1917-01-23

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEES.

Sir ROBERT BORDEN moved:: That the name of the Hon. P. E. Blondin be added to the standing committee appointed to prepare and report with all convenient speed lists of members to compose the Select Standing Committees of this House under Rule 10.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Sir ROBERT BORDEN presented a message from His Excellency the Governor General approving minute of Council appointing the Hon. . William James Roche, Minister of the Interior and Superintendent General of Indian Affairs; the Hon. John Dowsley Reid, Minister of Customs; the Hon. Albert E. Kemp, Minister of Militia and Defence, and the Hon. Pierre Edouard Blondin, Postmaster General, to act with the Speaker of the House of Commons as a Commission under the provisions of the Eleventh Chapter of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, intituled, " An Act respecting the House of Commons."

[Stage Direction]
Copies of Orders in Council relating to National Service-Sir Robert Borden.
Eleventh Report of the Board of Railway Commissioners.-Hon. Mr. Cochrane.
Report of War Purchasing Commission.- Hon. Mt. Kemp.
Shipping List for Canada for the year ended December 31, 1915; also Report of the Department of Marine and Fisheries for fiscal year 1915-16.-Hon. Mr. Hazen.
ABOLITION OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT BILL.	'
Bill No. 3 to amend the Criminal Code and to abolish Capital Punishment-Mr. Bickerdike.-Read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (St. John, N.B.): moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 4, to amend the Criminal Code.
Mr. WILCOX:: Explain.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: This Bill is the same as that introduced at the last session by Mr. Martin of Regina. It stood for the second reading, and I, and I think Mr. Martin as well, had conversations with the Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) and the Hon. the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen) in reference to it being considered by a committee to which it was proposed there would be submitted certain other amendments to the Criminal Code.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the
nature of the Bill?


William Pugsley: It adds to the provisions of the Criminal Code, section 307, in reference to criminal prosecutions for bigamy and other similar offences. Section 307 of the Act is rather peculiar in some respects and quite deficient in its provision to prevent cases of injustice arising. Sub-section 3 provides:
No one commits 'bigamy by going through a form of marriage if he or she has been divorced from the bond of first marriage.
The courts of this, country have held that *that means a divorce obtained in Canada, and that it would not apply to the case of a divorce obtained in a foreign country.


Robert Laird Borden: In Canada alone or within the Empire?


William Pugsley: I am not sure as to that. The decisions, I think, are limited to countries which are foreign to the Em-
[Sir Robert Borden.I
pire. I do not know about divorces obtained in countries forming part of the Empire, but not in Canada. Paragraph 4 provides:
No person shall be liable to be convicted of bigamy in respect of having gone through a form of marriage in a place not in Canada, unless such persbn, being a British subject resident in Canada, leaves Canada with intent to go through such form of marriage.
Under the law as it now is, if a divorce were obtained in .a foreign country and a marriage were to take place in that country the party would not be liable for bigamy unless he or she actually went there with the intention of getting married. My hon. friend will see what opportunities for evasion that would present. The Bill which I propose provides for the case of a bona fide divorce obtained from a court having competent jurisdiction and obtained by a party who has become, although previously a resident of Canada, a bona fide resident of such foreign country, residence to be continued at least for a period of one year before divorce proceedings have been instituted. Then there must be notice given to *the husband or wife, as the case may be. The divorce must be obtained on a full statement of facts and the marriage must not take place until the expiration of two years from the time of obtaining the divorce. In cases of that kind the Bill provides that there shall be no-criminal proceedings instituted by reason of the subsequent marriage. I think it is desirable that proper safeguards should be thrown around cases of this nature in order to prevent scandals which sometimes arise, but instances have come to my knowledge, and they had also come to the knowledge of the then hon. member for Regina, where, when divorces have been obtained bona fide by residents of a foreign country and the parties deciding to return to Canada, criminal proceedings might have been taken both for bigamy and for adultery. When the Bill has passed its second reading it might be referred to a special committee, who might consider it in reference to the whole of the law bearing on the subject.


Robert Laird Borden: Is it merely residence that my hon. friend contemplates, or actual domicile?	'


William Pugsley: Bona fide residence for a period of two years. It might be made to cover only the case of domicile if it be thought desirable.


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


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Oliver James Wilcox: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. I see that I am reported in the Toronto Globe of yesterday as having made a statement which is inaccurate. The Globe states:-
Mr. Wilcox's Information is Not All Reliable.
If Mr. Wilcox is correctly quoted in the Ottawa despatches as to the conditions surrounding racing in his constituency of iSouth Essex and elsewhere, he has got much of his information from very unreliable sources, and the following statement, ascribed to him, is full of inaccuracies:	"The tracks at Windsor are
operated by the American Turf Association. They operate in Mexico, just over the boundary line, about a mile from El Paso, and also in Florida in winter time."
I desire to say, Mr. Speaker, that I never said in this House or out of it that the [DOT]tracks in my constituency were operated by the American Turf Association. What I did say is that they are predominated by American influence. I want to say further that I do not want to assume the responsibility of correcting all the inaccuracies that may appear in the columns of the Toronto Globe, but it affords me unbounded pleasure to correct this one.



THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of Mr. G. 0. Wilson (Wentworth) for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, resumed from Monday, January 22.
Mr. E. M. MACDONALD (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to congratulate you, Sir, upon your selection to fill the very high and distinguished office of first Commoner of Canada. Coming as you do from the same province as I do and representing a constituency in close proximity to my own; enjoying as I have all my life the privilege of your acquaintance, I beg to say that I have every confidence that you will maintain the high traditions which have characterized the public men who in the past have shed lustre on this office, and that we look to you to act with distinction and fairness. I desire also to express my satisfaction and pleasure with the high character of the addresses which have been delivered by the hon. mover (Mr. G. C. Wilson) and seconder (Mr. Descarries) of the Address.
The Speech from the Throne does not contain very many subjects which can be said to be matters of controversial discussion. I am glad to know that the Government have recalled the fact that we are nearing the conclusion of fifty years of our national life, and that on the first of July of this present year Canada will be, or should be, celebrating her golden jubilee. Personally, not knowing the proposals which the Government intend to submit to the House in regard to what I assume will be a matter of the special marking of the day, I am unable to say whether these will be approved or not.
Believing as I do, that the event is one which though we are in the midst of war should be commemorated by our people, believing that there is no land like our land, and that it is our duty as representatives of a free people to see that the administration of affairs in this country is* fair to the boys who are fighting for us, but also to prepare a condition of affairs in this land that will be worthy of them when they come home again, I think, Sir, that the event should be marked in some special way throughout every portion of this wide Dominion.
We are told that a conference has been proposed between the War Council at the seat of Empire and the premiers of the overseas dominions. I am sure the country will approve of the attitude adopted by the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier) yesterday, when he expressed the readiness of all who sit on this side of the House to facilitate in every possible way the .attendance of the representative of Canada at that conference. It must be noted that some criticism has been made in Great Britain of the fact that although a change of Government took place there only two months ago with the object of a more vigorous prosecution of the war, and the narrowing down of its control to one or two people, it is now suggested that the Premiers of the overseas dominions be added to that council, that they may assist in considering the great problem of how the war is to be won. I do not know whether the right hon. gentleman who will speak for Canada will be able to give any assistance in bringing about that great consummation which we all hope for. I do not know whether this country gives him any mandate so far as this conference is concerned, other than to say to the Mother Country that Canada stands behind her until victory is won. But as regards ques-

tions other than those immediately concerned with the winning of the war, it would seem to me as a Canadian that Canada will await with interest the deliberations of that conference, reserving to itself as st people and to this Parliament as a Parliament the right of determining what is in her own best interests as one of the self-governing dominions of this Empire.
Ovep and above every consideration which might appeal to this Parliament at this time is the question of the war. For thirty long months the sad hearts' of the people of this country have watched its weary progress. We had yesterday from the two leaders in this House a resume of the events of the past year, and I am sure, after the figures given by the Prime Minister, that over 310,000 of our sons are now overseas, over 400,000 of our men enlisted, and over 700,000 of our people engaged either in fighting or in work pertaining to the war, we must all realize that there is not a hamlet in this broad land but what is seriously thinking of the terrible consequences of this fateful and world-wide contest. So that the administration of this Government in regard to matters pertaining to the war must be our first interest. If they have failed to do that which they ought to have done, or have done those things which they ought not to have done, the people of this country will expect their representatives in Parliament, without any limitations or reserve whatever, boldly to arraign at the bar of public opinion the conduct of this Government, in order to see whether the right has been done. It must be remembered that this Government is practically the only one among the free peoples of the Empire that maintains during the waT a purely partisan attitude in regard to the conduct of its affairs. We have witnessed the changes that have taken place in the Mother Country, where at the mere solicitation of the men who were in control two changes of administration have already taken place, with the object of securing greater efficiency; and we have witnessed the changes that have taken place in other parts of the Empire. I should like to call your attention, Sir, to a statement showing Australia's position, iand how that country does business in regard to the war. To quote:
The essentials of the Australian system are: (1). The War Minister is a political administrator and does not attempt to be an active military officer.

I might remark in passing that there exists on the statute book a provision that there shall be a certain military officer in supreme command of the forces of this Dominion. We have heard of General Hutton, of General Lake and of General Mackenzie, all very distinguished Imperial officers, hut who in- this country has heard of their successor in this war? There is a general named General Gwatkin, who fills that position to-day. But has the Government given to general Gwatkin, as the Australian Government has given to their chief military officer, exclusive control of the Army? In Australia control is left entirely to a military man, and I think it might be well, having regard to conditions in Australia, for this Government to consider whether or not they have an efficient military head of the forces of this Dominion; *and if they have not one, they had better get one immediately, and place in his hands exclusive control of our military affairs. The Australian system provides':
Political patronage is avoided, and politics are shut out of the army.
My right hon. friend might take a leaf out of Premier Hughes' book-I do not mean Sir Sam Hughes' book-and follow the practice they have in Australia of keeping politics out of the Army. The statement continues :	.
Australians are not afraid to give individuals considerable powers in administrative work, such as purchasing supplies. Good men are picked for their posts, are made responsible and are judged by what they do. The knife falls quickly on the incompetent or unreliable.
That is a brief statement of how the Australian Commonwealth is dealing with the war, which I offer for the illumination and consideration of my right hon. friend and his colleagues. But my right hon. friend, disregarding all these considerations and the example of other countries, (has from the beginning of the war assumed that because he happened to be in power when the war began, and because an extension of the parliamentary term was given for war purposes, he has been given the absolute right to proceed along the old lines of partisanship and patronage which have always characterized his administration. That, it seems to me,, is not right; for in this country there has been no monopoly of patriotism in this fight- The boys have gone forth from the homes of men of all political views in this country, without iany regard whatever to political affiliations, eager to play their part in the interest of their native land

in this great battle of democracy against autocracy. We on this side of the House and the people whom we represent in this *country have proved our loyalty by more than word of mouth. Sitting not far away from me are three men, the !hon. member for Edmonton (Hon. Frank Oliver), the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Cruise), and the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff), the fathers of three 'Sturdy lads who went out from their western homes to do battle and, if necessary, to die for the triumph of the eternal right. These boys have solved the great mystery. Beneath the blood-stained soil of France their bones are lying and they are at rest, careless alike of the sunshine or of the storm; of the summer days, or of the wild shrill noise of the shrapnel on winter nights. Around me are twenty-six or more men whose boys to-day are either on the battleline or on their way there. When I say to you, Sir, that, from the farm, the workshop, the office and the cottage throughout all the land the men we represent here have given of their best for this cause, one does not" need to apologize in this free Parliament for anything one may say as to the rights of these boys, as to the way in which they are treated, or as to the ad- _ ministration of this Parliament in regard to them. We are here to ask that the greatest intelligence, the keenest attention, the strictest integrity and the highest ideals should characterize the administration oi the affairs of this country at this time. Any departure from that high ideal deserves and must receive from us 'and from this free people the severest condemnation. In order to effect the winning of this war, the marshalling of our resources in men and supplies and the elimination of graft, patronage, and favouritism are the very least that we, on this side of the House, have a right to ask from this Government which has 'administered matters in this partisan fashion.
During the last thirty months the members of this Government have been very sensitive to criticism. Although they have conducted everything from a party standpoint, they seem to regard any kind of criticism that comes from those who are interested in the successful solution of the great question of the war as a species of lfese majeste. The offender must be arraigned, attached and impeached, the moment he makes any suggestion as to improvement in the administration. I commend to my right hon. friend some criticism which has been made of the English Government
in this regard which is so applicable to the conduct of this Government that it will bear repetition in this House, and I am sure the hon. gentlemen will agree with me that it is peculiarly applicable to the gentlemen who at present sit on the treasury benches. A writer in Blackwood's Magazine says:
Indeed, it is not only in the field of foreign affairs that our present Government shows its incapacity. Whatever it attempts it bungles miserably. If it be true to any one principle, that principle is hostility to Great Britain and British interests. With a false magnanimity our ministers are ready to abandon the fruits of victory to anybody whose lips ask to taste them. They affect a loftiness of spirit which is more nearly allied to laziness than to humanity. They seem, indeed, to suffer, one and all, from an atrophy of purpose, an inability to make up their mind, which are doubtless the proper result of a political training. It may he that the conflicting members of the Cabinet reduce it always by their differences of opinion to an inactive condition of stable equilibrium.
That phrase in which atrophy of purpose is said to exist in the British Government is especially applicable to honourable gentlemen who sit on the treasury benches. There are conflicting opinions amongst the members of the Cabinet. The ex-Mihister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes) has told us of two members of the Cabinet who were continually opposing him. The Prime Minister rather avoided coming to close quarters with the ex-Minister of Militia; he rather avoided and side-stepped an encounter and he intimated that he did not care to discuss these serious questions, although charges of the greatest magnitude, involving the lives of our soldiers, the care of the wounded, and the possible loss to this country of millions of dollars had been made by the ex-Minister of Militia. The writer in Blackwood's goes on to say:
That is to find the kindest explanation for their many futilities. The more probable cause of their failure to govern the country, or to conduct the war with spirit, is a feeling of security. Whatever happens, it sems to them that their offices are safe. They believe that they are the best suited to carry on the war. Why, then, should they bestir themselves? They are indispensable, in their own eyes, and irre-placable, and must on no account he disturbed in the enjoyment of what they believe to be their divine rights.
I am not quite sure that there are not sitting on the treasury benches at this moment certain hon. gentlemen who are actuated by those feelings which the writer of Blackwood's describes, namely, that they are perfectly satisfied that they have a divine right to govern this country, and Sir, because they so believe, we have the inca-



pacity which has characterized the administration of this war from its beginning. In times of peace mistakes may he made which can be readily remedied, but in times of war mistakes cannot be made without their leading to results which are irreparable, and which may mean not only the loss of thousands of dollars to the country, but the loss of hundreds of noble lives that might have been spared.
Lasit night, the Prime Minister in dealing with questions which arose in this debate seemed to assume to himself very great credit on account of the increase of trade that had come to Canada. My right hon. friend was very profuse in his compliments to his Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White). Whether the Minister of Finance should be placated or not is a matter which the right hon. gentleman knows far better than I do, but the marked distinction between his reference to his colleague the Minister of Finance and his reference to his colleague the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers), of whom the best that he could say was that in the administration of the war he was occasionally assisting the Minister of Labour in doing some things, attracted the attention of the House, and I am quite sure will attract the attention of the country. My right hon. friend chose to assume that the fact that there had been an increase of trade during the past year was something for which the Minister of Finance should be given credit. The Minister of Finance, I think the House will agree with me, had very little to do with it; but if he did have anything to do with it, what a sad reflection he must have. It is only five years ago that we were told we would have no truck nor trade with the Yankees; that it would be a horrible crime, a sin against our loyalty to the Empire, if we bought and sold anything more in the United States than we were then doing. Where does the great increase of trade come from of which my right hon. friend spoke so enthusiastically last night? In 1911 our total trade with the United States was only $378,000,000, but in the past year it amounted to $800,000,000. In other words, if it was disloyal to truck and trade with the Yankees to the extent of $378,000,000 in 1911, what must be the extent of the perfidy of the Minister of Finance, so far as loyalty is concerned, when he permits and enthuses over a trade of $800,000,000?	.
I think my right hon. friend, on reflection, will agree with me that the Minister of
fMr. Macdonald.]
Finance was simply a fly on the wheel in regard to this. I notice that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance occasionally causes pronunciamentos to be given to the country through the Conservative press stating that although our industries were paralysed before the war commenced, he was entitled to some credit because the country has been able to carry on. I am sure every one, on reflection, will see the ridiculous nature of the pretext which the Prime Minister put forth last night.
My right hon. friend had something to say, also, on the question of the extension of the term of Parliament-while deprecating an anticipatory discussion of that question. I agree that this House should postpone consideration of that important question until the Government submits its resolution relating to it. Yet I may be permitted to remark that the right hon. gentleman was not very happy in the reference he made in that connection to my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), who leads the Opposition. He referred to the fact that my right hon. leader had said, in 1914, that he would at that time refrain from attempting to open the portals of office with a bloody key. But the leader of the Government himself has, on three or four occasions, tried to open the door of an extended term of office with a bloody key. He has actually inserted that key in the lock on at least two occasions, but has felt obliged to withdraw it. Every hon. gentleman knows that we met in the war session of 1914 without any reservation whatever; that Parliament gave this Government almost plenary powers in regard to the war by enacting the provisions of the War Measures Act, and gave them from the treasury of the Canadian people ad libitum. Yet, we had hardly reached our homes after that session, the first contingent of our overseas forces had hardly reached England, when the leader of the Government and his colleagues considered the question of having an election at that time. It is well understood that certain members of the Government at that time opposed going to the country on the ground that the confidence extended to the Government by the splendid action of the Liberal party in connection with the war should not be abused. And what about the session of 1915? The right hon. leader of the Government experienced a change of heart on the question of soldiers' votes. Had he heard from any of the boys in the trenches that they would vote against this Government if they were given the chance? If he did not hear of that there are thou-

sands of people in this country who did. This change of heart on his part is rather suspicious. He caused the press of this country to attack my right hon. leader because that right hon. gentleman ventured to suggest at that time that there might be some difficulty about taking the votes of the soldiers. He caused his own organ in t'he city of Halifax to charge my leader with disloyalty because he ventured to question-


Robert Laird Borden: That statement is untrue, whether in regard to the newspaper in Halifax or any other.


Robert Laird Borden: I say -the statement is untrue.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Then, who directed Senator Dennis to do it?


Robert Laird Borden: I say the hon. gentleman has no warrant for making such a statement. I never influenced -any portion of the press of Canada at any time to make an attack upon any public man.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Then the right hon. gentleman -should have asked Senator Dennis to withdraw the article. Thi-s is the party organ in the right hon. gentleman's own constituency, and the editor, if he did not make this attack at the direction of the right hon. gentleman-and, of course, I am bound to accept my right hon. friend's statement-at least felt that -it would not displease the right hon. gentleman if it were made. And in this matter of the soldiers' votes, the right hon. gentleman had the ballots printed -and -sent out in charge of Mr. Daly, now Secretary of the Pensions Board. We can still hear the echo of the words of his colleague the Minister of Public. Works (Mr. Rogers), who declared that the people of Canada were calling in thunder tones for an election to be brought on at once, and we all remember that the Minister of Public Works delivered a speech in Montreal in which he gave notice to the whole country that an election was to take place. But the right hon. gentleman will have no difficulty in remembering that immediately there came by telegraph from all parts of the country protests sent by boards of trade, Conservative organizations and other bodies, against the holding of an election. And so, though he had almost inserted this bloody key in the lock, the key fell from his, nerveless hand and he retired to the country for several weeks to rest -after the effort he had made in preparation. So I say the right
hon. gentleman was not at all happy in his anticipatory references to a discussion which, no doubt, will take place later on.
The Prime Minister referred to the attitude assumed by the Liberal party in connection with the Boer War. Does he forget that his great predecessor in th-e leadership of the Conservative party and the premiership of this country, Sir John Macdonald, toad always taken the pbsition that there should be no interference by Canada in the foreign w-ars of the Empire? Had he forgotten that other great leaders had gone on record in the same sense? And does he not remember the famous pamphlet No. 6 circulated in the province of Quebec on behalf of tods party, in which it was stated that my right ho-n. leader was too English for them because he wanted Canada to intervene in such wars? He forgets that the leader of the Liberal party, when, in attendance in Great Britain at the jubilee of Queen Victoria, of happy memory, -pledged Canada to give aid and assistance to the Empire in case of need, and supplemented it by giving the first aid Canada ever gave to the Empire by sending our men to the war in South Africa. Future history, I venture to say, will accord with contemporary -history which shows that such a reference as that which the loader of the Government has made , might well have been spared. I cannot understand what object -he could have -had in making such a reference. I recall to-day the situation of the leaders of the Liberal party from the province of Quebec in regard to assistance' given to the Empire. I think of my dear friend and colleague, Dr. Beland, incarcerated for weary months in a German prison; there is my friend, Mr. Lemieux, with his boy a volunteer;
Sir Lomer Gouin in the same position; and my right hon. friend and leader,
Sir Wilfrid Laurier, with the last scion of his race, his nephew, an enlisted volunteer, but discharged on account of illness. When I tMnk of these things I cannot but feel that this reference made by my right hon. friend, the leader of the Government, might well have been -spared.
I think the duty is imperatively laid upon us, when we think of the boys wtho -have gone out and have died for the cause as well as of those who are going'out, to consider questions affecting this war with the greatest possible care. We are told that recruiting in this country has stopped. I think I can give the leader of the Government some reasons why -it has stopped. In the first place, thirty months have gone by. The right hon. leader of the Government said yes-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Then who directed it? [DOT]

terday that the men who are working in the munition factories are giving services as important to the Empire as axe those men who went out to fight. He might have- -said in addition that the men who work in the coal mines do the same thing, because, in eastern Canada -at least, wherever you have munition works you must have coal in order that they may operate. Then wh-at about the men who work in the lumber woods? Their product is material which is as essential in connection with warfare as are the shells themselves. They are necessary for trench work. The highest prices that have ever been paid in th-e history of the lumber trade in eastern Canada are being paid to-day; if you take the men from the lumber woods you impair production and you are unable to get the necessary supplies. The miners of iron, copper, nickle, zinc, gold and silver are rendering potent aid. How could you have the transportation of the country's products if the importance of the work of the railway men was not considered? What about the farmers of this country? My hon. friend the Minister of Finance two years ago urged production and more production. How was Canada to help production if the men who lived on the farms were not to work and till the soil? Long ago the men who worked in the coal mines of Great Britain were exempted from military service; coal miners were called back from the front to work in mines and munition factories. Moreover, men who worked on the farms in Great Britain were exempted from military service. Hon. gentlemen will recall what they read in the papers only two days ago concerning the protests made on behalf of these men against the provision for their exemption being taken from the Enlistment Act, the protest being made solely in the interests of production. What has my right hon. friend done? Why did he not provide long ago that the men who worked in munition factories should be given certificates that they were working for the Empire and were exempt from military service, and that the men who worked in all these other avenues of employment were in the same position? My right hon. friend has gone on without any system, without any organization; and the trades of this country have become demoralized as a result of his inability to deal with this question. Take, for instance, the coal mines of my own county. The coal miners are naturally among the most adventurous of all our [Mr. Macdonald.!
people, being accustomed to face danger almost every day of their employment, and they have gone to fight in great numbers. The munition factories there are unable to work on account of shortage of coal; the people who live in the country are unable to get necessary fuel on account of my right hon. friend's having no system in regard to this matter.
Over and above that, the patronage system, unlike the case [DOT] of Australia, has been rampant throughout this land. This patronage system prevails in respect of appointments, preferments and promotions in the militia. I make the charge right here in the presence of the Prime Minister that in the province of Nova Scotia-it is his own province-the system of patronage was handled directly in regard to these matters. If a few soldiers were billeted anywhere in the country, no man could sell them tea, sugar or meat unless his right to sell was passed upon by the local patronage committee. The same thing applies with regard to clothing, supplies and medical examinations. Only six weeks ago a further appeal for men was made in my constituency by a recruiting officer. He published a list of the only medical men who could examine recruits; all were Conservatives with the exception of one, and there did not happen to be a Tory doctor where that one lived. My right hon. friend must know thi^. Let us not forget that the democracy of Canada, the plain people of this country-our young men . more particularly-are	intelligent.
There is no use in crying peace, peace, if there is no peace. When you appeal to them from the standpoint of the highest ideals that were ever submitted for the consideration of anyone in this world to go out and fight for the Empire and freedom, and when you find that the local Conservative committee runs this whole business, where do your ideals go? That is the story of my right hon. friend's administration in regard to this matter.
Take another matter. I speak particularly of my own province; other hon. gentlemen will speak of conditions elsewhere. My right hon. friend has heard of the 85th Battalion; he is the hon. colonel of it. My right hon. friend's distinguished relative, Colonel Borden, is the colonel of the 85th; he is not, I believe, of the same political faith as my right hon. friend. We in Nova Scotia all (know of the wonderful appeal that Colonel Borden made in the winter months of last year, when he carried the slogan among the highlanders of Nova

Scotia as it was carried in the old Jacobite days. The men rallied to the standard; in one brigade, four battalions, over 4,500 men came together, because they were asked to follow men who would lead them to the ' fight, men who were known to them, who were qualified to lead them, in whom they had confidence and of whom they could be proud. They went; two brothers here from one family; two chums there from adjoining farms on the countryside, who believed they were not going to be separated; they wanted to go out and win together. They went to Aldershot last year and trained there from May until October. My right hon. friend visited them; his Minister of Militia visited them. The Minister of Militia gave his knightly word that every one of those boys could rely upon their going to the front together; that their brigade was not to be broken up; that Colonel Borden was to be made Brigadier-General. When they sailed away on the 13th of October there was no question whatever about this. I had the pleasure of standing on the platform with the distinguished president of Pine Hill College, of the city of Halifax, Rev. Clarence McKinnon, who is known to my right hon. friend and who was one of the chaplains of this regiment. This gentleman with all the prestige of his position behind him, appealed to the mothers and fathers of the country to let their boys go so that they could be in this Tegiment with their chums; so that they could fight and win together. He gave them his positive assurance of this, relying, he said, upon the guarantees which had been given by the Government. There were ideals for you; there "was spirit	for	you;	there
was sentiment for you.	They called
the boy from the cottage, from the hillside, from the valley; he came and what happened? Under the inscrutable condition of military affairs existing on the other side -I asked the right hon. gentleman last night who really was in charge of these matters; I do not think anybody did know after reading Sir Sam Hughes' letter- about a month after their arrival over there some one came from somewhere, and said:	Take 800 men out of the
brigade, march them over to France; pay no attention to anything. And from all four regiments they were taken; brothers were separated; chums from boyhood were torn apart. The fathers and mothers of these boys who were separated came to the offices of the men in Nova Scotia who had asked them to go, and asked how this could be.. " Can you have any confidence," they say, " in anything that the Government does? My boy might
die and his brother would not be there; it was because they would be together that I let them go." Is it any wonder that recruiting does not go on under such methods? Now the brigade is broken up and nobody knows exactly where its members are. We would like to have an official statement upon this matter. Look at the Irish Rangers of Montreal. In the raising of that regiment there were appeals to the heroic race, the sons of old Ireland and the grandsons of old Ireland over here in this land were called on to rally together and to send to the front a distinctively Irish regiment. I see by to-day's Montreal Gazette that Colonel Triliey makes the statement that if that regiment is going to be broken up he will not return to the front. Why are these things done? Do you mean to tell me it is any answer to say, as the Conservative organs s^y, that there are not so many chances of the boys getting killed if they are separated as if they are all together? That is what the Halifax Herald, my right hon. friend's organ, says; that is the excuse advanced for this breach of faith. What use is there in saying to the men of Nova Scotia, that you are going to do anything about this war in the face of an absolute, unquestionable failure to keep one's word? These are the conditions. Is it any wonder that we point out these things under my right hon. friend's administration and ask the Government to consider what they mean? But, Sir, we have in addition to that a colleague of my right hon. friend, the man whom he last night complimented for his handling of affairs in Val-cartier, over his'own signature in the public press making nineteen distinct charges in regard to the administration and interference with administration by this Government during this war. There is no precedent in the whole parliamentary history of the British nation for the publication of any such correspondence as that which took place between my right hon. friend and his late Minister of Militia. On one occasion Disraeli wrote a letter to Lord Chelmsford about whose position as a possible leader in the House of Lords as Lord Chancellor he was believed to have some doubt; but the letter written by Disraeli was on a change of administration, on his assumption of the premiership. Other than that instance, there is no parallel in the whole history of the British Empire for a Minister of the Crown, retiring under the circumstances under which Sir Sam Hughes retired, leaving nineteen distinct charges of mal-

administration against the Government of which he was a member. My right hon. friend did not attempt or pretend to answer Sir Sam Hughes last night.
'rhen where does my right hon. friend (Sir Robert Borden) stand on the question of conscription? I recall that my right hon. friend, in the debate on the Address last year, stated that he had said at the beginning of the war that he was opposed to conscription, and that he repeated that remark with emphasis. The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Roche) told us that he had gone to Chicago at the Christmas season and had met some immigration agents there, and he gave us the letter which he wrote in regard to the question of conscription at the time. We have had an agitation in this country on that question. The country looks for leadership from my right hon. friend. If this Administration is going to do anything in the war,
4 p.m. if it is going to assume the responsibility of dealing with these questions, we have a right to ask: has my right hon. friend changed his mind or has he not? Why have all this discussion upon this question? Why have all this unsettling of the public mind? Either my right hon. friend stands where he did last year or he does not.
Then take this matter of Dr. Bruce's report. Is there anything-and on this I appeal from the House to the country- is there anything which, in this war time, could bring sadder hearts to the homes of the mothers of the boys who have gone forth to fight than the thought that, having escaped the terrors of war and having been brought to England, they are there to be immured in hospitals and under conditions such as are described in the report of Dr. Bruce? If the statements contained in the report of Dr. Bruce are true-and they have been, given publication in the press of this country, although I find on coming to Parliament that I am unable to get, from the Militia Department, on inquiry, a copy of that report for perusal-if there is talk about boys not recruiting, how can the Prime Minister expect them to go out and take the risks of all these conditions? And we are told that Dr. Baptie, whoever he is, and some other men, whoever they are, have examined into these affairs and have made a report, reporting this and that about Dr Carleton Jones and some other men, all of which is very interesting, but not instructive. And when you add to that the various cables that have been printed as coming

from Sir George Perley, from which you find that the man who made this report condemnatory of these hospitals is promoted to the posiiton of consulting surgeon to the British army in France, I want to know whether Dr. Bruce's report is true or not. [DOT] This House wants to know, this country wants to know.
I want to submit to my right hon. friend that this question of Dr. Bruce's report, this question of Dr. Baptie's examination of that report, is of such a serious nature that the whole matter should be submitted to a committee of this House for investigation in order to ascertain what the real conditions are. I know that there are a great many people in this country who talk beautifully about this war-men who have neither chick nor child to go and do not expect to have any-yet they will talk to you in the most learned and beautiful way about how the war should be run. But I talk for the fathers and mothers of the 300,000 boys who have gone, and I want to know whether they are going to be' treated that way over in England. Glib words and honeyed talk about winning the war is not going to satisfy this country-either our boys are going to be looked after or they are not, and we expect them to be looked after.
I have referred to the charges made by Lieut.-General Sir Sam Hughes. My right hon. friend dismissed 'him, to use the short term, from the position of Minister of Militia. He did it in a letter in which he gave two reasons: First, he said because Sir Sam Hughes administered his department as if it were a separate government. The other reason was because Sir Sam told the Premier that he knew that a certain statement which he had made was incorrect, when he said that he had had the same control over affairs in Great Britain in 1914 as in 1916. My right hon. friend gave those two reasons as the grounds for dismissing Sir Sam Hughes. The country have a right to know something about this. SiT Sam Hughes was a conspicuous figure in the administration of this war. My right hon. friend's friends put him forward as a man of great achievements, as a man of whom the country ought to be proud, and my right hon. friend suddenly, not because of anything that Sir Sam Hughes had done in the way of administration, not because there was any reference to any statement that had been made in regard to Sir Sam Hughes being this or that, but simply and solely because, as a matter of departmental arrangement, he had administered his department as if it were a separate govern-

ment he dismissed Sir iSam Hughes. We have a right to know why 'he did this. General Sir Sam Hughes, according to the correspondence, denies this charge. He says he was never asked to send in orders in council except in regard to one particular thing, that was secret service, and he says the Prime Minister came and asked him to be careful to send these orders in council in because, as the Prime Minister said, the Department of Railways, the Post Office Department and the Department of Public Works were going on spending money without getting any orders in council. That is the answer Sir Sam makes to my right hon. friend. Where was the Finance Minister at that time? Where was this watchdog of the treasury, when, according to his own colleague, the Minister of Public Works, tire Minister of Railways and the Poistmas-ter General-and, according to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Militia himself- were spending money when there should have been orders in council authorizing such expenditure?
The Minister of Finance must have known that. It is generally conceded in the country that the Minister of Finance was one of the chief objectors to the former Minister of Militia. Evidently it was for that reason, and if so, why did he not stop it if it was going on? Why did he permit departments to spend money without an order in coun-cd'P Why did he permit other departments to do it after it began in one of them?. The Minister of Finance did nothing at all until the Prime Minister had to dismiss Sir Sam Hughes because he would not ask for an order in council. Was that the reason my right hon. friend dismissed Sir Sam Hughes, or was it because of an act of maladministration? I think ;he should tell the House and the country. My right hon. friend studiously avoided any reference to that last nigfht. There was a phrase of' his that I see in Hansard which rather indicated on his part a disposition not to engage in any discussion with Sir Sam Hughes. " I do not propose," he says, " to [DOT] enter into a discussion as to whether he was right or wrong," referring to a little dispute that occurred between himself and the exMinister of Militia in reference to what was being done in France. Does my right hon. friend belong to that class of people who think that they have a divine right to rule? And if a minister chooses to make charges of a very grave character, as Sir Sam Hughes did, does he refuse to discuss them? This is the man whom he, himself, has put forward since 1911 as the beau ideal of what a minister of militia ought
to be. Then, he takes a whim and turns him out. My right hon. friend, from his standpoint of divine right and with that germanic tendency that seems to have got into his system, comes and tells the people that he does not propose to discuss this question. We must find out something in regard to this matter. My right hon. friend showered all the honours upon this colleague of his, permitted him to be a Lieutenant General, he was created a K.C.B., and then my right hon. friend dismisses him because he	does, not	get	an	order
in council when he wants him to. That is a very flimsy reason. Why does he not dismiss the Minister of Public Works for the same reason? Why does he not dismiss the Minister of Railways and Canals? The Minister of Railways is very strong on this patronage question.
I notice that	my genial	friend	fromColchesteT (Mr.	Stanfield)	is	not	herebut I want to	say this	for	the	hon.
member for 'Colchester, that the iMin-ister of Railways and Canals has been getting a tremendous lot of kudos for this supposed high and noble stand which he has been taking on the question of patronage on the Intercolonial railway. I desire to put the House and the country right on this question. There is not a man employed as a briakeman, or a wiper in the shed, or a lamplighter, or a section, man, or in any other capacity on the Intercolonial railway unless ha 'has a letter from the man who has the patronage, either a Conservative member or ia Conservative candidate. The real issue between the hon. member for Colchester-though I think he has not perhaps conceived this method of putting it- and the Minister of Railways and Canals is as to whether there are not men in the Maritime Provinces who have grown up on the Intercolonial-whether it is these men that the hon. member for Colchester recognizes or not-whether there are not men on the whole Intercolonial Railway from Montreal to Sydney who are competent to be in charge of the terminals in the city of Halifax. That is the question. The Minister of Railways and Canals chose, at the suggestion of Mr. Gutelius, to think differently. Mr. Gutelius was a foreign citizen until after he had given his report on the Transcontinental railway and until after my hon. friend from Carleton, New Brunswick, (Mr. Carvell) had put the question in the House to find out whether Mr. Gutelius had ever been naturalized or not. Not until that day had this gentleman been naturalized and now this gentle-

man comes, and, because he happens to have some friends in other parts of Canada, takes a man down and puts him in charge of the terminals of the railway and says to the railway men of the Maritime Provinces: It is true that you produce premiers occasionally-they have all gone to the Conservative party by accident-it is true you produce men prominent in every walk of life, but you cannot produce any man from the Intercolonial railway who is good enough to look after the terminals at the city of Halifax. My right hon. friend allows the Minister of Railways and Canals to do that and he allows him to go on and spend money without orders in council. He does not ask him for his reasons. Why does he not? The right hon. gentleman would not tell us last night.
Is tl^ere any one of his colleagues who would tell us why the Minister of Militia was singled out for this offence-a very grave one-and why it' was that the Minister of Finance did not protest against the Minister of Railways spending money without orders in council and against the Minister of Public Works spending money without orders in council; when he protested against Sir Sam Hughes doing it? These are questions upon which the country has a right to get some information.
The difficulty between Sir Sam Hughes and this Government rests upon the very vital question as to who is in control, and who ought to be in control, of the Canadian Forces in Great Britain. That is the question at issue and Sir Sam Hughes made certain charges in regard to it. The first charge which he makes, is this: My right hon. friend cho.se to say that the conditions over there were bad. In October of lasj year he made up his mind that there should be two changes and he proposed to make these changes and to put Sir George Perley in charge. He wrote the then Minister of Militia a letter to that effect. The then Minister of Militia in replying to that letter makes the first charge in regard to that memorandum as follows:
I entirely agree that the one object to be accomplished is the winning of the war; but I must submit that the proposed order in council of September 22nd ult., with its accompanying regulations, will, to my mind, cripple, impede and again reduce the force overseas, to the chaotic condition to which it had fallen at the end of the first nine months of the war under a system practically what you now propose establishing.
Sir Sam. Hughes had been, my right hon. friend's constitutional adviser in regard to 
military matters for five years. My right hon. friend is not a military man and Sir George Perley is not a military man. I think he ought to have told Sir George Perley that as High Commissioner he should not take anything more upon his shoulders than he had. That is the opinion of everybody that I have seen who has been in England. But my right hon. friend cannot get away from this distinct charge of Sir Sam Hughes that by making this change he was inaugurating a system which would cripple, impede and reduce the Canadian Forces to a chaotic condition. That is what he charges and under those circumstances is it any wonder that the Nova Scotia Highland Brigade was broken up, is it any wonder that the Irish Rangers were broken up? What else would you expect? There was nobody to control or protect it.	What
has the Premier, what has the successor of the Minister of Militia, to say to the charge that the Canadian Forces in England were in a chaotic condition? That is what this responsible minister, the fidus Achates of my right hon. friend for five long years, tells this country?
What else does he say?
From the outset I strongly objected to the fact that practically the entire management of our force, our supplies, our equipment, our transport, etc., had been taken completely out of our hands, and was controlled by the British authorities, we, notwithstanding, paying the bill.
Is that the condition of affairs to-day in Great Britain? Only yesterday in the Montreal Gazette, a paper friendly to my right hon. friend, the following letter was reproduced from the London Times:
London, Jan, 20.-The following letter signed "Civilian" appears in The Times:
The First Canadian Division sailed for France in February, 1915, and has therefore been in the front line two years. It contained Canadian Militia officers serving as brigadier-generals who have exhbited courage, skill and judgment in a marked degree, particularly in that capacity for measuring the unknown, which is the quality of the true soldier. Yet, however rapidly the ladder of promotion has been climbed in the Imperial army, not a single one of these brigadiers has received more than one step in rank as reward for two years of hard, distinguished service.
Let us look at the other side of the picture. There has been from the start in the Canadian corps a sprinkling of Imperial officers, whose services have been of the utmost value, but the moment a vacancy has occurred in any of the high positions they occupied, another regular officer has been appointed to fill the place. The Canadian militia officer feels this state of affairs is both a bar to his career1 and a reflection, upon his capacity. After two years of war, in

succession to his previous service, he must either be fit to hold these posts or be by nature incapable. At the same time it appears to him that to belong to a Canadian corps is a final disqualification for that rapid promotion which he sees falling to contemporaries in the Imperial army. "So far shalt thou go and no farther" seems to him written over the portals of war for all who do not possess the cachet of the staff college. Is there not a good deal of justice in this complaint?
My right hon. friend cannot ignore a statement such, as that wihich is directly corroborative. of the charge made by General Sir Sam Hughes. That statement appearing as it did in the London Times and being considered of sufficient importance to be reproduced in the Montreal Gazette, indicates a serious condition of affairs. The Minister of Militia says further:
I do not know^ whether the Canadian High Commissioner had the authority of the Canadian Government or not; but a day or two later that gentleman, of his own initiative, strongly spoke to me and briefly said:	"You
do not pretend surely to have anything to do with the Canadian soldiers in Britain.'' I suggested that he might be well advised to study not alone the Canadian Military Law, but the British Army Act, as well as comprehend the spirit of the Constitution. I felt then, as I feel today, and as I am pleased to say the entire Biitish Government and War Office officers also realize to-day that our officers and men being in the pay of Canada, Canada should absolutely control them in Canada and in Britain, excepting in so far as securing camping grounds is concerned'*, and at the front for everything excepting the command and general administration under the command.
The charge made in " Civilian's " letter to the Times apparently shows that the state of affairs which Sir Sam. Hughes said that he had remedied had been reverted to again. The ex-minister goes on:
For the first ten months our suggestions were practically ignored ; our equipment, stores, supplies, armament, everything provided bjr us, was set aside. The pay department was found to be absolutely chaotic, the medical service, modelled on the British, lacked system, efficiency and comprehensiveness.
He goes on to say to the Prime Minister, that he had in his memorandum, "proving the utter falsity of their bogus excuses regarding our wagons."
My right hon. friend dealt with that to some degree last night, and it was the only matter with which Ihe did deal. He spoke of a muster parade being held, and some inquiry being made into that particular matter, and that was the only point to which he referred- The Minister of Militia goes on to saw that he accepted under protest, for tftie first year this management of the forces in Great Britain, and further on he said,
referring to the very system which my right hon. friend (Sir Robert Borden) inaugurated, and which is now in effect in Great Britain, that to adopt the Prime Minister's suggestion of a separate member of the Government to look after things in England " would bring about a return of the irregularities in management, in training and in promotions " which the Minister of Militia had been endeavouring to eliminate, and he says that it would, " as was the effect rmder the cancelled order in council, cause clhaos in the administration and destroy the present friendly relationship between the Canadian forces at the front and in Britain on the one hand, and the British Administration on the other." I ask my right hon. friend to let the House and country know whether the chaotic condition indicated by the ex-Minister of Militia has occurred in regard to our forces in Great Britain, The minister goes on to say that by reason of certain changes he had made he had saved Canada upwards of six millions of dollars. Does my Ihon. friend the Minister of Finance know about that saving? How much more was lost? If Sir- Sam Hughes was able to save only six million dollars, how much was lost during the ten months when demoralization existed and supplies were being scrapped, and when the Pay and Records Office was in a chaotic condition? The Minister of Finance is asking the common people of the country, the plain people of this country, to practice thrift. Will he be prepared to tell them how much money he permitted to be lost in England during those ten months of chaos? The ex-Minister of Militia goes on to say:
We have raised a force and managed it in spite of all sorts of intrigue.
Who was intriguing? Was it the colleagues of the hon. gentleman? What use is it for those gentlemen to tell the people of this country that their first duty is to win the war and then for them to go into the Cabinet Council and proceed to intrigue against their colleagues? That is the direct and ^positive charge which the ex-Minister of Militia makes, and it is on these matters that the country wants enlightenment. Referring to the system which the Prime Minister had inaugurated, Sir Sam Hughes says:-
This whole proposition is based on misconception of the facts, and can but have three motives to inspire it, none of which is the welfare of the officers and men, or the winning of the war.
What are those three motives? My right hon. friend knows and he won't tell us. The

ex-Minister of Militia makes the positive assertion that not one of those motives has to do with the improvement of the welfare - -of the men or the winning of the war. What right, I ask, has this Administration at tips time to be actuated by any other motives than the winning of the w.ar, or the welfare of our men?
My right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) yesterday quoted the charge which has not been answered yet, that if the system which the Prime Minister insisted on putting into effect 'had been in effect in the early days of the war, the first division would never have left Valcantier. He pointed out that the second division was held up by haggling about motor trucks for four months. In other words, this Government, which, according to the Prime Minister, yesterday was doing such strange and wonderful things, lost four months in haggling and fighting among themselves, and delayed for that length of time the outfitting of the second division. The ex-Minister of Militia goes on in the correspondence to take issue with the Premier on the question of truthfulness, and the Prime Minister asks for his resignation.
Then the ex-Minister of Militia declares that the Prime Minister was proposing these changes on account of certain intrigues which for a long time he had had on foot with the High Commissioner. Is that true, or is it not? It may be said that there is no necessity to pay any attention to these charges, but he was a responsible minister of the Crown and my right hon. friend put him forward for five years as the beau ideal of a man who should have charge of this nation in time of war. My right hon. friend cannot ignore those charges, serious as they are. The ex-minister goes on making certain other statements which also cannot be ignored. He declares that in regard to the question of administration with reference to what has been done at Valcartier the right hon. gentleman objected to his going ahead and doing, things without orders in council. Then he makes this charge:
It is difficult for me to recall where you have actively supported me in the passage of any order in council concerning the up-building of the Militia when apposed by two Members of the Cabinet usually antagonistic to anything proposed by me. As you are aware, it took up four months in the midst of this great war to fight through the principles of purchasing, for the Second Division,- trucks at the lowest wholesale prices.
The country has a right to know who were those two members of the Cabinet who continually opposed their colleague in the ad-

ministration of the war. If he was unfit, why was he not removed long ago? But why should this haggling have gone on while boys were dying in the hospitals or being killed at the front? These men, eager to advance their own ambitions, to pursue their own intrigues, were engaged in fighting in the council in regard to such matters as are detailed here by their own colleague. Such is the situation. The exMinister of Militia, speaking of another matter, goes on to say:
I do remember you asking me on one occasion to submit orders in council where possible before incurring large expenditures, but the reason you assigned was not protests from my colleagues over my action, but that it was to set an example so as to assist you to control others. You instanced the Post Office Department, the Railway Department and the Public Works Department where projects had been undertaken without authority by order in council, and I remember distinctly you stated that some boats had been purchased and other large expenditures incurred, without your knowing anything about it, and wthout any order in council.
Does the right hon. gentleman know that boats have been purchased involving large expenditures of money without an older in council being passed? Inta what new arena was my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) proceeding when he made purchases without orders in council? Where was my hon. friend the Minister of Railways (Mr. Cochrane) going to spend this money? Was it to buy cars down in the United States when he might have bought them in Canada, or was it to engage in some other enterprise recommended by his superintendent which he did not wish to submit to the scrutiny of all his colleagues? Where was the Minister of Finance? Had such a condition of affairs existed when the minds of the people were not enthralled by the war, it would have resulted in the impeachment of the four ministers who were involved. The only reason the hon. gentlemen have escaped that attention which ought to have been paid to the serious situation has been the dominating influence of the war. Is the country ever to know from the Prime Minister what was the expenditure made by the Minister of Public Works, without authority, illegally, under the law? What was the expenditure made by the Minister of Railways, without authority, illegally, under the law? Or if it was my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries who bought the steamers without authority, what was the

expenditure that he made? Suppose that in Great Britain to-day any one of the ministers who- had served under Mr. Asquith had, two months ago in a document made public by the Prime Minister, although he need not have done so, charged that three of his colleagues had, not in expenditures for the war, but in purely departmental expenditures, transgressed, and broken the law, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had permitted the public funds to be diverted illegally and contrary to the law for that purpose, what would public opinion be? That, however, is the position in which we in Canada stand as a result of the charges made by the ex-Minister of Militia.
The ex-minister goes on to charge the Prime Minister with grave errors and with misrepresentations of facts. Surely the good old days of courtesy between public men are gone. Here is a deliberate cold-blooded charge on the part of a colleague against his former Premier of misrepresentation of facts >and of grave errors in regard to statements made. I think hereafter hon. gentlemen who do' not see eye to eye with the Prime Minister may be pardoned if they question the authenticity of statements made by him, when his colleague, his faithful friend, pillories .him before the whole country with the charge of misrepresentation of fact and deliberate errors in regard to statements made.
The ex-Minister of Militia wants to know how the Minister of Finance got loans without coming to Council in regard to them. He makes the statements that the Minister of Finance proceeds to deal with the credit of the country, and to make the loans, without coming to Council. It is a serious matter indeed that we have a government in power which so absolutely disregards the law that, instead of the ex-Minister of Militia being the only one who undertakes to run a separate government, each minister who is strong enough to carry out his own whims does the same thing. And the Minister of Finance seems to have been guilty with the rest.
Then this former colleague of the Prime Minister goes on to say:
I have known and experienced, for a long time, the meddling and intrigue which has been going on. More than a year ago, I understand, you had. it in contemplation to get Sir George Perley in control in England.
He goes on to quote from a letter of the Prime Minister in regard to a cablegram which ho sent on July 31, and says:
It is my belief that had you been actuated by the best interests of the force instead of favoritism that cablegram would not have been despatched.
Then, here is the situation: The former Minister of Militia charges his Prime Minister with being actuated by favoritism in regard to military matters instead of by considerations of the true interest of the force. Either there is some basis for that charge or there is not. And this country wants to know. Is it to be expected that " the country, in the face of these charges, will have confidence in this Government and in its management of the war? Is it to be expected that the people will send their sons to the war under these conditions? Consider what the former Minister of Militia said in Toronto:
Saddles were pulled out of the mud, harness scraped up and article after article, and department after department gone through, and to-day Canadian stuff is used at the front by Canadians, and by British In some parts, and Is regarded as better than their own.
In other words, supplies and equipment, for which the hard-earned money of the Canadian people had been spent, were thrown into the mud and the ex-Minister of Militia had to get them out. And he charges that the Prime Minister proposed to bring back the same state of things in this regard that had existed before. The ex-Minister of Militia said further:
The Canadian soldiers were allowed to come under the knife of first-year medical men In. charge of some of the hospitals in England, while qualified doctors from the Dominion were available but not used.
Now, is it a fact that these boys, over whose going we have been so enthusiastic, and whose splendid spirit we have commended because they went out to fight for the right, when they are wounded in battle. and sent back to England are not attended by qualified surgeons from the Dominion, but are dealt by first-year medical students?- Does the Prime Minister think he can ignore such a charge as that? Do hon. gentlemen who support the Prime Minister think they can ignore it? Let me tell them that the fathers and mothers of the boys, and the boys themselves, will hold them responsible if these statements are true, and the day of reckoning will come sooner or later. We simply call the attention of Parliament to these facts and ask for an investigation. No answer has been given to the charges. The Prime Minister, in his correspondence with the former Minister of Militia, does not answer them in

any way-does not pretend to. In his speech last night he took the course I have intimated. There was a side issue in connection with General Alderson and General Steele which could not be held to be so serious or important as are these charges, especially those in regard to	medical matters.	This House
expects, this country expects, that an investigation will be held in order that the facts may be made known. I speak with no feeling other than this-I want to know whether or not these boys of ours are being looked after? If they are being looked after, then this country can rest with an easy mind on that point; if they are not being looked after, then I beseech the Government, no matter what individuals may stand in the way, no matter what political considerations may intervene, to so deal with this question that the fathers and mothers of our boys may know that when those boys go across the ocean they will be as safe, so far as the Administration is concerned, as they would be in our own country. The facts must be made known, and when made known they can be dealt with.


Mr. BUKNHAM:: Has the hon. gentleman endeavoured to find out from the officers or men of the Canadian troops in England whether they were or were not satisfied with the treatment they received in hospitals or elsewhere? I can assure him, from meeting hundreds and hundreds, that there never was a complaint-nothing hut the greatest possible gratitude.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: All I have to say is that my hon. friend (Mr. Burnham) should wrestle out that problem with Dr. Bruce and the ex-Minister of Militia. The hon. gentleman may know more about the matter than Dr. Bruce and Sir Sam Hughes, but he can hardly expect us, he can hardly expect the friends of the boys who have gone across the water, to disregard the position taken by a surgeon of the standing of Dr. Bruce or the statements made by the former Minister of Militia, and to accept the hon. gentleman's own ipse dixit as settling the whole problem.
I pass to another question. I notice that the Minister of Finance is going to make a/i appeal to the people of this country to practice thrift. I have looked at the expenditures made under this Administration this year and last year. We all know that last winter we voted a tremendous sum of money for the use of the great spending departments, Eailways and Canals and

Public Works-where they spend money without orders in council-and we know that that money was voted on the distinct assurance	that	only those expenditures should be made which were absolutely	and	essentially necessary.
Later in the session I shall give to the House instances where this assurance has been absolutely disregarded so far as the Maritime Provinces are concerned, in the Department of Public Works, for one. I find that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, in his controllable expenditure down to December 31, 1915, spent $7,127,000 more than he did last year. It is true that there was a decrease of approximately $7,000,000 in the capital expenditure, but under ordinary expenditure my hon. friend spent $7,000,000 more. My hon. friend has spoken of the'policy of thrift, which I conceive to be absolutely necessary. Apart from political considerations, we must recognize that as citizens of this country we are, to a certain extent, living financially in a fool's paradise. Tremendous expenditures have been made in this war for munitions and supplies; an enormous amount of money has come into Canada, and our people have been spending money without regard to the consequences. It is absolutely proper that the true financial situation of the country should be placed before the people. When the war is won the responsibilities occasioned by the tremendous debt of the country, the pensions system apd other permanent obligations will necessitate the greatest possible economy in private and public life, particularly having regard to the fact tnat the expenditures, which are now being made in Canada shall have come to an end.
My right hon. friend will recall that last winter I pleaded with the House that [DOT]the extra money being received by the Post Office Department through the sale of war tax stamps should not be spent in unnecessary mail routes, particularly in eastern Canada. There was no necessity for the duplication of routes, and while the extension of rural mail delivery is a splendid and desirable thing under normal conditions, can it be said that in order to give mail facilities to any portion of the com-[DOT] munity you should spend twice as much this year as you did last? Can it be said that the system should be duplicated all over the country and that enormous increases should be made in the staff of clerks employed in Montreal, Quebec and other offices, resulting in the total absorption in one year of all the money that was col-

leeted by way of taxation through the war tax stamps? I know that in my province this duplication of mail routes has been going on wherever political necessity seemed to justify it. Provincial elections were held there during the last year; mail routes were promised and put into effect, and the extra money was spent. The Minister of Finance must not expect the plain people to respond to his appeal for economy and thrift if they see that the Government is disregarding war conditions and spending money liberally without any regard to the economy that ought to be displayed and which must be displayed in this country by the very necessities of the case, no matter what party is in power. We shall await the explanation of the Minister of Finance in this respect. I regret that he was not here earlier to-day, when I said that I thought he had no right to take the credit which was given him by the Prime Minister for the increased revenue of the country.
The situation in Canada to-day from all quarters indicates a peculiar condition of affairs. There is unrest abroad. Why is it that we hear from Conservative sources the demand for a national government? How is it that the departure to England of the Minister of Finance synchronized with the resignation of the former Minister of Militia? How is it that soon after his return it was announced that a prominent public servant, well known as having been identified with the Conservative party in the past, was going to make an announcement that Canada needed a stronger hand at the head of affairs? Why is it that the Conservative press of this country, outside of the party-owned papers, are in many instances urging that as a remedy? The Minister of Finance found it necessary, notwithstanding the adulations of the Prime Minister about the party loyalty of his colleagues, to publish an announcement to the people stating that he was really loyal to the Prime Minister. My experience of life, both public and private, is that where true friendship exists it is not necessary for any man to go to the housetops and announce his loyalty and devotion to his friends. It would be of interest to know whether the Prime Minister of this country was afraid of the Minister of Finance when he beslobbered him with compliments last night, just as he is afraid of the exMinister of Militia. The gingerly and pacific way in which the Prime Minister avoided any combat with the ex-Minister of Militia was deliciously amusing to the House. Either that, or the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance are working in common, realizing that all over this land
there is a feeling that the Government is not strong enough to cope with the interests of Canada in the war. This talk does not come merely from Liberals; it comes from Conservatives all over this- country, and it involves an implied condemnation of the Government. Unquestionably this will be the feeling if the Government goes along in this lackadaisical way; if it proceeds on present lines, disregarding all considerations of higher national interests, making the expenditure of every dollar in connection with the war a matter of party patronage, keeping their party hacks working from one end of the country to the other as the dispensers of money that the people of Canada have to spend in connection with the war.
It seems to me that it is time for the Canadian people as a whole to take stock of their condition. Never before in the history of this Empire or of any of its Dominions was a public document placed before the people making such serious charges as those made by Sir Sam Hughes against his colleagues in the Government. These things cannot be effaced; they are known by the people. The people to whose high ideals you appeal when you ask for recruits have read in the newspapers what the former leader in military matters has said of the Prime minister. Hon. gentlemen may have some secrets in regard to the late minister that we on this side of the House and the people of the country have not. When the boys who have gone out to fight come back they will want to see the administration of this country rid from the complaints that have been made against it. For myself, I leave the question for the consideration of the House and of the people.
I have spoken strongly on this subject, I admit; but I feel that this House and the country must realize that it is our duty in the interests of the Canada that is yet to be to do everything possible to secure the winning of the war. Sacrifice of position, sacrifice of place, must be made by us in order that this end may be attained, just as freely as we give our boys to go out and do and die. If there be any foes without or weaklings within this land who in the 'supposed distractions and political dissensions of our form of government believe that they have found elements upon which they can calculate that there is a doubt as to the wholeheartednese of our people in their desire to aid in winning this war, I can assure them they mistake the genius and the character of the Canadian people. And if they count on our

dissensions and on the 'rivalries of our pub-lie life, they will count on them to their confusion.
In this hour of national menace, differing as we do and must as to means to be- employed and as to weakness shown in admin-tration, a devoted people and a united Parliament stand above all for the winning of this war.	_


Mr. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to make a brief contribution to this debate, I wish to associate myself with those who have preceded me in the remarks that have been made in reference to His Royal Highness the late Governor General and also to Their Excellencies who have just come to us from the Old Land to take that high and honoured position. I also wish to join with all who have spoken in such high terms of the valour, the determination and the achievements of out troops at the front. It is a matter, I think, for pride for every true Canadian and every true Britisher, to know the splendid record made by our men at the front. I shall not therefore go into detail on that subject, hut shall simply join with those who have, in eloquent terms, paid tribute to our soldiers. I think, however, that every Britisher would do well to consider this fact, that if, in August 1914, we looked upon the task which then presented itself to us as worthy of our metal, worthy to tax the brain and the brawn of this country, I think we should realize today that the task is even greater in magnitude than it seemed to us at that time, because I well remember that the vast majority of the people of Canada expected that perhaps forty, fifty or at the wildest estimate one hundred thousand men, would be all that would he needed from Canada, and that perhaps .six months or a year or eighteen months would be required to settle this great question; but from the appalling figures given us by the
5 p.m. Prime Minister last night, not only of what Canada has done, but of what the Empire at large has done, we must realize that this task is one which will demand every energy, every effort that it is possible for the people of this Dominion to put forth. Realizing that, it Seems to me that it is the duty of this House to concentrate its whole energy, not upon picayune, small topics, not upon the question- of whether a certain comparatively trivial matter has been well administered, whether a certain form of this or that is right, but upon the far more important question

whether, in the main, the administration of affairs is right, and if the accomplishments of the Government and the troops at the front, of the Empire at large, are commensurate with the honour and the ability of the country as a whole- Some -say that we have done enoug)h. Some say that there is a limit to the demands that may be made upon Canada. I do not join in any such sentiment as that. I believe, as I think every true Canadian does, .that there is no sacrifice that we -should stop at in securing the successful termination of this war; and I have said on tlhe public platform -and I will say it here, that if Canada emerges from t'h-is crisis- with her honour intact and her liberty and her connection with the British Empire as it was before the war, and at the -same time bankrupt or losing all material wealth for the time being, -she will still be the gainer in the struggle.
I -have listened with a great deal of attention to the address of my hon. friend from Pdctou (Mr. E. M. Macdonald). I was tempted to pass by -his speech with very few references, in fact, I did not intend to say anything about it at all. He Urns made sweeping charges against the Administration, charges that have absolutely nothing behind them so far as his statements are concerned. I do not question the right of any hon. member of this House to make a charge against the Government, but I do hold that it is the duty of an hon. member who is prepared to make -a charge against the Government to make that charge in a manner which will demand an investigation such as we had last year foT instance, so that the question m.ay be settled. Fortunately for the Government, the investigations held as the result of charges made last year left the Government in a position where its honour was not in the slightest degree sullied, and I wish to congratulate the Government on that fact, that in sp-i-te of the most bitter attacks last year, the Government can come before this House wi-tlh not a single charge of those made last year proven against them. No reckless charges should be made. If there is anything wrong, or any member has reason to believe that anything is wrong, then let the hon. member who is in possession of the facts present them before the House, not in a spirit of elation at catching the Government, but in a spirit of sorrow that such a thing should be possible. But no such charge should be made unless the hon. member is willing to back it up.
The hon. member for Pictou says that if the Government has done things it should

not have done, and has left undone things that it should have done, it should be brought to task before the people of Canada and on the basis of that assumption he makes a long series of statements, not charges, not bona~ fide charges, but a long series of statements, and I propose very briefly to deal with a few of his statements. First, let met say that I rather regret that the hon. member should call particular attention to the question of Liberal or Tory at the front. I do not look upon it in that way. We are not Liberals and we are not Tories, I hope; we are Canadians and Britishers, whether we are at the front or backing up those who are at the front. I would say to him if he were in his seat that some of the dearest friends I have fighting at the front, who have been there ever since the outbreak of war, are members of his party, apd I cherish their friendship as much as I do that of my friends who sit on this side and who are members of my own party. There should be no partisanship in the question of loyalty to the Empire. I do not desire to raise it, but my hon. friend has raised it, and I think it is to be regretted that he should do so.
One of the statements made by my hon. Friend, or one of the insinuations, is that the Government is not competent and it has not administered the affairs of the country correctly and rightly; and he said and rightly said: Look at the great mother of Parliaments, look at England. There they have remodelled the Government on two or three occasions. He held that up in one part of his speech as a pattern for this Government and country. And then, forsooth, a little later on, he produced a most scandalous attack on the British Government published in Blackwood's Magazine and read that, on the one hand holding the British Government up as a pattern to this Government, so far as procedure is concerned, and on the other hand bringing forward a malicious attack, in a magazine, upon that Government and reading it here, and then laying all that was said against the British Government on the head of the Government controlling or directing the affairs of this country. I think it ill becomes any member of this ' House to take up newspaper or magazine attacks upon the Imperial Government and to make it a subject of debate in this House. If we want harmony, we certainly cannot have it by introducing the expressions of individuals who may have personal reasons for giving their opinions about other governments closely associated with us in this great task of carrying on and winning the war.
Then my hon. friend (Mr. Macdonald! proceeded with all the ingenuity and skill, of which he is so highly possessed, to stir up a little strife between the Prime Minister and one of his late colleagues. I will take second place to no one in my admiration of the ex-Minister of Militia; at the same time I think it is very small politics, and it does not contribute in the slightest degree to the successful carrying on of this war, to introduce a question of personal strife between any two members of this House whether they are in the Government or out of it. These are matters which they can very well afford to settle between themselves. In taking up an hour's time reading statements, enlarging upon them, and introducing into them matters which were not contained in them at all, my hon. friend did not contribute very much to the successful termination of the war or to helping to carry on this great struggle.
But, he says that mistakes have been made which may cost this country thousands of lives. I would like to ask my hon. friend if he associates himself in this statement, because his language very much resembles their's, with those who claim that because the Ross rifle has been used, there have been thousands of lives lost. If I remember rightly, all through the years in which he has been a member of this House, he has stood stolidly behind the Ross rifle. If the Government have been guilty of mistakes which have caused the loss of lives because of the use of the Ross rifle, then my hon. friend is equally responsible with them because he stood solidly behind the Ross rifle from first to last. He will not stand in his place to-day and condemn the Ross rifle, and he knows it. ' What is the use of bringing forward a statement of that kind? If the Ross rifle has proved unsuccessful or unsatisfactory in its practical use in this war, then the Government has done right in taking the advice of Sir John French, and Sir Douglas Haig and other high officers, and for the time being discarding it for active service at the front. I think that we as sensible men must recognize that in the progress of a war of this kind, when new methods are being used, when machines are being brought into use that were never thought of before, experiments, to a certain degree, must absolutely be made. I remember the case of a cer-

tain member of the Royal Flying Corps who, in defence of England against one of the early raids of the Zeppelins, indulged in an experiment which cost him his life. He charged straight at the Zeppelin with the result that his machine fell to the ground and he was killed. But, that was the forerunner of the method of attack upon the Zeppelins which deprived this Hun method of warfare of its terrors and which enabled British airmen to successfully meet and defeat the Zeppelins. Will my hon. friend say that, because a man lost his life, such an experiment is not to be made? There are thousands of Britishers ready and willing to lay down their lives in any kind of an experiment that is going to improve our chances of winning the war.
My hon. friend from Pictou proceeded to say that in 1914 and 1915 this Government had a notion of going to the country, that they had the key in the lock of the door and that they were about to appeal to the country when a cry went up from the people that we were to have no election, which cry was evidence that the people were satisfied with the way in which the affairs of the country were being administered. Yet, his whole speech to-day, if it meant anything at all, meant that there should be an election, and a change of Government, It was an arraignment of the Government from beginning to end, and yet, in another argument which happened to suit his fancy for the moment, he pointed out that the people were satisfied with the Government and did not want any change at a time, as he says, when they had a notion of appealing to the people.
Recruiting, he says, has been injuriously affected. Is it any wonder, he asks, that there has been any cessation of recruiting in Canada when hundreds of our boys are dying in the hospitals because of lack of treatment. Such a statement is absolutely unfair to the medical staff, to the nurses, to those in charge of the hospitals and to everybody who is carrying on this medical work.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I never made any such statement.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend may not have used those words but he made the statement.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Not at all. I ask my hon. friend to take that statement back. I decline to be under the imputation of having made any such statement.
TMr. Stevens.]


Mr. SPEAKER:: The rule is very clear that the statement of an hon. member as to what he said must be accepted.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I wish to say that my hon. friend criticised the Government bitterly and at great length because of the condition of the hospitals in France and England.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I said that if the statements made by Dr. Bruce and by the ex-Minister of Militia were correct, a serious condition existed and an investigation should be had.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then, my hon. friend does not speak from any knowledge of his own?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I have spoken only as my hon. friend has done; I was not over there and did not see the hospitals. I have spoken from Dr. Bruce's report.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend said that he had never seen the report of Dr. Bruce and yet he has the audacity to say to this House that the statements made by Dr. Bruce are true as to the condition which obtains in France.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What I stated to the House was that I had seen newspaper reports of Dr. Bruce's statement.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Oh, he is getting down to newspaper reports now.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend need not be so very fly. He cannot misrepresent me because I will not permit him to and he need not try.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend is very brave. On newspaper reports my hon. friend makes an attack on this Government regarding the hospitals in France and England. My answer to that is this- died of sickness up to date, 494 of the men overseas. I care not a snap of my finger what my hon. friend imagines, or what my hon. friend has read in the papers, where he gets his information; I challenge any country in the world to produce from the medical service of its army a condition equal to that. I challenge my hon. friend to produce statistics which will show such an excellent record elsewhere. As a matter of fact, the general results of the medical service of Canada and Great Britain are unsurpassed by those of any other nation engaged in this war. The mortality o' this House-and I speak with reverence on

this subject because some of our colleagues have passed away-has been greater from sickness during the period of the war than the mortality among the Canadian troops overseas. Is that not a record worthy of commendation rather than of the vicious attacks which have fallen from the lips of my hon. friend?
Then my hon. friend asks: Is this the way in which you are going to stimulate recruiting? Will his speech stimulate recruiting? Will charges based upon unsupported statements, mere rumors, fancies gained by the hon. gentleman here and there from newspapers, that he does no* and dare not quote, stimulate recruiting? If there is one thing that we in this House and in this country should be at this time it is serious and sincere in everything we state. Before making statements we should see that we have the facts behind them upon which to base sound complaints, if such complaints are to be made.
Then my hon. friend proceeded in his vociferous manner with a most violent attack on the Government for interfering with the military control. " I have heard," says he, " that a man by the name of Gwatkin " -we all know that there is a gentleman by the name of General Gwatkin-" I have heard that there is a man by the name of Gwatkin who has control of affairs." And the hon. member asked: "Will anybody dare say that he has control of affairs?" He then went on with a long tirade of abuse against the Government for not having dared, according to the hon. member, to interfere with the head of the military affairs. He passed on, perhaps thinking we would forget what he had said, and happily we do forget most of it. But a little later on the hon. gentleman who had given expression to these sentiments again attacked the Premier because he had not interfered when the 85;th Regiment was broken up. Why, sir, the 85th was not the only regiment that was broken up. The same thing happened to the Irish Rangers and to the 121st Battalion, and a dozen others I could mention. Because the chief of the general staff thought it best to use these men as reinforcements for the regiments at the front, the hon. member for Pictou heaps abuse on the head of the Prime Minister for not interfering with the War Office and having these battalions handled exactly as the friends at 'home would like to see. I take second place to no man in my desire to see our boys from Vancouver, Pictou, Toronto, or any other centre, kept together.
I remember well the 121st Battalion, which,
with others, I undertook to raise. In less than five weeks we had raised the battalion to full strength. It went overseas, and we hoped the regiment would not be broken up, as all the boys came from the same locality. But I got word from some of the boys overseas that the battalion was being broken up in just the same way as my hon. friend says the 85th was broken up. But, surely, upon second thoughts, we must realize that we must bow to any decisions that are made in the interests of efficiency at the front, and I must say that I differ from my hon. friend, if I am to judge him by the sentiments he expressed this afternoon. I have confidence in Sir Douglas Haig, confidence in the War Office, in the British authorities and in the Canadian officers. I have confidence in the men who are running this war. I am not so foolish as to think they do not make mistakes, but I am confident they are doing their best to discharge the responsibilities resting upon them, and it ill becomes the hon. member for Pictou to urge the Government to interfere in these important matters overseas. I am sure he would be the first man to stand up in the House and condemn the Government for such interference. As a matter of fact, he has done it in his speech to-day. The hon. member for Pictou claims to have an honoured military record himself; so he ought to know the King's regulations and all about the proper procedure in military affairs. He knows perfectly well that the statements he made this afternoon and the charges and innuendos he heaped upon this Government were unjustified and unfair, and certainly not in the interest of recruiting in this country. He says he would like to know what the Prime Minister thinks of conscription. Why does not my hon. friend tell us what he thinks of conscription himself?	,


Mr. W. H. BENNETT:: He is waiting to see what will happen on Saturday next.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Prime Minister has taken the stand before the people of this country that if it ,is humanly possible the troops that go overseas from Canada shall be volunteers. He has stated that he has seen no occasion for bringing in conscription so far as our present needs are concerned.
I would draw my hon, friend's attention to another effort on the part of the Government, on which he might also, have given us his opinion, ,and that is the National Service scheme. Some of his friends are saying that National Service is but a step



to conscription. I would point out to him, and others who think like Mm and there are a few-that the National Service propaganda which has been endorsed by the right hon. leader of the Opposition is a propaganda by which it is expected to get the last possible effort out of the people of Canada; that is the basis of it. Let my hon. friend and his leader, and his colleagues support the National Service propaganda, and them perhaps conscription, will never be necessary. I hope it never will be necessary in Canada. I hope we shall be able to fill the bill without having anything in the nature of conscription. If my hon. friend did that he would be doing a much better service ito the country than by standing up here and twitting the Prime Minister. The hom. gentleman said that if the Prime Minister spoke he could still the uneasiness of the country at once. Surely my hon. friend is not going 'to take second place to the Prime Minister. Why does he not still the uneasiness himself by giving the country his views on conscription? The hon. gentleman then proceeded to review at very great length the correspondence between the Prime Minister and the ex-Minister of Militia. One of his chief arguments, over which he laboured very long, was this: that other ministers of the Crown had expended money without Order in Council. Now my hon. friend takes second place to no one in the House in astuteness as a parliamentarian; he claims to be a lawyer of the first rank. As such, the hon. member must know that when he and the rest of us sitting in this House vote an appropriation bil'l, every item of that bill is appropriated without requiring any Order in Council. He also knows, if he has given it a moment's thought-and I am afraid he has not-that the $250,000,000 voted for war purposes was voted to the Government without any particular allotment. The result is that every dollar of that $250,000,000 must be expended by Order in Council; whereas the appropriations in, the estimates require no Order in Council. That is clear to those of us who are mere novices, and it certainly must be clear to my hon. friend, if he gives it a moment's thought. I question very much, indeed, his sincerity in the long and laboured argument he made in regard to the $250,000,000. I think he knows perfectly well that there was nothing in that argument at all except the desire to stir up a little internal trouble in this party and in the Government. In fact, his. whole speech, except the part which he 
read at the end, was an endeavour to make trouble and cause ill-feeling. I do not propose to deal at any further length with his remarks. He said a great deal more, but there was very little in it.
I wish to make two suggestions to the Government, for I believe it is the duty of hon. gentlemen of this House, coming as they do from all parts of this country, over 4,000 miles in length, to make suggestions to the Government, because the Government, of course, cannot be intimately in touch with affairs in all parts of the country.
I think one of the most important questions in the carrying on of the war is that of the supply of lead, zinc, copper, molybdenite, and other minerals of that kind. Those four in particular that I have mentioned are produced in large quantities in British Columbia, and I wish to draw, the attention of the Government to this fact. The owners of minerals in British Columbia experience a great deal of difficulty in having their minerals smelted. There is one smelter up the coast at Anyox, belonging to the British Columbia Copper Company, I think, or to the Granby Company. That company has recently stopped accepting custom ores; that is, they do not do any smelting for outside concerns. There is also a smelter at Ladysmith, the Tyie smelter, which lias been idle for a great many years; and a month or so ago they decided to again start this smelter.	-
But as near as I can learn from careful inquiry there is some' sinister influence preventing the Tyie smelter from opening up, and also preventing the Granby smelter from taking custom ores. I want, in a very serious manner, to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that steps should immediately be taken to see that every facility for smelting ores is placed at the disposal of the mine owners of British Columbia. I am not speaking about the large mines; I am speaking about the smaller ones. There are millions of tons of copper ore blocked out, Teady for taking out of the mine and for smelting if the facilities were accorded. I lay that upon the Government, and may I lay this upon the Government also? Two years ago I spoke in regard to the matter and some results have been obtained, but I am going to draw the matter to their attention again. The Government should establish .adequate refining facilities for the product of the smelting of these ores. It is true that the Trail smelter has in the last two years added refining facilities, but those facilities are not sufficient and we want a refinery on the coast. One mine on


the coast employing about two thousand men produces every week thousands upon thousands of tons of the richest copper ore, and all of this is shipped to Tacoma and finds a market on the other side of the line. That copper should be smelted and refined in Canada and the product shipped to the old country, where there is a great demand for it. There is no reason in the world that I can discover, after looking carefully into the matter, why that should not be done. I ask the Government to give consideration to these facts. I have here a great deal of correspondence on the subject, some of which I have received to-day, but I shall not weary the House with it.
We have recently been receiving in Canada a number of returned soldiers. I think about six hundred have returned to Vancouver alone, and corresponding numbers to other places. A great many of these boys are wounded, some of them incapacitated for life, and every effort is being made to look after them. I want to congratulate the Government on what they have done up to the present time; but as time goes on the number of returning soldiers will increase to such an extent that the task that will face us is appalling. I believe this House could well spend considerable time in studying out the problem of taking care of the soldiers returning from the front. There are many ways in which this could be done, but I have one suggestion to make to the Government at the present time, and I believe they will act upon it favourably. The British Columbia University is prepared to give free tuition and instruction to men in a thorough course of agriculture. It is absolutely useless to take men who have not been accustomed to farming and put them on the land, although we hear a great deal of putting men on the land-, as if you can. pick up a man like a pawn and put him on the land and expect him to make a successful farmer. For a man to make a success of farming he must have some agricultural training, and a thorough course in a university of agriculture would give him a start and also confidence in his new life. Hon. members from British Columbia know that there are millions of acres of splendid land in that province; but if we simply give a hundred or a hundred and sixty acres to a returned soldier and then trust to luck whether he makes good or not. We are not going to solve the problem of the returned soldier successfully. I make this suggestion, not in a critical spirit, that this Parliament should combine its 5i
energies in an effort to solve ttiese after-the-war problems which are to-day commencing to face us- We are getting only a small number of returned soldiers at present, but in a very few months the number will increase and the problem will grow accordingly. The Military Hospitals Commission is doing splendid work, but I do not think it will be capable of meeting the demands that will be made upon it in a few months. I lay upon this Government and upon every member of the House the responsibility of joining together and endeavouring to solve these problems.
My remarks have been made in the latter part with the idea of bringing forward one or two suggestions which I know to be important. There are many other suggestions which may fall from the lips of other members wfoo know local conditions better, but I believe that our efforts as Canadians and as Britishers should be 'Combined with the one object of making Canada more efficient and more capable of carrying on. this great war. I am as proud as any man of what we have accomplished, but there is a greater task before us and I -hope and believe that the people of Canada, especially the members of this House, will measure up to the demands made upon them.


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Edmonton):: Mr. Speaker, it is hardly necessary for me to add my congratulations to you on your elevation to your present position- I will only say that I think the House is as fortunate as yourself.	-
In regard to the remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. Stevens), it strikes me that the Government has not been altogether fortunate in its selection of an apologist on this occasion. While my hon. friend is prepared to endorse everything that the Government has done or everything that it has left undone in connection with the war, he is not prepared to endorse what it has done or left undone in regard to the smelting and refining industry of British Columbia. The Government, which cannot be trusted in what is not as important a matter as the war-which my hon. friend cannot trust to its own guidance in this so much less important matter-he is prepared to defend with all the ability, and, if I may say, the vociferation, of which he is capable in regard to that greater matter in reference to which even he might think that iihe Government which he supports might some-

times or somehow or on some occasion fall short of the ideal.
My !hon. friend criticises certain phases of the speech of my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) on the ground that they might have an injurious effect upon recruiting; but when my hon- friend himself began to touch on the questions that are arising to-day in connection with our returned soldiers, I am not so sure that, judged by the same standard as he set up for my hon. friend from Pictou, his speech was not just as detrimental to recruiting, because the suggestion was contained in it that there is something lacking, something that needs his suggestion in this House, in regard to the betterment of the conditions of those men who have rendered service and who. have suffered in the cause. Not only does he make that suggestion himself, but Ihe calls on all the members of this House to aid him in bringing the matter to the attention of the Government and of the country to see that it is properly adjusted. I do not think that any one is entitled to criticise, nor should any one be afraid of criticism, because we in this Parliament discuss matters relating to the administration of the war.
I may be permitted, perhaps, to traverse to some degree the positions that have already been taken in this debate in regard to the war at large, and to say that, for my part, I am not able to agree with the views of the Prime Minister as to the successful progress of the war, any more than I am able to agree with his views as to the means taken to secure its successful termination. I am afraid that if, to-day, the allied arms are not in a better position than they are, it is largely because we, the people of the allied nations, have not been willing to look the facts in the face. We have tried to win the war on paper, by argument and demonstration and proof, while the war can only be won by blood and sacrifice. The more fully and the more quickly we face that condition and prepare ourselves to meet it, the sooner and the more certainly shall we win success. I do not think there can be any exaggeration of the gravity of the position as it is to-day. When I read that the beautiful parks of England are being ploughed up to raise food because of the exigencies of the war; when I hear that the people of England, [DOT]of rich England, have to eat black bread ibecause of the war; when I read that the Premier of England calls on the people of 
the Empire to offer sacrifice of men and means uncounted and uncountable,-I say we are not doing ourselves justice, we are not doing justice to the cause, if we do not look the facts squarely in the face and recognize that our part is to do everything we can, to do it well, and to do it now.
There seems to me to be a certain measure of confusion of mind as to the value of the respective services rendered in the war. I have read, I have heard it sugges ed, that the services of raising food, of making munitions, of transportation, are on an equality with the service of the men who stand in the battle line. I cannot agree with that view. Not only do I think that view mistaken, but I think it is bound to be terribly injurious to the effective prosecution of our share in the war. I do not minimize in any degree the importance of the -labour of any man in any of these callings. Perhaps I shall be unable to place before this House lucidly the case, as it strikes my mind, of the difference between the man who leaves his home, his friends, his property, and his prospects- leaves everything behind-and takes upon himself the terrible hardship of the battle-front, and who risks from day to day and from moment to moment his life and limb for the cause in which he fights; I say I cannot make a comparison of equality between the services rendered by that man and those rendered by the man, let him be as able as he may, who works in a munitions plant, or on a farm, or in transportation, or in any other necessary service, for which service he is well paid, and through which he enjoys every comfort of life as though there were no war-as a matter of fact, in many cases, draws betteT wages and lives under conditions immeasurably better than would be the case if there were no war. I think it is a mistake to place these two classes of service on an equality. If I do not weary the House with this form of discussion, let me say it strikes me in this way. The man who is to render service in the battle line, in the first place, must be the pick of our country in the matter of physical perfection. It is not every man, indeed it is a comparatively small percentage of the men of our country, who are physically fit to take upon themselves the hardships and risks of the battle front. A man who is not fit for the battle front may well be fit for these other occupations in which he may Tender excellent service, necessary service. But the number of men you can put in the battle front aTe the pick of our manhood, and they are only a com-

paratively small proportion of that manhood. Therefore, the first essential is the man in the battle line, and unless we have enough of them, and unless they are of the right quality, both physically and spiritually, of what account is it that we have munition factories, or that we have farms producing food, or that we have transportation facilities? The man in the battle line is the man who wins tire war, and it is with the question of putting the right kind of men into the battle line, putting them there at the right time and under proper leadership, that we have to deal. First things first; let us recognize that to get our men into the battle line is the first duty of those who have the direction of our affairs.
We must assume that that principle was recognized when, on New Year's Day, 1916, the Premier of Canada issued a call to the people of Canada for half a million men. That call was received by the people with every consideration, with the recognition of its propriety and justice, and there was not, from any part of the country, so far as I am aware, any protest or objection against that call being made. Such a call, made by the Premier of Canada and received without objection by the people of Canada, was a pledge of the honour of Canada to herself, to the Empire to which she belongs and to the Allied powers that she would make good her promise. Since that time there have been heavy enlistments of men, as the Premier said yesterday when he told us of the number of enlistments that had been made. It would be impossible to exaggerate the magnificence of the response made by our people to that call under the circumstances as they stand. We boasted that we were a peace-loving people; that for a hundred years we had been in a condition of peace. Peace was preached from our pulpits and spoken from every platform. Our whole education was an education of peacefulness; and that our men should have responded as they did to the call that was made, certainly showed in large measure a realization of the terrible character of the conflict and of the necessity of Canada's participation in it.
May I say on that point, as I wish to voice the idea that I believe to be in the minds of our people, that this war was not Britain's war or the war of the Allied powers; it was the war of humanity to preserve liberty, to preserve in this world a free civilization against the attack of military autocracy. It is in my mind, and I
am sure it is in the mind of many others, that the success of the Central Powers of Europe, as allied to-day, would mean the re-establishment not only on the continent of Europe, but throughout the world, of a condition of militarist authority and of military tyranny as existed throughout the world in the dark ages when feudalism ruled. Who, I ask, would question the word of the Kaiser as the highest law if the German armies should overrun France and break the power of Britain? No other power in the world could stand against it: free civilization would cease as surely as civilization itself ceased when the Turks overran a part of Europe. We are not fighting for Britain; we are not fighting for Canada; we are fighting for liberty in the world. It is the fight of every individual who realizes that he Is sacrificing himself for the liberty of the world and not for any smaller or lesser cause.
I have said that we have responded to a wonderful extent to this call for half a million men; but that call has not yet been met. The honour of our country is committed to its being met, and it is for us to consider ways and means as to how it may be met and to consider causes as to why it has not yet been met. First of all, may I suggest to the House that the figures read yesterday by the Premier are to some extent misleading. I regret to have to say that, but the statement that the enlistments amount to 390 odd thousand men does not mean that the number of effectives is 390 odd thousand men. We are not doing ourselves credit when we include enlistments of ineffectives in the number of men which has been our contribution towards winning the war. During last session the Prime Minister gave to the House and the country figures showing the number of enlistments at that date, the number of casualties and the number that was covered by the term " wastage." At that time the wastage, that is to say, the men who had joined and had been discharged as being inefficient for one reason and another, amounted, if my memory serves me correctly, to something like 20,-
000.


Mr. HAZEN:: That would include men
who were wounded, would it not?


Frank Oliver: No; if I remember correctly, the casualties mentioned by the Prime Minister were in the neighbourhood of 20,000 and the wastage was something like another 20,000. I questioned him as to

the meaning of the word wastage, and he explained that it included discharges, rejections or desertions-losses that occurred otherwise than through casualties. If that was the fact last year, I am afraid that it is still the fact; and when we pride ourselves on having enlisted such a large number of men we are not honest with ourselves if we do not deduct the wastage and count only those enlisted who were. effective. We are breaking faith; we are discrediting ourselves with the Empire and with the Allies when we claim to have given to the cause eo many men when a very considerable proportion of that number were not of the class that were able to render the service that they were called upon to render. So that I am compelled to believe that we are very considerably short of the number of 390,000 effective men.
It is now more than a year since that call was issued. The events that have taken place since that time, that are taking place now and that are impending, indicate that there is need for men now as there never was before.
Not to dwell upon that point, I think at is agreed on all hands that this coming season must see the Allies on the aggressive, if ever we expect to win. We must be on the aggressive. That is a simple word, but its meaning is tremendous, because the aggressive mean losses, .and losses, and more losses, and we must have the men to meet those losses or we cannot prosecute the aggressive and we do not win the war -and let us not forget that the w.ar is not yet won. So I say that while we have surprised ourselves with what we have done, we are nolt yet in a position to claim that we have made good our pledges, our promises, or that we are going to take our place in the battle in the coming spring as we promised more than a year ago that we would take lit-'and it is possible that our failure to take it in that strength and with that vigour may possibly be enough to turn the scale against the Allies.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Becess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Frank Oliver: Mr. Speaker, shortly before six o'clock, speaking of the relations of our country to the present war, I mentioned the obligation felt by the individual to support the cause of the world's liberty. In case the suggestion may be made that if this is a battle for the world's liberty then 
all the countries of the world which love liberty should be engaged in that battle, I would only say that as world conditions are at present the lot happens to fall upon us. It is the Empire with which we are associated that stands as the exponent and the leader of human liberty in the world, and it is only right and reasonable that when conditions so fall that right and liberty are endangered, the Empire and .all who have part in it should feel that their turn has come to vindicate and support liberty and right in the world and for the world.
The suggestion has been made that our neighbours to 'the south, the people of the great republic, lovers of liberty as we are, should have a part in this war, .as we have, if they love liberty, as we do. I think it is only fair to say that as the lot fell 50 years ago their's was the task of maintaining human liberty, and it was not then ours. At that time that great people made many and tremendous sacrifices for the cause of human liberty while we stood by, as we had a right to stand by, and they fought .their battle alone. 'To-day the lot has fallen on us. Let us be as good men as our neighbours and stand when it comes to us in our turn as they stood when it came to them in their turn.
I was speaking at six o'clock of the call for 500,000 men issued by the Premier a little over a year ago, and of the fact that must be faced that, however great the credit our country is entitled to for what it has done, it has still fallen short of the pledge given, of the promise made and the recognized need of the occasion. How far we are short is a question which may be in dispute. I was considering the account given by the Prime Minister yesterday of the number of enlistments. He credits Canada with enlisting 392,000 men. If we have enlisted
392,000	effectives we are entitled to credit for doing so, but if we have not, if wastage by rejections for unfitness from that number has been counted into it, and if we claim something that we have not made good, we are not doing justice to ourselves, or to our Allies, or to the cause in which we are all engaged. I do not know how much this wastage may be; I do not know how many rejections may have been made, but I am credibly informed that a short time ago Mr. Godfrey, President of the National Service League of Toronto, made the statement that the wastage up to the date at which he spoke had amounted to 60,000. If that figure is correct our effective enlistments are reduced from 392,000 to 332,000, or, say, in round numbers, to 330,000, leav-

ing still to be made up 170,000 effective enlistments before our promise.^ to ourselves and to our Allies have been made good.
This is a matter for very serious consideration, and in dealing with the question, while I must necessarily speak of those in authority, that is, of the Government of our country, and of their action or their inaction, I do not wish to be understood as speaking of the Government as separate from the people; but as speaking of the country, rather than of the action of the Government of the day. Because, while the Government is directly responsible for whatever is done or is not done, inasmuch as the Government is endorsed by the country, the country at large must share the responsibility, and I wish to be understood as speaking in that sense. The fact that the promise made on January 1, 1916, was not being made good became apparent about the middle of the year, and I take it that what are now called the National Service proposals was the answer of the Government to the question, what are you going to do about the failure of the country to implement the promise of 500,000 men? The Premier and the Director of National Service made a tour throughout the country some months ago, for the purpose of placing this scheme of National Service before the people, presumably with a view to working it out, with the result already suggested by me. I was somewhat surprised yesterday, when the right lion. Premier was discussing the Address in reply to the speech from the Throne, that he did not see fit even distantly to allude to the subject of National Service. It struck me that if it was desirable-and it surely was desirable-that the Premier and the Director of National Service should tour Canada for the purpose of placing the National Service proposals clearly before the people, surely here on the floor of Parliament was the place, and the debate on the Address the time, for a statement in regard to this question, explaining what it meant and what was being done under it.
May I make a personal reference in this connection? When the Premier and the Director of National Service were going through the West, I received a telegram from the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. R. B. Bennett), asking me to take part in a meeting at Edmonton to be addressed by him and by the Premier. I replied that as a member of the Parliamentary Opposition, whose duty was the criticism of Government measures, I would wait to hear the
proposals explained before I undertook to endorse them or explain them to other people. For that reply, which was made public, I was subjected to criticism in the columns of many newspapers supporting my friends on the other side of the House. I will say that it was by no means non-partisan criticism, but of a very directly personal character, and in most instances the criticism took the form of questioning my loyalty to King and Empire. I have only this to say in that connection. At this time, and under the circumstances in which this country finds itself, loyalty is not expressed by words:	it i's only expressed by service.
There is a great difference between the service rendered by the individual citizen, and the service rendered by those charged with the direction of affairs of state. There is a responsibility resting upon those who are charged with the direction of affairs of state that does not rest upon the private citizen. He is responsible for his actions, but they are responsible not only for their own private actions, but for the direction of the affairs of the country. I want to say this, Mir. Speaker, that at this present time, and under these conditions, when the future of the world depends upon the success of the Allied armies, inefficiency is treason, the talk that leads to inefficiency is treason, and the Government that is in power in this or in any other of the countries that are at war to-day must stand and be judged of its loyalty by the character of the service that it gives.
The proposals for National Service have been explained on numerous occasions and at numerous times. I regret, I say, that the Premier did not take the opportunity of making an explanation here yesterday because failing such explanation, I am compelled in addressing the House to-night to give suchinterpretationto the terms and conditions surrounding and contained in these National Service proposals as appeals to my mind. I shall be very sorry if I am wrong, but if I am wrong, the fault is rather with those who have the direction of our affairs, and who, as yet, have failed to place before the country these proposals in a light in which they could be thoroughly understood. They have had National Service proposals and a National Service policy in Great Britain. But National Service in Great Britain means, first, military service and, secondly, industrial service. Unless National Service means first, military service

and afterwards industrial service, it is not, in time of war, National Service at all. A so-called National Service which ignores the military necessities of this country at the present time is not National Service; it is not loyal service, if I may be permitted to say so; it is not service that is going to win this war.
So far as I have been able to gather from a perusal of the National Service cards that have been issued, and from statements that have been miade both by the Prime Minister and by the Director of National Service, this National Service proposal is one for the conscription of labour for industrial purposes. There is no proposal contained within it, either nearly or remotely, of conscription for military purposes; no suggestion either present or future. I will admit that there is no very clear suggestion of any kind; but whatever suggestion there is relates solely to industrial purposes. This at a time when military necessity is so pressing, when the future of the world depends on military success. The .Government of Canada comes forward, at a time when its promise of half a million of fighting men has failed to be fulfilled, with a proposal that it calls National Service, which does not propose, either directly or indirectly, either nearly or remotely, to add one man to the number of those fighting men. I will admit that other suggestions have been made. I think my toon, friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) gave voice to the idea that in some way, which he did not explain, the National Service proposal meant compulsory military service. I find that that idea has been circulated through the press; it has been preached to some degree from the platform, but it has never at any time bean backed up by definite authority or. by definite statement. Following the tour of the Prime Minister and the Director of National Service through the country, I gather that the idea ran something like this:	In the West where the response to
military demands toad been, we shall say, if noit ample, -at any rate, more full and free than anywhere else in the Do-minion, where the people were rather more inspired with the idea of military service, there -the idea was conveyed that National Service meant military service in some indirect way or at some future time; but when the party were in other parts of the Dominion the idea was very definitely expressed that it did not mean military service; that it meant on'y industrial service, and diid not even mean .industrial conscription but meant only voluntary industrial service.
fWr Oliver 1
At the present time a member of the Government is standing for election in a county in the province of Quebec, and the question of National Service is under discussion in the campaign. The Government is surely bound by the declarations of its minister made on such an occasion. According to constitutional practice time-honoured through many years, he .appeals to the electors for re-election on certain grounds of policy, and in the discussions that have-taken place he must be considered to have expressed the policy of the Government in regard to National Service; he must be-considered to have pledged the Government of which he has recently become a member to their policy in regard to National Service-The Hon. Mr. Sevigny, speaking at St. Zacharie, Dorchester County, Quebec, on-Friday, January 19, is reported in the Montreal Gazette as follows. He is speaking of the war:-
It is necessary to bring victory because of civilization, justice and liberty. Put aside-matters of politics, for it is a question of life and death for you and for me. You live here at St. Zacharie in peace; you enjoy much. It is your duty to produce harvests, to do all possible to have munitions and bread for our soldiers.
You will observe that the minister does not suggest to the people of St. Zacharie that it is any part of their duty to become soldiers themselves. This fight for civilization, justice and liberty, this battle of life and death for you and for me is to be fought, apparently, by somebody other than the prospective constituents of the new Minister of Inland Revenue. Their duties-are the duties of peace. It is not suggested to them that they have any duties of war. But the Minister of Inland Revenue goes-further:-
In this war no one says we must go.
He makes it thoroughly binding between himself and his prospective constituents:-
No one was forced and no one will he forced' to go.
That is the statement of the Government of Canada, though the mouth of their latest-appointed minister to his electors, as to the Government's policy on national service. That policy cannot be construed to mean any accession to the military strength of ourselves or our Allies. At this time the promise made on the first of January, 1916, stands unfulfilled, it stands short of fuifilm-ent by 170,000 men; and we have-the -authority of the Minister of Inland Revenue that the Government has no proposition to place before the people of this


country for the fulfilment of that promise. It is not my loyalty that is in question, but the loyalty of the gentlemen who are charged with the responsibility of directing this country's affairs.


Mr. ROGERS:: I trust and hope that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) wants to be fair. He heard the Prime Minister give a detailed statement of enlistments in one form or another in Canada showing a total enlistment of 434,000. I am sure he accepts the statement of the Prime Minister as being accurate, it having been prepared with the greatest possible care to present to this House and to the country. I am sorry, therefore that he should make the statement that we are -still 170,000 -short of the 500,000 pledged a year ago. I do not think he desiree to give out information which is not in accordance with the facts, especially the facts as presented to this House by the Prime Minister.


Frank Oliver: I think my hon. friend
(Mr. Rogers) can hardly have followed my argument. Perhaps he was not in hie place when I was making my statement. I did not dispute the number of enlistments, but I stated that there i-s a consideration in connection with these figures known as wastage, which was- not taken into account in the number of enlistments given by the Prime Minister. We are not fair to ourselves or to the country when we do not take that wastage into account in estimating the number of our men. We have only the right to count our effectives. Good intentions do not count in war unless they are backed up. However good the intentions of a man may be, if they are not backed by military service they are of no use to stop the Germ-ans. My point is that the Prime Minister should not take credit to us for having enlisted -so many men but only for having enlisted so many effectives. A-s to that number I gave the authority of the gentleman at the head of the National Service League of Toronto for the -statement that the wastage-that is, rejects-from that number of enlistments was 60,000. I have every reason to believe that that is measurably correct. I hope the hon. gentleman will not think that there is any question of veracity as between the Prime Minister and me.


Robert Rogers: But that would not account for anything like the difference that the hon. gentleman has given.


Frank Oliver: The Prime Minister has not suggested that the British reservists,
the French reservists, and the reservists of other allied nations, the munition workers, and some others that he counted in his gross total, were to be included as helping to implement his promise of 500,000 men. These had nothing to do with the promise made by the Prime Minister a year ago last January.


Robert Rogers: The promise made had to do with the total number that should represent Canada in the conflict, and the figures given last night show that enlistments, including all classes, numbered, up to last night, 434,000.


Frank Oliver: If the statement made by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) is warranted by the Prime Minister, I am perfectly satisfied to accept it. If the Prime Minister, in promising to the Allies
500,000	men from Canada, included or intended to include all these classes to which I have referred, I am perfectly willing to accept the statement in that sense. But-that was not the understanding we had at that time; that was not the boast we made when we said we were going to recruit 500,000 men for the fighting line of the Allies. But, even if we are to count those rejected as not qualified for the service, and those who went forward because they were called by their several countries and without jurisdiction of ours, we are still short something over 50,000 men. So, there still is required some measure to implement the promise made, even if we accept the figures as referred to by my hon. friend.


John Douglas Hazen: I think my hon. friend
(Mr. Oliver) is in error. The figures of enlistment given are of men who have enlisted, passed the medical examination, and been enrolled. I think the hon. gentleman is wrong-I say it with all respect for him -in the effect he gives to the term "wastage." That term refers to men who have gone to the front and have afterwards been incapacitated for service, and their places taken by those held in reserve. It refers to men who were fit for service and have been rendered unfit, and not merely those who were physically unfit at the time they were enlisted. The man who passes the medical examination and is accepted must be assumed to be fit; he has been accepted as a fighting man.


Frank Oliver: My argument does not
rest on the question whether rejections were many or few. I am willing to accept the figures that are given. But I must

take some figures. I quite agree with the Minister of Marine and Fisheries that the figures given by the Prime Minister show the number of men who passed the medical examination and were enrolled. But of these men some have been found to be unfit before they reached the firing line. My judgment would be that we are not entitled to count these men as our contribution toward the winning of the war. No matter how good the intentions of these men may have been, they have not helped to win the war, on the contrary, they have been, in proportion to their numbers, an enormous charge upon the treasury and to that extent have prevented the winning of the war. But it is not for me to argue that point; my point is that the Government's promise-or I would rather say the country's promise-of 500,000 men has not yet been implemented and the Government has not come forward with any proposal looking either directly or indirectly to the fulfilling of that promise. Whether the number needed be many or few, that fact remains without argument, and I still maintain that the men who have not been qualified to go into the fighting line slhould mot, in honesty and fairness1, be counted by us as a contribution to the fighting forces of the Allies. Moreover, they have been a burden upon our resources instead of being a 'Strength to our Allies.
It may be said that this inaction of the Government in regard to the fulfilment of our promise is not a serious matter. It is true that National Service cards have been sent out. There lhas been a great deal of discussion about them; some of them have been answered and some have not. It has been said that, in any oase, no harm1 has been done. Unfortunately, that is not the fact; the discussion that lhas arisen and that has circulated, so to speak, around this National Service proposal has done a great deal of harm- Instead of the National Service proposal being a .measure in aid even of industrial conscription, if you like, or compulsory industrial service, the effect of it has been to decrease in large measure the industrial power of the country Our friends, if I may be permitted to make this suggestion-I cannot come to any other conclusion-talking of compulsion in one part of dhe country and talking no compulsion in the other part, have unfortunately convinced the people in one part of the country that compulsion is impending, with the result that those who do not desire to submit to compulsion, either

industrial or military, have, by simply exercising tlheir powers of locomotion and stepping across the line, put themselves out of the reach of compulsion either industrial or military. I will not dwell on this subject at any great length, but it has reached such a point that the Government itself saw fit to publish in tihe newspapers of Canada on the opening day of Parliament a declaration to reassure the people that National Service did not mean compulsory service either for industrial or military purposes. The idea that was first given out that National Service meant fulfilling our promise of 500,000 fighting men gradually dwindled, until now it does not mean any kind of service at all; and the Prime Minister when 'he discusses the reply to the Address does not even allude to win at at one time was considered to be a most important and vital question, and one that, to quote the ex-Minister of Militia, might fairly be considered to be bis baby.
The question may reasonably be asked: we have not fulfilled our promise; what is proposed to be done about it? I am not charged with the responsibility of directing the affairs of this country, or with the responsibility of having originated this National Service proposal, which has done no good, has done so much harm, and has finally died in the hands of those who brought it forth. But I will say this: when the war begun we undertook to play our part in that war by voluntary service. My contention is that under voluntary service we have done wonders, and the greatest wonder of all is that we have done so much under the adverse conditions. Voluntary service has never had a chance, in this country under the administration of our friends. For my own part I have said in this House before, and I am prepared to say it again, that in the case of such a world struggle as we are now engaged in National Service is the only logical service; National Service, I say, that will call up the manhood of the nation for military service. But it must be recognized that there are many things that are right in theory that it is not possible to put into practice. I do not challenge the Government because they have not put conscription in force, although they talked it, hinted at it, and tried to get credit for it without doing it. The fault I have to find is that, depending on voluntary service, we never gave voluntary service a fair chance. It would take too long to cover the different features of the system of enlistment that has prevailed to show in how many ways the

enthusiasm of our people has been slapped in the face by the method of administration of our military affairs. We have heard to-day something of the position in which our forces find themselves in England or in France. Nothing has been said in regard to what has occurred in England or in France that compares in any degree with what has occurred right here in Canada under our own administration of our own military affairs amongst our own people. If there is any other way in which enlistment could be discouraged at the hands of our military administration, I have not yet heard of it and I am unable to conceive of it. Such enlistment as has taken place- speaking of experience within my own knowledge-has taken place because of the sense of duty that has arisen in the minds of the men who have given themselves for the service. Men have travelled hundreds of miles on foot in the country in which I live to offer themselves as soldiers of the Empire.
They have come into the city of Edmonton-this was in the early days of the war- responding to the call which was sent out, expecting that their services were needed. They have come in without money; they have been told that they were not needed; they have been unable to .secure employment, and have had to accept charity, these men who had offered their lives to serve the country. Times changed, and where in those days men travelled hundreds of miles and offered themselves and were refused- and I may say were refused with insult in many cases-last winter there were established in the city of Edmonton recruiting headquarters for, I think, six separate battalions-this number of battalions to be recruited all at once in a small place. What was the result? Competition amongst the officers to secure the filling up of their contingents; men who were not physically fit were, in many cases, taken on for the purpose of filling up the ranks. Instead of the service being kept at a high level, it was allowed to deteriorate, and the difficulty of filling the regiments became greater as time went on. Not only so, but while these battalions were recruiting in Edmonton, other units from all over the Dominion of Canada were authorized to go in there and set up recruiting offices and call for men. At the present time there is a battalion recruiting in Edmonton, with headquarters some place in New Brunswick-the Macleans, I think it is. Then recently I saw that the Camerons had a recruiting office in Edmonton. While officers were authorized to recruit these six
battalions in Edmonton, their efforts were made more difficult by every conceivable branch of the service being authorized to establish recruiting offices in that city. On top of that there comes the policy that these battalions, which have been gathered under the direction and control of certain officers, are to be broken up, that the recruiting of *a battalion is only a matter of form; that the recruiting of the battalions is only in name, that it is only the gathering up of so many men, and when they are gathered up and taken across they cease to have any identity or any relation to the locality from which they come. Why such a policy was ever introduced it is impossible to say, but surely it would strike anyone 9 p.m. that the idea of locality and of personal associations would be the strongest element in securing the enlistment of men who were going out to risk their lives, and whose lives would depend in large measure upon the faithfulness of the comrades who were with them-surely above everything else an effective recruiting policy would consider the idea of gathering men together from the same locality, men of mutual relationship, men who would have confidence and faith in each other under extreme circumstance.,. Under such circumstances, if they were serving under trusted officers we might expect to get the benefit of the idea of locality and the idea of family relationship-of every idea that produces enthusiasm and willingness to serve. Everybody knows, it is historic, that over one hundred years ago the British Government raised regiments in the highlands of Scotland, at that time none too loyal to the then reigning house. Absolutely on that idea and with that ideal, regiments were raised whose names and whose fame have come down through more than one hundred years, until to-day they are names to conjure with. Surely what was good policy in those days is good policy down to this very day, because we read in the accounts of the fighting that is going on descriptions of the work of this regiment and that regiment and the other regiment, the work of the Sussex, of the Middlesex, of the Suffolks, of the Norfolks, men whose name means something to the localities from which they came. Surely the principle that is so sound and good in the British Islands might .have been found of some use in Canada. But it was not. It was not only ignored, but it seemed that the authorities absolutely went out of their way to discredit it in every form, shape and manner.

Just one word with regard to the-position of the officers who have been authorized to raise battalions. It may be that some may have been authorized as officers to raise battalions who did not have military experience and whose appointment was not warranted by the circumstances. I shall say nothing of that. I assume that the man who was appointed to raise a battalion was the right man to appoint for the purpose, and the fact that he did raise the battalion is evidence that in that respect at any rate he was the right man for the purpose. I have in mind a man who has served for many years, first in the British Army, and afterwards in the Northwest Mounted Police and then in the South African war. Finally he was authorized to raise a battalion at Edmonton, On the strength of his military experience and on the strength of his personal standing, he did raise a battalion without any serious difficulty. Surely such a man with such a battalion, raised under such circumstances-surely it would be right and proper that that battalion should go to the front intact under such leadership.


John Hampden Burnham: Does the hon. gentleman not know why battalions were broken up?


Frank Oliver: I do not know why that one was.


John Hampden Burnham: I can give a little information. When word would come in from the front that ten thousand or fifteen thousand or twenty thousand men were needed as reinforcements, the brigade officer would come to the battalion officer commanding and say: How many men have you? And he would say, I have two hundred and fifty. How many have you? I have two hundred and fifty. How many have you? I have five hundred. He takes the men. What would you do? Would you . say because the whole battalion could not go that nobody could go at all, and that the men at the front should not be reinforced?


Frank Oliver: I am not a military man like my hon. friend, and I cannot give him an answer in that respect. But I think if his suggestion is well founded and that out of a whole battalion in training in England only two hundred and fifty men would be available, it is rather an unfortunate situation.


John Hampden Burnham: Some men had joined perhaps six months before and some three. The men who had been drilling for six months might be fit, but the other might
 -
not have had training in bayonet drill or bombing. What would you do with them? Would you send them into the trenches and murder them?


Frank Oliver: I am afraid that my hon. friend and I cannot come to an understanding on this point. I do not know whether he ever heard of the definition of metaphysics. Metaphysics was defined' by one Scotchman to another in this way: when you hear two men arguing together, if the one that is listening does not know what the other is talking about, and if the other does not know either, that is metaphysics. My hon. friend will forgive me if we do not pursue this discussion- I was not arguing at the moment at all on the merits of the policy; I was arguing as to the consequences to the officers who were placed in that position, who, having been authorized to raise a battalion, having raised that battalion, having taken it to England expecting to render service in the capacity in which they were authorized by this Government, find themselves with the battalion taken away from them, find themselves in Great Britain without occupation, find themselves there, discredited, with or without reason. I ask this House what is the position of other officers recruiting other regiments when this is recognized as their probable fate. I have in mind men who gave up good business in Edmonton in order to, as they believed, serve their country; who were authorized to raise battalions, did raise them, went to England, had their battalions taken away from them. These men had some ambition, I suppose, to serve their country, had some ambition possibly to do credit to their families, their relatives and their friends, but as long as they live, as long as their children live after them, they will never get over the disgrace that has been placed upon them by the action of this Government. How can they say whether the battalion was taken from them because of their inefficiency or because of other reasons? There is no way that these men can justify themselves to the people from amongst whom they come. A more unmerciful, a more outrageous, exercise of authority never was perpetrated.
How could there be success in recruiting if the men upon whom the country depended for success were dealt with in the manner in which they have been dealt with by the Administration of my hon. friend?
You wonder that there has not been more recruiting? It is a miracle that there has been as much recruiting as there

has. Sentiment has a great deal to do with enlistment. Enthusiasm must be aroused or men will not make the sacrifice. It has been the policy in the conduct of this war to in every way prevent the arousing of enthusiasm. I do not speak of the action of this Government; I speak of the action of the Government across the seas, coincided in by our friends here. I speak of the censorship. If there is one thing that people are entitled to know, it is the truth. If there is one thing that people are entitled to know in regard to military operations, in regard to military sacrifices, it is the truth; and it has been the policy, since the opening of this war, on that side of tlhe Atlantic and on this side, to use the power of government to not only conceal the truth, to not only prevent the truth from being expressed, but, worse than that; instead of the censorship being used for its legitimate purpose of preventing military information from reaching the enemy, the censorship has been used for the purpose of protecting those in authority from the consequence of their incompetence and inefficiency at the hands of an informed and outraged public. I do not hold our friends here responsible for that except that they are co-partners in an iniquity that has done more harm to the military enthusiasm of this Dominion than all other causes put together.
It is a serious matter to speak of these questions, but we are in serious circumstances and if we are to meet the conditions that still face us, we must learn from what has taken place in the past and those of us who stand on the floor of Parliament will be doing less than our duty if we do not declare in what way there have been shortcomings on our part or on the part of those who are even higher up than we are. It is our right to know the truth and not have the authority of the Government of Canada or of the Empire used to suppress the truth or to distort the truth or try to conceal the iniquitous incompetence of those in authority.
I will not weary the House by going into further reasons why voluntary enlistment has not succeeded to the extent that it was hoped it would. Enough has been said to prove that the voluntary system has not had a fair trial in this country and that if we are to implement our promise of 50j,000 men we must change our methods in regard to voluntary enlistment, bring ourselves more into line with the sentiment of the people, deal honestly and fairly by the people, give
everybody concerned a square deal and then we may expect, if we can ever expect, to meet the conditions that we have to face.
I said a little while ago that I did not wish to be considered as criticising the Government, simply as the Government. I speak of the Government as tlh.e directors of the affairs of the people. I consider the .people of Canada as partners with -the Government in so far as tlhe administration of war affairs has gone and in so far as the Government has not been criticised for the administration of those affairs. The time has come, it seems to me, when we must criticise if we are going to improve. We must talk plainly and frankly; and the Government, being the Government, must of course take the brunt of criticism. But I do not wish to absolve the people of Canada at large, nor ourselves on this side of the House in so far as we may be responsible for conditions as they are.
The question arises, what is best to be done to bring about an improvement, and first of all, what is the reason that things are as they are? As I said, I hold the Government responsible only as I hold the people responsible. The Government has failed in many respects because the people have not been awake to the exigencies and urgencies of the case. Had the people of Canada been more alive to the conditions as they exist, hai they criticised the Government more freely in time of war, there is no doubt that we should have had more efficient and more energetic action at the hands of the Government. The Government of to-day is the mind of the Parliament of to-day, and the Parliament of today is the mind of the people as it, was over five years ago. We have a parliament elected under peace conditions, when there was no thought of war; we have in power a Government representing the mind of that Parliament, and carrying on the affairs of this country and administering its share of the war in the year 1917 on the ideas of 1911. It is not reasonable to expect that this Parliament elected as it was at that time, and this Government, representing the mind of Parliament as it was at that time, could by any possibility have the point of view of the people of this country at the present time. We have a peace Administration in office, when above everything else we ought to have a war Administration in office. We should have a Parliament elected by the people who have learned, in this last year above all others,

what war means, who know the sacrifices that war calls for, and who know that those sacrifices are the only means whereby wars can be won. If we are to have an effective war administration of our affairs we must go back to the people and get their mandate as their mind is to-day. What has occurred in Great Britain has occurred in Canada. The Parliament of Great Britain, as it was, was elected under conditions of peace, and the Government of Great Britain, as it was, came to power under conditions of peace. When war broke out, that Government and that Parliament dealt with the war conditions from a peace standpoint. It is not possible to win wars by peace methods. Wars must be won by war, and the people of Great Britain have had occasion twice since the war began to take such measures as to bring those in authority more in line with the idea of winning the war by war; until in Great Britain .today, in free Britain, Britain which has laid the foundation of the world's liberty and given the example of constitutional government to the world, to-day in Great Britain, under the stress of war, we have, with the consent of the people, a dictatorship as absolute as it was in the days of Cromwell, for the purpose of winning the war, and as the only means of winning the war.
They have not appealed to the people in Great Britain. It is not for me to say whether they should or should not. But I say this: that in Canada we do not want a dictatorship. We want to continue as a free democracy, and in order to do that we must rest our Parliament upon the mandate of the people; we must bring our Parliament and our Government in line with the mind of the people of to-day. With 70,000 casualties, spread over Canada from ocean to ocean, which is a pretty thick sprinkling in the homes of our country, and with nearly
20,000	of the pick of our manhood having passed out of our lives* there is no doubt that the people of oanaua to-day are not the people they were a year ago. They do not look at the war to-day as they did a year ago; they have different ideas, and it is right that they should have an expression of those ideas through a new Parliament. We do not want a dictatorship in this country, no matter how great the man may be. We want free government, and the only free government is government by the people; government by the people as expressed at the polls. I am at a loss to know for what reason the people of Canada are not con-

sidered to be the best judges of the welfare of Canada. Canada is made up of its people. It is the people of Canada who are paying for the war in money and in blood. There is no authority higher than the people to whom we can go for guidance or direction in this case. It is only reasonable, then, that, when we have come to a point where we have found ourselves unable to fulfil the promise solemnly made by us to ourselves and to our Allies as to the part that we should take in this war, we should go to the people and get their mandate as to winning the war.


Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (North Cape Breton) :: Mr. Speaker, as I feel a little hoarse to-night, if it would be agreeable to the leader of the Government, I would like to move the adjournment of the debate, although, of course it is my duty to go on.


Robert Rogers: I am sure I would be very pleased to oblige my hon. friend, but it is very early, and as we adjourned last night at a very early hour, we would like to get on. If my hon. friend would go on for a while, we would consider adjournment later on.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I have to address you for the first time under more or less physical disability on account of a cold, and I also regret that the leader of the House does not think it advisable to consider the physical condition in which I find myself. I will, however, deal briefly with the question which is before the House; but before entering upon any discussion of the subject more particularly before us, let me follow the precedent of the right hon. leader of the Government and the right hon. leader of the Opposition in congratulating yourself, Sir, upon the high office to which you have been elevated as the first Commoner of this great country of ours. Let me hope, Sir, in following in the path of the great and learned men who have occupied the position which you now occupy, that for the sake of our beloved province by the sea, the precedents which you establish shall do honour and justice to that fair province of which you and I and all other Nova Scotians are so justly proud. The province of Nova Scotia has given great men to the service of this nation. She has given three premiers to the Dominion of Canada and she has given great, capable, and efficient men to the heads of the various important departments of the administration of this country. But, Sir, this is the first time within my memory

that the province of Nova Scotia has furnished a Speaker to this House.
It has been my good fortune to Jive under three sovereigns, eight prime ministers of the Dominion of Canada, and to have occupied a iseai in this House under five Speakers. My experience is that Speakers are more autocratic in their ways and manners than even sovereigns or prime ministers. That is no doubt attributable to the fact that they have a more lively and clear appreciation of tlheir own importance and responsibilities. I am sure, Sir, from the knowledge that I have of you as a young man of education and ability, that - you will, although not I hope in an autocratic .manner or in any domineering way, carry forward in your career .as a Speaker of this House the traditions of those who have gone before. I am glad even at this late hour-il will not call it the eleventh hour of the life of this Government; I think it is nearer the twelfth hour of the life o.f this 'Government-that they are beginning to realize that we have some men of prom. inenee in the province of Nova Scotia. So far the right .hon. leader of the Government has not been willing to give us any great recognition; buit now, even at this late hour, I am pleased that he is beginning to recognize that we have such men. It is not the long bow of the leader of the Government to have a high appreciation .of the men we have in Nova Scotia, and indeed it is rather his weakness that he has not a proper .appreciation of the men that we have in Canada, for it is not iso very long ago since he put himself on record as telling us that there'were a few things we could do in a quiet, domestic way, but that when it came to breaking out into new industries, such as the building of ships, and the preparing of warships and getting ourselves into a proper state of defence, it would' be at least fifty years, when the present generation and the present Parliament would alii be dead, before we could begin. That was rather discouraging news lor the people of Nova Scotia, who have mot been accustomed to that sort of thing. In Nova -Scotia, we have been .accustomed to very much like the idea of the Irishman who was put into competition as to how well he could take a man's measure. The Englishman had one way and the Scotchman had .another, and then the Irishman said: " Why, isir, if you could show me the corner around which a man went I could take his .measure and make him a suit of clothes." It has been
E
cur habit in Nova Scotia to adapt ourselves quickly to circumstances and get along with any new enterprise, and it would be almost *as easy for you to keep a duck from swimming as to keep a Nova Scotian from building ships and manning them if the opportunity were at all presented.
The speech from the Throne is not very wealthy, nor very fat in materials for the purpose of discussion. There is nothing very new in it and nothing which is of any striking importance to the people of this country. There are, of course, references to the war, which is the all-absorbing topic, not only to the people of this country, but to the people of the whole Empire, and after such eloquent addresses as have been made by the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition, the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald), and the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), without mentioning the address of the Prime Minister himself, the question of the war, its requirements an'd our duty in respect to it have been very well threshed out, and there As not the same fresh flavour about discussing it n.ow that there was art the commencement of this discussion, although the debate is not very old,
I come, Sir, from ,a country which has done much for the purpose of enforcing and enabling the people of this country to do themselves proud on the question of the war and the question of the defence of this country. We hear on some occasions that we are participating in this war only as a sort of side-show, and that we are not obliged to put- forth very much effort in a direct way .because the fighting is not so much our-s as it is of the countries on the other side that are directly engaged in it. The Canadian people have not taken that view of the war. We have taken it to be our particular case apd we take it to be the war of oiur country.
In the province of Nova Scotia from which I come, as I say we have done ourselves proud in the number of good men and true whom we have .sent for service of the country. And there is no limit at which we can stop except the final one of the establishment of peace upon the ground upon which we had peace, happiness and security before the war broke, out. That is the only mandate we have from the people of -Nova Scotia in rendering aid either to the Government of the d.ay or to any other Government which may have to deal with the wax. I say we are proud of our soldiers and of what they have done for our country.

We are proud of those .soldiers whether French Canadians, English Canadians, Irish Canadians or Scotch Canadians, who have sprung forward to fight in this common cause for our country -anid- its destiny. We are proud in our perfect confidence that, they will continue to -maintain the traditions of their forefathers and will secure for us a continuation of that freedom which we enjoy.
As to what the duties of the Canadian people are in this regard, I do not think I can set them forth in ;any language of my own that will he half .so appropriate as that used m a message addressed to the Canadian people by my -beloved leader (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) as published in the Canadian Liberal monthly of the current month. I do not propose to read- the whole of that highly-valued message, but will give only that portion of it that bears particularly u-pon the special point I am making, the -duties of the Canadian people in this war:
Canadian fathers, mothers, and wives sacrificed their dear ones, when their dear ones donned the King's uniform; of these, many have given to the cause -the last full measure of devotion and now sleep and will forever sleep in the soil of Old France. The -rest of us owe it to them that we also make sacrifice, sacrifice of feelings, of prejudice, of comfort, of leisure, of gai-ns. Such sacrifice is a better monument to the fallen and wounded than either bronze or marble, and the best monument of all is the s-tern determination that their lives and limbs were not given in vain.
While we claim, and with just cause claim to have done much, our efforts pale almost to nothing when compared with the exertions the almost inconceivable exertions of Great Britain, of France, of Russia and of Italy.
In -those countries there has been a constant effort towards concentration in the one object of bringing the war to a triumphant conclusion. This has produced in France especially not only a growing union of all the forces of the nation, but also a union of souls. Antagonisms which before the war seemed irreconcilable have now well high disappeared, and opinions, even -the most heterogeneous are' now embraced in the sacred union.	*
Let us imitate this noble example. Let us here and now sink passions, prejudices, vain and idle recriminations. Let us when criticism is needed, criticise without bitterness, only by appeals to reason, and- above all le-t us bend all our' energies towards making Canada an effective factor in the struggle.
The heart of the nation must beat with one aocord and one desire. Thus and thus only can Canada attain the full standard of what she owes to herself and her future and with such an inspiration, the people will rise to a consciousness of national power and national character which will be enduring and permanent for the welfare and grandeur of our Dominion.
Whether victory and peace be near or distant, our resolve will not falter. We will continue to the end, calmly, firmly and grimly determined to do our share so that this terrible

scourge of war may forever .pass away from us. And there is - hope-hope not founded merely on desires and aspirations blit on appreciable facts-that victory will bring us measurably near to an era when war will have become So odious, that the nation which would attempt it, would have to face the majesty and combined strength of the whole civilized world.
I am glad- the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition thought it proper to put his views in this -shape s-o that the people of Canada -might know clearly and distinctly where he stands on this -question of what we should -do for the prosecution of the war-the establishment of peace and the continued unity -and strength of the great Empire to which we belong. I *do not know how it strikes other bon. gentlemen, -but to m-e it is -a s-ad thing to see small, I might almost say contemptible, people in this country trying to -make capital out of the -fact .that the great man who lea-d-s the Opposition happens to be of French ancestry and to speak the French language, trying to give the impression that this must make him disloyal to his King and country trying to " play politics " with this contemptible idea, even at a time when we are in the midst of this great struggle and when every man should bend his thoughts and energies to the one purpose of winning the war. But let me assure my great leader that, so far as Nova Scotia is -concerned and so far as the Maritime Provinces -are concerned, we have known him too long and too well, we have too much faith in him, for -such ideas to have any hold- upon us; that he stands with u-s as our leader our beloved leader, a -leader in whom the -people have always had confidence that he would be loyal and devoted in the performance of his public duties. It would be a strange thing indeed if a man did not -show signs of the nationality to which -he -belonged, I can tell this House that while I profess to be as loyal to my King and -country as a man can possibly be, I-should think les-s of my-self than I do if my hedrt did not respond to the memory of the hills -anid- vales of ol-d Scotland. No -man can rise to his full manhood unless he -has -behind him the ideal of his nationality and of his people and of the principles foT which they. -stand. lit does not make me -les-s a Canadian or les-s a Britisher if I have 'a lingering love and regard -for the dear old hills of Scotland; nor d-oes it make a French Canadian les-s a Britisher or les-s capable of being true to the Crown of Great Britain, and to everything that that -Crown and the -British flag represents, because, forsooth, he happens to s-peak

French, or because his ancestors were born in that great country which stands by our side to-day so loyally and so effectively in support of that which is right and true and in the service of the best interests of civilization and humanity.
I have pointed out where the people I have the honour to represent stand in connection with the war and what we purpose doing in connection with it. Criticism is not always pleasant, but, after all, is it not the duty of men who are sent here as representatives of the people to say what they think should be brought to the notice of the Government if there are defects in the administration of affairs at Ottawa. If things are not going as we think they ought to go, does it not seem reasonable that we should give our opinion in a fair and reasonable manner as to what we think ought to be done? Ancient sacred history tells us that certain men may be regarded as watchmen on the watch-towers of their country. The watchman of a constituency is the man who is sent to this House by the free people of that county to represent it. This particularly refers to members of the Opposition, who sit here as watchmen on the tower; and the pronouncement is: Woe unto the watchman if he does not prepare when danger is approaching. It is therefore our duty to point out to the Government their shortcomings and wherein they could do better. If they take our advice, well and good; if not, their blood be on their own head-the responsibility is entirely theirs.
The results that I speak of as having been brought about by our people in connection with this war have been achieved, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) practically in the teeth of the worst kind of maladministration, whether the Government of to-day and the officers who are particularly appointed by it are responsible or not. This is a country in which we have responsible government, and we hold the heads of departments responsible for these things; it is the only source which we can really get at. We have to look to them for the proper administration of affairs; if they fall short of what we expect them to do, we have to bring it to their notice, and if they do not comply with our fair and reasonable requests, we can only do like Paul of old: we shall appeal to Caesar and to Caesar we shall go. The people of this country will be the Caesar; the people of this country will judge them upon their merits. If, as
I have said, we do not point out these things, the fault will be ours. We do not object to proper expenditures of money, but we must have parliamentary responsibility for these expenditures. I must point out to the parties responsible for the administration of the Militia Department that this has not been the case. We have already pointed out to you, Mr. Speaker, that in the province of Nova Scotia we had some transactions in connection with military matters in which no business ability was shown. We have in this House and in committee dealt with such an important matter as the purchase of horses in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, particularly in Nova Scotia. We have had the spectacle in the province of Nova Scotia of a man having been entrusted with the expenditure of something like $100,000 for the purchase of horses for military purposes, and it was acknowledged in this House by no less a person than the Prime Minister that nobody was responsible for this man's appointment. The Prime Minister, speaking in- this House, said that he should never have been appointed; that he had not the age, experience or ability to perform the services for which he had been appointed, and that as a member of the House he should not have accepted the position. The Prime Minister did not know who appointed him; the exMinister of Militia, who was sitting in the House, did not know who had appointed him. Nobody knew anything about his fitness or qualifications. The question was asked: who gave him the money? If there is a place around Ottawa where a man can get $100,000 without anybody appointing him or giving him authority, I think some of us would like to know where that place is. Here was a man who got $100,000 which he cheeked out in Nova Scotia for such horses as you have heard about so often that it would weary you to hear anything further about them. The responsibility is brought home to the Minister of Militia of that day for the expenditure of this money, whether he wants it or not. The people of Nova Scotia and of all Canada will want to know what sort of Government we have when a man can get $100,000 t# expend in this way without anybody knowing where he got it, how he got it, who gave him the authority, or, as an hon. gentleman suggests, what he did with the money. The elementary principles of business teach us that it would be a simple thing to have



this man bonded for the expenditure of $100,000, and that there should be some proper record of bow he got the $100,000 and of what he did with it. The only record however, we have about it is that there was c nsiderable activity around a glue factory for a few' days somewhere in the province of Quebec and that a certain unfortunate man was read out of the House and, to some extent, out of the Tory party. That is all that the people of Nova Scotia and the people of Canada have for their $100,000. And that, sir, is a very small fraction of the mal-administration in matters of this kind connected with the war. I have simply taken this as an illustration, an incident that shows how this thing was done, and the recklessness and carelessness with which the money of the people was expended for no purpose. We hear of certain enterprises, industrial and otherwise, being conducted, not for their own intrinsic value, and not for what they are really producing, but for the purpose of playing the stock markets with their stocks and bonds. That would appear to be to some extent the scheme of the Government in connection with military matters in this country. You may well say that that is an extraordinary statement to make, that the Government was simply going in for the making of money in connection with military affairs in this country. The right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) read a quotation yesterday which is the basis of the statement which I now make. That is a statement made by the late Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes) in the correspondence between him and the Prime Minister, in which the late minister says that on one occasion he was held up for four long months in carrying on what he had to do in connection with certain contingents, because, forsooth, certain parties wanted to make money out of the business of buying trucks, so that for these four months that contingent was held up. The language of the Minister of Militia is to be found on page 26 of the Hansard of yesterday, and is there quoted from the minister's letter, so that if it is not correctly given there has been ample opportunity of correcting it in this House, as the right hon. Prime Minister spoke after the conclusion of the speech of the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). This is what was said by the exMinister of Militia, as quoted in this House yesterday:-
It is difficult for me to recall where you have actively supported me in the passage of

any Order in Council concerning the upbuilding of the militia when opposed by two Members of the Cabinet usually antagonistic to anything proposed by me. As you are aware, it took up four months in the midst of this great war to fight through the principles of purchasing, for the Second Division, trucks at the lowest wholesale prices instead of allowing large commissions to local agents who would have nothing whatever to do with securing the order.
That, sir, is the charge, that is the indictment. It is an indictment with, perhaps, only one count, but is one on which, if it were placed before the people of this country, with the evidence that supports it, only one verdict could be returned, and that verdict condemnatory of any government that would sit down wrangling and fighting for four long months over a matter of this kind. It would be bad enough to do so for one week. It would be horrifying to see this done for one day. But here, for four long months, the regiments were held up because there were two men in the Cabinet, two men leading some other factions, I suppose, who wanted to filch money out of the treasury of this country and took contemptible means of getting it, by holding up these contracts for trucks. It was nothing that the sons of Canada were being'knocked down like nine pins at the front, that they were killed and torn and slaughtered, with no support to come back up behind them of their own Canadian friends. That was nothing at all. Although we bad the men and the means and the ability to support them, four months had to go by while these men stood with a revolver at the head of this minister, saying: You must give us toll; we stand at the toll gate and you must give us money, otherwise your men cannot get across, we care not what may happen. That is proven to the hilt in the evidence of the minister who wa3 in charge and who wanted to get the business put through. He does not give the names of the members of the Cabinet who did this, but it was evidently done, that is shown beyond peTad-venture. If I wanted to condemn this Government I should not want any stronger indictment than that they, a war government, the war being the principal thing, would delay over this matter for four months, would stand by and see their brethren shot like rabbits in the trenches in France, with no support going to them, all held back for the miserable and contemptible purpose of making a few dollars out of the trucks and wagons that would have to be taken over with this contingent, -
I think I have fulfilled my contract with the leader of the House, and possibly he will

allow me to move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. McKenzie, the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at ten o'clock p.m.
Wednesday, January 24, 1917.