1917-01-29

[Stage Direction]
Copy of amendment to sub-section (d), section 104, of the Radiotelegraph Regulations.-Hon. Mr. Hazen.
Annual report of the Department of Customs for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1916.-Hon. Mr. Reid.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. FRANK COCHRANE (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 13, to consolidate and amend the Railway Act.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN:: I should like to ask the Minister of Railways whether the Government have come to a decision concerning the announcement made by the First Minister the other day, that the consideration of this Bill might be taken up in Committee during recess?


Mr. COCHRANE:: When the Prime
Minister makes a statement, he means what he says.


William Findlay Maclean: We did not get a statement.


Mr. SPEAKER:: It is not in order to go into a discussion on the first reading of a bill.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: What did the Minister say?


Mr. ROGERS:: You had better read
Hansard.


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


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Rt. Hon. Sir ROBERT BORDEN .(Prime Minister):	Mr. Speaker, during my absence on Friday the hon. member for As-siniboia (Mr. J. G. Turriff) made a statement in the House with regard to myself to which my attention has been directed. I need not read all of his speech, but the statement to which I refer was in effect: that I did last spring intimate to the representatives of the Ontario Recruiting Committee that if I had my way there would be no more recruiting in Canada and that the attention of the Canadian people should be turned to the development of their industries. That statement is on its face so Transparently absurd that I must apologize to the House for making allusion to it. However, my silence might be misunderstood, and therefore I desire to assure the House and the country that neither to the Ontario Recruiting Committee on the occasion mentioned, nor to any other organization or individual on any other occasion, did I ever convey any such intimation as that suggested, or anything that could be tortured into such an intimation. I regret that my hon. friend should have seen fit to make a statement which is entirely inconsistent with every act and word of mine from the commencement of the war up to the present time.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. McKENZIE:: I wish to call the attention of the Prime Minister to a telegram which I have received, as follows:
Have sent Premier Borden to-day a telegram reading as follows:	"The Dominion
Atlantic Railway has confiscated coal consigned to the Nova Scotia Underwear Company, Limited, of Windsor, after arrival of coal at Windsor freight yard. The confiscation of Underwear Company coal is serious, as they have military contracts to perform and will be unable to do so if confiscation of any of their coal by railway Is permitted. If you will kindly instruct Dominion Atlantic Railway that coal confiscated must be returned at once, and that coal for the Nova Scotia Underwear Company, Limited, must not be interfered with in future, we feel they will obey. While the Nova Scotia Underwear Company is willing to co-operate with the railway in every reasonable manner, it feels that interference with its coal supply is unwarranted by conditions obtaining in this vicinity, and such interfer-

ence is a matter of serious importance to them. Your kind offices in the premises will be appreciated.
This is a duplicate of a telegram which was sent to the Prime Minister. I sent notice to the Prime Minister that I would bring this matter up, and I trust that he will be able to give some satisfactory information on the subject.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: The telegram to which my hon. friend refers was received by me, and I at once asked the Board of Railway Cbmmissioners for Canada for any information that they might have with respect to that or like matters. I have a memorandum from the Chairman of the Board, Sir Henry Drayton, which has just been handed to me. It is as follows:-
The practice of commandeering- coal byrailways is the occasion of great annoyance and frequently positive loss to consignees. It is a practice which is not covered by the Railway Act, one way or the other, nor authorized by any regulation of the Board. The practice is very similar to the practice of general average applicable at sea, and the taking of necessary cargoes, belonging, of course, to consignees, in case of emergency. It is justified by the railways in that it is better that some freight should move rather than that no freight should move at all. .
Railway companies, of course, ought to lay in their own coal; they ought to have supplies ; they ought to be able to carry on their business without commandeering coal; but, at the same time, it has to be recognized that the coal shortage is very acute, and that railways in some instances have been entirely unable to obtain supplies of coal which they in due season contracted' for.
The Board has already had up the question of coal confiscation with the railways, andl everything has been done to minimize it. The complaints on this score now are very much fewer than they were, and the situation is being got in hand.
The Board has not been advised of any confiscation of coal belonging to the Nova Scotia Underwear Company, but the matter will be immediately taken up.
My hon. friend will bear in mind that the telegram reached me only this morning, and that the Board of Railway Commissioners, to whom I referred it, have had only a few hours to consider the situation. The hon. gentleman will note the statement in the concluding paragraph of the memorandum, to the effect that the board will investigate the matter at once and give me further information. I am very much obliged to my hon, friend for giving me an intimation in advance that it was his purpose to ask a question in the House upon the subject.



WESTERN COAL MINING.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. BUCHANAN:: I ask the Government for a statement regarding the latest developments in connection with the coal strike in southern. Alberta and eastern British Columbia. Is it their intention to carry out the policy outlined in an official statement of the Government, made on Monday, January 15, that if the increase fixed by Commissioner Harrison was not granted by the operators, the Government would take over and operate the mines at the expense of the operators?


Robert Laird Borden: The Minister of Labour left last night for the West with a view to getting into direct personal touch with the parties and of doing what he can to bring to an end the unfortunate condition which is now prevailing in the West.



THE IRISH-CANADIAN RANGERS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. MACDONALD:: Will the Minister of Militia make a statement to the House as to whether the rumour is correct that the Irish-Canadian Rangers of Montreal are to go to the front as a unit?


Mr. KEMP:: I shall be very glad to make inquiries from the Overseas Minister of Militia; then I shall be able to give my hon. friend an answer.



THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of Mr. G. C. Wilson (Wentworth) for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, resumed from Friday, January 26.
Mr. G. W. KYTE (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I know you will aot deem me lacking in courtesy if I do not give expression to those sentiments of congratulation upon your accession to the Speakership that were so gracefully voiced by the hon. gentlemen who have preceded me in this debate. I desire to adopt them to the fullest extent as expressing my own feelings in respect to the action of the Government in your selection, as well as in respect to the honour which has been conferred upon the province of Nova Scotia through you as one of its representatives.
We -are now in the seventh session of the twelfth parliament. Since the 21st of September last the Cabinet has been govern-

ing this country, not by virtue of the mandate of the people of this country, but by grace of the representatives of the people sitting in Parliament. It does seem to me that it would have been fitting for the Government in this debate to enter into some explanation of the manner in which it has carried out its trust, particularly since the 21st day of September last, when the period of the extension of the life of Parliament first began to run. Except for the intervention of the right hon. the Prime Minister in this debate, which according to parliamentary usage and custom he was bound to, we have had no statement or explanation from any member of the Government of the manner in which they have administered their responsibilities, not only since the extension began but before that time.
Before entering into the discussion of the more general questions that naturally arise in the course of this debate, I desire to refer to a matter having a more local interest in the province of Nova Scotia, and particularly in that part of the province from which I come. I refer to the recent appointment of senators for Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia, as you well know* is made up of two geographical units. Nova 'Scotia proper and the island of Cape Breton. At the time of Confederation it was agreed that Cape Breton should be accorded three senators in the distribution-of senatorships at that time. Since then the number has increased to four, and on no occasion, except in recent years, has the number been less than three. The island of Cape Breton has made tremendous advances in industrial life during the last twenty years. It has now a population well on to one hundred and fifty thousand, or nearly one-third of the total population of the province. Its coal, steel and iron industries are well known throughout the Dominion pf Canada, and it has on the whole as important and diversified interests as can be found anywhere in the Dominion of Canada. Some few weeks ago the Conservative party of the United counties of Cape Breton and Bichmond passed a resolution referring to the appointment of senators, which I shall now read:
"In view of the fact that the resignation and death of the late Senator William Macdonald has left a senatorial vacancy in this Island; and, whereas Cape Breton Island has never had since Confederation less than three representatives in the -Senate of Canada; and, whereas we are now represented by one senator only who lives a greater part of his time from the Island; and, whereas a persistent rumour declares that the Government's intention is to All the late Senator William Mac-
donald's seat by a resident of the City of Halifax; and, whereas, Cape Breton with its record of almost unswerving loyalty to the Liberal Conservative party ought not to be penalized for any other county of the province and least of all in the interests of Halifax whose record, from a party viewpoint, is quite well known to the Premier and whose present senatorial representation is already amazingly beyond its deserts.
"Therefore resolved that the Liberal Conservative Association of South tCape Breton and Bichmond earnestly request that the seat of the late -Senator Macdonald be filled by a bona fide resident of Cape Breton and by a man whose whole interest will be more or less identified with the moral and material advancement of our Island."
The reply to that resolution was the appointment of the Hon. Senator Tanner from the town of Pictou and of the Hon. A. B. Crosby from the city of Halifax. Regarding the appointment of the former gentleman, I have not a word to say. He filled a considerable place in the public life of the province of Nova Scotia for the last twenty years. During that period he was the leader of His Majesty's loyal Opposition in the Legislature and he did all in his power and within his capacity to bring the Conservative party back into office in that province. As I said, he deserves well of the Conservative party, and I congratulate both the Government and Senator Tanner upon the appointment. I should have nothing to say in regard to the appointment of the other gentleman from Nova Scotia, were it not for the fact that party organs in the province of Nova Scotia claim that Senator Crosby was appointed to represent the island of Cape Breton in the Senate. The Halifax Herald says:
Mr. A. B. Crosby has the high honour of being called to the Senate to represent eastern Nova Scotia and Cape Breton.
Senator Crosby himself gave an interview in the Halifax Herald a few days after his appointment and said:
I will see more of Cape Breton in the future than in the recent past. It is my intention to spend much of my time in that part of the province, particularly in the summer season, and I look forward to this with unfeigned delight.
Let me repeat, it is a matter for justifiable pride to be appointed to the Senate of Canada, but what gives me added pleasure is that I will have the honour of representing Cape Breton in the upper chamber of Parliament.
This is an extraordinary declaration coming from a gentleman residing in the city of Halifax who has recently been called to the other Chamber of this Parliament. The gentleman I refer to was the colleague of the First Minister in the election of 1908, and he

was his colleague in 1911, in which election he suffered defeat. The time has now arrived when the Conservative party in the city of Halifax feel that they ought to be making some preparation for the next Dominion election; and inasmuch as Senator Crosby was very persistent in his claim to be the colleague of the Prime Minister in the next election, it was necessary that he be disposed of in some way in order that a stronger candidate might be selected. That is really, in my judgment, the reason for the appointment of Senator Crosby. I am sure it will afford great consolation to the people of the island of Cape Breton to know that in the future Senator Crosby will visit them occasionally to receive tributes of loyalty and fealty from his liege subjects. The Government of this country is absolutely haphazard and topsy turvy; its whole course appears to be subject to that peculiar dispensation of Providence .that Charles Dickens [DOT] said determined the distribution of clothing among the inmates of charitable institutions; by which all the tall boys got the short trousers and all the short boys got the long ones. Four senators represent and tread upon each other's heels in the city of Halifax, while Cape Breton, withl its enormous and varied interests, that give life and vigour to the whole commercial fabric not only of Nova Scotia but of the Maritime Provinces, is doomed to absentee representation. Shades of Bourinot, Archibald, Macdonald, MoKeen, Miller and Ross * Cape Breton that in days of yore, through her native sons, shed a lustre and radiance over the Senate Chamber, must hereafter be content to shine by the reflected glory of the junior senator for Halifax, while men prominent in its professional, business and public life are burned deeply with the brand of senatorial unfitness-in order that the Prime Minister may be rid of 'an unwelcome colleague.
The condition of affairs throughout the Dominion of Canada is not suehi -as should bring very much congratulation to the Government at the present time. We have had some evidence in the speech o-f the hon. member for South York (Mr, W. F- Maclean) as to the public sentiment that exists in the province of Ontario from which he comes. The whole burden of his speech was not congratulation for what the Government had done, but condemnation for what the Government had failed to do. The hon. -member for South York has always been known to be a thick-and-thin and loyal
supporter of the Conservative party. It is -true that on occasions he has propounded doctrines that are not altogether acceptable to the majority of the party he supports, but, taken on the whole, his support Of the party has been loyal and true. When such a prominent member of this House, such a prominent citizen of Canada as he is, makes the declarations he made a few days ago, there must be some reason for thinking that things are not well with the Government of this country or with the country itself. Other opinions in favour of a change in the form of Government in this country have been voiced by large representative bodies - throughout the Dominion. We have had resolutions passed by city councils, trades and labour congresses, and other representative bodies calling upon this Government to give way to a more patriotic and more energetic Government, one capable of dealing with the great obligations that arise from day to day in respect to the war. The cry from Ontario apparently is for a national Government, whereas the cry from the other provinces is for a Liberal Government.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


George William Kyte: reasonable compensation for the money which they have invested in their enter- [DOT] prise. I scarcely think that our friends on the Government benches realize that there is a class of people whieh is not doing its duty in regard to carrying on the war. Talk about sacrifice, talk about doing our bit in the war! Where is the sacrifice of the shareholder of the Ogilvie Milling Company, who pays 25 per cent to the Government over and above the 7 per cent profit upon his total investment? What is that sacrifice compared with the sacrifice of the farmer, fisherman, or miner, whose only son has, perhaps, enlisted, has gone to the front, has been wounded, or, perhaps, killed in defence of the liberty and freedom of the British Empire? What is the sacrifice involved in a paltry tax of 25 per cent upon this profit compared with the sacrifice of the widowed mother who has allowed her only son to give up his life in order that the Empire might be preserved? In, every village, town, hamlet and city throughout Canada there are sacrifices going on among the humble and simple people, in the houses of the fishermen, the farmer, the miner and the artisan, that are far greater in proportion than any sacrifice that the wealthy have been called upon to make up to the present time.
This war has given rise to industries that have yielded enormous dividends to those who have engaged in them. The other day I saw where a company down in Montreal that has contracts for the manufacture of munitions had made profits amounting to over 300 per cent. That is not exceptional, but it is the case wherever munitions are manufactured. I think that under the circumstances, in order , that the sacrifices that the people are making should be equalized, in order that the sacrifice of the wealthy manufacturer should approach in some reasonable degree to the sacrifice of the classes I have mentioned, the manufacturer of munitions, and the manufacturer of every other commodity, ought to be obliged to give not only 25 per cent over the 7 per cent allowed, but every dollar over and above a reasonable compensation for the money which he has invested.
It was a great disappointment to find that shortly after the appointment of Sir Thomas Tait ias head of the National Service Commission this distinguished nonpartisan felt obliged to resign, and we got back to where we were a year ago. Sir Thomas, in his letter of resignation as head of the National Service Commission, ad-
dressed to the Prime Minister on the 12th of October last, said:
In view of what has occurred in the case of Mr. G. M. Murray, who had been offered by me and who had accepted the position of Secretary of National Service, and of that incident as indicative of what may be anticipated in connection with the future organization and work of National Service, I feel compelled after serious consideration to relinquish the position of Director-General of National Service, and I therefore do now resign from! that position.
That was the result of the first real effort of the Government to conduct affairs pertaining to the war on non-partisan lines. What was behind the enforced resignation of Mr. G. M. Murray? Mr. Murray has been secretary of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association for many years. I do not know which particular political party he supported, if, indeed, he supported either party. We have been told time and time again that the Canadian Manufacturers' Association is a non-partisan organization, and I presume that is true. Therefore, I assume that if Mr. Murray was not a non-partisan, he was at all events not sufficient of a partisan to merit the rebuke he received at the hands of the Government upon his being suggested as secretary of the National Service Commission. It is true that Mr. Murray had something to do with certain correspondence that passed between the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and the Prime Minister in the fall of 1914, a few months after the war broke out, wherein protests were made by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association against the intervention of middlemen in the letting of contracts for war supplies. It was alleged in that correspondence that the interference of middlemen was resulting in increasing to a very large extent the prices of munitions and other war supplies to the War Office, in order to provide commissions for the middlemen; and the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, through Mr. Murray, protested that if this matter was not stopped the high prices in Canada would result in the British War Office withdrawing orders for war supplies in Canada and placing them elsewhere. But whatever the cause may have been, Mr. Murray was evidently not persona grata with the Government, and his appointment as Secretary of the National Service Commission was not confirmed. As a result, Sir Thomas Tait resigned, and the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. R.' B. Bennett) was appointed in his stead.

I have in my mind another illustration of how the question of National Service has been taken out of politics, and for the condition which I shall describe I do not hold the two hon. gentlemen responsible in the slightest degree who went down to the city of Halifax to address a meeting there on the subject of National Service. The hon. member for Calgary, as chairman of the commission, and the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) went down to the city of Halifax to address the citizens on the aims and purposes of the National Service Commission. It was announced in the Liberal newspapers of Halifax that in addition to these two gentlemen the Premier of Nova Scotia would also address the meeting. But, strange to say, in the announcement of the meeting that appeared in the columns of the Halifax Herald, there was no reference whatever to the fact that Premier Murray would speak. The only speakers mentioned were the hon. member for Calgary and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. If the National Service Commission does not intend' to do business on such lines ot narrow partisanship, I would suggest that the chairman of the commission, or some other functionary interested in its success, give instructions to the party press throughout Canada to give something like a fair deal to members of the Liberal party, who are as anxious for National Service as any hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House.
There is another matter in which the people of Canada have been very much concerned since the last sitting of Parliament, and that is the resignation of the ex-Minister of Militia and Defence. Very pointed references have been made to that correspondence since this debate opened, but up to the present we have had no explanation with regard to it either from the Prime Minister or from any other hon. gentlemen sitting on the Government benches. I am sometimes inclined to suspect that a discussion of the correspondence that passed between the ex-Minister of Militia and Defence and the Prime Minister is not what hon. gentlemen opposite are most anxious for. It appears to me that the ex-Minister of Militia has hon. gentlemen opposite scared into a blue funk, so that they dare not venture into a controversy which would bring to the discussion to-morrow afternoon some observations from the ex-Minister of Militia that perhaps they would prefer him not to make. The charges and allegations made by the ex-Minister of Militia and Defence stand uncontradicted at the present time. The ex-Minister of Militia placed the Prime Minister in a position where his words were challenged and his motives in certain respects questioned. Allegations of a serious character were made against the colleagues of the Prime Minister, and I do think this debate ought not to close until we have an explanation from some member of the Government or from gentlemen supporting the Government, as to whether the allegations made by the exMinister of Militia are true or not.
We have also had a report from Dr. Bruce, who was appointed to inquire into conditions prevailing with respect to the medical service in England. A summary of Dr. Bruce's report contains twenty-three charges, which reflect very seriously upon the conduct of the Medical Staff in respect to the way in which they have treated our soldiers. The answer to the Bruce report was made a few days ago by an hon. gentleman for the Government, and that answer was that another commission had been appointed, at the head of which was Dr. Baptie, and had completely disproved the charges that were made by Dr. Bruce. -It so happens that the report of the Baptie Commission was published a few days ago, and those who are familiar with the particulars of Dr. Baptie's report will not be surprised to learn that of the twenty-three charges made by Dr. Bruce, eighteen are confirmed by the Baptie Commission. I will read the summary of the report of the Baptie Commission. It gives the twenty-three charges made by Dr. Bruce, with its own comments on each charge.
1. Soldiers arriving in England medically unfit. Criticism largely justified.
2 and 3. Segregation of Canadian wounded and centralization of Canadian hospitals. Board admits this to be a fair question for argument, but thinks Dr. Bruce's suggestions Impracticable and inadvisable,
4.	Unnecessary detention in hospitals, Board professes to disagree with Dr. Bruce, but admits the justice of much of his criticism.
5.	V. A. D.'s inefficient, Board thinks criticism unjustified and regrettable.
6.	Shorncliffe V. A. D. hospitals. Board1 admits justice of some of the criticism.
7.	Relations with Red Cross. Board admits
justice of some of the criticism. "Glaring departures from service methods passed unnoticed."	*
8.	Detailing of C. A. M. C. personnel for Imperial service. Board's opinion disagrees with that of Col. Bruce.
9.	Colonel ftennie in dual role at Shorn-,cliffe. Board thinks it's all right.
10.	Surgical operations not tending to increase military efficiency, Criticism partially concurred in.


Mr. BURNHAM:: What authentication has the hon. member (Mr. Kyte) for this newspaper statement? Let him establish the facts, and then he can make a charge, instead of asking the attention of the House to what may be a mere supposition.


George William Kyte: I am making the allegation; it is up to Sergeant-Major Creighton to say whether or not the allegation is true. He says that he did not tell the returned soldier to join the Conservative association; he told him to see the Conservative pat-Tonage committee. What I desire to impress upon the House is that according to Sergeant-Major Creighton's own statement the matter of the employment of returned soldiers in the city of Toronto is in the hands of the Conservative patronage committee. I do not see why a man who goes to the front, is wounded in battle and returns, should be sent to any patronage committee to get that which every person in Canada knows he is entitled to. Every incentive to patriotic action ,on the part of at least one-half of our population is blasted and withered by this accursed blight of political patronage. If a recruiting meeting is held in Nova Scotia, the recruiting officer is a Conservative who has been recommended by the Conservative patronage committee. If he' addresses a meeting every man upon the platform is a Conservative. If a young Liberal comes forward to enlist he is sent for examination to a Conservative medical officer; and the more offensive a man is in politics the m,ore likely he is to get an appointment of that kind. Why should there be any restriction in this respect upon the young men who enlist? It would be only fair if this 'Government should take steps completely to remove that part of the Militia Department out of politics. If the young man passes the medical examination and goes into training, he finds that everything he is supplied with and every service that is rendered to him is done by virtue of the system of party patronage. If he goes across to the other side in company with one of his young Conservative friends, he finds that his Conservative friend is very spon promoted and transferred to officers' quarters, while he is left to do battle in the trenches. If he goes to the front, he knows that his mother is not likely to get her allowances out of the Patriotic Fund unless she is able to enlist the sympathy and support of Conservatives who handle that fund. He knows also that she will not get the separation allowance unless she is strong enough with the Conservative members of the Patriotic Fund Committee to get them to recommend her for a separation allowance. The mother of- the young Liberal recruit will have grave difficulty in getting her separation allowance, whereas the mother of the young Conservative recruit, notwithstanding the fact that her husband is living and is supporting her, will get a separation allowance without any difficulty. If the young Liberal recruit is wounded and comes back from the front, thie chances are he will be told, as Private Solomon was told, that he cannot get employment unless he is recommended by the Conservative patronage committee- If he comes back incapacitated, I believe that under present conditions he will get a pension, because the Pensions Board is administered absolutely apart from, political patronage. But if our Conservative friends do not make the Pen-

sions Board a part of their patronage system, it is evidence that thiey are losing their instinct for getting everything they can out of this war.
The people of Canada are seriously concerned in this war. Many of them axe anxious t0' do more than they have done if they way were only made clear to them. Thie National Service Commission, notwithstanding the. resignation of Sir Thomas Tait and the substitution of the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. It. B. Bennett) is, I believe, designed to do well. There are people and interests in Canada who are anxious to co-operate to a greater extent than before in the winning of this wax, and the only thing that is 'holding them back is political patronage- Whatever excuse there may be for hon. gentlemen opposite for keeping their hands on political patronage in respect to other departments of government, there is certainly no excuse whatever for their administering the Department of Militia and Defence along those linesi, particularly since September 21, 1916, when the mandate of this Government expired, and when they were continued in office' only by the vote of both political parties in this House.
I am very glad to se ; that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Poster) has returned from his travels and is once more amongst us as an ornament to the House and a great figure in de(bate. We all remember the magnificent speech which was delivered by the hon. minister in this House a year ago on the subject of political patronage, during the course of which he said:
On the contrary it almost always causes dry rot and disintegration that break up Government after Government and party after party; and I wish now in the white heat and light of the great contest and struggle and the selfsacrifice that we are called upon to make that we might speak from the heart and make an agreement in this country between both parties that hereafter patronage shall not be applied by political parties in the administration of our public services. ... If there is any canker of public corruption in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred you can trace it to the baleful effect of political party patronage.
Political patronage generally called forth this vigorous condemnation from the Hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce; what shall we say of the political patronage which is being employed in respect of services rendered and money voted for the purposes of the war? Every assertion made by the Minister in that speech applies five hundred-fold more strongly to the ques-

tion that is now under discussion. But what evidence have we that these pious exhortations of the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce received even a respectful hearing from his colleagues? I regret to say that up to the present time there is no evidence of their eliminating party patronage in connection either with the other departments of government or with the money which is voted for the purpose of carrying on the war. Now that we have the Minister of Trade and Commerce back with us again, I do hope that before this debate closes he will refer once more to the text upon which he preached so admirably a year ago and make one more effort to convert his recalcitrant colleagues to the truth and virtue of the observations that he made respecting political patronage.


Mr. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontemac):: I
desire, to express my concurrence in the regret so eloquently voiced by the itwo leaders in this House 'at the departure from Canada of Their Royal Highnesses the Duke 'and Duchess of Commaught and the Princess Patricia. I also desire, in the name of Frontenao, my constituency, to bid a cordial welcome to Their Excellencies the Duke and Duchess of Devonshire and to express the hope that their stay in Canada will be as pleasant for them as I am sure it will be profitable to us.
There is one very important point upon which we are all agreed1 in regard to this war, and that is the justice and righteousness of our cause. There is no stain upon Britain or upon any of her Allies in regard to causing the terrible conflict which is raging. Russia stands clear dm that regard, and history will so write it. Russia, with her vast territory of eight 'millions square miles, possesses perhaps the most inadequate and poorly-equipped railway system of all the countries of Europe. Her fleet is . small and scarcely sufficient, with the assistance of land fortifications, to protect her capital. Her army, large in numbers, as .the war has demonstrated was very poorly equipped when the war started, and that fact alone seems to me to show that Russia had no intention of aggression. But Russia went into this war, not because she wished to do so, but because to remain out of it would have forced her forever after to hide her head in shame and dishonour. France stands acquitted of any desire for war. With an army very much smaller in numbers and lower inefficiency of general equipment than that of Germany, with a fleet much inferior to the battle fleet of Germany, no person who gives the subject

a moment's consideration could think that France had any thought of aggression. History will clear the name of France in that regard, as the world will ring for generations and ages with the valour of her sons and the splendid courage of her women and children. England, as. we know, from the very outsat had done all that a nation could possibly do to prevent this struggle. She pleaded ajnd begged for peace and pleaded and begged in vain. On one arm of the service England could rely; she poes-sessed the moist powerful and best equipped navy in the world. But she had practically no army, so far as numbers are concerned; simply a force of about one hundred and fifty thousand British regulars.
The one country above all others on the continent of Europe that was absolutely safe from invasion, was absolutely safe from the danger of war being waged on her soil by any other country, was Germany. She had a population of nearly seventy millions. She had a railway system under Government control and built for strategical as well as commercial purposes. She had the best organized, the most thoroughly equipped and best trained army in the world, and she had a navy second only to the navy of Great Britain. But the time had come, in Germany's estimation, to attempt world conquest, and she therefore declared war; and as we all know, in the month of August, 1914, this terrible conflict started. Not one of us in this House would have believed that any country calling itself civilized would have perpetrated the crimes, the atrocities, which Germany has committed since the beginning of this war. Not one of us would have thought possible, two and a half years ago, the wanton destruction of Louvain with its priceless treasures of art, the bombardment of Rheims cathedral, the sinking of the Lusitania, the murdering and butchering of women and children, or the driving into slavery of the remnants of the crushed and broken Belgian people. So far as our side of this struggle is concerned, such was and is impossible. We may be thankful that the teachings of centuries have become so imbedded in the hearts and minds of the people of England and France that since the outbreak of this struggle there has been not one single act of barbarism to mar the glory of their achievements or to stain the pages of their future history.
But we may ask: how is it that we find on the continent of Europe at this time two such different ideals? Cromwell purged
England, and the French Revolution purged France of the false ideals which Germany has systematically encouraged for generations. We, in the British * Empire, we, throughout the Anglo-Saxon world, have passed through centuries of cruelty and oppression to the final triumph of democracy. Throughout the Anglo-Saxon world, yes, and also in France, the individual has been encouraged to develop his individuality; he has been made to feel, no matter whether he is rich or poor, that he possesses within himself a value and a status in the national life which the nation regards as worth while. Democratic principles have been given expression to in such measures as Magna Charta, the Habeas Corpus Act, the Bill of Rights. But what are the conditions in Germany? In Germany for generations they have taken an opposite course. There the individual has been taught that he must blot himself out as an individual, that he must become or should become a mere military number, and that he has no right to be anything else; that he must become and should become a mere cog in the national machine. The gospel of hate has been preached in that country, in their schools, in their colleges and in their universities, yes-and from their pulpits; and men throughout the German Empire have been taught to regard the war teachings of Bern-hardi and the writings and theories of Treitschke as something more worthy of their admiration and adoration than the gospel of Christ. These are the two different ideals which we have in Europe, and which are largely responsible for the outbreak of this conflict. The world is too small' for these two ideals to exist side by side; one or other must triumph; either democracy as represented by Great Britain and France and Russia will triumph or militarism will triumph. I repeat the world is too small for both of these two ideals to exist any longer in it, and the time has come when the Allies must not only crush and defeat Germany's army but crush for all time Germany's ideals.
Mr. Speaker, reference has been made by different hon. gentlemen who have spoken in this debate to matters of patronage in connection with Canada's participation in this war. The hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), when speaking a few days ago, said there were very 'few places where, supplies for the troops were provided by anybody but followers of the Government. The hon. gentleman who has

just taken his seat (Mr. Kyte) has spoken along somewhat the same lines, only, as one would naturally expect, in somewhat more extravagant language. Allow me to call your attention to the statements made by the hon. member for North Oxford and to make one or two comments on them. If I have any fault to find with the Government it is that they have been rather too generous in the matter of distributing their patronage along certain lines.
Allow me to be explicit. I for one do not endorse the action of the Government, for instance, in giving advertisements to any newspaper which will print the most scurrilous and scandalous articles, which can only have the effect of retarding recruiting. I do not endorse the action of the Government in giving patronage to papers of that kind. There is one man who has a seat in the press gallery of this House-and I am glad to say there is only one-who has been capitalizing his scurrility and selling his lies at so much a word throughout this country. The lines of Byron apply very well to that gentleman and to men of his class:
A would be satirist, a hired buffoon,
A monthly scribbler of some low lampoon, Condemned to drudge the meanest of the mean
And furbish falsehoods for a magazine. Devotes to scandal his congenial mind Himself a living libel on mankind.
Mr. Speaker, I say that any newspaper which in this time of stress of war, when every effort is being put forth to get recruits, and when the Government should receive every possible encouragement along that line, a newspaper which will print on one page of its issue the most scandalous and shameful lies in regard to the action and conduct of the Government, and will accept an advertisement from that Government and insert it on another page" of its issue, is playing the part of a hypocrite.
In regard to the question of patronage, the War Purchasing Commission was appointed on, I think, the 8th of May, 1915. This commission has had supervision of the purchases of supplies for the Canadian Expeditionary Forces, the Naval Service, the Military Internment Camps, and so on. It receives its authority for making expenditures from the Privy Council, and before seeking authority to make purchases or to authorize contracts, it prepares a report for the Prime Minister based upon the requisition of the department concerned. It seems to me on the face of it that that is fair and reasonable. Purchases by this commission

are made on tender, on the competitive basis, and upon the files of the commission, and in the departments are to be found the documents relating to each transaction. Tenders are opened in the presence of a member of the commission and a representative of the department concerned. These tenders are called for by poster advertisements and by tender forms mailed to known dealers and to those who ask for tender forms. Surely that is fair, as fair as it possibly could be.
I have spent some little time in getting figures from the report of the commission which was brought down just a few days ago. Let us see how the system works out at the various camps. Tender forms for provisions and supplies to Barriefield Camp were sent out to 116 firms; for Borden Camp, to 172 firms; for Camp Hughes, to 100 firms; for Niagara Camp, to 186 firms, for Pettawa-wa Camp, to 96 firms; for the Sarcee Camp, Calgary, to 142 firms; for Valcartier Camp, to 196 firms; Tor Vernon Camp, to 148 firms. Will any person say that these various firms or individuals were all Conservatives? Tender forms were sent out not only to known dealers, but to any person who requested a form to be sent to him. In the matter of teas and cofiees, some ninety-eight different firms tendered, or had tender forms sent to them, and for the supply of fish for overseas, 130 firms. I am not going to mention all the different, articles, but let us take general supplies. For ambulance stretchers, 44 firms tendered or were asked to tender; for hospital clothing, 78; for boots and shoes, 130; for bedding and blankets, 138; for housewives, 60; for boxes, chests, and cases, 223; for canvas goods, such as bags, haversacks, tents, kit bags, 156; clothing for uniforms as jackets, trousers, etc., 226, and for white and grey flannel khaki, 31, harness and leather goods, 108; knitted goods, socks, sweaters, etc., 130; medical supplies, 242; service and flannel shirts, 92; wagons, carts and carriages, 88.
One could go through the whole list and show similar results. As I have stated, I spent some time in satisfying myself that, so far as the purchase of supplies by the Government for overseas is concerned, there has been nothing of a partisan nature about it. The door was thrown wide open, and every person in the business has been given an opportunity to put in his bid for the supplies that were wanted. In the constituency of my hon. friend (Mr. Nesbitt), some 81 firms were afforded an opportunity to submit.

"tenders, and in looking over the list I find that pnly eight of them happened to be outside of the city of Woodstock. I submit that these facts and figures demonstrate clearly that the statement made by the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) was not a correct statement, and was not any more accurate than the statement which has been made by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte).
The hon. member who has just taken his seat referred to the distribution of the Patriotic Fund separation allowance, and that sort of thing, in the province of Nova Scotia. The hon. gentleman went so far as to say that if a boy from that province went overseas to the trenches he must realize that his mother could not get her share of the Patriotic Fund allowance without going to some Tory official and asking for it. He made other statements along that line, but what are the facts? Who is the secretary of the Patriotic Fund in the province of Nova Scotia? The secretary, I am informed, is A. S. Barnstead, who is also secretary for immigration in that province, a strong Liberal, who was appointed to his present position by Premier Murray of Nova Scotia. In regard to the distribution of the Patriotic Fund, Liberals and Conservatives alike must gp to that gentleman, who is not a Conservative, but a Liberal oi the Liberals. I am also informed that his actions have shown him to be fair to every person regardless of the party to which he or she belongs. That is only as it should be.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Kyte), referring to the question of military appointments, stated that if two boys left Nova Scotia, one a Conservative and the other a Liberal, the Conservative would get a commission, while the Liberal would have to fight in the trenches. That statement is not in accordance with the facts, and the hon. gentleman knew perfectly well that it was not. Why do I say that? Allow me to Tefer to the fact that Mr. W. F. Carroll, a Liberal member of thi3 House who went overseas, holds the rank of lieutenant. I might also call attention to the fact that the son .of the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) is a lieutenant, and I do not think that any person will charge the hon. member for Pictou with being a Tory, whatever else they may think of him. Mr. Ralston, a Liberal member of the Provincial Legislature, holds the rank of captain, and so we might go on and name dozens and dozens of such. As far as I have been able to see, speaking for my own locality, I have never observed any distinction whatever made in regard to politics in so far as military positions are concerned. I speak honestly and sincerely in making that statement. I have not seen the slightest indication of any favouritism along that line. I do not think that the hon. gentleman (Mr- Kyte) will make very much out of talk of that kind. The boys who enlisted from Nova Scotia and from every part of Canada, enlisted to serve their country, and I think the boys who have enlisted have a higher sense of their duty to their country than has the 'hon. member for Richmond, If they can best serve their country by fighting in the trenches, I give them credit for being willing to do so, and the fact that they have enlisted proves that they are willing.
The hon. gentleman blames the Government very strongly for the war tax on excess profits over seven per cent, and he says that it is a great burden to the people. My recollection is that that measure went through the House unanimously, that there was no division upon it, and that being so, the hon. gentleman is as much responsible as any person else for the seven per cent additional war tax. However that may be, whether the Government are or are not, taking as much from the manufacturers and others as they Should, the truth of the statement cannot be denied that this is the first Government that ever did impose a special tax of that kind upon the manufacturers of the country.
The hon- gentleman from Richmond bewailed the fact t'hiat there was no representative from Cape Breton in the Senate. He said that Cape Breton was very unfortunate in that regard. I may say that there are a great many of us on this side of the House who think that Cape Breton is also very unfortunate with regard to its representation in this House, and especially so with regard to that portion of it which includes the county of Richmond. Last year there was a provincial election in Nova Scotia. That election resulted in the return of the Liberal Government by a very largely increased majority. But there was a very significant occurrence in connection with that election. The county of Richmond, which is represented in this House by my hon. friend, was for years and years represented in the local legislature by two Liberals. When the election came on the hon. member for Richmond appealed to the people there to return his two friends, the Liberal candidates, but, although the tide was running very strongly in favour of the Liberals in

Nova Scotia, the people of Richmond county would have nothing to do with the two Liberal candidates who were backed by the hon. member for Richmond. That, I say, is a significant fact. The two Conservative candidates were elected in that county and it is currently reported that the reason they were elected was that the hon. member for Richmond had opposed their cause. They had been reading the papers and they remembered something of the spectacle which the hon. member for Richmond had made of himself in Ottawa last session, and they showed their disapproval by casting their votes for the gentlemen who were opposed to the candidates endorsed by the hon. member for Richmond.
There was also a by-election last year in the county of Carleton, New Brunswick. The hon. gentleman who represents Carle-ton in this House (Mr. Carvell) declared to thle press that he made this fight his own, and he went out and worked assiduously and energetically for the Liberal candidate, with thle result that the Conservative candidate was elected by a very large majority. Why was this? What is the significance of it? The significance of it is that the people in Carleton had become aware of the manner in which the hon, member for Carleton had forced them to take only $8 a ton for their hay in times past; they had also heard of his doings in this House last session, and they would have nothing to do with a man who was backed 'by the hon. member. As the election in Carleton progressed the hon. member for that constituency in this House sent an S.O.S. call out to the prairie, which was responded to by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff). I am told that the hon. member for Assiniboia never had been in that part of the country before, and he has not been there since. I do not know whether that is correct or not but he responded to the call and immediately he landed in the county he went to see the -hon. member for Carleton. He did not stay very long. In two or three hours he was on his way back to the West, but it is said that he left the house of the hon. member for Carleton with his satchel somewhat lighter and his conscience somewhat heavier. Be that as it may, the people of Carleton showed that they were not for sale in that election, they repudiated the candidate who was endorsed by the hon. member for Carleton, and in repudiating that gentleman they repudiated the hon. member for Carleton himself. So that we have in these two 
facts in regard to the hon. member for Richmond and the hon. member for Carleton, an explanation of the somewhat changed demeanour which has been shown by these two hon. gentlemen since' this session opened. Every person must have noticed the sad and gloomy appearance which these gentlemen have had since the opening of this session. The hon. member for Richmond's sadness and sorrows are not caused so much by the absence of any representation of Cape Breton in the Senate as by his dread of what is to come, and will come, as far as he is concerned when the next general election takes place. I fancy the gloomy countenance of the hon. member for Carleton is due to somewhat similar reasons. Last session two new political Zeppelins ventured forth emitting thunderous sounds and poisonous gases. These two Zeppelins came down to earth with a crash and all that was left of them -was a mass of twisted and distorted political wires and a bad odour. The electors of Carleton and Richmond, when the next election comes round, will clear away the wreckage and disperse the bad odour which has been caused by these hon. gentlemen.
But now we have another election, one of a more recent date, one which took place in the county of Dorchester in the province of Quebec. On January 18 of this year, the following letter was sent to Mr. Lucien Cannon, the Liberal candidate in Dorchester:
My dear Lucien:-You have done a good act in renouncing your provincial mandate to revindicate and affirm in Dorchester thes rights of outraged conscience. I trust the electors will respond to your noble appeal. I wish you all success.
,	Your devoted friend,



WILFRID LATJRIER.

[Stage Direction]
There seemed to be some little doubt in Dorchester whether Mr. Cannon was really endorsed by the Tight hon. gentleman who leads the Liberal party in this House and country, and the matter came up at a meeting at Site. Rose on January 21, wlhem Mr. Lucien Cannon, the Liberal candidate, emphasized even morS clearly than before that he was a candidate because of the approbation of -the Leader of the Liberal party, -and of his supporters in the counity. He said at that meeting:
When Mr. Sfivigny was made minister of the Borden Cabinet I asked my friends to meet at Ste. H'enedine in convention, not, as Mr. Sfrvigny says, on my own initiative, hut at the demand and following the desire of the venerable head of the Liberal party, hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier. It was after he asked me to have the electors

of my county meet that I sent notices of a convention in the county.
This convention was, I believe, presided over by Mr. Lapointe, the hon. member for Kamouraskia in this House. The Liberal organizer for the province of Quebec also took a very active part in the election. I do not think there is any doubt in any person's mind at the present time that Mr. Cannon was a candidate in Dorchester with the endorsation and approval of the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition. At St. Prosper on January 18, the same day that the letter of Sir Wilfrid Lauriar was -sent to Mr. Cannon, the Liberal candidate in Dorchester used this language at one of his meetings:
National Service is preliminary to conscription, and with the chief of my party, I am against conscription. Do not forget one thing. There are men in the Borden cabinet who want to cut the head off the French-Canadian race. Are we to ruin our country from the point of view of men and wealth and everything else for England? I say no, without hesitation. If you elect SCvigny, there will be no limits to the sacrifices Canada will have to make.
I would ask the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition whether he endorses those sentiments expressed by Mr. Cannon in Dorchester county?
Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: I might
answer my hon. friend that Mr. Cannon has repudiated that language.


John Wesley Edwards: My right hon. friend will realize that he has not answered my question. I asked whether he endorsed the sentiments alleged to have been expressed by Mr. Cannon in Dorchester. His statement that Mr. Cannon has repudiated those sentiments is not telling this House whether the right hon. gentleman endorses those sentiments or not.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon.
friends knows my sentiments. I have expressed them in this House, not once, but hundreds of times.


John Wesley Edwards: I should indeed he happy if I knew the sentiments of the right hon. gentleman, but the difficulty I hare in knowing what his sentiments are is that they differ so widely on different occasions. At times we find him making most eloquent statements in regard to recruiting and Canada's participation in this war, and at other times in his career the right hon. gentleman has used different language, which I am sorry to say he has never seen fit to retract, and he used such language, not as an irresponsible youth, but as leader
of a great party in this House and country. These are the things which leave me in doubt as to what the real sentiments of the right hon. gentlemen are.	.
Mr. Cannon in his remarks at meetings in Quebec also referred to the Hon. Dr. Sproule, a former Speaker of this House, as the master of Orange lodges and the bitter enemy of the French-Canadian race. I want to say that a statement of that kind is unworthy of Mr. Cannon, and I say that any person who knows the Hon. Dr. Sproule would not believe for one moment a statement of that kind against him. This precious Liberal candidate in Dorchester appealed to the people of his constituency to condemn hie opponent, Mr. Sevigny, and he included in that condemnation Mr. Rain-ville, also a member of this House. And why? Because they had stood up in this House and sang " Rule Britannia." Mr. Cannon also appealed to his constituente to condemn this Government and defeat Mr. Sevigny, because the Government made them put an extra stamp on their letters and pay a war tax on a bottle of medicine. Notwithstanding the repudiation by Mr. Cannon of the statements he is reported to have made, one has only to follow the reports of the different meetings he held throughout the riding to be convinced of his attitude, and his attitude was not that which should be expected of a man seeking a seat in this House. It was not one person alone who reported Mr. Cannon to have made the statement about, " Are we to ruin ourselves for England?" There were several reporters there, and his words were carefully taken down, and reported from one end of the country to the other.
One thing however does stand out and it is this: I think in a time of war like this, when such statements were alleged to haro been made by a Liberal candidate in the field, with the endorsation of the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition, and when those statements were reported in the papers from one end of the country to the other, it would have been in the best interests of Canada and the cause we have at heart, if the right hon. gentleman had taken the trouble to stand up in this House the moment those sentiments were reported, and say that those sentiments were not his sentiments. What a pitiable, contemptible position Mr. Cannon, the Liberal candidate in Dorchester with the endorsation of the right hon. gentleman, places himself in when at a time like this he appeals to the people to condemn the Government, be-



cause, forsooth, the people have to put an extra stamp on a letter or pay an extra cent as war tax on a bottle of medicine. The pitiable thing is that this gentleman, well educated as he is,'and of a very good family, having every advantage, and possessing, one would naturally suppose, more than ordinary ability-the pitiable part of it is that in seeking a seat in this House he apparently lost sight of the big things and descended to the small and petty. He asks, " Are we to min Canada for the sake of England?" " No," he says, " I have no hesitation in saying no to that." Ruin Canada for the sake of England! For England! England, which at the outbreak of war sent across the Channel every man she had-a little army of 150,000 British regulars, every man of them a hero. That little army stoppea the German hordes, blocking the way to Calais at a point almost within sight of England. And Calais is in France. That little army, nearly every man of whom lies buried in France, should not have been supported by Canadian arms, according to Mr. Cannon, when he was making his racial appeal in the county of Dorchester. Ruin ourselves for England? England has poured out her money to all the countries engaged on our side in this war to the point almost of bankruptcy, and has thrown into the struggle every available man for the defence of France. Ruin ourselves for England? No, says Mr. Cannon, no.
There is only one kind of bankruptcy or ruin that we have to fear in Canada, and it is not represented by dollars, but it is represented by discredit and dishonour. We need not be afraid of spending money, of spending the extra cent on a letter or on a bottle of medicine, though these taxes were represented as burdens by Mr. Cannon whose candidature was endorsed by the leader of the Opposition. The bankruptcy we have, to fear in this country is the bankruptcy of high ideals-ideals which do not seem to be possessed by the Liberal candidate in the county of Dorchester.


An hon. MEMBER:: But they are possessed by the people.


John Wesley Edwards: 
Mr. MARCIL:: In order that there may
be no misunderstanding, I- may say that 1 quoted in full the resolution adopted at St. Eustaehe- I suppose the hon. member is giving a summary of the resolution.


John Wesley Edwards: I am giving what was given in this House-


Charles Marcil: Not by me, I read the
resolution itself.


John Wesley Edwards: Then it was quoted
either by the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) or the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr- Sinclair), if I recollect correctly. Tbte hon. member (Mr. Marcil) will not say that these were not the principles declared-


Charles Marcil: I suppose that that is a summary of the resolution, but I should think it would be more satisfactory to the House if the hon. gentleman will Tefer to the resolution in full. He will find it in Hansard.
14i


John Wesley Edwards: I am giving here what was given on the floor of this House by the hon. member for Rouville as the Nationalist doctrine, and the hon. member for Bonaventure, and the hon, member for Rouville condemned the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. S6vigny) because, as it is said, he subscribed to that doctrine in 1911. I would like to ask the hon. member for Bonaventure this question- does he think a man is doing right or is doing wrong in subscribing to that doctrine which I have just read.


Charles Marcil: That is not the question.


John Wesley Edwards: That is the very question. And I will put it again to the hon. member,-does he think that a man is doing right or is doing wrong, who subscribes to the doctrine of no participation by Canada in Imperial wars outside of Canada's own territory?


Charles Marcil: I think that under present circumstances he is doing wrong, because the whole of Canada wants to participate in this war. The whole Liberal party has declared that over and over again.


John Wesley Edwards: The hon. gentleman
says that he thinks he is doing wrong now. Does the hon. gentleman think that he was doing wrong in 1911 in subscribing to that doctrine?


Charles Marcil: I opposed that policy; we all fought against it in Quebec.


John Wesley Edwards: You think he was doing wrong?


Charles Marcil: Certainly.


John Wesley Edwards: Let us see where that lands the hon. member for Bonaventure. Speaking the other day in this House, my hon. friend, after paying a glowing tribute to Mr. Lamarche because he had stood true to Nationalist principles, went on to say- he will find it in Hansard:
If the present Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Sfivigny) had preached this week and last week the same gospel to the electorate of Dorchester that he preached in 1911 he would have been elected by acclamation as was the late Postmaster-General.
The hon. member says to-day that the doctrine of "no participation by Canada in the wars of the Empire'' is wrong. He says, therefore, that Mr. Sevigny must have been wrong in 1911; if he was wrong in 1911 he is right now in repudiating that doctrine. But the hon. member for Bona-

venture, and the hon. member for Rou-ville and the right hon. leader of the Liberal party in this House condemned Mr. Sevigny because he dared to repudiate the Nationalist doctrine which they say he espoused in 1911. .


Wilfrid Laurier: I never repudiated Mr. Sevigny for taking the attitude which he did take in this House. I blame him and his party for proclaiming in the province of Quebec that under no circumstances should Canada ever take part in the wars of Great Britain. He obtained his mandate in the 1911 election by appealing to the vilest passions of the human heart.


Charles Marcil: I have a correction to make, if the hon. member will permit me. If he will look at the revised Hansard he will see the correction that I have made. It would have been nonsense for me to say what appears in unrevised Hansard; the reporter misunderstood me. What I did say was that if Mr. Sevigny had proclaimed in 1911 the policy that he was now proclaiming, he would have been elected by acclamation. My statement was reversed in the unrevised Hansard.


John Wesley Edwards: Unfortunately for my hon. friend we have Hansard reporters in this House. I am taking his own words from Hansard and there they are. It is all right for my hon. friend to twist and turn now so that he may change this in some way to suit his purpose.


Charles Marcil: The hon. gentleman is bound, under the rules of the House, to accept my statement.


John Wesley Edwards: I am bound under the rules of the House to accept the hon. gentleman's statement. I will accept it, as I have to, under the rules; but I will do so with a mental reservation.


Charles Marcil: Reporters are liable to make mistakes as well as anybody.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The rule is clear that the statement of an hon. member as to his words must be accepted unqualifiedly, which I hope the hon. member for Fron-tenac will do.


John Wesley Edwards: The spoken word, Mr. Speaker, or the written, printed or reported word? I am accepting the statement made by the hon. gentleman as recorded on the pages of Hansard. If Hansard made a mistake in the report of the hon. gentle-

man's speech, the hon. gentleman should have made the necessary correction.


Charles Marcil: The moment the unrevised Hansard report came before me I made the correction, as the hon. gentleman will find in the revised Hansard. What I said was that if Mr. Sevigny had preached in 1911 what he was preaching now, he would have gone in by acclamation. How could a Liberal have opposed him now if the policy we are supporting in this House had been supported by him.


John Wesley Edwards: Do not ask me to explain why a Liberal should dp this or that; ask me something easy. I ask my hon. friend to explain how it was that the . Liberal party supported a man of Mr. Cannon's calibre-a man who would make use of the expressions that he has used, according to reports in the press?.


Charles Marcil: Mr. Cannon has made a correction; perhaps my hon. friend does not wish to accept it.


John Wesley Edwards: Of Course he did, just as my hon. friend made a sort of correction.


Charles Marcil: I have been 16 years in this House, and my statement has never yet been challenged.


John Wesley Edwards: If my hon. friend will sit down for the time being, I have something else that I wish to refer to.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I hope that the hpn.
member for Frontenac does not mean that he does not accept the statement of the hon. member for Bonaventure.


John Wesley Edwards: No, Mr. Speaker; I accept the statement of the hon. member for Bonaventure as it is pn Hansard, and if the hon. member says that the report in Hansard is not correct, I will accept his statement as he gives it now.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I understand that that is what the hon. member for Bonaventure does say. He says that he has corrected the report accordingly.


John Wesley Edwards: Let us now come back to the subject. The hon. member for Bonaventure at least says that a man who accepts the doctrine of no participation by Canada in Imperial wars outside her territory is doing wrong. It is alleged by the member for Rouville that the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue did subscribe to that doctrine in 1911 and that he was opposed for that reason. In other words, if he had remained true to that doctrine he would

have been elected by acclamation; because he did not Temain true to that doctrine he was to be punished. The member for Bonaventure and the member for Rouville placed the Minister of Inland Revenue, the present Postmaster-General, and the Hon. Mr. Coderre all in the same box with regard to their Nationalist proclivities in 1911. The member for Bonaventure states also that his leader allowed certain of those members who had professed Nationalist principles to be elected by acclamation, but would not allow this particular gentleman, who had professed that doctrine but had since repudiated it, to be elected by acclamation. What explanation is there other than that they sought to punish him because he had fallen away from that nefarious doctrine of 1911? The hon. Minister of Inland Revenue said the other day:
I placed the question of the war before my electors and told them that it was their duty to make all sacrifices to assure victory.
We on this side of the House can all subscribe to that doctrine, but hon. gentlemen on the other side cannot. They endorse Mr. Lamarche for sticking to his Nationalist principles, but they have no mercy or consideration for a man who came to the conclusion that the principles that he had espoused in 1911 were wrong. If ever there was a time when a minister of the Crown deserved to be elected by acclamation, this was the time, even from the standpoint of hon. gentlemen opposite, because he had repudiated the doctrines which they said they were opposed to. Another reason why they should have offered him no opposition is that given by the member for Bonaventure as to why these other gentlemen were not opposed: because Canada should be united while this war is in progress.
The hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) referred quite extensively to the matter of recruiting in the province of Quebec, and I desire to place upon Hansard some views upon that matter. Allow me to quote from a paper called l'Autorite, of the issue of September 5, 1914. That French-Canadian paper makes this statement:-
Of the thirty thousand troops at Valcartier, how many are French-Canadians ? We cannot answer this question with any degree of certainty, but from the best information at hand we are led to believe that there are scarcely four hundred.
I also wish to quote from l'Evenement of date June 4, 1916, which says:-
We must perforce submit to evidence. The recruiting campaign in the province of Quebec
is almost a complete fiasco. . . After twenty-two months of war it would be stupid to try and justify this extraordinary fact by local considerations. It is better to admit this truth publicly-The large majority of French Canadians is hostile to the idea of all participation in the war. Why? First by lack of military vocation; second by antipathy to the cause of Great Britain.
We add immediately that, from our point of view, this antipathy for the British cause is a misfortune. . . The respect of civil authority represented by the King does not exist any longer in this province. .	. Most certainly,
the Catholic Episcopate reacts against this pernicious tendency, and the elite of the laity cordially seconds its wishes. But the lower clergy, the politicians in favour, and the French Canadian middle class are indifferent or hostile to the Mother Country and to our compatriots of English origin. Is it not time to loudly and frankly express this sad truth?
I have quoted from two French-Canadian papers. I wish now to quote some expressions given utterance to by the hon. member for Bonaventure in regard to this matter of recruiting.


Charles Marcil: What is that paper l'Evene-ment of Quebec, and who is the editor of it?


John Wesley Edwards: Very frankly I answer: I do not know, and I do not care.


Charles Marcil: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to tell him?


John Wesley Edwards: If it will satisfy my hon. friend.


Charles Marcil: It is the chief Conservative organ in the city of Quebec, and the editor is Mr. Bernard, who was Mr. SAvigny's' candidate in the county of Dorchester in the provincial election and was defeated by Mr. Cannon.


John Wesley Edwards: And the other?


Charles Marcil: The other is published in Montreal, by a man who is not in politics. It is a Sunday paper and it hits at both political parties.


John Wesley Edwards: The whole thing is
then that one paper has the misfortune to be published by a Conservative and the other by a man who is not in politics. If my hon. friend gets any comfort from that he is entitled to that comfort.
Let me refer to other statements and see if my hon. friend will get as much comfort out of them. The hon. gentleman, speaking in this House the other day, said:
All Canadians, regardless of their origin, regardless of the- province in wbicb they reside, are one in wishing that the Allies will soon win a great victory, the victory of civilization and of humanity.

That is a very nice expression. We will see if it is borne out by the facts. The hon. gentleman also says:
If there is anybody in this country who has reason to be loyal to the British flag it is the French-Canadian. I want you and the members of this House to put this down deep in your hearts, that the last gun to be fired here in defence of the Union Jack will be fired by a French-Canadian, because for us the British flag means all that we have.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that is very nice language and I think I have heard something like that several times before. Allow me to call my hon. friend's attention to this fact, that nearly always when they are speaking in those terms, they refer to the last gun being fired for the defence of the flag and say it will be fired by a French-Canadian. Now, we are not so much concerned about the last gun, we would like some one to go over and fire the first gun and the middle gun; to take a crack at it along that line. Allow me to ask my hon. friend (Mr. Marcil) and the member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) and some other gentlemen who have got off that last gun business in this House, to, for Heaven's sake the next time they are bringing that up as an evidence of the loyalty and devotion of French-Canadians of the province of Quebec, change that word 'last" to "first." Let us have a change in that way.
My hon. friend from Bonaventure said in the course of his remarks the other day that certain of the people of his province took a limited view of their duties as British subjects. These are his words, they are not mine. I cannot be blamed for repeating them. He also said:
We are with the Allies, and there is not a man, woman or child in the province of Quebec who is not in some way or other helping the cause of the Allies.
In what way does he think a certain man by the name of Bourassa is helping the cause of the Allies, or is he to be left out of Quebec? There is another gentleman down there by the name of Lavergne. Does my hon. friend include him in the list of every man, woman and Child, or does he place him out of the category of men?


Charles Marcil: I will make an exception of those two.


Mr. GAUTHIER:: The exception proves
the rule.


John Wesley Edwards: If my hon. friend will
except many others, we may let the matter pass. Now, about this remark of my hon. friend from Bonaventure, I hope I am quot-
ing him correctly-again I am quoting from Hansard, although he may have had this corrected. I shall give him an opportunity to say:
All that could possibly be done in Quebec has been done to give the ranks of the Allies a fair representation of the people of the province of Quebec.
All that could be done has been done? So he alleges.
If the Government would send a circular throughout my constituency saying:	We need
500 shantymen at $40 a month for a period of six months, they would get them in a week. If they would send another circular saying: We need so many deep sea fishermen and we are going to pay them so much a day and] employ them for so long, they would have an immediate response.
Obi, indeed? So in the county of Bona-vienture, according to my hon. friend's statement, if the Government wants somebody to cut wood or to fish, the county of Bonaventure can provide them and provide them speedily and quickly provided they pay so much a day or a month and agree to employ them for a certain'specified time.


Charles Marcil: If my hon- friend will
allow me to explain-


John Wesley Edwards: I am sorry if I am getting on my hon. friend's nerves.


Charles Marcil: I made those remarks in connection with; the National Service, which I understood had no miltary intent whatever.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Charles Marcil: Is that the intention of
the Government or not? The Government have declared that the cards were sent out for economic reasons and not for military purposes-


John Wesley Edwards: Allow me to point out that there is a bigger National Service than that represented by the National Service cards. I wonder does my hon. friend realize that. But at the same time since, he challenges me in regard to those words of his not of mine. The hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Middlebro) asked:
If the Government sent out a request for *200 volunteers, would they get them in your constituency?
What was the answer of my hon. friend (Mr. Marcil) to that? He said:
If my hon. friend from North Grey will come down to the county of Bonaventure to spend his vacation two thousand Scotch Presbyterians will give him his answer.


Charles Marcil: Is that not fair?


John Wesley Edwards: Was it from the Scotch Presbyterians that my hon. friend's constituency sent the one per cent of its population, as he alleged to the war? The only man he mentioned as having gone from his county was a man who bore the name of. Maguire. That sounds somewhat Irish to me. But there it is on Hansard, and it is unfortunate that my hon. friend should express himself in such a way that he has to correct himself and make explanations later on.


Charles Marcil: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to explain now? In answering my hon. friend from North Grey, I did not want to impose upon him the obligation of coming to my constituency and addressing the French people there. What I intended to say was that I would get together two thousand English-speaking citizens of Bonaventure county at New Richmond, in the centre of the county, and give him the opportunity of making the appeal he was then making. That is what I meant.


John Wesley Edwards: Very good. I notice that my hon. friend did not answer the question of the hon. member for North Grey as to whether Bonaventure would give him two hundred Tecruits.


Mr MARCIL:: Will my hon. friend allow me to make another explanation; it will be the last one.


John Wesley Edwards: My hon. friend is rather infringing the rule. I understood that an hon. member could speak only once in the debate on the Address.


Charles Marcil: It is merely an explanation.


John Wesley Edwards: I do not wish to prevent my hon. friend from making his explanations. However, I will not dwell too long on one point, because there are one or two others.


Charles Marcil: I will tell my hon. friend exactly how things are. We are all interested in recruiting at the present time. The Rev. Father Freve, who is, I understand, in the employ of the Militia Depart-rnent, has been going through the whole county of Bonaventure, accompanied by two officers. They have practically made a house to house visit, and I am told that the reports are very satisfactory. My hon. friend can obtain the exact figures from the Militia Department at any time.


John Wesley Edwards: 
Mr. LEMIEUX:: Yes, I received a telegram from Mr. Asselin saying how proud he was to inform me that he had been ordered to go to Bermuda. I suppose it is for training bur-poses, as other battalions have been sent to Bermuda, and that ultimately it will go to France. It is very anxious to go to the front.
What do you think, Mr. Speaker, what can any person think of an hon. member who was a member of the Liberal Government getting up in this House and making the statement that the Asselin regiment was sent to Bermuda to do the work of negroes

when that same gentleman had stated last session that he had received a telegram from Colonel Asselin to the effect that he was proud to have been sent to Bermuda? What could have been his object? Hon. gentlemen opposite talk about the failure in getting recruits. I will tell them why we are not getting recruits in the province of Quebec as we should get them, and as we would get them if the people of that province were allowed to follow their own consciences in the matter. It is because hon. gentlemen like the member for Bonaventure, (Mr. Mar-cil) and the member for Rouville, (Mr. Lemiepx) are poisoning the minds of the people of Quebec, and have been doing so for the last two or three years. That is the reason why the province of Quebec is not recruiting as it should in this war.
The French Canadian Battalion referred to was not the only battalion sent to Bermuda. A battalion from the city of Ottawa was sent there, but no reference was made to that fact by the hon. gentleman. Why was the Asselin Battalion sent to Bermuda? As the hon. member for Rouville says it was raised in three months, which shows what men can do when they go to work earnestly and sincerely. What was the best course to follow if they wanted to get that regiment to the front? Was it not to send it to Bermuda where they could train during the winter to better advantage than they could here? That is the reason why these battalions went there. The Asselin regiment was sent to the front and like every other battalion containing French-Canadians, it has done splendid service. No better men have been placed in the field by any country on God's earth or have done better work-that is the admission of officers-than the French-Can-adian soldiers who have gone overseas. I pay them that tribute, and I pay it gladly. The only thing is, we want more of them,
I repeat that we would have more of them but for such poisonous stuff as has been circulated in the province of Quebec by hon. gentlemen who occupy seats in this House.
. What are the figures in regard to recruiting in this country? Allow me to place upon Hansard the figures by provinces. These figures show the enlistments up to December 31, 1916:
Ontario	 157,908
Quebec	 41,729
Maritime provinces	 34,802
Manitoba and Saskatchewan. 77'254
Alberta	 34,517
British Columbia	 37,575
(Mr. Edwards.]


Mr. OLIVER:: May I ask the hon. gentleman where he gets these figures?


John Wesley Edwards: I would not be certain, but I think these figures were given the other day by the Prime Minister himself. They do not include reservists or any one of that kind. I am not perhaps prepared to give the answer to my hon. friend that he -would naturally expect, but I will state that the figures I am now giving are up to the end of December, and they are from the Militia Department.


Frank Oliver: May I give the reason
why I asked the question? I wish to say, on behalf of the province of Alberta, that the figures aTe absolutely incorrect in that they do not give that province credit for all the men who have been recruited.


John Wesley Edwards: Well, the statement is up to December 31, 1916. My hon. friend may have other information. These figures total 383,967, and the return which I have here shows a total to January 17 pf 387,409. What is your district, please?.


Frank Oliver: Alberta.


John Wesley Edwards: Is it No. 10?


Frank Oliver: Military district No. 13.


John Wesley Edwards: The return for No. 13, is 34,659 to the middle of January, which differs little from the figure I have given -34,517 to December 31, 1916.


Frank Oliver: I do not wish to reflect upon the hon. gentleman's figures, but I do not want the statement to be made, apparently, officially and to go, apparently, uncontradicted. Alberta is credited only with the number of men in the battalions that have been enlisted there, but there have been .at least 10,000 men recruited in Alberta for units whose headquarters were outside of the province and these men are credited to those other provinces and units.


John Wesley Edwards: That, of course, iis true of every province. I could name dozens of men from my own county who, in the last four, or five, or ten years, have left my county and gone to. some part of the prairie west to settle. Of course, I do not feel that I have a right in these figures to include them amongst the recruits from the province of Ontario. At all events, I have no desire in the world to minimise what Alberta has done. My hon. friend will I know give me credit for that?


Frank Oliver: Quite so; I do not throw any aspersions .at all upon the hon. gentleman.


John Wesley Edwards: When we take into consideration' the population of each of these various districts or divisions, as represented by the last census, that of 1911, we find that the enlistments per thousand ox population are as follows:
Ontario	 63
Quebec	 20
Maritime provinces	 38
Manitoba and Saskatchewan ....	81
Alberta	 92
British Columbia	   104
Let me put that in another way. The Prime Minister asked for half a million men. What would be the allotment, or fair share, of that half million men to be put down to each of the provinces? The following table will show the allotment of each of the provinces and the percentage of the allotment which has been enlisted:
Province	Allotment.	Percentage Enlisted.Ontario	170,213	93.Quebec. 	138,298	30Maritime provinces	65,957	53Manitoba and Saskatchewan (including a portion of Northwestern Ontario	70,213	110Alberta	34,517	135British Columbia. .	29,787	126Now, commenting	upon this	statement,might I here remind	the hon.	member for
Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) that he made a little mistake the other day, not intentionally, of course, if Hansard has correctly reported him, in saying that the population of Ontario was one million greater than the population of Quebec. I do not know where he gets those figures. The population of Ontario is 2,500,000, according to the last Dominion census, and the population of Quebec is a little over 2,000,000. He was just wrong by about half a million. It will be seen that Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia have enlisted more than their allotment. I may say, also, that these figures are based upon the census of 1911, and it is only fair to state that the population of the western provinces probably has increased more rapidly than has the population of the eastern provinces since that time. But the showing of the western provinces is magnificent; we are all proud of the showing they have made and the members from the west have every reason for pride in what the divisions represented by them have done.
Let me point out to the House, Mr. Speaker, that if the province of Quebec had done as well as the Maritime Provinces, that is to say, if Quebec had recruited 53
per cent of its allotment, instead of 30 per cent, it would mean 31,568 more men in uniform to-day, and it would bring the total up to 415,535. If Quebec had recruited, as well as the province of Ontario, 93 per cent of its allotment, it would mean 86,888 more men, and bring the total up to 470,855. The provinces of the west have done better than Ontario even, but if Quebec had done as well as Ontario-and there is no reason why Quebec should not do as well as Ontario-then, counting in the reservists and so on, we would have to-day more than the half million men that were promised by the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden.
Let me still further call your attention to this fact, that Manitoba 'and Saskatchewan have contributed 7,041 over their allotment in the half million, British Columbia, 7,970 over its allotment, and Alberta, 8,985. Altogether the western provinces have contributed 23,996 more men than their allotment or fair share of the half million promised by the Prime Minister.
Is there anything fair about that? Do you wonder that in certain parts of the country there are people who say that we should have compulsory service? Do you wonder that there are in several parts of Canada people who see the unfairness of this, who recognize that one of the greatest provinces of this Dominion has been rather behind in the matter of recruiting while the other provinces are making up the numbers required of them? More than that I want to say this: Our boys at the front feel this and feel it keenly. They are obliged to stay in the trenches for months and months at a time instead of getting that relief which they are entitled to. On the enlistment-30,000 or 40,000 more French-Canadians, or recruits from the province of Quebec, would give them more opportunities to go back and rest and more chance of coming out of the war.
These are things of a practical character, and I bring them to the attention of the House because I think the House should be seized of the factst I think the time has arrived in the Dominion of Canada when it behooves every 'horn, gentleman opposite from the province of Quebec to go down to that province and place the facts fairly before the people. Tell t'htem that it is not only the men of France who are laying down, their lives in this war, but the women of France, and, I miay add, the children as well. Tell them that England is doing her part, that to-day there are millions of British! soldiers in France gradually

crowding the German foe back off French soil. Tell them that the very best blood of England is being sacrificed in defence of liberty and justice. Point out to them what German success in ths war would mean to the province of Quebec as well as to the rest of Canada. Place men of the Bourasa and Lavergme type, who have been preaching treason for years, where they belong. I believe the people of the province of Quebec would respond ito such an appeal if hon. gentlemen opposite did not at the same time breathe in their ears excuses for not recruiting, as they have done from time to time, and as was done just recently by the right hon. gentleman who leads the liberal party in this country. Speaking in Montreal, on the 4th or 5th of June, at a meeting in aid of the 178th Battalion, the right hon. leader of tihle Opposition referred to a recitation which bad just been given on the suppression of the French language in Alsace, and said:
There was something very apropos in the choice of this recitation, because the French language is menaced in other countries besides Alsace. .	. So long as there are French
mothe-s in Canada the French language will not die.
That remark was naturally received with vociferous applause. A few days later another man from Quebec, speaking at Hull, said:	^
Do not deceive yourselves. The Prussianism in Alsace-Lorraine is not so oppressive as the Prussianism of Ontario and Manitoba.
That man was Bourassa. You will note, Mr. Speaker, the same ring in both these quotations. The language used by Mr. Bourassa is almost word for word the same as that used by the right hon. leader of the Opposition in Montreal. And what was the purpose of using such language at a recruiting meeting in the city of Montreal? Was the right hon. gentleman more concerned in getting political recruits than recruits for the army? What other interpretation can you place' on his language? What earthly reason was there for making use- of language of that kind at a meeting the object of which was to induce men to come forward and enlist? Were statements of that kind calculated to make men come forward and enlist? Were they not rather calculated to make men who wanted an excuse quote his very words as the reason why they should not enlist? That is the sort of thing I condemn, and I am not the man to stand up and condemn men like the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) and the hon. member for Rouville

(Mr. Lemieux), and let pass what I think should be condemned in a man very much higher than either of them can ever hope to be.
That is not the only expression that has been made use of by the right hon. gentleman in times past to which I wish to refer. At that same meeting in Montreal he said that the thought that had been with him in all his long political career was "to perfect the harmony and bring together the two elements composing our nation." It seems to me, Sir, that the right hon. gentleman was very unfortunate in the means which he adopted to bring about harmony. He was unfortunate last session in forcing this House to pass upon the bilingual question. Why could he not have waited until the Privy Council had given its decision? Why? Because it would not have had the same political effect. Because it was necessary to make an appeal to the people of the province of Quebec, and that was as good a thing as he could possibly get to appeal to them on. His concern was to consolidate, if it was possible, the province of Quebec for political purposes, not to consolidate it in the interests of this war or in the interests of the Empire. The right hon. gentleman from time to time has made use of expressions which have led astray the people of his province, and many other people in this country. What was his object years ago when speaking in Boston he said:
.It is a mistake, a fatal mistake, to make allegiance, British allegiance the basis of trade.
It seems to me that language of that kind used by the right hon. gentleman in a foreign country has a bad ring to it. Referring to British displomacy in 1892, he
said:-
British diplomacy in so far as Canada is concerned has been a record of failure, of surrender and sacrifice.
In using that language, was it the right hon. gentleman's idea to bring together the two peoples and win the respect of the people of Canada for British institutions, or was his object to come nearer to the day when he would reach the goal of his aspirations, which he has repeatedly stated to be the independence of Canada? The right hon. gentleman also used the following language in this House in 1892 (Hansard, p. 1145):-
The hon. gentleman stated also that at Boston I had said that the conduct of Great Britain and of Canada during the American Civil war had been unworthy of British civili-

nation. Sir, I would not have been guilty of making that statement in a foreign country if X had not made it again and again in my native land, and even on the floor of this House. In the year 1889, X stated in the presence of the Government what I stated in Boston, that in my estimation the conduct of Great Britain and the conduct -of Canada had been unworthy of the civilization both of Great Britain and of Canada. I stated the same thing at Boston.
What was his object in making use of statements of that kind? Those statements are not in accordance with the facts. The right hon. gentleman should know that the Archives of Canada contain the published thanks of the Government of the United States of that day to the Government of Canada and the Canadian people for the wise, prudent, neutral and conservative course which they took during that Civil War. Yet the right hon. gentleman goes to Boston, in a foreign country, and declares that Canada and Great Britain should be ashamed of their conduct during the American Civil War. I could cite many similar utterances of the hon. gentleman. Speaking of British diplomacy, he said:-
Is there a Canadian anywhere who would not hail with joy the day when we would be deprived of the services of British diplomacy?
At another time he said that if he had been on the banks of the Saskatchewan when the Northwest half-breed rebellion broke out he would have taken up arms against the Government. I understand that the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) and the ex-Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes) fought to suppress that rebellion. Just fancy what a calamity it would have been to this country if the right hon. gentleman had gone out there and shouldered a musket and his aim had been true, and he had deprived this country of the present Minister of Justice, or, horror of horrors, if he had deprived it of the services of the ex-Minister of Militia. The only hope these hon. gentlemen would have had would be that the right hon. gentleman was as inaccurate in his marksmanship with the rifle as in his marksmanship throughout his political life.
I wish to call attention to another statement of the right hon. gentleman. Speaking in this House the other day, he said:-
After the passing of a year I think I can repeat that the only complete victory which is being won in this war is the victory which is being achieved by the British Navy.
With those sentiments I heartily agree. This is not the first time the British navy has stood as the bulwark of the liberties of mankind. Ever since the days of Elizabeth
the British navy has been the strongest guarantee the world has had of the security of its liberties.
The British navy has kept fourteen million square miles of British territory, during the continuance of this war, so that not A single hostile German has placed his dirty foot upon one inch of it. It has adequately protected in their homes four hundred and fifty millions of this earth's people who live on British soil. It has protected our commerce, and not ours alone but that of France, that of Russia, that of our Allies, and it has driven the commerce of Germany from the seas, and has forced her cruisers and battleships to hide behind land fortifications. We are not the only people who may be thankful that there is a British navy. Over there in the United States are a hundred millions who, if they ever lift their eyes from their money-bags long enough to offer a prayer to Heaven, are thanking God every day they live that there is a British navy. And well they may, because it stands as their security as well as ours.
I wish to call the attention of the House to one fact in this connection. After that memorable battle which Sir David Beatty fought, the Secretary of State for the Colonies sent to the Governor of New Zealand, and also to the Governor of the Malayan States cablegrams of thanks and congratulation. These cablegrams were identical except in the name of the ship referred to; in one case the Malaya and in the other the New Zealand. The cable to the Malayan States was as follows:
The battleship Malaya was in the thick of the naval fight on May 31, and the Admiralty desire once more to place on record the debt of the Mother Country to the Federated Malay States for the generosity which has enabled the navy to place so valuable a unit in the fighting line.	,
Every man of us, I care not whether he sits on this side of the House or on the other, would be glad to-day if we could read a telegram from the Secretary of State for the Colonies, saying that the battleship Canada, or more than one of our battleships, had been in that fight as were the battleships from New Zealand and Malaya. The premier oversea dominion of this Empire, the brightest jewel in the British Crown as we proudly call it, could not supply a battleship for that fighting line, but the Malayan States and every other oversea dominion took part in strengthening that navy which means the very existence of this country, our national

independence, and the liberties we prize. Let me add one word. I quote now from the naval expert of the London Chronicle, a newspaper regarded as the mouthpiece of the British Liberals and one of the strongest supporters of the Government of that time, the Asquith Government, in a discussion of the naval battle to which I have referred.
Sir David Beatty could have overwhelmed the enemy if Britain could have given him three or lour more battle cruisers than were assigned to his command.
Had Sir David Beatty had three or four more battleships, he could have smashed and obliterated the German fleet. And whose fault is it that he did not have these battleships? The blame is not to be laid at the door of hon. gentlemen on this side. We voted the money; we were willing to spend $35,000,000 in supplying three battle cruisers to strengthen the navy. But opposition came from the leader of the other side of the House, and the Bill was defeated by his partisan Senate at his command. The responsibility lies at his door. It was the party of hon. gentlemen opposite who refused to allow us to strengthen that navy which they, as well as we on this side, recognize as the greatest guarantee of our liberty and our greatest security from danger.
At six o'clock the House took recess;
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. EDWARDS (continuing):: I wish to place upon Hansard one or two more extracts from the remarks of probably one of the greatest authors that this country has ever produced. I refer to the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition. One of the gems in the political literature of the right hon. gentleman is the following statement:
I am ready any day, whether I am charged with annexation or not, to take a Yankee dollar in preference to an English shilling.
Whatever the faults of the right hon. gentleman may be, no one can truthfully say that he is mercenary. He is not a man who is after the dollars for himself, and never has been; therefore when he made use of this expression he was not laying particular emphasis upon the value of a shilling or of a dollar-he was rather using the words in another sense. Such expressions are unfortunate, especially when

they come from a man who has occupied the position which the right hon. gentleman has occupied.
At the time of the South African war he said:
There is no menace to Canada, and although we may be willing to contribute troops, I do not see how we can do so.
But when an agitation arose from one end of this country to the other in favour of taking action, troops were sent from Canada. If we except tho'-se sent by Lord Strathcona, about 2,500 men were sent to play their part in that war-and they were sent on the c.o.d. principle.
At the Imperial Conference in 1907 Dr. Smart, Premier of Cape Colony, brought forward this resolution:
That this Conference, recognizing the vast importance of the services rendered by the navy to the defence of the Empire and tha protection of its trade, and the paramount importance of continuing to maintain the navy in the highest possible state of efficiency, considers it to be the duty of the Dominions De-yond the seas to make such contribution towards the upkeep of the navy, as may bd determined by their local legislatures, the contribution to take the form of a grant of mon;'y, the establishment of local naval defence, or such other services, in such manner as may be decided upon after consultation with the Admiralty and as would best accord with their varying circumstances.
Speaking to that resolution, the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier said:
I am sorry to say so far as Canada is concerned that we cannot agree to the resolution. For my part, if the motion were pressed to a conclusion, I should have to vote against it.
I do not think that on that occasion the [DOT] right hon. gentleman truly represented the sentiments and feeling of the people of Canada. These expressions of the right hon. gentleman have had a great deal to do with the framing of opinion in Canada, especially in his native province, where he is held in high and, one would almost say, venerable-esteem by the great mass of the people as one of their compatriots.
The hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Le-mieux) in the course of his remarks the other day made a vigourous attempt to connect the Prime Minister with the Nationalist party. He referred to the by election in Drummond and Arthabaska, in which Mr.. *Gilbert was elected. He said that Mr. Gilbert had run as a Nationalist and had been introduced in the House by the present Prime Minister; the hon. gentleman's idea being to link up the Prime Minister with the Nationalists. If my hon. friend will

turn to Hansard of November 28, 1910, he will find that Mr. Gilbert was introduced not by the present Prime Minister but by the Hon. Mr. Monk and Dr. Paquet, the member for L'Jslet. I merely refer to that to set the matter right in the minds of the people. We have ample evidence that there is not now and never has been anything in common between the Nationalists or the principles for which they stand and the right hon. Prime Minister. They are as far apart as the poles. Not an expression which has been uttered by the leader of the Nationalist party or any member of it can find its counterpart in any utterances by the Prime Minister. On the contrary, expressions used by Henri Bourassa and other leading Nationalists in the province of Quebec do find their counterparts in language repeated again and again for years back Dy the right hon, gentleman who leads the Opposition.
I wish again to refer for a moment to the matter of recruiting. The member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) said on January 18, 1916, page 54 of Hansard for that year:
In six months, the turn of the tide having taken place, the public of the province of Quebec will have been educated-yes, educated as regards this war, because the population being largely rural, and having enjoyed peace for a hundred years, is not, as many would think, so much affected by events in Europe as other sections "of Canada, because it is Canadian born, seven, eight, nine, ten generations back. I say that the public, having been made acquainted with the facts concerning the war, thanks to the eloquence of the right hon. leader of the Opposition, thanks to the campaign of my hon. friend the Postmaster General, thanks to the articles published by the Quebec press-
He does not mention, what part of the Quebec press; I suppose he does noit refer to Le Devoir.
within six months we shall have nearer 20,000 than 15,000 new recruits in the province of Quebec.
After two- years of the bloodiest conflict that the world has ever seen; after two years of fighting that had been drawing to the limit upon the resources of the Empire in men and: money, the hon. gentleman looked forward to what would be done at the end of another six months. Well, the six months have passed, Something must have been wrong in the methods of the educational processs which, as the hon. gentleman suggests, was being vigorously carried out by 'his right hon. leader. Some [DOT]little word: -muse have been1 thrown in which weakened the influence of even his most eloquent appeal for recruits.
In speaking of enlistment this afternoon
I was not quite fair to the province of Ontario. The figures relating ito certain portions of Ontario, embracing the large towns of Port Arthur, Fort Willi,aim, Rat Portage, and Rainy River, were included in those relating to Saskatchewan and Manitoba. It is estimated that some 6,000 men have enlisted from this district, the northwestern part of Ontario1. I do mot know whether or not that is strictly correct; at any rate a number of enlistments included in the figures for Saskatchewan 'and Manitoba should very properly have been, included in those relating to Ontario. This would -bring the Ontario figures up to 96 per cent of -the total allotment of the 500,000 instead of 93 per cent, still showing an excess on the part of Saskatchewan and Manitoba over their allotment.


Mr. DEVLIN:: The same applies to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec: in Military District No. 3, the Kingston district, for instance.


John Wesley Edwards: I did not understand that district No. 3 included any portion of the province of Quebec.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I understand that it
includes Pontiac, Wright, Labelle and Argenteuil.


John Wesley Edwards: I was not aware of that; I am very glad to accept the correction. I am credibly informed, however, that the total number of Freneh-Canadian enlistments in Canada sincfe the war began is 17,400, of whom 14,200 have gone overseas.


Charles Marcil: Are these figures official?


John Wesley Edwards: I have these figures on the very best authority.


Charles Marcil: Are they official?


John Wesley Edwards: Yes, I think they are.


Charles Marcil: The Premier refused to give an answer to a question of that kind last session. I read to him figures prepared by Senator Mason in the other House, and the Premier said that there were no official figures.


John Wesley Edwards: I am well aware of that. I myself asked for information along these lines and failed to get it, but I understand that the figures have since been compiled.


Charles Marcil: Are they officially compiled?


John Wesley Edwards: Officially compiled by officers of the Militia Department. Nobody else could compile them.


Charles Marcil: They have never been brought down in the House.


John Wesley Edwards: 
Charles Marcil: Will the hon. gentleman-


John Wesley Edwards: Will my hon.. friend
keep quiet? They cannot lay the blame entirely-


Charles Marcil: Will the hon. gentleman deny that I went on the stump to advocate recruiting?


John Wesley Edwards: I did not say anything of the kind.


Mr. PARDEE:: Yes, you did.


John Wesley Edwards: I did not make use of any expression that could be construed into that language at all. I did not say anything of fflhle kind. I .said there was nothing to prevent thle hon. gentlemen from going on the stump recruiting. It is up to the hon. gentleman. He knows to what extent he availed himself of the privilege of appealing fo the electors of the province of Quebec; and I want to tell my hon. friend from Bonaventure that, if in speaking at recruiting meetings in the province of Quebec he adopted the same line of argument and the same line of talk that he adopted in his address in this House the other day, he could not expect to have much result. That is the point I wish to bring home to the hon. gentleman- The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) said the other day:	.
I want to say this, that at this present time and under these conditions, when the future of the world depends upon the success of the allied armies, inefficiency is treason-[DOT]


Frank Oliver: Hear, hear.


John Wesley Edwards: (reading)
-and the talk that leads to inefficiency is treason.


Frank Oliver: Hear, hear.


John Wesley Edwards: To part of that I am prepared to subscribe. The hon. gentleman says inefficiency is treason. I am not prepared to subscribe to that literally; it depends on whether that inefficiency-governmental inefficiency I presume is meant-is wilful or not. There was a certain amount of inefficiency, nobody can deny it, in the Government of Great Britain. Inefficiency was found in every department, in every arena of the war; that is, a certain amount of inefficiency, and as it was found it was corrected as fast as possible. But will the hon. member say that because it was found advisable to replace Premier Asquith, of England, by a man whom I presume they considered would be more efficient, Mr. David Lloyd George, therefore any in-

efficiency that there was while Premier Asquith was First Minister is to be characterized as treason? I say no; I will net subscribe to that literally, but I will subscribe to the latter part of the hon. member's sentence and say that the talk that leads to inefficiency is treason. I will subscribe to that, and I will refer my -hon. friend to a good deal of the talk which has emanated from hon. gentlemen on his own side of the House, talk which was not calculated to advance recruiting or to make our efforts more efficient,'talk such as that which fell from the lips of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) the other day, the wild talk of that man-was that the kind of talk which was likely to lead to efficiency or inefficiency? Was that the kind of talk which would produce recruits in this country,-or which would encourage men in this country in recruiting? Was the talk of the hon. member for Assiniboia not calculated to provide any man who wanted an excuse for not enlisting with a reason why he should not give his services in this war? I agree with the hon. member for Edmonton and I refer his words to the hon. member for Assiniboia and to the hon. member for Rouville and other gentlemen who have spoken on the other side of the House, and who have spoke in regard to this matter not only here, but throughout the country. I also refer the words of the hon. member for Edmonton to certain of the newspapers throughout Canada which have used their columns for party political purposes, regardless of the effect this would have upon recruiting in this country. Their first aim, their chief object-and they have demonstrated it up to the hilt from one end of Canada to the other-has been to try and bring this Government into disgrace, and effect a change of government in this country. They have been more concerned about the welfare of their own political party than about the conduct of this war and its successful termination. That is what I state here to-night, and I state it with a full knowledge of exactly what my words mean.
The right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) the other day, referring to the war and its possible termination, said:-
On the contrary, it seems to me that there are circumstances which may lead us confidently to expect that at the end of this year. 1917, we shall see the beginning of the great victory for which we have been fighting during the last thirty months.
I sincerely hope, as every man in this country hopes, that the right hon. gentleman's prediction will prove true. I am going to assume that in making that statement the right hon. gentleman said what he believed to be true. Of course, no person can tell when the war will terminate, but in the opinion of the right hon. gentleman the beginning of victory will be seen at the end of 1917. Now, Mr. Speaker, if we are to take that as a correct prophecy, it means that if the beginning of victory is to take place at the end of 1917, it will be well into 1918 before victory will be finally achieved, and our men at the front in a position to come home. I have referred to this matter for this reason:	in the
Speech from the Throne reference is made to a further extension of the life of this Parliament. I say that it would be one of the greatest disgraces in the history of the Dominion of Canada if we deliberately do that which will disfranchise those soldiers who are at the front risking their lives for Canada.
Some hon. gentleman opposite referred to the Act enabling soldiers to vote and said, if I mistake not, that they thought at the time the Bill was introduced that it was insufficient, and so on, and wondered why it was introduced'at all. Surely we will all agree that if an election must come, provision should be made to give those men a chance, even if it be a poor chance, to poll their votes. Since the attempt of the province of British Columbia to poll the vote of soldiers at the front, we have all become aware, I think, of the difficulties attending such an attempt. In that case, if I am correctly informed, they were only capable of polling about one quarter of the votes. My point is that, if the right hon. gentleman is correct in his prophecy that the war will not end until 1918, I suppose the right hon. gentleman, if he is to be logical, will say when this Bill for extension comes up; because I believe that it will be impossible to poll the vote of the soldiers at the front, because I believe that those men, more perhaps than any other men of our country, are entitled to poll their votes, I will grant an extension of Parliament for that reason, if for no other. I submit, Sir, that this is a sufficient reason for granting an extension of the term of this Parliament, in order that we may give the men who have gone over there to risk their lives an opportunity to poll their votes in the next general election. If hon. gentlemen opposite are sincere in stating that they believe that that vote will be overwhelm-

ingly cast in their favour, and in condemnation of this Government, then all the more reason why hon. gentlemen opposite, being human, as all of them are, should accede to the proposition of extending the life of Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, I referred very briefly this afternoon to what was done by that first band of 150,000 British regulars who went over to France at the beginning of the war and blocked the road to Calais. Since I spoke this afternoon I have come across a statement which I desire to place upon Hansard. Tt is from a leading French newspaper, and refers to what that band of soldiers did. It reads as follows:
It was their difficult mission to bar the road to the new German invasion between Ypres and La BassSe. To accomplish it they had to hold the trenches for several weeks, in face of an enemy which was not only superior in number but which also attacked with the resolution of despair. In many places at the beginning of this new battle the British lines were so thin that without the display of a stubbornness worthy of Waterloo they were in danger, if not of being broken, at least of being driven back in perilous conditions. None the less they held on.
Sir, I want to place that on Hansard as a tribute to that first army which Britain sent over to France, and I desire to say-[DOT] and I say it with the full consciousness of all tihe glorious deeds that have been performed by other armies on our Side since the war began,-that I do not believe there was at that time on the face of this eaTth another 150,000 men that cpuld have done what those 150,000 (British regulars did. That is the tribute I desire to pay to those men. In that connection, before I sit down, allow me to read a sentence uttered by the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) the other day. In referring to the magnificent stand made by the French troops at Verdun, my hon. friend used words which appealed to me because of the poetry in them. This is what he said:
Only once or twice in history has the world witnessed such a spectacle of greatness at tension. Everything spiritual in a nation touched with genius has been mobilized.
That was his tribute to the French soldiers who held out against overwhelming odds for so long at Verdun, and it is none top great a tribute to pay to those men. We will all agree, I am sure, in that. But there was another time in history when men did as much. To that time I referred just a few moments ago. Later on, I think there was another achievement which came very close indeed to those two exhibitions of valour, the one referred to at 
Verdun, and the other by the first army from Britain. That was the achievement by our own Canadian troops against overwhelming odds when they held the salient at Ypres. These are deeds to which we as Canadians may Tefer with justifiable pride. I wish we could apply the words of the hon. member for Rouville to every part of this country. I wish that were possible.
Mr. Speaker, I said this afternoon that Germany had committed crimes and atrocities that none of us two and a half years ago would have thought' it possible that any civilized nation would commit. I tried to point out that the reason why the German people had got into that condition of mind was that for thirty or forty years they had been assiduously and persistently trained along wrong lines, that false ideals had been brought before them, and that they had been taught certain doctrines in their schools and colleges and universities and from their pulpits until their minds were utterly perverted and they became capable of committing acts which no other njaition on "earth, at least on the Allies' side, could .possibly have committed. The point I wish ito make is this-and again I desire to refer back to the question of recruiting. It is unfortunate that during his long political career the right hon. gentleman has from time to time thought it advisable to give expression to opinions which, if they had any tendency at all were bound to have a tendency of weakening the regard which the people of Canada would have for Britain and British institutions. I have placed some of these phrases on Hansard and I say that just as the appeal to false ideals brought the German people to the state in which they were, and they are, just so must the many unfortunate remarks which have been made by the right hon. gentleman from time to time against British diplomacy, in favour of annexation and so on, have a tendency to weaken the regard of the people of his native province, who hold him in very high esteem, for British institutions, and in my humble judgment we are now reaping in the lack of recruiting in that province, the fruits of his teaching during the last thirty or forty years. It is unfortunate that it is the case.
A new Canadian nation, a new Canada, has been horn on the battlefields of Flanders and baptized by the blood of our own Canadian heroes and it is up to us as Canadian citizens to be worthy of the sacrifice which has been made on far away battlefields in different parts of the world.

The greatest permanent good which we can get out of this war will be in higher ideals, in a nobler character on the part of our peopl'e, in a nobler and better conception of our duty as individuals and citizens of a greater Canada and of a greater Empire. I hope, Sir, that one of the results of this terrible struggle which is now going on will be that a greater Canada will grow out of this war and that the Canadians who have taken their place with the best troops of France and Britain and proved their worth upon the battlefield, as well as those of us who have been left behind in safety, will play our part in making this Canada what it is intended to be-one of the greatest countries the world has ever seen.


Hon. CHARLES MURPHY (Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I was at a loss to understand many of the statements of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Edwards) until I heard him towards the close of his address remark that he was somewhat of a poet. It is well known that poets enjoy a license not accorded to other people. Those of us on this side of the House who are endeavouring in this debate to confine ourselves to facts relating to this war and the conduct of the war must be excused if we refrain from following the flights of this poetic gentleman and any of his friends on that side of the House who may also court the muse.
Mr. Speaker, the political history of the county which you have the honour to represent in this House contains a notable record of public achievement on the part of its representatives both in the Legislature and in Parliament, a record of which your native province is justly proud. In your person, Mr. Speaker, that record has been enhanced by your elevation to the position of first commoner of the Dominion. The congratulations that you have received from your fellow members, and to which I now desire to add my own, are not only an earnest of the belief held by both sides of the House that you will worthily maintain the traditions of the high office to which you have been called, but they are also an assurance that you can count upon your fellow members at all times, and under all circumstances, to assist you in upholding those traditions.
Let me associate myself with those gentlemen on both sides of the House who have extended their felicitations to the mover and the seconder of the address for 15
the way in which they discharged the duties assigned to them at the opening of this session.
This debate has now been in progress for a week. It has 'been confined chiefly, and properly, to the discussion of the Government's conduct of Canada's part in this war. Incidental to that discussion there has been some analysis of the correspondence exchanged between the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) and the ex-Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes). Mention has also been made of the Bruce report upon hospital conditions overseas and of the failure of the Ross rifle under active service conditions. Dealing only with these three heads of criticism, I desire, Sir, before going into details, to point out that if what the ex-Mini&teT of Militia says in hie correspondence be true, if what Dr. Bruce says in his hospital report be true, and if what General Haig says in his report on the Ross rifle be true, then it is clear that unnumbered Canadian lives have been needlessly sacrificed, and that the responsibility rests upon the Government and upon the Government alone. If the Government seeks to escape this responsibility, then I submit that a searching inquiry in each ease is necessary, and that these inquiries should be commenced before the House rises for the proposed adjournment. The Prime Minister has already suggested that the approaching recess might be utilized by a committee to revise the Consolidated Railway Act. Important as that work is, it is vastly inferior to the duty cast upon us, as the representatives of the Canadan people, to fix the responsibility for the needless loss of Canadian lives, and for that reason, Sir, I urge, from my place on the floor of this House, that three committees be appointed to investigate the Hughes charges, the Bruca charges and the failure of the Ross rifle, and that these committees conduct their inquiries during the approaching parliamentary recess and have their reports ready when Parliament reassembles after the Prime Minister's return from the Imperial Conference. If this is not done the conclusion will be irresistible that no matter what the Government, or its apologists, may say, its failure to order these inquiries will be due to the fact that it dare not run the risk of the exposures that these inquiries would bring to light. From that position there is no escape .for the Government.

the Bruce Report blamed, and blamed what the Bruce report praised. The matter cannot 'be left in this shape, and nothing short of a thorough inquiry will satisfy public opinion. I need only make one citation from each report to pro<ve the necessity for .such an inquiry. In the course of his findings Colonel Bruce made the following explicit statement:
It has been found on investigation that many of the officers who have been given commissions have been failures as medical men at home, or are over age, or are drug fiends, or addicted to alcoholism, and these officers are not only of little or no use as C. A. M. C. officers, but their presence on an overseas unit is a detriment to the efficiency of that corps.
And dealing with this particular finding, the Baptie report says:
As to allegations of unfitness among officers selected for commissions in the Canadian Medicals, through being over age or addicted to alcohol and other drugs, etc., this is not borne out by facts. Had Col. Bruce added what must have been within his knowledge, that the proportion of undesirables in the corps is at least as low as in any other branch of the service, there would have been no objection to his criticism.
Commenting on these two findings, the Toronto Globe, in its editorial of January 5, 1917, had this to say:
To ask the people of Canada to set aside Col Bruce's specific charges respecting the drug and alcoholic habits of some of the Canadian medicals on the ground that "the proportion of undesirables in the corps is at least as low as in any other branch of the, service," is an insult to the intelligence of Ministers at Ottawa, and to the common sense of the relatives of the men who have gone overseas to fight. The Canadian people will insist that there must he no proportion of undesirables among the medical men entrusted with the grave issues of life and death in the military hospitals. No drug fiends or alcoholic victims should be allowed to remain for a single day in the Canadian Army Medical Service. The thing is intolerable. The Government mfist act, and aet at once.
The Baptie report is not the last word in this controversy. The etiquette of the medical profession is not worth the life of a single Canadian soldier. When Parliament meets the facts must he dragged to the light of day. There is no room in the Canadian Medical Service for a single drug fiend or drunkard. The life of the soldier who is serving his country in the trenches is too sacred to be gambled away in the operating theatre or sick ward by medical men whose efficiency the Baptie report refuses to guarantee.
In the absence of the details of these two reports, there I will leave the matter for the present.
Last week the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) laid on the table of the House correspondence relating to the Roes rifle. A glance through the file shows that the correspondence is not complete, but
[Mr. Murphy. 1
there is enough of it to prove that our soldiers were not equipped with the proper weapon to defend themselves against the attacks of the enemy. By way of preface to the correspondence, it is, in my judgment, advisable to place before the House a few important facts that will help to a better understanding of the general situation regarding the Ross rifle and its manufacture in 'Canada.
The Breech mechanism of the Ross rifle was the invention of Sir Charles Rose. The bolt had a straight pull, or single motion, as compared with the half turn and pull, or double motion, of every other military rifle. This was supposed to be an advantage in quick firing.
The Liberal Government of Canada, the late 'Sir Frederick Borden being then Minister of Militia, entered upon the manufacture of military rifles for the Canadian militia under contract with Sdr 'Charles Ross, and adopted the Ross patent as the Canadian model. The Ross Company manufactured sporting as well as military rifles, and from time to time developed their rifle for sporting and target purposes, with the result that, at the outbreak of the war, the latest make of Ross rifle was recognized as equal to the best target rifle in the world. It was therefore not unreasonable to believe that the Canadian troops were going overseas armed with the best weapon available. This was the belief of the Canadian people, and they rested confident in that belief.
The Canadian First Division went into the trenches in January, 1915. It was very soon found that the conditions that made the Ross a good sporting or target rifle did not fit it for service at the front.
The battle otf St. Julien, iin April, 1915, was the first real test to which the Ross rifle was submitted. It is now a matter of common knowledge that the Rosts rifle failed under that test. How many of the ^Canadian casualties were due to the failure of the Ross rifle can never be known, but without doubt they were numerous and terrible. Not only were the losses great, but the danger of actual defeat was even more terrible. Not to flinch at the surprise of the German gas was heroism, but it was even greater heroism for our men not to flinch at the still more unnerving surprise of the failure of the weapon placed in their hands upon whose efficiency their lives and the holding of their positions depended.
The occurrences at 'St. Julien must have come to the knowledge of this Government

within twenty-four hours after that battle. There is no evidence of this fact in the correspondence brought down and still less evidence of any action having been taken on the initiative of the Government to remedy matters.
The earliest mention of the Ross rifle in the correspondence is in a report of Sir John French to the British War Office, dated June 19, 1915, in which he states that, having looked carefully into the merits of the Ross rifle he had found that the Canadian infantry had so lost confidence in it that he bad re-armed the First Canadian Division, then under his command, with Lee-Enfields before the battle of June 15, and that even before that date three thousand men of the division had armed themselves with Lee-Enfields without authority.
In other words, 3,000 Canadians had been so convinced of the inefficiency of the Ross rifle that they had thrown away their Ross rifles whenever they could pick up a Lee-Enfield. The obvious inference is that the only reason all the Canadians had not armed themselves with Lee-Enfields was because they could not get them without authority. General French gave as the reason for his rejection of the Ross that it could not be relied upon to work effieently under rapid fire with British ammunition, and that Canadian ammunition was not available.
There is nothing on the file to show that any correspondence took place between June 19, 1915, the date of General French's report to the War Office, and March 30, 1916. That there should have been no such correspondence is unthinkable. The Canadian Government knew that the First Division had been re-armed as a result of the experience at the battle of St. Julien and subsequent engagements. They were arming and placing in the field two new divisions. Either they corresponded with General French on the subject of the Ross rifle, or they did not. If they did, the correspondence has been suppressed in the file brought down-an absolutely damning action-or they ignored the fact that the Ross rifle had been discarded by General. French for stated and definite cause-a still more damning action.
On March 30, 1916, nine months after General French had discarded the Ross rifle, these rifles were still being delivered and accepted by the Canadian Government. On that date the Prime Minister cabled Sir George Perley that the Government was seriously considering letting a further contract for 100,000 Ross rifles, delivery to
begin in April, 1917, two years after the disastrous failure of the rifle at St. Julien.
On May 12, 1916, almost a full year after the Ross had been discarded vby General French and the First Division re-armed with Lee-Enfields, Sir Max Aitken cabled Sir Sam Hughes:-
Serious situation has arisen regarding Ross rifle. I request that you will show this telegram to the Prime Minister.
There is nothing further in the correspondence to show directly what the situation was or how serious it was, but a passage in a report of Sir Douglas Haig to the War Office, dated May 28, 1916, may be regarded as throwing some light on it. General Haig reports that as a service rifle the Ross is less trustworthy than the Lee-En-field and that it has not the confidence of the Canadian troops. He therefore recommends that the Second and Third Divisions be armed with Lee-Enfields, and he continues:
The inquiry on which these conclusions are based was the outcome of an urgent application from a battalion of the Third Canadian Division for re-armament with the short Dee-Enfield rifle, in consequence of a high percentage of jams experienced with these Ross rifles during a hostile attack on May 1, 1916.
Mr. Speaker, there is terrible significance in General Haig's guarded language. What a high percentage of rifle jams during a hostile attack meant in Canadian casualties we have no means of calculating, but the casualties must have been appalling when they impelled an urgent application from Canadian troops for re-armament with the Lee-Enfiald rifle.
It will be observed, Sir, that the hostile attack mentioned by General Haig took place on May 1, 1916. Obviously it was to. the failure of the Ross rifle in that engagement that Sir Max Aitken referred in his cable to Sir Sam Hughes on May 12, 1916, when he said:
Serious situation has arisen regarding Ross rifle. I request that you will show this telegram to the Prime Minister. '
And yet, with the information conveyed by this cablegram and with all the other information that they had in their possession, the right hon. Prime Minister and his Minister of Public Works stood in their places in this House on May 17, 1916, and specifically denied knowledge of the failures of the Ross rifle. The Minister of Public Works even suggested the imprisonment of those who would criticise it. The Prime Minister said [DOT]
*230

I desire to say in the first place, that even if the Ross rifle were the best rifle in the world, it would be possible to destroy its usefulness by making and circulating public statements about it, and it is far from patriotic service to discredit the only rifle we are capable of producing in Canada at present. No one is more convinced of the absolute necessity that our men fighting in the trenches shall be served with an efficient and effective weapon than the members of the Government in common with all good citizens.
On the same occasion his trusted colleague the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) said:-	i
The conditions complained of at that time have all been remedied. The chamber of the Ross rifle has been enlarged.
1 may interject here that when the story of the enlarging of the chamber of that rifle comes out there will be something more to be said in this House regarding the matter.
The chamber of the Ross rifle has been enlarged in such a manner that the difficulties that were met with a year or more ago have been corrected. So far as I know, with any in-' fo''mution it has been possible for me to obtain, there has been no difficulty and no jamming of the Ross rifle for many months past.
Now, Sir, one would think that after receiving Sir Max Aitkens' cablegram of May 12 ; after the discussion in this House on May 17, and after receiving the report of General Haig of May 28, the Prime Minister would no longer desire to keep an inefficient weapon in the hands of the Canadian troops. But, Sir, incredible as it may "eem, such was his desire. It will be recalled that the battle of Zillebeke lasted from June 2 to June 12. On June 7, 1916, while the battle of Zillebeke, where the Canadian losses were even greater than at St. Julien, was still raging, the Prime Minister dispatched a lengthy argument about the Ross rifle to the War Office, in which - this statement occurs:-
The Ross rifle is the only one we are at present equipped to make in Canada and we believe it to be efficient if properly handled.
To this General Haig'promptly replied ih a report to the British War Office, dated June 21, 1916, in which he 'Confirmed his previous report as to re-arming with the Lee-Enfield .after consultation with the Officer in command during recent heavy fighting near Ypres, " The experience of the commanding officer in this fighting was that the Canadians of the 3rd division, at least, had ' lost confidence in their rifles '
The hideous significance of these words can be read in the casualty lists and in the fact that in the attack of June 2 the Ger-

mans captured 700 yards of Canadian trenches, which were retaken lateT by the first Canadian division, which was armed with the Lee-Enfield rifle. General Haig's report of June 21 concludes:-
I must therefore adhere to my recommendation that the 2nd and 3rd Canadian divisions should be re-armed shortly with the short Lee-Enfield rifle, and I would urge that the necessary steps to give effect thereto be taken without delay.
Notwithstanding General Haig's statement of the urgency of the case and its approval by the Army Council, which offered to supply Lee-Enfields, and which requested that no more Ross rifles be brought to England, it was not until August 30, 1916., more than thirteen months after General French's report and sixteen months after the failure of the rifle had been demonstrated at the battle of St. Julien, that the Government of Canada finally gave its consent to the British War Office supplying Lee-Enfields to the second and third Canadian divisions, but expressed the hope that no re-arming had been done without their knowledge.
The correspondence closes with a reply from Bonar Law to Sir Robert Borden, stating that the fourth division sent to France with the Ross rifles had already been re-armed with Lee-Enfields; that is, they bad- been re-armed without the knowledge or consent of this Canadian Government.
As to the assertion by the Prime Minister on June 7, 1916, that " the Ross rifle is the only one we are equipped to make in Canada," the obvious answer is given by the Army 'Council in their memorandum of July 11, 1916, that the Government of Canada alter the equipment to make Lee-Enfields, Mark III, with improvements. The contractor, Sir Charles Ross, has publicly and repeatedly stated that he is and has always been ready to 'adjust his equipment to any requirements oif the Governement, regardless of his contract.
That brings me to a brief consideration of the part recently played by the Solicitor General in connection with the public discussion of the Ross rifle. Speaking at Montreal in December last, the Solicitor General sought to absolve the Government of its guilty conduct by saying:-
As soon as the report that the rifle was defective reached the Government, what could the Government do? We. were bound by the contract made by the late Administration.
The speech in which this statement was made led to a newspaper controversy, in the course of which Sir Charles Ross wrote to the Ottawa Citizen and stated his position under the contract to be as follows:

Since the outbreak of the war, I have endeavoured to assist the Government to turn out a rifle satisfactory in every respect, not standing upon the letter of the contract but acting upon the spirit of it.
The Citizen then asked Sir Charles Ross if he had made his position clear to the Government, and he replied by repeating the sentence I have just quoted. In response to a further question as to whether [DOT]the Solicitor General was right in affirming at Montreal that the Government was bound by the contract made by the former Administration, (Sir Charles Ross wrote:
I am quite willing to reply to your [DOT]question, but to enable me to select the most appropriate extracts from official documents to back up my statement, I should like to know authoritatively first just what Mr. Meighen means by the word [DOT]'bound".
Now, Sir, up to the present time the Solicitor General has not replied to Sir Charles Ross's challenge, and if he does not do- .so the public will conclude that once more he has been found out in the game of political sophistry, find this time in a matter affecting the lives of thousands of *Canadian soldiers.
Air. Speaker, I conclude as I began. If what the ex-Minister of Militia says in his correspondence 'be true, if what Dr, Bruce says in his hospital report be true, and if what General Haig says in his reports on the Ross rifle be true, then it is clear that unnumbered Canadian lives have been needlessly sacrificed, and that the responsibility rests upon the Government and upon the Government alone. If the Government disavows or seeks to escape this responsibility, then I submit that a searching inquiry in each case is necessary, and that these inquiries should be commenced before this House rises for the proposed adjournment.


Mr. J. J. HUGHES (Kings P. E. I.):: ceived, the subcontractors being largely themselves. It was known that they had made inordinate profits. That amount was reduced afterwards upon further investigation to $31,000,000. The statement of General Bertram under oath was that, on the first order for 200,000 shells that they had obtained from the War Office in the autumn of 1914, they had made an excess profit of $52,000. They intended to give that money to the Patriotic Fund, but they consulted General Hughes and he advised them to return it to the War Office and this they proposed' to do. But this strange feature of the case came up that notwithstanding the fact that they had made $52,000 of excess profits on the first order, they wanted to increase the price on subsequent orders so that, I suppose, they would have more money to return.
But the British War Office cabled that they could not pay a higher price and would not place any more orders in Canada if they were not taken at the original price. They [DOT] were taken at the original price and in the spring of 1915 the surplus profits had amounted to $14,800,000. They were going on mounting up and the prospective profits were $31,000,000. Now, there is a strange circumstance in-connection with this. General Bertram on his oath said that in the fall of 1914 that they had consulted the Minister of Militia and Defence as to what they would do with the money, and he advised them to return it to the War Office. The Minister of Militia and Defence knew, ac-according to this testimony, what was to be done with the surplus profits. I think it is the constitutional principle that what one member of the Government knows all know. The Opposition, during the greater part of the session, was accusing the Shell Committee of having charged the War Office and the British Government an enormous price for shells. A complete answer would have been that all the excess profits should be returned to the British Government. Yet the Minister of Militia and Defence spoke three or four times on the ubject, the Prime Minister twice, the Solicitor General twice, and the Minister of Finance at least once, and not one of these hon. gentlemen ever intimated that a dollar of this money was to be returned. This restitution, if I may call it that, in the opinion of nearly every than you meet on the street and who is familiar with the circumstances, was the result of the investigation made by Carvell and Kyte and pressed by members of the Opposition on the Government. That is

what brought, about the Meredith-Duff Commission of inquiry and apparently what brought about the return to the British Government of these enormous sums of money. Yet, the newspapers in Canada-for instance, a newspaper in my own province, the Charlottetown Guardian-have not a word to say in favour of the movers of this motion, but they call them carrion birds, who were wasting the time of Parliament in having this investigation held. This is the record of the Government in regard to this matter.
When we come to this year and read the correspondence that has taken place between the ex-Minister of Militia and the Prime Minister, we find tnat every assertion made by the Opposition against the Government is supported by the statement of the ex-Minister of Militia and that many others of a more serious and damaging character are made. The statement of that hon. gentleman reveals a condition of affairs that few men in this country thought was possible. The statements of the ex-Minister of Militia are made by a man who knows what he is talking about and he states that tlie second division had to be held up four months at Valeartier while the grafters were quarrelling amongst themselves as to the division of the spoils and that the Prime Minister of Canada was looking on hopelessly and could not do anything'. He states that the Prime Minister and other members of the Government were intriguing against himself and that intrigues were going on all the time. He stated that some of the order in council, and actions of the Prime Minister, could have had only three mqtives and that not one of these motives was in the interest of the men, or officers, of the army or in the interest of the successful prosecution of the war. Could a more damaging statement yf the case be made? The matter is so serious that an investigation should surely proceed. My hon. friend from Russell (Mr. Murphy) has asked for an investigation and he proposes that it shall proceed during the adjournment. I repeat that before this correspondence was made public I do not believe there were ten men in Canada who thought that the conditions were so serious as they have been shown to be or that anything like what we now know was going on.
The Prime Minister admits in his speech some of the statements made by the ex-Minister of Militia are correct. Up to this time neither the Prime Minister nor any other minister has denied any of the statements and I say as a member of this

House that if the Prime Minister fully appreciated his responsibilities to the country he would either deny and disprove these statements oi the ex-Minister of Militia or he would resign his position. I have stated that the Prime Minister in his speech on the Address a *few days ago actually admitted the correctness of some of the istatements. made by the ex-Minister of Militia and Defence. He stated that an order in council was passed taking from the ex-Minister of Militia and Defence much of the authority that he possessed over the troops in Great Britain and France, that this order in council was passed during the miirueter's absence and that he	was not	notified of it.
That was a serious matter indeed. Here was an order in council passed in the absence of the very man who should know more about military affairs than any other member of the Council, a man who was considered by the Prime Minister and other members of the Government to be exceptionally capable, and well qualified for the position he held. Without his knowledge this order An council was passed, taking from him the power he had previously exercised over the troops in Great Britain. What was the result? As soon as the ex-Minister of Militia heard of this he came back, and the Government, apparently fearing his wrath, cowering before his anger, tactually rescinded the order in council, and gave him back the power he had previously possessed. The Prime Minister says the order in council was amended: the ex-Minister of Militia in the correspondence says that it was rescinded. That, I suppose, is a sample of the Prime Minister's firmness and decision. The Prime Minister said the other day in reply to the leader of the Opposition that he was quite willing to compare his firmness and decision with that of any other man in Canada, and particularly with that of the leader of the Opposition. The incident to which I have referred does not appear to me to reveal very great firmness or strength of character.
But the most serious matter of all arises in regard to the rifle with which the Canadian troops were armed. It is new known from the report of General French' that he had to withdraw the first line of Canadian infantry from the trenches because of the ineffective weapon with which they were armed. He had to withdraw them, I suppose, in order to save their lives, to prevent them from being slaughtered, from being murdered. But notwithstanding
that this fact was known to the Canadian Government, the Second and Third Divisions were armed with the same weapon, and as has been pointed out here tonight, notwithstanding all the information the Government had in regard to this matter, last session, when this question was before the House, The Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Works stood in their places and said they had no knowledge of the fact that the Ross rifle was inefficient and there were defects in the British rifle, they said. This is the most serious thing that has ever transpired in the Dominion, and nothing has done so much to injure recruiting in this country, or is injuring it so much at the present time as the correspondence which took place between the ex-Minister of Militia and the Prime Minister, and the charges that are therein made and have not been denied. How could it be expected that there would be effective recruiting under such circumstances?
The hon. member for Frontenae (Mr. Edwards) said this afternoon that the falling off in recruiting was due to the speeches made by members from the province of Quebec. No member from the province of Quebec ever could do so much damage to the Government as the letters written by the ex-Minister of Militia. But the defence of the Ross rifle made by the Solicitor-General, Mr. Meighen, is worse than all, with its cold-blooded, heartless, calculating cynicism, when he said that the Government of Canada was bound by a contract to arm the troops with a rifle that was not good; bound by a contract to send out troops to be slaughtered in the trenches without one chance in ten of defending themselves. If ten thousand contracts existed, it would not justify the Government in an action of that kind. The worst that could happen to the Government, if they were bound by a contract, would be a suit for damages brought by Sir Charles Ross, the manufacturer of the rifle. But would any man in his senses bring an action against the Government under such circumstances? Sik Charles Ross says that the Solicitor General ha'd no foundation for the statement he made, and that he had never tried to force an ineffective weapon on the Government of Canada. Supposing an action had been brought-agiainst the Government, Parliament would most certainly indemnify the Government for any damages incurred. An ex-

cuse O'f that king may be satisfactory to a few strong Tory newspapers, such as the Toronto News and the Charlottetown Guardian, but it will not bring consolation to the mothers in Canada, to the Rachaels that are weeping for their children and will not be comforted because they are not. It is possible that many of the casualties among our troops were due to the fact that they had no chance of defending themselves. This is a matter that will have to be investigated, and that will have to be investigated before an extension is given, and a matter that should be investigated before the Government even ask for an extension.
I did not intend to say anything with regard to naval matters, but I shall say a word as the subject has been referred to this afternoon by the hon. member from Fontenac. If there is one thing the present Government and the Conservative party should be ashamed of it is their action in regard to naval affairs in this country. It is well known that when the subject was introduced into the House by 'the present Minister of Trade and Commerce in 1909, the resolution then proposed was accepted by the Government of the day, and after one or two verbal amendments had been made at the request of the present Prime Minister, then the hon. member for Halifax (Sir Robert Borden), the resolution passed unanimously, every member voting for it except the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, the late Mr. Monk. The Government took immediate action, and the very next session brought in and placed upon the statute book the Naval Service Act. Acting on the advice of the British Admiralty, Canada entered into an arrangement with Australia and New Zealand, whereby this country would do its duty in naval matters, thereby carrying out the mandate of Parliament as unanimously expressed a year or two before. All reasonable speed was made. Tenders were called for and examined; the Admiralty was consulted, and arrangements were made with Australia and New Zealand. We were all to act in concert. The Nationalist party of Quebec-this is an old story, but is worth repeating-Monk, Pelletier and all the rest of them, and the present members who sit on the Government benches from that province, opposed the arrangement and denounced both parties for it. An election was held in Drummond and Artha-baska. The .Nationalists put up a candidate, and so did the Liberals. The Conservatives had no candidate, and a newspaper in Montreal wired the present Minister of

Trade and Commerce asking which candidate Conservatives should vote for, as they had no candidate of their own, and the reply of the man who brought in that resolution in 1909 (Sir George Foster) was, "Defeat Laurier by any means, fair or foul. Let the navy so." *
Yes let the navy go-let the Empire take care of itself-leit Great Britain take care . of herself-but defeat Laurier, let the consequences be what they may. This was the Nationalist campaign in Drummond and Arthabaska, 'and from that day to this the alliance between the Nationalist party and the Conservative party has been cemented.
When this Government came into, power they found1 two. training ships in. commission., one at Halifax and one at Esquimalt, they found a Naval College established, they found a large number of men enlisted for the navy. They dismantled the .ships and discharged the crews. They did everything they could do to discredit the enterprise. They had promised the people of Quebec that they would repeal the Naval Service Act. In the very first session, after they came into, power the member for Yamaska (Mr. Mondou) asked if they intended to implement their promise, and the present Minister of the Naval Service (Mr. Hazen) said they did. But they did not repeal the Naval Service Act, and it is under that Act that we have done whatever we have done in the way of 'assisting the Mother Country on the sea. Not only did they discharge the crews .and dismantle the ships when they came into power, but they filled the boilers and tubes of the Niobe at Halifax with a composition, and when1 war was declared it took over a month to dig o.ut that cam-position. and to- get the vessel ready for isea. Had she been ready to go to sea on the declaration of war, she could have captured enough German merchantmen before they could get to. safety to. pay for the whole Canadian navy.
In the session of 1912-13 this. Government brought in what is known as the Naval Aid Bill, appropriating $35,000,000 to build three ships to be presented to the British Admiralty. The Prime Minister in introducing that Bill said that if it did not pass, or if there were any strenuous opposition to it, he would dissolve Parliament and consult the people. He failed to carry out that promise. It has been stated, here today, and has been stated over and over again by the party press in the country, that the Senate killed that Bill. The Senate did nothing of the kind, Sir George

Ross, who was leading the Senate when the Bill went before that body, said that, inasmuch a= this was a departure from the principle laid down by both parties and unanimously adopted in the House of Commons, the Senate would withold its consent until the people of Canada would be consulted. It would not have taken more than two or three months at most to consult the people. Then, had the Conservatives been returned to- power, they could have gone on with the Naval Aid Bill, and if the Liberals had been carried into power again they would have proceeded with their scheme. But, rather than endanger their political necks, the Conservative party withdrew the Bill. But, more than that, Sir George Ross pointed out to the Government that there was no need for that Bill in order to carry out what the Government said they wished to carry out, but that everything they proposed could be done under the Naval Service Act; under that Act the Government could build three ships of war, or any other number they wished, 'build them in England or anywhere else they chose, and, after they were built, might do with them whatever they liked, and neither the Senate nor anybody else would prevent them. Then, why did they not proceed under the Naval Service Act? Because had they proceeded under that Act they would have acknowledged the principle that Canada ought to provide men as well as ships and that was. a principle the Nationalists of Quebec would not allow the Government to accept. No other reason * than this can be given for their course, unless we are to assume that the Government was entirely insincere and was merely looking for an excuse to drop the whole affair. There was no reason why Canada should not have been in as good a position as Australia if the legislation' placed upon the statute books by the Liberal Government under Sir Wilfrid Laurier, with the consent and advice of the Admiralty and by arrangement with Australia, had been proceeded with. We should have had ships on the ocean when this war broke out, as well as Australia, and probably the Canadian ships would have taken as glorious a part in this struggle as did the Sydney when she captured the German raider.
It was stated by the hon. member for Prontenac (Mr. Edwards) this afternoon that if Admiral Beatty had had three more dreadnoughts in the Jutland battle he would probably have won a greater victory, and that if Canada had done her duty in 1913 these three ships would nave been
available to the British Admiralty. The very day before Parliament prorogued in the session of 1913 the Prime Minister stated that, because Canada had declined to build these ships the British Admiralty was proceeding with three additional ships, and would have them ready for sea as quickly as they could be finished. There was, therefore, no diminution in the number of ships at the command of the British Admiralty, when the war broke out, in consequence of Canada's action. The Prime Minister further stated on that occasion that, if the Government remained in power, as he believed it would, before its term expired he would bring down legislation to purchase three ships, or to pay for the three additional ships the Admiralty was building -another pledge the Prime Minister forgot to implement.
In shprt, there is no other thing the party in power has done since coming into office that is so discreditable as their action in this matter. I have already spoken of their dismantling the ships and discharging their crews. It is only this year that we have taken up the naval service again. To-day, under the Naval Service Act placed upon the statute-book by the Liberal Administration under Sir Wilfrid Laurier, we are recruiting all over Canada men for the navy. But four or five years of valuable time have been lost. We were told that Canadians would not enter either the Imperial or the Canadian navy. Time and again, when the matter was under discussion in the session of 1913, we were solemnly told that Canadians had no desire to enter the navy and that you could not get Canadian ships manned. But we find that, even after 400,000 men or thereabouts have been taken from Canada for the army, there is a considerable number of Canadians left who wish to join the navy, men for whom the seafaring life has attractions. Had it not been for the action of the Conservative party in this matter, Canada would have been in as proud a position as Australia.
These are some of the reasons why I think *any man of the party of hon. gentlemen opposite is ilbadvised who raises this question, at all. I can .see nothing to justify this Government's asking for an extension of the term of Parliament. Moreover, I see many reasons why the members of Parliament should refuse to grant an extension, particularly if full investigation is not made into the question of the Ross rifle and into other matters, including the very serious charges made by the ex-Minister of Militia and Defence against the Prime Minister

and his former colleagues in the Government.


Mr. DONALD NICHOLSON (Queens, P-E.I.):: Mr. Speaker, I wish before this
debate is closed to say a few words. Not being accustomed to public speaking I shall have to draw very largely from notes that I have made, and I hope that the House will bear with me in the few observations that I desire to make. Coming, as I do, from the smallest province of this broad Dominion, but representing the chief county of . that province, I feel that I should place my views before the House, and I shall do so as briefly as possible.
- I feel that tire part that Canada has taken in the most momentous events of history, the war, is a matter of the heartiest congratulations not only to this country, but to the Empire at large,, Three years will have elapsed next August since the beginning of the war, and I need not say. that the situation to-day from the Allies' standpoint is infinitely more favourable for a victorious ending of the war than it was when Parliament last assembled. Throughout Canada there is no dislocation of business; prosperity abounds from the Atlantic te the Pacific, in spite of the great conflict. In my own province, in which I am particularly interested, prosperity has prevailed and increased under Conservative rule. In proof of this, Sir, I should like to submit the following facts.
The value of field products for the year amounted to nearly $13,000,000. To this may be added the yield of the fisheries, which was $1,000,000, making $14,000,0001 worth of products of land and sea which were shared amongst scarcely 100,000 peopleimportant enterprises in Prince Edward Island which have been originated and carried out by the Conservative Government go to make for greater prosperity and continued development of our resources. In brief, I might refer to the completion of the car ferry terminals at Carleton Head, giving the Island complete connection with the mainland and the Intercolonial railway and carrying out in their entirety the terms upon which the province entered Confederation.
And who, Sir, have the people of Prince Edward Island to thank for this great boon? When the Prime Minister visited, in his political campaign, the province of Prince Edward Island during elections of 1911, he gave a pledge to the people that if the Conservative Government were returned to power, a car ferry would be constructed and

the broken lank between the Island and the mainland would be united. How nobly and generously the right hon. leader of the Government has fulfilled that pledge, let the magnificent terminals at Capes Traverse and Tormentine and the splendid car ferry steamer now operating between the Island and the mainland tell. Besides, through freight rates now exist between the Island and the mainland, thus eliminating the long grievance of the three short hauls, and proving a lasting benefit to our trade. These matters, which speak louder than any words of mine, show that when a prime minister of the Conservative party undertakes to carry out a great enterprise for the benefit of a province or of the Dominion, he crystallizes his words into action,
The passage of progressive and beneficial legislation has marked the administration of this Government. It -has from the first day it assumed office particularly looked after the interests of the farming community-The expenditures on agriculture have almost doubled since Hon. Martin Burrell became minister, while the Aid to Agriculture Bill, .appropriating ten million dollars for cooperation with the provinces in the development of the agricultural industry, is the greatest advance ever made by a Canadian Government.
Among ether important measures may be mentioned the Bill to regulate cold storage warehouses and the legislation to regulate the sale and manufacture of dairy products. The latter measure is designed not only to protect both producer and consumer and to prevent the adulteration of butter, but also to guard against imposition upon the farmer by buyers. All this particularly benefits the agricultural province of Prince Edward Island.
It would take me a long time, Mr. Speaker, and it would weary the House, if I attempted to enumerate the many Bills of great importance and vast benefit to Canada that have been passed since this Government came into office. In the Departments of Justice, Trade and Commerce and Post Office-in all departments beneficial measures have been applied. Hon. L. P. Pelletier, the late Postmaster-General, was responsible for two Bills providing for increased pay to the underpaid letter-carriers, mail clerks and other employees of the department in the outside service.
Then, Sir, in addition to all these, the Tariff Bill must not be forgotten. The Tariff Bill has placed the steel industry on a sound basis without injuring the con-

sumer in Canada, while there was a substantial out in the tariff on agricultural implements. The whole design of the Tariff Bill was to encourage the home market, looking also to the protection of all classes, particularly the farming community.
Two important and progressive Bills which could not be passed during the last session because of lack of time were the Bill to Consolidate the Railway Act and the Co-operative Credit Bill. These- are two of the most advanced pieces of legislation ever introduced into Parliament. They will, no doubt, be dealt with this session. Then there was _the Canadian Northern Bill, which settles the Liberal Government's legacy, provides for the completion of the Transcontinental Railway, and gives the Government outright $40,000,000 worth of stock.
It was with great pleasure, Mr. Speaker, that I read the splendid address of the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White), delivered at Halifax last October before the Board of Trade of that city. It was a masterly statement of the manner in which Canada is carrying out her duty and her priviege of assisting the cause of the Empire in this great war. Tributes were paid by leading business citizens of that city to Sir Thomas White's administration of the Department of Finance.
Mr. G. S. Campbell and Hon. G. E. Falconer, were hearty and spontaneous and evidently voiced the feelings of all the business men of Halifax.
The minister pointed out that within two years, Canada had recruited, equipped and was now maintaining an army of 360,000 men, of whom 250,000 had been sent overseas to fight for their King and country. Besides this, we have floated in our own market loans aggregating $200,000,000, with $300,000,000 offered by the public. To- quote the minister:
At the outbreak of the war, with our adverse balance of trade and our foreign obligations for interest, it was the obvious policy of the Dominion to borrow as much as possible abroad to prevent gold exports. We consequently borrowed from the Imperial Government for our war expenditures and arranged loans in New York. There came a time, when with our trade balance favourable and our savings increasing, we were able to place the first domestic war loan in Canada. We asked for fifty millions. The public gave us one hundred millions. In September of this year, we asked for one hun-d-el millions. The public offered us two hundred milllions.
And in these trenchant words, the minister summed up his address:
" What is the important question from a financial standpoint with relation to the war ". And he answered his own question by pointing out that, with the Dominion Government spending $750,000 and the Imperial Munitions Board spending over $1,000,000 a day in this country, the important point is, how is this high expenditure to be financed? The Imperial Government cannot pay for munitions made in Canada by drawing cheques on the Bank of England. It can do so only by establishing dollar credits in Canada, and that can be accomplished only by the people of this country placing large sums to the credit of the Imperial Government. " If we give them the money we can get all the orders we want, and more," said Sir Thomas, " but we must save." Here, Sir, is a striking tribute to the patriotism and generosity of our people, and one that proves, beyond all dispute, how willing we were to spend our means and strength for the Empire.
In times like these, when rigid economy is the watchword, it is surprising and most gratifying to find that the revenues of Canada are abounding, and that so far the pinch of war has not been fejt to any appreciable extent in this country. In the course of the coming few years, the question of where to obtain sufficient governmental revenue in Canada is likely to become a matter of serious discussion. If this anticipation is realized, the great public debt which Canada is now assuming will not be entirely a misfortune. Somehow, the debt will * be met-or the interest on it will-and nothing terrible will happen. The soil of this country is rich enough to yield a living to all who are able and ready to put it to the test. Had it not been for the development of war business, yielding, in many instances, exceptional profits, the Federal Government would have been put to it to devise taxation to produce the necessary revenue. These profits, it is presumed, will, in the course of a few years, disappear, and the Government will again have to seek other sources of revenue.
I also notice, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. J. D. Hazen, Minister of Marine and Fisheries, has been doing his bit as head of that great department, during the w-ar. After the war broke out, the Canadian Government asked the British authorities how they could best help, and suggested recruiting men for the navy as well as for land forces. At first there w-as no need of these for the pavy, but since then, the naval building programme has become greatly accelerated

and many new ships having been put into service, these have had to be manned and there has been an increasing call for sailors. To-day the Imperial Navy, which has swept the seas, bottled up the German fleet in the Kiel canal, and guarded the whole of the Empire, requires men.- The navy at all costs must be maintained at full fighting strength.
And the Hon. J- D. Hazen, in an interview, as reported in the press says:
As soon as Canada was made aware Of the change in the situation in regard to the navy, we offered to form an overseas division of the Royal Naval Canadian Volunteer Reserve and lend them to the Admiralty for service in the Imperial army. The Admiralty was pleased to accept the offer and asked if possible that five thousand' men he sent, out of which two thousand would he required by the end of the present year. Every recruit Canada gives to this force will mean the saving of one soldier for the British army, for if the necessary men are not secured, the conscripts at present serving in the army will have to he transferred to the navy.
All this goes to show how admirably the three departments of State, Militia and Marine, have been working together for our own country, in the assistance rendered to the Empire.
In the Departments of Public Works and Trade and Commerce, the showing is magnificent, and the Dominion Trade Returns record abounding national prosperity. The figures for September, completing the record for the first six months of the last fiscal year, show that in six months ending September 30, 1916, the aggregate foreign trade of the Dominion had surpassed high water mark for the best twelve months panada knew before the outbreak of the war. For the month of September itself, our foreign trade amounted in value to $161,797,951, as against $92,687,862, for the corresponding month of 1915. For the six months from April 1, to September 30, Canada's foreign trade reached the enormous and altogether unprecedented aggregate of $1,148,809,402, as against $550,535,360, foT the corresponding period of 1915. Imports for the first six months reached a total of $390,995,024, being almost double the volume of import trade during the corresponding period of last year. In September our imports totalled $68,796,262, showing an increase of some $30,000,000 over September, 1915.
But by far the greatest expansion has been in the export trade of the Dominion. For the six months it has considerably more than doubled, the total being $536,721,514 as compared with $246,392,148, for the six months ending September 30, 1915.

The greatest expansion has been in the volume of exports of agricultural products and manufactured goods. During the six months agricultural products to the value of $206,141,036 have been exported, as compared with $146,794,343 for the corresponding six months of 1915. Manufactured goods have been exported during the period under consideration to the value of $190.823,240, as against a total of something like $70,000,000 for the corresponding period of 1915.
These figures tell a tale of industrial and commercial growth vastly in excess of anything that was thought possible two or three years ago. The records establish, beyond peradventure, that the foreign trade of Canada, for the fiscal year, will be vastly greater than any record ever achieved by a country of seven or eight millions. Commercially and industrially, Canada is forging ahead at a rate which must bring pride and satisfaction to all patriotic Canadians.
I might outline some of the very important matters regarding the policy of the Government towards the province of Prince Edward Island, besides the completion of the car ferry, which make for the betterment of our people and the advancement of our province.
There are great terminals being constructed at Halifax and harbour improvements made. These are all for the benefit of trade and commerce in that part of Canada, and Prince Edward Island, being contiguous to Nova Scotia, will share to a certain extent in the benefit flowing from the vast works nearing completion there. Then there have been improvements in St. John harbour, which also will, to a certain extent, benefit the island, as it is now on the eve of being connected with the mainland.
I might also refer to the fixing of our representation in the House of Commons, whereby this province has now four representatives, although at one time it looked as if the entire representation of the province might be swept away, owing to the fact that our population was not increasing at as rapid a rate as that of the pivotal province of Quebec
Then I might refer to the increased subsidy paid to Prince Edward Island by the Federal Government, whereby the province is given the handsome sum of $100,000 a year of additional revenue. The establishment, too, by the Federal Government of the means by which agricultural education has been brought within the reach of our

farmers and their children has been of enormous benefit. The expending of nearly $30,000 a year will thus enable professors and instructors in agriculture and horticulture to live amongst us and spend their time instructing our people in the latest and best methods regarding these two important branches of industry.
I may truly say, Mr. Speaker, that it was a red-letter day in the history of this county, which I have the honour to represent, and the province at large, when the Conservative Government came into power in 1911.
There are other important things which have taken place under Government rule, but it would take a man of more eloquent tongue than mine to enumerate them. Naturally, owing to the truce between the two parties, the people, I take it, Sir, have not been taking the same profound and active interest in party politics that they took when the Empire was at peace. I may tell you that the little province of Prince Edward Island, with only, according to the census taken in 1911, a population of 93,728 people, has nearly 3,000 of its sons enlisted in the war, or about three and a half per cent. This I consider, Sir, owing to the smallness of our province and the limited number of our people, a most gratifying showing. We have raised in that province two siege batteries and one of the most magnificent regiments, the latter being composed of 1,200 men. In that regiment the largest proportion of the men are Scotchmen. There are descendants of the men of Tipperary and there are also descendants of the men of the North of Ireland. We have had considerable talk about what the French-Canadians have done and have not done. There are only about 10,000 French-Canadians in Prince Edward Island, but I notice one name-that of Arsenault-in the regimental list about fifty times. The French-Canadians have done more than their proportion down there. It shows that they are under good political influences in that part of Canada.
Many homes throughout the island are in mourning for boys who have found their
graves on the battlefields of Europe. Yet with courage and confidence our people down in Prince Edward Island, in common with all peoples of the British Empire, Canada, Australia, India and all allied nations, are facing the Huns, and assisting in bringing about their ultimate defeat in order to preserve the freedom of mankind and the liberty of the world.
I can speak with deep feeling of the sacrifices made by the people of Prince Edward Island. I feel, Sir, that I have a right to stand on the floor of this House and eulogize the bravery, self-sacrifice and loyalty of our people to our King and country. Two members of my own household are at the front, and I know that I am looking into the faces of those all around me who have sons or other relatives at the front, yet who have not hesitated to say to their boys or their girls "Go forward, do your bit, and may God be with you till we meet again."
Canada has done and is doing her part and the Government, and notably the Prime Minister and the Minister of Militia, have worked miracles in this country since the war began. I have already referred to what has been accomplished, but I feel, Sir, that this is the paramount thought in all our minds, and I desire to place before Parliament and the country the fact that the province from which I come has responded as nobly and as loyally as any other part of the British Empire.
The prosperity of the year perhaps is better told as follows:-The close of the calendar year found the revenue of Canada well in advance of last year's receipts. The Customs revenue for December amounted to $11,884,000, as compared with $9,432,000 for the corresponding month last year, an increase of $2,451,000. In the nine months of the fiscal year the Customs revenue reached a total of $106,613,000, an increase of $34,891,000. Further, I may state that Canada's total exports for the eleven months ending November 1916 were $979,646,833, as compared with $559,893,809 in 1915 and $389,467,415 in 1914. Her total imports for the same period were:
1916.	1915.	1914.Canada's total exports (11 months, ending Nov.) Canada's total imports (11 months ending Nov.) Canada's total trade (11 months, ending Nov.).	$ 979,646,838 698,976,783 1,078,623,621 500.000.	000 167.000.	000 126.000.	000 10,564,043,329 1,295,870,723 20,681,441	$ 559,893,809 405,949,673 965,843,482 750,000,000 376.448.000 391.947.000 7,797,430,809 1,120,954,457 41,162,321	$ 389,467,415 450,926,446 840,393,861 318.419.000 140.958.000 250.654.000 8,063,539,898 1,016.879,005 30,741,292Western wheat crop (bush.)	
. Value of Western grain crop	Deposits in Banks in Canada, November 30.. Failures, liabilities for 9 months	
While dwelling on the expanding revenues of our country and the prosperity which these figures tell, we must not lose sight of the fact that conditions, although so vastly favorable to the producer, are bearing somewhat heavily upon the consumer. Not for one instant do I admit, Sir, that the Government should be held responsible for the exceedingly high price of foodstuffs to the consumer. The law of supply and demand governs these, and the prices of commodities are fixed by the increase or lessening in the demand for such. Such is the condition we find in this country today, for while there are splendid prices for all the farmer has to sell, those who dwell in cities feel that the burden for necessities is greater than before. But this Canada is largely agricultural, the farmers predominate, so all that makes for the increased prosperity of the consumer. This may sound paradoxical to some, Mr. Speaker, but with greater demand and higher prices for the producer, there will naturally follow more demand for labor and higher wages for the working-man, and the city dwellers generally. With your permission, Sir, I would like to quote the following editorial, which appeared in the Toronto "News", not long ago:
Prices are high. Wheat merely shows the way to meat products, to vegetables, to dairy products. An unfavorable summer may have some partial influence on prices by creating local scarcity, but the main cause is the war. Russia's wheat must be reserved for home consumption. The closing of the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus removes Russia as a competitor in the world's markets. Indian wheat is subjected to high insurance rates and there is a famine in ocean transport. A bad season in Argentina and a half crop in America, with tonnage scarce, make a combination that necessarily would force up the pricey even though not one man was speculating in grain futures. Meat consumption is greater than ever before because fighting men are liberally fed, perhaps in many cases more liberally fed than in peace times. Millions of men are in arms and war has put an end to stock-breeding in large tracts of fire-swept countryside. So all food products are in great demand, while the supply is stationary or even lower than before the war. Other necessaries are affected. Leather is expensive, steel prices are high, every fabric is more difficult to secure.
A few weeks ago, the Russian Government placed one order in England for 9,000,000 yards of woollens. The mills are shorthanded, or manned by inexperienced workers. The British Government's demands are firstly filled and rightly so. Broad-cloth is made in these days after all the khaki orders are filled, and before the new ones come in. The marvel is not that living is so expensive, but that it is comparatively so cheap. In the year 1810, wheat in England was 110s, a quarter (8 bushels). This is equivalent to about $3.43 a bushel. It was due wholly to the Napoleonic wars, and even two years after Waterloo normal conditions had not
[Mr. Nicholson.)
returned for in 1817 it had risen to 148s or $4.62 a bushel.
People do not realize that they must suffer in some way when more than half the civilized world is enduring ordeal by battle. There can be no war without sacrifice. Undoubtedly men will be found who will seek to trade on the necessities of others in order to make unseemly and sometimes criminal profits. If such men or combinations of men can be found, it is certainly the duty of the Government to curb their operations.
Now, Sir, I believe that in the spring of 1916 this Government was spending at the rate of one million dollars a month in separation allowances. Besides this, there are some 360,000 men, in arms, for which the Government must provide salaries, and all that goes to make up the complexity of the organization and equipment of a modern army. These are all rather extraordinary expenditures called forth by the war. Nobody is objecting to these, vast though they may be. But, Sir, the taxes must be increased, higher duties must he levied and the people must realize that economy will have to be practised, in order to meet the outlay. The Government must set the example in this regard. It must economize in the face and stress of these perilous times. It must use its best wisdom and see where necessary retrenchment may be introduced and operated. It must set the people an example, because, should the war continue, times naturally will become harder and unless the Government and the people begin to practise rigid economy in all departments of public service and in all personal activities, the result will be discouraging and disastrous. However, I am satisfied that the Government in its wisdom, with the wise and far seeing statesmen whom we have in the Borden Cabinet, fully realize the gravity of the present and the seriousness of the future situation, and will not only crystalize into legislation the i principle of economy, wherever possible, but will also educate the people of this country to be careful in all their outlays and save, to a certain extent at least, their money, and not to now indulge in the frivolous pleasures and reckless extravagances so prevalent in times of peace.
There is another matter, Mr. Speaker, while I am referring to conditions in the Maritime Provinces, and that is with respect to ship-building, and the bonusing or assisting of individuals or companies in the construction of such. In our province particularly, the press has been printing innumerable letters from sea captains and ship-builders, besides editorials, upon the important subject of the coastwise trade and the building of ships. So keenly has

this subject been advocated that the Government appointed a commission of three gentlemen to investigate into this trade, particularly in regard to the delay of sailing vessels procuring their cargoes of coal at the coal ports. This commission held meetings at Halifax, Charlottetown and Sydney, and probably in other points of the Maritime Provinces, but the result of their deliberations has not yet been disclosed.
There can be no doubt but that the delays at the coal ports have been very serious and engendered a big loss to owners of the smaller sailing vessels. Indeed, so much so, that they have been to a great extent driven out of the trade and off the seas. I could cite instances innumerable in proof of my statement, but I do not care to weary the House by so doing. Suffice it to say that the merchant marine of Canada, from holding fourth place in the world-some contend third place-has greatly degenerated, and to-day, I am well informed that the Scandinavian flag has supplanted the flag of the British in regard to the merchant marine on the Seven Seas.
In the "Canadian Railway and Marine World" for October, 1916, a long article appears, entitled, "The Dominion Government asked to start ocean ship-building." The Quebec Board of Trade, in their action, affirmed that they thought it would be wise for ,the Government to take the initiative and build six or more commercial steamships of eight or ten thousand tonnage each; say tw'o at Montreal, two at Quebec and two in the Maritime Provinces, on the basis of the cost of labour and material, plus a reasonable percentage for the builder. By doing this, they would introduce an element of competition, and at the same time establish a basis of cost to guide them in the legislation necessary to establish this most important industry.
I could easily refer to statistics which show that the United States shipyards had at that time on the stocks three hundred and sixty-eight steel steamships, aggregating more than one million tons, and that there are more than twice the number of ships carrying the Stars and Stripes than there were before the war. If they can do this, with wages for shipwrights as high as seventy-five cents an hour, surely we can do much better with the more moderate scale of wages prevailing in Canada.
For these and other reasons which I might advance, I do hope the Government will see fit to respond to the wishes of the people and take action in the near future
161 *
in the matter of encouraging ship-building and alleviating the grievances complained of by the coasters.
Ship-building is bonused in Norway, Russia, British Columbia, England, New foundland and the United States, and I suppose in all the great nations. So for the good of Canada, its future and its continued prosperity, I trust the matter will be seriously considered by the House.
There is one paragraph in the Address that I wish to refer to, and that is with reference to the fiftieth year of Confederation in Canada. To me as a Canadian born, it is very cheering to see the financial condition our country is in notwithstanding the war. Let us go back to the year 1867 for a moment. The total revenue of this Country then was $13,000,000. In 1873 the revenue was $17,000,000. After 1873, a great man, Hon. Alexander Mackenzie, became Premier, and at the end of has term of office, in 1878, our revenue had only increased to $23,000,000 or $24,000,000. Then there was a change of Government, and in 1896, at the end of their term, our revenue had amounted to $40,000,000. That is only twenty-one years ago- A new government came in under the leadership of the right hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and at the end of his term of office our revenue amounted to $100,000,000. I am given to understand that this year pur revenue will amount to $180,000,000. I am sure the wonderful advance we have made in the last fifty years must be cheering to every Canadian.
I should also like to call the attention of the House to the debt of Canada. In 1911, after those fifty years, the net debt of Canada was about $346,000,000. When the war commenced, after three years of Conservative rule, the debt amounted to not one dollar more, which is very gratifying. At the end of those fifty years, after providing for the expenditures of the various departments, there was a surplus of $250,000,000. But for that surplus of $250,000,000, our debt instead of being $346,000,000 would be $596,000,000. This is most gratifying tp every Canadian.
I do not want to be controversial, but I wish to' say a word in regard to some of the remarks of the hon. member for Bona-venture (Mr. Marcil) the other day. I perfectly agree with (him in what he said about t,he French Canadian people. I am often down in the province of Quebec, at fairs and public gatherings of one sort or another, and I am quite satisfied there could not be any better people in the world than the French Canadians. The hon. me,m-

Then he goes on to say:
From to-morrow, the first day of the new year, our authorized forces will he 500,000 men. This announcement is made in token of Canada's unflinching resolve to crown the justice of her cause with victory and an abiding lyeace.
When the Prime Minister made that statement the people concluded that he had information which would lead him to believe that he could easily send 500,000 men overseas. He tells us1 now that he sent 434,529. Let us analyse those figures for a moment. On active militia duty in Canada there are 9,052 men; in the permanent force, 2,470; in the munition works in Britain, 3,000; in the British Army Reserves, 2,750; British Naval Reserves, 1,000; French Naval Reserves, 5,000; Russian Reserves, 7,500; Italian Reserves, 5,000; making a total of 35,772 to be deducted from the 434,529.
I proceed, with an analysis of the right hon. gentlemen's figures. He tells us that up to December 31 there were overseas 280,562 men; in the Imperial service, 9,550; in the Imperial and Allied Reserves, 17,500; in the Canadian Naval Service, 3,310. Therefore, according to the right hon. gentleman's figures, the total number that left Canada was 310,922. There are training in Canada at the present time 48,312; active militia on guard duty, 9,052; permanent force, 2,470, making a total in Canada of 59,834. The total number enlisted for service is stated to be 434,529 and the total number sent overseas and remaining in Canada, 370,756, leaving a balance of 63,763 who have not been sent overseas 'and who are not now in Canada. The Prime Minister did not tell us where they were.
The right hon. gentleman tells us that at the front there are 110,000 men; under orders for the front, 10,000; and doing sundry services in England, 17,383. The casualties are 71,263, making a total of 209,646. If, as the right hon. gentleman's figures show, the total number sent overseas amounts to 280,562 and the total number accounted for only 209,646, what has become of the 70,916? I have no doubt that before the House adjourns and the right hon. gentleman goes away he will explain this discrepancy, because it is necessary that we should have some accurate statement from him upon which we may base our calculations. If the Prime Minister gives the people to understand that there are overseas 434,000 of the 500,000 whom he intended to send, they will say: since the Prime Minister asked for only
[Mr. Devlin.l
500.000	men, why so much energy with a view to further recruiting? If he does not, and we must deduct over 70,000 from the figures that he has already given, there is necessity for even greater activity in recruiting. On the other hand, some hon. gentlemen who occupy the treasury benches are telling the people of the province of Quebec that it is important for them to keep the men upon their land and to increase production.
And then, if they followed that advice, there are hon. gentlemen opposite who would come into this House and tell the members and the people of. Canada that because the province of Quebec, forsooth, listened to certain ministers, they were therefore disloyal. I hold absolutely no brief from the province of Quebec to defend it in connection with its system of recruiting, absolutely no brief; but I should like, in justice to those who might feel disposed to go overseas and who have not gone, or to those who are overseas doing their best, to point out to this House the exact status of the province of Quebec as compared with the province of Ontario. I did say this afternoon that men from the adjoining counties of Pontiac, Wright, Labelle and Argenteuil were included in military district No. 3, the Kingston military district. That is the information which is given to me; it may not be absolutely correct. What I wish to convey to the House is that every man who comes from one of these counties in the province of Quebec and enlists here in the city of Ottawa, where the recruiting offices are, is put down as coming from the province of Ontario, and Ontario is given the credit, whereas they should be allotted to the province of Quebec. That is the point I' wished to bring out when the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) was speaking. I said that I wanted to make a comparison between the two provinces, for the better understanding of those who are interested in the recruiting movement and who are disposed to believe that the province of Quebec is not doing what it should. In Quebec in 1912 we received 50,602 immigrants. At the same time Ontario received
100,000.	In 1913 we received 64,835 in Quebec, while Ontario received 122,000. In 1914 we received 80,000 in Quebec, while Ontario received 123,792. In 1915, when immigration had fallen off, Quebec received
31.000	and Ontario 44,000. So that you have more of the immigrants who came into the country to draw from in Ontario than you have in Quebec. You have more of the

men who were born in the British Isles and ' who are resident in the province of Ontario to draw from than we have in the agricultural province of Quebec. You have, to begin with, 500,000 more people to draw from in Ontario than we have in Quebec. You have, according to the statistics of 1911,
71,000	more families in the province of Ontario than we have in the province of Quebec. What does that mean? If you take only one man per family, you would have right away 71,000 more men in the province of Ontario who would be eligible to go overseas than we have in Quebec.


Mr. MORPHY:: You have bigger families down there.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: There is another point. I grant you that the families are somewhat bigger. It is not uncommon in the province of Quebec to find a family with ten children; indeed I have known families of twenty children.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Mostly boys?


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Providence 'has not given to each family only boys; a great many families include several girls. But take the ordinary family: there is the father, who is working the farm; he cannot work it alone, he needs one of his sons to work with him. My hon- friend knows that labour conditions in this country are very stringent at the present time. If the farmer keeps just one son we may find that the remaining members of the family are not eligible for service. I know any number of families situated in that way. So that, following out my hon. friend's statement of larger families, while that is true, there are a great many more young children. But there are 71,000 more families in Ontario. I am not making an argument out of this, I assure my hon. friend; I am simply putting the facts as I have been able to gather: them. My 'hon- friend and other hon. gentlemen will draw their own conclusions. I want to further say that in the province of Ontario, according to the statistics of 1911, there wrere 348,681 inhabitants who were born in the British Isles, while in the province of Quebec there were only 67,920. Now, if credit is going to be given to Canadians for going abroad, if that is the argument in measuring loyalty to the Canadian born, you have got to eliminate the 67,000 from the province of Quebec who were born in the British Isles, and you have got to eliminate the 348,681 British born in Ontario. I simply want to point that out, and hon. gentlemen in this House will draw
their own conclusions. I make no argument of it, because I have not yet been able to obtain from the Militia Department the number of soldiers by nationality who have gone across the sea.
Let me instance one further fact in speaking of Quebec, and that is that in 1916 when there was a call made to contribute towards the Patriotic Fund, by a population of
2,600,000	(the estimated population at the present moment of the province of Ontario), there was contributed $1,750,000; and I for one would like to say that I heartily congratulate the province of Ontario for hawing made such a noble contribution to the Patriotic Fund. In the province of Quebec, with a population of 500,000 less, we gave $1,675,000- In other words, we gave per capita a contribution of 80 cents, whereas Ontario gave a per capita contribution of 68 cents. It would not be logical upon my part to try and make an argument out of this statement, as I hardly think that that is the way in which we ought to measure loyalty in this countiy to the British Empire, but there the statement is.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Is the hon. gentleman referring to Governmental grants, or to grants from all sources?


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I am speaking of all grants in 1916. These are the figures I have. If I were to speak of this year I would point out that the Government of the province of Quebec had donated $1,000,000 to the Patriotic Fund. I believe they did perfectly right; I make no argument out of it, because I do not measure loyalty thereby.
I have made reference to a statement made by the hon. member for Dufferin (Mr. Best), and before closing my remarks I should like to further deal with it. The statement appears in the press, and I hope the hon. gentleman will correct me if my citation from his speech is not as he delivered it. Speaking in the county of Carleton the other day, he said:-
In the province of Quebec the church was keeping its people in a feeling of enmity against those who were delivering them in the present war.
Reading that, I thought that a member of this House might eliminate such talk in war time. That statement is altogether false. In the churches in the province of Quebec-and I do not except any denomination in this statement-every Sunday prayeTS are asked for the cause of freedom and for the success of British arms. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Best) went on as reported:-

Touching upon the Dorchester by-election he declared the best thing that could happen would be that the Government candidate be defeated for it would show Quebec up for what she really was. He referred significantly to certain agitation going on for a purpose, to cope with which all English-speaking Grits) and Tories should throw their political differences to the winds and stand out as true British subjects. If there was an election held the Conservative party would win because he believed every intelligent English-speaking elector would vote for the Government. He* said the French-speaking and the dissatisfied Germans would vote against them-
He excepts the Germans who are not dissatisfied and whom he thinks would therefore vote for the Government. He proceeds:
-and he asked where would the Englishspeaking people be if the Government changed. The next Premier would have been elected by the French and Germans and he would legislate for them. The English-speaking people should face the situation squarely and throw political differences to the wind.
When I read that statement, my mind went back to the report of Lord Durham made in 1839 upon the state of affairs in this country. Lord Durham, among other things, reported the fact as an instance of the state of feeling at that time, that there were two lines of steamers plying between the city of Montreal and the city of Quebec, one line owned by English capitalists, and the other line by French Canadians. There was considerable feeling between the rival companies, and the French papers advised their friends not to take the English boats, and the English papers retorted by asking the English-speaking people not to take the French boats because those boats were owned by radicals, rebels, and disloyal people. The best answer I could give, if I wanted to find an answer, as to whether the province of Quebec was doing its duty in this war, and as to whether gentlemen occu-cupying seats on this side of the House were doing what they believed in their consciences to be right, would be found in a notable speech which was delivered by an hon. gentleman who till recently occupied the position of Postmaster General. I refer to the late Hon. Thomas Chase Casgrain, a gentleman for whom I had a very high personal regard. The speech was delivered by him at a luncheon given in his honour by the Canadian Club of Vancouver, B.C., on the 16th August, 1915, and this is the note he sounds:
I am not giving these different figures and instances in any vainglorious spirit, or because I believe that the loyalty of the French-Canadians can be attacked or doubted, but coming through the other day on the train I was pained to read in one of the western

papers the following statement:	"Liberals
believe that the anti-war feeling in Quebec will give them at least fifty seats in that province, and they seem to be determined to risk their political fortunes on this sentiment in that province." I hold no brief for the Liberal party, but I am enforced to say, in the face of the statement contained in this newspaper, that there is no anti-war feeling in the province of Quebec. At the very outset, in company with Sir Wilfrid Laurier, my predecessor, the Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux, Sir Lomer Gouin, Premier of tile province,, and Mr. Margchal, K.C., I addressed a tremendous patriotic gathering! in Sohmer Park, in the city of Montreal, and all of us, laying aside our political differences, told the people that the sole pre-occupation of everybody should be the proper means to be taken by Canada to fulfil its duty and take its share in the great war of aggression which is being waged against the Empire. The result of this meeting was the immediate recruiting of the 22nd French-Canadian Regiment under Colonel Gaudet. Not only was the voice of French-Canadian public men heard in this connection, but the voice of the Roman Catholic bishops of the province, who, in a collective pastoral letter, gave the proper direction to their flocks and impressed upon them their duties and their obligations.
I am sorry that I have been obliged to go beyond the grave to find testimony to the patriotic policy of the Liberal party of Canada at the present time. I thought that hon. gentlemen in this House would credit us with some degree of sincerity and with wishing to do our level best in this awful time of struggle, but, Sir, in going beyond the tomb, I go to an authority which I think no hon. gentleman on the other side of the House will gainsay. Whilst my distinguished leader, (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) the hon. member for Rouville, (Mr. Lemieux) the hon. member for Bonaventure, (Mr. Marcil) and many other members from the province pf Quebec were out doing what they could to aid recruiting, what was one Cabinet minister doing? A truce had been proclaimed. The present Minister of Militia (Mr. Kemp) stated in the city of Toronto that there never had been a truce There was a truce and, that truce was in full operation in the month of May, 1915. The hon. the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ciothers) went to the town of Aylmer, in the county of Wright, which I have the honour to represent and I was very glad to see the Minister go there. But, was he there to speak for recruiting, was he there telling the people what their ideal should be, was he there telling the people that there was a truce? No, he was not. Here are some of the things that he did say:
"While the Borden Government has been heart and soul at work looking after the war, Sir Wilfrid and his supporters have been kicking at petty thefts which, by the way, were

perpetrated by Grits left in office by the Laurier administration, instead of standing shoulder to shoulder with us in this fight for civilization.
'^Speaking about the boots scandal, do you wonder that mistakes were made, when thisi country, which had often talked of and played at war, had to gather together and equip an army of 33,000 men for the front? Mistakes must surely be made by us all; X make them every day."
The speaker then went into a rOsumO of pre-election promises that the Government has carried out during the three and a half years they have been in power, and took a heavy dig at the Senate, whom he dubbed as "a' bunch of old fossils," who were at the beck and call of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who put the majority of them there.
He sent his audience into roars of laughter by giving an imitation of the mannerisms of some of the senators, and wound up with an exhortation to the new association to dig in, and produce a fighting organization which would result at the next general election in placing Wright county in the ranks of the Blues, where she belongs.
At a moment when the two. political parties were supposed to have a truce! I will leave to the consideration of the House whether the attitude of the Minister of Labour is toi be commended; ihe speaking in the town of Aylmer and delivering election speeches, whilst the leader of the Opposition is addressing big meetings in the province of Quebec and calling upon the young men to enlist in this great struggle for liberty and civilization. I would like to say a few words more but, in view of the lateness of the hour, might I suggest the adjournment of the debate?
On motion of Mr. Devlin the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Rogers the House adjourned at 11.35 p.m.
Tuesday, January 30, 1917.