1917-06-22

THE MILITARY SERVICE ACT, 1917.


Mr. SPEAKER:: My attention has been directed to language used during the debate last evening by the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe at a time when I happened to be out of the Chamber. The hon. member (Mr. Gauthier) is reported in Hansard to have said:
His amendment (Mr. Barrette's), being a negative one, would have been ruled out of order if it had not been introduced with the consent of the Government.
It seems to me that the implication contained in these words is unmistakable, and one which if allowed to go unchallenged would seriously impair my usefulness as Speaker of this House. I need hardly say that the use of such language by an hon. member of the House is not in conformity with the usual practice in such cases, and is not in keeping with the spirit of proper decorum in debate. When the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe is in his place I purpose to ask him to withdraw this language.



CRIMINAL COURT AMENDMENT.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 97, to amend the criminal code.
Mr. GRAHAM:: Explain.


Mr. DOHERTY:: Our attention has been called to the fact that by recent legislation in the province of Manitoba, as well as by legislation which has been in force for some

time in some of the other provinces, there is no fixed number of jurors to be summoned as constituting the panel, power being given to the judge to summon any number of jurors that he may deem desirable for the purposes of the business to be brought before the court. Under this legislation the panel may be of a very large number, and the Crown in any trial has the right to stand aside any number of jurors as they are called, without assigning any reason. Wherever under the law the panel is fixed at a definite number, this right of stand aside is of course limited to the number fixed for the panel, and, the panel once exhausted, these jurors may be called again and, unless there is ground for challenge, will be entitled to sit. It was considered not desirable that the Crown should have this right to stand aside extending to such an indefinite number, or rather, that it should not have that right without its being subject to the same control which is confided to the judge as to the determination of the number of the panel. This Bill therefore proposes to amend that section of the Criminal Code by limiting the right of stand aside to the number of forty-eight, which is the fixed number of the panel in many of the provinces, was such in Manitoba, until the recent legislation, unless the judge for special cause permits the right to be exercised as regards a larger number. In other words, the purpose is simply to subject the right of stand aside to the same control on the pari of the judge as under the provincial legislation referred to he has over the number of the panel.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 98, to amend the Exchequer Court Act.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Explain.


Charles Joseph Doherty: This Bill contains two clauses. The purpose of the first is to make provision for the liability for costs on the part of litigants with the Crown where the case on the part of the Crown is conducted by the department. In those cases the lawyers in the department are not entitled to collect fees or costs for themselves, they being paid by their salaries. It is thought desirable, notwithstanding that fact, that litigants who bring unfounded claims

against the Grown should be liable for costs the same as any other litigant. The purpose of this first clause is therefore to provide that in such cases the costs to which the litigants may be condemned shall be payable to the Crown simply, the Crown paying its own costs through the salaries of its officers.
The other provision of the Bill is to achieve a purpose which was also the purpose of a Bill introduced earlier in. the session by the hon. member for Kamour-aska (Mr. Lapointe), if my memory serves me right. The matter dealt with by that proposed Bill of his had already been brought to our attention before his Bill was introduced, and we had come to the conclusion that an amendment such as he sought to make by his Bill should be made to the Exchequer Court Act. The clause of the Exchequer Court Act sought to be amended by this Bill and by the Bill of the hon. member for Kamouraska is the clause giving jurisdiction to the court to adjudicate upon any claim of damages against the Crown resulting from death or injury to person or property caused by the negligence of any servant of the Crown upon a public work. The Supreme Court has interpreted the section as it now stands as limiting the liability to cases where the injury is actually sustained upon the public work; that is to say, where the person suffering is actually on the public work or where it is a question of damage to property which property itself is actually upon the public work. This created a situation in which, though a man might be injured by the negligence of an employee of the Crown in the course of his employment, and where the whole cause of the injury took place upon the public work, yet if the victim himself was not actually on the public work he had no recourse.
While there is no reason to criticise the interpretation put by the Supreme Court upon the section as it stands, I do not think it was intended when the legislation was originally enacted to make that distinction, namely, to make the liability depend upon the locality .in which the individual or the property injured happened to be.
The purpose of this legislation is simply so to amend the section that the Crown will be liable-as I certainly believe was intended-for damage or injury resulting from the negligence of an employee of the Crown within the scope of his employment upon a public work. It simply does away with the requirement which the present sec-

tion has been interpreted as containing, namely, that the individual or property injured should at the moment be actually on the public work.


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

Charles Joseph Doherty: moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 99, to amend the Interest Act.


Wilfrid Laurier: Explain.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The purpose of this
Bill is to make the raite of interest payable upon judgments in the province of Manitoba similar to that payable in the province of Alberta and Saskatchewan, and I think in almost tall the other provinces. The necessity for this legislation arises because of the fact that it has recently been decided that the interest upon judgments in the province of Manitoba runs 'at but 4 per cent, which I understand was the rate fixed by English statute at the time the English lafr became applicable to the province of Manitoba.
The courts appear to have held that it was not within the jurisdiction of a provincial legislature to legislate on the subject of interest, even interest running upon a judgment, and that consequently any modification of the law in that regard attempted by the provincial legislature was ineffective. From many sources in Manitoba have come requests that the interest rate there should be made the same as that ^ provided for by statute for the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, which is the ordinary rate of interest, five per cent provided in cases where neither by law nor by agreement is the rate of interest fixed. There have been requests from Manitoba also that the interest rate should be made higher than this. While it did not appear to us that there should be a higher rate of interest in Manitoba than in other provinces, it did appear desirable that there should be an equal rate. This Bill, therefore, simply brings the province of Manitoba under the provisions made applicable to the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, under which interest runs upon a judgment at the rate of five per cent.


Mr. OLIVER:: What is the rate of interest, under such circumstances, in Ontario?


Charles Joseph Doherty: My impression is that it is five per cent. I know that it is five
per cent in the province of Quebec. I think that in one or more of the Maritime Provinces it is six per cent.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.



FIRST READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 100, Respecting Game in the Northwest Territories of Canada.-Mr. Roche.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 93, to incorporate the Kenora and English River Railway Company.-Mr. Carrick.
Bill No. 94, to authorize the issue of a patent to James Wallace Tygard.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 95, to incorporate the Imperial Order Daughters of the Empire and the Children of the Empire (Junior Branch).- Mr. Macdonell.
Bill No. 96, to incorporate Dominion Good Roads Association.-Mr. Achim.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime Minister) moved:: That on and after Saturday next, the twenty-third instant, and on Saturdays until the end of the present session, the House shall meet at three o'clock in the afternoon; and: the Order of Precedence on Saturdays shall be the same as on Fridays.
He said: While I present this motion in the form in which it stands in my name, yet it has been represented to me by hon. members on both sides of the House that it is rather short notice to take to-morrow, and also that the following Saturday will precede a public holiday. I am willing to be guided by the feeling of the House in the matter. If it is preferred that Saturday sittings should begin two weeks from to-morrow I am willing to propose the motion in that form. On the other hand, if it is the feeling of the House that we might take to-morrow, and then make any necessary arrangements about next Saturday I am prepared to take that course. Has my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) anything to suggest?


Wilfrid Laurier: I think the sense of the House is that it would be quite impossible to sit to-morrow-T suppose my right hon. friend (Sir Robert Borden) agrees to that. I would say the same about the following Saturday. If the Saturday

sittings were to begin with the first Saturday in July I should have no objection.


Robert Laird Borden: Then we will let the motion pass amended accordingly-it will not include to-morrow or the following Saturday.
Motion as amended agreed to.



SPEECH OF MR. L. J. GAUTHIER.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, my attention has been directed just now to a statement made yesterday by the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe (Mr. L. J. Gauthier), to which Your Honour has alluded. I observe, also, in the speech of the hon. member another statement of somewhat the same character. The first statement to which I wish to allude is this:
We are engaged in a very serious debate, but permit me to say that I consider this amendment to the amendment to be a farce. It has been engineered, not by the mover and seconder of the motion, but by the Government itself.
Further on he says, referring to the same amendment proposed by the hon. member for Berthier:
His amendment, being a negative one, would have been ruled out of order if it had not been introduced with the consent of the Government.	,
I desire to give these statements the most unqualified denial. I neither heard, nor knew anything of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Berthier until I saw it the following morning in the newspapers. Any intention to propose such an amendment was never communicated to me; nor, in so far as I am aware, to any of my colleagues. The Government, from first to last, had absolutely nothing to do with the proposed amendment, and we will oppose it in the most unqualified manner.



PRIVILEGE.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the day:
Mr. BARRETTE (Berthier), (translation): Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege I found in Hansard, this morning that the honourable member for St. Hyacinthe (Mr. Gauthier) had stated yesterday before this House that the Government had inspired the amendment to the amendment which I did propose to the conscription Bill.
I emphatically deny the honourable Prime Minister or any of his colleagues or followers having had anything to do either director Wilfrid Laurier.]
ly or indirectly with this amendment to the amendment. I am even ready to resign my seat in this House to prove my statement.
I make this denial, not because I am in the least afraid of what may be stated by my honourable friend from St. Hyacinthe, whose speech has stirred up general indignation throughout the country, but because I wish to set the facts in their proper light. I alone stand responsible for this matter. Had the Government wished to play their last card in order to pass their Bill, they would have had a better hand than the honourable members of the Opposition who, for want of something better, did play their white card, on Thursday night, when they called upon my honourable friend from St. Hyacinthe to take part in the debate.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. A. BUCHANAN (Medicine Hat):: Has the hon. the Minister of Labour (Mr. Crothers) any further information to give the House about the coal strike situation, in Western Canada?


Hon. T. W. CROTHERS (Minister of Labour):: A recommendation has been made by Council for the appointment of a director of coal mining operations in Southern Alberta and the southern part of British Columbia. It has not yet received the approval of Hie Excellency the Governor General, and until it receives his approval it would not be proper for me to say anything further about it.


Mr. W. E. KNOWLES (Moosejaw):: Has the hon. minister any statement that he can bring down? A great deal must have happened in the past of which we do not know anything. We are very much uninformed as to what has happened. If an Order in Council has been passed dealing with the matter it should be brought down. We have such fragmentary information that I think the minister without taking a day to make a debate of it might give us all the data he has or make a consecutive statement in regard to the matter.


Robert Laird Borden: The Order in
Council can be brought down if it is desired. That is not the recommendation to His Excellency which -was mentioned just-now. In addition to what my colleague (Mr. Crothers) has said, I might add that a gentleman has been selected to fill the position of director of coal operations within that district, but as the recommendation for

his appointment has not yet received the approval of Hie Excellency, nothing more can toe said at the moment. If the House should sit to-morrow, I might possibly be able to make an announcement, but I certainly shall be able to do so on Monday.


William Erskine Knowles: Has any report been
made by the hon. gentleman who was commissioner in the matter?


Robert Laird Borden: He made an
oral report to the Minister of Labour and to me.


William Erskine Knowles: Might we have a resume of that report communicated to us?


Robert Laird Borden: I think the result is pretty well set forth in the Order in Council which will toe brought down. Anything that is desired in addition can be stated, I may say that very considerable progress was made in bringing the operators and employees together and that eventually there was simply one difficulty remaining, which did not seem to be of a very important character. Nevertheless, it was a matter in respect to which neither side would give way and for that reason it became necessary to take the action which will, be communicated to the House on Monday in case it should receive the approval ,of His Excellency the Governor General.



COST OF LIVING IN THE YUKON.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
_ Mr. A. THOMPSON (Yukon):	For the
information of the House and the Government I would like to read a telegram which I received this morining from Dawspn. It is as follows:
Dawson, Y.T., June 21, 1917. Lt.-Col. Alfred Thompson, M.P.,
Ottawa, Ont.
Business men of Dawson met this afternoon ; your telegram submitted to them. They request me to send following:	"No desperate
situation exists here; workmen in Yukon gold thawing plants petitioned for increase of wages or company to supply them provisions at cost for next winter, and many have quit work pending adjustment, but no disorder exists. The facts are that the increased price of living in the case of single men who are in the majority, falls upon the company as men are hired upon the basis of giving wages and board. Excepting the recent advances in flour which seemed necessary to meet local conditions, there has been no advance in price of provisions from last season s prices except as new goods have arrived, prices in such cases being advanced in the ordinary ratio to landed cost. Retail prices of flour, lard, beans, hams, bacon, butter, potatoes and rice as established last year and 164
prevailing here all winter, have been as low, and in some cases lower, than those prevailing in Vancouver this spring. Allegations of Williams' complicity with dealers, absolutely unfounded. Complete stenographic proceedings of meeting at which this propaganda originated are being forwarded by mail.
(Sgd.) J. E. Lilly and Co.
Klondike Thawing Machine Co. Northern Commercial Co.
Scougale Mercantile Co.
John N. Spence.
E. Schink.
Chas. Jeanneret.
Pacific Cold Storage Co.
British Yukon Navigation Co. Dawson Hardware Co.
G. N. Williams, Administrator.
This is in answer to th© telegram which the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) placed before the House.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Thomas Wilson Crothers: Referring to the Sipeech I made in this House pn Wednesday of this week, Le Canada newspaper, published in Montreal, in it? issue cf yesterday, had this to say:
Hon. Mr. Crothers says that the French Canadians are degenerate and fallen men. It is with this insult to our race that the Minister of Labour ended his speech last night in favour of conscription.
There is no truth in that statement whatever, and nothing I said on that occasion warrants it.



MILITARY -SERVICE ACT, 1917.


[Stage Direction]
-Consideration of the motion ,of the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden (Prime Minister) for the second reading of Bill No. 75, Military Service Act, 1917, and the amendment of Sir Wilfrid Laurier thereto, and on the amendment t.o the amendment by Mr. Barrette, resumed from Thursday, June 21.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (South Renfrew) :	Mr. Speaker, as a great portion of
my public life has -been devoted to defending the rights of minorities, even to the point of generosity, as charged by my opponents, to-day, being in the minority arriong my own friends, I ask from them the kind consideration which I h-ave always endeavoured to extend to them. We are asking the men of Canada to be : Ready, aye ready. We, in this House, -might add a slogan for our own benefit: Be steady, aye
[Stage Direction]


steady. If there ever was a time in the history of this country when men should curb their passions and prejudices simultaneously with their tongues, that time is now, and this is the place. Nothing can he gained, Mr. Speaker, by recrimination. We are citizens of a common country, having the same ideal, having the same object, and, I take it, every man in this House no matter from what province he may come, or from w'hat stock he may have sprung, believes in his country, is attached to his country, and believes, further, that the destiny of his country is bound up in its relationship with the great British Empire. We may differ on details, but only on details. Sir, the people of Canada, the people of the Empire, and the nations of the earth, are looking at Canada .at the present moment. Should we say or do aught to disturb the harmony that exists among the people of different origin in this country, we will add to the gratification of our enemies and detract from the comfort of our friends.
In attempting to speak as one of the minority on this side of the House, I do it without any trepidation. I say, frankly, if I were on the other side of the House,
I would not feel such freedom. Liberalism, as I have learned it, allows the fullest freedom of thought to every member who advocates Liberalism, and I want to say that, while I differ with my revered leader, I have his absolute consent to take whatever course I think best at the present time. Every member on this side of the House is at liberty to act, speak, and vote as he chooses, and, by. doing so, he is not severing the ties of affection that bind him to his grand old chieftain, neither is he slinking aw.ay, in any sense, from the great Liberal party and the causes which it has always stood for. We have had, Sir, attacks made on my revered leader. I resent those attacks just as warmly today as I would, or could, if he and I were agreeing. We are not disagreeing on any essential a bit more than members of different churches are disagreeing on the one essential belief, and trying to get to heaven, each picking his own path. The great Liberal chieftain stands to-day where he has always stood, as the advocate of what he thinks is best for Canada and for the Empire. He is as anxious about winning -this great struggle as I am. He sees difficulties in the way, in my point of view, but he recognizes my right to have that viewpoint. I do not see those difficulties, but I want to point out 
that he and I, as well as every member of this House, are joined in one resolve that our best must be done for the winning of this great struggle, and it is only on the details of how that is to be accomplished that I differ from him. I may be wrong in my attitude, and he may be right. Young men might forget that, when they were boys, the Liberal chieftain was fighting for the great principles, the benefits of which they now enjoy. In 1896, facing the greatest opposition, and the greatest influence that was ever brought to bear on man in this country, he stood for the principle of provincial rights, and other men from the province of Quebec stood behind him on that principle, and, as >a result, it was established. He was right. Those who sat on the other side of the House were wrong. That may be the case in this instance. On the question of the Canadian, navy, the events of this moment prove that my leader was right
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


George Perry Graham: I would ask hon. gentlemen who live in the interior of Canada to go to the Pacific and to the Atlantic coasts, and come back and tell us what they find that they would not have found, if there had been a Canadian navy. In 1911 my leader was again right, as the Government has acknowledged by its action. He may be right in this case, but I think he is not. We differ, having both one object in view.
Sir, just a word or two as to our fellow citizens from the province of Quebec. We cannot get anywhere in this country by recrimination. Readers of Canadian history must not forget-they cannot forget, though some gentlemen speak as if they were not conversant with Canadian history -that the fact that to-day we are still a portion of the British Empire is due in a measure to the loyalty of the Frenchmen, of the province of Quebec in the years gone by. During recent years, in the province of Quebec, our fellow citizens have not been imbued with the military spirit with which we in the other provinces are imbued. They have not in Quebec, throughout the villages and small towns, the drill halls and military centres to the extent that we have them in Ontario.^ They have not had a centre of military education, by having officers stationed all through the province of Quebec. They have gone their way, as we have gone ours in the other provinces, believing that the time would not come, for

many, many years at least, when they would be called on to perform military service. We must meet the situations as we find them, and we cannot possibly by vituperative language, accomplish the purpose we have in view.
Having said this, I want to refer to another matter. The French race is much more logical than we>are. There are very few English-speaking members of this House who know the French Canadian character as intimately as I do; I have had daily business relations with the French Canadian people. They are brave, chivalrous, truthful; above all, they are logical. Having been told time and again by the leader of the Government and the leader of the Opposition that there would be no conscription in Canada, they hardly bdlieve it possible that conscription has been proposed. They cannot understand it. They are logical, but we are not. We can change with conditions much more readily than can our French Canadian fellow-citizens. These considerations must be borne in mind. in the discussion of the question now before the House. It is the duty of those who differ from the French Canadian people to look at these matters from their viewpoint and to discuss them accordingly. To my mind, the surest way of 'being fair is to put ourselves in the other man's position, to find out what we should do if we were subject to his environment, his history, his characteristics. If every one does that there will be an exemplification of what is best; there will be not recrimination, but a closer drawing together of the two races, with the result that after this Bill is passed it may not be necessary to put it into operation.
There are three classes of Canadians: those who have gone to the front, those who cannot go, and those who ought to go. Of those who have gone nothing too good can be said. They have gone from Quebec and from Ontario, from the East and from the West, from the families of the rich, of the middle classes, and of the poor. Mingling on the field of battle, irrespective of the position that they held in this country in the way of class or occupation, they are fighting side by side in order that, your children and mine may enjoy tha{, liberty and freedom of individual action which has always been the pride of our race. In that respect there is no distinction of class. I know men of great wealth who have sent practically all their sons, some of whom have suffered; all honour to these sons and to these parents. I know the sons of work-
164 i
men who have gone. Many widows have sent their only sons, some of whom have died, leaving the mothers without support and without comfort. The people of Canada are imbued with the spirit of sacrifice, knowing full well that if we lose in this great struggle nothing is left to us who so long have prized the liberties which we enjoy. Our forefathers fought in 1812; better a thousand times that we had lost in 1812 than that we should lose in 1917. Had we lost in 1812 to-day we should be under another form of democratic government-that would be the only change. But if we lose in this conflict we lose all that democratic government stands for; we become not our own masters, but tfie slaves of others.
This brings me to the matter of recruiting. I do not wish to indulge in undue criticism, but having taken part in the work of recruiting, so far as I could in my own feeble way, I think I am in a position to point to some of the reasons why the voluntary system failed. When the war broke out, recruiting leagues, designated by various names, but all working for a common purpose, were formed throughout Ontario. But from the Government's standpoint there was no organization. Any man in this House from the province of Ontario who will recall the recruiting operations in his own territory will realize that the successful work along this line was done by civilian organizations. Not only did these civilians work, but they paid the expenses as well; there is, I suppose, not a man in this House who has not paid out large sums of money from his own pocket in order to assist the work of recruiting in Ms own vicinity. If we had had proper Government organization in Ontario-I speak of that province only

recruiting would have been 25 per cent greater than it was. To the citizens of that province, much more than to the Government, is due the credit for the success of recruiting in Ontario.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: Why should not the same course have been followed in Quebec?


George Perry Graham: I shall come to Quebec in a moment; my hon. friend must not worry. If I leave anything out, and the House, having not wearied of my remarks, will direct my attention to it, I shall deal with it.
This, then, is my first criticism of the Government: there was no real organization in the matter of recruiting. It is true that recruiting officers were sent here and there. I look into the faces of men who

spoke at various meetings and who had charge of various committees. They will agree with me that many of the recruiting officers were of no value whatever to them in getting recruits. I do not wish to speajc disparagingly of those officers, but they were not the right men to get recruits. Some officers were sent out who hindered civilians from getting recruits. I have stood on the platform with men for whose language I* had to apologize in order to bring the audience back to a frame of mind in which they would consider my request [DOT]for recruits. No man can hope for success in recruiting who begins by abusing the young men or the older men and calling them slackers. Tkat is not the way *to get recruits. We had too much of that in Ontario, and our recruiting was not what it should have been.
The first real jolt that was given by the Government to recruiting in Ontario was when the ex-Minister of Militia said that he was getting more men than he needed. At the first meeting that I attended after that statement had been made, I was laughed at. Men said: we understand that the Government are having no trouble in getting men; that they are getting more men than they can equip; that the men are climbing over each other to enlist. For months that statement of the then Minister of. Militia was a serious handicap, because the men naturally concluded that if the Government were getting more men than they could equip, there was no use in enlisting until the work was caught up. This emphasizes my contention that there was lack of organization, somewhere, somehow.
Then other things came up; I do not want to refer to them in a critical way. The, manufacturer was not allowed to sell [DOT]directly to the department; people got in 'between, and were receiving certain com-*missions. This tended to greatly injure Tecruiting in Ontario. The ex-Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes) told us the other day that the Prime Minister himself, after Sir Thomas, now Baron, Shaughnessy issued a certain statement, intimated that the pressure upon recruiting might be relieved for a little time. I think the exminister said that the Minister of Finance brought back that report after a visit to Toronto.


Robert Laird Borden: I made a statement in this House-I think it was on the 1st or the 2nd day of February last-which is the exact and literal truth, so far as I am concerned in this matter. I purpose, before this debate closes, making a further
.IMr. Graham.]
statement on the subject, which I hope will place the matter beyond question. On no occasion did I ever ask recruiting to be slackened or delayed. What I did do-and this I have stated many times in this House-was to endeavour to have recruiting officers so direct their efforts that skilled men, who were of greater service to the country in the occupations they were engaged in than in military service, should not be taken, when other men capable of going to the front and of much less service to the State at home could be sought and secured.


George Perry Graham: I leave that to the Prime Minister and the ex-Minister of Militia. That was not my strong point in this case, I was repeating what the ex-Minister of Militia said.


Robert Laird Borden: I interrupted only because I understood my hon. friend was attributing to me some action which had occasioned a slackening in recruiting. I desire absolutely to deny that.


George Perry Graham: Again my answer must be the same. The trouble was that the ex-Minister of Militia, being a member of the Government, was believed throughout the country when he made the intimation that the pressure on recruiting was to be lessened, and recruiting practically stopped. The head of the Canadian Pacific Railway did issue a statement regarding recruiting along certain lines, and either that or something else at that period undoubtedly interfered with the progress of recruiting in Ontario.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the exact period to which the hon. gentleman refers?


George Perry Graham: I forget the dates; I have not them with me.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the hon. gentleman mean the summer of 1916?


George Perry Graham: My recollection is that the ex-Minister of Militia said that it was in March, 1916. These are just a few of the things that interfered with recruiting, but the great thing, to my mind, was the lack of organization from a military standpoint. But thanks to the work of the citizens of Ontario, who formed associations, leagues, committees in every town and county, their work being aided in a measure by the Militia Department, recruiting was fairly successful in the province, but not nearly so successful as it might have been had the

conditions to which I have referred not existed.
I come now to Quebec. Hon. gentlemen have referred to the appointment as chief recruiting officer of a clergyman of the church to which I belong. That may seem a small matter, but as I said in the beginning of my remarks, if we are to accomplish ,our object, which I presume is the securing of recruits, we must meet the people with whom we have to deal from their own viewpoint. We might as well expect the Archbishop of Montreal to be appointed editor of the Orange Sentinel, as to have a Methodist clergyman, np matter how great a preacher he is, chief recruiting officer amongst the French Canadian people. That, however, is only a minor matter.
1 come now to a more delicate point, and I raised this question in this House in the early_ stages of the war. I wish to speak of this without any recrimination, without even questioning for the moment the standpoint of the men to whom I refer, but merely as a matter of history and of fact. Since the war began, I said in this House that the doctrine preached previously to 1911 by certain people in Quebec, namely: that we owed nothing to Britain and should not send a man to fight her battles, had more to do with slowness of recruiting in Quebec than any other cause. Another cause was that when the war broke out the Government of Canada had as three of its members,, men who had taken 4 p.m. that position at every church door in Quebec, and the young men to whom this Government was appealing to enlist had been told by those men that it was no part of their duty to enlist to fight overseas. As I have said before, the French mind is logical; you cannot turn it upside down over night, and when men were found in the Government, helping to direct the affairs of this war, who .had told the young men of Quebec^ that such a war was no concern of theirs, those young men challenged the sincerity of the men who were asking them to enlist.^ Under similar circumstances any one in Ontario would have done the same thing; I certainly would have; I would not have listened, under like circumstances, to any appeal. Further than that, when this war broke out, the Government of Canada had not a French speaking member in it who cared to go on the platform in Quebec and ask for recruits.


Mr. SEVIGNY:: Wrong.


George Perry Graham: Wherein am I wrong? If my hon. friend can show me where Frenchspeaking members of the Government were

making speeches when this war broke out, -I will tell him whom he sent to make the-speeches. He sent the late Mr. Casgrain, who was not then a member of the Government, who had never bowed the knee to Nationalism, but who had been a straight line, loyal Tory all his life. Who else was-, sent on behalf of the Government of Canada? Mr., now Justice Marechal, of Montreal, who -was also a straight line Tory and not a Nationalist. Those two men stood on the same platform with my leader, with the hon. member for Rpuville (Mr. Lemieux) and other Liberals, at several meetings, if I remember correctly.


Albert Sévigny: What meetings?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend should
know; he has been keeping pretty close track of the matter.


Albert Sévigny: It was one meeting at
Sohmer Park, Montreal.


Mr. W. H. BENNETT:: One in seven is a pretty good average for you.


George Perry Graham: I did not say "seven. " I said "several." My hon. friend should wake up. I am serious in this matter. I am not saying it because of any hard feelings I have for these gentlemen; that is not my object. I am pointing out, as I pointed out months ago in this House, that that has been the great stumbling block from the beginning of the war to securing recruits in the province, of Quebec. After that, Mr. Casgrain was brought into the Government and he was the only one brought in. After hie d#ath the Prime- Minister brought in the very man who I say should have been asked to step out when this war began. I maintain that General Lessard should have been sent to Quebec at the beginning of the war and given charge of recruiting in that province. There is no question but that he would have been welcome and would have achieved results.


Mr. MORPHY:: Was any request made by any one in the province of Quebec that General Lessard should be sent there to look after recruiting? If so, what was his name?	[DOT]


George Perry Graham: I am not in the Government, so I cannot tell. But if my hon. friend thinks the fact of the, Government's-not -being asked to send him there excuses them for not sending him, then he cannot vo te for a compulsory measure.


Mr. LALOR:: What success did he meet with when he did go there?


George Perry Graham: 
Francis Ramsey Lalor: Is not the fact that the
same condition of shortage of rolling stock prevails in the United States?


George Perry Graham: I am not sure but that such is true, but it would not be an excuse here. They are building their own ships and working away. Although this condition was called to the attention of the Government as likely to arise, we find that the Government railway itself got so far behind with rolling stock that a few days after the new manager was appointed he ordered no less than 5,000 box cars and several engines.
Let me speak of the co-ordination of industry in natural resources. A great many of our industries have been taken charge of by the Imperial Munitions Board, find some of them have been pretty well organized, but there are still in Canada industries that are turning out goods which are not essential to the prosecution of the war. They are turning out goods that are luxuries, not essentials, not necessaries. There ought to be a sizing up of all these industries and every industry that is not producing something that can be used in the war, or which is a necessity, ought to be asked to turn its attention in some other direction in order that the war may he car. ried on more successfully. The industries of Canada have shown that they can pro' duce anything that can be produced anywhere in the world, as well and as cheaply. An inventory of the various industries of this country should be taken and those that are producing non-essential goods might well have their efforts directed to the production of necessary goods. Co-ordination of that kind would prevent overlapping between industries and we would have turned out in Canada in one steady stream from our own industries the things which are required for the prosecution of the war, and we would not find ourselves short of one commodity at a time when there was a big surplus of some other commodity.
Then, take our natural resources. The first thing this Government should have done was to have taken a firm grip of the nickel supply of the Dominion .of Canada.

That is one of the very essentials of modern warfare and modern shipbuilding, and by no circuitous r.oute, but by a direct grip of the hand, this Government should have taken possession of the nickel mines, or taken control, at least, and should have seen that the nickel products of Canada went for the benefit of the Allies, and for nobody else. And also that they went at the cheapest price, and if necessary, this Government should have had a nickel refinery industry in Canada, managed and worked by itself. Thus all the nickel should go straight to the Allies, and not through any other channel. We have our fishing industry, and we have been told, in the recent report, that fish is one of the best foods that could be sent to the Old Land, but, to a large extent, that export has fallen down. Why? Because arrangement has not been made with the railways to carry this freight by refrigerator cars, in which it could have been sent in greater quantities, than by express. The fishing industry has been neglected, and that industry, which should have supplied fish in great quantities, has practically fallen down, or largely so. I understand that a prominent gentleman who was here to propagate the fish industry in Canada for the benefit of our boys.at the front, has gone to the Old Land, to endeavour to form a company, and to come back here, and do what the Canadian Government should have done months ago. I will- now refer to our other minerals, coal, oil, gas, and I might say shale.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: Hear, hear.


George Perry Graham: who can foe spared from the life of the country in order that the boys in the trenches may be relieved. I am in favour of conscription, because I believe that it will have some effect in stimulating the filling up of our battalions. I cannot bring myself to vote against any measure that will have the effect, directly or indirectly, of assisting in the prosecution of the great struggle in which we are engaged.
Now I come to a consideration of the proposal for a referendum. I claim to be a democrat; I believe in the people being consulted. But let me say to the House and to ^ the country that the Government are going to consult the people; they are getting ready for an election. Since the day the Minister of Public Works put his foot on the ship to go across the seas to visit the ^ soldiers, the Government have been getting ready for an election. The Prime Minister himself, in a suggestion made some days ago, intimated that the people ought to be consulted before this Bill is put into force. I took that as an indication that there was to be a general election. But we had another indication last-night. When an- hon. gentleman on this side was speaking^ about a referendum or an appeal to the people, the member for St. Antoine (Sir Herbert Ames) asked him if he would be satisfied if the people were appealed to immediately through a general election. The member for St. Antoine is close to the Government; I took it for granted that he had been discussing the matter with the Government and was trying to find out what the members thought about the proposal of a general election.
I think, therefore, that there will be a general election, when tins question as well as others can be threshed out. Perhaps the best way to clear the atmosphere and to arrive at a -solution of the difficulties which present themselves is to go to the people and have them say what we are to do and who are to do it. I take no stock in the objection to a referendum because of its taking time; if anything, a referendum could be had in shorter time than a general election. But I believe that the people of Canada will be asked to divide on this issue among us as individuals

'for on this question we are not divided into parties; many gentlemen on the other side of the House accept the view of gentlemen on this side, and some on this side hold the view entertained by gentlemen opposite. We will have to go to our electors upon our personal attitude in this matter; and I am not sure, as I have said, but that an 
appeal to the people would -clear the atmosphere as nothing else would.
For the reasons which I have given at, perhaps, too great length, and for others which I might mention, I am disposed, Sir, to vote against the proposal of -a referendum and in favour of the Bill.


Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, I trust that my remarks upon this momentous occasion will be, both in tone and in character, in accord with the moderation which has marked the speeches of most of those who have preceded me, and will be.in keeping with the importance of the measure now before the House and with the extreme gravity of the conditions which have brought it forth.
This is one of the greatest debates that have ever taken place in this House. Grea-t issues bring forth -great speeches, and great speeches are founded upon conviction. Hon. gentlemen on both sides of this House have during this debate spoken from full hearts the words of sincerity and truth. I think I can understand the wrench that it gives a man to sever the ties of his allegiance to a party with which he has been connected for many years. But we on this side of the House realize that hon. gentlemen opposite, and those on this side who differ from their leaders, are actuated by conviction, and, so far as we are concerned, there is no ignoble satisfaction at seeing hon. gentlemen opposite detach themselves, on an issue such as this, from the ranks of that party to which for so many years they have been connected. While, as I say, I shall emulate the moderation of most of those wfoo have spoken in this debate, I shall not follow the example of my hon. friend (Mr. Graham). He commenced by pointing out the futility of recrimination, and, possibly unconsciously to himself, because he is a politician who has for many years fought the battles of party, he indulged in not a little of that recrimination which he deprecated at the beginning of his remarks. He referred to the contest of 1911, and the action of Nationalist members upon the platform in Quebec. Is argument of that kind likely to advance the issue in this House? Should I add to the information of this House or gain any weight in the persuasiveness of my remarks if I harked back to an earlier date and quoted the leader of the Opposition upon many occasions on which he uttered sentiments to which he subscribed then, but to which he might or might not subscribe now, but which, I sub-

mit, would not be relevant to the consideration of this issue?
I purpose, therefore, confining myself to the question, namely, the Military Service Bill, which is now before the House. I shall touch lightly upon some of the matters referred to by my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) with regard to the organization and mobilization of the resources of this country; but it seems to me that those matters, while I admit they are somewhat, though remotely, relevant to this discussion, might be better dealt with on another and different occasion when some subject other than this Bill, which has evoked so much feeling, which is of so much importance, is before the House for consideration.
We are considering the necessity and the principle of compulsory military service in Canada. Hitherto the effort of Canada has been put forward under the voluntary system of enlistment. The effort which Canada has put forth under that system has been wonderful; it has been such as to command the admiration of the world, and I believe it will for all time stand to the credit, the renown, the honour and the glory of -Canada, that by voluntary effort she has been able to do what she has done. I do not regard the effort which Canada has put forth under the voluntary
5 p.m. system as having been a failure;
I say, on the contrary, that that effort was a magnificent success. Unfair and unjust it was, as enlistment under the voluntary system always is unjust and unfair, because the burden is cast upon the most patriotic in the community; but unsuccessful, it was not; it ~was a wonderful, success. My h,on. friend has criticised the Government for not organizing the country better in the carrying out of the voluntary system; he says that recruiting has been carried on principally by civilians. Does that detract in any way from the glory of the achievement? The Government takes the initiative in matters of this kind, and to the extent that it can secure the assistance and sympathy of citizens, to that extent will the effort the more succeed; and I desire to pay this tribute to the ex-Minister of Militia.
The energy which he put forth and the enthusiasm which be displayed at the outset of the war had much to do with the magnificent results accomplished by Canada under the voluntary enlistment system. It has been found in all States, n,o matter how patriotic they may be, that there comes a time, if they are engaged in a life and
death struggle, when the voluntary system fails, and when the State must, by compulsory service, enlist the manhood of the country if the State is to be saved. That happened in England, the Mother Country of individual and constitutional freedom? The voluntary system broke down there, and in order that the nation might be saved, resort was had to the compulsory system. Great-hearted Abraham Lincoln, as my right hon. friend who is a great admirer of his character knows, had to resort to the draft in order that the Union might be saved in the War of Secession, and to-day the United States, the greatest of the republican communities of the world, after having the benefit of the experience of other nations during the past three years, has resorted to the selective draft, and no less than 10,000,000 of her sons have come forward and enrolled. That is the position.
Canada's effort under the voluntary enlistment plan was a wonderful success, but voluntary enlistment has run its course, and we are now considering a system of compulsory military service which will organize and mobilize selectively the manhood of this country in order that we may continue to play our part in the prosecution of this -war. The fact is that the world and its civilization cannpt be saved, in this great crisis, by the voluntary system as against Germany organized under the Prussian military system. Compulsory military service has been adopted in France, the United States, Great Britain, and New Zealand, and I believe it will in time be adopted in Australia. We have reached the stage in Canada to-day when, if we are to continue to play our part in this war, if we are to continue tp take our share in the national defence, and above all, if we are to observe our obligations of honour to the men who have gone and whp represent us at the front, we must resort to compulsory military service; we must adopt this Bill.
This war is not like other wars in history. In the vastness of its scale, in its issues the most vital to humanity, in its menace the most dread to civilization, this war is different from all other wars, and so far as we can judge it is not near its conclusion. We have not even reached the crisis of this war. Three years of war behind us! How many years of war before us? The situation is of the gravest kind and the question before us is: Shall Canada's efforts slacken; .shall we continue to put forth our utmost strength, or shall we quit? From men of the blood of both races in

this House I think there can only be one answer. Canada must continue to put forth the utmost of her effort. And for how long? Until this war is determined in our favour, until the Hohenzollerns are utterly vam-quished. It is more than a war of nations, it is a war of conflicting ideals, and it will go on until one set of ideals is firmly established and the other utterly uprooted and overthrown. There can be no truce, there can be no peace, until the issue is victory for the Allies, and for Canada as one of the Allies. The war must go on; I think that is common ground for both sides of the House.
Let us not think this war is nearly won. Opposed to us is the greatest foe that ever confronted humanity, Germany, with her
70.000.	000 of people; Austria with 50,000,000, Turkey with 30,000,000, occupying together a compact territory with interior lines of communication. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister said upon his return from Great Britain that the Central Empires had
1.000.	000 more men in the field this spring
than they had last spring. Their line still extends from the North Sea to the confines of Switzerland; there is still a line of a thousand miles between the Central Empires and Russia. We read of great battles in which tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of men fall; we gain a mile or two miles or three miles, but the fact remains that the line on the Western front and the line on the Eastern front are substantially where they were a year ago. I say substantially, but I am the first to say that great progress has been made considering the conditions of modern warfare, for modern warfare is a warfare of attrition. It is a wearing:down process; the killing of more men on one side than on the other; the breaking down of morale and the exhausting of resources; that is modern warfare. But we have still before us the greatest enemy that ever confronted mankind, organized in every department of its national life, grim, determined that no effort shall be spared, that all power shall be put forth in order that they may impose their will upon humanity, that they may Germanize the world. There is as much need, nay, there is more need for .great effort to-day than there was at the outset, or at any time since the war began. From that German menace no nation, I care not how remote it may be, is free. The smallest nation or colony separated from Europe by thousands of leagues of sea is subject to the menace of German agression.	.

It has been put forward in this House that Canada is in no danger of an invasion. If that is so, to what is it due? Is it not due to the British fleet and to those men of French and British 'blood, who, month in and month out, have withstood the hosts of Germany in France and Flanders? Is it not due to the Canadians and New Zealanders and the others of our Allies who have met the enemy in the gates? If there is no danger of invasion, if there has been no such danger to Canada, it is only because we have been protected by the British fleet and by our Allies and our own heroes who have withstood the Hun on the battlefields of Europe.
Let me ask another question, and I am discussing this phase of the matter because it has been put forward that Canada should not send her forces outside this country unless to repel apprehended invasion. Supposing the Germans had taken Paris in their first rush, as they intended; supposing the British fleet had been defeated-if one can imagine such a thing-and that the Germans had reached London. Supposing they had been in a position to compel capitulation on the part of France and Great Britain. What would have happened to this country? Without landing a man upon these shores, the enemy could have compelled the cession of Canada. I say that it is within the plans of the German autocracy, within the world plans of German militarism, if not now, at a later date, to break up the British Empire and enter into and possess it. All their actions for years past have been in accordance with that view. If, as they hoped, they had struck down Great Britain, taken London, and compelled the payment of an enormous indemnity, why should they not seek to compel the cession of the different parts of the British Empire? It is the plainest and most obvious fact that Canada, fighting in France and Flanders, is fighting absolutely for the safety of Canada herself. No danger of invasion to Canada in a world war cataclysm such as this? Shall we take the position that we should not send our troops out of Canada, but allow the British fleet and our Allies to save us? Shall we take the position that we should not send our forces to help them, because constitutionally our forces should not be sent outside the Dominion unless to repel threatened invasion?
Could this country take that position? The defence of Canada! Where should that defence be conducted? That depends upon

circumstances; it might in some wars be strategically advantageous to defend Canada at the border, it might in others be strategically advantageous to defend Canada thousands of miles away, as we are doing it to-day. That is so plain, so obvious, to me that I marvel that any one should suggest that Canada's forces while fighting abroad are not fighting against the invasion of the sovereignty and autonomy of Canada.
The question has been raised whether it is constitutional for Canada to send forth her forces to defend herself in a place where she can best be defended-which, I say, is in France and Flandieirs. Well, Mr. Speaker, it is the first law of nations that they should protect themselves; it is the first duty of a government to its people to take any steps that may be necessary in defence of that people. But, it is said, we are widening the compulsion of the Militia Act. I agree entirely with those who have argued that we are not adopting any degree of compulsion that is not provided for in the legislation now on the statute-book. But it would not trouble me in the least degree if we were widening that compulsion. The first duty of this Government is to save the nation, to take such military steps as may be necessary to put the nation beyond danger from invasion in the war which threatens Canada and threatens the Empire. And I am confident that I speak for most of the members of this House when I say that the people of this country attach some importance to the British Empire and their connection with it-we are not only fighting for Canada, but fighting to maintain the integrity of the Empire which is threatened by German aggression. So that so far as the Militia Act is concerned, it does not concern me, and I believe it should not concern this House, whether it is narrower in its provisions than this Bill or not; the question before us is, from the standpoint of national safety, are we going to continue the war? I believe that the people of this country are determined to continue this war. For how long? Until, as I have said, it is won, and the Hohenzollern is overthrown.
It is said, or at least implied, that enough has been done, that the situation is such that further help on the part of Canada is not necessary. I wish I could say that that is true. I have pointed out that but little progress has been made upon that Western front, 'notwithstanding the outpouring of blood and of munitions. Today, we are confronted with as serious a situation as at any time since the outbreak of the war, except that, I believe, the Allies have now the offensive in the sense which we have not had it before. But we must remember, as pointed out by the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) that the effort of Russia has slackened. I hope that this condition will not continue. I believe that the welfare of Russia lies with the Allies, and that the people of Russia^ if properly led, will continue the great effort which they made from the outbreak of the war. I hope and pray that that may be so. But the fact is that the Russian offensive has slackened and that the German troops which are engaged upon that Eastern front are to-day in action on the Western front. And so the cry goes up for men, and more
men.	. . ,
That brings me to another point wnicn has been dwelt upon in this House and which cannot be dwelt upon too much the duty that we owe to those noble sons of Canada who have gone forward and are at the front to-day. Mr. Speaker, _ could Canada, or could any of Canada s citizens, con-aider seriously for a moment the desertion or abandonment of those men at the front? We have four divisions there; I visited them last November. I talked with officers going into their dugouts for the night. It was at a time when there had been great wastage in the ranks. There were men of ours in England whose training was not complete, and every effort was being made to hurry them forward to repair the casualties at the front. Officer after oflicer said to me:	I am going into the trenches tonight with seven hundred men where I ought to have a thousand men. I talked to both officers and men, and let me tell this House that if there is one thing which more than any other annoys the men at the front it is to read the headings in Canadian newspapers that are sent them that the war is going so well that it may soon be over. I tell this House that these men look back earnestly to this country for more and more reinforcements of their ranks. These men are daily walking hand in hand with death; the most earnest, the most noble band of men I have ever seen. I came away with a lump in my throat and with a great sense of my own uniworthiness. I wish that e very man in this House, French or English, could go to that front and see what these men are doing there. If that could be, I believe there would be no doubt as to how every man would vote upon this Bill. Canada, for her own honour and apart from

the question of her own safety and the safety of tne British Empire, must not desert these men at the front. We are on the ere of the greatest battles in the history of the world. Every effort will he put forth by the great nations engaged in this war to bring about a decision. Why? Because the wastage is eo great. It will he the strategy of commanders to press the war. This is why I say that we are on the eve of the greatest battles in the history of the world. There will be casualties, unfortunately, among the Canadians. How are we going to fill the gaps; how are we going to reinforce the ranks? The voluntary system has broken down; we must do what other nations have done, we must resort to compulsory military service. I believe that the people of Canada will say that if we desert these men at the front, God will desert this country. What do I mean by that? I mean that our moral fibre would deteriorate, that our national character would be broken, that in the eyes of the world and in the eyes of ourselves, we should aptpear as not having the manhood essential to a great nation.
Mr. Speaker, in what I have to say I would not wound the feelings of any man or woman in this country. 1 had hoped tfiat there might le unity respecting this Bill and I still hope that when this Bill is passed and becomes law, there will be unity on both sides of this House fn urging this country and all parts of it to respect that law. We talk about the necessity for food, for munitions, for supplies, and all these things are necessary; but if the people of Great Britain, of the United States and Canada devoted themselves to the production of food, munitions and supplies, who would hold the battle line at the front? The German is there, the German infantry, the German artillery ana they can only be defeated by human valour, by the men behind the lines who launch the fire of the artillery and the men in the trenches who scale the parapet, charge with bayonet and hand grenade and take the trenches of the Hun. You cannot win this war by encouraging agriculture, although that is necessary; you cannot win this war by mobilizing your railways, although that is necessary; the decision is to be got by human valour at the front and in no other way, although these other things are ancillary.
I will say just one more word about the volunteer system because the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) passed some strictures upon the Government in connection with its organization. The volunteer system was not only unjust but fSir Thomas White.]
it was illogical and in many ways it iin-peded the nation in putting forth its best effort in carrying on the war. Reference was made to myself and to my right hon. fi lend the Prime Minister as retarding recruiting. I do not believe that the members of this House; I do not'believe that the people of this country, realize, the burdens which devolve upon the ministers of the Government in time of war. Day and night, Sunday and Saturday, practically every week, there is the burden and the lesponsibility of the war. I mention that, not because we deserve any sympathy because our sacrifices and toil are as nothing compared with the sacrifices by the men who have gone to the front, and by the fathers, mothers and wives who have sent them forth. But notwithstanding the duties which have devolved upon us, notwithstanding the responsibilities with which we have been burdened, the members of this Government have done what they could within the limits of their physical powers to promote recruiting. The Prime Minister went from the Atlantic to the Pacific upon his return last fall appealing to large audiences throughout this country in a last effort to stimulate recruiting. For myself,
I have spoken upon scores of platforms in Ontario, at Montreal, and ,at Halifax in the interests of recruiting. Everything was done that could have been by the Government. All aid was afforded that was asked for by the Government and no nobler work was ever done by the devoted band of men and women who gave their time, thought and energy to the promotion of recruiting. I had hoped for the sake of unity, because I knew that this question would create division, that Canada, by the voluntary system, would have been able to carry on the war to the end which we all desire-victory. But it became apparent that the voluntary system was no longer effective. That was admitted by those men and women in this country who had devoted themselves to the work. It has been referred t.o by hon. members on both sides of this House who have given themselves day and night in aiding recruiting in their constituencies and elsewhere. The recruiting system broke down. The Government, for the safety of Canada and the Empire, and also for the honour of Canada, and in recognition of its obligation towards those men who have gone forward, brought down this Bill providing for compulsory military service. We all learn as this war progresses. War is a terrible realist; it brings you face to face with reality. It is a great discloses a great revealer; it reveals much

even to men whfl have been closest to the prosecution of this war. I believe that the bringing down of this compulsory military service Bill will do more to stimulate the national activities of Canada in all departments of life towards the prosecution of the war than anything that has happened before in the history of the war. Take the debates in this House; I have never heard such debates. I do not think that any man in this House has ever heard such speeches -speeches from the heart, sincere, a debate in which every man stands up and expresses his conviction to his fellow members in the desire to reach a right solution of this question and to determine what is the duty of Canada at this great crisis in our affairs. I respect the views that any of my fellow members put forward in this House. This is no time for partisanship; it is no time for antagonism. Sincerely and seriously we must consider the most important measure that, I think, was ever laid before this House and the effort on the part of the Government to meet a great national crisis. I have no fault to find with those who differ from me
But I have spoken because I desire, as others have done, to express my thoughts and convictions upon this question. I say that this country is in honour bound-no other course is open to us-to take such measures as will insure the continued and necessary reinforcement of our men at the front, and I believe that this debate will have great weight, in all parts of this community, in persuading people to that view. This is one of the great functions of Parliament. A debate of a week on a subject of this kind will do more to educate, enlighten and clarify public opinion than all the action that could be taken by individual members of the Government for a year.


William Pugsley: Perhaps my hon. friend's object will be obtained in that way, and he may not want to pass a Bill.


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: I desire to say that this Bill must be passed by this Parliament. I believe that that is the will of the people of Canada. I believe that this Government can take no other course than that which we are now taking, if, in the words of one of the greatest orators of- the world, we are to have any regard for our past, or for our glory, or for the days that are to come.
Mr. PUGSLEY; Why not leave it as it is?


William Thomas White: I will come to that in a moment. This Bill will do more, not only to give us reinforcements for the men at the front, which is its immediate object, but to stir the moral enthusiasm of this people, to mobilize, and to organize the people of this country for war, than anything that has yet happened. I say the speeches in this House are not like the speeches delivered when we were discussing worn-out political formulas a little time ago. Men are speaking words of sincerity and truth from their hearts. That is one good result this debate has had. Let us rid this discussion of old worn-out issues, which are dead and gone. The thought of this world will never be the same,-the structure of society will never be the same again. This measure will not only give needed reinforcements, it will stimulate the people of this country, it will educate them on the great issues of the war, in a way they have never been educated before. No democracy, Mr. Speaker, ever puts forth its greatest effort until the religious sentiment of democracy is enlisted. My hon. friend smiles. Take the war of the Secession in the United States. Let my hon. friend read the second inaugural of Abraham Lincoln. Let him read Julia Ward Howe's " Battle Hymn of the Republic "-
Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord. He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored.
The literature and ipoetry of that period breathes with religious fervour. You never get the strength of a democracy until, in addition to its material effort, there is put forth its spiritual effort. There must be self-sacrifice. There must be self-denial. There must be the mobilization of the spiritual energies of the nation. This Bill will do much to bring that about, because, if you are going to say to one man: You must offer up your life, men will realize, as never before, what sacrifice means, and will be prepared to support the Government in such action as may be necessary to bring the whole power of the nation to bear upon the problem of the prosecution of the war. This Bill will accomplish all these things.
*Referring to the remarks of the hon. gentleman from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham), I am sorry I have to deal with matters which are only remotely relevant to the Bill, but which were put forward by him and seem to require some answer on my part. But my answer will be brief. I am



glad the hon. gentleman from South Renfrew made it clear this afternoon, with regard to the expression " conscription of wealth," which has been used a good deal by the newspapers of this country, since his bringing forward of the resolution which he read that he had not in mind conscription of capital. I may say to the House, and I would like to say to the press, but not for publication, that the use of the phrase " conscription of wealth " is leading to certain disturbing conditions in some parts of the community. I think it would be well, not to make use of a phrase which is not understood in its literal sense in this House, but to which some people outside may attach a meaning it is not intended to. bear.


William Pugsley: Make it "contribution by wealth."


William Thomas White: My hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) talked about equality of sacrifice,' and I am glad he made it clear that there is no equality of sacrifice, and there can be no equality of sacrifice between the ease of a man who gives his son and a man who writes a cheque for taxes. The two subjects should not be dealt with at the same time. They are separate and distinct. Mobilization of man-power, in order to reinforce our troops at the front, is one thing. Taxation for the purpose of finding funds for the prosecution of the war is another, and very different matter. It is perfectly proper for any member of this House to say to me on a proper occasion, say on the Budget debate, or in Supply, "you are not raising sufficient money by taxation; you are raising too much by loan." That is a fair argument, when we are dealing with the subject of finance, but it is not a pertinent argument, I submit, in this debate. It is not relevant, because you are comparing things which are essentially different, when you say that, if there is conscription of man-power, there must be also conscription of wealth. I think, however, .that, when the people of the community are in the condition that they are in to-day, under strain, stress and affliction, a good effect is produced if they realize that others, who may not be sending sons or husbands to the front, at all events are contributing,or are made to contribute, of their substance to. the prosecution of the war.
I ask this House to hear this also in mind: besides giving due attention to the providing of money by loans and by taxation for the prosecution of the.war, the Minister of Finance must not lose sight of the fact that if he attempts too much, he will defeat 
his own purpose. In other words, taxation must be wisely imposed. Men who are reputed to .be wealthy may have no ready cash. Let us say that they are engaged in a great industry which employs thousands of men; shall the state seize any portion of the capital invested in that industry? The state cannot pay its debts in kind; it must pay in cash. The financing of a war must be carried on by drawing from the liquid funds of the nation-from that and the new wealth, so to speak, created during the war; otherwise essential industry is likely to suffer. The Minister of Finance, therefore must be sagacious in his imposition of taxation, or he may defeat the very purpose, laudable though it may be, that he has in view.
The member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) said that what he really had in mind was an income tax. There is a good deal to be said for an income tax. It is a fair form of taxation, because it does not take away from a man what he really needs. But it must be borne in mind that if you have too severe an income tax, you do impair the liquid capital of the community which is available for loans and for the purposes of banking and commerce. Canada has never lacked money since this war began. We speak of the man behind the gun, but, so far as Canada is concerned, the dollar has always been behind the man-and that is the position to-day. There has been abundance of money to send our men forward and to maintain them at the front, and to finance Great Britain in her purchase of needed munitions and supplies in Canada. All those moneys have been found by the Government., It is open to hon. gentlemen opposite to say to me:	you have not raised as much as
you should by taxation; you should have raised more by .taxation and less by loans. That would be a fair and pertinent argument to-put forward-though I would controvert it-but not in connection with this Bill. Can you weigh the imponderable? Can you put a human life on one scale and a million dollars on .the other? The measure of taxation which I brought down to this House, and which was objected to by 'the member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) as being tom severe, was one of the stiffest measures of taxation ever brought down in any country. The member for North Grey (Mr. Middlebro) the other night put on Hansard some figures .as to .the amount contributed by the largest taxpayers. I stated that if the war went on we should prob-

bably have an in-come tax. I will not spare the people from taxation, if taxation is necessary in order to win the war. At the outset I taxed the financial institutions; I imposed special war taxation. By the end of this fiscal year we shall have raised nearly $200,000,000 by special war taxation. But in our direct taxation I have resorted chiefly to those who have derived advantage from the war. We said to them: if you have made abnormal profits through war conditions, you must give a large proportion of them to the State. I submit that that was an absolutely sound course. Such taxation is much fairer than an income tax, especially in Canada, for ''this reason: in Ontario, let us say, you may have a tax upon incomes by the municipality, a tax upon incomes by the province and a similar tax imposed by the Federal authorities. Another thing that I have always tried to keep in mind is this: the war will be over some day. This country has been inviting people to come into it from all parts of the world-from the United States and from Europe. When men are invited to come into a country they naturally ask, what are the conditions in that country? Any Minister of Finance who is considering a taxation scheme in Canada must have regard also to taxation in the United States. If your taxation is too severe, it will have the effect of driving some men out of the country and preventing others from coming in. That argument was submitted to me in connection with the excess business profits tax and there is something to be said for it. It is true that in war time it may be necessary to raise money to meet the needs of the war, even though immigration or capital may temporarily cease to flow into the country. I am not rejecting an income tax. This war has gone on much longer than any of us ever thought. We have taken, step by step, measures .necessary to find money with which to back the men at the front. We will continue to take those steps, to issue loans, to impose taxation, as severe as may be necessary in order that our troops may have financial backing and support. This Government may be depended upon to bring in such measures of taxation as may be necessary to accomplish that end. An hon. gentleman suggested the other day that I was not taxing wealth sufficiently, and that there was a motive behind my action in that regard. I can tell that hon. gentleman that I have made many enemies, through no fault of my own, on account of 165i
the severe taxation which has been imposed. But that is absolutely of no consequence. We will take whatever measures are necessary, whether by income tax, succession duty tax, a tax upon real estate, or otherwise, in order that we may win this war. But I qualify that to this extent: taxation should not be imposed for the purpose of punishing anybody. Taxation should be wisely imposed, and only to the extent necessary. Good judgment is required as to the taxation which a nation should be asked to stand during war time. Having regard to the high cost of living, in Canada and other places, you must be very careful in coming to a decision concerning the imposition of an income tax upon people of moderate incomes.
Let me tell the House what has brought about the agitation with regard to the so-called conscription of wealth. The record, of' this country since the beginning of the war has been wonderful, not only in respect of the number of men who have gone forward,, offering their lives., if necessary, for their country; but in. respect also of the amounts: of money liberally -subscribed to the Patriotic Fund, the Bed Cross and other funds. One of the glories of this country will be its voluntary effort in support of those funds. The hon. member for St. Antoine (Sir Herbert Ames) said the other day that $40,000,000 had been raised or pledged in connection with those funds: Let us not overlook that; but unfortunately, in every community, there are one or two or three or mpre men who are rich and who are close and who have not contributed to those funds, and the people of this country feel that they should be made to contribute. If I can make them contribute, I will do so. I am not sure that it would not be well, in connection with an income tax, if we Drmg one down, to provide that a man shpuld be exempted to the extent, that he has contributed to the Patriotic and the Bed Cross Funds, because, if you impose too severe taxation, you will tend t.o stop-I do not say you will stop-the voluntary flow of funds for those great purposes, and it is not only the money that is valuable, but the good will. The heart that is behind the offering tp those funds is of priceless advantage to the people of Canada in the prosecution of this war.
I shall not speak upon the referendum -the expedient put forward by the leader of the Opposition, except to say that I agree with the arguments which have been put forth by thpse on his own side against the course which he has suggested. I will not

say a referendum is unconstitutional, but I do not believe that the abstract question-are you or are you not in favour of [DOT]conscription?-will get a fair decision on the part of the people of this country on this most momentous question. The public, as has been said by the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) requires leadership. You could not get the people of this country properly to pronounce upon that question if submitted by referendum unless you have practically the equivalent of a general election in which men would discuss the issue and speak out of their hearts to the hearts .of the people. There would have to be the tumult and excitement of a general election which is greatly to be deprecated at this time. 'There is one rule for individuals, one rule for Governments, and the Government that adopts that rule, like the individual that adopts, that rule, will always be on safe ground. What is the rule? To do the right thing, the noble thing, the-patriotic thing. What is the right thing, and the noble thing and the patriotic thing at this time? To take such measures as may be necessary to prosecute this war to a victorious conclusion, and to support those gallant men of ours, our noblest and our best, who to-day are fighting for you and for me on the battlefields of Europe. They are fighting just as much in the defence of 'Canada as if they were fighting on the shores of Nova 'Scotia or along the banks of the St. Lawrence.
I realize that there is a sharp cleavage of opinion upon this question, and I have endeavoured to discuss it in such a fashion as to wound no man's feelings. I am sure the House will give me credit when I say that we members respect each other's convictions. While we differ sharply upon questions of national importance, we yet respect each other and we speak what we have to say without heat, without hostility, without enmity. Looking at this matter from the standpoint of the statesman, I ask: What of the future? It has been pointed out and emphasized here that there is a cleavage of opinion in this country. My opinion is that this debate in this Hous.e may go a long way towards assisting the carrying out of this measure, because I believe one of the functions, of Parliament, in debating great questions like this, is to inform the public, to persuade them of the expediency of a certain course. This Bill will pass into law. In my administrative position, and in any debates in which I have taken part in this House, I have treated all members on both sides of the

House, no matter of what nationality, only as Canadians; I do not know them as French or English; they are my fellow-Canadians. For 200 years or more ourselves and our fathers and our forefathers have lived together in this country. There have been differences of opinion; sometimes there has been discord; once there was civil war, rebellion; but on the whole we have got on fairly well together. We have been engaged in the great work of reducing half a continent to the use -of civilization. We respect each other in this House, and I believe the different sections of this country respect each other, although they have their differences. I believe the . right thing to do is to pass this Bill. I believe compulsory military service is necessary in this country. How can we secure practical union in support of this measure? We shall not get it by taunting eaph otheT, by political recrimination, by reviving old differences of opinion; but if hon. members on both sides of the House, the leaders, the front-benchers and all other members, after the debate is over, would join in asking the people of this country to respect the obligation of this measure and to assist the Government in putting it into effect and carrying it out, that would make for unity in this country, and I believe that could be done. This Bill must be enacted into law because it is necessary for the national safety and honour that it should be enacted into law. Let us all, French and English, in this House and in this country, accept this Bill as being a necessary measure, having regard to the grave national conditions which beset us, and in that way let us have unity; let us present the appearance of unity to the world. I do not believe insuperable difficulties would present themselves if we all address ourselves to the matter, and I leave that thought for the consideration of this House.'
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.

[Stage Direction]
THE TORONTO, HAMILTON & BUFFALO RAILWAY.
House in Committee-Mr. Blain in the Chair-on Bill No. 39, respecting the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway.-Mr. T. J. Stewart.
Mr. T. J. STEWART:: I beg to move that clauses 1 and 2 be struck out of the Bill,

and that the Bill be then reported and given its third reading.


Mr. MURPHY:: Explain.


Thomas Joseph Stewart: This Bill has reference to an agreement made between the town of Dundas and the Hamilton and Dun-das Street Railway Company in regard to the handling of freight by the electric road. Dundas is situated in a valley and as the steam roads do not go in there, the Hamilton & Dundas Street Railway Company entered into an agreement with the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company to handle the freight over the electric road. There was a clause in the agreement that if the town of Dundas saw fit to pass a bylaw extending the charter for 29 years, making a total of 50 years, and ratification sought from the Ontario Legislature. The town of Dundas passed the bylaw and got special legislation by the Ontario Legislature ratifying the agreement. The ratification could not apply to the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company as they were under Dominion charter. The Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Company are now asking the Dominion Government to place them in the same position as the town of Dundas. The town of Dundas say "No, we are not going to allow that." They take the ground that the freight cars were allowed to remain in front of thfe people's doors on the streets of Dundas, which is most unfair; but the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Company has no control whatever over the streets. Wishing to be fair, however, we agreed to spend $15,000 on a new switching, ground and freight lines. Then they took the objection that the smoke was a nuisance, and that we would have to handle the freight by electric power. That meant buying two motors at a cost of $80,000. The interest on that would be $4,800 and the total earnings of the road are only $5,400 a year. The Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Company therefore could not see their way to handling the freight by electric power at that enormous cost. We do not think a little town like Dundas with only 5,000 people had any right to ask for something no other place in the Dominion had got. We agreed, however, to having legislation put through placing us under the Dominion Railway Board. That ' apparently did not satisfy them. The Railway Committee amended the Bill to read 5 years instead of 29. To my mind the committee could do only one of two things: either grant the 29 years, or say: No, they had no right whatever to male the agreement without all parties being represented at the meeting. We have made up our minds that if the town of Dundas will not grant us what we think we are entitled to, we will withdraw these two clauses and let the town handle the freight as it sees fit.


Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG:: This Bill was thoroughly discussed before the Railway Committee, representatives being present from the town of Dundas and the surrounding district. I am sorry the hon. member for Wentworth, who is particularly interested in this Bill, is not present. I am sure he would take serious objection to the Bill being amended in this way. Many of us who were present at the meetings of the Railway Committee are strongly opposed to the wishes of the railway representatives, who are simply trying to get their charter, which has now only one year to run, extended for 29 years. Has the hon. member for Hamilton given notice of this amendment?


Thomas Joseph Stewart: I am acting on the advice of the Law Clerk of the House. I am given to understand that the committee had no right to amend the Bill for five years; they should either have made it 29 years or refused. We certainly do not intend to accept the Bill as amended. Therefore, why should there be any objection to allowing us to withdraw these two clauses? We have some rights in the matter. I think we have been treated most unfairly. We are simply asking for what the town of Dundas took for themselves, and I think we should get it. I have stated the facts exactly as they are, and I now ask the committee to allow me to withdraw clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill. That will only leave in the Bill clauses 5 and 6. Clause 5 refers to freight arrangements with the-Michigan Central Railroad Company, the Canada Southern Railway Company, and the Grand Trunk Railway Company. Clause-6 empowers the company to hold stock in a. steamboat company. These two clauses: have already been passed by the committee.


George Perry Graham: Probably we should make better progress if we allowed the Bill to stand until the hon. member for Wentworth was present.


Thomas Joseph Stewart: He knows I am proposing to withdraw these two clauses; we have talked it over.


George Perry Graham: But he is not here.


Thomas Joseph Stewart: Is it not customary, Mr. Chairman, that notice be given of an amendment of this kind?


The CHAIRMAN:: As the hon. member has appealed to me, notice will have to be given, as this amendment is a very important one.
Progress reported.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 86, respecting the Western Life Assurance Company.-Mr. Schaffner.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 85, to incorporate the Canadian Council of the Girl Guides Association.- Mr. Northrup.
Bill No. 87, respecting the Empire Life Insurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Mac-donell.
Bill No. 90, respecting the Security Life Insurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Mac-donell.
; . MILITARY SERVICE ACT, 1917.
Consideration of the proposed motion of Sir Robert Borden for the second reading of Bill No. 75, Military Service Act, 1917, and [DOT]of the amendments thereto, resumed.
Mr. E. W. NESBITT (North Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on the Bill 'before the House, I think I fully appreciate the importance of the departure we are proposing to take in reference to the enlistment of soldiers. My hon. friend (Mr. [DOT]Graham), who preceded me, declared that he was not going to recriminate or criticise. Eor my part, I am going to take the liberty of offering some criticism, and if that is called recrimination, then I am going to recriminate.
In the first place, I do not think that the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden), in introducing this Bill gave us as ample information as he might have given. For instance, he might have told us whether Great Britain had required of this country men rather than more production. We have seen a great deal in the newspapers on the subject of production, and the other day we had the report from the recently-appointed food controller of England that it was absolutely necessary to have production from this country and from the United States to supply Great Britain. Had the Prime Minister told us how much production on our part Great Britain needed, we should have had a better idea of how many men could be spared from this country. I quite understand that it would not have been possible for Great Britain to tell us how many men they would like us to send,
IMr. Stewart]
for the reason that, I suppose, this will depend entirely upon the progress of the war. On that point I doubt that the Prime Minister could have given us much more information than he did. But the right hon. gentleman can easily see that the quantity of food that can be produced in this country for use in Great Britain will depend very largely on how many men we send to the front. It must be borne in mind that we are a very sparse population. I do not agree with those who say that voluntary enlistment has failed. It may have fallen short of the number of men required, but in my judgment it has certainly not failed. According to the last return there have been 421,767 enlistments in this country. To enlist this number in a country with a population of about 7,500,000, spread over an area about 3,000 miles long and perhaps 1,000 miles broad, besides keeping up agriculture and other industries, as well as the professions of the country, I think is doing wonderfully well; it says a great deal for the patriotism of the people of Canada.
Now, so far as the voluntary enlistment can be said to have failed, I cannot but blame the Government very greatly for that state of affairs. My hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) pointed out some of the mistakes that had been made by the Government. He referred to the discussion reported in the press as having taken place between the ex-Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes) and the other members of the Government on the necessity or otherwise of continuing enlistment, and pointed out that this had had a bad effect. But that which had the worst effect in Ontario, at any rate in my judgment, was that the press was full of rumours of over expenditure, graft and corruption. There were the charges made here in the House and the investigations that followed. There was a feeling abroad, which was reflected in the newspapers, that the Government was spending quite unnecessarily enormous sums of money.
In some sections of the country the Government enlisted men and kept them for months in this country after which they were discharged as medically unfit. A great many others were taken over to England and there discharged as medically un- . fit. The ordinary man, the farmer and the working man, understands the expense that is incurred in a proceeding of that kind. The people got discouraged with the general condition of the country resulting largely from the fact that the Government

was practically doing nothing. There is no doubt that my hon. friend from South Renfrew was correct when he said that the Government did not take an actiye part in the enlistment campaign that was going on throughout the country. In a great many instances they sent big, husky fellows, captains, majors or something of that kind, drawing anywhere from $6 to $10 a day, around telling the boys in the towns and the country that they should enlist and go to the front.


William Humphrey Bennett: Were not these men who were taking part in recruiting, men who had returned wounded from the front? I could give the hon. gentleman several names of recruiting officers who had been wounded -at the front.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I was just coming to that if my hon. friend had not got impatient. There were many men who never went to the front, who never saw the front and who never intended going to the front, big, husky fellows drawing large salaries, and these very officers are trying to enlist men at the present time. Would not a wounded returned soldier be the right man to go around and address recruiting meetings? A man standing on the platform who had been at the front and had been wounded could say: Go and do as I have done. I am sure he would have a great deal more influence on the audience than the fellow who has never been at the front, who is within the age, who is perfectly capable of going to the front, who is drawing a salary as captain or major, dictating to the men down below him in the audience and telling them that they should go to the front? Naturally, they say: "Why does he not go instead of telling us to go?" In many other ways this Government discouraged voluntary enlistment. But the main discouragement was the appearance in the press of reports of the enormous and unnecessary expenditures which have been carried on in connection with the war and enlistment. The people, I confess, thoughout Ontario at any rate, were very patriotic and loyal; they subscribed an enormous amount of money for carrying on the war. Another thing that, in my judgment, influenced voluntary enlistment was that there was a campaign carried on for munition workers. A great many men said that it was just as necessary to have munition workers as it was to have men at the front. I know that the papers were filled with that sort of talk. Was there ever anything more preposterous, more absolutely absurd, than to put it
abroad that it was just as necessary to have men making munitions in this country as it was to have men going to the front to fight our battles? Munition workers got from $2.50 to $8 a day, while a man for going to the front was paid -$1.10, with a certain amount for field allowances, clothes and his separation allowance. You cannot possibly figure that up to be more than $2.25 a day, and he was expected to risk his life. Yet the munition worker was getting anywhere from $2.50 to $8 a day, and a great many people said that it was just as patriotic to make munitions as it was to go to the front. I leave it to any man here to say if that was not an absurd statement to be put through the length and breadth of this country and to be uttered from public platforms. There was an advertising campaign carried on in the principal newspapers in Toronto for munition workers as if the men making munitions could not advertise for their men and could not get men just as well as any Government official that the Lord ever produced.


George Perry Graham: Does he produce them?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Were they not just as capable of getting their own men as were the Government? I understand that $60,000 was paid in connection with this munition workers' campaign. I know that in making that statement I am speaking within the mark, because I know something about it. That also hurt voluntary enlistment, because people became disgusted with the way in which the money of this country was being spent for so-called assistance in the war when it was not for assistance in the war.


William Humphrey Bennett: Has the hon. gentleman ever asked a question in this House, or has a minister ever made the statement that the hon. gentleman has just made, that $60,000 of the Dominion's money had been spent in advertising for workers for munition factories? That is the statement that the hon. gentleman made, and I challenge the truth or correctness of it.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I do not care what my hon. friend challenges. I am telling him the truth. I imagine I can get as many people to believe me as the hon. gentleman can get to believe him.


William Humphrey Bennett: I asked the hon. gentleman if he had ever asked the question in this House, or has it ever been asked5 As a test of the bona fides and good faith

of the hon. gentleman, let him ask the question now and see what truth there is in the statement.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: My hon. friend beside me says there is a return to that effect, tout I do not care a cent whether there is or not; I know. I do not care whether they bring down a return or not, and it is not necessary to ask the question in the House, because I know it myself.


William Humphrey Bennett: That was for your own 'friend, the Boss rifle.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I have nothing to do with the Boss rifle. My hon. friend cannot chuck the Boss rifle at me, because I had nothing to do with it. I have given some of the reasons why voluntary enlistment has stop.ped to a certain extent. But, last month there were over 7,200 men enlisted, and if you will take the return which was brought down in this House very recently you will notice that for the last three months more men enlisted than there was wastage at the front.


Mr. ABTHUES:: Has the hon. gentleman any information as to how many of those men who enlisted last month were for the infantry, or the fighting line?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: No, but I might tell my hon. friend that when they do enlist for one branch they are sometimes sent to another branch when they get to England, so that it will be pretty hard to tell what they are in now. I know men who enlisted in the artillery, and who, when they got to England, were put into the infantry, in spite of a very strong protest from their families at home. That brings me to the question of enlistment from Quebec. My hon. friend finds fault with that enlistment. I am sorry to say that it is a ease, to a large extent, of chickens coming home to roost. It is said that if you sow with the wind, you will reap with the whirlwind. My earnest hope is that my hon. friends will not do the reaping accqrding to that adage. The first time the so-called Nationalist movement in Quebec was brought to my attention was in the Drummond-Arthabaska byelection. It has been frequently stated on the floor of this House, and not denied by my Conservative friends, that they were at the bottom of the movement and endorsed the Nationalist candidate in that election. They were behind the extremists in Quebec, when they told the people that they owed nothing to Great Britain. In that election, my Conservative friends were accused, time

and again, of endorsing the man who made these speeches. It is certainly true that they endorsed the Nationalists in the election of 1911.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Will the hon. members kindly explain the difference to-day in the platform of Bourassa and the Nationalists, and the platform of my hon. friend's leader in this House? .


Edward Walter Nesbitt: 
Mr. SUTHEELAND:: Where are they
now?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Where they have always been. My comrades from Quebec are absolutely as honest in their views to-night as my hon. friend who has interrupted me. After all, though we differ on this occasion, it is not necessary to say a man is dishonest in his view.


Air. WTLOOX:: Will the hon. gentleman deny that the Nationalists are now on the same side as himself and his honoured leader?


George Perry Graham: Wait till the first vote is taken on your partner's motion.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: 'My hon. friend from
Renfrew has answered the hon. gentleman, but personally I absolutely deny that there is any collusion between my hon. leader and his supporters from Quebec or the supporters of my hon. friend on that side from that province. But in that election there was the usual collusion of my honourable friends in sharp practices. Both in politics and in business such collusion will come to naught. My view has always been since I was a boy, that there is only one way to do business or politics, and that is to be absolutely honest. You may succeed by chicanery for a little while, but it meets with poor success, and the chicanery of my hon. friends in the Drum-mond-Arthabaska election, and in the election of 1911, did more harm to this country than they can imagine, and now it is reacting on them. Perhaps it was smart practice at the time, but honesty is the best policy in politics and in business. My hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) gave the Bill credit for the organization of labour. I asked him the question where he found it, and he told me he thought it was there. The only language that could be construed in that way at all would be the last section of the interpretation clause, which reads:
And whereas, by reason of the large number of men who have already left agricultural and industrial pursuits in Canada to join such Expeditionary Force as volunteers, and of the necessity of sustaining under such conditions the productivity of the Dominion, it is expedient to secure the men still required, not by ballot as provided in the Militia Act, but by selective draft.
No, there is nothing in that to show there is any intention to organize labour in this country. The Bill expresses the intention of selecting men for military purposes, but nothing to show there is any intention lor the organization of labour-at least, I say so.
That brings me to the question of voluntary enlistment versus conscription. The one great benefit of voluntary enlistment, in my view, is that, after all, the man, whoever he may be, voluntarily goes to the front and voluntarily risks his life. Against that, for compulsory conscription, there is the basic theory that it is the duty of every man to defend his country. If you start on that basis, I am free to confess that the only logical conclusion you can come ta is conscription, whether it be selective or otherwise, whether it be according to the Militia
Act or according to the proposed Bill No. 75. But, after all, the difficulty with me is that I dislike to say that anybody else shall do something if I will not do it myself. I confess that I shrink from saying to any man or woman that his or her eon shall go to the front and expose his life in war when I am not going myself. Hon. gentlemen know that under this Bill I would not be selected for military service, because I am too old, by many years. That made me hesitate; it took me a long -time to make up my mind-because I do not try to be generous at the expense of my wife's relations. I ratl er felt that, as a representative of the people, I was putting myself in a position of dictatorship. Although I am represented in the military service by the only member of my family who cpuld possibly volunteer, I myself am not at the front, and I hesitated to say that any other man's son should go, especially when he might never come back. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that that is a serious position for me to take. But, as I have said, every man is required to defend his country when the time comes. There seems to be only one way of ensuring the proper defence of the country at this time, and that is by means of conscription. But any measure of compulsory service must be fairly and properly carried out. A great many people-not especially the people whom I represent-but people to whom I have talked on and off the trains, have asserted that ever since the war started the business connected with the war has been carried on by the Government in a most partisan manner. That has hurt recruiting in Ontario worse than anything else. In my constituency-or, rather, in the constituency that I am supposed to represent-a good many more Liberals than Conservatives volunteered.


Donald Sutherland: Does the hon.
member mean Liberal officers?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: No, I mean men. My
hon. friend knows that there would not be more Liberal officers. T have no complaints of that kind to make. To do the Government and the Department of Militia justice, I may say that the department has freely done everything in reason that I have asked it to do since the war started. I must give them that credit.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Why, then, do you say that there was partisanship in your county?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I did not say that there was partisanship in my county. My hon.

friend is very clever to-night; what is the matter with him? In the first place, I do not own a county. In the next place, I did not say that partisanship was evidenced in the district that I represent. So far as I know, it certainly was not.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: But I did say that the feeling was abroad in the country that partisanship had been exercised by the Government ever since the war started. For instance, have any Liberals been given positions on the numerous and innumerable commissions that have been appointed?


Mr. DAVIDSON:: The Pensions Commission.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Not that I know of.


William Humphrey Bennett: One of the officers now on the Pensions Commission was one of the most intolerable and intolerant Grits in my town. If every hon. gentleman will frankly admit what he himself knows, then the public will get the truth.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Who is this intolerable Grit to whom my hon. friend refers? I suppose he was intolerable to my hon. friend because my hon. friend was intolerable to him.


William Humphrey Bennett: A man named McKeaud.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: On the Pensions Commission?


William Humphrey Bennett: On the Pensions Commission-a good office.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: There is no such man on the Pensions Commission that I know of.


William Humphrey Bennett: You do not know everything.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I understand that the Pensions Commission consists of Mr. Ross, Mr. Todd and Mr. Labatt.


William Humphrey Bennett: I did not say that he was one of the commissioners; I said that he was on the Pensions Commission.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Oh, he got into a clerkship, I suppose. You should never have allowed him to get that clerkship; you had better dismiss*him.
Mr. LAlLOR: It surely was not partisanship that induced the Government to send Colonel Andrew Thompson, of Ottawa, into my county to take charge of a battalion that had already been recruited.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why should he not go?


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I say that he was not sent there because of partisanship.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: My hon. friend is quite willing that Colonel Andrew Thompson should go overseas and risk his life at the front. I do not know if there is anything-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: May I direct the attention of hon. gentlemen to the fact that there are entirely too many interjections? Hon. memibers ought to extend to the House the courtesy of rising if they wish to make remarks.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; I was not getting into trouble. I never noticed that my hon. friends were desirous of stopping any Liberals from going to the front.. They have always been perfectly willing that Liberals should go to the firing line, and I suppose they will continue to be.


Oliver James Wilcox: Nonsense.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: As my hon. friend says, why not?


Oliver James Wilcox: Oh, no; I said "nonsense."


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: In introducing this Bill the Prime Minister said that the Militia Act, vrhich has been on the statute book for many years, did not provide for the proper selection of men for military service. I refer hon. gentlemen to section 27 of the Militia Act, which is as follows:-
When men are required to organize or complete a' corps at any time, either for training or for an emergency, and enough men do not volunteer to complete the quota required, the men liable to serve shall be drafted by ballot; hut at no time shall more than one son belonging to the same family residing in the same house, if there are more than one inscribed on the Militia roll, be drawn, unless the number of names so inscribed is insufficient to complete the required proportion of service men.
Nothing in this Bill, so far as I know, provides for such selection as is provided for in that section of the Militia Act. Nothing in this Bill allows selection, except according to the discretion of the tribunal appointed for the purpose. Without desiring to throw out any reflection, I may say that this tribunal will be appointed by hon. gentlemen opposite. There is nothing in the Bill to indicate how the selections shall be made; there is nothing in it which provides for any organization of labour.
I have pointed out that the militia workers, for whom advertisements were floated

about in the newspapers, were paid from $2.50 to $8 a day, whereas the man who went to fight was paid $1.10 a day, besides being maintained and furnished with equipment. It is the duty of this country to pay the man who has actually to go to the front better than he has been paid. There is absolutely no comparison between the duties a man working in a militia factory performs and in the duties a man going to the front performs, and why men should be asked to go to the front for $1.10 a day, including equipment and maintenance, when a man working in a militia factory received from $2.50 to $8 a day, is more than I can comprehend and is aBsolutely unfair. The Minister of Finance said this afternoon that there was plenty of money for the support of the men at the front. The Government, therefore, should take steps now to pay our fighting men more than they are receiving at present.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Can the hon. member fix any amount of pay per day which he thinks would be commensurate with the sacrifices incurred and the risks taken by the men at the front?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Certainly not, but does that prevent us from paying them a reasonable remuneration? It would take a great deal of money, but there are a great many people in this country to share the burden. The men at the front enlisted for patriotic purposes; they did not enlist for the sake of the pay, but that is no reason why we should not give them a reasonable remuneration. Is it?


William Cameron Edwards: No. [DOT]


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Then we absolutely agree. That brings me to the question of taxation which the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) touched upon this afternoon. The Minister of Finance this afternoon made an admirable speech, with which I cannot possibly find any fault excepting that he emphasized the fact that we have as much need for effort now as we ever had before. Surely such a statement was unnecessary. Any one in this country over five years old who reads about the war knows that it is absolutely necessary to make as much effort now as it was before. Then the minister, discussing the objections taken by some hon. members on this side of the House to the Bill, discussed the question: Shall we not send troops outside of Canada? There is no question as to whether we should send troops outside of
Canada or not; the question is as to the methods of raising troops, whether by vol-untarysm or by conscription, to send to the front; at least, that is my understanding of the arguments presented on this side of the House. The Minister of Finance also stated that the voluntary system had failed in England, and he quoted the Conscription Bill there. The minister must bear in mind that the English people, before bringing conscription into force, organized labour and industry in
9 p.m. England. That is the difference between this country and England. I am not going to discuss what the minister should do in regard to taxation; but while the minister has taxed wisely in many waye, I have never agreed with his blanket increase of 7J per cent, and he will notice that while the United States complimented him to the extent of saying they were going to do likewise, they afterwards did not do so. Every one in this country, no matter whether he is rich or ordinarily well off, or in whatever financial condition he may be, will have to pay more taxes on account of the war. We cannot continue to borrow. I think we have paid $100,000,000 towards the expenditures of the war. Am I correct in that?


William Thomas White: This year we paid $60,000,000 on account of principal. So far as I know, only ourselves and Great Britain are paying towards the principal of war expenditure.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: What the other fellow does, does not help us. The capital debt in the United States is very small in comparison with its population and-resources, so that that country can well afford to borrow, a few billions of dollars and still not have a large capital debt. We, however, cannot do that, and moreover, we have no means of securing the money, because if we borrow too much, we check the. commercial development of the country, and we cannot afford to do that. At the present time we cannot borrow from the United States; we have made several large domestic loans, and there is a limit to such borrowings. Therefore, while I do not say that we should pay all the expenses of the war as it progresses, we must pay more of the war expenditure as we go along, and we must tax every one regardless of whether he is rich or not. I have no faith in that catch-phrase-conscription of wealth-that one hears everywhere throughout the country. I have asked many people what they mean by "conscription of wealth," but nine

out of ten, in fact, ten out of ten, cannot tell me what they mean. We must tax wealth, and probably what the people mean by "conscription of wealth," is that we should impose an income tax. The Minister of Finance will have to resort to an income tax, although he has told us time and again that the expense of collecting an incodie tax will be very great. I appreciate that fact; but we have to form a basis for the taxation of wealth, and in my judgment, we shall have to resort to the imposition of an income tax; indeed, I would not he surprised if we had to resort to a land tax, because we have to tax the people of this country in such a way that they will feel it. The minister spoke this afternoon very eloquently about what discussion in this House would do towards organizing the people. We, as a Parliament, must organize the people, and the minister must tax the people so that every one will _feel that he is doing something towards this war, .as every one has a right to do.
I object to the regulations, with reference to the guidance of the tribunals that select the men, being made by Order in Council. The Parliament of Canada is the place where such regulations should be made. It is all very well for the Government to ask us to trust them, and to say that they will not exhibit partyism in these tribunals; but the Government has shown partyism from the very start of the war. They must remember that they have done so, and therefore they must remember that in the ordinary Liberal mind there is a suspicion -that perhaps should not be there, but that is still there-and all that the Liberals I know of want is fair play in this selection. The suspicion in their minds is that they will not receive fair play if these regulations are made by Order in Council. I do not think I have anything more to say at the present time with reference to the backsliding^ of my hon. friends on the other side of the House.
I come now to the question of the war. It does not matter to me particularly whether this Government have done what they should have done since the war started. It does not matter to me particularly, except as a citizen, whether they do what is right in the future or not, but my duty is plain. I am only answerable for myself and on this question, as on every other, my conscience must be absolutely clear!
I am in no way responsible for the sins of the Government; I am not responsible for anything they have done in the past or may do in the future.

We are at war. The leaders of the two great parties have both declared that we are in the war to the last man and the last dollar, and the press of the country have declared the same thing. Our men are fighting at the front and they have to be supported. Apparently voluntary enlistment has fallen down. No matter whose the fault, it certainly has slackened up within the last five or six months; the men required are not coming forward. In view of the slaughter that is going on at the front we do not know how many men will be required, and .if we are going to act on the principle that it is the duty of every man to defend his country there is nothing else for us to do but to pass this Bill. Voting according to my conscience, being left absolutely free to do so by my right hon. leader, I shall support the Bill on its second reading. On the third reading I shall vote according to my conscience again, and I reserve the right to vote for or against the Bill according to the improvements that may be made in it in committee, and according ,to what concurrent legislation may be introduced in the way of taxation, the organization of labour exclusive of manpower for the front, and the organization of industry. I should not like to .suggest an election, as did my hon. friend from Saskatoon (Mr. McCraney). If I might suggest anything to hon. gentlemen opposite it would be this; in place of a referendum that when this Bill passes they close up this legislature for a couple of weeks or a month, for the purpose of forming not a coalition government, but a coalition of-both Houses of Parliament in one grand effort to get 'the necessary men for the front by voluntary enlistment. I say that because I cannot help feeling that a grave responsibility rests upon the people of this country, and unless something of this kind be done there is likely to be produced in this country a disunion that must last for a considerable number of years. While I believe that conscription is the proper basis, it being every man's duty -to serve his country, at the same time I most strongly urge that both sides of this House and 'both Houses of Parliament get together for two weeks in one grand effort to get the necessary men by voluntary enlistment, and if I might say so, I think my hon. friends from the province of Quebec could well join in such a campaign, and I hope they will do so. I believe such an effort would bring unity throughout the length and breadth of this land. Unity perhaps is not so important as winning the

war, but next to winning the waT the most important thing to this country is to have the people of all the provinces of this Dominion united. I thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. BURRELL:: I understood my hon.
friend in the earlier part of his remarks to make a statement t.o the effect that the Dominion Government had expended $60,000 in an advertising campaign for munitions workers. I am sure my hon. friend would not wish to have any statement of his that was inaccurate go out to the country, and I wish to say for the Government that I believe there is absolutely no basis for such a statement. I felt so at the time, but to make sure I called up the Deputy Minister of Militia, and he tells me that absolutely no such expenditure was made through that department; and I do not see how it could very well have been made through any other department.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: My information comes
from the man who got the contract. The minister will possibly say that it was English money that was being spent.


Martin Burrell: If the Munitions Board spent that sum of money in an advertising campaign, it had absolutely nothing to do with this Government; it was not our money.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That is only a subterfuge.


William Thomas White: Not at all.
Mr. NBSBI'TT:	Who pays the money
eventually?


William Thomas White: The British Government.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Do not we have to pay
our proportion of it?


William Thomas White: If we lend any money to the British Government here for the expenditures of the Imperial Munitions Board, it is a set-off to money which the Imperial Government advances to us for expenditures in Great Britain and on the Continent. It is just as much the money of the Imperial Government when our cheque passes to the Imperial Munitions Board, as my hon. friend's money is his own. This Government, is not in any way responsible, and has no authority whatsoever over the expenditures of the Imperial Munitions Board.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I quite appreciate that, but when the grand. settlement is made in the end, do not we have to pay our proportion of the expenditures that have been
made for getting munitions for our men at the front?


William Thomas White: In virtue of an arrangement which has been made, we pay the Imperial Government a certain amount in respect of the maintenance of our men at the front and the munitions which our troops use. But the policy of the Imperial Munitions Board is not necessarily the policy of this Government. I do not think my hon. friend would say that we have responsibility where we have no authority.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I only mentioned that point as one of the reasons for the failure of voluntary enlistment. If the minister says that this expenditure concerns the Munitions Board alone, I have nothing more to say, but undoubtedly we shall have to pay our proportion of it when the final settlement comes. I have not the remotest intention of wishing to mislead the people of this country. I know my information is absolutely correct, because I got it from the man who took the contract.


Mr. W. F. COCKSHUTT (Brantford):: Mr. Speaker, there are occasions when .it is difficult for memlbers of this House to decide what is the best course to pursue'. I quite understand that the legislation now before us is causing a good many to have doubts as to what is their proper course. Speaking for myself, however, my path of duty lies perfectly clear before me in the support of the measure the Government has [DOT]brought down. Never have I seen a great measure brought before the House that I could support with so good a conscience, or with a clearer belief that I am .doing what is best in the interests of my country and my Empire.
I was somewhat surprised that my hon. friend from North' Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) spent so much time, first, in proving that the voluntary system was a comparative failure, because it had not been carried on as it should have been carried on; deciding, then, that he would vote for the conscription measure on the second reading, but advising that it should be held in abeyance for some weeks or months, after which Parliament should be brought together and put it through, so that it could be satisfactorily carried out. That seems to 'be his policy. I say I am surprised that a gentleman who has such a good knowledge of world affairs should, on a question of this importance, give forth any uncertain sound. I understand tha the provincial leader of the Liberals, Mr. Rowell, recently held a meeting in his constituency, which is also that of

my hon. friend (Mr. Nesbitt)-both these gentlemen are elected by the same constituents. This meeting was held in Woodstock, and a resolution was moved by one of the gentlemen present to the effect that those present were heart and soul in favour of conscription. That resolution was carried, I understand, by a practically unanimous standing vote, and amongst those who voted, I believe, my hon. friend (Mr. Nesbitt) himself had the honour of appearing, as well as the. gentleman who was formerly representative of South Oxford and is a candidate for the next election, Mr. Schell. Having taken that stand in his own constituency, I think it was the hon. gentleman's duty to himself and the House to state more plainly his attitude and to give more whole-souled support to this measure, which is undoubtedly required, which is in the best interests of Canada and of our army at the front, as well as of the Empire as a whole.
This departure upon which the Government has embarked is the first real out-and-out war measure proposed, according to my way of thinking. It is not designed, as my hon. friend would intimate, to be a conscription of one party or another party, but of all; and I think my hon. friend is scarcely true to his own knowledge when he stated that all the matters in connection with the war have been administered with more or less of a partisan bias. I think that is not true of the county of Oxford; it certainly is not true of the neigh-' bouring county of Brant. In the county of Brant, Liberals and Conservatives have had a square deal throughout. The first man to go from Brantford in command of a contingent was a Liberal; and I can say as having had a great deal to do with the raising of the 125th Battalion, that the question of politics had nothing to do with its management or with the filling of its ranks. And I think the same conditions prevailed in Oxford.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That is what I said-
I said there was no partisanship so far as sending men. to the front was concerned.


William Foster Cockshutt: I think that Hansard will show that I have correctly represented what the hon. gentleman, .said. He said the whole war had been conducted in a partisan way. Of course, I do not wish to misrepresent the hon. gentleman.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I said it was so reported. Mr. COCKSHUTT: Oh! But the hon. gentleman's own experience in bxford does

not warrant any such statement. My experience in Brant certainly does not warrant it; and I think that other hon. members can testify to the same effect with regard to their several counties. I say this 'is a real war measure. And I think that the Government mean business in it. If not, they certainly will not get my support for long. If they pass a Conscription Bill, declaring that they want to put it in force, and then leave it idle on the statute book and do not pugh it, I shall certainly be dissatisfied and shall criticise any turning back in this measure, or with regard to the control of food and fuel, or the grain commission.. All these are thorough war measures, the kind of measures we have been calling for for some time. My hon. friend knows that we have been calling for them, and knows that now that we have got them we expect the Government will carry them out without fear or favour. If they do not live up to my expectations, all I can say is that I do not expect to follow a Government that makes fine professions but does not carry them into effect. I believe they are honest and that they intend to carry out this law.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Then my hon. friend and I will have to form a separate party, for I quite agree with him.


William Foster Cockshutt: I suppose I should
be very proud of one sincere follower. The hon. gentleman has told us that the voluntary system is exhausted.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: No, no.


William Foster Cockshutt: He told us that it
was not effective because it was not properly carried out.	,


Edward Walter Nesbitt: No, you have a bad
memory.


William Foster Cockshutt: I think that Hansard will show that the hon. gentleman attempted to prove that voluntary enlistment had been so bungled that we did not get the men we balled for.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: No, I did not say anything of the kind.


William Foster Cockshutt: The hon. gentleman said that officers had been put on the platform and given large money, husky chaps that ought- to be at the front.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Sure, I said that.


William Foster Cockshutt: The voluntary system was successful to the extent of procuring for our armies over 400,000 men. I do

not think that any one is justified in describing that as a failure.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: You are saying just what I said.	<


William Foster Cockshutt: If the hon. gentleman agrees with me, I hope he will allow me to proceed. The voluntary system as carried out, I think, has been a great credit to our people. I believe that as many inen enlisted under the voluntary system in the Dominion of Canada as enlisted in any other part of the world. But it succeeded only in those parte of the country that gave it a fair trial and did their best under it. If it failed in any place, it failed because it was not pushed with sufficient vigour by the natural leaders of the people. And who are those leaders? The members of this House. The man who represents a constituency in this House is the first citizen in his riding, and he is the man who should have taken the responsibility for recruiting in that riding. There were no kid-glove methods pursued in the province of Ontario when getting recruits, let me tell my hon. friends from the province of Quebec. These hon. gentlemen tell us that the voluntary system has not had a fair chance, that it has not been pushed for all it tvas worth in Quebec as it has been in other places. Let me tell these hon. gentlemen that the same methods that were pursued in Ontario were open to them in Quebec, if they chose to employ them. How were recruits raised in the various constituencies in Ontario? The member for .the constituency-and I include the Liberals as well as Conservatives and think they deserve probably as much credit as we do; I will say that for Oxford, though I have not been closely associated with recruiting in that county; and I believe the same is true of Wellington and Lambton-put himself at the head of the movement and carried the message to all the countryside. We did not get recruits in Brant to the number of 4,000 out of a population of a little over 40,000, let me tell my hon. friend from Rou-ville (Mr. Lemieux), without putting forth exertion. The men in tne county formed themselves into a recruiting organization, including the best citizens on both sides of politics-there was no politics in it.
We did not know the politics of the men upon that recruiting committee. Men'of all parties, all races and all creeds were there. They got together, a band of citizens, believing that the life and unity of the Empire were at stake, that Christianity, civilization, liberty and religion were in the balance and, like men realizing that all these responsibilities were upon them, they placed themselves willingly in harness; their ears were at the disposal of speakers, their houses were opened to visitors who came to speak, their money was at the disposal -of the committee, and thousands and thousands of private dollars in the city of Brantford and county of Brant were spent in getting these 4,000 men together. We did not have any rosy way of doing it; it was done by solid work and I ask the hon. member from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) as he seems to be .one of the few representatives from Quebec in the Chamber now, if the same methods were fairly tried in Quebec. If they were not fairly tried in Quebec he and his fellow members should shoulder the responsibility. The responsibility rests primarily upon the members of this House from the province of Quebec if the voluntary system did not receive the support it should have received. That is gospel truth and no one can deny it. Throughout Ontario this message was carried, at every cross-roads the doctrine was preached and at every school house the flag was unfurled and the message was delivered. People who had never had much experience in speaking, who previously had been slow in speech, roused their fellow-men in a way that I had never seen equal-eld in a public meeting in the city of Brantford or the county of Brant. What was the response? From the good old province of Ontario about 180,000 voluntary recruits offered their lives on the altar of their country, and to-night many of them are laying down their lives in the trenches that you and I may enjoy our ease at home. This thing has been done and it has been done by disinterested citizens in all parts of this country. What took place in Ontario I am sure also took place throughout the whole of the West and if it has not applied to the East it is because the members, primarily of the Opposition, have not done as was done in Ontario-placed themselves at the head of a recruiting league and gone out and carried the message and planted the cross-the fiery cross-upon every road that leads to every town, city, and hamlet in Quebec. I feel confident if that had been done the response from Quebec would have been better than it has been.
We are told that this is a fit subject io^ * a referendum. Governments in this country have not frequently shifted their responsibility and placed upon the people the lead that they themselves should take. That

has not been the vogue in Canada. It may be wrong. In Australia they pursue a different course but in this country Governments have shouldered the responsibility with regard to all the questions they have had tp deal with and they have placed them, fairly and squarely before the people. But now we have the policy proposed of a referendum to the people so as to allow the slacker, the man who has not gone under the voluntary system, to say that he will not go under the compulsory system; while our 400,000 soldiers are out of the country. Is that a fair proposition? No.
This is not a fit subject for a referendum because in many cases the voter to whom it will be submitted is not a fair and impartially-minded man to give a decision on such a subject. If the liberties are worth having they are worth fighting for, and if the liberties which we in Canada enj.oy are as great as we think they are, they are worthy of the best efforts of every citizen.
I do not want to reprove my fellow citizens from Quebec. I am sorry to disagree with them on a question of such great importance, but I must say that Quebec has been the greatest disappointment to me in the whole war. I say that from the bottom of my heart. When this war began I thought: Now, Canada will be a united country; never have we been entirely united but now we will be absolutely united. Look at the great, old land of France, valorous, brilliant France; there she is with every man available, every woman, every child throwing their lives into 1 he struggle spending their last ounce of energy, their last drop of bipod, in defence of the great old land that gave our friends their language and their liberties in the first place, and to whom they owe a great deal of. what they possess. I said: There will be no doubt about the position of Quebec on this great question, because all her people will stand shoulder to shoulder with us. But now is there to be a referendum-to all the people of Canada?-No; to the people who stay at home, to the people who should have gone but who did not go. It has remained for the province ,of Quebec to furnish, in my mind, the most pathetic and outstanding figure in Canada in this whole war.
I am sorry that the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier) is not here because I wanted to make a Special appeal to him. I was going to propose one referendum that he should make. Although I disapprove pf the spirit of the proposal I would g ve in.to the extent of such a referendum as that which I pro-

pose. I would be willing and delighted to pay the expenses of this particular referendum if my right hpn. friend would make it. What is it? It is that he immediately send a wireless message to Dr. Beland, the exPostmaster General in his own Government, telling him the situation in which we are placed in Canada to-day in regard to recruiting and conscription and asking him, on behalf of his own people here, tp tell them truly what in his heart he thinks should be done. If such a message were sent to Dr. Beland, I can imagine that a reply would come back, written almost with his life blood, that must appeal to every Quebec citizen: Recall your resolution, recant your opinions, repent of your mistake and come; stay not upon the order of your coming, but come. Let me appeal tq the pity of my hon. friends from Quebec-Dr. Beland, visiting in the neutral country of Belgium, seized upon almost immediately after war broke out; his new bride done to death by the ruthless Hun; he, himself while we are here debating and discussing ways and means, eating the bread and drinking the water of affliction in Germany, a man who cannot move hand or foot with out the permission of the Huns! Is this a time to sit here in idle debate? Is this a time to say that you cannot dp any more than you have done? No, Sir, let that referendum be taken and if my friend does not answer somewhat in the line I have indicated, then I think I might almost venture to oppose the Bill myself.


Mr. LAFORTUNE:: If we in Quebec do as the hon. member from Brantford suggests, will the Government repeal the School Act of Ontario?


William Foster Cockshutt: I am hardly ready
to discuss the bilingual question on the present occasion.


David Arthur Lafortune: And we are not ready
to go.


William Foster Cockshutt: I have my views
about it, but I do not think the people of Quebec can escape defending our common country, because we do not speak as good French in Ontario as we should.
I have spoken strongly on this .question, and I feel strongly. It is a profound regret to me, personally, that I have not the support of my hon. friends on the other side of the House, especially the members from Quebec. I feel that they have misjudged the situation, and are not prizing the liberties that have been theirs under the British flag and Crown. I ask them to

repent, ere it is too late, and join us, and, in one united effort, let us "bring the war to a close, because if we allow the enemy to defeat us in this matter, we will only regret it once, and that will be for all time to come.
An attempt has been made, on the part of many, to confuse the one issue in this Bill, and we hear a great- deal about the consoription of wealth. The hon. gentleman from South Renfrew dwelt on that at great length, and the Finance Minister has replied very ably. I look upon this and other matters which have been discussed as side issues, which have nothing to do with the question before the House. These questions have been dragged in, but are not properly matters to be discussed in this debate. The conscription of wealth is a subject by itself, which seems to be not very well defined, and the Finance Minister tells us he has been able so far and expects to be able, in the future, to furnish all the funds that are required for the war. We want the men, and the money will take care of itself, and will be provided in due course. The ministers of every denomination have preached conscription of wealth as well as of men. I attended a church meeting this week, and this question came up, and in my own church I said what I am not afraid to say here, that this proposition, with regard to the conscription of wealth, is going to hit some of the preachers, if it is carried, and I think it started them puzzling a little bit. Let it be remembered that, if you conscript a man, you take the whole of him, and do not leave a leg or arm behind, and you require a good sound man. If the conscription of wealth means the same thing it is going to take the whole pile of wealth which a man possesses, leaving nothing. Many of our clergymen brethren are lords over a great pile of money. I think Quebec can tell us something about that as well as Ontario. It must be remembered that, if conscription of wealth is coming, some of the churches are going to be hit. It reminds me of a remark a Six Nation Indian used to make, when they told him the preacher had given them a very poor ser-mon-" Well, it was poor pay and poor preach. It will Ibe a good deal the same with our clerical brethren. If all the wealth be conscripted the churches will not be supported as they have been. Wealth has been accumulated by many of the religious bodies, and the clerical gentleman cannot refuse to obey the scriptural teaching, that a man should always pay taxes
and obligations of that kind, especially if he is a religious man. I throw out that flint to the preachers who are propounding this doctrine from the pulpit: that the conscription of wealth will take the accumulated wealth of the churches, as well as the wealth of the individuals. We are all prepared for that to the tull extent necessary to conduct this war to a finish. Canada has the right to expect from its citizens the surrender of all -that they possess to be used in defence of the country. In other words, the rights of the State are superior to the rights of any individuals. That is a strong doctrine perhaps to preach, but it will be found to be absolutely true. It has been the price of liberty and freedom for all time, and always will be. The state; which is the accumulation and union of individuals is always superior to the units which compose the whole. The State at the present time says we want men, we want more men, they have not volunteered. We are bringing down legislation to conscript these men, or, to use a selective draft, or whatever you wish, and put them into line. These men will be selected without fear or favour by the powers that be.
It has been stated in the House on several occasions that our soldiers are not paid as they should be paid, and that we are making them serve for a very much less wage than they could earn in any of the ordinary walks of life. While that may be the case, can any gentleman present tell me of any soldier in the world who is better paid than the Canadian. I have yet to hear of him. Therefore, I do not think we can be accused of being niggardly. What was the pay of the French soldier when the war broke out? A penny a day, raised since, I believe, to five cents. The German pay is so small you do not hear of it at all. The British pay is less than half of ours, and the Australian pay is less than ours. Being in constant communication with those at the front, having blood relations there, I think I know what I am speaking about when I say that the Canadian soldier is one of the best treated men and one of the best soldiers the world has ever seen. The pay never was presumed to compensate him for his effort. The soldier's life is presumed to be sacrificed to the State. No money value can be placed on that life. It is beyond price, and cannot be measured by dollars and cents. It is a gift from God. A man who goes to the trenches, and lays his life on the altar of his country, cannot be paid in money. People have raised the bogey



that the pay of the Canadian soldier is insufficient, but the pay never induces these men to join the ranks. The first contingent did not enlist because the men desired to draw $1.10 a day, nor did any of the subsequent contingents go to the front on account of the remuneration. They said: our country needs us at the front; by Divine Providence I have been created a man fit to serve; I am sound in wind and limb;
I place my services on the altar of my country, and the $1.10 or $2, or $5 per day I get amounts to nothing;
I am fighting because I believe in the cause. I am fighting because my King and country need me; I am fighting for the liberties of my people, and in order that the British race may be supreme in the future as it has been in the past; these are the things that have appealed to me- not the paltry $1.10 a day. Mr. Speaker, you cannot pay these men with money; it is folly to try to raise the bogey of our men being insufficiently paid and of that being the reason for lack of enlistment. In most instances, our men are getting all the pay that they expected, and all that they asked. But they do want to be sustained in their work; they ask that we at home, instead of bickering and quarrelling over minor matters of detail, should get together and, in conjunction with the boys overseas, present a united front to the Hun and give him to understand that we are in the fight to a finish. I do not like the clause of this Bill-it happens to be No. 13, the unlucky number-which limits the number of men required to 100,000. We may need more men than that. We must give all that the successful prosecution of the war requires; we have engaged to do our part to the utmost of our ability and to the limit of our resources. Therefore I say that this section of the Bill should be struck out.
It has been said that labour is opposed to conscription. Well, I come from a town in which 7,000 of the citizens work in factories and earn their, daily bread at the bench. While a handful of them, in meeting assembled, did pass a resolution against conscription some weeks ago, I do not think that their opinion represents the attitude of labour. I do not believe that the views of the gentlemen who met in Ottawa represent the attitude of labour. I believe that the attitude of labour now is what it has been; the testimony of the men in the trenches is the best answer to the assertion that labour is opposed to conscription. From 100,000 to 150,000 workingmen are either 
fighting in the trenches or are ready to go to the front when they are needed. It is plainly evident that this war is a war of the people. Every class is in line to do its part in the prosecution of the war-from the richest to the poorest, from the highest to the lowest. To say that the wealthy man has not done anything because his wealth has not been conscripted is simply begging the question. I do not know that there are any millionaires in the community from which1 I come, but I believe that the sons of the well-to-do in the county of Brant have gone to the front in just as great numbers as the sons of the needy and the poor. The comradeship and the good feeling that has prevailed among the men and the officers who have gone to the front has done my heart good on many occasions. I know of university boys from Brantford, qualified lawyers and medical men, who have enlisted in the ranks. One young man in particular was offered a commission. He said:	No, I am no soldier; I know my
limitations; I know that without experience I am not fit to lead men; I will go and fight my way upwards from the ranks. That boy came from one of the best families in Brantford; he had been accustomed to the very best living that the city could furnish. He went overseas and put in a year and a half in the trenches as a private. He qualified for a lieutenant's commission, and a month afterwards fell while leading the platoon that my own son had been leading. His body has not been recovered and his friends do not know where that body lies. I mention that only to show the spirit that prevails among the men. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that if we in this House had applied ourselves as diligently to carrying out the requirements of the war as we have to finding fault with each other, things would be very different from what they are today. This war is far /rom being over. The submarines are taking a very heavy toll of the mercantile marine; this week 27 or 28 of the largest British ships of the line have been sunk. The men at the front need help; the situation is serious. I believe that the House should put this measure through as quickly as possible and that both sides of the House should get behind it and make it successful. We should present a united front in obtaining the 100,000 men, or whatever number is required, drilling them, equipping them and getting them to the firing line, thus saving many lives and perhaps, materially shortening the war. It

260ft
is up to Canada to do as she ha* done in the past. She has done nobly, but let her not now spoil her splendid record of three years by faltering or giving evidences of decay. Let her be just as resolute, just as firm as she was in August, 1914. Let us now be just as firmly resolved as we were at that time to carry the grand old flag to victory; to ensure the freedom and the liberty of the nations of Europe, both small and great. 1 have had occasion to criticise the great nation to the south of us; I have even been termed an anti-American. But I rejoice now that the people of the United States ai\e shoulder to shoulder with us in the great fight for the liberty of the world. Only last January I criticised President Wilson; I thought that he deserved criticism. I want to withdraw that criticism now in same degree and give him credit for having thrown himself into the war as few statesmen on either side of the Atlantic have done. Every step that he has taken has been wisely conceived. In the United States they are giving the very best that they can of their wealth and of their energy to the prosecution of the war. They are forming aviation corps; sending ships across the sea and building more; taking other steps to help the' Allies. That, Mr. Speaker, should give us encouragement. That should cause us to resolve anew that we will continue the great work we have undertaken. I believe that, by the providence of God, the British Empire and its Allies-France, Italy, Russia, Belgium, Serbia, Roumania, Japan and the United States -will secure a vindication of the principles of liberty and justice which they have enunciated and will be justified in their upholding of the right of smaller nations to live in peace and amity and to have absolute control of their own affairs.
Although history may contain pages that contain more words and tales that take longer to tell, history will contain no prouder or brighter page than that which tells of the noble part that has been played by the Dominion of Canada up to the present time on the battlefields of Europe, and if we at home are only as good, true, and honest in our hearts as the men whom we have sent to the front, we shall have no regrets; we shall have nothing to recall; but we shall have the proud satisfaction of a good heart and a clear conscience in the presence of both God and man.


William Ashbury Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to confine
166J
my remarks almost wholly to the measure before the House, and to give this House my reasons why it is my intention to support that measure. I am going to make my position clear at the commencement of my remarks. We are in a serious stage of the history of Canada; not only have we before us the winning of the war, but those of us who look at questions from a national standpoint are fearful for national unity, and in my remarks to-night I do not wish to say anything that will be a .reflection upon any other province or section of the Dominion of Canada. I do not feel that I have any right to cast any reflection of that kind. I feel that if some of us, coming from other provinces of this country, had to face the conditions that have been faced in the province that has been frequently mentioned in this debate we would not be so boastful of our position in this war. No poison has been spread abroad in our provinces. If that poison had been spread abroad there might have been a different attitude on the part of many people in the other provinces at this particular period in our history.
I am in favour of conscription because I believe that this is Canada's war; that we are fighting for our own defence and for our own existence. That is why I have said, on many occasions since this war commenced, that we must give the last man and the last dollar to win it. Why do I say that? I do not want to boast that I can make my position clear to the people of other provinces that do not see as I do, but I believe that all fair-minded . people throughout this country could be convinced that this war is actually Canada's war. If, after the war commenced, Great Britain had not gone into this [DOT]struggle in Europe, and if we had not entered it, and if as a result of the war between Germany on the one hand and Russia and France on the other, Russia and France had been conquered, Germany would have been dominant in Europe, and Great Britain and the'British Empire and the United States would have been in danger whether they went into the war or not. We may have to resort to conscription now, but under those circumstances we would have had to have larger armed forces; we would have had to spend more money in the maintenance of troops than we have ever had to do in our history, because we would have had to protect ourselves against the dominant power of the world. When Gieat Britain went into this war we were part of the British Empire,


Mr. MEIQHEN:: One can apply for another or for a number of others.


William Ashbury Buchanan: If that is the case I am perfectly satisfied, but I want to make it clear that instances of that kind might occur; I know they would occur in my own part of the country. Many men would
not ask for exemption, afid the board might not know the men's circumstances.
There is another matter that I should like to emphasize, and that is this. In all the communications I have had from my part of the country since the Bill was introduced and its contents made known, there is the feeling that it should be brought into effect without much delay. Now I am in agreement with those who urge that if possible we should give another chance to voluntary recruiting, but if we are not going to do that, if the need is as great as we are told it is, there should be no hesitation in bringing the Bill into effect.
There is another matter. In the provinces of the West at any rate, where the sentiment is absolutely sounu behind this war, no man would be exempted by the boards that would 'be constituted in that part of the country unless he was absolutely entitled to exemption There is a possibility that in other parts of the country the sentiment of the boards would not foe of that character and that men would be exempted who had no right to be exempted. There is the right to appeal under the Bill, 'but that involves delay. In the provinces of the West we have already fulfilled our obligations and raised more than our quota. With the sentiment of the boards out there behind the Act it might p.ossibly be that from those provinces alone almost the whole of the 100,000 men required under the Act would foe raised; there is that possibility; I do not say it would occur. This is certain, however: no slacker in Western Canada who is not required in that country in pursuits that are necessary for the successful prosecution of the war will be exempted by any of the boards appointed, unless the board should be dominated by men who would display favouritism to individuals, and I hope that will not be the case.
As to the amendment moved by my right hon. leader, I might say as a personal matter that I was not born into the Liberal doctrine. I did not inherit my Liberalism, but became possessed of it because of my high regard of Sir Wilfrid Laurier back in the days when I first commenced to take an interest in public affairs. I love and respect him, always have, and always hope to do so. He has been an ideal to. me in many respects, but in this particular matter I honestly differ with him. I believe the view he has taken to be an absolutely honest view, and that he thinks it is in the best interests of unity and the welfare of the

country. But I do not think the referendum would reach the object I have in view. I believie that conscription is necessary. I believe I am a member of this House at a critical time in the history of Canada and in tlie history of the world. I have a duty to perform, and I am prepared to perform it by declaring myself absolutely in favour of conscription. I am prepared to face my people on the stand I have taken, and to accept the consequences whatever they may be.
I do not want the men who, I feel, are neglecting their duty at this time, to have an opportunity of saying whether they should stay at home or not. I want to see these men go forward and serve their country. They have refused to go under a voluntary system, and they must go under some other system. And if these men go forward under a system of conscription, go to the front and perform their duty, they will come back to Canada, I believe, thankful to this Parliament that they were sent forward, even under compulsion, because they will feel in after years proud of the fact that they participated in this war, and we hope they will participate in it to save liberty, justice, and democracy and to prevent the domination of this world by the Germans.
I have very strong views on another matter which has been frequently mentioned in this debate, one that I have mentioned on other occasions during the present session. I will not use, in describing if, the term that is quite often used, because I think that 'term does not set forth its real meaning. I refer to taxation. We must have taxation that will make the people realize that we are undergoing a real strain on account of this war. My hon. friend, the president of the Patriotic Fund (Sir Herbert Ames) had a slogan, " Give until it hurts." I suggest that the Minister of Finance should tax the people until it hurts.. We cannot expect to have conscription carried into effect and our young men who are sent to the front go forward satisfied unless they feel that those who are left at home also are bearing a heavy burden. This is not the case at the present time. I know in my own city men who are not being reached in any exceptional way by taxation, men of wealth who are not being forced to pay one red cent ,nto the treasury of this country except through the tariff. These men also are neglecting their duty; they are financial shirkers. And if we are dealing with the men who are shirking their duty .for service overseas why not deal also with the men
[Mr. Buchanan.l
who are shirking their duties at home? The income tax has been mentioned. I have a letter to-day from a very prominent citizen of Lethbridge giving his views on conscription. He declares himself in favour of conscription, but says, also, that he 'Was in favour of the conscription of wealth-he uses those words. He intimates that, though he has an income of about $10,006 a year, he was not being reached in any way. He says that he and such as he ought to be reached, that there ought to be some form of taxation that will make them realize that the war is taking place and that they have to do their duty as much as the men who are forced to go overseas to defend the country. This gentleman is a liberal contributor to the Patriotic Fund, the Red Cross, and other good movements; he is one to whom we can go at any time and get a generous contribution for a good cause. Still, he feels that he is not doing his duty and that he ought to be taxed. The Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) told us this afternoon that financially everything was all right. But we must remember that when this war is over financially things may be all wrong. Now is the time to get at the people. They are prosperous; they are making money, many of them making money out of the prosperity due to this war. We should not hesitate to impose income taxes upon our people, and heavy income taxes. I could mention case after case that strengthens my opinion in favour of a tax of this nature. We do not want any favouritism in our war policy; everybody should be forced to make sacrifices at some time or other. There are many men of wealth who are not doing their part in this war. While many are giving handsomely to the Red Cross and the Patriotic Fund, everybody is not doing so. Many are not doing anything to maintain our position in this war If they will not do their duty voluntarily, then let us force these shirkers to come through with good contributions directly to the public treasury.
In closing, I wish to give expression to what I believe to be our duty at this time. I think it is our duty to establish in this country a government representative of all classes and all occupations-at least the occupations necessary to the prosecution of the war. In saying this, I make no reflections upon the Government or any member of it. In speaking as I do I wish to make reference to labour and agriculture especially. I quite appreciate the attitude that the labour men take in this matter of conscription. In my own city, the labour

men are demanding what is called the conscription of wealth. They are quite satisfied to have conscription of manhood if there is conscription of wealth. But there are the same feelings between employers and employees as in times of peace. They want to see the man with money doing his part. If we had a Government at this time, whether partisan, or coalition, or National, with a read representative of labour, as one of its members, a man who had the confidence of labour from the Atlantic to the Pacific, I think we should avoid, for instance, strikes in the coal mines of western Canada; I think we should get the labouring men behind conscription and every other war measure.
Again, with regard to agriculture, there is talk, for instance, of fixing the price of wheat, and other measures affecting the farm. All this could be best done by having in the Government a real representative of the farmers, a man who could go to the farmers and have such influence with them that he could get them to do what is necessary. There are men of that kind, I know, in western Canada-big men, men of influence and ability, men thoroughly in earnest about this war. In all honesty, we cannot have a successful prosecution of the war until we have in existence in this country a government that has the confidence, not of one party only, but of the whole people. That is the request I make to-night-that we constitute in this country, for the period of the war at any rate, a government that shall have the confidence of the people, that will prosecute the war to a successful issue, a government that will not be for party but will be for the state entirely and all the time. If we have a government of that kind from now on until the conclusion of the war, many of the problems that face us will be- solved; much of discord that exists will pass away.
I think I have made my position clear. I am in favour of conscription because I think it is the only possible method we now have left of providing reinforcements for our men at the front. I will support the measure and I wiill appear before my people and defend my course. I am satisfied that, from their record since the commencement of the present war to the present, they will endorse .the. attitude which I take with the view of doing everything possible to assist in carrying on this war to a successful conclusion.
On motion of Mr. Wilcox the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Sir Thomas White the House adjourned at 10.20 p.m.
Monday, June 25, 1917.