1917-06-20

PRINTING OF PARLIAMENT.

Mr. J. A. CURRIE moved:: That the recommendations contained in the first report of the Joint Committee of both Houses on the printing of Parliament, presented to the House on June 7, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 90, respecting The Security Life Insurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Mae-donell.
QUESTIONS!
(Questions answered orally are indicated by asterisks.)

Mr. SMITH:: 1.	How many registration cards were sent out by the National Service Board?

2.	How many were answered in full?
3.	How many were only partially answered?
4.	What portion were not answered at all?
5.	What is the number of cards received from single men of military age?
6.	What is the estimated number of single men of military age now in Canada who are not in military service??


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: 1.	No record was kept of the number of cards distributed. Distribution was made by the postmasters of Canada, and a sufficient number of cards was sent to each post office to meet the estimated requirements at that post office. In some cases additional quantities were requisitioned by postmasters; in other cases they were over supplied.
2.	1,342,755.
3.	97,640.
4.	108,965 cards were returned in envelopes without any of the questions being answered, but in most cases the names of the senders were obtained.
5.	252,034 single men, 18 to 45 years old, indicated that they were British subjects by birth or naturalization, and apparently fit for military service; that is to say, they had normal use of their eyes, ears, feet and arms, and did not suffer from illness for a period of more than one month during the twelve months preceding the filling in of the cards.
6.	Answered by the papers laid on the Table by the Minister of Militia and Defence on June 13, 1917.
The Secretary of the National Service Board has submitted the following comment concerning the answers to questions 5 and 6:
"Our figure is 252,034 single men of military age and fitness. In our record we have, at the request of the militia authorities, discarded absolutely the following:
"(1) Those who are not British subjects.
"(2) Those who had more than three persons dependent upon them.
"(3) Those who suffered from obvious physical disabilities such as defective eyesight, hearing, or loss of limb.
"(4) Those who had lost over one month from any illness whatever during the preceding twelve months.
"(5) Those who on their own statement had been rejected for military service.
"From the best estimate we are able to make, we received returns, in connection with the man-power inventory, from approximately 80 per cent of the total males in Canada between 18 and 65. It must, however, be borne in mind that out of the 20 per cent who failed to send in cards, the

majority would likely be single men, apparently fit for military duty."



SALE OF SMALL ARMS AMMUNITION.

Mr. SINCLAIR:: Has the Government recovered the $15,000 said to have been deposited in a trust account in the Bank of Montreal, New York, arising out of the sale to the Admiralty of small arms ammunition made by one Colonel J. Wesley Allison?


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: No, in view of telegram from Mr. Bonar Law to the Governor General under date of 16th June, 1916, in which he states that "the special account opened with the Bank of Montreal at New York is not yet closed, there being a balance on deposit which will be accounted for to the Admiralty."



CLARENCE WELLS.

Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Was Clarence Wells, of White Head, N.S., convicted for violation of the fishery regulations?
2.	If so, when and what fine was imposed?
3.	Was (the fins collected?
4.	If not, why has the fine not been collected?


Mr. HAZEN:: '
1.	A search of the records for two years
back shows that during that time Clarence Wells was not convicted for violation of the fisheries regulations.	.
2,	3 and 4. Answered by No. 1.



PURCHASE OF AUTOMOBILE.

*Mr. FORTIER:: 1.	Did the Department of Public Works purchase, In 1914, an automobile from one Alex Morrison of Montreal?
2.	If so, what was the price paid for such automobile?


Mr. REID:: .
1.	No. On 3rd October, 1916, an automobile was purchased from Alex. Morrison, of Montreal.
2.	$400, and accessories, $214.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR , RETURN.

*Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	What are the names of the members of the military staff at North Vancouver?
2.	What are their respective duties or occupations?
3.	What is the rank and rate of pay of each?
4.	What amount has been paid to each?
5.	Upon what date or dates did the members of the said staff enlist, and how long have they been attached to the staff?



THE RELEASE OF EDWARD LEVI BAUGH.

[Stage Direction]
On the notice of motion:
For a copy of the reports made by the trial judge and the penitentiary surgeons in connection -with the release from penitentiary of Edward Levi Baugh.-Mr. Murphy.
Hon. CHARLES MURPHY:: This notice of motion has been called a number of times. Once, when I chanced to he out of the House for a few minutes, the Minister of Justice said that it was not customary to bring down reports made by the medical officers in such cases as that referred to in this motion. If it is agreeable,
I am willing that the motion should pass on the'understanding that those papers are not asked for. The motion has been called several times when the Minister of Justice has not been present.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: If the hon. gentleman has no objection, I would suggest that the motion stand until the Minister of Justice is here.


Charles Murphy: Very well.


Robert Laird Borden: There is some practice in the department about these matters, with which I am not very familiar. If I were familiar with them, I should not ask that the motion stand.
Motion stands.



THE FRENCH HANSARD.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. MEDERIC MARTIN:: May I ask the Prime Minister whether it would be possible to have the French version of Hansard issued earlier? We have received none since last Monday.


Robert Laird Borden: I really have not anything to do with these matters. I shall ascertain what authorities have direction, and shall commend my hon. friend's request to their attention.



COST OF LIVING IN THE YUKON.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. FRANK OLIVER:: I desire to bring to the attention of the House a further telegram which I have received from Dawson in regard to the cost of living conditions there. It is dated at Dawson, Yukon Territory, June 19.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Does the hon. gentleman intend to ask a question?


Frank Oliver: 
Hon. T. W. CROTHERS (Minister of Labour):: So few as I am aware no word has been received from the Commissioner of the Yukon, and I have not heard anything of the substance of this telegram beyond what was received about a week ago when I told my hon. friend what we had done in the matter.



RECRUITING.

[Stage Direction]
/
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. G. W. KYTE:: Has any Order in
Council heen passed affecting the change in enlistment referred to yesterday 'by the exMinister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes) in these words:
In my absence in England, the debilitating plan of draft was resorted to, but I cancelled it on my return.
If there is any such Order in Council, it should be laid on the table of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: All Orders in
Council with regard to recruiting were laid upon the Table a long time ago. If the hon. member will refer to what has been laid on the Table, he will see an Order in Council that was passed about the 12th day of January, 1916, increasing the authorized forces of Canada to 500,000 men. At a subsequent date in March, April, or possibly May-I do not recollect the precise date- another Order in Council was passed providing that new regiments should not be organized under the Order in Council of the 12th January without the authority of the Governor in Council, the reason being that it had been represented to the Government that too many regiments had been authorized in one place at one time.


Mr. MARCIL:: Will the Prime Minister
explain whether recruiting has been discontinued officially, or whether it is still proceeding? I refer to Quebec particularly.


Robert Laird Borden: Recruiting has not been discontinued.



LABOUR STRIKE IN WESTERN COAL MINES.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Frank Oliver: Has the Minister of Labour any further report to make in regard to the coal strike in the West? There is a report that the negotiations have broken down.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The negotiations have not proved successful. The rumour to which my hon. friend refers is well founded. We are taking steps immediately to see to it that the mines shall be opened under Government guidance.



RECRUITING OF BRITISH SUBJECTS IN THE UNITED STATES.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Charles Murphy: In the Canadian press of yesterday, there appeared this despatch:
fMr. Crothers.]
New York, June 19.-Recruiting headquarters for French-Canadians in New England and New York will be opened here by Major B. J. Daly, Gingras of the Canadian 258th Battalion, who arrived yesterday from Quebec. There are 500,000 French-Canadian males in the district he said.
Is there such a mission to the Uriited States, and if so, is it being conducted under any arrangement with the United States Government?


Hon.   S@: By an Act of the United States Congress passed a few days ago, permission was granted to the British Government and the Canadian Government to recruit British subjects in the United States in connection with the organizations which the United States' Government purpose establishing in regard to recruiting United States citizens for the war. Our military officers have therefore arranged with the United States military officers to carry on recruiting through such agencies, and that work is being carried on not only as regards people of French-Canadian nationality in the New England states, but in. other parts of the United States among all British subjects. After such recruits have been passed as being medically fit for service, if they desire to go to Great Britain, they are sent there direct, and if they desire to enlist in the Canadian army, they are sent direct to Canada.



UNITED STATES SOLDIERS.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Charles Marcil: Is there any truth in the rumour that the United States Government is going to train a large number of troops at Valcartier during the summer?
'Sir EDWARD KEMP: The United States Government has not yet made application to the Government of Canada for permission to occupy any of our Canadian camps, but if they do, the matter will be considered.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Mr. J. J. (HUGHES:	On the 25th of
April last, an Order of the House was passed for a copy of the correspondence in the Post Office Department with respect to the vacant postmastership at 'Charlottetown. That Order has not yet been obeyed. The correspondence cannot be voluminous, and

I think a clerk cou'ld make a copy within an hoUr or two. When will the return be brought down?
Hon. C. J. DOHERTY:: The matter has not yet been brought to my attention, but I will make inquiry at once and expedite the bringing down of the return.



MTU IT ARY SERVICE ACT, 1917.


[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 Tuesday, June 19.
Hon. T. W. 0ROTHERS (Minister of Labour):	Mr. Speaker, I do not intend
to delay the adoption of this measure longer than a few minutes, for I believe that in a few sentences I can fairly show ample justification for the acceptance of the principle of this Bill both by the House and by the , country. There are a few outstanding facts -which I desire to bring to the attention of the House. In the month of August, 1914, we determined not only to join in this world-war, but t° stay in it until victory should crown the efforts of the Allies. The time has come when, in order to continue in the war properly, we must have more men to send to the front. It is admitted by every one that more men cannot be secured under the voluntary system.
Mr. PUGSLEY:: Not at all.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Well, if that is not
admitted by my hon. friend, the facts show that is the case. The time has come when the only way of filling the gaps and answering the call of our men who are fighting in the trenches is by the adoption of compulsory service, and the question before the House at the present time is whether or not we shall adopt the principle of this Bill. A considerable time has been devoted to the discussion of the details of the Bill, but I submit that it is entirely out of order at this stage. It is the principle of, this Bill which is or which should be under discussion on its second reading.
When war was declared against Germany by the British Government on the 4th of August, 1914, every part of the British Empire, including Canada, became thereby at war with Germany. It is within the memory of the members of this House that on the 1st of August, 1914,
when a declaration of war appeared imminent, this Government proffered the assistance of Canada to the British Government, and that offer was accepted as soon as war was declared. We at once proceeded to get ready to render all the assistance in our power. Parliament was summoned for the 18th of August, 1914. There were then three or four courses open to us. We might have sat down and calculated the cost of participating in this world-wide war. We might have considered that it would involve the organization, equipment, and transportation of a large army. We might have reckoned on losing thousands upon thousands of our best and bravest lives in this great contest. We might have calculated that it would make thousands of women widows, and thousands of children fatherless. We might have thought of all the burdens that would be placed on our shoulders by participation in this war-^burdens which are not likely to be removed during our day. We might have considered all these things and said: We refuse to take any part in this war. That, of course, would have meant severing our connection with the British Empire. But there was not a man in this House, or in this country from the Atlantic to the Pacific, who suggested that we should sever our connection with the Mother Country and strike out for independence. Or we might have said: We are nearly three years removed frpm consultation with the electorate, and the last time we consulted them the question of war was not considered at all. My right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, if he ihad been as anxious fpr a referendum then as he is to-day, might have said what we have heard repeated over and over again in this House, " We have no mandate from the people to participate in this war, and we ought therefore to have a referendum;" and then there would have been some reason in it. Or he might Live said: The House should be dissolved and a general election held. But no one in thin House suggested that we should have a referendum or a general election before participating in this war. We were here representing the people of this country from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and we thought we knew how the people of this country felt on the question of the war. We were all agreed as to the course ito be taken.
Let us see what was said at that time by the right hon. Prime Minister and the right hon. leader of the Opposition. Sir Robert Borden said:-

As to our duty we are all agreed;
No dissenting voice.
We stand shoulder to shoulder with Britain and the other British dominions in this quarrel. And that duty we shall not fail to fulfil as the honour of Canada demands.
Mark the words: As the honour of Canada demands.
Not for love of battle, not for lust of conquest, not for greed of possessions, but for the cause of honour, to maintain solemn pledges, to uphold principles of liberty, to withstand forces that would convert the world into an armed camp; yea, in the very name of the peace that we sought at any cost save that of dishonour, we have entered into this war; and while gravely conscious of the tremendous issues involved and of all the sacrifices that they may entail, we do not shrink from them-
Are any of us proposing -to shrink from them to-day?
-but with firm hearts as we abide the event.
Further on he said:-
But, let me say that while we are now upborne by the exaltation and enthusiasm which comes in the first days of a national crisis, so great that it moves the hearts of all men, we must not forget that days may come when our patience, our endurance and our fortitude will be tried to the utmost. In those dayu-
Those days are upon us now.
In those days let us see to it that no hwart grows faint and that no courage be found wanting.
Those words show that the Prime Minister saw into the future. The right hon. leader of the Opposition on that occasion spoke as follows:-
The gravity of the occasion which has called us together makes it incumbent upon us even to disregard the formalities and conventionalities which in ordinary times the rules of the House written, and unwritten enjoin as a wise safeguard against precipitate action, but which, on such an occasion at this might impede us in dealing with the momentous question before us. This session has been called for the purpose of giving the authority of Parliament and the sanction of law to such measures as have already been taken by the Government, and any further measures that may be needed to insure the defence of Canada and to give what aid may be in our power to the mother country in the stupendous struggle which now confronts her. .	. .If in what has been done or in what
remains to be done there may be anything which in our judgment should not be done or should be differently done, we raise no question, we take no exception, we offer no criticism, and we shall offer no criticism so long as there is danger at the front. It is our duty, more pressing upon us than all other duties, at once, on this first day of this extraordinary session of the Canadian Parliamerlt, to let Great Britain know, and to let the friends and foes of Great Britain know, that there is in Canada but one mind and one heart, and that all Canadians stand behind the mother country conscious and proud that she has engaged in this war, not
fMr. Crothers.]
from any selfish motive, for any purpose of aggrandisement, but to maintain untarnished the honour of her name, to fulfil her obligations to her Allies, to maintain her treaty obligations, and to save civilization from the unbridled lust of conquest and dominatiofi.
We are British subjects, and today we are face to face with the consequences which are [DOT] involved in that proud fact. Long we have enjoyed the benefits of our British citizenship ; today it is our duty to accept its responsibilities and its sacrifices.
We have long said that when Great Britain is at war we are at war, to-day we realize that Great Britain is at war and that Canada is at war also.
He said further:
From the day war was declared-nay, from the day the possibility of war was first mooted -our shipping to Great Britain and to Europe has been interrupted. Ships were lying at the docks fully loaded and ready to put to sea, but unable to do so because of the fact that when England is at war Canadian property on the high seas is liable to capture. . . . More than once I have declared that if England Were ever in danger,-nay, not only in danger, but if she were ever engaged in such a contest as would put her strength to the test-then it would be the duty of Canada to assist the motherland to the utmost of Canada's ability.
When we came to this House, on the 18th of August, 1914, the right hon. leader of the Opposition and every other member of this House must have had in mind the provisions of the Militia Act. Let me read certain of those provisions:
10. All the male inhabitants of Canada of the age of 18 years upwards, and under 60, not exempt or disqualified by law, and being British subjects, shall be liable to service in the Militia; provided that the Governor General may require all the male inhabitants of Canada, capable of bearing aims, to serve in the case of a levOe en masse.
69. 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.
The question was raised last night by my hon. friend from Eouville (Mr. Lemieux) as to whether we have authority to send our forces to France to fight. ,At the time the Militia Act was being amended in 1904, the then Minister of Justice, the present Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada expressed this opinion:
The Governor in Council may send the militia of Canada out of Canada at any time when deemed necessary for the defence of Canada. If, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, it should be necessary, because of a war going on in India, to send our militia out there for the defence of Canada, they may, in the exercise of their discretion, do it, because they are the sole judges of what is necessary to be done in defence of Canada.

So, -when we met on August 18, 1914, every member of the House had before him the provisions of the Militia Act which give the Governor General in Council power to send the militia anywhere outside of Canada for the defence of Canada, and which made it compulsory for every male between eighteen and sixty to serve. In that session we expressed our approval of Canada's entering into the war, knowing that it might become necessary to the defence of Canada to send our soldiqrs to France; knowing that it was in contemplation at that very time to send our soldiers to France-volunteers of course, but they knew that under that Act we could compel them to go-and there is not a single representative in this House who objected to that condition of things. If there was a single member who felt then as some of them say they feel now, that they are opposed to all war; that they do not want to take any part in a European war, that was the time for Mm to rise in his place in this House and say so. But not one of them said that he objected to the war, or objected to sending our forces to France, or that he opposed the terms of the Militia Act under which they might be forced to go to France. As silence gives consent, all the membership of this House agreed, not only that it was our duty to enter the war, but to pledge ourselves that we would continue in it until it was won. Is there a gentleman within the sound of my voice who will say that that is not true? Will the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) or the hon, member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) or the hon. member for Bonaven-ture (Mr. Marcil) say that he did not personally, individually, express approval of our entering into the war and our determination to continue in it' until victory should be ours? But that is not all. Every member of this House is here in a representative capacity, he represents thousands of constituents; and every one of us pledged his constituents to the declaration that we ' ought to enter the war and ought to continue in the war until victory should be achieved. Thus collectively the people of Canada, without any referendum, without any general election-not the people of one province but of all the provinces-declared themselves in favour of Canada taking part in this war and remaining side by side with our Allies until the war was won. We pledged ourselves individually. We pledged our constituents also, that they would use all reasonable means for the prosecution of this war, that they would provide men
and money to carry on the war. Was not this implied in the attitude we took? Did not we declare to the British Government, to our sister nations overseas, and to our Allies, that we individually, our constituents to a man, and the people of Canada as a whole, were pnanimous in joining them in this -struggle and in remaining in it with them until victory should be achieved? We not only gave our pledge to the British Government and to our Allies, but we pledged ourselves to the brave young men of this country, that if they would go to the front and fight for us, we would stand behind them- so long as the war should last.
We entered into a covenant with every young man who enlisted that if he would take the position of the greatest sacrifice possible to a man and go to the front and risk his life for the freedom of this country, we would supply him with food and equipment and munitions and guns, and send him assistance as might be necessary, as long as the war lasted. Did not we promise him that? What do we propose now-some of us? What do we propose now? To abandon the men who have gone to the front, desert the men who have risked their lives for our freedom? The member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) made a similar pledge to that which the rest of us made. I believe that personally he has redeemed that pledge, because he has done a great deal throughout Ontario to assist recruiting. I believe his constituents have redeemed the pledge he made for them on the 18th of August, 1914. My ,hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) made such a pledge, not only on his own behalf but on behalf of his constituents in the city of Vancouver. I believe that he has redeemed the pledge that he gave personally; I believe his constituents in the city of Vancouver have redeemed the pledge that he gave on their behalf. My hon. friend from Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) gave a like pledge- for himself and for his constituents and for the people of Canada. Has he redeemed his pledge? Have his constituents redeemed the pledge he made on their behalf? I put the question; I do not answer it. My hon. friend from Megantic (Mr. Pacaud) was here. He made a pledge on his own behalf; he made a pledge on behalf of his constituents, that they would stand behind the boys at the front, that they would supply a fair share of men and money to back up the boys who had gone to the front. Has he discharged his duty? Have his constituents discharged their duty? Let us get this question home to each one

of us and see what the answer is, putting our hand on our heart and appealing to our conscience-has each one of us redeemed his pledge? The member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) made a promise of that sort, made it on his own behalf, made it on behalf of his constituents; has he redeemed the pledge? Have his constituents redeemed the pledge? Let us ask ourselves that question, and let us answer it. The question now is, and it is a very simple question, whether or not we are to declare to the world that, having put our shoulder to the wheel, we have determined to turn back; having promised the Allies, having promised especially our young men who went to the front to sacrifice their prospects in life and perhaps to make the supreme sacrifice of life itself, having promised them that, are we prepared to declare to the world that we are quitters? That is what it means. There is no way of getting these men to send to the front except through compulsory service. That I think is admitted by every one.


Charles Marcil: That is where we disagree.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Oh, disagree! I wish my hon. friend from Bonaventure would back up his arguments by producing some men and not merely leaving it to argument.


William Pugsley: Will my hon. friend
allow me to ask a question? I do it because I am relying on information in newspaper reports. I have seen it stated that during tlie last month something over 7,000 men enlisted. Is that correct?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I do not know I am sure, whether it is correct or not. Suppose it is-


William Pugsley: Should not the minister know that? I was told the other day in St. John that the enlistments are as great upon the average as they have been since the war began. A good many are for the artillery. I would ask my hon. friend why recruiting for the artillery has been discontinued by order.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Mr. Speaker, I shall not attempt to answer these military questions.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Is there anything to laugh about because one minister does not know everything that is going on in the other departments?


William Pugsley: He ought to know before he makes these statements.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I can explain.


William Pugsley: Will my hon. friend pardon me-


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I do not think that I will.


William Pugsley: The minister has made a statement that recruiting has absolutely stopped. The minister ought-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The Minister of Labour has the floor; unless with his consent he should not be interrupted.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Let me give you an explanation as it has been given to me from several sources, of considerable recruiting during the last few weeks. I know two young men who came forward when Sir Robert Borden made the announcement of conscription and said: Well, we will have to go under the Military Service Act, and we would rather go now; we will go as volunteers; and the two went that day and volunteered. A great many have come in that way. Why, if they desire to come from Bonaventure, or Rouville, or Megantic, or anywhere else, we will receive them with open arms, and if they were to come as numerously from that province as they have from some of the other provinces, neither the Militia Act nor .the Military Service Act would be necessary at all. It ill becomes these men, it seems to me, to ask these questions. They say it is not necessary to have the Military Service Act or to enforce the Militia Act. Give us your proof of your statements by bringing forward recruits, bringing them forward as you promised you would on the 18th of August, 1914, when you promised that your constituents would do a lair share in the work of carrying on this war. That you promised, and that promise you have not carried out; and if it had been carried out toy all of us and by all of our constituents it would not be necessary to have either a Militia Act or a Compulsory Service Act at this present time. As I said a moment ago, the question is whether or not we are going to announce to the world that we are quitters, whether or not we are going to announce to the world that we are .going to abandon the men who went to the front under a covenant that we made with them that we would stand behind them until the war was won. Is that what the *member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) desires to announce to the world? That is what it means if you reject compulsory service. It is said now that we ought to have a referendum. A referendum! When the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wil-

{rid Laurier), who was then Prime Minister, arranged that a number of our soldiers should go to South Africa, not for the defence of Canada-there was no talk about an invasion of .Canada-he did not take a referendum; he did not call Parliament together. If I remember aright, when he proposed to build the National Transcontinental Railway at a cost of about $200,000,000 he first entered into the agreement with the Grand Trunk Pacific railway before he brought the proposal to Parliament at all, although he was three years away from a consultation with the people.
On the 18th August, 1914, when the leader of the Opposition, with greater show of reason than now, might have said, "Let us have a referendum," he did not do so. He gave a pledge that the people of this country would take part in the war and continue to the end. Now, he wants to ask them whether they wish to continue or not. It is an insult to the people of Canada to propose this referendum.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
Mr.x CROTHERS: What does it imply? On the 18th August, 1914, we said the people of Canada were unanimously in favour of our entering the war, and of continuing in it till the end. The referendum implies that they have wearied in well-doing, that the people of Canada are quitters and wish to abandon our boys at the front, and these gentlemen suggest that -a majority of the people will be against conscription.


William Pugsley: How is that implied?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: If my hon. friend from St. John cannot see how it is implied, I do not think I will enlighten him. None are so blind qs those who do not wish to see.


Charles Marcil: Australia voted against conscription, but did not go back on the boys at the front.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Conditions in Australia are very different from conditions in Canada. I do not know the pledges that they made in Australia.


William Pugsley: In what respect are they different?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I want to say to the hon. gentleman from Bonaventure that we have it on very good authority that "by their fruit ye shall know them"-not by their words or their eloquence, or their promise that their constituencies will produce a fair share of men and money-but by their works ye shall know them. Something has been said about the working men of this country. Having been pretty intimately associated with the workingmen during the last five years, I wish to say that of the 160,000 members of labour organizations in Canada, 30,000 have abandoned the bench and gone to the front to fight for us and liberty.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
Mr. 'CROTHERS:	There being 160,000
members of labour organizations and assuming that the workingmen of Canada who are no.t in organizations have volunteered to fight for their country in the same ratio as have the union men, then there are at the front 150,000 men who were employed at manual labour, fighting for liberty. What is the proposition placed before us? Is it to abandon them? Does any man mean t,o tell me that the labour element in Canada is opposed to a war, which is waged to secure liberty and freedom when 150,000 of them have left the bench, shouldered the rifle, risked their lives, left fatherless children, all for the sake of human liberty. Do hon. gentlemen mean to tell me that the working people of this country are opposed to conscription when our continuance in this war depends absolutely upon compuls.ory service. That fact has sunken deep in the mind of every member of this House, and no matter what any man may say, he knows it in his heart. The only way we can back up the boys at the front is by applying the Military Service Act. It is sometimes asked, " Why do you not enforce the Militia Act?" It was enforced in August last. That law was on the statute-book which provided that every male in Canada between the ages of 18 and 60, whether in Quebec or British Columbia, could be compelled to serve his c.ountry. It was only a question of how he should be selected. The Militia Act provides that it could be done by ballot, by mere chance-haphazard. If the most important man to this community were to pick out a ballot which meant he should go, he would have to go.


William Pugsley: Why should he not go?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Because he is of more use at home.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The main difference between the Militia Act and the Military Service Act is in the mode of selecting the men, and in this Act provision is made for keeping at home the men urgently needed in Canada, and those we can spare

go to the front. We all know that it is as important to feed a soldier as to give him a rifle. It is as important that he should have suitable clothing, shells and guns, as it is that he should be there in the firing line. He cannot be provided with food, equipment, and shells, unless men are left at home to do their part. There are men in this country who are not sufficiently robust to go- to the front, but who can work here. Under the Military Service Bill we can select them. The people of Quebec, under the Militia Act, since 1868 have been bound to serve in our army sent beyond Canada, according to the opinion of the Chief Justice of the highest court in this country. So it is in any country in the world that makes any claim to civilization. The state must |be protected, and that means protection to the individual. The individual must bear his -responsibility, and, if need be, save the state. Und,er this Militia Act, we are bound to serve the state, if we are between the ages of 18 and 60.
I digressed a little from the question of labour. I think it my duty to say that the best elements in labour to-day in Canada are in favour ef conscription, and of going to the front. What have they been doing for their brethren who have gone to the front? They have -been paying thousands and thousands of dollars in insurance premiums from time to time when their brothers were away; and, when the breadwinner had sacrificed his life for the liberties of the country, they have seen to it that his widow and fatherless children did not want. Does any man mean to tell me that men of that character are in favour of abandoning their brethren at the front to-day? No, God forbid. I know the workingmen of this country too well to believe anything of that kind. I repeat that the 'best elements in the 'working classes of Canada to-day are in favour of conscription, because they believe it to be necessary, in order to back up our men at the front.
There are on record some letters from representative labour men in the United States and in England. Mr. Gompers, who was appointed by the President of the United States as chairman of a committee to assist the National Council of Defence, wrote to a number of workingmen and asked them to join in assisting the President in this great war. John F. Curley answered:
I will gladly serve, and to the best of my ability do my share for my country in tbp time of her need.

William Green, secretary-treasurer of the United Mine Workers of America, wrote that he would gladly join the committee and do his best for it. Andrew C. Hughes said that the members of the Coopers' International Union stood ready for service at any point designated by the Government. Thomas McNeill was proud to join in the defence of the country. James Lord said:
Real patriotism can only exist with the conservation of human liberties, and when the people of our nation can read the situation in this spirit, the things we all hold dear will not perish, no matter what situation or crisis may confront us. I will be at the meeting at the appointed time.
On May 27, the British Workers' League adopted the following resolution:
We hope that this manifestation of popular sympathy and solidarity on the part of the masses of London's citizens will help to silence the few weak and sinister voices that have been raised in pleas for a premature and dastardly peace-a peace whereby all the sacrifices and all the courage of your brothers and ours would he wasted. We have lived through hours as dark with impending disaster as any that nations have ever suffered, and now that the sun of victory is dawning on our horizon, the masses of the British people are more determined than ever to he worthy of their dead, to -be worthy of their past, and with you to he no unworthy architects of a future in which war and tyranny shall be banished from the world for all time.
I believe that the wage-earners of this country are in favour of continuing the war and of backing up our boys at the front. They are, therefore, in favour of the application of compulsory service, as there is no other way of backing up our soldiers.


Mr. VERVILLE:: How long after United States declared war was this famous committee named?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I could not tell my
hon. friend. Perhaps he knows.


Alphonse Verville: I am asking my hon. friend.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: My hon. friend does not know; neither do I. I know that on May 27 last this resolution was adopted.


Mr. GRAHAM:: It could not have been very long after war was declared.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Why?


George Perry Graham: Because the United
States declared war only recently.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: This resolution was
adopted by the British Workmen's League.


Alphonse Verville: I was asking about the United States. How long after war was de-

dared in the United States was this famous committee named?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I do not remember;
very shortly after.


Alphonse Verville: I think it was before.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: tions to improve a Bill, to the details of which he objects. He says:
That is the business of the Government of this country.	.
I think he said on another occasion that it was his business to criticise, to find fault. It is apparently his business to do nothing to help the Government or to help the boys at the front, if his doing nothing would incidentally help his political party. The hon. member says:
That is the business of the Government of this country. They have brought down a Bill, they are challenging public opinion upon it; they have a right to do so. My business in this House is to show how and where this measure falls short of being in the best interests of the country, if in my judgment it does fall short. Having done that, I have discharged my responsibility.
And he continues:
And I again point out that this Government has brought forward a measure here, under the pretense that it is a measure that shall be a; fair measure of conscription, and it is a measure that does not contain within its four corners the first elements or fairness in the matter of conscription.
Sir Robert Borden: What would be fair?
The Prime Minister asks this old Parliamentarian, this old politician, an ex-minister of the Crown: What would be fair? The answer is:
Mr. Oliver: I am saying to the Prime Minister that that is his business.
The hon. member says to the Prime Minister: That is your business; I will not say one word to help out the boys at the front; I will not say one word to make more perfect this legislation that aims at compelling men to go to the front; that is your business; if I should say one word that would make the Bill more perfect, it might by some circuitous route confer some benefit or advantage upon the Government of the day. Therefore, partisan as my hon. friend is, he lets the boys at the front suffer; he is willing to let this Bill go through imperfect if may be: he lets the people of the country be deprived of his experience, because if he offered any suggestion, it might turn out to be advantageous to the Government of the day. Well the people of this country do not appreciate such conduct.


Frank Oliver: Perhaps the minister will be good enough to say what I should have done.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: 
Frank Oliver: I beg the minister's pardon. I did not speak in favour of the selective draft; I spoke in favour of compulsory service.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I am glad that my hon. friend sees that fine distinction. He would perhaps prefer the Militia Act that was in force for many years while he was in power. He is in favour of taking men from eighteen to sixty years of age under the Militia Act in preference to the method adopted under the Military Service Act. I believe the people of this country want their representatives in this House to use their experience and ability in the interest of prosecuting the war successfully. I think they expect the Prime Minister, the leader of the Opposition, and every other hon. member to carry out the pledge made on the 15th of August, 1914. Each hon. member should carry it out, and his constituents should carry out that pledge made on their behalf. I ask every hon. member:	Are your constituents doing their fair share, according to what they have promised to do?


Frank Oliver: On behalf of my constituents, I can say that they are.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I said that.


Frank Oliver: I would like to compare
them with my hon. friend's constituents, if he is willing to make a comparison.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I am perfectly willing to make1 a comparison, but I did my hen. friend the justice a few minutes 'ago of saying that I believed he had carried out his promise.


Frank Oliver: I beg your pardon, I did not know that.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I will not detain the House any longer. I sincerely hope every lion, member will vote in favour of conscription. Conscription is the only logical action to take; it is absolutely necessary unless we are going to allow our men at the front to be bowled out. It is just possible that it may not be necessary to put conscription into force as recruitjng is reviving, as the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) has mentioned. Conscription is in force in the United States; it is in force in every country in Europe, and it is necessary to have it here unless we are going to break down and be compelled to bow our heads in shame before the civilized world.


Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (North Cape Breton) :: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Labour commenced his speech I really thought he was serious and was going to deal with a serious question in a serious manner, as ministers of the Crown are expected to deal with the business of this country in an enlightened and serious manner. The minister did not go very far into his speech when I was reminded of the old Scotch divine who spoke only Gaelic, and who was rather unexpectedly called upon to preach an English sermon. This divine took as his text: "The Devil goeth about like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour."
t Mr. CROTHERS: That is a chestnut. Give us'something fresh.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am glad there are other nuts besides the one the hon. member is rubbing. This Scottish divine, in his Presbyterian way, divided his text into three parts: Who, the devil, he was; where, the devil, he was going; and what, the devil, he was roaring about. Those were the questions which suggested themselves to me when the Minister of Labour was on his feet. He tells us that we shall be known by our fruits. If that test were applied to the minister he would be a wanderer and a stranger on the earth, and nobody would know him. He would certainly be like that accursed fig tree at the root of which the axe was placed, and which bore no fruit henceforth for ever.


George William Kyte: He is already marked.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister said at the start that he did not want to delay the House and would only speak for a few
159	-
minutes. I am not complaining about the time he took, but if he would only pass around a little brief saying that he was going to read the speeches of the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition on the war we could look these things up for ourselves and save the expense of having them duplicated on Hansard. It would have taken him about the same time to read the 119th Psalm, and we should have had no objection to his reading that in preference to the speeches of the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition, because in reading those he was simply repeating facts the truth of which nobody questions.
He also told us that everybody hated a quitter. Perhaps so, but it depends upon when he is quitting, and how. To judge by the physiognomies of hon. gentlemen opposite when the Minister of Labour sat down, I think they preferred a quitter to one who kept on threshing old straw and beating the air. Is there anybody in this House, or in this country, who says that we are not in favour of Canada's participation in this war? Is there anybody in this House or out of it who takes a different position today from the position we took on the 14th of August, 1914? When the war broke out hon. gentlemen on this side of the House were in favour of Canada taking part in it and standing by the Mother Country, of which we are all so proud; that was the position we took in August, 1914, and that is our position to-day. But the Minister of Labour talks to us as if we were a kindergarten class, and tells us what our duty is and what we ought to be and do. We on this side of the House know what our duty is just as well as the Minister of Labour and those who sit around him, and are just as loyal and determined to carry on to the end.
The Minister of Labour speaks as if the leader of the Opposition had departed from the attitude he took at the beginning of the war. Nothing of the kind. Anything that was said by the Prime Minister or the leader of the Opposition in the war session of 1914 must be read in the light of conditions existing at that time. We had then a voluntary system. For nearly fifty years nobody in this country had ever thought of compulsory service, and nobody ever said anything about compulsory service in the war session of 1914. Everything that was then said in regard to the force we expected to put in the field and the support they should receive had reference to the voluntary system; that was the system under whieb we intended to fight. To suggest that the leader of the Opposition would have any-



thing to say against Canada's standing behtnd the Mother Country is simply absurd. Any one who talks that way should be reminded of the history of Canada in connection with matters of this kind. We all remember what took place in 1834 when the great Tory chief. Sir John A. Macdonald, was in charge of the destinies of this country.	England was then at
war, and suggested to Sir John A. Macdonald that it would be well to have assistance from Canada along certain lines. Did Sir John A. Macdonald give any assistance to the Mother Country at that time? Nothing of the sort. He turned the suggestion down cold. Not a ship, not a man, not a dollar was sent from Canada at that time, but Sir John and his supporters in Ontario were never accused of being disloyal because of his action at that time. It remained for Sir Wilfrid Laurier when the Boer war broke out in 1899 to make the great departure of sending soldiers from this country to fight the battles of Great Britain. It is not very likely'that the man who took upon himself the responsibility of first sending soldiers from this country to fight the battles of Great Britain, in the face of what might be regarded as strenuous opposition in some parts of this country, will go back on the precedent which he himself created, and behind which the people of this country firmly stood. The Minister of Labour said that nothing further could be done to support our soldiers at the front unless this Bill was passed. I would expect him to have some knowledge of the facts when he makes [DOT] a statement of that kind, but when he was asked by the hon. member for St. John how recruiting was going, he knew nothing whatever about it. He did not know that 8,000 men had been recruited in Canada in the last month, yet only the moment before he had been proclaiming to the world that the voluntary system had fallen down in this country and nothing further could be expected from it. The next question he was asked was why recruiting for the artillery had been stopped in this country. It is reported that in Great Britain and France they have more artillery men than they require, but the hon. gentleman knew nothing about it, and all he did was to launch a volume of words upon this House and country without knowing what he was talking about. If it is a fact that we can get more artillery men in Canada than we have room for, it does not look as if the voluntary system had fallen down in this country.

Nobody knows better than the minister knows-or ought to know-that there is no better arm going to the front than that of the artillery. If we have as much artillery as we require-and it is said that we have and that of the very best kind-why should the minister seek to impress upon us the belief that recruiting by the voluntary system has fallen down? I submit that the facts go to show that if the voluntary system were given a fair show we should get all the men we want, and we should retain the pride, and dignity, and honour, of having done our part under the voluntary system and not 'by compulsion.
The Minister of Labour told us that labour was in favour of the war. He read letters from a certain committee, but he knew nothing about them, their position, or their tendencies, and so what he said on that point was perfectly in line with the rest of his speech. Nobody need be disturbed by any of the noise we have heard this afternoon in connection with conscription or voluntary service. I think it only right to remind the hon. gentleman (Mr. Crothers) that as Minister of Labour he has not done 'much to keep the labour element, which is a very important element, in proper shape for the service they have to do at home, or in proper temper for the service they might do their country at the front. The record of the hon. gentleman in connection with labour questions shows that he does nothing at all with regard to any problem until it is too late-he is rather of the post mortem variety. A few days ago we had a gathering 4 of labour leaders in the city of Ottawa, the men who are supposed to know the conditions of labour, and the feelings of labour, w'ith regard to the Government and with regard to the war. These men presented to the Prime Minister a memorial setting forth what they thought of the action of the Minister of Labour and of the Government generally. The contractors for munitions are under Government control and subject to Government regulation-for this we have the word of the Prime Minister. This being so, the relations existing between labour and these contractors should be governed, and governed as far as possible to the satisfaction of labour. The memorial that these labour leaders presented was brought to the attention of the House by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte). So far the allegations made have not been denied, hut, on the other hand, we do not hear that anything has been done to improve the conditions under which labour is carried on. As

I am following the Minister of Labour, I think it only right to present to the House the statement of the labour men. I hope there is still prospect of the minister doing something about it, even though of a post mortem character. I put this in Hansard in the hope that more attention will be paid to it and some remedy found for the evils complained of:-
1.	Violation of sanitary requirements-gross negligence in regard to the protection of the health of the workers, in camp and plant construction.
2.	Lowering the wage standards already established in different sections of the Dominion.
3.	Elimination of the eight hour day and the introduction of the 10, 12 and 14 hour day, and seven-day week.
4.	The unnecessary dilution of labour by the
introduction of female labour, before proper steps have been taken to utilize available skilled mechanics.	.
5.	Where dilution has occurred no general effort has been made to maintain the same standard wages as received by the men.
6.	Substitution of cheap, semi-skilled labour from rural districts for construction work, because of their willingness to accept less than the Trades Union rates.
7.	A declared policy of refusing to recognize Trades Union representatives in determining the wages and hours on contracts let by them.
S. Challenging Trades Union officials to obtain reasonable conditions by use of their organized power instead of through negotiations which would result in strikes.
The unanimous conclusion was reached that the time had arrived for the re-organization of this board on the basis of equal representation of labour with the employing interests.
We therefore ask that you endorse the conclusion arrived at by forwarding a letter to Premier Borden, House of Commons, Ottawa, and to the federal representatives from your constituency. Give this immediate attention. It is important.
These are the conditions of labour under the benign control and direction of the hon. gentleman who has just addressed the House. By dealing with these matters, he would be doing something calculated to assist in bringing more men to the support of the country and towards making the .voluntary system more popular. I need hardly tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it is highly important that the people of this country should be as well treated and as carefully looked after as possible, if we expect them to be in a proper frame of mind to volunteer to meet the public demands made upon them in connection with the war, or any other public matter.
The hon. minister has spent a great deal of time in proving that this law is not new, that it is merely the law that has been on the statute-books for the last fifty years. If so, why then introduce this new Bill? If it is the same law, a law which has produced good results, with which the people are contented, and which has raised no trouble or obstacle in the minds of the people, why does the Prime Minister introduce this new measure causing trouble, dissatisfaction and fear among the people? Is this of the nature of a war dance? We know that savage tribes, when engaged in war, hold war dances to get up their fighting blood. But there was no necessity to stir the blood of the people of Canada after the fashion of an Indian war dance. I trust not; the old plan is always as necessary, and I trust we shall fall back upon it and that there will be no further trouble and no further question of the people with this new law.
When we said in 1914 that we would do everything we could in this war, and when we are saying to-day that we are willing to do everything we can do in this war, it must certainly be borne in mind that we are going to do everything we can do as a united people, that we are going to do everything that Canada can do as a nation, working together, every man from the Atlantic to. the Pacific a Canadian, a true subject .of the King, doing what, according to his best conscience and his best knowledge and his best understanding of his constitutional rights, thinks is his duty to do. And if we are going to introduce in Canada any other methods of carrying on the war or assisting in it, we are taking steps that are going to break up this country, and the end will be worse than the beginning. I assure you that the getting of 50,000 men or even 100,000 men in Canada, after we have broken up the ties of love and affection and good-will that are to-day binding together - every nationality and province, if we smash Confederation in doing it, the Kaiser would be very much more pleased at the breaking up of Confederation than he would be afraid of the number of men we would so obtain. It is therefore up to those who are in charge of the Government of this country, to carry on the war, tp help the war, to bring it to a satisfactory conclusion, along lines, that are not going to break up happy communities in the Dominion of Canada.
Hon. gentlemen opposite may think that I am not sincere in anything I say on this p.oint, and that' I am disposed to talk politics. But there is an hon. gentleman sitting among themselves who, until a few days ago, occupied the high position of a minister of the Crown and who was honoured by the Prime Minister by being picked put from the large number of good

followers he had about him from Quebec and made Secretary -of State for Canada. That hon. gentleman sent a letter to the Prime Minister a few days ago just on this point, and in order that hon. gentlemen opposite and on my own side of the House may know that that gentleman concurs exactly in what I have stated, I will read his letter to the Pirime Minister:
Dear Sir Robert,
On the 18th of May last when you acquainted the House with your intention presenting a Bill providing for compulsory service during the present war.
From the moment you submitted your intention to the Council, I drew your attention to its extreme gravity and to the consequences which, to my mind, would follow.
I have, however, thought it my (duty in these critical times, to abstain from any hasty decision, as long as I could entertain the hope that these considerations, as well as the very serious events which were meanwhile developing, would induce you to modify, if not to completely change your decision.
I cannot now expect that my hope will be realized; you have m fact decided to introduce, without further delay, your proposed Bill, and have it passed during this session.
Therefore, I feel bound to sever my connection with the Cabinet on this question.
I have always thought, and do yet think, that the best interests of Canada make it a duty for this country to give to the cause of the allies its most generous support. But to do this, X cannot conour in any measure which in my estimation imperils national unity. The proposed law, I have every reason to fear, threatens to destroy this unity, and to give rise throughout the country to deep internal divisions of long duration, and" even detrimental to the needs of the present moment. Indeed it is better to keep the country united in the present effort than to attempt a mightier one at the cost of national disruption.
I, therefore, find myself unable to approve of the intended law, and the only course open to me is to offer my resignation as a minister of the Crown.
That, Sir, is carrying out precisely what my own view is on that point and connecting that up with what I have already said, I think it is the duty of this country, and that we are doing our full duty, when, in the first instance, we exhaust every legitimate effort to get the number of men we want by the voluntary system, and give the voluntary system a fair show. If finally it is proved to us that that oannot be carried out, it will then be time enough to Tesort to the compulsory system.
The Minister of Labour talked lightly of our duty in the matter of conscription, I want to bring home to this House and to this minister that it is not a light matter to force anybody to go to the front, and perhaps be shot. I have, perhaps, as much interest as any man in this House in the

winning of the war. I do not come to this House with any handicap that anybody can throw slurs at my loyalty or the country or people from which I sprang. 'I stand upon as good a foundation from the standpoint of loy alty and the history of my people, as any man in this House. Therefore I do not fear any taunts or slurs being thrown at me in connection with my loyalty to my King and country. But, at the same time, there is a duty devolving upon us to accomplish this end, and to accomplish it in the easiest possible way, and in the way that will -bring least responsibility and heart rending to ourselves and to the country in days to come. A young man may be married, with two or three children around him. He volunteers to go to the front. That is his own act, we arc glad that he does it, and we pray that he may return happy to his wife and family. But if anything happens to him, if he is shot down and leaves a widow and two or three little orphans, we have not any great responsibility about it, in a way, because he is a volunteer, he went himself, and it has been his own free voluntary act that has brought that condition about. But if we send an officer of the Crown into that house and tear that man away from his wife and his children and send him to the front and he is shot, it comes home to us with trying feelings indeed that we are responsible for sending the officer after him; we are responsible for sending him to the front; we are responsible for throwing his children upon the mercy of the cold charity of this country, and leaving his wife a widow. These are the conditions that come about in this country, and must of necessity come about, by a compulsory system. Let me impress upon the House and upon you, Sir, that it is only when there is the clearest possible evidence that there is no escaping from compulsory service, that it should be adopted in this or any other country. I submit to you that if the voluntary system had received a fair trial and a fair start in this country, there would be no necessity whatever to resort to means such as the effect of the Bill which is now before the House should it become law. I submit to you, Sir, that voluntary enlistment did not receive a fair show at the hands of our hon. friends. I submit to you that from the very beginning of the war, throughout every day and every month of it from the day of the declaration of war down to this day, hon. gentlemen opposite, who are supporters of the Government and who are members of the Government, were

just as rigid in their party affiliations, and just as rigid in their dispensing of patronage, in connection with the war as in connection with anything else. And, that being the case, they created a cleavage in this country which they cannot very well overcome. They have made two camps, as far as their favourites, and advancement and promotion were concerned. They have given favours to their friends, and left nothing attractive to the other side. We have had appropriation after appropriation voted in this House, and we have had money Bills introduced by the Minister of Finance, and I have always taken opportunity, when a vote was passed, to say: I do not object to any moneys you are getting, but see to it that the money is used in the best interest of the country, and give up your partisan dispensing of patronage. I have had promises that that would be done, but never any fulfilment of those promises. That has been the state of affairs from the commencement of the war to the present time. It is possible, Mr. Speaker, for a man to create dissensions and dissatisfactions in his own house. If a man has six boys, and he gives three of them boots and clothing, and treats them lavishly, although perhaps not better than they ought to be treated, but he lets the other three go barefooted, with no proper food, and does not look after them properly, could it be expected that the same service, fealty, love and affection would be accorded to the parent by the three neglected sons that he would expect from those upon whom he lavishes his goods and his love? That would not be natural. That is the way this country has been treated by the Government. They have given their moneys, promotions, offices, advancement, and, if they could, would have given military crosses and knighthoods to. the Tories, and they have left the Liberals out in the cold. I think it is a most marvellous thing that we obtained the result we did in this country under the voluntary system, judging by the way it was handled by hon. gentleman who had the responsibility of procuring enlistment and the conduct of the war generally. What say you as to the fairness of the way in which matters were conducted in this country by the Government themselves since the outbreak of the war, if we are to believe the correspondence-not merely stories-between the exMinister of Militia and the Prime Minister? That .correspondence has been brought down, and is on the records of this House over the signature of the exMinister of Militia, and it shows that four
long months had passed while he was trying to get the second contingent to the front, when it was just as necessary to send assistance to the .boys in the. trenches as it is now. That period elapsed) with something like 40,000 or 50,000 men Teady to be sent, but they were held. And why? Because they had no equipments? Not at all. Were they held because they were not trained and ready to take their places at the front? Not at all. They were held, Sir, because there was a faction in the Cabinet, fighting for graft, and wanting to get the money of the country, to apply it to their own purposes and the purposes of their friends.
Some' hon. MEMBERS:	Hear, hear.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Nothing could be more fiendish, and) nothing or more deserving of crucifixion, if it were possible to invoke such a punishment in this country, of every man in the Cabinet who had anything to do with that nefarious act of holding up men for three months, because there was a wrangle in the Cabinet, as to who would get his hand deepest into the Treasury, ot the fund to be obtained from the purchase of equipment furnished to these men. That statement is published and is a matter of record. It is official, as between the retiring minister and the Prime Minister, and it never has been denied. I will repeat what I stated in the presence of the Prime Minister and the Government, that, partisan as I am, I would not believe such a thing, if it came to me through the newspapers, or through sources of my own party, but when it comes over the signature of the Minister of Militia, who knows what is going on in the sanctum-sanctorum of the Government, I have nothing to do but believe it, until substantial evidence to the contrary is produced. As, such evidence has not been forthcoming, nothing remains but for the country to believe that the facts are just as they were presented, and that members pf the Government were content to sit down for four months, bickering about how much money they could make, and permitting the boys at the front to ibe killed, while the support that should be sent tp them, in the nature of forty or fifty thousand men, remained idle in this country, at a cost of twenty-five or thirty million of money, absolutely to no purpose. It would have been better for them to have voted some money between themselves, put it in the Estimates and let the country pay for it. There would be

no trouble about their friends behind them forcing it through Parliament, and they could divide it up between them. That would show they had some manhood about them, instead of leaving the hoys -at the front exposed to death and danger, while they were squabbling over matters here. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce told us the other day that voluntary recruiting failed. If it failed, these are the hurdles on which it stumbled. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has never given us any explanation, and he is responsible for these things, just as much as any other minister of the Cabinet. 1S0 far, we have heard no word of explanation from him pr anybody else. The ex-minister told us yesterday that it was' a heresy, a doctrine that could not be sustained in this country, that one minister was responsible for the conduct of another, and that it was 'busybody practice on the part of a minister to interfere with another minister. That is not the constitution of this country. That is not the responsibility which is regarded in this country as devolving uppn ministers. The ministers are themselves responsible.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Hear, hear.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: And the one is answerable to the other, and they are all answerable for the conduct of the Government. But yesterday we heard from the ex-minister this pernicious doctrine pronounced, and there was not a murmur of dissent from any gentleman on the Government benches. They accepted that proposition as being all right. I think they were so thoroughly scared of the hon. gentleman who has left the Cabinet that he can say what he likes and kick just as much as he pleases. Nobody will answer him, but they allow his' statements to go unchallenged, all of them praying: Lord be merciful to us, because we have all sinned, and come short of thy glory, and if we allow the statements of this gentleman to pass with,out saying anything to him, it is possible he may leave us alone. That is the only reason I can advance why, when such a pernicious doctrine as that was propounded, that a minister had to be king of his own department and, that he could do just as he pleased, no answer was made to him. If the ex-Minister of Militia could have done as he pleased those four months of expensive and painful waiting would have been saved, and the men would have been sent to the front. But this pernicious system of mutual responsibility of members of the Government stood in his way, and, as far
IMr. McKenzie.!
as I could see, every man on the Government benches said, amen.
These are matters which, as far as partnership is concerned, I desire to bring to the attention of the hon. gentleman who now leads the House (Sir George Foster). I am sure that hon. gentleman is not without influence in the cabinet. We are now in the midst of the war, and if those things were bad, if those blunders have been made, and if we have paid dearly for them, and are suffering on that account, there is certainly no logical reason why they should be continued.
Even at this fifty-ninth minute of the eleventh hour we ask the minister who is leading the House to take this matter in hand, to use his influence to prevent graft and to do away with the abuses resulting from political patronage. He told us long ago that these things were pernicious, that they were poisoning the very body politic of bur-country. Let him now see that everybody is treated fairly; that the cleavage which has taken place among the great masses of the people be done away with; that every man who wishes to join the military forces may realize that whether he is Grit or Tory he has friends in the Cabinet who will stand by him, and give him a square deal. If all persons were treated on an equal basis things would toe very different from what they are to-day.
You may ask me, Mr. Speaker, what is my authority for saying that partisanship has been rife. My authority is my own knowledge and my own eyes. In the counties of Cape Breton and Victoria we had and still have ia battalion known as the 94th Highlanders. Though that battalion has not toeen asked to go to the front, it has been the means of organizing and training over 600 men who have gone to the front, some of whom have since died, many of whom are toravely serving their country in France, and Flanders. That battalicn was in charge of its old officers, Colonel McRae, Major Gillies, and Major McLean, first-class military men. A year ago or so, when the ex-Minister of Militia went to the county of Cape Breton he made a tour of those camps, accompanied by a couple of Tory spies. Of course, he was given the secret sign as to who was Grit and who was Tory. He was told that Major Gillies was a Grit, that Major McLean was a Grit; that Colonel McRae was not just as docile as he should be; that he was exercising some little will of his own; that he was net discharging men as he was asked to discharge them and that he would not take on some

of the cripples that he was asked to take on. It was pointed out, therefore, that these men were thorns in the fieeh of the Tory party, and should be put out of the way. What happened? After the ex-Minister of Militia returned to Ottawa, Major McLean, Major Gillies and Colonel McRae were dismissed; and to-day they are degraded and disgraced. No explanation for their dismissal was given; they were simply told to quit. When things like this get abroad, the men say: what is the good of being attached to the 94th Highlanders? What is the good of giving our services? These three officers were attached to the battalion for twenty-five years. Simply because a Tory heeler, a local M.P.P. for Cape Breton county, went round with the minister and pointed them out, they were branded for death, and death was meted out to them. That, Sir, is the condition of things in my county; that is one of the reasons why I say that partisanship has been rampant in Canada since the war began. As to the time before the war I find no fault. I am a partisan myself, and if, in time of peace, party business is carried on decently along party lines, I have no objection., But in war times, when all persons should be treated fairly, patronage should ha^Te no part in the management of the affairs of the country, particularly those which have to do with the prosecution of the war.
I may be asked what further evidence I have. Men are appointed to positions from day to day; do you see any Grits appointed? Far be it from hon. gentlemen opposite to appoint a Grit, no matter what ability he may possess. A Fuel Controller has been appointed by the Department of Labour., With the gentleman who was appointed-a former member of this House-I have no fault to find; but he is a partisan of the deepest dye. I do not know where I could put my hand on a stronger partisan-that is, if I may judge from his conduct while he was in this House. We have a Food Controller. Is he a Grit? One would almost think that the Government would reason this way: we have appointed a Tory as a Fuel Controller; we will appoint a Liberal as Food Controller. That will please the Liberals, and show them that we desire to be fair. But that would never do. The Government went to Ontario and found this man Hanna. I suppose he is a good man, but he is a strong Tory. His partisanship and Toryism were brought to the attention of the country
during many months-perhaps not for good reasons; hut he is known in the Maritime Provinces as a man whose zeal for party has sometimes got him into financial difficulty. These Tory officials go around the country with orders to call upon other Tories less influential, perhaps, than themselves, and with less sense of responsibility. Whatever is done is done through the agency of partyism, from start to finish. When there is a suggestion that a coalition Government he formed we are told that we should all come together and set aside party considerations. If that spirit is abroad, and if the members of the Government want to give any evidence of their good faith they should make some appointments along the lines that I have indicated. But .they would be very sorry to do that, because they would then be departing from the principle to which they will adhere to the end. I do not know that it is worth my while giving further evidence of the baneful effect of partisanship upon recruiting. Although the ex-Minister of Militia has denied any such partisanship, the evidence is so profuse, prolific and overwhelming that we must accept it in preference to the denial of the ex-Minister of Militia.
On January 1, 1916, the Prime Minister made a proclamation that Canada would enrol 500,000 men. About that I have nothing to say; the action has already been criticised and fully debated. But when the Prime Minister made that proclamation he knew what the law was; he knew what the practice was; he knew by what means the people expected these 500,000 men to be recruited. And we have it on the authority of the ex-Minister of Militia that a few months afterwards, in March or April of the same year, a further proclamation went out to the Minister of Militia of that day telling him to let up on recruiting; not to put forth any further effort in that regard. If voluntary recruiting fell down, that was another hurdle that was thrown in its way by the leader of the Government himself. When the ex-Minister of Militia referred to this matter in the House yesterday I did not hear any murmur of complaint either from the Prime Minister or from any person sitting on the other side.
I have already put on Hansard some of the things that were said by the ex-Minister of Militia. So far we .have heard no denial of these charges, some of which are very grave. He charges the Government and its officials with being under the influence of German gold.

1900, that was after he had considered his attitude in regard to the participation of this country in the South African war. His words are as follows: "We believe it our duty as a British colony to take part in the war and permit 2,000 Canadian volunteers to enlist in the English army and to fight for the mother country. We did it because we believed it our duty to do it, and in response to the unanimous sentiments of the people of this country. We are a free country. Ours is a constitutional Government, and our duty is to put into execution the popular will, and the moment the popular will was known to us we had that duty to discharge and we discharged it of our - free will. There wag no power to constrain us to act as we did, but in the plenitude of our legislative independence we had the right to reply to the popular will." I would invite my right hon. friend to-day to respond again to the popular will; and the will of the country to-day is that these different proposals ought to be submitted to the people, and the people ought to be permitted to pass upon them before any permanent policy of this kind is engaged in. I think there is a great deal to be said in favour of that course. I am as strong as any man in this country in the belief that it is the duty of Canada to participate upon a permanent basis in the defence of this Empire, and to do our reasonable share in that regard, but I say that to attempt. to force a policy of this kind upon the people of this country without giving them an opportunity to say "yea" or "nay" in regard to it would be one of the worst mistakes that could be made by any man who* really favoured that policy.
The Prime Minister then took the view that it ^rould be one of the worst mistakes to force upon the people a policy on which they had not had an opportunity to say yea or hay. There voted for that resolution moved by Sir Robert Borden, Messrs:
Armstrong, Arthurs, Parker, Barnard, Best, Blain, Borden (Halifax), Boyce, Bradbury, Bristol, Broder, Burrell, Campbell, Chisholm (Huron), Cowan, Crocket, Crothers, Curry (Simcoe), Daniel, Doherty, DonnoHy, Edwards, Elson, Fraser, Goodeve, Gordon (Nipissing), Haggart (Lanark), Haggart (Winnipeg), Henderson, Harrow, Hughes, Jameson, Kidd, Lake, Lalor, Lancaster, Lennox, Lewis, Mac-donnell, McCall, McCarthy, Madden, McGrath, Marshall, Meighen, Middlebro, Northrup, Owen, Pel-ley, Porter, Price, Reid (Grenville), Rhodes, Roche

 Russell, Schaffner, Sexsmith, Sharpe (Liskeard), Sharpe (Ontario), Smythe, Sproule. Stanfield, Staples, Stewart, Taylor (Leeds), Taylor (New Westminster), Thoburn, Thornton, Wallace, White (Renfrew), Wilcox (Essex), Wilson (Lennox & Addington), Worthington, Wright.
That was the opinion of that army of gentlemen who think we should now be insulting the people if we asked them for their opinion of this measure. The present Minister of Labour was among those who voted for the resolution. He took the view that the people should be consulted on the question of building ships, which only involved the purchase of some hem-

lock and steel rivets and so on. Now he says it would be an insult to get the people's opinion on a measure the object of which is to drive our men to the cannon's mouth. If is remarkable how one's geographical position changes one's mind. I do not think I could find any better support for the argument for a referendum than the resolution I have just read. The present Minister of Trade and Commerce was practically the only hon. gentleman opposite who did not vote on that resolution. I remember the occasion well. The Minister of Trade and Commerce suddenly discovered that he had to go to Toronto, and although his train did not go until eleven he left , the House at ten o'clock.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: What a memory the hon. gentleman has.


Charles Murphy: We all remember that.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: 
An hon. MEMBER:: Did they not say they were in favour of conscription?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: All they said was that they were in favour of conscription provided there was conscription of wealth and material and all the rest as well. But that is not this Bill, and the resolution is not divisible; you cannot approbate and reprobate, as the old saying was; you cannot take

the part of the resolution with which you are complying and ignore the other part. That resolution cannot be used at all unless it is used in its entirety, and I submit, therefore, that the resolution is no authority. Let me say that I hope and trust that the Government will come to -better reasoning about this matter and will steer a course that will answer the purpose which no doubt they have in view of bringing the war to a successful issue and filling up our ranks; but let them do it without breaking up Confederation; do it without having civil war in this country; do it by having peace and unity and going forward hand in hand, as this great people have done in the past and as they hope to do in the future.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. WILLIAM S. MIDDLEBRO (North Grey): Mr. Speaker, as hon. members of this House know, I have not of recent years, troubled them much by expressing my opinions upon the various matters which have been brought before Parliament, but the Bill, the second reading of which is now before the House, is of such tremendous importance that I feel impelled to express my views on it. My hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie), who has just spoken, made several references to the question of a referendum. I do not purpose to follow him through the devious courses of his speech, but I should like to touch upon one or two questions with which he dealt, more particularly, as I observed, that at the conclusion of his speech he seemed to be heartily congratulated by some of his friends upon the argument he advanced in favour of a referendum. I should like to preface my remarks by saying that I desire that anything I say may be received in the most kindly spirit, which is certainly the spirit by which my remarks shall be inspired. The hon. gentleman from North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) cited as a precedent for submitting this Bill to the people by referendum, thus following the amendment of his honoured leader, that in 1910, when Sir Wilfrid Laurier introduced his Naval Service Bill for the establishment of a permanent naval policy for Canada, we on this side voted that the matter should be submitted to the people. I should like to point out to the hon. gentleman, in the first place, that he begs the question, because the passage of the Naval Service Bill in 1910 meant the enactment of an en 
tirely new law on the statutes of Canada, while the present Bill is merely a variation of the law as it stands on our statute-books to-day. In other words we are not now introducing any new principle or any new law; we are simply taking a portion of the old law, and making it conformable to the circumstances and conditions now existing in our country. But, even if that were not so the hon. gentleman from Cape Breton has again begged the question in this respect, in 1912, when Sir Robert Borden initiated his policy for immediate contribution of money for the purpose of providing ships for the British Navy to meet the emergency, he did not ask the Government to go to the country. But in regard to the permanent policy, which the Government in 1910 proposed to impose upon the people of Canada, he urged that the Government should consult the people.
And so, to-day, we are not introducing any new permanent policy. Any man who looks- within the four corners of the Bill can -see that the present Bill is simply a temporary urgent measure to enable the selection of 100,000 men for a particular purpose, namely to fill up the gap and -assist those gallant Canadians who voluntarily have gone overseas to defend the principles of freedom and justice. There is no parallel whatever between the two eases, because the only instance in which we voted for the submission of a question to the people was not toy way of a referendum, but by way of an election in order to have the people approve of it. The only case in which we said that the matter should be submitted to the people was in regard to a -permanent policy, such as the Naval Service Act introduced by Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1910. Upon that question we said that they should consult the people by means of a general election, and, when we came into power, we took exactly the same ground. Then Sir Robert BoTden proposed to provide three dreadnoughts as an emergency contribution to Great Britain, and he introduced and passed that through the Commons but was unable to put the measure through Parliament by reason of the action of the Senate. But at the same time he said:
Then, Sir, as to the permanent policy, I think the people have a right to be consulted.
So that the argument o-f my hon. friend from Cape Breton falls to the ground for two reasons. This is not a new thing, and it is not a departure from the statutory law. It provides for the selection of 100,-

000 from hundreds of thousands who would be liable for service, under the law as it stands on the statutes to-day. The hon. member for Cape Breton said:
There is no question whatever that the people are behind us in whatever we do to bring this war to a successful conclusion. There is no hurry.
If the people are behind us in whatever we do to carry this war to a suceesful conclusion, what is the use of a referendum?
Those are his own words. I submit the whole argument my hon. friend attempted to deduce this afternoon in favour of a referendum to the people has been cut from under his feet by his own very words. The hon. member further said:
If this Act is not new law, what is the use of introducing it?
Again my hon. friend has failed to grasp that practically the only object in introducing the present Bill was not to say that certain men should be liable for military service who were not before liable but it was to say that only the men of those classes specified should be liable for military service, and if we had these provisions giving power to make selection, in the old Act, no doubt - the present Act would not have been introduced. But, that would not get us away from the fact that under the existing law the man power of Canada would be subject to conscription, if we may use that term, or to compulsion, just the same as under the present Bill.
Let me say a word or two with reference to the marks made by my hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux). I feel almost like apologizing to the House for attempting to controvert his contention. Notwithstanding all that has been said in this House, he seems to be of the opinion still, that there is no constitutional right or authority in Parliament to pass the Bill now before us. If that is the kind of doctrine he is preaching to the people of Quebec, I can easily understand why the people of that province have the opinion which they appear to have on this question to-day, and it is unfortunate that these people should be led to believe that what we are attempting to do in this House to-day is unconstitutional unless the question is first submitted to them. Perhaps the House will excuse me, if I, briefly, place my views before the House on the constitutionality of this question.
By the Revised Statutes of Canada, chapter 41, it is provided that "His Majesty may call out the militia, or any part thereof, for active service, either within or without Canada, at any time when it appears advisable to do so, by reason of war, invasion or insurrection, or danger of either, and the militiamen, when so called out for active service, shall continue to serve for at least one year from the date of their being called out for active service, if required to do so, or for any period longer that His Majesty appoints."
If we read the English language and take the ordinarily accepted meaning of words, then there is no doubt that the militia of Canada may be called out for active service either within or without Canada at any time under the above section, and under that Act "militia" is declared to include all male inhabitants 18 years old and under 60, and that all male inhabitants capable of bearing arms may be called out in case of a levee en masse.
It is a peculiar thing that by the Militia Act of 1904, while the words "for the defence of Canada" were added by the Laurier Administration, upon being questioned in the House as to whether or not the addition of those words made any difference in the meaning of the then existing Act, as to the rights or powers of the Government to call out the militia for service outside of Canada, it was admitted by the then Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden), notwithstanding what my hon. friend from Rouville said the other day, that it made no change whatever in the law or the policy of the old Act. The Act, as then changed, reads as follows:
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 any emergency.
The words "for the defence thereof" were added.
So that if what we are doing can be in any way construed as being for the defence of Canada, no hon. gentleman in this House has the right to say that we have not absolute authority to call out the militia of Canada for service in the Canadian Expeditionary Force abroad.
As to the interpretation of the words "for the defence of Canada," Sir Frederick Borden, as reported on page 6492 of Hansard, 1904, said that the insertion of these words constituted no change of policy. He said:
There has been no change in policy. It seems to me that we have made clear in this section exactly what is understood as the object of a militia force in every country. In the mother country, and in every province of this Dominion prior to Confederation, this has been the rule. We are always able to meet times of stress and emergency. If it becomes

recessary to send troops to assist the Empire at distant points, we always have the means at hand of doing' so. Parliament can he called and a special force organized.
I believe that Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, then Mr. Fitzpatrick, was Minister of Justice at that time. He was afterwards appointed by the late Administration to the position of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. If my right hon. friend had such confidence in the ability of Sir Charles Fitzpatrick as to appoint him to the position of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, he should be willing to accept the opinion of that gentleman as to the constitutionality of this Act and as to our power to send troops out of Canada for the defence of our country. This is what Sir Charles Fitzpatrick said at that time:
The Governor in Council may send the militia of Canada out of Canada at any time when cieeme 1 necessary for the defence of Canada. If, in the opinion of the Governor in Council it should be necessary, because of a war going on in India, to send militia out there for the defence of Canada, they may, in the exercise of their discretion, do it, because they are the sole judges of what is necessary to be done in the defence of Canada.
The then Minister of Justice said that the Governor in Council were the sole judges-of where troops should be sent in the defence of Canada; they might send them out of Canada as far, he said, as India. Then he went on to say:
But we do not think it advisable that that power should be absolutely and unrestrictedly in the hands of the Governor in Council. We think it advisable that the period during which they may exercise that power should be restricted and that Parliament should be called together and be consulted at the earliest opportunity. Parliament must be summoned in 15 days and then the whole matter will be in the bands of the people's representatives.
Is -that not quite clear? The whole matter would then be in .the hands of the-people's representatives, whereas for the first 15 days it would be absolutely in the hands of the Governor in Council.
Mr. Bourassa and Mr. Lavergne, then loyal followers of the then Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) were in the House on that occasion and took part in the discussion. Upon the particular clause in question Mr. Bourassa expressed himself as follows: I
I admit that an emergency may arise when the Government should have the power to call out the militia immediately. I do not dispute that; but suppose an occasion should arise on which Canada should be called upon to organize its militia and send a large portion of it outside of Canada when in the judgment of a large number of the people and the Parliament of Canada, it would be to the disad-
vantage of the. country to have so large a number of troops sent out. Parliament should be the final judge of that question, and the Government should call Parliament to deal with that matter.
Later he said:
Before we proceed to another clause-
They were at that time dealing with the clause respecting the right to send the mil-iitia out of Canada.
*-I wish to say that if there is to be a new clause making it obligatory on the Government to call Parliament within a fixed date, after having made use of the power granted under clause 77, then I shall not propose any amendment. But if there be such a new clause, I wish it to be distinctly understood that I shall be at liberty to move some amendment to this clause.
In accordance with the views of Mr. Bourassa, a clause was added making it obligatory for Parliament to meet within 15 days. As Mr. Bourassa said, Parliament would then be supreme.
Mr. Lavergne was in the House at that time, and interjected some remarks. He was present when Mr. Bourassa made his speech, and he made no objection to the doctrine and the principles there enunciated and laid down by Mr. Bourassa: that Parliament was supreme in this matter, and that we had the right to send troops outside of Canada for the defence of Canada. That is the position he took in 1904, when he was a member of the House and a supporter of Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
War was declared on the 4th of August, 1914. Parliament was summoned within 15 days, namely, on the 18th day of August. Between the 4th and the 18th the Governor in Council had authorized the raising of troops for service abroad, and in the August session of 1914 this action was unanimously ratified by Parliament. There can be no -doubt, therefore, that according to the principles announced by Sir Frederick Borden, Sir Charles Fitzpatrick and Mr. Bourassa, the Canadian Expeditionary Force is abroad to-day by reason of authority contained in the statutes of the Dominion of Canada. These gentlemen all recognized that the defence of Canada might necessarily take place abroad. Will any man in this House say that our first and most effective lines of defence to-day are not those in Flanders and France? If our soldiers are pushed back from Flanders and France they will ultimately be on the hanks of the St. Lawrence. Is it not better to make our fight effective in France and Flanders and to be successful there in order that we shall have no need of trenches in Canada? In this

way we shall avoid the devastation and destruction that go with first line trenches, and we shall accomplish all that we could accomplish were we to defend ourselves upon the shores of Canada. With this difference : our 'being compelled to defend ourselves upon the shores of Canada would mean our being defeated in Europe and if we were defeated in Europe there would be no use in attempting to defend ourselves in Canada from the aggressions of a power like a victorious Germany.
My right hon. friend has said, in his speech on the second reading of this Bill, that he has never feared and does not now fear an invasion of Canada* Well, I do not know how he can say that. I think the right hon. gentleman is mistaken in his belief. I recall an occasion not more than six months prior to the declaration of war when the right hon. gentleman, taunting Sir Bobert Borden because of his Naval Emergency Bill to give three dreadnoughts to Great Britain, used these words:-
Emergency? Who speaKs to-day of emergency?
Twelve months have passed since my right hon. friend the Prime Minister introduced his measure.
The Naval Bill.
Twelve months and more have passed since that time when he saw the German peril. He saw Germany almost ready to jump at the throat of Great Britain. He saw clouds on the horizon; he saw these clouds rent by lightning; he heard the murmurs and rumbling of distant thunder. But my right hon. friend to-day may live in peace. The atmosphere is pure, the sky is clear. .	.	. The German
peril has disappeared, if indeed there ever was such a thing.
That was only six months before the war. My Tight hon. friend had a great deal more ground and reason for making that assertion then that the German peril had disappeared than he has for saying to-day that he sees no danger and has no fear tf an invasion of Canada, and that since the beginning of the war he never had any such fear. I think I am quite1 safe in making that statement.
I will now come to the question of conscription. I have always maintained that the 'bogey of conscription in advance is much more unpopular policy than conscription actually put into force. We have today 400,000 men who have voluntarily conscripted themselves, and all that the present Bill asks is. that 100,000 more, by intelligent selection, should join the 400,000 and go across the seas and help to do their bit to .bring this war "to a successful conclusion. That is all that the Bill means, the
careful selection of 100,000 more men, men who can be spared, men who are not required in those avocations and occupations which are essential to the winning of the war. I would like to place upon record a few quotations from some of the British statesmen who have spoken upon, this question. First of all I would like to give to the House the words of the Right Hon. Mr. Balfour, because we have had the pleasure of hearing him in this House, and I know when he spoke he made a most favourable impression upon all the members. Mr. Balfour, speaking upon the occasion of the introduction of a Conscription Bill in the British House of Commons in January, 1916; referring to those who were opposed to the principle of conscription, said:
Bet them remember they are living in a world of fact and reality; that we are face to face with great perils, and that great sacrifices are demanded of us. Let them not go forward, and in obedience to what I cannot help regarding as merely speculative difficulties deny to the Government what the Government think is absolutely necessary for the conduct of the war, and without which the Government cannot possibly carry on that war with any hope of success. These are considerations which I most earnestly press upon their minds. This is not a debating society dealing with abstract resolutions. This is not even a great legislative assembly, legislating for all time. All you are asked to do is toi help the Government to give adequate support to the forces of the Crown during a period which cannot, measured by the life of nations, be long, the period of this war, which may be hut a few months and may be more, but which cannot be long even compared with the life of Parliament. Surely for the moment you can abandon these abstractions. Deal with the situation as you find it, acting on the advice of those who, whatever their shortcomings, whatever their failings may have been, at all events have greater knowledge from their very position, of the facts of the case, and of the necessities that have to be' met than any private, unofficial member of this House can possibly have.
Then Mr. Asquith, speaking on the same occasion, said:
Will any general sympathy he felt for men, for the most part still young-all of them under forty-one-who, unable to bring themselves within any one of these exemptions after full opportunity of presenting their case, are required to do what every one recognizes to he their duty as a matter of moral and national obligation in the time of greatest stress in all our history.
And then Mr. Bonar Law used these words:
When this war broke out I felt as strongly as those who had taken the most active part in what is called the National Service movement, that our method of raising recruits by the voluntary system was not a good method for such a war as this. I thought it was not

a good method, first of all, because it seemed to me utterly unfair that in the sime town, or perhaps in the same street, three or four sons of one family should go and another family on whom the State had precisely the same claim should not send a single man to the army. I thought it. a bad system for another reason, the very reason on which many of those who are opposed to this Bill oppose it now-that it was a wasteful system, andi that if we were to make any attempt to have a proper correlation between the men employed in the necessary Civil Services and those who go to fight our battles, that could not be arrived at by a system of haphazard enlistment and recruiting which depended on the voluntary will of individual people.
At this point I wish to say that in my opinion the introduction of this Bill can in no way be considered as a precedent for a permanent policy of conscription for Canada. In the years to come, when we look back upon this historical occasion, the verdict of future generations will be that it was a triumph for voluntarism that we raised 400,000 men by a voluntary system reverse ,and as we require only 100,000 men by military compulsion. This will not be considered as a precedent for conscription; it will be considered as a precedent for the reverse, and' as we require only 100,00 men -to be raised by this method, there is no question of a permanent policy being adopted by this country. The Bill itself shows that there is not. The Bill is practically dead when 100,000 men have been con-scribed under its term, and it has no further effect without additional legislation by this Parliament.
The British Parliament never asked that the policy of conscription should be referred to a referendum. In New Zealand the people never asked for a referendum on that policy; the Parliament of those countries acting upon their own authority and according to British practice, put a conscription measure into force without consulting the people. Notwithstanding what has been said by my right hon. friend, the Premier who now controls the destinies of Australia, as he is known to be a con-scriptionist, as he fought his election upon that ground and as he was returned to power, the people knowing' what his policy was, would have the right to-day to enforce some measure of conscription in Australia, and no doubt he will do so in a short time. In the great republic to the south of us, after an experience of three years of this war, when the people of the United States were asked -to participate in it, when they were asked to raise perhaps five or six hundred thousand men,, did the
 '
Government submit the matter to a referendum? The measure was passed by the House of Representatives without consulting the people, and the people have submitted to it in a most remarkable degree. These are instances in which such matters have not been submitted to the people by way of a referendum, and I know of no instance whatever where any party in any Parliament in any country has asked that the question of conscription be submitted to the people, by way of a referendum, as the leader of the Opposition is asking here to-day. I would like to read a few of the provisions of the United States Bill and compare it with the. Bill before the House. Under the United States Act the president is empowered to raise 500,000 men:
Such draft as herein provided shall he based upon liability to military service of all male citizens, or male persons not alien enemies who have declared their intention to become citizens, between the ages of twenty-one and thirty years, both inclusive, and shall take place and be maintained under such regulations as the President may prescribe not inconsistent with the terms of this Act.
The quotas for the several states, territories and the District of Columbia or subdivisions thereof, shall be determined in proportion to the population thereof and credit shall be given to any state, territory, district, or subdivision thereof for the number of men who were in military service of the United States as members of the National Guard on April 1, 1917, or who have sihce that date entered the military service of the United States from any such territory, district or subdivision either as members of the regular army or the National Guard.
According to these provisions every state in the Union must contribute its quota of the 500,000 men. But the Act goes further than that. It says:
Notwithstanding the exemptions enumerated herein each state, territory, and the District of Columbia shall be required to supply its quota in the proportion that its population bears to the total population of the United States.
' So notwithstanding disabilities dr anything else each state must supply* its quota according to population. The exemptions are as follows:
The Vice President of the United States, the officers legislative, executive and judicial of the United States and of the several states, territories and the District of Columbia, regular or duly ordained ministers of religion, students who at the time of the approval of this Act are preparing for the ministry in recognized theological or divinity schools.
These exemptions are not mentioned in our Bill but are left to the good sense of the Boards of Selection.. The President of the United States is given the right to ex-

empt either totally or partially the following:	[DOT]
County and municipal officials, custom house clerks, persons employed in the United States in the transmission of the mail, artificers and workmen employed in the armouries, arsenals and navy yards of the United States, and such other persons employed in the service of the United States as the President may designate. Also pilots; mariners actually employed in sea service of any citizen or merchant within the United States; persons engaged in industries, including agriculture, found to be necessary to the maintenance of the military establishment or the effective operation of the military forces or the maintenance of national interest during the emergency; those in a status with respect to persons dependent upon them for support which renders their exclusion or discharge advisable ; and those found to be physically or morally deficient.
Then there is a provision, as in our Act, for the establishment of local boards, one for each county, and one for each 30,000 of a city population. They are appointed by the President to hear and determine all questions of exemption. Except that they have no jurisdiction-I do not exactly know the reason for this-over the class of persons described as "engaged in industries, including agriculture, found to be necessary to the maintenance of the military establishment or the effective operation of the military forces or the maintenance of the national interests during the emergency." It may be that there is something in the argument of my hon. friend from Edmonton'. It may be that the United States have taken the position that local boards should not have the wide powers of discrimination in the class I have just mentioned, for "maintenance of national interests during the emergency" is a very wide term indeed.
The United States Act also provides for a district board which hears appeals from the local boards, and which has original exclusive jurisdiction in determining what persons shall come within the class I have just read. Appeals are provided for the ' same as in our Act.
So for all practical purposes, with the exception that the United States Act specifically mentions some classes who are exempt, their Act is the same as ours, except that it requires each state to supply its quota according to population. Our Act is a very simple one, requiring very little study to see what it means. Clause 2 is the operating section, and describes the classes that shall be subject to military duty. The balance of the Act is practically devoted t-o the selection of the men and the
necessary machinery therefor. Under this Act there is an intelligent selection of the persons called for military duty having regard to conditions in Canada to-day, whereas under the old Act the selection by ballot was a most haphazard affair. The operating section reads:
Every male British subject who comes within one of the classes described in section 3 of this Act .	. . shall be liable to be called out as
hereinafter provided on active service in the Canadian Expeditionary Force for the defence of Canada, either in or beyond Canada.
That is the exact wording of the old Act, and Sir Charles Fitzpatrick construed it as giving the Governor in Council and Parliament power to say that the men so called out could be sent to India or any other place.
I wish to say a word or two with reference to some remarks made by the hon. member for Kouville (Mr. Lemieux) yesterday. He made what seemed to me a most remarkable statement when he said that the conscription of wealth should be a condition precedent to the conscription of man-power. Apparently, he is firmly convinced that the first and essential consideration at the present time is the conscription of wealth; he thinks that is more necessary than the conscription of men. So far as I know there has been no appeal for wealth to be used in this war that has not been met; that is, we are not suffering by reason of the lack of wealth in our conduct of the war. Up to' the present time the needs of the Government have been met by means of taxation and other means which have proved sufficient for the effectual carrying on of the war. In view of that, there is no need to seek vengeance on somebody who has not a soil to send to the front, by extracting from his pocket something that is not yet actually needed at the present time, and throwing it up against a corner of the fence; that will not help to win the war. Arms, ammunition and wealth are necessary for the winning of the war, but of what avail are they without man-power? Major W. P. Purney, the president of the Great War Veterans Association, has expressed some views on this question. He thinks there should be somb conscription of wealth, but he believes that the conscription of men should come before the conscription of wealth. He goes further and says:
If the conscription of wealth is in any way going to interfere with the conscription of men I would brush it aside.



I should like to put on Hansard what he said before the Committee of Returned Soldiers last month:
While we have very broad and far-reaching views on this question, and while we may connect the conscription of manhood for fighting purposes with the conscription of the other resources of our country, yet I want it to be clearly understood that we stand, and stand clearly for selective conscription. The other phases of conscription which may be dealt with here this morning or elsewhere later, while they also may express our views and our hopes, yet we want it clearly understood that we are quite willing to sacrifice the consideration of them if they should have the effect of blocking or delaying the main scheme of simple selective conscription, for our comrade across the sea is calling and he must not call in vain.
That is the opinion of the president of the Great War Veterans Association representing 10,000 returned soldiers from all over the Dominion.
While on this question oif the conscription of wealth, let me say that the use of the phrase is a very general one and that very few people seem to know exactly what it means. If it means imposing upon the people of Canada sufficient taxes for the
purpose of effectively carrying on the war, I am in favour of the conscription of wealth. If it means anything different from that, or anything more than that, will some hon. gentleman please give us an accurate definition of it. If the conscription ^ of . wealth means the collection of taxes for the purposes of the war, we have already carried out that policy in large degree. According to the figures I have before me, the Finance Minister, since the beginning of the war, has been the cause of Parliament enacting legislation by way of taxation in various forms which, he estimates, by the end of the present fiscal year will have brought into the treasury, in round figures, $200,000,000. There seems to be an idea abroad that the great capitalists of this country are not being taxed, that there is no conscription of wealth so far as they are concerned. Let me read a few figures showing the taxes being paid to-day by great companies in Canada and that would have been paid by these companies had the new amendments to the laws for special taxation been in force, and which will be collected for the present fiscal year.
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF TAXATION UNDER BUSINESS PROFITS WAR TAX ACT, 1916, and THE AMENDMENT THERETO OF 1917.
Name of Taxpayer.	Accounting period.
Imperial Oil Company, Limited, Jan. 1, 1916, to Ford Motor Car Co., Limited, Oct. 1, 1914, to Canadian Explosives, Limited, Jan. 1, 1915, to Northern Aluminum Co., Limited, Jan. 1, 1915, to Steel Company of Canada, Ltd, Jan. 1, 1915, to Ogilvie Flour Mills Co., Limited, Sept. 1, 1914, to Nova Scotia Steel & Coal Co., Ltd., Jan. 1,1915, to Metal Drawing Co., Limited, Jan. 1, 1915, to Canada Foundries & Forgings, Ltd., Jan. 1,1915, to Alberta Pacific Grain Co., Ltd., Aug. 1, 1914, to Richardson & Sons, Ltd., James, Aug. 1, 1915, to British Empire Grain Co., Ltd., July 1, 1914, to F. W. Woolworth Co., Limited, Jan. 1, 1915, to Grain Growers Export Co., Ltd., July 1, 1914, to Toronto Chemical Co., Limited, July 1, 1915, to Montreal Ammunition Co., Ltd., Jan. 1, 1915, to Dominion Steel Foundry Co., Ltd., Jan. 1, 1915, to William Davies Co., Limited, April 1, 1914, to John Bertram Sons Co., Limited, Jan. 1, 1915, to Penmans, Limited, Jan. 1,	1915, to
Dominion Steel Corporation, Ltd., April 1,1915, to Canadian Fairbanks Morse Co., Ltd., Jan. 1,1915, to
Statement, showing what the Assessment would have
Amount assessed. been had
the Amendment of 1917 been in force.
D&c.	31,	1915..	. .$	734,045.80 $ 924,849.22	Sept.	30,	1915. .	697,323.00 1,782,094.42	Dec.	31,	1915..	609,537.01 1,337,630.90	Dec.	31,	1915. .	341,679.17	822,331.62Dec.	31,	1915. .	308,240.34	337,054.68Aug1.	31,	1915. .	2S0,885.55	547,478.05Dec.	31,	1915. .	237,251.57	320,753.81March	31,	1916.	223,839,86	669,550.85Dec.	31,	1915. .	222,367.73	590,691.36Aug.	15,	1915..	178,669.30	377,220.22July	31,	1915. .	155,092.18	380,326.98June	31,	1915..	150,347.04	415,278.20Dec.	31,	1915. .	134,498.13	329,206.90Aug.	31,	1915..	130,776.90	387,955.69July	31,	1916..	130,520.31	378,326.54Dec.	31,	1915. .	124,172.93	358,396.28Dec.	31,	1915. .	112,048.39	273,180.17March	30,	1915.	109,623.99	223,062.08Dec.	31,	1915..	104,802.73	265,485.13Dec.	31,	1915..	104,129.74	145,041.86March	31,	1916.	103,721.28	103,721.28Dec.	31.	1915..	102,748.35	131,766.73
When we brought these taxation measures into the House we were not commended by hon. gentlemen on the other side for what we had done; we got no thanks for the taxes placed upon these rich corporations; quite the reverse. The hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), speaking on the Bill 
to, amend the Business War Profits Tax Act, 1916, said, as reported at page 1503 of Hansard:-
Mr. Nesbitt:	I know that it will be a detriment to the obtaining of capital in this country for industry. ... I do not know what the minister's aim is exactly. .	.	. If his
aim is to stop big business in this country he

is going the right way about it. .	.	. Sofar as I am personally concerned, I think there is no one thing that we want in this country more than capital. We cannot possibly develop the natural resources of this country without it. We hear a great many people talking, both after dinner and before, about the wonderful natural resources of Canada, but we cannot develop them without encouraging capital to develop them. My hon. friend, I think, is discouraging capital by his peculiar legislation here. .	.	.Sir Thomas White:	My hon. friend from
North Oxford has brought up an article in the Financial Times condemning this excess profits tax on the ground that it would be a detriment to obtaining special capital for industry.
Mr. Nesbitt:	I read what the Financial
Times said; I did not say it myself.
Sir Thomas White:	Do you agree with
what the Financial Times said?
Mr. Nesbitt:	Yes, I do.
Then the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham), speaking on the 22nd May last, said:-
Not a few industries engaged in the manufacture of munitions and other commodities influenced by the war assert that after the war there will be a very critical period of readjustment. Some of them fear that during that period of readjustment they will be able to do nothing more than pay running expenses. The most conservative of these have been preparing for that period by placing to one side each year a reasonable reserve, feeling that when their present large business ceases-as we hope it will very shortly

they will find themselves, under the new system or taxation, in a serious financial plight. They tell me that during the two or three years succeeding the war these reserves will be used up in their effort to readjust themselves to new conditions and to prepare for a staple business in the future. Some of them, I understand, think that the action of the Government in taking such a large proportion of the amount they now have on hand will cause them to come to a condition of practical bankruptcy during the period of readjustment. I feel confident that the minister, far from having that in mind, would like to protect our industries against this result. To my mind this is the most serious aspect of the matter; the figures that have been presented to me by some concerns lead me to believe that there is a good deal in the contention.
The -hon. -member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) used these words:-
But my hon. friend's proposals do not cortie under that -proposition, and the exactions he is taking will slacken the industry, impair the prospect of capital investment, and dampen-the patriotic enthusiasm of the party who is being taxed.
In addition to that, I have before me articles published in the Financial Times, one of which is headed: " Sir Thomas White Puts Hands on the Throat of Canada's Productive Capacity by Iniquitous Taxation." And the article says:-
Sir Thomas White, by his extraordinary scheme of profit taxation, has simply put his

hands on the throat of Canadian productive! enterprise and if he does not squeeze the country's business to death, he will leave it with little or no vitality to meet the tremendous obligations which the country has entailed.
You find such statements as this in the Financial Journal:-
Canada expects this day that Sir Thomas White will do his duty and withdraw injurious tax plan. Action must be quickly taken to offset the tendency to cancel machinery and installation orders by Canadian and American firms. One Montreal firm withdraws $1,000,000 outlay on additional plant. An American firm cancels plans to erect $2,500,000 plant here, employing 2,500 men, and another firm cancels large order for lathes to replace worn out machinery.-A serious blow at Canada's whole buying position-affecting, labour and capital alike.
So we are doing what we can to conscript wealth; we are making these wealthy concerns pay these large sums of money, and making them pay them upon the -principle that those who are making profits out of the war should be the first to pay taxes for the carrying on of the war.
Now, while I have said all this, I want it distinctly understood that, so far as I am concerned, just so soon as it is necessary to raise further taxes for the further revenues for the purpose of carrying on this war by the imposition of income tax or by any other -method, I am prepared to vote for any reasonable measure along that line and I think I am safe in saying that the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White), who has guided us so successfully through our financial storms up to the present day, will be able to take care of the nation when that time arrives.
The hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) touched upon another question, and found fault with the Government because they had delayed so long in appointing a food controller; and -he instanced the cases of the United States, Great Britain and other nations of Europe, which earlier in the war had appointed food controllers-But he forgot this fact, that there was not the same necessity for the appointment of a food controller at so early a date in Canada as, for instance, in Great Britain, and why? Because this country is a large exporter of food products, while in Great Britain they have to depend to a very large extent upon imports of food products from abroad. And there they found it necessary to control their food prices, while here the price is practically controlled by the production and export of this country. But we have arrived at a time when, in the opinion of the Government, it is necessary to appoint a food controller, and I think

I am safe in saying that the man appointed in the present instance, Hon. W. J. Hanna, who has offered hie services free of charge to this country, is a man pre-eminently fitted for the position.
The hon. member for Rouville says that the present Bill confiscates the liberty of the subject. Well, is that not begging the whole question? The present Bill confiscates the liberty of the subject in order that the liberty of the subject may not be confiscated. That is the .proper argument. The present Bill to a certain extent confiscates. the liberty of 100,000 men in order that the Dominion of Canada and the Empire, and indeed all the nations of the en-tent Allies, may have permanent libei ty for all time to come. I should like to ask the hon. member for Kouville, if he were in the House, what is that liberty worth which is not worth fighting for, and how do you expect to get it if you do not fight for it? Do you expect to have somebody else do the fighting in order that you may maintain your liberty? That is. a fair proposition to put to him. If he is not willing to fight for liberty but wishes to let other people fight for him, he has a right to be deprived of a certain amount of his liberty in order that other people may 9 p.m. get the benefit of permanent liberty hereafter. The hon. ~ member for Rouville said that no effort had been made worthy of the name to intelligently recruit in Quebec. I am not going to dispute that with him, that no effort worthy of the name has been made to intelligently recruit in the province of Quebec.
I only know that, according to the returns brought down 'by the Minister of Militia -and Defence the other day, there are only 8,196 French Canadians now serving .overseas who enlisted from the province of Quebec; and I would agree with him. that there must be some reason to account for that very small enlistment. But who is responsible for public opinion in the province of Quebec? I have no sympathy, and I say it boldly and frankly. I have no sympathy with many of the expressions that have been made in the past by so-called Nationalist members of this House throughout the length and breadth pf the province of Quebec, as to our relations with the British Empire. But I make bold to say that it surely cannot be so that the Nationalist members of this Hpuse have such influence in the province of Quebec that only 8,000 Drench Canadians have been sent abroad out of a total population *of 1,700,000. It were idle to argue that, 
Somebody has great political influence in the province of Quebec. I have always understood that my right hon. friend was the leader of public opinion in the province of Quebec. I know that w.heu he goes down there in a political campaign he can come back sometimes with sixty out of sixty-five of the constituencies behind him. I know that not very long ago, indeed during this session, veTy recently at all events, he went down with his friend Sir Lomer Gouin and together they carried sixty out of sixty-five seats in a provincial election in the province of Quebec. If they have influence with my French Canadian compatriots in the province of Quebec to such an extent that they can take sixty out of sixty-five seats on a question of politics, why have they not sufficient influence tp go down to that province and bring back more than 8,000 recruits, the number who have gone across the seas to save the Empire in this great time of national stress and emergency?


Mr. PARDEE:: Does the hon. member
consider my right hon. leader the strongest man in Quebec for that purppse?


Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: Well now, I do not think I shall answer that, I do not want to create any animosities in this debate; but simply to state facts, and the people can judge for themselves,


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Another question. If
what the hon. member says here, and I presume honestly believes, is true, why did Bourassa stump for the Conservative party in the last Dominion election in Ontario?


William Sora Middlebro: I am telling my hon. friend that I am stating conditions as I find them to-day.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Yes.


William Sora Middlebro: I am not now blaming one party more than another in the province of Quebec; that would serve no good purpose in this debate, but I want to state the conditions in Quebec as I find them to-day. And I ask the question, can we not find a dozen broad-minded, patriotic, forceful, strong, independent men in the province of Quebec, uninfluenced by party considerations of the past, who will go out to-day and enter upon a campaign in that province to endeavour to make the people of Quebec see that their salvation lies in the upholding and upbuilding of the British Empire? There is no people on the face of the earth that enjoys more privileges than our French

Canadian minority in thv province of Quebec. I should like to ask them under what other political constitution, under what other political formation, under what other form of Government they could live where they would have more freedom, both politically and religiously, than they enjoy in the province of Quebec to-day under the British	Crown?	That is the
point I want to make, and I make it in all kindly spirit. It seems to me that the best interests of he French Canadian people themselves are inseparably bound and wrapped up in the welfare of the British Empire, and I cannot get away , from that. I have spoken to men on this side of the House and on that side, and I ask, what is the reason that, instead of preaching the doctrines which have been preached in 'Quebec, twelve or thirteen strong independent men will not now say: We have made a mistake and believe that it is in the best interest of the French Canadian people themselves that we should campaign Quebec and endeavour to contribute our quota in this war as other portions of Canada are doing-and if that course were adopted we should have a happy, a united, and a free Canada, for all time to come. That is the position I take.


William Pugsley: Then you had better
vote for the amendment.


William Sora Middlebro: What are the figures with respect to recruiting in the various provinces? According to the figures which I have, up to the 31st of March, 1917, the population of the various provinces, the number of men enlisted, and the percentage of enlistments to the population are as follows: I
of men recruited to the population. The fairest way is to take the number of males of military age in each province, and compare them with the number of men who have enlisted, and I give both tables below:
Males
between Percentage
	20 and 40	of the
	years.	total.
Prince Edward Island. .	. . 14,328	15.3New Brunswick 	. . 59,086	10.6Nova Scotia	. . 85,798	17.5Quebec 	. . 342,149	17.1Ontario 	.. 5X5,442	20.5Manitoba 	. . 110,454	24.2Saskatchewan 	. . 144,832	29.4Alberta 	. . 112,321	30.0British Columbia 	.. 140,740	37.1Total males 	. .1,531,156	20.1
From these figures one would imagine that for example that the province of British Columbia having sent 37 per cent of its population had made the best record, but as a matter of fact-


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman
must be wrong. You say British Columbia is sending 37 per cent of its population,


William Sora Middlebro: 
William Pugsley: If 1,200,000 persons voted for conscription it would be sure to carry, would it not?


William Sora Middlebro: If it is sure to 'be carried, what is the need of a referendum? It would -be only a waste of valuable time. That was the argument of the hon. member for North Cape Breton. He said that it would be sure to carry and that the people would back up whatever we did here to carry the war to a successful conclusion. What we are doing here is designed to assist in bringing the war to a successful conclusion.
I do not know that hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House realize the nervous and anxious condition of a great many of our people. In my town many people fear that the ring of the door-bell or of the tele-

phone or the arrival of a telegram may sound the death-knell of their hopes and prayers for the safe return from across the seas of those who are near and dear to them. That feeling prevails throughout various parts of Canada. I see no reason why the House should submit a question of this kind to the people, knowing their feelings at this time. Not very long ago I received from the city council of Owen Sound a resolution which was moved by John G. Hay, president of the North American Bent Chair Company, one of the largest industries in the town, employing four or five hundred men. As hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House know, Mr. Hay is one of the most prominent Liberals in my province. The resolution, which was seconded by Mr. Keith Webster, Teeve of the town and treasurer of the Liberal Association in my riding, was unanimously adopted by a council of mixed political complexion, which included a defeated candidate of the Liberal party. The resolution, so far as it relates to conscription, is as follows:-	>
To the Senate and House of Commons of the
Dominion of Canada, and especially to the
Premier, Sir R. L. Borden, and Sir Wilfrid
Laurier, the leader of His Majesty's loyal
Opposition.
This Memorial of the Municipal Council of the town of Owen Sound.
Respectfully sheweth :
We would suggest that the leaders aforesaid get together and agree on legislation that would give power to a small war council composed of both political parties, to make or unmake laws as may in its opinion be necessary to win the war as speedily as possible, and that said legislation be made broad enough to take into said war council any Canadian of outstanding ability whether he happens to be a member of the House of Commons or not.
We believe that if this line of action is taken it will make possible the quick building of standarized wooden boats in many inland water ports as well as at ocean ports and thus help to properly feed our sons and brothers who are fighting for our existence as an Empire.
And further, we feel that before this war is brought to a successful conclusion party politics must be dropped as it is by your memorialists, and that every means must be taken to make the best use of the energies of the whole population of the Dominion; those required for military service in the field to be taken by selective conscription, having regard to the vocations of civil life from which they can best be spared, and the remainder alloted to munition factories, farms and manufacturing industries the operation of which is essential to the winning of the war, thus bringing about an equality of service by compelling every military district to be represented pro rata In the field, and if it is found that any military district in the Dominion has not given its fair quota of men for the Canadian Expeditionary Forces, to compel said military district to
at once do its share and by full co-operation win the war.
It is to our party leaders that we, your memorialists, earnestly appeal to do everything humanly possible to speedily bring this war to a successful conclusion, and then appeal to the people for their verdict. We feel that any other course would not be patriotic and that any party, or body of men, forcing a general election will be met by the disapproval of that portion of the people who have given their husbands, sons and near relatives, many of whom have made the supreme sacrifice, to the cause of Liberty and justice.
I may point out that that resolution was adopted before the Conscription Bill was brought down, and, I believe, before it was even announced.
I. am supporting this Bill because I believe it is now the only available and effective method by which we may do our final bit in bringing the war to a speedy and successful termination, keep faith with the men who are so grimly fighting our battles, and ensure that their past and future sacrifices shall not be in vain.
We have reached a new milestone in the history of Canada, of the Empire, and, indeed, of the world; and we are in honour bound to see that the pages of our history shall reveal nothing at this crucial moment to cause regret on the part of those who shall in future direct the destinies of Canada. In a matter of such transcendent moment in our history, the fate of an individual member of Parliament is of small account as compared with the adoption of a proper national policy. It is gratifying to see party affiliations breaking asunder at the country's last imperative call, and I feel absolutely confident that time will amply justify the course of all those members of this House who combine on this occasion to support this Bill as a reasonable measure of selective compulsory military service.


Mr. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to discuss this Bill, which I consider to be the most important piece of legislation introduced into this House since Confederation, I desire to claim for my opinion, which is the result of my own judgment of what is right, the respectful consideration which should always be granted to deliberate and conscientious opinions.
It is fortunate indeed, as is noticeable by the very moderate 'remarks of the member for North Grey (Mr. Middlebro) that this House has not been lashed into an hysterical fury, as has been represented by certain sections of the press. A difference of opinion upon this question, affecting as it

does the fundamental structure of our national constitution and involving a serious change in our national life, is not to be interpreted as an alliance with the German Kaiser and a manifestation of hostility to the great cause for which Great Britain and her Allies are fighting. If such a difference of opinion is not respected in this House or elsewhere in Canada, this country would not be worthy of the great sacrifices which have been made to sustain her honour in the great struggle on behalf of freedom and liberty.
As to the supreme object to be obtained, there is no division or controversy. Surely nobody thinks that any member of this House would like to see Germany victorious.
A difference of opinion arises, because we do not agree as to the best methods to pursue, taking into consideration the needs of the Allies, the particular conditions prevailing in this country, the imperative duty to maintain national unity, and the proper safeguarding of the provisions which govern our Federal constitution. It would be useless for me to discuss this proposal of the Government unless it is understood that those who hold the opinions I do are as sincere and honest as the supporters of the Bill, seeking as loyally as they do to solve the very difficult problems which confront us at this period of our history.
I am opposed to this Bill because I believe the voluntary system is the best and the only system suited for this country in the present war, and that coercion will'te detrimental to the one aim we all desire to attain, namely, the winning of the war. My second objection is that this proposal is a flagrant and direct violation of all the pledges given by the leaders and public men of this country to the Canadian people since the beginning of the war, upon the strength of which pledges so many sacrifices have been made. I also oppose this Bil because it involves a radical and most serious change in our constitutional relations and constitutes a departure from well-known principles agreed to by all parties as to the constitution of this Confederation.
I claim that this Parliament has no mandate to enact such a change without consulting the Canadian people.
In the first place, I do not agree with those who say that the voluntary system has been a failure either in this country or in Great Britain. We can fairly aTgue that we have raised under our voluntary system a larger army than was ever contemplated by any student of military affairs

in this country. We have made and we are now making a very large contribution to the war which the Mother Country and her Allies are waging, and it is a calumny upon ourselves and upon the Mother Country to suggest that they do not fully realize and recognize the magnitude of our efforts and of our contribution. It was my privilege a few months ago to spend some weeks in England and France, and I heard in all quarters words of the greatest praise as to Canada's contribution to the war. No one there ever anticipated that this young country, with its population sparsely disseminated over a wide territory, could raise, equip and put into the field an army approximating 400,000 men, and that at a oost considerably larger than what is paid by any of the belligerent countries for the same number of men. Why should Canadians minimize and under-estimate the magnificent and heroic sacrifices our country has made?
It is not true that the voluntary system has been a failure in England. 5,000,000 men have been raised as volunteers in the British Isles, only one additional million has been brought under arms by conscription. Great publicity has recently been given to certain words of the Prime Minister of Great Britain who said that the United States should avoid the blunders made by Great Britain at the beginning of the war. It has been intimated that Mr. Lloyd George was there referring to the merits or demerits of the compulsory system. The British blunder was not in the method adopted to raise the men necessary to fight the battles, but in failing for a certain time to take proper means to provide those men with an adequate quantity of munitions and supplies upon the battlefield. The men were never wanting; what was needed was sufficient artillery and machine guns. Voluntary enlistment in England, however, was at all times hindered by the antagonism and hostility of the powerful class of con-scriptionists who had been clamouring for years for compulsory military service. One of the largest and most influential newspapers in England was refusing peremptorily to publish advertisements for voluntary enlistment and was assailing the system every day. The conscriptionists were a strong and influential faction, and their policy was finally adopted to disarm dangerous opposition, and as a diplomatic measure rather than military necessity.
But historical, economic and political conditions are quite different in this country,

and the'conscriptionists of Canada will not be as successful as those of Great Britain. It is true we have some newspaper editors who are vying with each other to play the Northcliffe part in Canada, but our democratic atmosphere is not congenial to that peculiar kind of autocracy. Our institutions are free; the people of Canada have made great sacrifices for freedom in the past, and they are not going to surrender even a portion of their liberties at the instigation of privileged classes or of titled or would-be titled editors. Canada of her own free will has agreed to help the Mother Country in this war. Our participation in this war, to the declaration of which we were no party, and in the settlement of which we shall have no voice, is voluntary and must remain voluntary. It is a voluntary participation, nationally and collectively, and it must remain a voluntary participation individually as regards all the citizens of this country. The greatest factor of our national unity up to the present time has been that spirit of true freedom animating our soldiers and our citizens, that spirit that comes- only from being a free people. We want to prosecute this war as free men; we must not lose our own democracy in order to try to democratize Germany.
The selective conscription provided for in this Bill is the very opposite of democracy. We are going to appoint men who will prescribe that the son of a citizen will have to enlist and go overseas and give his life for his country, and to declare that his neighbour's son will remain comfortably at home. The whole system will be based upon discrimination; the sons of the poor and the workingmen will be conscripted; the rich and the wealthy will have appeal courts to delay and check their enlistment, and a paternal Government will see that soft places and easy clerkships are found for them if they cannot be exempted. Favouritism and patronage are not eliminated from the system which is now proposed; indeed, in many cases, they will actually control and influence the selection. Will the so-called selective conscription provide an equality of sacrifice? I maintain that the administration of this measure will be a source of continual injustice and inequalities. If a man does not report for service when called up he will be court-martialled or put in jail, and if, after enlistment, he absents himself from duty without leave he will be shot. On the" other hand, the man who is exempted will receive high wages, and if he refuses to work he will likely be given a still higher wage. Is that equality of -sacrifice?
To those members of the Government who contend that the voluntary system has been a failure I would recall the words of Lord Derby, director general of recruiting, in a letter to the British Nation, dated October 15, 1915:-
No man has the right to say that a system is a failure unless he has done his best to make it a success..
I deliberately make the statement that this Government collectively and individually have not done their best to make the voluntary system a success. The former Minister of Militia has publicly stated that the Prime Minister actually directed that recruiting be stopped, or at least that there be a letting up. In the province of Quebec the voluntary system has not been given fair play. The military authorities have accumulated blunder upon blunder in recruiting. Men who could have exercised influence and authority have been systematically ostracized and their help refused.
It is a well known fact that military training and institutions have nevqr been encouraged in Lower Canada.
As my right hon. leader pointed out in his address, the French Canadians were disarmed after the conquest and -for reasons which I do not desire to discuss they have been kept out of the militia as much as possible. Nevertheless, they were able to save Canada for Great Britain on two occasions. Look at the list of -staff officers and holders of other high military positions in this country and you will see that the parties who are so anxious to compile census statistics in order to show that the French Canadians have not enlisted in proportion tp their population have never considered the population of Quebec in the distribution of military offices and commands. When the First Canadian Contingent was organized French Canadian officers who offered their services were not accepted. Fifty-three commanding officers were -appointed and only one of them was a French Canadian, Sir. H. H. Panet, and he was th-e only man qualified for the position. Nobody thought of quoting -figures and census statistics then in order that the officers of my race might be given a fair share of appointments. [DOT]
The time at my disposal will not permit me to enumerate the errors made in recruiting in the province of Quebec, but my hon. friend from Bouville yesterday quot-

ed many startling instances. The misdeeds and blunders of the Government have been a permanent obstacle in the way of voluntary enlistment. In addition to that, it has been the misfortune of this country to have in the Cabinet during., the war as representatives of the province of Quebec, men who do not command the support or even the respect of public opinion in that province.
This is a very serious debate, and it is my desire to avoid as much as possible anything which would have the slightest appearance of political partisanship, but the question of recruiting in the province of Quebec cannot properly be discussed Without referring to the matter with which I am now going to deal. This Government is a combination of men who were elected on absolutely opposite platforms. It has properly been called a hybrid alliance. No union is possible amongst its members without the most flagrant violation of some of their pledges and promises. I believe history will hold the Prime Minister responsible for having set a premium on what was in point of fact public immorality. What authority could be exercised in the province of Quebec for recruiting purposes toy those former Nationalists whom the Prime Minister called to his Cabinet? Most assuredly they can have no authority with the majority of the electors whom they could not lead astray in 1911, and they have still less influence with the other portion of the electorate whom they carried with them on their policy of no participation by Canada under any circumstances in the wars of the Empire. These gentlemen could not open their mouths at a recruiting meeting without contradicting themselves and swallowing their former doctrines. To blow and swallow at the same time is a pretty difficult feat, and these gentlemen were very unsuccessful in their attempts to accomplish it. Enlistment in Quebec has been carried on in spite of the Government, and it is rather a matter for wonder the degree of success that has been attained. If the leader of the Opposition is the dominant factor in the provinces' of Quebec, as has been contended by the Government, and as was stated only a few minutes ago by my hon. friend from North Grey (Mr. Middlebro), why did not the Prime Minister take his advice and call him to the Council in 1914? All the other belligerent countries have brought their best men together in order to attain the highest degree of national efficiency. President Wilson at the present time has entrusted the most  .
delicate and important missions to distinguished and eminent political opponents. Why did not the Prime Minister of this country do the big thing and the right thing in the same direction? Do you not think, Mr. Speaker, that it would have been better for the unity and national welfare of this country if the Prime Minister had asked the leader of the Opposition to co-operate with him at the recent War Conference in London, even at the cost of dispensing for a few weeks with the company of the Minister of Public Works.
One great obstacle to recruiting in the province of Quebec has been the unfair, irritating, and in certain respects, the slanderous campaign carried on by one influential section of the Ontario press against the people of our province. They have charged that we are unwilling to co-operate in this great work. We do not pay much ittention to the foolish and unreasonable jtatements of irresponsible men; there are fools in all parts of the world; no nation or race can claim a monopoly of them. But when the most influential section of the press of a province adopts as its permanent policy calumny and Abuse of a sister province we have a pernicious state of affairs and one fraught with great danger to the present and future welfare of the country.
Only a few days ago two great Toronto newspapers were engaged in an acrimonious controversy as to which of the two had written the more violent, bitter articles against Quebec and her inhabitants. And I must confess that each seemed to be right in its contentions; it would be very hard to give a decision on the point- French Canadians have been slandered before the world; and from Ontario articles have been sent to, and reproduced in, the press of the United States, of France, of England, misrepresenting the people of Quebec in the most dishonest way. Was that all done in order to produce good? Was it a step towards a united and combined national effort? Again I say, it is a wonder that enlistment has been so large in spite of what seems to have been a deliberate effort to stop it. And let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I do not believe in the accuracy of the figures which have been given by the Minister of Militia as to the number of recruits of French descent. I believe that a much larger number have enlisted than has been shown. Why, you cannot take up the casualty list from day to day-and I stand by that supreme test-without seeing the names of French Canadians in much greater

numbers than the figures of the department would justify. Are we to infer that French Canadians are always put in the lead in places of danger? I repeat that their number would have been still greater were voluntary enlistment given fair play, and had we in the Government of this country men who could carry the respect and support of the people of the province of Quebec.
I believe that the union of all Canadians is the greatest strength of national defence; one of -the greatest factors towards the winning of the war is to have a united body of citizens all intent upon bringing about unity, in order to uphold the efforts of our soldiers in the field and show that there is behind them a united country. This Bill, in the circumstances which have preceded, which accompany, and which.will follow it, is going to disrupt that national unity and irreparably divide this fair country. Conscription should not and cannot be enforced in this country, as in every other British country, without something like general consent. Does anybody challenge this proposition? I state it on very good authority, on no less an authority than that of the very distinguished British statesman who introduced compulsory service in the British Parliament, Right Hon. Mr. Asquith. Speaking in the House of Commons on the 2nd November, 1915, Mr. Asquith referred to the objections to compulsory service, and said:
It is based upon an entirely different ground, namely, that the employment of compulsion under existing conditions would forfeit what I regard to be of supreme and capital importance, that is, the maintenance of national unity. That again is an abstract objection, but when translated into concrete terms it means this; if you were to apply, I do not speak of any particular method, but any method of coercion or compulsion, without something in the nature, I will not say of universal but of general consent, you would defeat your own purpose. It would not be a practicable or workable method of making good amj filling up the gap left by the defects of the voluntary system.
And further he said:
My proposition, if I were to formulate one, would be this: not that I rule out compulsion as an impossible expedient, but that compulsion, if resorted to, ought only to be resorted to, and can only from a practical point of view be resorted to, or, in other words, be made a workable expedient for filling up the gap whicfh you have to supply,-with something in the nature of general consent.
And in the same debate Mr. John Redmond said:
I, like the Prime Minister, am against compulsion. I believe that to impose compulsion in this country, unless, as he said, the country were practically unanimous in favour of it, would be a folly and a crime.
Hon. gentlemen may say that Mr. Asquith has modified his views in that regard. He has not modified them. When he introduced the first compulsory Bill on 6th January, 1916, he made it clear that public opinion in the country was calling upon him to redeem the pledge he had given to the married men who had enlisted under Lord Derby's scheme, that they should not be called upon to serve while younger and unmarried men were held back. And the opponents of compulsory service admitted that the great majority of the people of the United Kingdom were in favour of the Bill on account of the very diplomatic promise given by Mr. Asquith to the married men which had made all of them supporters of conscription. Ireland was not subject to the scheme of Lord Derby, nor to Mr. Asquith's pledge, and was excluded from the Bill. Have we in this country, in the language of Mr. Asquith, "something in the nature of general consent" to compulsory service? Why, the great objection to consulting the public on this matter that is urged by supporters of the Bill is the fear that it will be overwhelmingly defeated. My hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) went so far as to suggest that if a vote is to be taken, it ought to be an open vote. Let me say to my hon. friend in the most friendly spirit that these words sound queer in. the mouth of a Liberal. The suggestion seemed quite appropriate when made by a new nobleman in the columns of the Montreal Star. Such a proposal I deem to be moreover, rather a reflection upon, even an insult to, the people with whom m'y hon. friend from South Wellington is better acquainted than I am, as conveying the idea that they would not have the courage to say openly what they think and believe. Using again the language of Mr. Asquith, I say that from the practical point of view, conscription cannot be a workable expedient without something of the nature of general consent. I submit, moreover, that all the nations and dominions participating in this war must contribute their utmost in order to overthrow the menace of German militarism, but the best way for them is to contribute according to their respective opportunities. In June, 1916, Sir George Paish wrote in the Statist:
Victory over militarism will depend as much upon the world's farmers in general, and upon those of America and Canada in particular, as it does upon the armies at the front.
In one of the recent editions of L'Echo de Paris, M. Maurice Barres, a famous writer says:

control and which we had no hand in bringing about-yet there was a unanimous feeling of willingness to run all the hazards of war if war must come, rather than lose the connection between the Mother Country and these colonies.
In the same speech he. said:
Instead of looking upon us as a merely dependent colony, England will have in us a friendly nation, a subordinate, but stMl a powerful people to stand by her in North America-
-not in Europe. .

in peace or in war.
These words are taken from the speech of Sir John A. Macdonald when introducing the Bill. The Militia Act of 1868 was passed under the same principle, and with the same idea in the minds of those who enacted it. Until a few days ago, I do not think that anybody who has studied the constitutional history of Canada ever expressed the opinion that her militia could he sent overseas 'by virtue of that Act. The debates that took place in 1868 showed that there was no intention to change the principle or the meaning of the section I am discussing. In considering the words "either within or without the Dominion" in a subsection we must not forget that Canada at that time included only the four provinces, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, and it was important that the authorities should be empowered to send the militia outside of the area of those four provinces to protect and defend the British territory which forms to-day the other provinces of the Dominion.
I come now to the Militia Act of 1904. Surely this Act did not change or modify the principles which I have enunciated. The language of the section was made .clearer by the insertion of the words "for the defence thereof." The right hon. Prime Minister quoted a few words from a speech by Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, then Minister of Justice. He took good care, it seems to me, not to' cite the language of the father of the Act, the man responsible for the legislation, and who knew 'best what was the intention and aim of the Bill. Here is the language used by Sir Frederick Borden, then Minister of Militia:
Mr. Maclean: I would ask the minister if it is not the case that under the old section of the law as it now stands the militia of Canada could be used for the defence of the empire and sent out of this country for that purpose? But under the proposed law that is strictly prohibited.
Sir Frederick Borden:	No. I am advised,
and was advised at the time of the South African trouble, for instance, that under the law we could not do that.
Sir Sam Hughes: Could not do what?
[Mr. E. "Lapointe.!
Sir Frederick Borden:	That we could not
send the militia to South Africa for service; under the law we were not able to do so. The present law has been changed, as I say, in conformity with that view and in sympathy with the idea which, as I said, controls the militia of the mother country and the militia of every one of the colonies of the Empire, where you will find precisely the same clause.
On August 1, 1904, in committee, he said:
Sir Frederick Borden:	.	.	. .The troops
we sent to South Africa were not sent under the militia law at all. They were sent under a special arrangement; they went as volunteers. The same thing could be done at any time. It certainly would not be done under the militia, either as it was or as we propose to make it, because there is no essential difference. Notwithstanding the fact that my hon. friend from Colchester questions my possession of common sense, I still believe that the Act as we propose it is essentially the same in that respect as it was before, the object being to make clear the actual intention.
The very fundamental idea of a militia force always has been, and is now, home defence.
He said further:
Sir Frederick Borden:	I am sure my hon.
friend would not pretend to say that under the law as it is to-day the Government could send a corps of the militia upon foreign service.
Mr Gourley: I have not the slightest doubt of it; you could send them anywhere.
Sir Frederick Borden: I am quite prepared to come to close quarters on that question and I am quite prepared to say that in so far as the militia are concerned I do not believe it is in the interests of the militia that a provision of that kind should be made.
Mr. Gourley: Why, every man in Canada wants to go.
Sir Frederick Borden: I do not think the hon. gentleman himself would seriously contemplate a proposition toy which the Government would have authority to order the militia to serve a thousand miles away from Canada.
This is the language of the father of the Bill, the then Minister of Militia. The discussion continued:
Mr. Gourley: Why not? What are we here for?
Sir Frederick Borden:	It is for the hon.
gentleman to explain that.
Very sensible language. Sir Frederick Borden continued:
I do not think that any thoughtful man looking at the condition of things in this young country-
Mr. Gourley: Explain yourself. Tell me what you mean.
Sir Frederick Borden:-would seriously propose to enact a statute which would place in the hands of any Government the power of ordering out the militia to serve In distant parts of the world.
I repeat that until a few days ago nobody in this country thought that the Militia Act could he put in force except for purposes of home defence. The right hon. leader of the Opposition showed, by a cable-

gram which he read in the course of his address, that such was the opinion of the Government and of the Prime Minister himself. But I have another authority. Would it surprise members of the House when I say that the former Minister of Militia, who gave us yesterday a lecture on constitutional law, was of the same opinion? In Hansard of August, 1914, I read the following words, page 95:
Mr. A. K. Maclean: In the event of further Canadian troops going to the front, will the system of volunteering be continued, or will the militia be asked to go in a body?
Sir Sam Hughes:	I might point out that
upwards of 100,000 men have already volunteered, but we are only able to take 22,000, although I am told 27,000 have got on the trains. They simply climbed on and we couldn't keep them off.
Recruiting was going well at that time. He continued:
So far as my own persohal views are concerned, I am absolutely opposed to anything that is not voluntary in any sense-
These are the words that I want the House to note.
-and I do not read in the law that I have any authority to ask Parliament to allow troops other than volunteers to leave the country.
Sir, holding as I do the strong opinion that this Bill is a departure from the rules and principles which have hitherto prevailed, I submit that such a departure cannot be made without the consent and the sanction of the people. The moral unity of Canada cannot be maintained or secured without government of the people and by the people, and the ruling of the majority. I believe in democratic principles in time of war as in time of peace. To this Parliament, which has outlived its constitutional existence, in which a large section of the people of Canada is not refpre-sen-ted and which is asked to pass an arbitrary measure of compulsion, I commend these words of Burke:
Let the Commons In Parliament assembled be one and the same thing with the commons at large. The distinctions that are made to separate us are unnatural and wicked contrivances. Let us Identify, let us Incorporate ourselves with the people.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce said that the proposal of a referendum was a dilatory expedient calculated only to delay the application of the law. My best -answer to this argument is that the delay involved will not be greater than that which would have resulted had the proposal of the Prime Minister been accepted. The offer was to form a coalition
- -
Cabinet, pass this Bill and appeal to the country to put it into force. Where is the difference? Is it a crime that we should ask that the people be consulted in this matter by the only means which is at our disposal?
Sir, I ask the Government to be loyal to the Canadian people. I ask the Prime Minister to reconsider his decision; to reconcile the country, which is now threatened with internal trouble and disruption. The only way to do that is to accept the amendment of the leader of the Opposition and trust the Canadian people.


Mr. J. A. BARRETTE (Berthier) (translation) :: Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister introduced in the House the Military Service Bill, he stated in plain words that the measure was not inspired from Downing iStreet but that he it was who on his own impulse as head of the -Canadian people, had taken upon himself to frame such an Act. He thinks the seriousness of the present emergency justifies his introducing compulsory service, whatever disastrous consequences may follow in the wake of such a measure, which may well be said to be the bane of Canada's welfare. My sense of duty urges me to express openly in this House my views in the matter and the opinion of my constituents. I shall discuss the issue -dispassionately in the light of reason and "facts.
I admit that since the declaration of war, all measures tending to Canada's participation in the struggle have received the undivided support of both sides of the House; no dissentient voice was heard. To this day we have done our share of our own free will, and so long as our participation has been voluntary the Canadian people have nobly done their duty. Last January, the Prime (Minister was invited to London to attend the Imperial War Conference, and he came back more of an Imperialist than ever. Allow me to suggest, Mr. Speaker, the necessity of inserting atr once in the Statutes a very important piece of legislation prohibiting the iPrime Minister of Canada from going out of the country during his term of office. Since 1806, every time a Canadian minister has gone overseas to represent Canada at imperial conferences, he returned an imperialist to the core, blind to the true interests of the Canadian people.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I must acquaint the House with the position I took previously on this important matter. In October, 1916, at a largely attended meeting held at Ber-thierville, in the presence of the ex-8ecre-tary of State (Mr. Patenaude), I stated to the electors of my county and my pro-

vinoe that I was irreconcilably opposed to any kind of compulsory service and pledged myself to combat it in every possible way. This year, on the Sunday after the Prime Minister had stated his policy, I forthwith announced to the electors of my parish that I was as opposed as ever I was to conscription of any kind and recalled the pledge I had given in 1916.	[DOT]
When I made these statements, there was no question of conscription at all, and I was then acting freely, knowing I was acting in the best interests of my constituents as well as of my country.
As soon as the Prime Minister had announced to this House his intention of introducing a new war policy, the popular isentiment, which had been in favour of the war, was completely modified to such an extent that it has become hostile to any participation in the present war. In all sections of the country, protests were made at public meetings, and numerous petitions have been sent to the members of this House.
With your leave, Mr. Speaker, I will read the copy of a resolution adopted by the council of the parish of Ste. Genevieve of Berthier, strongly protesting against this conscription Bill, and which reads as follows :	,
At a general meeting of the municipal council of the parish of Sainte GeneviSve de Berthier, held in the city of Berthier, at the council's regular meeting place, on Tuesday, the fifth day of June, 1917, at 8 o'clock a m., in accordance with the provisions of the Quebec Municipal Code; at which were present: His Honour the Mayor, J. F. Fernet, and Councillors Charles Denis, Arthur Hucharme, Octavien Lavallfee and Paul Savignac, forming a quorum of the said council, His Honour the Mayor chairman. Councillor Ducharme moved, seconded by Councillor Denis, and it was unanimously resolved:
Whereas, Sir Robert L. Borden, Prime Minister of Canada, has declared in the House of Commons that he will submit a Bill providing for a system of selective conscription for the overseas military service:
Whereas, the sending across the seas of Canadian troops has already seriously compromised the country's economic situation, and whereas it is in the interest, both of Canada and the Empire and its alies, that the Canadian population should turn all its energies to promoting agricultural and manufacturing industries;
Whereas, since the beginning of the war raging in Europe, Sir Robert L. Borden has declared in the House of Commons, at different times, and particularly on January 17, 1916, that the Government did not intend to adopt conscription;
Whereas, the cost of living is ever increasing', it would be more proper for the Canadian Government to take the necessary measures towards improving agricultural conditions;
Therefore, this Council, interpreting the unanimous feelings of the population of the parish of Sainte Genevieve de Berthier, strongly protests, both in its own name and on behalf of

the said parish's entire population, against the imposition of conscription, without previously consulting the people, either by means of a referendum or through general elections, and that copies of the present resolution be sent to the Prime Minister of Canada, the Honourable Sir Robert L. Borden, to the leader of the Opposition, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, to our representative at Ottawa, Mr, J. A. Barrette; and be it further resolved that the Dominion member be instructed to vote against any conscription proposal.
A true copy of the resolution passed by the municipal council of the parish of Sainte Genevieve de Berthier, taken from the book of proceedings, and in my custody, as secretary-treasurer.
(Signed) J. A. Lavall6e,
Secretary-Treasurer.
To this resolution of protest, I have answered as follows:
To Mr. J. A. LavallSe, notary,
Secretary-Treasurer of the parish of Berthier, Berthierville.
Dear Mr. Lavall6e,
I have duly received copy of the resolution of the municipal council of the parish of Sainte Genevieve de Berthier.
I congratulate you upon your civic spirit, and I am convinced that it was through your enlightened patriotism that this resolution was unanimously passed, and that you have really at heart the interests of the French Canadian race.
I beg leave, Mr. Secretary, to repeat to you the statement I made last fall at a large meeting held at Berthierville, in the presence of 6,000 electors of the county, and from its vicinity, where I stated that I was completely opposed to conscription. This year, on the Sunday following the declaration made by the Prime Minister of Canada, I alike stated publicly in my own parish that I was altogether opposed to this Government measure. I then acted freely, knowing . I was doing so in the best interest of my constituents.
I sincerely hope this declaration will rejoice the heart of all the true French Canadians of my county and of my province.
Please accept; my dear friend, the expression of my highest sentiments and believe me,
Yours most truly,
(Signed) J. A. Barrette. Ottawa, June 6, 1917.
Similar requests from the parishes of Lavaltrie, Lonoraie, St. Gabriel de Brandon, St. Norbert and St. Barthelemi, have alike been addressed to me. To all these requests', I have made the same answer as I have just read to the members of this House. I have likewise sent to every municipal secretary of my county a copy of said letter. That must clearly show you that I have always been,1 by principle and in fact, against the conscription which it is desired to impose upon us to-day. I know that this bold and strong attitude of mine will probably be diversely interpreted by some political friends, as my county has been particularly favoured, as far as Public Works are concerned.
May I be allowed to tell the House that since 1911 until the present day my county

has been favoured with a good deal more public works of tu-ry kind than under all former administrations from Confederation up to the day when I was returned as the member for the county of Berthier.
I know that my frank determination may relax some friendships which I held dear, but when a principle was at stake I have never paused before breaking away from my party and silencing my heart so as to listen only to the voice of my conscience. How could it be held that I remain indifferent to so radical an innovation which will cause perturbation, in the political annals of the country, seeing that in the past I have always been able to rise above partisanship.
Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to glance upon the past and to recall to the House that in 1912, when it was proposed to enlarge the territory of Manitoba by the annexation of Keewatin, the rights which the minority in the annexed part held under the constitution had to be safeguarded. In spite of the threats of a few narrow-minded politicians, I was not afraid to break away from my party and vote for the Mondou amendment. Allow me also to recall to your memory that during the session of 1916, when the rights of the minority had to be upheld in the province of Ontario, I voted again in favour of the Lapointe motion without caring for the hue and cry of my party.
It is not astonishing, Sir, to hear me say to-day that I am altogether against conscription. By referring to the Debates of the session of 1912-13, Vol. I, fol. 570, you will find that the hon. member from Yam-aska (Mr. Mondou) submitted as an amendment to the speech from the Throne a motion which laid a principle totally different from that which says that "when England is at war, Canada is also at war." The motion of Mr. Mondou was in the following terms:
Mr. Speaker, I beg- to move the following amendment to the Address:
That this House is ready and willing to adopt, at any time, efficient measures for the defence of Canada, an autonomous colony under the British Crown ; but that this House is nevertheless of opinion that the Canadian Parliament has no right to impose on the Canadian people responsibilities in regard to the general defence of the Empire, as long as under the present status of constitutional relations between Canada and the United Empire of Great Britain, and Ireland, the Government of His Majesty, responsible to the people' of the United Empire alone, will reserve for itself the exclusive management and control of Imperial and international questions.
While inviting the House to defeat the amendment moved by Mr. Mondou, the Prime Minister spoke as follows (See Hansard, 1912-13, Vol. I, fol. 579) :
The other considerations which have been alluded to will be held in regard in the future.
I would go further than my right hon. friend in one respect. My right hon. friend says that the amendment has been proposed at an inopportune time, and he is not prepared to say what his attitude in regard to this amendment would be if it had been proposed at the proper time. Whether it properly came up in debate or not, I would vote against it, for the reason that it would prevent Canada from lifting her finger in the defence of the Empire if war were declared to-morrow.
I am pleased to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Achim, Mr. Lamarche, Mr. Mondou and your servant were the only members of the House who voted for that amendment.
Later on, during the same session, when the $35,000,000 Bill relating the construction of three Dreadnoughts in England was before the Canadian Parliament, I also voted against that measure because I wanted to fulfil the promises that had been made to the electors of my constituency at the time of the election in 1911. If my memory serves me right, during that campaign the Laurier navy scheme was dec-lied everywhere and held as nefarious on every husting, and it was said that our children ought not to be sent to be disemboweled on the seas of China and everywhere else. The Borden tribute which was to amount to $20,000,000 was equally disapproved. In a fit of generosity the Prime Minister increased that tribute to $35,000,-
000.	Was that increase from $20,000,000 to $35,000,000 a legitimate reason to uphold a measure which I had condemned? At the same session the hen. member from Assini-boia (Mr. Turriff) submitted an amendment to the Bill and said that the measure should not be passed until it was put before the people at a general eleciton.
I may remark, Sir, that I voted for the Turriff motion.
Having made all those statements, how could it be asserted that I did not oppose with all my might that unjust scheme of conscription.
Australians have had the opportunity of voicing their opinion by means of a referendum. Why should that privilege be denied to the people of Canada? Are we not entitled to that same liberty enjoyed by exclusively British colonies? I always beleved that England was a democratic country and that wherever waved the British flag, there could democratic institutions find security an-d protection. To-day we claim our right to freedom, and I place as much trust in the patriotism of the French -Canadians as in the loyalty oif my English-speaking countrymen. I much



prefer Henri Bourassa speaking his mind openly 'before the whole country to certain narrow-minded members on the Government side of the House w'ho cannot find the courage to say openly what is in their mind or who even proclaim loudly what is not in their heart.
Mr. Lamarehe, ex-member for Nicolet, whom I should like to see again in this House, speaking the other day at the Monument National, asked whether Canada in the present war should make a further effort, or call a halt. When the Prime Minister announced his conscription policy, he stirred up dormant consciences and gave the people of this country an opportunity of examining in the light of reason and facts whether Canada had done its duty. So long as our participation in the war was voluntary, I supported all measures to that end, but when it is intended to turn a free and generous gift into compulsion, I also hold without a moment's hesitation that we should call a halt, that further efforts on our part would drive the country to ruin and bankruptcy and that wre shall have our hands full trying to meet our accumulated obligations.
At the meeting at the Monument National to which I referred, Mr. Montpetit demonstrated beyond possible doubt that by contributing further Canada would imperil its economic development. I think, M(r. Speaker, the people's welfare calls upon ns to put a stop immediately to the sending of troops to the front. In so doing, we-would allay a serious agitation and restore peace in the homes; mothers would regain their happiness when they see that their sons are kept to them to till the land, and, as explained by the distinguished economist whom I have just named, the Empire would-derive more benefit from our sons' work on the farm. Otherwise the "wound inflicted Canada will never -heal.
I now state before, the House that in future, I shall support any leader or any party who declares himself against compulsory service. The people through a referendum should have a say in the matter.
I shall for those reasons vote against the Military Service Bill and for any amendment that may have the effect of nullifying the bill.
I beg to give another reason for my vote. How can the Government, after its mandate has expired, justify the passing of such an extreme measure? I have always taken the real duty of a representative to be to carry out the people's wishes and ensure the people's welfare. Perhaps my stand against conscription will not have all

the effect desired, but at least will I be able to repeat in my heart the words of a noble mother, Admiral Bouvet's, in front of her son's coffin:	" Open wide the doors, for
never has so great an honour entered this house." There are defeats, Mr. Speaker, that carry with them more glory than victories, and as for me I never felt so honoured as when I take this opportunity of combatting a measure so baneful and unpatriotic.
Before I resume my seat, I beg to move in amendment to the amendment, seconded by my hon. friend Mr. Achim: that all the words of the said amendment after the word " following " be taken out and the following substituted therefor: " that this Bill be not now read a second time, but be read a second time this day six months."
Mr. -SPEAKER: Sir Robert Borden moves:
That Bill No. 75, Military Service Act, 1917, be now read a second time.
To which Sir Wilfrid Laiirier moves in amendment:
That all the words of the question after the word "that" he struck out and the following be substituted therefor:-
"The further consideration of this Bill he deferred until the principle thereof has, by means of a referendum, been submitted to and approved of by the electors of Canada."
To which Mr. Barrette moves, seconded by Mr. Achim, in amendment to the said amendment:
That all the words after the word "that" he struck out and the following substituted therefor: "this Bill be not now read a second time, but it he read a second time this day six months."
On the motion of Mr. F. F. Pardee, the debate was adjourned.
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Sevigny, the House adjourned at 10.47 p.m.
Thursday, June 21, 1917.