour day, a minimum wage, and equal pay for women workers; took control of all railroads on the basis of 1914 profits, also mines and other industries, prohibited landlords from raising rents, increased wages i,n proportion to the increased cost of living, confiscated exorbitant profits, established meatless days, forbade the making
of fancy bread and pastry, jailed war profiteers and grafters. France established a moratorium for rents and mortages, fixed a maximum price for foodstuffs, established a minimum wage and an eight-hour work day, bought flour abroad and sold it to bakers at cost price, encouraged production by all possible means, took control of all industries, mines and railways, requisitioned all necessary war material and supplies, paying for them in Government bonds, established meatless days, forbade the making of fancy bread and pastry, confiscated exorbitant profits, jailed war profiteers and grafters.
The United States are following the same course. It was only to-day, think of it. after three years of war, that Canada appointed a food controller and only yesterday a fuel controller. In Canada, the great wheat-producing country of. the world, we aTe paying 12 cents a pound for bread; France is paying 4 cents and England 5 cents a pound for bread made of wheat imported from Canada. That is where Canada stands after three years of war as compared with France, Great Britain and the United States. Yes, the duty, the pressing duty of the hour, is not the conscription of blood but the relief of the consumer, the control of food and the fixing of maximum prices.


Mr. NICKLE:: Do I understand (the hon. gentleman to say that he considers that regulation of food prices should take priority over sending reinforcements to the thir lines of the Canadians in Flanders?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I put the case clearly
-something which the Minister of Labour never does. I repeat to my hon. friend that the pressing duty of Canada at the present day and hour is not the conscription of blood for election purposes, but the control of fpod. '


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Shame.
Mr.- LEMIEUX:	So far from being
ashamed I repeat that at the present moment, when 400,000 men have been recruited under the voluntary system, when [DOT]farms are being depleted-the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario stated only the other day that there was npt one man available to every 100 acres of arable land in that province-when the cost of living is going sky high, the duty of Canada is not to conscript blood but to conscript wealth and to pr.otect the consumer of this country.


Herbert Brown Ames: What do you
propose to do for the men at the front?


Rodolphe Lemieux: To keep the men on
the farms of Canada so as to produce wheat and send them food, for one thing, and to equip them with munitions. That is what the Government themselves proposed to do not so very long ago. Only a few days before Judge Galt's report was published, the following notice was published in the 'newspapers of the United States.
Farm Hands Wanted.
Western Canada Farmers Require 50,000 American Farm Labourers at Once. Urgent demand sent out for farm help by the Government of Canada. Good wages Steady employment. Low railway fares Pleasant surroundings. Comfortable homes. No compulsory military service. Farm hands from the United States are absolutely guaranteed against conscription. This advertisement is to secure farm help to replace Canadian farmers who have enlisted for the war.
A splendid opportunity for the young man to investigate Western Canada's agricultural offerings, and to do so at no expense.
Only those accustomed to farming need apply.
For particulars as to railway rates and districts where labour is required or other information regarding Western Canada apply to C. J. Broughton, 112 W. Adams St., Chicago, 111., Authorized Canadian Government Agent.
Raise High Priced Wheat on Fertile Canadian Soil.
Canada extends to you a hearty invitation to settle on her FREE Homestead lands of 160 acres each or secure some of the low priced lands in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. This year wheat is higher but Canadian land just as cheap, so the opportunity is more attractive than ever. Canada wants you to help feed the world by tilling some of her fertile soil land similar to that which during many years has averaged 20 to 45 bushels of wheat to the acre. Think of the money you can make with wheat around $2 a bushel and land so easy to get. Wonderful yields also of oats, barley and flax. Mixed farming in Western Canada is as profitable an industry as grain growing.
The Government this year is asking farmers to put increased acreage into grain. Military service is not compulsory in Canada, but there is a great demand for farm labour to replace the many young men who have volunteered for service. The climate is healthful and agreeable, railway facilities excellent, good schools and churches convenient. Write for literature as to reduced railway rates to Supt. of Immigration, Ottawa, Can., or to O. C. Rutledge,-301 East Genesee St., Syracuse, N.Y. ; F. A. Harrison,, 210 North Third St., Harrisburg, Pa.
You have my answer in that advertisement, published under the authority of the Government.	1


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.
Mr. /LEMIEUX: I hear the Tories jeering and laughing. They are jeering and laughing not at me but at the Minister of the Interior, at their own Government and 
they may well afford to jeer and to laugh for have you ever heard of anything so ridiculous, so nonsensical? A few weeks ago that advertisement came out in hundreds of newspapers in the United States calling for 50,000 farm hands to replace the young Canadians who have gone to the front.


Charles Murphy: And they will not be
conscripted?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The farm hands from the United States are assured that they will not be conscripted. And yet, a few days afterwards-I do not say for what motive blit hon. gentlemen know it full well-they suddenly bring in a. conscription measure. My hon. friend from South Wellington, speaking before dinner, thought that he detected something like a mobilization of the economic forces of the country in some of the sections of the Bill. But no, Mr. Speaker, it is an exclusive conscription of the blood of Canada whilst on the other hand 50,000 young men from the United states are invited to take the place of our kith and kin and against Whom there will he no conscription measure applied.


Herbert Brown Ames: May I-


Rodolphe Lemieux: Wait a moment. My
hon. friend, I hope, will speak. Surely, he will not sleep as he did during the naval debate. My hon. friend, I know, takes exception to my language. Of course, I have no right to express my views; the Milner-ized type of politician will not allow another man to honestly express his convictions. But I intend to boldly speak the language which I believe to be right.


Herbert Brown Ames: May I ask the
hon. gentleman a question? '


Rodolphe Lemieux: My opposition of this
Bill and the opposition of the province which my hon. friend (Sir Herbert Anjes) represents just as much as I do-


Herbert Brown Ames: I do.


Rodolphe Lemieux: -is based on old and respectable traditions. Quebec belongs to the minority and all minorities in the world are jealous of their constitutional rights. It is said that Quebec is always beside the mark, is not with the rest of Confederation on this or that issue. But let me, Sir, take an example from the United Kingdom. The Isle of Man, with a handful of population, has kept for centuries its constitutional rights. It has a Parliament and laws of its own. Wales has kept its schools, its language, and Mr. Lloyd George, the great rebel of the Boer War, has exacted that

the Welsh Fusiliers shall be sent to the front wearing a distinct national uniform. The Scotch have maintained their customs and their kilts, their language and their schools. So, for one who reads and observes, it becomes a truism that after all diversity is one of the elements of beauty. We in Quebec have our own laws, our own language, our own customs and we have for the constitution the jealous regard which is due to that enactment. The view taken by the sober people of Quebec, is that, according to the constitution of Canada, there is to be no conscription of blood for service abroad. For the defence of the territory, certainly, and that they have proven again and again from the time of the cession until now. The province of Quebec, while asking for a referendum on this question, is willing to loyally abide by the result.
The province of Quebec is not alone, Sir, in opposition to this drastic measure. Let us be frank and sincere with ourselves. The first rumblings against conscription came from the city of Winnipeg represented by the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers), then from Calgary, then from Vancouver, from Hamilton, from Toronto and from Ottawa.. This afternoon my hon. friend from South Wellington cited the very severe language used by the Federation of Labour of British Columbia. I do not approve of that severity. The Federation of Labour of British Columbia ask that due consideration be given to their opposition and conclude by stating that
It is the intention to use all the forces at our command to resist conscription in any form.
The French Canadian. race, to which I have the honour to belong, is a law-abiding race, and although it is practically a unit against conscription, yet it pleads for a referendum and it is ready to abide by the verdict of the majority, whilst the people of British Columbia, of English blood, mark my words, are ready to use all the force at their command to resist conscription in any form.
Let us now take the attitude of organized labour people in Canada:
We are positively of the opinion that this situation has not arrived.
That is to say a situation calling for conscription.
The necessities for the effective conduct of the war are:	Food, munitions, shipping and
military man power, and Canada is geographically well situated to supply the first named three essentials and can do much to assist in winning the war by developing her production of these essentials to her fullest extent.
We are strongly of the opinion that this is the best service that Canada, with her small population, can render. We declare ourselves as most emphatically opposed to the proposed conscription measure, and we urge the workers of Canada to oppose by every means in their power enactment of such legislation.
Mr. Speaker, the French-Canadians in their meetings have protested against this measure of conscription being imposed by a rump, by a moribund, by an unrepresentative Parliament; but never in any of the meetings held by them protesting against this measure, has it been threatened that when the people shall have pronounced by a majority in favour of conscription, they favour conscription, they will resist it. On the contrary, the French-Canadians pledge their respect to the law.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I stated a moment ago that at the present moment the pressing question was not the conscription of blood but the mobilization of labour, the taxation of wealth, and the controlling of all food. Am I stating something extraordinary? Has it not been stated over and over again within my hearing by the' hon. Minister of Finance? From one end of the country to the other his slogan has been:	" Production, production, and
production." And there are some goodly people from the wild and woolly West who claim that there was a slip of the tongue when he first uttered that slogan, that he did not say production, production, production, but that he said protection', protection, protection.
I am surprised to find in some papers published in Ontario, and generally in English-speaking Canada, reflections upon the loyalty of the French-Canadians because of this question of enlistment. It is said that up to the 30th of April there were in round figures 125,000 Anglo-Canadian born, 155,000 British born and only 14,100 French-Cana-dians who had enlisted. Mr. Speaker, I said last year at the Canadian Club here in Ottawa, basing my statements on the figures which had been given me by my friend the present Minister of Militia (Sir Edward Kemp), that there were 17,000 French-Canadians enlisted in the various contingents that had gone overseas or were about to go. I see nothing in the incomplete information tabled in this House that would tend to alter my calculations in this regard. I say that since the beginning of the war several members have tried in vain to obtain from the Department,of Militia and Defence a complete and detailed statement of the number

of French-Canadians who had enlisted, not only in the province of Quebec, 'but in the various units of the different provinces. I claim that we have enlisted 20,000 to 22,000 French-Canadians who are at the front or about to leave for the front. That is the information I have. I have some relatives at the front; I have lost one at the front; at Ypres I lost a nephew last year-and I happen to possess some information. Our regiments have been merged into larger units from other provinces; I will ask my hon. friends from the northern sections of Ontario, from western Canada which is represented (by my friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), and from the Maritime Provinces if it is not a fact that in every unit coming from these sections there is a large, yes, a generous sprinkling of French-Canadians within the ranks. So far we have been unable to get from the Minister of Militia and Defence the exact figures, but I assert, and I think my hon. friend the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Sevigny) will not deny it, that there are at the front, or about to leave for the front, at least 20,000 to 22,000 French-Canadian3.	/


Mr. MORPHY:: Does the hon. gentleman not think that those brave French-Canadians wfio have gone to the front should have the support of their compatriots in overwhelming numbers without waiting for any talk about referendums?


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend speaks the language of the Orange Sentinel. There is a sting in his question. I feel there is a sting in his question. Who has ever told my hon. friend that the French-Canadians were recreant to support the boys at the front?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: It does not look like it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If the hon. gentleman thinks that there can be a wave of enthusiasm in the province of Quebec in favour of recruiting with the methods that have been employed, he is sadly mistaken.
I will explain to my hon. friend at once. A few days ago my hon. friend from Dufferin (Mr. Best) rose from his seat in this House and read a statement which had been published by the Orange Sentinel to the effect that the soldiers passing through the province of Quebec had been insulted, and that some of them had even been stoned at Riviere du Loup. Immediately the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), understanding the sinister meaning of that dastardly campaign, challenged the accusation and fMr. Lomieux.]
asked for an investigation, and this was immediately granted by my hon. friend the Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Edward Kemp). That story has circulated from one end of the country to the other; it has gone from one paper to the other; ; it has inflamed passions from one end of the country to the other, and my province has been branded by those papers as a province of shirkers, of slackers, of cowards! Is that not a fact?
Mr. MORPHY': Will the hon. gentleman permit another question?


Rodolphe Lemieux: And now an investigation has taken place presided over by a commission appointed by this Government. I have the report before me; it was laid on the table of the House the other day. It is a public document, and I challenge 

no I will not challenge my hon. friend because he is fair-but I will challenge the editor of the Orange Sentinel to publish as prominently as he published the charge, the findings of the report. Mr. Speaker, is it possible to create enthusiasm when a whole province is vilified by proceedings of that character? Sir, we must trust each other, we must respect each other, respect not only our qualities-every race has its own qualities^but respect even our prejudices and our failings. That is how I have in my public career endeavoured to understand the British character. I have found failings, I have found shortcomings with that race, but on the whole I admire and respect the race. I believe as Clemen-ce&u so well said last year when the British parliamentary delegation went from London to Paris, I believe that we ought to know each other, that we ought to understand each other, and thus by knowing and by understanding each other we would come to love each other.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Clemeneeau added with some humour:	" I expected you Englishmen from across the channel, yes, I awaited you, since endless centuries, since the days of Hastings and since the Black Prince." To my fedlowmen of British extraction, may I not say: "We are awaiting you since the Plains of Abraham and since the battle of St. Foye. Why do you not trust us, as your fellowmen, as your partners, just as the British overseas have trusted the Boers, as they have trusted the Scotch and the Welsh, as they are about to trust the Irish, after so many years
/

of .misunderstandings, contentions and miseries?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Referring to the small
number of French Canadians who have enlisted so far, I desire to quote from a very illuminative article on this subject published in the Montreal Star on Saturday last, comparing the quota of the British born with the English Canadians and the French Canadians in this war. The article reads as follows:
The British-born with their instantly-acting instinct of patriotism, enlisted at once. They constituted something like eighty-five per cent of the first contingent. This was not because they were more loyal than the rest of us when we all had time to think it out-It was merely because their patriotism was more instinctive and automatic. It took the Canadian-born a little longer to emerge from the miasmic fogs of pacifism ; but they were presently marching into the gap bravely.
French Canada-with much the same mental attitude to begin with- was much slower in taking fire. Why? Largely because their instinctive patriotism had become wholly local. They were loyal to Canada alone. They were long divorced from France-first, by the conquest when they were deserted; next (let us remember in fairness) by the British demand that they cease to look to France which was then our enemy; next, by the Revolution and its subsequent war upon their cherished religion.
Mr. Speaker, you have in these well poised sentences the explanation of a peculiar psychology. There it is pointed out how it happens that, instinctively, the British-born were first to respond to the call; then the English Canadians and then the French Canadians.
I have said on many other occasions, and I repeat this evening, that recruiting is largely, if not wholly,' carried on successfully in urban centres. The province of Ontario is dotted with industrial bentres. In the province of Quebec, outside of Sherbrooke, Three Rivers. Sorel, Montreal and Quebec, we have few or little industrial centres. Quebec is a mostly rural province, and bear in mind that she gets no influx of immigration from the old country.
Mr. Speaker, I will with your leave complete the statement I have made to the House this evening in all frankness and sincerity. Sir, no effort worthy of the name has been made to intelligently recruit in the province of Quebec since the beginning of the war.
Some hon.. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Hon. gentlemen know
that from the session of Parliament in 1914
I urged the Government to appoint General Lessard as recruiting agent. He is the best and most qualified officer, and a man in whose judgment and ability our people have all confidence. Yet, General Lessard was only appointed on the 29th March, 1917, and my hon. friends will be honest enough to grant that all that delay was due to some bickerings and quarrels which happened at the time of the Boer war between General Lessard and the Minister of Militia and Defence. Is that a motive which should have deferred the early appointment of General Lessard to promote recruiting in Quebec? Sir, we had another excellent officer, a veteran from South Africa, Colonel Pelletier, of Quebec, son of the late Lieutenant Governor, Sir Alphonse Pelletier. At the beginning of the war he was ignored and finally he was given his pension. There was in Montreal Colonel Roy, who was the district commanding officer. He knew our people, was trusted, and spoke the language of the majority. He was sent to British Columbia, and later on was pensioned and replaced by General Wilson of Montreal, who is a personal friend of mine, a gentleman, but who hardly speaks a word of French. I was chairman of the civilian committee of the Asselin regiment, and I must say, in all justice to my friend the ex-Minister of Militia and Defence, that he gave us, the French Canadians of Montreal, a most loyal support in the recruiting of that regiment. I thank him publicly to-day, as I thanked him publicly on many, many occasions previously. With the help received from his department, in less than two months, Major Asselin, who was very popular, who was exceedingly brilliant, succeeded in raising a regiment, but what hap-* pened? We founded great hopes, on that regiment. We expected that it would be the nucleus of many similar regiments in the province of Quebec. It was even hinted that my hon. friend the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Sevigny) would take a course at Kingston, in order to do as Major Asselin had dpne. What happened? Major Asselin's regiment was sent to Bermuda for several months. I do not blame the Government for that. There were military reasons, I suppose, for that action. Several other regiments have gone there. But what I and the people of Quebec resent is this: the regiment was transferred to a camp in Great Britain, I forget which camp, and, as soon as it reached Great Britain, the first order received by Major Asselin was that of the dislocation of his unit. It was divided



into several drafts and distributed amongst many regiments. The same fate happened to Colonel Piuze who raised a regiment in the district represented by my hon. friend the member fpr Kamouraska (Mr. Lapointe). I know there are reasons for that and I do not blame the Government. But there is some pride in our people; they would have been glad' to read of the Asselin regiment at the front as the Asselin regiment, just as they were proud to hear of the 22nd battalion iat the front as the 22ncL battalion. True it is that there may have been military reasons for disbanding the battalion, but it is to say the least most unfortunate that the Government did not see its way clear to do for the Asselin battalion what was done for the Irish Brigade that was raised in Montreal. Although that brigade had not the required numbers, its identity was maintained and it was* given a tour in Ireland to arouse the people in that country as well as the Irish people in Canada to the necessities of the hour. That was wise policy on the part of the Government.


Charles Murphy: What has been done
since with that brigade?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not know.


Charles Murphy: Neither do I.
Mr. H. B. (MORPHY:	Does the hon.
member not know that the matter of which he complains was one of serious complaint also throughout western Ontario, because of units from the various counties there being broken up toy reason of militia regulations and orders of tlhe British War Office? .


Rodolphe Lemieux: I quite understand that; I know it is a fact. But there is a distinction.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: * None whatever.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, there is, and my
hon, friend is too fair not to admit it. The battalions from Ontario which were scattered amongst other units in Great Britain were composed of men speaking the English language. They could be understood by the Welsh and Irish Fusiliers, the Durhams and the Yorks, that' were so jauntily mentioned this afternoon by the ex-Minister of Militia. But the men recruited by Major Asselin were young Freneh-Canadians, mostly speaking only the French language. The battalion was sent to England, and there dislocated, the men being spread amongst various

units where they did not understand the language; where they did not speak the language of their commanding officers. I will give my hon. friend another instance -and I hope that the member for Kingston will listen to me for a moment. This will give the House an idea of how something unfair may sometimes be done unwittingly. Last winter I was travelling from Quebec to Montreal. It was a bitterly cold evening. I was in a pullman car-although I am not a minister of the Crown, I sometimes travel in a pullman car. I noticed a young man, rather short and stocky, dressed in kilties. As I looked at him I said to myself: surely this is not a Highlander-yet he ha3 the kilties, and a Scotch cap. As I looked at him he also looked at me, and then addressing (him in French. I said: "Are you not a Scotchman?" He said: "No, I am Albert Martel, from Quebec." I said:	"Under
what guise are you travelling?" "Oh, well," he said, "I was in Ottawa; our regiment, which was being recruited by Colonel de Salaberry, was disbanded for certain reasons, and I offered my services to the Kingston Queen's Highlanders, which left a few weeks ago." What was the strength oi that unit?


William Folger Nickle: About 700.


Rodolphe Lemieux: As Martel was passing from the pullman to the first class coaches, I said: "Where are you going?" He answered :	" To see my men." " Your men? "
" Yes," he said, " I am recruiting in Quebec for the Queen's Highlanders; I will introduce you to 17 Highlanders from Sir Wilfrid Laurier's constituency. I am going to Ottawa-it is not the shortest way to Kingston -but I am going there with my men because Ottawa is dry and I want to spend a Sunday in that place." They came to Ottawa, and I saw alighting from the train the 18 kilties, fine, bright fellows, not one of them speaking a word of English. That is the first chapter of my little story.
A few days ago the bell was rung at my residence. A gentleman in kilts was ushered in. " Bonjour, monsieur; I am Lieutenant Martel." " Oh," I said, " the gentleman I met this winter. Are you still recruiting for the Queen's Highlanders?" " I have recruited," he answered, " 101 men; they left a few weeks ago with a battalion made up of about 700 Scotchmen." " Did you not follow your men? " I asked. He answered: " No." Now there comes a blank in my story, tout if the member for Kingston will come to me after the sitting I will tell him why Lieutenant Mar-

tel di'd not follow his men, though he promised the fathers and mothers of those French-Canadian Highlanders that he would follow them to England. Bear in mind that they were confided to his care, because he spoke their language, because he understood them, because they and their families had confidence in him. At the last moment, for reasons which I will give my hon. friend-and which I gave to the Minister of Justice the other day, who told me since that I had a very good case indeed- Martel did not go. The men who left with the Highlanders will never be accounted as French-Oanadians from Quebec. Lieutenant Martel, who is in Ottawa, can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that 35 of his recruits do not speak a word of English; yet they are distributed among an English-speaking unit. I have faith in the Scotch. I love the Irish and I love the English, but I confess that I have a failing for the Scotch. These French-Canadians are in good company; I do not fear for them. But, Sir, do you not think that, in all fairness and in all justice, Lieutenant Albert Martel, who promised the fathers and mothers and relatives of these men that he would follow them to the last ditch, should have accompanied them when they marched off? I will not say why he did not accompany them.


Ernest Lapointe: Why do you not?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will not; I will tell the member for Kingston. The reason is stated in the letters that I sent the other day to the Minister of Justice.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Does the hon. gentleman agree with the reasons given?


Rodolphe Lemieux: No.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: You dissent from the reasons?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Certainly, and I will appeal to the fairness of my hon. friend when I tell him the facts.


William Folger Nickle: Unless my hon. friend
thinks that on grounds of public policy those reasons should be kept secret, it might be just as well to remove this air of mystery. Perhaps I may be able to give him some information and enlightenment.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will tell my hon. friend. I will now unbosom myself to the House in all sincerity and in all honesty of purpose. I do not see in the Chamber any hon. gentleman representing a Toronto constituency.
If one of them were here, I would say this: What would he think if I, being Minister of Militia, or better still, if the Minister of Inland Revenue being promoted to be Minister of Militia, were to appoint as chief recruiting agent for the city of Toronto the Superior of the Jesuit Order? With all due respect for the Jesuits and for my hon. friends from Toronto, would the Superior of the Jesuit Order have any success in the cause of recruiting in Toronto or say in Guelph, Kingston or St. Thomas? The answer is only too obvious. What has happened in Montreal? As I stated the other day to Marechal Joffre, the district and suburbs of Montreal are, outside of Paris and possibly Lyons in France, the-largest French district in the world. The' chief recruiting agent in Montreal, appointed by my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Militia, and Defence (Sir Sam Hughes), is. -a personal friend, of mine, but he is the *pastor of St. James Methodist chueh. He is a Liberal in principle; he is a home-ruler also. I have spoken with him in his own church, and I was taunted by some of my Catholic friends that I had turned Methodist, but as I was preaching for recruiting purposes, I was easily absolved. But, in all fairness and common sense, is it reasonable to expect that a Superior of .the Jesuits would meet with any success in recruiting in the city of Toronto, and is it to be expected that one of the ministers of the Methodist church would have any success in recruiting in a French and Catholic district like the district of Montreal? To put the question is to suggest the answer at once. That appointment was made, not for the purpose, I grant, of putting obstacles in the way of recruiting, but it was made all the same and there it is. I do not wish to impute motives to the ex-Minister of Militia.


Mr. ROGERS:: Does he not get any English recruits in Montreal?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, he has some English recruits, but does my hon. friend think it was conducive to bringing in French recruits which he and his friends say they expected from the province of Quebec, to so appoint a Methodist minister in that large French and Catholic district? It is useless to play upon words. My hon. friend must be credited with common sense. He might have appointed a Jesuit as recruiting officer in St. Boniface, but he would not have appointed a Jesuit in the city of Winnipeg. The matter is too self evident; it ' seems, Sir, as if every obstacle were put in



'2478 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
the way of recruiting in the province of Quebec.
Mr. BOYCTE:: Does my hon. friend not know of the opposite case where, for instance, Ontario regiments have had their officers taken away from them and have been put under French-Canadian officers? If he does not, I can give him some instances.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is not the point at. all. I am speaking of the recruiting work, of the appeals made to the laymen to join the ranks. Those appeals were made in the English language; the recruits were merged into English-speaking units. The moment a French-Canadian officer speaks the English language, if he retains his rank and receives no favour, I see no objection to him taking command of an Englishspeaking regiment. In Quebec and Montreal, there have been and there are cases where the chief officers are English-speaking, and no objection is taken, far from it.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: French-speaking officers
have been appointed in preference to English-speaking officers, and that has been done without objection in instances which I can quote to my hon. friend.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Certainly. There is no objection when there is no preferment, when it is only a matter of course. I do not object to an English officer having precedence over a French-Canadian officer if his rank will command that precedence. What I am pointing out is this: In the district of Montreal, the chief recruiting officer, a personal friend of mine, a charming, enlightened and great speaker for those who understand him, was a pastor of the Methodist church. The Minister of Militia and Defence might have done better if he had appointed a gentleman whose language and whose ambient air would have been more congenial to the men to whom he was appealing.
I have only a few words to add and it is on this question of a referendum. I will then conclude. This is of all measures the most vital that has ever been introduced into this Parliament; it is a departure from all our traditions; it means the alienation of human liberty; Parliament, functus officio, unrepresentative, moribund, with more than 20 seats vacant, with a West under-represented, cannot and dare not attempt to legislate for the people of Canada under such circumstances. There is only one solution and that is a referendum. The referendum, it is true, is more familiar

to Latin than to British countries, but it has been accepted in Switzerland for many years; it has been accepted in sbme of the states of the neighbouring Republic with a measure of success; it has been accepted by some of the western provinces; it is the law of the land in Australia and New Zealand, and we ourselves, sometimes refer matters .of municipal government to the people before enacting them. The other day we received as our honored guest one of the foremost statemen of the world. I refer to the right hon. Arthur James Balfour, who represents, I believe, in the Empire and in the world, the most enlightened conservatism that I know of. His noble language, the other day, establishes^ that fact. He, a Conservative, asserted his belief, his faith in democracy and in democratic rule. On the question of tariff reform which, a few years ago, agitated public opinion in Great Britain, the position taken by Mr. Balfour, which is well worth the consideration of my hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) was as follows:
The advantage of the referendum is this- that the issue is quite clear and quite precise. .	. The referendum has an enormous
advantage. It does not involve a general election; it does not involve all the personal bitterness inevitably involved in the contest between the two competitors for a seat; it does not carry with it a change of government ; and it does get a clear verdict from the people. .	. Nevertheless, I frankly say
that without question tariff reform is a great change. I admit that this election, or any election perhaps-certainly this election-cannot be described as taken upon tariff reform simply; but I have not the least objection to submit the principles of tariff reform to referendum.
If Mr. Balfour was willing to break away from the traditions of England and take a referendum on such a purely theoretical question as tariff reform, surely we in Canada, can afford to take' a referendum on the conscription of the yeomanry of this country. But Mr. Balfour is not alone of that view. Professor Dicey one of the highest authorities on constitutional government, has declared himself favourably on the principle of referendum in British affairs. Lecky, who is also one of the foremost authorities, on the British Government and constitution, in " Democracy and Liberty " volume I, p. 287 and following presents a most elaborate argument in favour of the referendum. I have prepared a short synopsis of it. The referendum would prevent the placing of the essential elements of the constitution at the mercy of a simple majority

in a single Parliament

a majority perhaps composed of heterogeneous and discordant factions combined for a party purpose without the direct and deliberate assent of the people. It seems as those words of his were uttered on this very question and under the circumstances ,of to-day. The referendum would have the immense advantage of disentangling issues, *separating the one great question from the many minor questions with which it may be mixed. Confused or blended issues aTe among the gravest political dangers of our time. Revolutionary and predatory (measures are less likely to be carried on their merits because their purposes have obtained a majority by joining with them a sufficient number of other measures appealing to different sections of the electorate. It would be a great gain to English politics if a capital question could be decided by the electorate on its own merits, on a direct and simple issue. If the nation is moving towards revolution it should at least do so with its eyes open and with a~ clear and deliberate intention. Such a vote would prove to be the most powerful bulwark against violent and dishonest change. It would bring into action the opinion of the great silent masses of the community ana reduce to their true proportion many movements to which party combinations or noisy agitations had given a wholly fictitious prominence. It would lift above the dominion of party a capital measure, and thus greatly increase the probability of its representing the genuine wishes of the electorate. It would enable the nation to reject a measure which it dislikes without destroying a ministry of which it approves. Democracy has been crowned king. The voice of the multitude is the ultimate court of appeal. It would be an appeal from a party majority, probably made up of discordant groups, to the genuine opinion of the country.
Besides Professor Dicey, Mr. Leeky and Mr. Balfour, we have another opinion, that of the right hon. leader of the Government on this question. The late, Mr. Monk once moved for a referendum on the naval question, to which a sub-amendment was moved by the present Prime Minister; this being lost, the right hon. the Prime Minister was given the privilege of voting for Mr. Monk's amendment for a referendum. Yes, he and all his followers, with the exception of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, voted for the leferendum.
If it was necessary to submit the naval policy of the Laurier Government to a referendum-a policy which did not involve conscription, a policy which had been dealt with by the Imperial Conferences of 1902 and 1909-surely, Sir, it is much more logical and much more urgent to submit to a referendum such a momentous question ae that of the conscription of the 'blood of the young men of this country, enacted by a moribund and unrepresentative Parliament.
I have trespassed too long on the time of the House, but I will say this in conclusion, and I say it with all the firmness and all the good faith that I can attach to solemn statement:	knowing the people of my
province to be above all things a law-abiding people, if a referendum is taken, whether it goes for or against conscription, the French-Canadians, who are the descendants of those who defended Canada in 1775, in 1812, will abide by the verdict of the majority. If conscription comes they will not have to be bullied or dragooned into the ranks, but will -obey the law and fight the battles of Canada as (valiantly as their fellow-men of a different race and a different creed.
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Crothers, the debate was adjourned.
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Wednesday, June 20, 1917.