1917-07-05

[Stage Direction]
Report of the British Columbia Hydrometric Survey for the calendar year 1915: Water Resources Paper No. 18 of the Dominion Water Powers Branch, Department of the Interior.-Mr. Roche.
Report of Special Trade Commission to Great Britain, France and Italy.-Sir George Foster.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by asterisks.)

Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	How many appointments have been made to date by each department of the Government under the Order in Council of January 1, 1917, amending Section 22 of the Civil Service Act.
2.	How many of said appointments are temporary, and how many permanent?


Mr. SEVIGNY:: Department of Interior: 1, four; 2, all temporary.
Department of Mines: 1, two; 2, one permanent and one temporary.
Department of Militia and Defence: 1, Fifty-four; 2, all temporary.


CAPTAIN ALTERED DEFEBVRE.
Mr. PAPINEAU:: Why is it that Captain Alfred Lefebvre has signed a declaration respecting the separa-



tion allowance to his wife in which he stated that he was not in the employ of the Canadian Government before June, 1916, and that the said allowance was paid from February 10, 1916, to April 30, 1917?


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: 1.	Gapt. Alfred Lefebvre did not sign such a declaration. He did, however, sign a certificate that he had not been an employee of the Government since 1st June, 1916. The over payment of separation allowance to his wife was due to a clerical error of one of dhe untrained clerks in the Assigned Pay Branch. This clerk has been dismissed. As already explained, steps have been taken to obtain a refund of the overpayment.


Mr. PAPINEAU:: 1.	Since what date has Alfred Lefebvre been employed fey the Government as sub-collector of Inland Revenue at Valleyfield?
2.	What amount has he received for his services in this capacity during the fiscal year ending April 1, 1917?
3.	Has the said Alfred Lefebvre been always occupied in this employment since his appointment?
4.	If not, for what reason and during what period has he not been occupied in such position?
5.	Has he received any salary during his absence from service?
6.	What is his salary or compensation per annum?


Mr. SEVIGNY:: 1.	April 16, 1912.
2.	$771.20.
3.	No.
4.	Enlisted as captain in the 206th Battalion, which battalion was later amalgamated with the 163rd Regiment, from February 10, 1916, and returned to his duties as deputy collector on July 16, 1916.
5.	Received the difference between military pay and civil pay.
6.	$1,200.



PRIVILEGE-MR. MONDOU.

Mr. A. A. MONDOU (Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to raise a question of privilege. The Montreal Gazette, in its edition of this morning reports my speech last ni'ght in this House in part as follows:
Mr. Mondou paid a typical eulogy to Sir Wilfrid Laurier as the greatest French Canadian statesman since Cartier, and concluded: "Whether they call me Liberal, Conservative or Nationalist, there is no party in a question of this kind. However, after my address tonight, no one can doubt that from now on I intend to support that great French Canadian statesman, who has done more than any other man to rerlize the aspirations of our race."

Hansard shows the statement that I made, which is as follows:
However, I hope that after listening to me no one shall doubt that I intend henceforth to support the distinguished statesman who does credit to the Canadian Liberal party which under his far-seeing guidance represents, better than any other, heretofore, the true aspirations of our race.
.1 understand that the Journal Press and the Citizen, both of Ottawa, have made comments to the same effect, as the Gazette, and I take also exception to what those two papers have stated in that connection.



MILITARY SERVICE ACT, 1917.


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of the Right Hon Sir Robert Borden (Prime Minister) for the second reading of Bill No. 75, Military Service Act, 1917, and the amendment of Sir Wilfrid Laurier thereto, and on the amendment to the amendment by Mr. Barrette, resumed from Wednesday, 4th July.
Mr. D. A. LAFORTUNE (Montcalm) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, in politics very queer things happen, but there are also-troublesome things, necessary things, disagreeable and sometimes even pleasant things. In the political world, we are called upon to make sacrifices of all kinds, but I willingly -condone all that my opponents have done against me. If there be a moment of satisfaction to me, it is now that I have the honour and pleasure of rising before this honourable House to discuss such a momentous question; it is a great compensation -for evjefiy sacrifice 'that I have willingly made in the past.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to greet new friends, to -see them sitting in our midst and I hope that there will be many more ere long.
I have listened most attentively, with a great deal of pleasure, and I will even say dutifully, to all that has been said on either side. I have read and read again very carefully all that has been written; I have scrutinized the situation and pondered over the pros and cons, so as to properly ascertain my position. To-day, being called to speak for the electors of that fine and large -county of Montcalm, it i-s a pleasure to me to be able to declare my views and my convictions on behalf of those good electors. A great many hon. member! of this House have supported the conscription Bill and a 'great many others also have taken exception to it. In discussing this mo-

mentous question we are bound to respect the opinions of everybody, while bringing into the debate as much impartiality and fairness as possible. I would have been remiss in my duty had I not discussed this Bill, and now I hasten to state that I disapprove of it and that I strongly support the amendment submitted by the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid1 Lau-rier) and I will endeavour to state why I share the views of my revered leader.
Mr. Speaker, it is rather ticklish to begin a speech after the hon. members who have spoken on both sides of this subject, for it is almost entirely exhausted. How can I find a new argument? What can I do, in order to not sift anew everything that has already been said? That is a pretty hard undertaking.
We have, on the right side of the Speaker of this House, most distinguished men, lawyers, scholars, old parliamentarians, in a word, as I said at the start, men of the highest distinction, who have discussed, this Bill under all its aspects, in all its forms and phases. On the other hand, we have on the left men just as distinguished who have also spoken, on the same subject, and I am afraid that I may not be equal to the situation; I fear that I cannot do full and fair justice to the people I have the honour to represent andi that I may annoy the hon. members who have both the task and obligation of hearing me through. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I shall do all I can to fulfil my obligations.
The electors of the county of Montcalm have sent me petitions in large numbers; every parish in my county, and there are quite a number of them, have signed these petitions and all of them contain a great list of signatures, asking me to oppose this Bill. I laid these petitions on the Table, Mr. Speaker, and I have the assurance that they have all been duly received, even if they have not all been welcomed. At all events, I have done my duty, as you have done yours in paying due respect to these petitions I have laid before the House.'
I have visited the county I represent and discussed the situation with my good electors; I listened to the arguments made by many of them and I may tell you that those in favour of this Bill are pretty scarce and that it is a hard job to find them. The opinion is formed in a decisive way and the people are most determined. There is no possible mistake, they disapprove of that Bill and when you will have to enforce it, I greatly fear you will find it a difficult, not to say an impossible task.
191*
I have been all over the county where I have had the honour to live for the past thirty-two years, I mean Jacques-Cartier county, the old time Conservative county, which has been in days gone by represented by the most important, the .most influential and the most worthy men of the province of Quebec, I might perhaps say, of the whole Dominion, I wish to allude specially to the hon. F. D. Monk, who represented this county from 1896 until his death. I still hear him, when from his seat in this House before he had resigned as member of the Cabinet, before the struggles of 1910 and 1914, declaring in this House: Mr. Speaker, we owe nothing to England who owes us everything; it is she who is indebted to us for having preserved for her, in its entirety the finest of all her colonies, Canada. I hear him again, from his seat, when he declared: No, never shall we spend a cent for the Laurier navy before consulting, the people.
How times have changed! I did listen to those words, and I saw the hon. members now sitting on the right, applaud, rejoice, clapping their hands as loud as they could, when the late lamented Mr. Monk uttered these words. I do say, Mr. Speaker, how times have changed! It is very right to say that the years, the months, the days follow on but that they never are the same. And when I peruse the Hansard, When I read ever again the .debates of those days and f nd out what was then said by hon. gentlemen of the obheT side, who were then sitting on this side, what a change!
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, at the outset, let us respect the opinions 'o.f every one, we are in a free country-as regards the past, at any rate,-and let every one express his convictions, his opinions; but do not criticise more than you should. It seems to one, Mr. Speaker, that I have realily the right to say that the times have materially changed. To-day, Liberals, Conservatives, Nationalists are hand in hand, they are agreed to fight this Conscription Bill; not all, however. I would prefer seeing a larger number on our side. I would have wished that all the members of the fine province of Quebec, of the grand old province of Quebec, were united and had acted as the hon. member for Yamaska (Mr. Mondou). Honour be to him ! As did the hon. member for L'Islet (Mr. Paquet). Every other hon. gentleman from the province of Quebec has joined us in our protest against this Bill, and it seems to me that my immediate duty is to offer, on behalf of my constituents, my most sincere thanks to these good gentlemen, and I would want them to take one more

step forward, I would like to see them cross over to this side of the House, one after the other, and come and stand with us under our grand Liberal flag. That flag so grand, so wide, without-I was about to say something which would probably have displeased those gentlemen, but I will not say it-this flag so wide, so grand, that it can shield and cover every man of goodwill, and I am sure that none of these gentlemen would have regretted having made that splendid move just executed by the hon. member for Yamaska. He is really a brave one!
Just so. The hon. member for Labello (Mr. Achim) should not he left out. He is a young man, and courageous. Though a staunch Conservative, and loyal to his party, he did not fear to come and sit with us. For a half day's work, that is not too *bad. I am told, Mr. .Speaker, that there is a third one. When it starts, it's like snowrolling, it swells quick, and before I take my seat, I hope there will be others. The French Canadians of the Dominion, the weLUthinking Englishmen, land English Canadians, the Irishmen are with us.
Ah! how proud, Mr. Speaker, I felt a few days ago, when I attended an exclusively Irish meeting, made up of the most representative, the most influential and financially the strongest men of the large city of Montreal, the Queen of the Dominion, although Toronto people may think otherwise. I was proud of being among these gentlemen-not as an Irishman but as a mere spectator. There were present, the ex-Mayor of Montreal, Dr. Guerin, who is an authority at home; my colleague on the bench, Mr. Joseph Walsh, ex-member for St. Ann's, who was replaced by the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) a distinguished gentleman whom I would like to see- on our side, and I regret that he is not, for he would have expressed, had he been there, the unanimous sentiments of the division which he represents as an Irishman. How proud I was, Mr. Speaker, to see St. Ann's division bringing together all the best men of that district. Its representative was not there, I don't know whether he had been invited or not, but the hon. Minister of Justice was not there. He should have been present, it would have given him an idea of what was going on; he would have realized the unanimous sentiment of his own electorate, protesting and 'Condemning this proposed legislation.
The hon. Minister of Justice is jointly and severally responsible for this enactment, being a member of the Cabinet, but I do not think he ever gave life to that

child. I know the hon. Minister of Justice, he is a distinguished citizen, a legal luminary, an ex-professor of the great McGill University, for a long time a judge of the Superior Court of Montreal, a credit to himself, to his compatriots and to his country. Were he on this side of the House and giving his support to what his good electors of St. Ann's are demanding. I was reading over this morning the resolution adopted by the electors of that division, absolutely condemning this law. It seems to me that, had he been there, he would have given in to that sentiment .and, instead of occupying a seat on the other side, he would be on our side, I iam sure of it. It many yet come to pass.
I have attended, Mr. Speaker, several meetings held in Montreal, that fair metropolis, under the patronage and the immediate guardianship of the distinguished member for 'St. Mary's (Mr. Martin), who is familiar with the feelings of the electors he represents, and when I speak of the St. Mary's division, I am speaking of all Montreal, from north to south, from east to west, the outskirts and the heart of the city, no one wants that law.
Mr. Speaker, if you attended any one of these meetings, you would stare in surprise; you would return home, I am satisfied, with something of that feeling, which is unanimous in Montreal, that this Act is condemned by all that is most worthy and most representative throughout the great metropolis.
I have taken a part in several of these meetings. You cannot find a discordant voice: "No conscription; down with conscription, we have done our duty, nobly done our duty, and nobody will thus lead us to be slaughtered !" That is what was heard.
You have in Quebec-Quebec, the source of patriotism, the source of true Liberalism -in Quebec it can be nothing strange, for they have as their mandatory the most distinguished leader of the Opposition, Sir Wilfrid Laurier-there have been meetings held in Quebec, .in several places, unanimously condemning this 'Bill. Three Rivers, the capital city of my hon. colleague, Mr. Jacques Bureau. You must have perceived, Mr. Speaker, that Jacques Bureau is not the man on the street. You have listened to him religiously, you have followed his arguments, as we have also done on this side of the House-these gentlemen across did not say much, but by their very silence they approved him. What a masterly speech was that speech delivered by the hon. Mr. Bureau ! The strongest arguments,

irrefutable arguments, to which no one has yet replied, and I do not think any one can go counter to his statements. I was delighted to hear him, my friends are almost beside themselves, iso proud were they of him, and rightly too. Jacques Bureau has enormously gained in the estimation of all, and it must have been the best day in all his political career, I am sure of that, any way.
We have also heard in this House the hon. member for St. Hyaeinthe (Mr. Gauthier). I fully endorse all the hon. member for St. Hyaeinthe has said. He has been reproached for having gone too far; he has not gone any farther than he should; what he said was not intended as a threat, hut as a protest, a warning to ministers should they persist in putting through such a Bill, and especially should they insist on enforcing it, so well satisfied am I that this legislation cannot be carried out, and in a few moments, Mr. Speaker, I shall attempt to show why.
Meetings were also held in Sorel, the country of the strong men. When I speak of Sorel men, you had better stand aside, Mr. Speaker. Meetings took place in Joliette-the land of the Babys, the Godins, the Oliviers, all the wisest men of the North country-and here I must say that it was an inspiration to me to see the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. Guilbault) leave his sick couch, impotent, almost dying, making superhuman efforts in order to come here to protest personally against this iniquitous law; I pay due homage to that generous heart who did understand the full responsibility impending, and who, in spite of all, realized what his duty was, and fulfilled it. I say: All honour to him.
I held a meeting in Lachine, and I can tell you that among those present there were many French Canadians, Englishmen, Irishmen and even Jews, and I must say that there was not a single dissentient voice in the protest voiced against this Bill. I was asked if any French Canadian could be found to support this law. I told them that there was not a single dissentient voice in were few and far between; and if ever any of those French Canadians should come to Lachine, I would let them know that the canal is not far distant.
Another similar meeting was also held in Sherbrooke. You must notice, Mr. Speaker, that Sherbrooke does not only count French Canadians, but .that, on the contrary, its population is rather mixed; at that meeting, which was largely attended, all energetically protested against conscription.
Another meeting was likewise held in St. Jerome, the county of the men who were to have their wrists cut off. I remember that in those days they held public meetings to protest against that enactment of the hon. leader of the Opposition. We shall repeal that legislation, did they say, we shall destroy the statutes containing it, and, if we do not succeed, we will cut our own wrists off. I defy any one to go and see if any wrist is missing to-day. I must add that the promoter and leader of that wrist-cutting operation has his own more steadfast than ever, especially so since he is in the Government manger, drawing quite a handsome salary. I respect him, for, after all, he is perfectly entitled, like anybody else, to be a railway commissioner, but it is a remarkable fact that, since he holds that position, he no more talks of having his hands cut off, and yet that Act is still on our statute books.
I have held two big meetings in Ville-Emard, and I can assure you it was quite a sight to look at those working men, that laborious class of people, that class who only ask for protection and fur justice, protest as strongly as they could against this iniquitious conscription Act; I am -glad indeed to speak to-day on behalf of the electors of Jacques Cartier, the county where I will have the honour of making my rext political fight. Some of thr se good Conservatives on the other side of this House, declared that the hon. member for Montcalm should be shelved. They tried to put me out of this fine Montcalm county, hut they couldn't do it. They then thought it over and decided that the best means was to do away with the constituency itself; that is what they did, but I shall get even with them by capturing another county from them. I will capture Jacques Cartier, I am confident I will, and when I do return to this House, it will be on behalf of the electors of that county. Some may observe that the votes are not yet counted. That is true, but after my own calculations, it should give an overwhelming Liberal majority.
The town of St. Laurent where I have the honour to reside, the town par excellence, with respect to education, with its college, its convent and its numerous schools, has also protested energetically against the Bill now before this House. Most recently, after divine service, we have seen, in the church of St. Laurent, a whole population kneeling down and imploring God to enlighten the men who are governing us so that this conscription Act

be not adopted. Afterwards, tables were placed in front of the church, so that all the people, men, women and children, might sign the petitions which I laid before this' House as a protest. I repeat it, Mr. Speaker, in that section of the country, there are not two opinions; the conscription Act is absolutely condemned.
Other meetings werfe likewise held in the city of Maisonneuve, which contains thousands and thousands of workingmen among its population; the same in the city of Levis, in St. Henri, near Montreal, and in Ste. Cunegonde, where thousands upon thousands- of men employed in the large local mills have most strongly protested and signed numerous petitions.
In Berthierville, it was the same. In the town of L'A'ssomption-the heart of our venerated leader Sir Wilfrid Laurier must beat more strongly when 1 mention L'Assomp-tion and its classical college where he spent the best years of his life-and the Lauren-tian town did protest. Here, I delay, when I speak of St. -Lin; one should stop one moment and cogitate; it is the cradle of the Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Well, I tell you, Mr. Speaker, there also, as everywhere else, they have protested, they have done all they could possibly do. In the town of Pointe Claire-where next Sunday your humble servants shall be present, being specially invited to speak and protest against that enactment; in the town of Dorval; at Ste. Anne de Bellevue, in the city of Nicolet, I met there a few days ago a clever young man, a confrere of great distinction, I refer to Mr. Chasse, a Montreal lawyer. Mr. Gh-as.se, -had accepted to be a candidate in Nicolet county, as standard-bearer of the Conservative party, and when he learned that the Conscription Bill was before this House, his candidature came to an end; he sent his resignation as a Conservative candidate, entirely repudiating the law which hie old friends had just -laid -before this chair. Will he run as a Liberal candidate? I do not know, but a sure thing, he will never support this Act, and he can never support the men w'ho have conceived it.
Mr. Speaker, have you had and have you seen or heard of any contradictory meetings held in favour of this Act? Not at all. Not a single meeting has been- held, to my knowledge, in favour of the Bill now before you.
Mr. Speaker, I maintain that this Bill is illegal, unjust, that it is discriminating oppressive, vexatious, unconstitutional, and in no way applicable, as I shall en-

deavour to shhow. In the first place, I say it is illegal, because those who wish to pass it have not the right to do so; they have no mandate, and I have only to refer to the arguments made by the worthy leader of the Opposition to prove it. We are not at present legislators, we are only administrators. To be a legislator, you must have a mandate authorizing you to make laws. Well, we have no such mandate. The hon. members who have previously spoken- have clearly defined the situation. The Hon. Mr. Murphy, ex-Secretary of State, has well explained it; the Hon. Dr. Pu-gsl-ey -has well discussed it also the ho-n. member for Piotou (Mr. Macdonald); Mr. C. A. Wilson, of Laval, has discussed it; the hon. member for Iberville, Mr. Joseph Demers, has well discussed the question, as all honourable gentlemen who have preceded me and they are no newcomers, they are men -well versed in constitutional law, and when I see hon. gentlemen of suoh standing risk their reputations as parliamentarians, as lawyers in their respective districts, when I isee these men taking upon themselves the defence of such a position I feel I am in good company, and I have no fear to ratify what they said. I know there are ihon. gentlemen on the other side who have made much noise, who have spoken about the constitution, who have -spoken of laws. I have much respect for all these hon. gentlemen, but there are many among them who do not know much about law; they are greater experts at the plough.
One hon. gentleman who made a big flurry, found it very odd that the French Canadians of Quebec should not be of his opinion. I readily believe that he has studied some, and that he has a certain fund of information, but, after all such is not his mandate, such is not his profession, and one can certainly taJke -exeception- to what he says without offending him. I will say to this hon. gentleman:	I prefer
believing what the right hon, leader of the Opposition has said, I would rather accept the statements of the hon. Mr. Pugsley, or those of the hon. Mr. Murphy. I prefer going by wih-at the hon. members of this side of the House have said upon- this question, than those other gentlemen. Dr. Edwards, -member for Frontenac, is a most distinguished man, hut he knows more about pills than about the constitution. I would not like to hurt his feelings, hut ilet each one stick to his trade, to his profession. I believe this gentleman has yet a great deal

to learn about the constitution, and with all clue respect, I may be allowed to differ from him. I say that this Act is illegal, because we have no mandate to pass it. In the first place, it is unjust. Why is it unjust? Because, as a Tesult of that Act, you mean to impose obligations we are not held to assume. We have indeed agreed to help, and I still wish to help, but from that does not mean that we will agree to do what you now want us to do, when we are in nowise obliged to do it and I say: your law is entirely unjust.
This Act is discriminating. Wiry? Because we are asked to do in this country what is not demanded from other countries. The law is discriminating, because it is not universal. I very well understand, if the Empire should ask every British subject to do, each and every one of them, one and the same thing, that would be equality; but, in the present case, Canada is asked to do what they dare not ask any one else to do.
I was reading, this very morning, that the Premier of Australia had just declared that enlistment would remain voluntary. So there is no compulsion in Australia, another colony of the Empire, hut they must impose it in Canada first, in this dear old Canada they love so well, they are so fond of, yes, Canada will 'be first. Well, I am chary of your preference, of your favours, of your gifts, I am apprehensive when you thus ask Canada to do what others are not asked to do. I say it is a discriminating law.
What would you say, Mr. Speaker, if, in a city like Montreal, the mayor, who is here just now, would have his municipal government pass a regulation by which he would say: the carters of Chaboillez Square will pay so much a piece, the carters of St. Mary's ward another amount, and the carters of St. Jean JBaptiste still another amount of money? He would be told: You are mad; you should know and you must know that, be it in virtue of a law or a bylaw, all must be treated the same way, no favour, no favouritism, no privileges, every one has equal rights. Well, then, I say that we, the British subjects of Canada, we are not put on the same footing as the subjects of the other colonies, by the imposition of a law which they do not want to impose elsewhere.
I say that every discriminating law is unconstitutional, and the power of disallowance, of which we are so jealous, and which His Majesty has the right to exercise, His Majesty may, at any given moment, exercise his right to annul such an Act. The la/ws enacted 'here, Mr. Speaker, must be ratified on the other side. The Jaws of the province of Quebec are ratified within two years by the Dominion Parliament. The laws* passed by the Dominion Government must be sanctioned by His Majesty, by the Imperial Government. Well, I wonder if the Imperial Parliament would sanction such an unjust, such a discriminatory law as this one. I do humbly say no. This law is unconstitutional and should not be adopted, because such was the understanding, when the lease of life of this Parliament was extended one year.
I was reading, this morning, the speech of the right hon. leader of the Opposition and I found therein a most serious charge made against the Government. The right hon. gentleman states that this extension was granted with the formal understanding that it was only for the guidance and the good administration of the affairs of the country and that the proposal would never have been entertained, if this Bill had only been mentioned.
I do repeat it, that is a very serious charge, in my humble opinion, for it means that the hon. leader of the Opposition and his followers, who have agreed to this extension, have been deceived. In other words, it means this: you .have induced me to grant you an extension of time and to ask my followers to support you on this question, and you have deceived me. "Well, Mr. Speaker, if we cannot find any good faith in those who govern us, if honour and integrity cannot be found in our rulers, I now ask vou the question: what will be the outcome? I do hope that the hon. Prime Minister will give us some explanations on this subject.	'
I say that this law is vexatious for us French Canadians, as well as for the English and Scotch Canadians of this country. Is it not sad, indeed, to find that, in spite of the sacrifices made, after contributing to the Canadian expeditionary forces more than 423,000 men, we are nevertheless charged with not having done our duty? Is that what the hon. member for Chateauguay (Mr. Morris) calls the failure of voluntary enlistment? Let him beware of failure for himself, of the discomfiture which awaits him in his county? A man may go into bankruptcy and still the sum of his assets be greater than that of his liabilities; he may be in straitened circumstances only temporarily, but I don't believe that is the case of the member for Chateauguay. He will have to give a strict and true account

to his electors and may he beware of being more than temporarily crippled, for he should not forget that in Ohateauguay the French Canadians, who compose three-fourths of the population, will ask him to account for his vote in favour of conscription.
I have stated the reasons for which I consider this Act unconstitutional and vexatious, let us now see whether its enforcement is possible. I say no. You cannot attain the desired object with a law so drafted. What is the penalty imposed by the Act upon those who will not submit to it? The Act says: If you do not submit, you will be sentenced to jail! Well, then, what will they do? They will go to jail, that s all. I owe to Sir Lomer 'Gouin, Prime Minister of the province of Quebec, my sincere congratulations for having had the clever idea of having had proper cells made at Bordeaux for our future state prisoners. You will .send to jail those who do not obey; but you must not forget that this will not send them to war. After having spent three years in the state prisons, they will be free. Then, what becomes of your law? Can you force these men to go to the fields of battle? Will the Government have gained anything after they have quartered, clothed and boarded, for three years, at the expense of the state, these men who want to evade the law at any price? I say, Mr. Speaker, that a law the execution of which is impossible in its very principle is good for nothing, because its application would not be practical and it -could not -attain its object. The only result of this Act will have been to cause trouble in this country.
Our mandate has expired long ago. The mandate which I have obtained in 1911, in that struggle, one of the fiercest I have had to sustain in all my political career-for I had to contend against both the Conservatives and the Nationalists-that mandate, Sir, was- good for five years only. I must confess that, in that contest, I had quite a hard time of it, but I hope that, in the future, these go.od Nationalists will be with me, since I -shall be with them. Just as in the case of all the hon. members of this House, my mandate has lapsed; we have remained in office only by virture of our own vote. Is that a mandate? I contend that we are duly empowered to carry on the ordinary business of Government; but that does not give us the right to send a whole people to slaughter; and the people of this country contend, as I do, that we have not the power to do it. Personally, I would have no objection to remain as a
[Mr. Lafortune. 1
member without undergoing an election; that costs less and it is much easier; but we are living in a country where the people have the right to choose the members they wish to represent them -and to be governed by whomsoever they deem fit for the task. It has been said that, in a -stable it is not always the best horse that eats the most, and the same thing may be said of politics. The people are the master, to them belongs the right to judge in the last resort. Besides, -you know this as well as I do: nothing is so uncertain as politics; I might even venture to add that it is as in matters of courtship, where one must be very careful until the young -lady has given her -assent.
I would not care to recall sad memories to my right hon. leader, but I will mention that momentous struggle he fought when he was elected by an overwhelming major-rity; the Hon. Mr. Mackenzie honoured him later by admitting him into his cabinet. At the next election, they -succeeded in defeating him, the village merchant, a Mr. Bour-beau, being elected in his stead; a perfectly honest man no doubt, but who, after all, should not have been preferred to the noblest and most eloquent man to be found.
But Sir Wilfrid Laurier took a signal revenge; he turned towards Quebec, the old Capital, and, as experience has well shown, it is not an easy thing to wrest it from him Yes, Sir, the people should not be ignored, I know that through my own experience, for I also have suffered defeat.
I then say Mr. Speaker, that the mandate, if it may be called a mandate, which we now hold, does not go beyo-nd purely administrative matters. There are in our -Constitution three powers: The legislative, the executive and the administrative power. ,The legislative power has disappeared with the lapsing of onr mandate, the executive power is continued in force for ordinary matters; therefore, all that is left ns is the administrative -power and we can only *expedite public business in the people's interest, until- the people give u-s a new mandate. Therefore, I have no hesitation in asserting that the -State prisoner, the one who will have -been -arrested for having refused to obey that Act, will enjoy adequate protection under our laws.
There are under our laws five writs of royal prerogative. The British Crown maintained, at the time of the conquest, these writs of royal prerogative which are still extant for o-ur protection, thank God. We have the mandamus, the certiorari, the quo w-arranto, the writ of prohibition -and, la-st -but not the least, the habeas corpus.

When these gentlemen will arrest a British subject for having disobeyed the Act, they will send him to Bordeaux; but, first, they will bring him before the magistrate, and the prisoner relying on the constitution, will appeal to the court. He-will say: Let them show in virtue of what principle I have *been arrested and imprisoned. If the law invoked against me were constitutional the authority entrusted with the duty of applying it would say so, and this man will be told: Sir, you are free this legislation is void even should the Prime Minister and all his fellow workers, even should the Premier and all the other councillors of His Majesty declare our law is valid, the Courts whose duty it is to carry it out would hold otherwise.
The hon. Minister of Justice has been a Judge of the Superior Court, and he knows that I am right-Should I go before him with a man arrested in virtue of an unconstitutional law, the hon. minister would be the first to set that man at liberty. He knows the law, he knows the constitution. Why does he take a hand in such legislation as this? I respect his opinion, his conduct, his convictions, but I am sure if he were not in politics, if he were still in the sanctuary of Justice, he would not hesitate for a moment and would immediately confirm what I have just isaid, that this law is unconstitutional, is not worth anything and that a writ of habeas corpus, issued in the King's name, asking the reason where-for I am arrested and sentenced, would undoubtedly restore my rights. But politics is a cloak for many misdeeds.
Mr. Speaker, I have, everywhere I have gone, pleaded the cause of the people; I said, everywhere I went and had the honour of being heard, that there would be no conscription. What were my reasons for saying so? My reasons? Why! What the Prime Minister had declared in the speech from the Throne, on the letters addressed to the archbishops and bishops; on their declarations.
I see in his seat, Mr. Speaker, a man to whom I have something to say and I take occasion of his presence to offer him my most sincere congratulations, I mean the ex-Secretary of State, hon. Mr. Patenaude. He has, indeed, done an admirable feat. He held a high position in the cabinet. Young, with a grand future in sight, full of hope, taking a keen interest in his duties, he sacrificed everything in order to keep his pledged, word. That is really grand. I say to the hon. ex-minister, all honour to you, sir. The people shall give you credit for
that; the people have seen in you a statesman, a strong man, a man who does not hesitate to break away from his former friends, from his party, from his high position. You do honour to the pledged troth, [DOT]honour be to you. I would have liked to *see the others follow suit. (They have not willed it. It is their own business; but the people shall remember it. Beware. When the people kick, they kick for good. No one has the right, Mr. Speaker, to fool the people. Everyone has the right to hold opinions contrary to those of his opponents; everyone has the right to change his convictions; everyone has the right to abandon a leader, if he does not approve of him; every one has the right to condemn his policy, if it does not suit him; but, none have the right to deceive the people. You would not forgive a servant who lied to you; no one forgives a servant who would say anything but the truth; and our public men, those who govern, those who direct the people, those men to whom are entrusted honour, wealth, integrity, uprightness, all that we hold most precidus in this world, would be permitted to play false.
I say, that is not what I have been taught iin my country, and I say to the hon. Mr. Patenaude, ex-minister: Why not come with us, come and sit with your old colleagues, you will be well cared for and be given due justice, because the stand you have taken was a most honourable one, and it must be a great satisfaction to be able to say to yourself that you have been faithful to the call of duty.
Mr. Speaker, I was present in my own country church, when our learned parish priest ascended the pulpit and said: "My children, I have just learned that the National Service cards are not being signed; you are probably afraid that it may be the first step towards conscription, well, I tell you now, from this pulpit, that we are duly authorized to say to you that there will be no conscription. We have the pledged word of those who govern that you can sign the National iService cards without any apprehension, that there will be no conscription." Then, every one, or almost every one, did sign. This same scene took place in every church, throughout the province; the parish priests mounted their pulpits and advised their flocks to sign, because those in power had given assurance that there would be no conscription. The cards had scarcely been signed when conscription came. Where do you find sincerity here? Where do you find frankness? WheTe do


Mr. PAQUET (L'Islet) (Translation):: Will the hon. member allow me one question?


David Arthur Lafortune: Certainly.


Eugène Paquet: Has the hon. member information to justify his assertion that the French Canadians are replaced in the munition factories by Englishmen just come from the British I-sles?


David Arthur Lafortune: Certainly, I am not afraid to assert it.


Eugène Paquet: The charge is a most serious one. -


David Arthur Lafortune: Most
serious, I admit it; but I do, nevertheless, declare that, in many cases, French Canadians are turned out of doors and that their places are given, a few days later, to your Englishmen just landed if roin London. The very thing happened in a shell factory in my own village; these French Canadians were told: "Why don't you enlist? Why don't you go and help the Empire?" They were thus forced to sacrifice themselves and to give up all they held most dear, in order to save the Empire.
'Mr. 'Speaker, I am of the opinion of the learned member for L'Islet, when he stated in his eloquent and so moderate speech- that if recruiting had been conducted in a sensible way in the province of Quebec, it would have been most successful. Men have been sent to do recruiting in Montreal who certainly were not qualified for such positions, men who could not speak a word of French. Was that the right means to take if you wanted to induce our Canadians to enlist? In the province of Quebec, although the English population is very small, we employ on our police force only men who can speak both languages *and my hon. friend from St. Mary's (Mr. Martin) who is also mayor of Montreal, and whom I see in his seat, can confirm this assertion. In the face of these facts, I am actually surprised that the French Canadians have enlisted In such large numbers.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for L'Islet has done justice to his compatriots of Quebec, when he stated that if recruiting in Quebec had not given the expected results, it was not the fault of the French Canadians themselves, but that H was rather on account of the methods which have been adopted.
Before I take my seat, you will permit me a final observation. Is it true, as have declared several hon. members on the other side, that the French Canadians have not done their duty? To those hon. gentlemen, I will say: You are mistaken. The French Canadians have never shirked their duty, as have said and repeated several members on this side of the House. I say that it Q not among the French Canadians you will find cowards and timorous men. Besides, we have proved it before today, fear finds no place with us. When struggles have been started for what the Canadian holds most sacred; his country, his language, his religion or his schools, you have seen all these noble

hearts ready to defend those rights. I will even go further, I will say that all far-reaching reforms have originated in Quebec; her citizens have always taken a hand in forwarding great movements. .
When we see in the province of Ontario that the French lang-uage is shackled, and by those who cast aspersions on us, who abuse us for not doing enough for the Empire, I may answer to these Ontario people: Deal fairly with us, if you wish us to help you. Do justice to the French Canadians, to those who speak French over there. Try, if you dare, to blot out the French words which are on His Majesty's coat of arms: "Honi soit qui mal y pense." Try it then, and see if you can replace them by English words. French is the language of the great nations; French is the language in which are drafted all important social and political documents. You cannot, I say, replace those words.
It is no fault of mine, if you do not understand our mentality; it is not my fault if you -do not understand what we are.
When I see Quebec men, like the honourable Mr. Cochrane, like the honourable Mr. Rogers, also from Quebec, who allow us to be insulted by the men of Ontario, I say to them: You do not love your province, you are not equal to your task, you who have risen from the ranks of the province of Quebec.. I understand that, with you, politics Smothers your better feelings. As for me, as long as I have a seat in this House, I shall never be afraid to say to the men of Ontario, I will never be afraid to say to all who are good enough to listen to me, that the men of Quebec are just as good as the men of Ontario.


Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) :: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from Montcalm (Mr. Lafortune), who has showered me with some compliments, and who made some observations with regard to me not quite so complimentary, will pardon me if I do not undertake to take up seriatim the different matters which he has dealt with in his somewhat prolonged address. The question with which we are concerned presents itself to my mind from a very different point of view from that from which the hon. gentleman evidently looks at it. I may have occasion to refer, as I proceed, to one or two of the subjects to which he has adverted, but he will forgive me if, before doing that, I say something that seems to me vital to be said in connection with the consideration of this very momentous question. More than one hon. gentleman in this House

lias already said-and many of them among those who are supporting this measure- that the idea of compulsion in itself was repugnant to them. Some of them have gone further and claimed to entertain a special and superlative repugnance to it. Let me say that none among them more than I find it repugnant in itself. And when I say it is repugnant in itself, let it be understood that I do not mean to say merely that it is repugnant to me, looking at it from the point of view of my being the person, or among the persons, to be subjected to it. It is repugnant to me in that sense, but it is vastly more so to find myself in a position where it becomes my duty to be one among those who say that now, and at this time, it is necessary that compulsion, in the manner provided in this Bill, should be imposed upon others, in order that Canada may do her entire duty, and that she may do it in the method which shall so operate as to make the performance of that duty impair, in the. least possible degree, the performance of other duties that are incumbent upon her and her people to-day, and impose upon her- although that is a secondary consideration -'the least possible sacrifice.
5 p.m. Mr. Speaker, duty is the subject of my story. I have listened to a large part of this debate, I have read .the remarks of those hon. gentlemen whom it was not my privilege to hear, and let me say to you in all frankness, that I have waited till this moment in this debate before speaking myself, to see whether, among all the able men who have taken part in it, among particularly the many able men who have spoken in opposition to this measure, any one of them would advance a reason that would justify me in saying that it was not my duty to continue to give the Bill my support.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If, with all the great
intellectual power that these gentlemen possess; if, with all the research that they have given to the examination of the question, if with all the zeal that inspired them to find that sufficient reason, they have not succeeded in finding it^and I would have welcomed that reason-it looks to me clear, as it did when this measure was proposed, and as when I gave my assent to the suggestion that it should be proposed, that it was the duty of this Government to propose it, and that it still is the duty of this Government and of the members of
this House to support it. I respect the views of every man, and I have no quarrel with those whose consciences inspire in them the belief that their duty lies in another direction. For me the path of duty is absolutely clear with regard to this question, and it is because that path of duty is so clear that I find myself today impelled to intervene in this debate at this last moment.	_
I have said that duty is the subject of my story. If I intervene in this debate, it is because I fain would emphasize, so far as it may be possible for me to do, the necessity-I would rather say the obligation-that in my judgment lies upon one and all of us to concentrate our minds in our dealing with this question upon that one thing:	our duty to Canada. So concentrating our- minds, let me say, Mr. Speaker, I think that it would be well for all of us to 'try, for the time being at all events, to put aside many considerations which might naturally influence each and every one of us in arriving at a conclusion as to wlhat our own individual course of action upon the question should be. Let me not be misunderstood. I am not undertaking to criticise what other hon. members may have considered it their duty to say, as supporting one view or the other upon this measure, but I permit myself to say that it has been a matter of very great regret to me, as I have sat here listening to this debate, to see how far <and to what extent it had drifted into interprovincial and inter-racial-shall I say recriminations? I do not want to use any harsh language, but I think perhaps that word is not stronger than may be properly applied. It strikes me that there is no question, considered by itself, that it should have been so possible to debate, without any reference whatsoever to the race of any man, or to the province from which he came.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Lafortune) who has just resumed his seat has found fault with one gentleman and another, whose names he has mentioned, on this side of the Llouse, because, as he said, they sat silent and said no word in defence of the province of Quebec. May I be permitted to say, Mr. Speaker, that in this wide Dominion there is no province, in my judgment, of which a man may be more proud to be a citizen than my native province of Quebec. I have no apologies to make for her. She holds her place in this Confederation, and it is good for this Confederation that she does. We live in that province, men of different races

and creeds, and may I be permitted to suggest that we be left to ourselves to deal with the faults and the virtues of the province of Quebec? That is equally true if you reverse the situation. May I not say to my friends from the province of Quebec that in the discussion of this question, perhaps it was not necessary that we should refer to the faults and the virtues of our fellow Canadians from the province of Ontario. Can we not for the moment forget those things? Can we not too forget the differences of race that exist? Things have been said from one point of view and from the other that, frankly, I do not think it could have been pleasant for any Canadian to hear. It doe^ seem to me that it was most unfortunate that it should have been thought necessary to say these things in the discussion of a question whose decision is of such vast import to this our common country, and in regard to which it is of such prime importance that whatever that decision be, it may, when it is once reached, be presented for acceptance to a united people.
We are of different races in this country, but we are all Canadians. I have suggested that we forget for the moment that we are of different races. I do not want to suggest that it is desirable that we should drive from our memories the history of our progenitors. I firmly believe that there is no greater or more overpowering influence that directs the actions of men than the race feeling, and no call which men respond to more readily than that of the blood. It works for great and good results. I am not here, therefore, to suggest to anybody that it is his duty to forget those from whom he descends, or to repudiate the race to which he belongs. But, there is a time and a place for everything. Here, to-day, when we are dealing with a question, a right or a wrong decision on which will carry with it consequences that none of us can foresee- consequences that will have to be borne, not by ourselves alone, but by our children and our children's children for many generations-am I not right in saying that it is incumbent upon us to concentrate our minds upon the one fact that we are all Canadians, and that this is a question of what is the duty of Canadians to Canada here and now.
I would have made no reference to the matter of which I am about to speak if the hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat (Mr. Lafortune) had not taken upon himself the responsibility of telling you, Mr. Speaker, and this House, not only what my constituents in the division of Montreal, 
St. Anne, thought about this question, but - that he has comejiere to tell us the settled conviction of every Canadian of Irish blood within this country, and he says that they are all convinced the same way. The hon. gentleman will allow me to question his authority for making that statement. The men of my blood speak for themselves, and the men of my blood who have the glorious privilege of being Canadians, are as thorough Canadians as breathe within the limits of the territory of this country. They do not need the direction of my very good and very highly esteemed friend from Montcalm to tell them what they ought to think about this subject. The hon. gentleman was eloquent about the llack of mandate with regard to a great many other things, and as he ispoke I asked myself whence came his mandate to speak in this House for all Canadians of the Irish race. There (was not one exception; he knew all about it. Then he bewailed my sad fate: that I should be standing alone, separated from them all. I thank him for his sympathy, but I do not feel that I need it.
The people of my race are as intelligent a people-I am paying them a high compliment when I say that-as the people of the race of the hon. member for Montcalm. That means that they aie quite capable of judging for themselves, and that they will consider this matter from the standpoint of Canadians anxious to do their duty. 1 do not doubt that there will be differences of opinion among them; some will reach one conclusion, and some will reach another. But they will not, as the member for Montcalm says they will, in one body pronounce themselves absolutely on one -side of a question, with regard to which there are argument, -serious arguments pro and- con. The hon. gentleman is entirely mistaken when he undertakes the responsibility of making th-at suggestion. He will allow -me, further, to -submit that he is -a little rash in assuming that responsibility simply as the result of attendance -at a meeting convened by gentlemen, -all of them my very good and very highly esteemed friends, but all of them members ef the Liberal party in Montreal. The member for Montcalm went to that meeting and, in consequence, apparently considers that to him has been handed over, as it were, the entire Irish race in Canada, and he comes here and represents that the Irish race in Canada are throwing their weight and judgment in one scale in regard to this matter. That is not exceedingly modest on

his pari; moreover, I do not know that it is quite respectful to the people for whom he undertook to speak. Nothing is more dangerous than for a man of one race to speak for the people of another, unless it he for a man of one race to undertake to instruct the people of another in Tegard to their duty. I should have made no reference at all to the race to which X belong if it had not been for the somewhat extraordinary undertaking of the hon. member for Montcalm. When I go back to my constituents to render an account of what I have said, what I have done, and what I purpose doing on this question, I shall go to meet them all as Canadians, of whatever race they may be, and I shall make my justification to them all. It would be a matter of great regret to me if these Canadians of my own race should disagree with me upon this question. But they will exercise their judgment, and they will credit me with the sincerity for which I give credit to them and to the men of any other race who may reach a conclusion different from my own. But I shall not ask the member for Montcalm to intervene or to mediate between me and my constituents, of whatever race they may be. I shall go forth with a good conscience; I shall meet all my friends in St. Anne's and whatever their view may be they will greet me as they have greU. ;u me in the past, notwithstanding this judgment upon me by the hon. member for Montcalm. Down in St. Anne's we do have differences of opinion, differences of race, differences upon political questions, But I am proud to say that we live together as good friends, having confidence and trust in each other, and that we can maintain that condition of affairs without the kind attention of the hon. member for Montcalm.
I have said that we ought to get rid of all consideration of the fact that we are of different races or different creeds, or that we come from different provinces, because at this time one great question concerns our common country, Canada. I have said a word about my feeling for my own province of Quebec; I felt that I owed it that. But since we have bad questions of race, *may I add one word about the race that has been criticised in this House. I question no man's right to say what he believes to be pertinent and relevant; and I am in the judgment of every other member of the House whether what I say be proper or not. But in view of what has been said, I desire to dissociate myself - I go further
and say that I absolutely dissociate this Government - from any suggestion that anything in this measure is directed against any one part of the country against the province of Quebec, against any one race in the country, or in particular against the French Canadian people. I have heard the criticism, and I have heard the defence. To me, there is one overpowering, iall-answering defence, and that is that we proceeded to recruit under a voluntary system. What does recruiting under a voluntary system mean? It means that this Government and this Parliament and the Canadian public practically unanimously took the position that upon the question of recruiting each man was absolutely free to act according to his own judgment and his own conscience. Nobody took the responsibility of indicating that a man had any duty to discharge one way or the other. The principle of voluntary recruitment means that every man has the right to decide for himself; that his responsibility is to his own conscience. That being the case, I do not think that it is within the jurisdiction of any one to condemn a man because he exercised a recognized right. On the other hand, I have heard much that was said as against the criticisms made; and, frankly, a good deal of that I would be just as glad not to have heard. I do not undertake to determine whether these contentions were well founded. At any rate they did. not seem to me to be quite necessary; sometimes one may be on the defensive, and still overlap a little into unnecessary offensive. I should like to get .out of that atmosphere; I should like to approach this question purely and simply from the point of view of a Canadian.
What is the question? The question is: What is Canada's duty at this moment under conditions as they exist now? In August of 1914, Canada went to war. It is not very material now to' discuss why she went to war. She went to war of her own volition, as was evidenced by the unanimous action of the membership of this House, enthusiastically endorsed by the voice of practically all the people of Canada. Since then she has been at war, and to-day in the first place the question is: Should she withdraw from that war? In my opinion that is the one question, because we must either go forward to enact this Bill or we should withdraw from the war. I know that other people whose opinions I respect do not look at the matter in that way, but that is the way it presents itself to my mind. Why do I say that? We have



a certain farce at the front. I have not heard it suggested that the force that has gone to the front is greater than represents Canada's fair share in this common enterprise into which we have gone with Great Britain and the Allied Nations. This measure proposes what? To send an additional force, to add people to our force. This measure purposes providing reinforcements so that the force that is at the front may be maintained. It seems to me either we must provide those reinforcements, or we must withdraw from the war, because our force at the front is, day by day, being depleted. There are people who say that we never should have gone into the war, and people who say: Now we have exhausted our effort we should go no further; let our battalions disappear, and let Canada cease to be known a& an active participant in this great struggle for the defence of Christian civilization upon this globe. Those men, in my opinion, are absolutely logical when they say: No conscription. I do not say they are right, because I do not agree with their premises. But the men who -say that we ought to go on with this war, but that we ought not to take to-day, under the conditions of to-day, the step that this measure purposes taking, are, in my judgment-I speak with all respect- absolutely illogical. 1 say that for two reasons. In the first place, I do not know and I do not care whose is the fault or what are the causes that brought it about, but I do know that persistence in the voluntary system is not bringing us the men as fast as they are required. I have not neard that statement seriously controverted. The second reason comes to me from the arguments I have heard against conscription. As I have said I have listened and I have read attentively and carefully, looking for the reason that would justify my withdrawing from the position that I have taken, and I have not found it. But among the reasons that I have listened to, the one that -struck me as having very considerable force, was the argument based upon the assertion that, under present conditions in Canada, we need and we can use every man for purposes of a nature to give more valuable 'and more effective support for 'the armies of the Allies than we can give by sending him to war. I have been impressed by that argument. If the facts upon whi-ch it is made to rest were established to me, I am not at this moment prepared to say that I might not think that was the reason that would relieve me of this duty that to-day weighs 
so heavily upon my shoulders. But I say that out o-f that argument has come to me the conclusive reason why we should proceed, (if we are not going to drop out of this war and send no more men) to obtain our men by selective conscription. If the statements of fact upon which some hon. members advanced that argument, he absolutely sound, what will this measure do? It will establish their soundness. I wondered often as I listened to the discussion in this House, and I wondered more as I read discussions out of this House, to what extent this measure had been read and its principle grasped by the people of this country. In the face of what I have just stated, this measure is strenuously resisted by people who say that we must not send -another mian because we cannot spare another man. If hon. members have confidence in their affirmation, why do they so strongly oppose our finding out whether it is true or not? For my part I -am quite -satisfied that they are mistaken. I think, as has been said repeatedly in this House, we all of us have before o-ur -eyes to-day the evidence that they are mistaken.


Mr. MEDERIC MARTIN:: Does the Minister of Justice mean by his statement that Lord [DOT] -Sha-ughnessy was mistaken when, on his coming here from England, he said that the only thing to do was to- produce for the Allies?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have not suggested that we should not produce for the Allies, and I think if the hon. member will wait until I get through he will see there is no contradiction between what I am saying and Lord Shaughnessy's proposition, even as he states it, though I am very far from believing that he states it correctly. Lord Shaughne-ssy and a great many others-and I have no criticism to make-have insisted upon the importance of our producing to help the Allies. I am not aware that Lord Shaughnessy has ever said that that was the only thing we had to do. We have many duties in this matter; we are trying to deal with one of them now, and at the proper time and the proper place I trust we shall be able to overtake all our duties. But the way to get all those duties done is not to tie this House up indefinitely in resistance to the measure that is proposed to do one duty, and the one which seems to us to present the most imperious call upon us.
To me the second and the conclusive argument why we should proceed to get the men we want by this measure of selective conscription rather than by voluntary en-

listment-even if voluntary enlistment were producing men as fast as it did in its best days-lies in what those hon. gentlemen have put forward as the very basis for their affirmation that we should have no conscription at all. Just to the extent that they are right in their facts, just to the extent that we cannot spare men from Canada, does it become imperatively necessary for us to see that when we send more men we shall send those and those only who can be spared. This is a measure to ascertain who can be spared, and because they argue that nobody can be spared, gentlemen get up and say: "You must stop right here; you must not find out who can be spared. We tell you nobody can be spared, so stop your measure." What are they apprehensive of? Can they be so convinced that nobody can be spared, when they are so frightened of inquiry being made whether anybody can be spared? I do not agree with them in their statement that nobody can be spared. I am absolutely confident that there are still many men whom we can spare for this great work which is essential for the maintenance of Canada's honour. I am willing to take the risk of having the matter fully and carefully investigated as under this measure it is proposed to be investigated and I shall have to take the consequences if that investigation proves me to be wrong. So I say that just because it is true that we have reached the stage where we have to scrutinize carefully just whom we can spare and whom we cannot, ;t lias become the duty of the Government of this country and of the members of this House and of the people of this country to say to the voluntary system: Halt there. We cannot afford to . let who will go. Many of those who would go, we need at home-and as the Act says, it is more in the national interest that they should remain at home than enlist: Canada needs those men. If we continued with the voluntary system, what has happened in the past would undoubtedly be repeated in the future; the men most valuable at home would go, as they have gone before, and the men who might make excellent soldiers but who are doing no useful work at home, would stay in Canada and help consume the very products that we are urged to save so as to send them to Great Britain and the Allies.
To me at least it seems quite clear that we owe it to Canada to see that there shall be a selection of the men who are to go, and that those go who can be spared, and those stay who are absolutely needed at
192J
home. As I have said that reason has come to me as the result of reflection on the strongest argument put forward as a reason against sending anybody at all, namely, that we could not spare a man. I do not believe that latter proposition, but I do believe that there is this element of truth in it: that the time has come when it behooves us to carefully scrutinize the men who go and the men who stay. That being so, it becomes the duty of those who are responsible for seeing that Canada does her full duty in this war, to take steps that will bring about the result that the man most useful as a soldier shall be a soldier and that the man mose useful for the great work of production and for maintaining our people here at home shall be utilized for that purpose, or at all events that he shall have the opportunity of turning his energies to the fulfilment of that purpose.
Bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that it might be absolutely true that we need in this country every .man for the work of production, agricultural and industrial, and it might be .true at the same time that there were many men in this country whom we could let go, because, unfortunately, every man who is at home here is not helping in the work of industrial and agricultural production, and so far I have not heard it suggested that there is any method by which the men who are doing nothing can be compelled to work in industrial or agricultural production. It is quite possible that the men who are not so engaged, whether that ought to be or not, might, under military discipline, make good soldiers. Canada cannot abandon her effort, and I am not going to discuss that, because, if what has already been said in this House has not convinced those who heard it, that Canada cannot in honour abandon her effort, then for my part I abandon hope of carrying that conviction to their minds. That is my starting point, and I think that the general sense of this House is that that is true. If we are to do our duty there is only one course open to us, and that is that we should provide additional men by selective conscription, not to save this man or that man from going to the war, not as some hon. gentlemen are at pains to insinuate, because we are looking for a method of discrimination between one man and another, but in order that we may see to it that both of Canada's duties are performed, one of which duties is that to which my hon. friend from St. Mary's (Mr. Martin) attaches such great importance.

Let me say just a few words on what this measure means. It has struck me, in listening to this debate, that it might not have been a bad idea if we had departed from the usual practice and first examined the provisions of the Bill in order to grasp and thoroughly understand its principle. Had we done this, I think we should have been in a better position to discuss the measure. Much .of the debate has been upon a principle of conscription, assumed to mean a system under which every man from twenty to forty-five years of age, without regard to condition, domestic relations, occupation, or the distress which might fall upon an abandoned family, was to be taken by force and marched out to the war. And a great deal of the public opinion that my hon. friend from Montcalm (Mr. Lafortune) sought to show by promenading us from parish to parish in the province of Quebec, is based upon the representation that that is what is proposed to he done. But when you look at the Bill you find that it restricts the number of men to be raised to pne hundred thousand. Note, that is not a minimum, but a maximum. In the second place, the Bill provides means intended to enable us to ascertain, as I have already said, who can be spared. We have had some criticism of the proposed system. Some hon. gentlemen say it will give an advantage to the rich man at the expense of the poor. If I am not mistaken the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) said it was a system under which discrimination of all sorts was possible; that the measure had been prepared for the very purpose of making discrimination on racial, or provincial, pr religious lines, or discrimination as between the rich man and the poor. That was far from the minds of those who drafted the measure. And, more than that, it has been stated by the Prime Minister that suggestions for the improvement of the Bill will be welcomed. Let me say to the hon. members whp are at suah great pains to have it go forth to the people that there is a desire to discriminate against the poor or against any other class: Come with your suggestion, and it will be welcomed; if you have a better methpd, to make it sure that there shall >be no discrimination, let us know what it is. There is no other desire in the heart of anybody who stands behind the Bill than to find the most effective method of preventing discrimination of any kind. Under this Bill the rich man's spn will go under the same conditions as the poor man's son; the man of any province the man of any race, the man of one religion, 
will go absolutely under the same conditions as the man of another. There is, from beginning to end of this Bill, nothing upon which can be based what I venture to call the unworthy suggestion put forward that there is hidden in it somewhere the germ of unjust discrimination. But I repeat what I have already said: If any man suspects the existence of that defect, let him tell us ho>w to remove it. The men who have made these suggestions are able, astute, capable men; surely they can find *means to make more sure the purpose we have in mind. The suggestion to which I have. referred, I say, is unworthy of the *men who made it, not only because, in my judgment, there is nothing in the measure to justify it, but because they know that if they have a 'better suggestion, it will be *acceptable, and because they know also that statements of that kind can have but one effect-to add to the already too-mueh inflamed condition of a public mind which is not yet thoroughly informed upon the imperative necessity of this measure, and more particularly not yet thoroughly informed upon what the putting into effect of the measure will mean throughout the country. I register my most emphatic protest against that sort of insinuation. It is unfair to us who stand behind the Bill- but that is a minor matter-it is the contribution of the hon. gentlemen who make it, to add to the already disturbed condition of public opinion.
Here is a measure that is far from being what it has been represented to be, viz., a measure of conscription which is going to take away man, woman and child. We have had pitiful descriptions of the husband snatched away from his wife and children, and of distressful conditions that, it *is said, will surround the enforcement of the measure. We want one hundred thousand men, and before any married man is asked to go under the terms of the Bill we shall have exhausted the supply of men from twenty to thirty-five years of iage who are unmarried and fit to go. I shall not go into figures which have been given already, but it would appear to be beyond peradventure that this married man, whose fate we have been asked to bemoan, will not be called upon under this measure; he will certainly not be called upon until every man of the class I have described has been called upon and has given his services. But the picture that has been drawn is really the picture of what has happened under the voluntary system. The

man with a wife and young children, who. because he was of high heart and had a strong sense of duty, responded to the call that his heart and conscience put upon him, or yielded to the pressure of public opinion that necessarily existed under what we call the "voluntary" system, went under the distressing circumstances so pathetically enlarged upon. How many and many a father has left this country and gone over, to give his life in this great struggle, fix to return crippled and unable to support that family; while men with no dependents, men of leisure, men with money, men who did not need to denote themselves to production, men without ties, *with no one dependent upon them, sat at home-and, under the voluntary system, s.at at home in the exercise of their absolute right. I say that this is a measure for the protection of the family; it is not a measure that threatens them with the dire consequences that have been spoken of.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Charles Joseph Doherty: When the House rose I had been dealing with what I conceived to be the principle of the Bill, and I had endeavoured to make clear what some of its principal dispositions were. I had taken occasion to make some observations in regard to certain insinuations that some of its dispositions revealed a desire to create or make possible discriminations in the administration of the Act. May I just add upon that subject one observation? Hon. gentlemen suggest that the measure, in some of its terms, makes discrimination possible and they impute to this Government therefore the intention to bring about that result. Do they quite realize that the first thing this Government did, after the Bill was drafted, was to make a proposition that hon. gentlemen from the other side should come into the Administration, displacing a number of those who are here now and that, unless they were going to be parties to the working out of this discrimination which they say the Government contemplated, it would be absolutely impossible. Could there' be any more manifest evidence that there could have been no ulterior purpose at all events in the working of any of these dispositions than the readiness and willingness to confide their administration to the newly constituted government which would be equally representative of what is now the Opposition and what is now the party that happens to be in power and, that would be not merely composed for one-half of it, of gentlemen who would be nominated by the present leader of the Opposition, but if my memory serves me aright, would be composed for the other half of gentlemen who would sit in that Government subject to the veto of the right hon. gentleman who represents the Opposition? Surely, at all events, we can claim that we have an absolute defence against this insinuation of some ulterior purpose hidden or-I do not know whether hon. gentlemen go so far as to say -apparent, on the face of this measure. Furthermore, this invitation, of suggestions to meet possible objections to any particular provision, or series of provisions, has been extended and certainly will be acted upon.
Before I pass to another phase, may I just, by way of transition, say one word upon the fact that certain hon. gentlemen have taken occasion of the discussion of this measure to refer to what they consider the numerous sins of omission and commission of this Administration. How can that bear upon the question we are called upon to deal with, the question of whether the method proposed is necessary and advisable and is the one which the conditions in which we find ourselves impose upon us the duty of adopting? Again, I point out that simultaneously with the presentation of this measure the Government offered to disappear and allow it to be administered by a newly constituted Government composed in the manner which I indicated a few moments ago. Surely that makes it evident that we have just one question to deal with, and that we may pass without further observation from the objections, grievous as they may appear in the eyes of some hon. gentlemen and which have no bearing upon the question as to whether this measure should or should not be adopted.
Now, I pass to the consideration of another matter that calls certainly for an observation from me and which has arisen out of this debate. We have heard a great deal about pledges and promises. We have heard something about broken faith and we have listened to very eloquent denunciations of this Government whose pledged honour, hon. gentlemen say, has been violated. I think we even heard something about scraps of paper. I, in particular, had the pleasure of sitting here and hearing the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux), the hon. member for Laval (Mr. COMMONS
Wilson) and the hon. member for Montcalm (Mr. Lafortune) to-day refer to a matter in regard to which I desire to say a word. The affirmation was made that conscription was a bad thing for Canada because of what the Minister of Justice had said to a very distinguished prelate in Montreal whose name I would not think of introducing into this discussion. It was alleged that I had said a thing which was not true. The hon. member for Rouville was delicate in his expression in that regard but I think he fairly conveyed that meaning. My hon. friend from Laval was less delicate. Before he got through with me he told this House that I had made all sorts of false representations to this reverend gentleman. Then, we go on up in a crescendo. The hon. member for Montcalm did not make any bones about it at all. I do not know whether he felt called upon to go one better than the hon. member for Laval but he did not hesitate to state that I had lied to the archbishop. As far as the pledges of this Government are concerned, it is not for me to deal with this subject. Hon. members have heard recited what have been described as the pledges of this Government. It takes a good deal of determination to find a case of broken promises, to read into the declarations which these hon. gentlemen have read, a promise of future action under all circumstances no matter what might happen. Is a Government never to be free to state what its actual policy is, never to be free to state that it has not certain things in contemplation without being held to have bound itself that never in the future (no matter how conditions or circumstances may change, no matter what knowledge may come to it that it had not at the time that of statement of policy) would it take any course different from that which it was actually following and had then in contemplation? That is the proposition.
We hear about the bankrupt honour of *this Government and about its broken (pledges. I am told that I made all sorts of false representations, and that I lied to a very distinguished gentleman and a very Valued friend of mine. I have adverted to the statements that were made on behalf of this Government. Let me say one word as to the statements which I made, wherein I am told to-day that I lied. In [DOT]the first place, let me say that I would not dream of contradicting any statement made h*r Aift-inguished gentleman to whom I .refer, as to what I said to him. I accept his statement as to that as unquestionably true, and I have no doubt that I conveyed ito him the meaning which he now attaches

to it. It looks as though the desire of the hon. gentleman was to put me in contradiction with this distinguished gentleman, who has my respect and veneration. I say with truth as well as with pride, that I count him among my most valued and respected friends, and if that be their desire, they certainly shall not succeed. I have no hesitation in saying that what I said was true at the time, and is just as true to-day. I said that the National Service cards had no connection, near or far, with conscription. I say that to-day, and it is true. Gentlemen have been through the province of Quebec who were so fond of talking conscription that one would almost believe that they sighed for the day when it might come, or, at all events, might be proposed, in order that they might use the fact to further their political advancement. These gentlemen had been making statements in Quebec, and I shall not say they lied. I have more consideration for the hon. gentleman from Montcalm (Mr. Lafortune) than apparently he has for me. They have been stating what perhaps they did not know to be false, but what they certainly did not know to be true, namely that the National Service cards were [DOT]a step in the direction of conscription. I stated at the time that that was untrue, and I say to-night that it is untrue and I defy any body to establish the contrary. And because, forsooth, I told that truth, hon. gentlemen talk about my having lied, and they talk about my broken faith and about all sorts of representations that I made. I expressed my absolute conviction, as a conviction and an opinion, that conscription would not come in this country, and I believed it absolutely. If the gentleman to whom that statement was made understood it to be a pr.omise, and said that I made it, let it be well understood. I am not denying that what I said may have justified the view he took of it, though I venture to say nothing was further from my mind, at the moment, than that I was making a promise. Let it be clearly understood I made no such promise. Had I undertaken to make such a promise, hon. gentlemen would have a right to reproach me, not for the breaking but for the making of it. I recognize that that would be a grave offence. Mark you, I refer to a promise such as the one I am reproached for having broken, and such as the hon, leader of the Government is reproached for having failed to keep. I say that if any' public man should undertake to promise that he would not adopt a cer-

tain course, no matter how clearly circumstances might make it his duty to adopt that course, he would be gravely to be condemned for making such a promise. And, when circumstances which he did not control made it his imperative duty, in the interests of his country, or brought home to his mind the conviction that it was his imperative duty in the interests of his country, to take the course that he had promised not to take, would hon. gentlemen contend that he should say, " Yes, it is quite clear now, the salvation of my country depends upon a certain course being taken, I am the man who is in a position to take it, I alone, can set on foot the measures to bring it about, but I made a promise, and I must stand by it, and see the honour of my country lost, and see the soldiers of my country left unsupported, and see possible defeat come to those to whom I have pledged my assistance, and see the cause that I thought of such importance as to justify my plunging my country into war go down to disgraceful defeat, because, forsooth, I rashly and unwisely made a promise?" I say, Mr. Speaker, that a man who, in those circumstances, would feel that he was withheld from doing that which was his clear duty, gravely as he had offended in making the rash promise, would offend more gravely by keeping it. I see my hon. friend from Montcalm smiling at me in a calm way. I put a case before him. I have heard people speak in the strongest way against the use of firearms. I have heard men say that never, under any circumstances, or under any conditions, was a man justified in carrying a firearm, or in using it against his neighbour. Suppose a man, having made that declaration and pledge, finds himself in -a situation where his house has been broken into by a powerful ruffian, who, perhaps, proceeded to outrage his wife and his daughter; the firearm lies right by his hand. Would the member for Montcalm say that the husband should fold his arms with the remark: oh, I made a promise; I shall not interfere?


David Arthur Lafortune: I never said that.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The member for Montcalm-and the member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) also, if I may judge from what he said the other evening, with his hands in the air, about the " broken faith " of this Government-would stand behind that husband and say:	beware, your broken
faith, your broken faith! And he would expect that husband to drop his firearm and take no action. After the ruffian had
carried out his operations to his own satisfaction, and this promiser, his house looted and his family murdered, was himself ready for the grave, I suppose the member for Rouville would conduct the victim there in admiration and would see to it that a monument was erected to his memory. I suppose he would inscribe upon that monument the words of the poet about a man who acted not dissimilarly :	" Faith, unfaithful, made him
falsely true."
I say again that I never made any promise. If it is said that I made such a promise, I am not questioning the statement of the gentleman who so understood my remarks. If I had made any such promise, I would have done a thing that I should not have done.	If the circumstances be such as the Prime Minister says they are to-day on the other side of the water, and as I absolutely believe them to be; and if the reasons which 1 gave this afternoon prove that the only effective way of meeting these conditions is the adoption of this measure, then I say that had I made such a promise, my only course as a man of honour would have been to do that which my position here, the exigencies of the case and the needs of my country called upon me to do.
So much for pledges and promises. The member for Montcalm to-day gave great credit to the ex-Secretary of State (Hon. E. L. Patenaude) for his action in leaving this Government. To what did the member for Montcalm attribute that action? He said that the former Secretary of State would rather leave this Government than be a party to the breaking of these pledges, and he expressed the wish that other gentlemen had felt likewise. I should like the member for Montcalm to remember the expression by which he qualified the statement that he attributed to me. As I do not like to get beyond Parliamentary rules, all I ask him to do is to take it that I am making a similar statement with regard to the statement of his; that the ex-Secretary of State left this Government rather than break his pledges. Did the member for Montcalm read the letter of the ex-Secretary of State? Does he still persist in saying that the reason he gave why the ex-Secretary of State left the Government is correct? I will not toy to qualify his action if he does so; the member for Montcalm would have just the word to use -but I shall not use it.


David Arthur Lafortune: I have not a word
to withdraw.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is exactly what
I said.


David Arthur Lafortune: I have my archbishop with me.


Charles Joseph Doherty: one thing I am absolutely convinced of, and that is that they have not the slightest interest in the discussion of the merits of political parties at this moment.
I was about to say, when I was carried into this digression, that I am prepared to trust the people, to trust the sane, judgment of the people; to trust the judgment of the people after they have had proper opportunities for information.	But to-day we are dealing with
a people upon whom this proposition has come unexpectedly, and they are not prepared for it. I think that members of Parliament should be guided by the opinions of the people, but by the opinions of the people arrived at and formed after opportunity for consideration, and expressed at the proper time and in the proper manner under , the provisions of the constitution. The hon. member for Montcalm took us nearly all over the province of Quebec, and told us of meetings that he had attended that were against conscription, including one in my own constituency. He further warned us that it would not be safe for us to go there and say a word for conscription, because the Lachine canal is near. Well, let me tell the hon. member in turn that, when he wants to make the statement that I lied, it would not be wise for him to go back and make it in St. Anne's hall, even at a Liberal meeting, because the Lachine canal is very near.
Now, I was saying, I trust the people. I trust implicitly to their judgment when they have had opportunity for information and consideration. But I do not conceive the functions of a representative of the people to be to go around to meetings throughout the country addressing people who have not the necessary information, stirring them up to express an opinion in a certain sense, and then walk into this House and say: There is nothing more to be said; I am here to express the opinions of the people. The question what the function of a member of Parliament is under the British system is not a new question. I am not going into that question, but I would suggest to these hon. gentlemen who are so anxious about the opinion of the people that they should take a few minutes some day to read a famous speech of that great English statesman-I should rather say, that great Irishman whom Ireland gave to England to be one of her greatest statesmen- Edmund Burke. That will tell them what is the proper position of a representative of the people. Let me read a few lines. Burke was being reproached for not having 
followed the opinion of his electors-the subject is not material. He said to them:
For, gentlemen, it is not your fond desires, nor mine, that can alter the nature of things ; by contending against which, what have we got, or ever shall get, but defeat and shame? X did not obey your instructions. No; I conformed to fhe instructions of truth and nature, and maintained your interest, against your opinions, with a constancy that became me. A representative worthy of you ought to be a person of stability. I am to look, indeed, to your opinions; but to such opinions as you and I must have five years hence. I was not to look to the flash of the day.
We owe a duty to the people and that is not to look to the flash of the day, not to be governed by the opinions of people described by the hon. gentleman as being in a frame of mind where they throw one into the canal if he express any opinion other than what they may happen to entertain at the moment. Speaking for myself, and having respect for the people who were at these meetings, I can quite understand that at the first flash this proposal, ill-understood and worse explained, does not commend itself to their judgment but when it is brought to their attention and properly explained I am satisfied they will give it their approval. I am satisfied that if, by any mistake on the part of this Government and Parliament, we should decide to let this question be settled at this moment by a vote taken without further preparation, upon the submission of this sole question to the people when they are being appealed to in the most powerful way and by the most eloquent gentlemen to resist and reject this proposal, that if we should subject the honour of Canada to being soiled by the possibly unfortunate result of a vote taken under these circumstances by the people ill-informed and without proper explanation, these very people themselves, when they saw the result, would never forgive us for what we had done. They would tell us, in the words of Edmund Burke: You should not have been governed by the flash of the moment; you should have waited for our opinion one year, two years or three years hence when we shall be in a position to appreciate the possible results; perhaps even to know the actual results of the decision you are called upon to make.
Now, I feel that I owe the House and yourself, Mr. Speaker, an apology for the length at which I have allowed myself to be led into going in connection with this most important question. I do not know that I can flatter myself that what I have said can alter the views of any man but at least I feel that the best thought that I have been able to give to the most im-

portant question that I have ever had to consider has inspired me to say what I have said.
In conclusion, let me just say one word as to what has been called the constitutional lack of power of this Parliament to pass this Bill and the absence of a mandate on the part of its members. I wonder if hon. members remember what happened in January, 1916, and I wonder if their memory goes a little farther back to August, 1914. In August, 1914, nobody could question the mandate of this Parliament and nobody could speak of this Government as being moribund. I do not feel quite so shocked about that expression as the hon. member for Montcalm thought I ought to. The best of us, even my hon. friend from Montcalm himself, will come some day to be in a moribund condition and still he marvels that we do not rise in wrath at the very mention of it. I do not know what we are expected to do or to say when we are described as a moribund Government as we have been by the leader of the Opposition. Well, we have to stand that epithet. Could this Government be described as a moribund Government in 1914? Had this Parliament a mandate in 1914? What did this Parliament do in 1914? We had a three or four days' session. I think we all look back with pride and pleasure to those three or four days because in that three or four days' session we realized to the full the condition which the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) the other day recalled to us as having been described by an English poet in words put into the mouth of a Roman of old lamenting the disappearance of those days "when none were for a party and all were for the State." In those four or five days we realized that. I hope that we will still, notwithstanding the difference of opinion that exists between us as to this particular measure, be in that frame of mind. There could be no doubt about it at that time and what did this Parliament, then in the full enjoyment of its mandate, under the impulse of that common sentiment, realize? Was it wondering about the rights of the people, was it wondering whether it should have a referendum, was it anxious even about the rights of the people's representatives? Not a bit. This Parliament did at that time, and under the inspiration of the impulse that prevailed then, something that was absolutely unprecedented in the annals of Canadian Parliaments and, I am not quite sure whether one could not safely say, in the annals of any British Parliament. Parliament then handed over to this Government, that was not moribund then, absolutely its entire legislative powers in so far as matters pertaining to the war were concerned. Conditions were so critical that the people's representatives were willing to forego their control over legislation and to hand it over to the Government, a Government that had not been elected to deal with these matters in particular. Parliament then realized that what would be necessary would be prompt action and it thought it was worth while to sacrifice even the right of the people to make their own legislation through their own representatives in order to ensure that needed action would be taken at the proper moment and that there should be no delay. That is what Parliament did then, a live Parliament, a Parliament that had an unquestioned mandate. I am not going to claim now that the Government might do what it chose. I think it might have done what it believed to be right, but this Government, in carrying out its duty, has been truly conservative in the exercise of its- powers. But, I have referred to their wide scope as indicating what this Parliament in the vigour of its life, when its mandate was undoubted and its motives of the highest, thought it proper to do on behalf of the people. It was absolutely like the action that the earliest democratic peoples realized, in very ancient times, to be the proper action in like conditions. We all know that when the State was in peril, when the enemy was at the gate, when civil commotion threatened, in the old Rome of the Republican days, the people, ever jealous of their rights, stood not upon them, and the Senate said to the consuls: Take care that nothing of evil befall the Commonwealth. Caveant consules ne quid detriment Republica capiat," and left to them the plenitude of power.
And in virtue of what Parliament did then, in the full vigour of its life and unquestioned mandate, I venture to say the Government might have proceeded upon the authority so conferred to enact the present measure. We have not sought to do so, nor would we dream of going that far. I refer to the legislation merely to show what this Parliament thought was the proper line of action in the day of its fullest vigour. In 1916 what did this Parliament do? Parliament voted that it was desirable that, though, under our written constitution our mandate expired in October last, the mandate of Parliament should be extended for another year, and to-day the

hon. gentlemen who supported that motion, .who felt that the good of the country imperatively demanded such action, now say one after the other, "Oh, we did something we had not any right to do; although we did it with our eyes open, we had no right to do it, and therefore we do not now represent the people."
I was amazed to hear members make speeches in this Chamber on the strength of the fact that they did not represent the people. I desire to say one word with reference to that proposition. It is quite true that, under our written .constitution, this House was elected for a .fixed period of five years. But the constitution of this country is susceptible of (amendment, and the people may express *their will tacitly, just as clearly as by *their vote, and when, in 1916, this Parliament, composed of representatives about *whose mandate there was no doubt, gentlemen who represented the entire country, unanimously said that the safety of the country required that there should be no election, but that the life of Parliament ehould be extended, and when the people ' of Canada from one end to the other ratified that decision, I say, Mr. Speaker, that *we then modified the constitution in the most regular and normal British way, that is by what is done and accepted as being the needful thing to meet new and unprovided for conditions. It is true we have a written constitution, and it can legally be altered only by the Imperial Parliament. The Imperial Parliament sanctioned the Bill passed [DOT]in 1916, and that rendered legal what had been decided upon by us. I can say that when the Parliament, under those conditions, and with the absolute ratification of the people-and I am satisfied that will not be disputed-passed the Bill extending the life of Parliament in January, 1916, a Parliament was constituted with all the powers that ever belonged to any Parliament in the Dominion of Canada. Our right to sit as a Parliament was questioned by the hon. gentleman from Montcalm (Mr. Lafortune) as being illegal. That is part of the original law that the hon. gentleman gave us this afternoon, but when it is said our existence is unconstitutional I can only say that while this Parliament is not^here by the will of the people, expressed in the ordinary and usual form, it is here by the unmistakable assent of the people, who were convinced that the expression of their will in the usual form would be detrimental to the best interest of Canada. I, for one, have no doubt of the validity of my mandate, nor have I

any doubt of your powers, Mr. Speaker, in this House. We can do anything and everything that a lawfully .and constitutionally elected Parliament can do, and, therefore, I have no doubt of my right to sit here and perform my duties as a member of Parliament. I have already endeavoured to point out Canada's duty at the present time, which is quite clear. Here we have in our hands the mandate, and on our shoulders the responsibility, for seeing that Canada does her duty. Mr. Speaker, I for one-and I am satisfied the great majority of the members of this House will be with me-will not shirk this responsibility to-night upon the mere plea of undue anxiety about the rights of the people.
In conclusion, to go back to where I began, let me suggest that we all endeavour, in the decision to which we may come, and the action we may take in pursuance of that decision, to join together, with the realizing sense that there is but one question in reality before us, and that is: What is the duty of Canada to-night? What is her duty to herself, to her honour, to her Allies, to her voluntary soldiers who have died, and are dying and facing death to-night? Let us forget that there are different provinces. Let us forget all the reproaches one race may think it has to make against another. Let us forget all the petty quarrels which may have occurred between us, by reason of political divergence, or differences. Let us forget that there are any political parties. Let us forget that theref ore any Government or any Opposition. Let us remember just one thing alone; that there is come to us the great privilege, carrying with it the heavy burden of responsibility, of determining for Canada to-night the most important question that any Canadian Parliament has ever been called upon to determine, a question upon whose right decision, and upon the proper action following that decision depends t'he honour of our country, Canada.
M. THOMAS MacNUTT (Saltcoats):	I
wish to place on record my reason, for polling the vote I intend to poll to-night. I am a believer in the referendum, as a general thing. If any large questions come before the House and before the country, for which there is no mandate by an election, I think the situation should be laid before the people, and that they should be consulted. But, Sir, I do not see how this present proposal can possibly be a fair referendum. The men who are most interested in the carrying out of this Bill are

the soldiers at the front to-day. At the time the Soldiers' Vote Bill was passed, it was recognized that it was desirable to poll the soldiers' vote. Very strong opinions were expressed at that time that it would be impracticable. Other opinions from hon. gentlemen, for whose judgment I have great respect, were expressed to the contrary. One of those opinions I cannot pass by; I refer to the opinion of the Prime Minister, who was behind the Soldiers' Vote Bill, who believed it was practical at that time to take their vote, but he has been across the water in the meantime, and looked into the matter, and he has made a statement in this House with respect to it. I wish to quote a couple of sentences from his remarks:
The men at the front will be not only practically, but actually, disfranchised If an election does take place in this country while they are in the trenches. That Is my conviction.
Further, in connection with the Soldiers' Voting Act of 1915. he said:
I am not disposed to think that the arrangements made in that Act or in any other Act that could be devised are such as to enable those men to vote, or at least any considerable number of them.
We must have in this country a great many men who are available for service at the front. Some of them are what we call " slackers"; others are opposed to Canada's participation in the war. These men would have the right to vote, tout a great many of the men who have bravely gone overseas to defend British institutions and who are calling for reinforcements would be debarred from voting. If only 10,000 of them . were debarred from voting, I would still not support a referendum, having regard to present conditions. The men who are fighting for us overseas are specially interested in this matter, and they are the men who should toe first considered.
It has been contended that the voluntary system could even now be made successful. Well, the present Administration have had that matter in hand and it is likely that they will continue to have it in hand for some time. They declare that they cannot do much more along the line of voluntary recruiting. What are we going to do about it? It is all very well to make recriminations and to say that they should have done better or that under different conditions they would have done better. But, Sir, discussion of that kind can very well be left for a while; what we have to face now is the present situation. Werequiremenatthefront, are there any men in Canada available for that service? I believe that there are. The
slogan at the beginning of the war was: the last man and the last dollar; it is nearly time that we tried to put that into effect. It was not anticipated that the war would be such as it turned out to be, but the country has to continue to perform its part, even if it takes the last man and the last dollar. At the same time, there are many men who are not available for service at the front. An authority has stated that out of the 100 per cent only 25 per cent of the energy required to win the war is represented by men who can be classed as combatants, the remainder being made up of those who take part in agriculture, transportation, the manufacture of munitions and so on. On the other hand, many men are employed to-day in non-essential industries-piano and automobile factories, and so on-who could be sent to the front and their places filled by others, including returned soldiers. Any one who visits a lacrosse or baseball match is struck by the number of athletic, able-bodied young men who play these games professionally for the amusement of the crowds, in order to make money. This is the kind of man that ought to be at the front. They do not seem to want to go, and it strikes me that they should be made go to defend the institutions of their country. Other men attend these games and gatherings-they are sometimes called rooters-many of whom could be sent forward. As a matter of fact, many men are available who could be well spared, and if they do not know their duty, it should be pointed out to them. I do not think, howeVer, that a single man should be taken from the farms. I do not say that because I am a farmer, but I know that though we may manage to get the crop in, the outlook for saving it is not very bright. If many more men are taken from the farms, production will be made much less, and production is as essential as the sending of men to the front. Great judgment will have to be exercised in selecting the proper men to send forward.
I think that there should be lamotber form of conscription, that which has been referred to as the conscription of wealth. There are many men in the country who Have large incomes-professional men, promoters, commission men, man who have inherited large sums of money. The lives of these men. are in no danger; they cannot go to the front; they should, therefore, be called upon to pay out some of their surplus money to assist in feeding and equipping the men at the front. How
30Tl

many men of this kind there are, I do not know. Other men have a considerable amount of capital invested in businesses that are not touched by the present taxation. Why should not a man who has $25,000 or less in a business pay his share of taxation as well as the man whose business is capitalized at $50,000? If he is allowed profits of 10 per cent, he will get $2,500 a year. If he makes only 10 per cent, he could be exempted from taxation, but he could well afford to pay into the treasury one-quarter of each additional 5 per cent earned, one-half of the next 5 per cent earned and three-quarters of any further profits earned. When a domestic loan is floated, most of these men are glad to invest their money in 5 per cent non-taxable bonds which will be a charge upon the whole country for a long time and which will be a charge even upon the men who are at the front. Why should we send to the front a young man who has only his life to give, and leave behind, out of danger, other men who have large incomes which are taxed not at all or comparatively lightly? These men should at least he called upon to pay a large proportion of the money necessary to equip and maintain the men 'at the front.
One of my reasons for speaking to-night was that of making a few remarks with regard to a matter that has not been brought up in this debate and which relates to the foreign-bom citizens of Canada. We have an enormous country in the West that required people to work and develop it. Very properly, the Government invited settlers from all parts of the world, and many came from what are now enemy countries. These men are not at all to blame for the war; they settled in our country; many of them took up third-class lands that nobody else would take, and have made good.
Prom my experience with these people I can say that they are good and industrious settlers. I notice a smile on the face of an hon. gentleman opposite. These people are not all Liberals. In some parts of my district there are a number of foreign-born settlers, and in some of the polls in these districts there is generally a Conservative majority and 'in others a Liberal majority. I am not talking politics at the present time. These -men are citizens of this country, and they 'have a perfect right to have their citizenship respected. They have, however, been looked upon as enemies. I do not know of any recruiting meetings having been held in those settlements, but I do know that a considerable number of foreign-born settlers and sons of
TMr. MacNutt.1
foreign-born settlers have enlisted or have endeavoured to enlist, and many of them have been turned down because their country of origin was Austria or Germany In that way an antagonistic feeling has been built up which should not have arisen. These people are not responsible for this war. Perhaps there were agitators and sedition-mongers amongst them, but they have been looked after, and I might say that they are not the only people amongst whom there are agitators. I am satisfied there is a field for recruiting which has not been worked. I am rather curious to know whether this Conscription Bill, if it passes, as no doubt it will, will be applied in the foreign-born settlements, as they are called. Although we cannot expect these people to be as enthusiastic as our British-born people are, they are not disloyal; in fact, many of them we may consider as very loyal indeed. To give an instance, an influential German-born citizen who came out here when very young told me not long ago that he had made an offer 

I suppose to the Department of Militia^- to raise a battalion (amongst his own people if they were allowed to go and fight the Turks. That showed, of course, a perfectly natural feeling on his part. He said: "We do not care to volunteer to go to the front, and perhaps shoot our relatives there, but we are ready, if they send us, to go and take part in the fight against the Turks." I told him that a number of German officers were in command of the Turkish army. He said that did not matter, that they had no relations amongst the officers. This man had a younger brother wounded about three weeks ago fighting for the Allies. I could give a number of similar instances.
I do not think I am out of order in speaking along these lines. I want, if possible, to remove some of the false impressions [DOT]that there are in regard to the foreign-horn ^settlors in the West. In voting, as I intend to do, it may be that I shall render myself unpopular amongst some of my electors, hut I am willing to take the risk. ,At the same time I believe in fair play and in stating what I know to be the truth ;in regard to these people or to any matters that may be under consideration. On fre-jquent occasions I have been invited to and havie attended Union School picnics, where, perhaps, thirty or forty children from each of fifteen, sixteen or eighteen schools for foreign-bom settlers meet for an outing one day in the year. It would probably open the eyes of some of our friends in the East if they could attend some of those picnics.

They would find the children bright and [DOT]well-dressed marching .around, every one of [DOT]them waving a Union Jack and singing patriotic songs, and I do not think you could tell very much difference between them .and the children of British-born people. I noticed 'the other day in a local paper the description of a concert, which I shall take the liberty of reading, as it has a bearing upon this question:
On Monday, June 4, a patriotic school concert was held in Goodeve Town Hall, in aid of the Patriotic Fund. Not only did the children show a thorough mastery of the English language, but entered into the patriotic choruses, drills and recitations with an enthusiasm which showed that they are real young Canadians, heart and soul. Every child was of foreign-born parentage, Ruthenian, Polish, German and Austrian; yet these parents went to much expense and trouble to equip their children for the concert and to help it along in every way. Mr. Riley, the teacher, acted as chairman, and introduced the programme with a speech in which he paid a high tribute to the patriotic work which the foreign-born are doing in this district. "Give these children only a chance," he declared, "and before the present generation has passed they will bless British institutions, and produce men of whom Canada and the British Empire will be proud." He added that loyalty can never be driven into any human being with a sledge-hammer. It is a tender plant whose root is in the heart. It will blossom and bear fruit in the sunshine of sympathy and kindness, but persecution and insult will only wither it. The other items on the programme were:	Choruses-"O, Canada,"
"The Band of the Maple," "Rule Britannia," "Britannia, the Pride of the Ocean," "Wake, Says the Spring-time" ; recitations-"Britannia," with thirteen characters to represent various parts of the British Empire, and "Pair Canada," which the children printed letter by letter on a maple leaf; drills-the boys (12 in number) gave the British Empire drill and marched and executed turnings, etc., with the accuracy of veteran soldiers. The Flower drill, sixteen girls each dresed in pure white with a flower wreath, marched at first and then executed slow graceful movements to the accompaniment of the Flower Song. A supper and dance followed the concert. The total cleared from the concert was $80.
I know this settlement. The people came out very poor; the parents are very proud of the manner in which their children have jgot on, and they appreciate very highly the institutions of thie country. I believe many of them are prepared to defend those institutions, if they are required to do so, or even if they are requested to do so. They *have been discouraged from enlisting, and [DOT]that is one of the reasons why recruiting [DOT]has, to a certain extent, fallen down. It -may not have made a large difference, but *it has made some difference. Every man *recruited is of assistance, and these people *would prove good fighters; they would he hghting for something that they valued. I
*do not know that many of this class of [DOT]people can he spared from the land, but under different circumstances many of them would have enlisted before. I repeat that if we are to produce-and we have to produce-we must interfere very little with *the men, of whatever nationality they may be, who are working on the land. I do not *think it is necessary for me to discuss that *matter at greater length. I could give instance after instance to show that the extract I have read is only a sample of what *occurs at nearly every point that I know of in the West where there are foreignJborn *settlers, or descendants of foreignJborn settlers.
I intend to vote against the amendment to the amendment. With considerable reluctance I shall also vote against the amendment. I am reluctant because I have the honour to be a supporter of the right hon. leader of the Opposition, and it goes pretty hard, I can assure you, to vote differently from him, but he would be the last man to say we should not vote according to our convictions. I intend to vote for the second reading of the Bill, but I do not promise to vote for its third reading. I want to have some assurance that in conjunction with the conscription of man-power there will also be conscription of wealth. I believe that a partial assurance has already been given, but I hope that before the third reading the Government will definitely assure us that wealth will also be conscripted.
Mr. FRANCIS N. McCREA (Sherbrooke): Mr. Speaker, I wish to take up a little of the time of the House in expressing my view on this measure. I have been debating in my own mind for the last, two or three days whether I could square a silent vote with my conscience, and I have concluded that I cannot. If I could have done so I would much Tather have said nothing, because I think on matters of this kind too much time is wasted in long discussions which do not amount to very much in the end, and which certainly do not change very many votes.
Almost invariably, when we on this side of the House criticise the actions or motives of the Government we are accused of disloyalty. I think that the men who make this charge cannot really mean what they say, because on inquiry we find that prae-tically ais many Liberals have gone to the front as Conservatives. For instance, the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Power) has three sons and two sons-in-law at the front. The hon. member for Bagot (Mr. REVISED EDITION

Marcile) has two sons at the front, and there are many others that I could mention. The only son I have of military age and who is physically fit is now in France. I might mention that he is not over in England with a commission, floating around London enjoying himself, and drawing officer's pay and separation allow-anae. He is a private. When he got through his college term in July of last year he enlisted as a gunner in the McGill Siege Battery. He told me he had made up. his mind to go to the front, and I asked him whether he was going to try for a commission. He isaid: "No, I don't want a commission. If I go to Prance I want to do some of the fighting, There are already a number of men with commissions who found no openings when they reached England unless they stepped down in rank and went over to France as privates. Many of them did not want'to do that, and consequently they are now in London drawing military pay and wearing military dress, but doing nothing. For my part I want to do some of the fighting." I therefore feel at liberty to speak on this measure without being accused of disloyalty or of being a traitor to my country.
The Prime Minister of this country recently. visited England. He went over, I presume, to get information, to exchange suggestions, and ascertain what the conditions were. He comes back and abruptly tells us without any notice that it is necessary to have conscription in this country, as more men and more money are required. If it be true that the voluntary system has failed, that more men are needed and cannot be got except by conscription, we will have to have conscription. Personally, I am inclined to think that the voluntary system has not been fully tried out. I do not wish to be harsh in my criticism, but I ' feel it my duty to criticise where criticism is due. If in any statements I shall make to-night I shall seem a little harsh or even personal, my object is not to knock the Government, but simply to give honest straightforward criticism where I think it is due.
In any large enterprise, war or anything else, where millions of men and millions of money are engaged, there is something else also required. If any hon. member of this House were engaging in a great enterprise involving millions of men and millions of money the first thing he would do would be to organize. He would get together men in whom everybody had confidence, men of ability who were willing to devote their whole energies to carrying to a successful issue the enterprise with which 
they were entrusted, classifying and utilizing to the best advantage all the men and money at their disposal. Is it the opinion of this House and the opinion of the country that such a combination of men as I have described is in charge of the affairs of this country? The affairs or this country should be managed just as is the business of any large corporation. Let us see whether the men in charge of the affairs of this country are competent, whether they are men of large views and long experience and absolute honest intentions, with no graft or protection for friends, but openhanded justice to all. Where a large number of men are engaged in some enterprise no partiality or favouritism should toe shown. If there is, the men who are favoured are all right, but the men who think they are not favoured do not feel so well about it. This proposition to conscript the maii-power of the country without conscripting its resources and wealth is not in the right direction. It is not fair to ask a young man of twenty years of age to go to the front and offer his life as a sacrifice for the protection and good of the country while the other man, who is older and therefore has had more benefit from the country, if benefits there be, makes no sacrifice at all. It is said that the married man with a family should not go to the war, and I think that is right. Yet, there is another side to that question. The man who has a wife and family of young children is more interested in the good government of the country than the young man who has no dependents to think of. Old men like myself and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) cannot go; but we must be just to those who go, and just to those who stay at home.
The Minister of Finance and the Government, in my humble judgment,. have failed in their duty, not through lack of judgment, but, I am inclined to think, through lack of courage. When the war broke out in 1914 the Government should have made provision, not only of men to-send overseas, but of money to pay them. They should have adopted a fiscal system to raise at least fifty per cent of the necessary funds to maintain the army at the frdnt, especially as this country is at present, and has been for a couple of years past, immensely prosperous. The time is coming at the end of this waT-and, I think, has arrived now-when more money will be needed. The minister should have imposed more taxes-I do not mean piling it all on the manufacturers as he has.

done, but so levying the taxes that all should pay their equal proportion. Is there any reason why every man should not pay according to his means? That principle will have to be conformed to before this war is finished and the bills met. I was talking with a financial man here in Ottawa last week, one of the first financiers of this land. He estimates that when this war is over, though he does not pretend to know when that will be, our national. debt may amount to four billions of dollars, taking both our borrowings and also our liabilities in providing for invalided soldiers after they return home. When the war broke out the minister should have adopted several systems of taxation. One is the form which he has adopted, the tax on business profits. He should also have an income tax. I think that, in addition, he should have gone to the municipalities and said to them: You shall levy taxes upon the taxable property of your municipalities at such-and-such a rate; collect it with' your ordinary taxes and pay it over to the Government. The minister expects to raise through new taxes about $50,000,000 a year. If he had imposed the taxes he should have imposed, he would have raised $150,000,000. I want to tell the minister that the next time he goes to the country to raise a loan of $150,000,000 or so, it is not going to be so easy as it would have been had the war expenditure been met more by taxes and less by borrowings. I think the Government lacked courage; they have simply followed the line of least resistance, realizing that taxation is always unpopular. The fact remains that taxation must be resorted to, and that it cannot all be piled up on one section of the people. The system the Government have adopted is unjust .and unbusinesslike. If you doubt it, read the financial papers of this country and -see what they think about it. I am not complaining of the tax on business profits, provided that all are equally affected. And when I say that there should be an income tax, without boasting at all, I think I should be affected somewhat myself. I want to be, because we owe it to our country.
Then there is the cry that recruiting has failed, especially in Quebe-c. Let us see if there is not a reason why the young men do not enlist in as large numbers as we think they ought to. I maintain that the Government is to a large extent responsible for it. Early in the war, when the British Government wanted munitions
193i
and the people of this Country were not equipped to supply them, and did not understand the methods of production, it was necessary to -pay high prices, in order to get manufacturers started in this line. But the manufacturers did undertake this line of production, and soon they were flocking here to Ottawa, spending months of time, and begging for orders,-and could not get them unless they had political influence. The Government then, instead of fixing their price as they did at nearly twice what they ought to have paid, should have called upon the several manufacturers to say how many shells of certain sizes they could proride, and at what prices and what delivery, thus putting the whole matter up to competition. Had they done this, they would have got, their shells for far less money than they have paid. I know one concern that declared a dividend of 400 per cent last year. When the Government imposed their business tax of 25 per cent on profits over a certain amount the - manufacturer said: I am not going to worry myself or rustle around looking for help; I will simply pay my help more instead of giving it to the Government and I will get all the men I want. The result has been that men, not mechanics or tradesmen, but comm,on labourers, have made as high as $12 and $15 a day. The farmer cannot get help to work his farm and the ordinary manufacturer cannot get help in his shop because he cannot pay these prices. The prices of all kinds of provisions have gone up as a result of the scarcity pf labour. These men that are working in munition factories and earning $10, $12 and $15 a day are not very apt to enlist -at $1.10 a day to go to the front. The man who gets $10 or $12 a day eats his meals in his qwn home and sleeps in his own bed. Can you expect him to drop that job, to enlist voluntarily at $1.10 -a day -and sleep amidst the rats .and mud of the trenches? That is what the Government ask him to do. The Government are responsible for the lack of enlistment in having disturbed the whole system and price of labour. The farmer, and the ordinary manufacturer, are hampered by the want of help. But the Government say that a young man should be patriotic enough to leave his job at $10 or $12 a day and go to the front f.or $1.10 a day. If he does not do that he is not a patriot; he is a slacker. Let us see whether there are not other slackers. When the Minister of Finance floated his last lpan, did he do what they did in the United States- go to the bankers and say: We wan-t you to handle this loan free of charge and vou

will not get anything out of it? No, my information is that one of the biggest banking institutions in Canada was employed to float the last Government loan and that it received .a very handsome commission for doing it. The Minister of Finance did not ask this big bank to work for nothing hut he thinks this young man, working in a munition factory and earning $10 or $12 a day, is a .slacker, that he is not a patriot, if he does not drop his job, go to the front at $1.10 a day and sleep in the trenches and sometime not sleep at all.
When this war broke out the Minister of Militia called to the service a gentleman from Toronto

I think one of the Ellis Brothers-to assist him in buying binoculars. Giving evidence before the Public Accounts Committee, this gentleman said he had done the work entirely for patriotic purposes, that nothing would have induced him to leave his shop and come down here to.superintend the buying of binoculars but pure patriotism. But, when we got the evidence we found that he had received 10 per cent on everything he bought or that was bought. Not only that, but he allowed his friends to buy binoculars here, there and everywhere, some were bought for as low as $9.75, some for $24 and $25, but by the time these binoculars reached the Government they cost $57. That is patriotism. That is the kind of patriotism that this Government and their friends appear to think is all right. For my part I do not.
I was going to enumerate a, lot of the sins of commission and omission of this Government, but I do not think it is necessary. My hon. friend from Kings, P.E.I. (Mr. Hughes) described all these matters last night; they are fresh in the memory of every one in this House, and if they read Hansard they will find an array of offences committed that I think would [DOT] to some extent establish the fact that this Government has not handled the business of this country economically, wisely, honestly, free from all kinds of graft and crookedness, or in such a manner that the people would have confidence in it.
I said at the outset that this war is the nation's war, and that it must be won at whatever cost if possible. I also said that one of the essentials was men, another was money, but that the third and most important essential was judgment and good management. I do not think that any business men in this country would put the amount of money or the number of men that are called for in the carrying on of this war or in carrying on the affairs of this country 
into the hands of men who are scrapping amongst themselves, who have no respect for one another, and who have been accusing one another of being crooks and grafters. The situation reminds me of what Robert Burns said when two ministers fell out, were quarrelling over their congregations, and were blackguarding each other, the congregation clapped their hands and said: "Neither is lying.'' That also brings to my mind the words of one of those old Presbyterian ministers who were always supposed to be very solemn and very earnest. He was preaching to his Congregation one day when a matter of great political importance was engaging the attention of his congregation and the public generally. He said, "An honest man is the noblest work of God, but, politically speaking, I do not think He has made one for the last fifty years." I think that applies to the situation to-day.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: That takes in the last Administration.


Mr. McCREA:: What is that?


Mr. NICKLE:: That takes in the last Administration.
Mr. MoCREA:	The question of recruiting, in Quebec especially, has been pretty fully dealt with by other speakers, and!, therefore, I do not propose to take up the time of the House by a reference to it. It has been stated here^andi I 'think with , reason-that no honest effort has been made in that province to recruit. It would look to me rather that it was the intention of the Government, or at least the idea of the men engaged in that part of the Government's business, that they would rather have a chance to say to the people of Quebec that they were slackers and were not doing their duty. I think it has been said in this House that Sir Wilfrid Laurier did not take the part in recruiting that he should have taken. I think the hon. gentleman from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) said that Sir Wilfrid Laurier could go down to Quebec and come back with fifty or sixty members supporting him in this House. That may be so in politics. Sir Wilfrid is getting old. He is a statesman, and not a military man. When he goes down to Quebec and appeals to the people for their support, he appeals to them as their lea^eT. He says, "Vote for me, follow me, and I will bring you to success." As a politician he says, "Come, vote for me; follow me, I will be your leader in the election, and in the House when the election is over." But

he cannot go down to Quebec, appeal to the citizens, invite them to enlist and tell them that he will lead them, not only to the seaboard, 'but to the other side of the Atlantic, and lead them in battle. If the Government were anxious to have recruits from Quebec, they should have sent men of military training and knowledge to that province. They should select men who would be understood by the French Canadians, and in whom they would have confidence, who would havie said to them, "Enlist, and come with me. I will lead you to the battlefront and will stay with you in the battle." Such an effort has not been made. Nobody knows, better than I do that the French Canadians are a law-abiding, courageous people. I have lived among them, and most of my employees have been French Canadians. If the French Canadians have confidence in a man they will follow him a good deal more closely and place more reliance on him than most Englishmen would follow their leader. But the Government did not send men of military training to Quebec to recruit. They did not give Quebec a fair and honest trial. They commenced by calling them .slackers. The war had hardly commenced before Ontario was hurling insult at them about being slackers, and not enlisting. Ontario appears to be very much interested in Quebec, and it spends a lot Of time and energy abusing the people of Quebec for not recruiting. I think if they had spent part of the time in trying to do justice to the minority in Ontario, by granting them the right to teach their children in their own language, instead of calling them slackers, they would have accomplished more in the direction of recruiting. It appears to me that the first duty of the Government in times of peace- and very much more so in times of war-is to endeavour, first, to create good feeling and harmony amongst all classes. Has the Government of this country endeavoured to do that? Last year a simple resolution was proposed by an hon. gentleman on this side of the House, not to coerce Ontario, not to dictate to the people what they should do, but to ask them, in all fairness and kindness, under all the circumstances, if they would not be willing to enter into a conference and have a heart to heart talk on this question, and see if they could not come together and agree? Did the Government vote for that? What would you have expected of a Government that was trying, heart and soul, to create peace and haT-mony among the different elements of the Dominion, especially during war time, when
we have one common enemy to fight? Would it not Shave been wisdom'on the part of the Government, if they were bent on doing justice to everybody, to have said:	Well,
we will invite Ontario in; we have no right to dictate to them, 'but we have the privilege to ask them to consider the question. They might have done that, but they didn't do it. And why did they not do it? There was nothing in the resolution; it was simply asking them if they would condescend to do so and so, and they said: No. The leader of the Government, with everybody behind him following his lead-


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: Why does the hon. gentleman single out Ontario and say nothing with reference to Manitoba, where more drastic legislation was passed in reference to the schools?


Francis N. McCrea: The other provinc'es are not refusing the French Canadian minority the right to teach their language in the schools. Ontario is the only province which refuses.


Donald Sutherland: Oh no.


Francis N. McCrea: Ontario refuses to have the minority taught in their own language in the public schools, and that is the reason l am talking about Ontario. Another reason is that Ontario seems to be the only province that is specially interested in Quebec. You have only to take up the Ontario papers, the Sentinel for instance, to see what they have to say. 1 understand the Sentinel i3 a paper edited in the interests of the Orangemen of Ontario. That is the paper's business. I have no objection to that, and I have all respect for any particular branch or order of people that . wishes to have a paper of its own, but I think any paper of the pretensions of the Orange Sentinel would do very much better to devote its attention to talking about the order's greatness, its members' ability and their qualities, if they have any, than to spend it talking about another race and creed, as the Sentinel is generally doing.
Mr. Speaker, we have had in this House, since the House met in January, continual complaints, and continual pleadings with this Government, to do something to arrange or control the cost of living, but the Government have turned a deaf ear until lately, when they could stand it no longer, they appointed a controller. I hope he will do good work. I think that matter should have been taken in hand a long time ago. Although times are prosperous and money is plentiful, and although with a great many men, times are better than


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Francis N. McCrea: -be willing to have him go to the front?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Francis N. McCrea: I ask you, do you think the mother of any French Canadian boy would like to have her son go to the front under an officer who speaks of the French race so disrespectfully as the hon. member did the other night in this House?
In order to carry on our part in this war, we require men and money. But good management is just as necessary. Having regard to the turmoil and quarrelling amongst the members of the Cabinet, I ask whether we have had the good management that is essential to the proper carrying on of the war? I say: No. What this Government should do and what it will have to do before it obtains the confidence of the people is to go to the country and find out what the people desire. If the people approve this Government as it is now constituted. I for one will be only too pleased to support it in every possible way. But at the present time, this Government cannot be expected to have the confidence of the Liberals, and I do not believe it has the confidence of the Conservatives. Many leading men have told me that they have no confidence in this Government, and I believe that is the general feeling throughout the country. In any case, what is required is men, money and a powerful combination not of politicians, but of men of strong views, with courage to enforce their views and to go about the winning of this war as they should do, instead of squandering and wasting money like water as this Government has done so far in this war. There has been waste and extravagant expenditure of money in every direction. At this time you have to appeal to the people of this country for more money and to impose further taxes, and if you show them you are going to spend that money honestly, uprightly and fairly, you will have the confidence of the people, but you cannot obtain it in any other way. When the business affairs of the country are going along in a normal way people do not take very much notice, but when you touch their pockets
and you call upon them to pay out their money by direct taxation, you cannot squander their money; you cannot fool the people; you must spend the money rightly and properly. That in my judgment, is what should be done. I am sorry to have to criticise, but I think the case demands criticism. This is a time when' we need men and money, but we also need businesslike management, and that it what we do not have at the present time.
Mr. DUNGAN C. ROSS (West Middlesex) : Mr. Speaker, the measure now before this House has, as it should, aroused the intense interest of the people of this country, and I feel I would be failing in my duty to the Riding I have the honour to represent if I gave a silent vote on such an important question. I shall endeavour, as was suggested by the Prime Minister, to make my remarks as short as I can in conformity with my duty, and I shall also, I hope, maintain the high tone which has characterized this debate since its beginning.	i
In the first place I am in favour of the principle embodied in this Bill and of giving this Government or its successor, -preferably the latter-the power asked for in this Bill. My reasons amongst others foT doing so are these:	As I understand
this measure, it is not conferring upon this Government, nor would it confer upon any other Government greater power to compel military service than it has under the existing Militia Act. As a matter of fact, this measure limits those powers in some respects, while in others it extends them in a more reasonable and more profitable way than is provided for in the Militia Act, in that this measure gives the Government power to mobilize the man-power of the country, not entirely for military purposes, but for military, commercial, industrial and agricultural purposes.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: Will the hon. member
be good enough to point out where in the Bill that appears? I can find no such provision.


Mr. ROSS:: If my hon. friend from St.
John will permit me to proceed with my remarks, if he requires any enlightenment -and I do npt think he does-I shall endeavour to give it to him. In order to make my position clear to the hon. member for St. John and to the other members, it will be necessary for me to some extent to place before the House the provisions of the present Militia Act, as I understand them, and to contrast those provisions with

the provisions submitted in this measure. As I understand it, the Militia Act, chap. 41 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, gives the Government of the day-whatever Government, Liberal or Conservative, it may be- power under certain circumstances to enroll every man in Canada and power also in case of an emergency war to enroll every man between the ages of eighteen and sixty for the purpose of defending Canada in or beyond Canada. What does that mean? It means that this Government, today or to-morrow, if this Bill were defeated, could enroll every man from eighteen to sixty years of age and compel him to fight in this struggle for the liberty and civilization of the world. It means that if the Government of the day thought that 200,000 men were required for that struggle, it could enroll them and compel them to fight. There are other provisions in the Militia Act which, to my mind, are quite insufficient to meet the situation to-day. The Militia Act is an anachronism in the situation that confronts this country and the whole world in this great wprld-war. There are practically no exceptions of any material kind specified in the Militia Act. There are a few exemptions such as ministers of the Crown, deputy ministers, telegraphers, men engaged in transportation, preachers, and, I think, priests, pilots, the only son of a widowed mother who is dependent on him for her support, judges and those who from conscientious religious belief do not believe in war. But throughout the whple Act there is nothing to say that the man who may be as useful in Canada as he would be at the front, and perhaps more so, may be exempted, so that the Militia Act is "not suitable for enforcement in this country under present conditions. How does the measure under discussion limit the power of the Government? Under it the Government cannot send tp the front men of eighteen years of age; they can send only men twenty years old and upwards; they can not send to the front men between forty-five and sixty years of age; they can send only men up to forty-five years of age. The Government are limited under this measure to enroll 100,000 men for service abroad. In all these respects the measure is placing strong and, I think, proper limitations upon the power of this Government or of any other Government.
There are other features of the Militia Act which do not appeal to me, to which, in my judgment, the present Bill is preferable.
How would the Militia Act be enforced? What would happen is this, and I leave it

to the judgment of the House whether I am correct or not. The men are divided into four classes:	Unmarried men and
widowqrs without children from 18 to 30 years of age, and the same from 30 to 40 years of age; married men from 18 to 45, and men from 45 to 60. If this Government intended to enforce the Act,, and it has power to do so to-morrow, what would happen? These men would be enrolled by .proclamation. Taking a township in my own county as an illustration, this is what would happen in Caradoc, a good Scotch township, loyal to the core, if the first two classes were called. The names of the men would be put in some bag or box-that has been done in the past, at any rate-and a recruiting officer or soldier appointed by the Government would pick out names from the box until the required number of men from that towpship was drafted. We can easily see what might happen. The man who would be most useful on the farm might be sent to fight, and the man who would toe most useful at the front might be left on the farm. Other things might creep in, as they have 'been known to creep in in the past. When the last draft took place, I was told by the son of a man who had been drafted himself that in one township in my coupty, by some skilful manipulation-I do not. know how it was done-every man who was drafted to fight the battles of Canada at that time was a Grib He told me how he thought it happened. He thought there were two sections in the box, one for Liberals and one for Conservatives, and in draw'ing out the names the officer in charge went to the section in which all the Liberal names were put, and consequently only Liberals were chosen to fight the battles of their country. I say it is unsafe to put that power in. the hands of any Government. Governments are not more honest to-day probably than they were then, and the same thing might happen to-day. I am opposed to entrusting any Government with such power as that.


Mr. L. A. LAPOINTE:: You are doing
worse in this Bill.


James Hamilton Ross: I am not going to do worse
if I can help it. I shall try and see that this Act is amended or clarified so that no injustice will be done to any man, whatever his creed, race or colour or political faith may be. I understand from what the Prime Minister said in the House that he is quite willing to listen to any suggestions along these lines.

I will tell you what might happen under the Militia Act. A man might have six sons and 100 acres of land. When the ballot was taken those six sons might all be chosen. This man's neighbour, with a farm of 300 acres might have only one son, and he might be chosen to fight the battles of his country. What would become of that man's farm, and what would become of production at this time when the need for production is so great? But if this Military Service Act is honestly administered, if there are thrown around it the proper safeguards which we upon this side of the House, at any rate, will insist upon, there is no reason why it should not work out infinitely better than the Act at present on our statute book. Although the Military Service Act is a separate statute I regard it entirely as an amendment to the Militia Act, because it states in one of its clauses that it shall be read in conjunction with the Militia Act. Consequently, everything in the Militia Act that is inconsistent with the terms of the present Act, is by that clause in effect repealed.
There are several things in this proposed Act which do not appeal to me, and they are basic principles to some extent; at any rate, they are basic principles at this time. In the first place the Bill applies to men of 20 years of age. I do not think that is fair; I do not think it is a right principle to follow. If a man of 18 or 20 years wishes to enlist, that is all very well; he is the keeper of his own liberty, if I might put it that way, and has the right to volunteer in the service of his country. But it is another matter when you compel a man of that age to go and fight the battles of his country. A man of 20 has not got the franchise, he has not the responsibilities or benefits of citizenship in that respect; he cannot say anything in regard to this Act. In view of that, I do not think it is fair that a man over 21 should by his vote cast upon him the responsibility of serving his country in a foreign land. I say in all earnestness to the Prime Minister that the Bill should be amended so as not to include men under 21 years of age. That seems to me a fair thing to do. It is the principle that has been adopted in the United States, and I think it should appeal to every hon. member of this House.


Mr. PROULX:: Would the hon. member give the privilege of voting upon this measure to the man of 21?


Mr.   BOSS@: If the measure is submitted to the people, the hon. member's question is meaningless.


Edmond Proulx: Would the hon. member submit it to the people?


James Hamilton Ross: That is for the House to determine. There is another thing in this Bill which does not suit me, and it goes to the very root of the principles we are considering on this second reading. We have been told by the Solicitor General that this Act is going to fall more lightly on the province of Quebec than on any other province. He said as a matter of fact that the Bill was designed and planned to do no injustice to Quebec. That is perfectly right;'no injustice should be done to any province. As a reason why this Act would fall more lightly on the province of Quebec he intimated that the people of that province were largely engaged in farming and their men married very young. He commended the latter practice, and I think his commendation was quite right. I think if the other provinces would follow the example of Quebec in that regard we should have a better country. That is just an intimation of what should be in this Act. The Solicitor General may say that we may take his intimation in that respect. I do not want to go into ancient history, but members of this Government have in times past made intimations which never materialized in resard to other things.
The Solicitor General may say that the regulations made under the Act will provide that the farmers shall be exempt from combatant military service. I think that the less we have of regulations in this Act the less of directions under its terms, and the more of concrete principles embodied in the sections of the Act itself, the better the people will be satisfied. Administrative officials are very human, whether appointed by this Government ot by any other. They are influenced by local considerations, they are influenced by their own ideas, and I contend that the Government and the Solicitor General, who is sponsor for the Bill, if sincere, should put a clause into the Act to provide that every man bona fide engaged, on the eleventh of June, 1917, in the production of food on the farms of Canada shall be exempt from combatant military service.
I make that suggestion after careful consideration. I am not trying to exempt the farmers from their duty in the battle line- they would not thank me if I did. The farmers of Middlesex county would not, at any rate, for they have given as many of their sons to this struggle as any other community, rural or urban. Only within the last few days two farm boys and one town

boy from my county gave up their lives at Vimy Ridge that liberty might prevail in the world. I am not trying to shield my farmers from their duty-and-, as I have said, they would not thank me if I did- but there are other considerations which impel me to make this suggestion. We are fighting two wars in this great struggle. One is on the battle line in Europe, a war of men. Our sons there are bleeding .and dying for this country, and we need to give them all the support they require, and we intend to do it. The other battle is a battle of production. We are fighting that battle in Canada and throughout America, and unless we are just a3 sincere and as forceful in that fight as are the boys at the front in the fight they carry on we are going to fail in the struggle. I shall not go into the details of my reason for saying this, but I do not say it on my own initiative. We have the words of Mr. Balfour on this subject. He told us, when he came to Washington, that the supplying of foodstuffs is as important as the supplying of men, and that he was looking to this continent for the means to feed the Allies.
We have the word of Lloyd George to the same effect. We have the word of the President of the Board of Agriculutre of Great Britain, Mr. Prothero, who said a day or two ago that "the outcome of this war may ultimately hang on food production." These men are all witnesses to the fact that food production is one of the most important factors in the successful carrying on of the war. How do we find the situation in this country? How is it in my province of Ontario, or, to be more precise, how is it in the county of Middlesex? I am informed by a representative of one of the railway corporations, a concern which keeps track of the labour situation throughout the land, that to-day in the province of Ontario there is a greater shortage of labour by thirty per cent than in the western part of Canada. Why? The men who worked on the farms in Ontario before the war commenced were largely British born, and, all honour to them, when the call of duty came they1 went to the trenches to fight England's battles. Many of our own Canadian farm boys did the same. Others, persuaded by the larger remuneration of munition factories, went to those factories. The result is that to-day in my county the men of the farm are struggling as they never struggled in their lives before to put in their crops and get them off. There never was a time in the history of Ontario when there was such a shortage of farm labour. That is one reason

why I say that, if we are to win this struggle, we must put an express exemption in this Bill that no man bona fide engaged in agricultural industry shall be sent to combatant military duty.


Mr. LALOR:: Would the hon. gentleman apply that only to farmers' sons, or would he apply it to any man working on a farm?


James Hamilton Ross: My idea would be to confine it to the men necessary to work the farm. For instance, I would not think it right, if there were six men working a hundred acres, to leave them all there. But that is a little aside from the point, because under the working out of this Bill as 1 think it should be worked out, the farm labour of the country would be mobilized by the Government; and if there were six men working a hundred acres the Government would have the power, not to take these men for combatant service, 'but rather to send those who could be spared to other parts of the country where farmers are needed to sow and reap the crop. I do not think that any farmer could object to that, and that it is fair. I think my suggestion most important, and I trust it will receive the sympathetic attention of the Prime Minister.
But this Bill, in my opinion, is to be found fault with, not so much for what it contains as for what it does not contain.
I shall not repeat arguments so ably made by my hon. friend from Sherbrooke (Mr. McCrea) and my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham), but I do say that this Government, when they are conscripting the young men of this country, should be honest with the people and provide for equality of sacrifice in this great struggle and, as these hon. members have urged, should take immediate steps to conscript the wealth of this land. It has been said that this is a very nebulous proposition, that it is hard to define what " the conscription of wealth " means. It did not seem bard to define it in Great Britain where men are paying thirty and forty per cent on their incomes. The United States did not find any insuperable difficulty in this matter, for though they have been in the war only three months, they have taken steps to carry the conscription of wealth into effect. It has been said also that such a provision could not be put into this Bill because it is not a cognate subject with the conscription of men, and also because you would have to get the consent of the Governor General, as it involves the imposition of taxes upon

the people. It seems to me that that is a simple evasion of the point at issue. If the Government has the courage it should have, and is really desirous of providing for equality of service; if' the Minister of Finance is as anxious to win the war as hq says he is-and I am sure he is-and is anxious to distribute the burden of war in a way that shall be equitable to all the people he and the Government will take immediate steps to introduce a measure for the conscription of wealth.
It is not I alcne who am asking this. All the people of this country cannot be wrong. The labour organizations who represent a great body of thinking people in this land, and who have a right to be heard, demand that this thing be done. The assemblies of all the churches in this country that have met recently say that as a condition precedent to the conscription of men, it is only fair that wealthy men should be obliged to pay their share of the winning of this war. It is a simple proposition and it is easy to define.
I think my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) well defined what could be done in this regard. I think the people of Canada should sacrifice as much as the people of Great Britain for they have just as much at stake. I think they should sacrifice as much as the people of the United States for they have just as much at stake. The wealthy should be made to pay their share just as the poor man is made to give his son. We all know the situation in this country. The wealthy are not the people who have large families. The wealthy people / who have sons in Toronto and other cities have done well in this matter, they have sent their sons voluntarily and gladly to fight our battles but that does not alter the fact that it is the artisan, the mechanics and the plain people who have large families and it is they who will have to fight this battle and it is through their suffering and agony that it will be won. I could take the Minister of Finance, if he would come with me, to Toronto and Montreal and I think I could find for him 500 or 1,000 men in each of these cities who have more money than they know what to do with and who have no boys at the front. It is only fair that they should be made to pay for the support of the wives, mothers and dependents of those boys who are protecting their property at the risk of their lives.	'
How could this be done? I would suggest a very heavy income tax. IVe all know that in the cities am- towns of Ontario they have had a municipal income tax which has practically been a dead letter. For the
purpose of winning this war every man in every town who has an income up to $3,000 should he exempt, but above that amount and up to $10,000, he should pay ten per cent to the Government of the country. From $10,000 to $20,000, he should pay twenty per cent and you could go up on a sliding scale. In every city a man might be exempt up to $5,000, between $5,000 and $10,000 he might pay ten per cent, between $10,000 and $20,000 twenty per cent and as the amount of the income increases the percentage should increase. I also contend that it is high time this Government took action in regard to the way the people of this land, particularly the poor, are being oppressed by profiteers who flourish almost under the protection of this Government. We are lagging; we are behind the times. We are behind what they have done in Great Britain and we are not doing our duty. Why in the world should the w.fe of a soldier fighting at the front pay more for her bacon, flour, potatoes, bread and everything else she uses in her household than a woman in Great Britain? In this great, rich producing country why should that be aud why should this Government ailow it? J would say that as a meature of the conscription of wealth in this country the Government should , immediately take over and control all the meat-packing and pork-packing institutions, all the cold storage plants, all the munition factories and all the flour mills. They should be fair to these men. They should find out what their investment is, they should pay them a fair rate of interest in their investment and whatever is made out of these ventures should be used in the interest of Canada and of the Empire in this war. I have been told by a gentleman who came from Toronto that he saw in that city 200 cords of green bacon stored in cellars. The same gentleman saw in Toronto 100,000 hides that were being held in order that the shoe manufacturers could sell shoes at the exorbitant prices at which they are selling to the people of this land to-day. Fifty-five cents per pound of bacon! A man cannot buy a decent pair of shoes for himself for less than $8 or $9 or for his wife for less than $10 or $12. These are important matters that should be taken in hand by this Government. It has been done in England and surely this Government has as much ingenuity and force as the British Government. I have a clipping here containing some remarks made by Lloyd George only a few days ago. This is what he said:	,

The second condition which the country was entitled to ask from the Government, the Premier continued, was that it should not permit the burdens of the country to be increased by what was called profiteering, as distinguished from profit. Profiteering was unfair in peace; in war it was an outrage. This was why the Government had taken action to restrict profits and proposed to deal very drastically with unfair profiteering in food.
I contend that that is the ideal that the Government here should aspire to achieve. The plain people are not going to be content any longer with the mere promise of an income tax a year hence. They are not going to be content with the mere appointment of a food controller; they demand action, they are entitled to it and I hope they will get it. In so far as the Bill is concerned and the principles thereof, that is about all I have to say.
In regard to the referendum proposed by my honoured leader, I am of the opinion that wartime is not the best time to submit a question of this kind to the people. I am also of the opinion that it would be practically impossible to secure the votes of the soldiers on such a measure, and I am unable to support it on the second reading of this Bill. In my humble judgment, the soldiers are more entitled to express their views in regard to it than many who are at home. Some may say that the member for West Middlesex is deserting his leader and his party. But in the Liberal party a difference of opinion on a temporary policy is not a desertion. The question of voluntary or compulsory service has never been an issue in Canada dividing the leaders or the two great parties from each other. The matter has never before arisen and I pray God it may never have to arise again.
My honoured leader recognizes the principles of the party he has so nobly led in the interests of Canada and instead of trying to pursuade his followers to his view on this matter, he has said privately, and publicly in this House, that each of them should make up his own mind as he sees the right. I honoui; him the more for that and therefore more closely adhere to him as leader and as the exponent of the great permanent principles of Liberalism. His leadership along these lines has proven an enduring benefit and inspiration to this country, on account of the courage, sincerity and lofty patriotism it has always breathed. Recent references have been made to him and his countrymen by hon. members of this House. My leader has been designated as the "Lamb of Quebec" and it has been hinted that his policy in this case is to win elections and not to win the war. 
Mr. Speaker, I resent the designation and I repudiate tne motives assigned to niv honoured leader by the hen. member who made them. " The Lamb of Quebec ''-The cnly application this designation has to my honoured leader is in the fact that, while for forty-five years he has been in the public service of this country, and the white light of publicity that beats upon greatness has been upon him, no one dared charge that his public and private life have not been as white as wool. " The Lamb of Quebec," rather Mr. Speaker, " The Lion of Quebec "-of Canada-and one of the great lions of the Empire. Was my honoured leader a lamb in 1896, when he fought his own people, in order that provincial rights might be established in Manitoba? Was he the lamb of Quebec when, at the Imperial Conference in England, he stood up and fought for Canadian autonomy in the face of the most strenuous opposition from Imperial and Colonial statesmen, whose judgments were dazzled by sentimental visions of false Imperialism which would not have stood the shock of this world war in the splendid manner the present union of affection has done? Was he the lamb of Quebec in 1911, when he had opposed to him all that conglomeration of wealthy, selfish, self-seeking interests and prejudices and in addition many of his compatriots on account of his loyalty to Britain, and stood up for a Canadian navy and for a fair deal for the people of Canada? No, Mr. Speaker, his attitude as a Canadian has ever been leonine and his conduct lion-hearted. Epigrams are not always arguments. Sarcasm is not always logic. If the hon. members I have mentioned truly desire to know the place my honoured leader holds in the history of this country, I would commend them to his life written by Sir John Willison, a man who has probably done more in the last ten yeans, except Bounassa and Laveigne, to read this country alsunder than any man in Canada, and for which dis-service he must have been knighted by the present Government, because he has rendered no service to Canada that I have been able to discover. Let them read that life. They should believe what its author says; the hon. member for Frontenae (Mr. Edwards) has been preaching its author's doctrine ever since I entered this House. And, if in times of peace there ever was in any country a greater romance-no, not a romance, but an epic than that of the struggle of my honoured leader and his Liberal friends

for civil liberty in Quebec, and for unity and harmony in this great country, I have yet to read it.
Mr. Speaker, this is no time for politics and personalities. I might say, as the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) said of my leader, that the leader of the Government intended to use this Bill to win an election. There are clauses in this Bill which I regard as absolutely unnecessary .and redundant, and which might lead one to that conclusion. I have heard that suggested, but I do not think it will assist in the discussion of the Bill to make such suggestions. I might find fault with the Prime Minister of this country because be promised in January, 1916, 500,000 Canadian boys to fight the battles of Britain,
I may say, Mr. Speaker, that that rather flavoured of Czarism, that it might be all right in Russia, but in a free country, when Parliament was about to be assembled, it was not the proper thing to do, but that would not assist in the solution of the situation. I might go further along that line and say that the mal-administration of this Government has led to this situation, but 1 do not intend to do so.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman
came mighty dose to saying it.


James Hamilton Ross: I might say many other
things. Members on the other side of the Chamber have said .many bitter things, which I think were entirely uncalled for and unnecessary, and will not help the situation in the least degree. All the wrong in this matter does not come from the province of Quebec. Ontario is somewhat at fault also, but I do not know that it assists in any way to stir up these old bitternesses. For my part, I am quite ready to Ifet the dead past bury its dead. This is no time for personalities or for politics. The nations are having the greatest struggle for liberty which has ever occurred in the world. In the past there have been struggles which inspired the poet, the bards, and the historians of almost every nation: They inspire us to-day. No man can read of the immortal heroism of the Greek people, when they were fighting against the domination and cruelty of Turkey, without having their heart's chords touched. No man can read of the heroic struggle of Poland against her inhuman adversary, or of the downfall of Warsaw and the death, of Kosciusko,	and the death
of Polish freedom',	without having
his blood run more quickly through his veins. No Scotchman in Canada can read of
Wallace or Bruce of Bannockburn, and the struggle of the Scotchmen for their liberties, without being proud of his country and countrymen. But the Canadian people are engaged in a much greater struggle. The struggle of the smal. countries for their liberties might be said tc be the mere glimmer of a firefly as compared with the dazzling light of the noon day sun, in comparison with the great struggle the Canadian people are engaged in to-day. Scotland was a poor country. Her soil was poor. It was not timber nor agricultural land, but the people were fighting for what was dearer to them than their country or their lives. They were fighting for their liberty, and I say that their descendants in this country, and the descendants of all the British races, are not, at this stage of the war, going back on the heroic inclinations and the heroic traditions of their ancestors, and are not going to refuse to assist the Canadian boys who are at the front to-day, fighting the battles of c.vilization.
When I say I am in favour of the principles of this I ill, I mean it, but I do not think at this time it would be wise for this Government, nor would it be wise for any other Government, to immediately put this measure in force. I do not know what the Government is going to do. It will not tell us. I do not know why we have not been informed of their intention. The Parliamentary Secretary of the Militia Department told us the other night he thought it should be put in force immediately. I do not think the Prime Minister intended to put it in force immediately, because he made an offer of coalition to my honoured leader, and an election was to be held in regard to this measure, so that he could not have intended to put it into force immediately. I do not think the Government really know what they intend to do. The reading of the Bill would lead one to think they did not know themselves, because, if they intended to put it in force immediately, they would not provide that it should only go into effect by Order in Council. However, my opinion is that voluntary recruiting in this country has done wonderful things. I do not think it has fallen down. I do not think any country in the world, situated as we are, could have done better than the Canadian people have done. I think more good can be done yet under the voluntary system, and the men we require to leinforce our boys can yet be procured by that system.


William Pugsley: Hear, hear.


James Hamilton Ross: I agree with the member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) in that re-

gard, and for my own part, although I approve of the principles of this Bill, I cannot too strongly impress on the Government the advisability of not putting it in force at the present time. I would suggest that all the members of this House get together, as true Canadians desirous of winning this war, and commence one of the grandest and most enthusiastic propagandas in favour of recruiting that could be undertaken, and I hope and believe that by that means we will be able to fill up the ranks.
I do that for two reasons. We have the honour of having volunteers, freemen, in Prance. I would like to see Canada retain that proud honour. I would like to have it said that while France, England, Germany, Italy, Serbia have conscripted men for military service, Canada has had the proud distinction of sending an army of voluntary freemen to fight in this great struggle. That is the first reason. The second is this: I think that that is the best way of maintaining in this great- crisis harmony and peace among pur people. Nothing is more desirable than that at the present time.
I have stated some of the reasons that impel me to vote for the second reading of tms measure. There are others. The Prime Minister has returned from England, from the heart of this great war, having had conferences with the statesmen of the whole Empire. He has informed the House and the people of Canada that there is a pressing need for reinforcement of the Canadian forces at the front, that the need is, indeed, very pressing and that without reinforcements our Canadian soldiers will not receive from their fellow countrymen the support that they have the right to expect and obtain. Mr. Speaker, I am not bold enough to say that the Prime Minister is wrong; that is one reason why I support this measure.
Again, a message from a son pf my own county, Sir Arthur Currie, an intimate friend of my own, has recently been conveyed to the Canadian people. Sir Arthur Currie is a man who sprang from the plain people pf this land, from whom have come so many of our great men. He was born almost within sight of the birthplace of his great fellow countryman, Edward Blake. He is not pne of those Canadians who have had knighthood thrust upon them on1 account of fictitious political services; he is one of thpse who have achieved greatness and who have deserved it. I know the Irish-Scotch stock from which he springs.
I know his people. I know his integrity.
I have faith in his judgment and his pat-
riotism. I believe that np man in Canada is better able to tell us what the needs of the Canadian force at the front are to-day. He has made an appeal to the men of Canada and to the men of Middlesex, and I, as his neighbour and friend, and as one born in the same county, do say that the people of that county would condemn me, and properly so, if I did not listen to that appeal. He knows that Canada and Canada's sons' are fighting, and have fought most nobly, the battles of liberty and of civilization. He knows the strength of the enemy; he knows their determination; he knows the needs of the hour, I base my decision largely upon the faith that I have in him and upon the faith that I believe every man in this country places in him. I would not, Mr. Speaker, be following the advice which his aged mother gave him when he left his home in Middlesex if I did not do as I am doing. Her advice to all her children, as I saw it reported in one of the daily papers, was "Be honest to yourself." In simple language, this proud mother quoted Shakespeare, who said:
To thine own self be true;
And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man.
For this and other reasons, Mr. Speaker, I feel that I would not be true to myself, to my country, or to the cause for which the world is struggling, did I not by voting for this measure endeavour to send to the Canadians at the front such support as will enable them to gain victory for Canadian arms and liberty for the world.
For Canada these are fateful and critical times. On the momentous decisions of the hour hangs the fate, not of the Canadian battlefront only, but pf our country in the-days to come. It is a time for calm, reflective judgment, not for noisy agitation. Canada's leaders and Canada's people hold the future in their keeping. They have inherited proud traditions and priceless liberties. Sad, indeed, will be Canada's fate if, in this day of testing, her people fail. But Canada will not fail. Democracy has unsheathed the sword and will not turn back: until its enemies are completely destroyed.


Mr. R. E. TRUAX (South Bruce):: when conscription comes into force we shall not have a very large number of men to draw from.
As to recruiting in the county of Briice, in one towuship of 2,800 people, 150 have voluntarily enlisted. I take this from the number of enlistments given weekly in a weekly paper published in the township. Six of these men have been killed at the front and one has died of wounds. If the same energy in recruiting had been displayed in other counties in Ontario, that province alone would have bnught forth every volunteer the Premier has asked for, net to speak of the western provinces and the eastern provinces. I have nothing to say in reference to recruiting in Quebec. Tne people in that province are perfectly competent to take care of that matter.
e must be careful not to draw away all the help from the farmers. I notice this article in to-day's Citizen in regard to this matter:
The Organization of Resources Committee is putting forth special effort to secure competent help to assist farmers in the Ottawa Valley district, who cannot get help locally, for haying and harvesting operations. The plan is to secure able-bodied men chiefly from the manufacturing centres, who by special arrangements with their employers, are permitted to go to the farmers' assistance for a period of three weeks. Two three-week periods are being arranged for, one to begin on July 16 and the other on August 6.
Farmers desiring this special help should write at once to the office of the honourary secretary, Mr. I.. H. Newman, Canadian Building, Ottawa. The suggested minimum wage for these men is the military wage of $1.10 per day, but the farmer is expected to pay for services rendered.
I believe that before the Bill is put into force, every effort should be made to secure voluntary enlistments, and the greatest effort that was ever put forth by the people of Canada should be in the interests of voluntary enlistment. I think the whole energies of the loyal British people of Canada should be put into force to encourage enlisting. In my opinion selected conscription. should not be put in force until the volunteer enlisting has completely failed.
We are asking the farmer to produce. Great care must be taken not to rob the farmers of the help they will require to take off their hay and harvest. It looks at the present time as if Ontario would have a very large crop, and as a great number from the rural sections have already enlisted, it has. left the farmers very short of help. We have been asking and urging them to increase food production and at the same time their help has been leaving

them. The farmers have made a special effort this year to put in as large a crop as possible. This has been caused largely by the increased prices, and the great call for food production has stimulated them to a greater degree than anything else could. The three Prairie Provinces to the west of us are apparently going to have a fairly large crop. In former years they have drawn from Ontario ten to fifteen thousand of our young men to help in the harvest field. A certain number of. these young men have gone West, and have stayed in those provinces until November to help with the threshing and fall ploughing. Some of them take up land and'remain there. It must be kept in mind that the West has received in the last thirty years from the province of Ontario a very large immigration, which has steadily, year after year, drained the young men from the older part of Canada. Many of them have taken up land in the West and have beecime well-to-do farmers.
Many of the wood-working establishments in Ontario are very short of help, and if conscription is put into force, it no doubt will take many young men and farm labourers away from the farmers, and it will also take a large. number of young men from the factories, which they can ill afford to spare.
The cost of living during the last two years has increased in many cases nearly fifty per cent. It is true that wages have advanced in a great many cases, but not in proportion to the increased cost of living. In many cases some lines of manufacturers could employ a third more men than they are doing now. The very best of our young men have enlisted and gone to the front. In many cases the best mechanics that we have in the province have gone, and this has left the manufacturers short of skilled help. It is true that the munition factories are paying very high wages, more than factories manufacturing other lines of goods can afford to pay, and so well they might, as I notice that twenty-two of these Canadian firms paid last year $5,297,279 in excess profit taxes. This great sum was only 25 per cent of their profits in excess of 7 per cent. This would show that each of these twenty-two firms, after paying the Government this large amount, had each of them nearly three-quarters of a million dollars of profit over and above their 7 per cent.
I have no objection to those firms making good fair profits, but I think the amount

that they are making is exorbitant, and unfair to our soldier boys who are standing up in the firing line for $1.10 a day. I think it is unfair to pay munition workers $5 and $7 a day when we are asking the flower of Canada, the finest young men we have, to stand up in the firing line for $1.10 a day. The Government should increase the pay of our soldiers materially, say from $2.50 to $3 per day, and for this purpose they should conscript the wealth of this country as well as our man power.
I am in favour of the principle of conscription. I am not in favour of the present Bill. I shall vote for the referendum.
Mr. JAMES S. DOUGLAS (Strathcona): Mr. Speaker, I wish to put before the House the reasons for the vote which I Shall cast to-night on this Bill. The whole object of the present Bill is to enlist fighting men for the front, and the question arises-and it is a legitimate question- which is the better method of getting these men, whether by voluntary enlistment,' or by the principle of conscription as embodied in this Bill? I have seen something of the methods employed in enlisting men in this country, particularly in western Canada, and I have had something to do with it. So far as the province from which I come is concerned, I am forced to the conclusion that we can raise no more men by voluntary enlistment. I do not know that the Government has conducted the voluntary system as it might have done. In fact, I am inclined to think a great many errors have been made. The system of enlisting men when the war first broke out was, in my judgment, absolutely unbusinesslike, and not carried out according to the plan which had been laid down by the Militia Department prior to the outbreak of war. It was the enthusiasm of the people that was entirely responsible for the splendid response which was made to the call to arms on the 4th of August, 1914.
One of the chief reasons why voluntary recruiting has fallen into disrepute in western Canada at least, has been the extreme partisanship which has been shown in the conduct of every phase of voluntary enlistment in that part of the country. I question very much if there is a province in the whole Dominion with the possible exception of British Columbia, which has responded so nobly and given so freely ,of her men as the province of Alberta. The city of Edmonton, from which I come, has sent over ten or eleven battalions to the front, and I know from my own experience that
partisanship has entered into the appointment not only of senior officers but junior officers as well. In spite of this, however, enlistment has been keen. Men have given up their employment, no matter what it was, and have answered their country's call. I am not prepared to say that the Militia Department is entirely responsible for this partisanship. Unfortunately, under our system of government, party patronage is governed by the recommendations of local committees, and the minister who can resist appeals made to him on behalf of political friends must be a very strong minded man indeed. I do not think, in our province at least, that the Militia Department has shown the proper strength of mind in resisting political influence in appointments in connection with the tremendous war in which we are now engaged. If ever there was a time and occasion when partisanship should have been cast to the winds it was toy the Militia Department during this war. I believe that if this Bill is properly administered we may escape from a certain amount of political partisanship.
Another reason why I think voluntary enlistment has failed in western Canada is because of the campaign in connection with National Service. I had the pleasure of hearing both the Prime Minister and the Director General in the city of Edmonton and the city of Calgary. I listened very attentively to what they said and I think I am within the mark when I say that neither of these gentlemen made one appeal for recruits. The whole appeal made in connection with this propaganda was the need for men registering so that the Government would know who were available if at some future date it should decide to call upon men for service other than going to the trenches. Maybe I did not interpret the speeches correctly, but I must say that was the impression received by almost every one with whom I conversed, as to the real reason for the National Service propaganda.
It may possibly be that voluntary enlistment can be revived, but in my judgment it would do a wrong to western Canada at least. We are a producing country and under voluntary enlistment our people have left the farms and productive labour and gone to the front. One pf the reasons why I favour this Bill is that it will prevent men of patriotic spirit from enlisting who are now engaged in productive walks of life. If it will do that, it will do a good wprk. I have every hope that safeguards will be thrown around the administration



of the Bill so as to prevent men engaged in the production of foodstuffs from going to the front at the present time. Authorities whom we cannot ignore claim that one of the great needs of the present war is the production of foodstuffs. They say that foodstuffs are almost as essential as men. In that country from the Manitoba boundary to the boundary of British Columbia, we have the greatest food-producing section of Canada, but owing to the splendid response to the call to arms made by the settlers in that country I am sorry to say that our productive area this year is going to be less than it has been for the preceding two years.
This is a regrettable circumstance, as I believe that the present year is the one in which production in this country should be greatest, and the one especially in which the Allies will depend upon us to feed the men at the front. An interview was recently published with Mr. Prothero, president of the Board of Agriculture of Great Britain, from which I shall quote briefly:
The outcome of the war may ultimately hang on the quesiton of food supplies, and the American farmer is allotted the essential part to play in the great struggle for freedom.
.	.	. From the grim spectacle of humancarnage and from the feverish race of piling up munitions the farmer stands aloof. His task is to make hills, plains and valleys stand so thick with corn that they shall sing. Yet the man who drives a plough Is helping as is the man who shoulders a rifle. .	.	. For
this reason it is a welcome relief to us to know that the farmers of the United States are co-operating with the Allies, that they fully realize the essential part they play in this struggle for freedom, that they are bringing into their work the spirit of self-sacrifice and endurance, and that they are determined to put out the last ounce of their strength to win the war on the ploughlands of the United States. Here and there, God speed the plough.
Sir Thomas Lipton is an authority on the production of food. He sees the importance of this question, and he has recently stated:
I know for a fact that there is no bluff in all this talk about the scarcity of food. We are up against it. America has come in just at the right moment for us, and no one can ever make me believe America will not be able to rise to the emergency.
The situation here is much worse than English people realize. The storehouses throughout the country are being emptied of food, and we who are in the trade know they are not being supported by the stocks we used to keep.
The public doesn't see this. Everything is being run bare. There is some idea here that we are not taking strong enough action to meet the crisis. That is not so. I know for a fact that the most drastic kind of machinery is being prepared to put the whole United Kingdom on rations, and you can take it from me that when the necessity arises the machinery will be ready.

There is a lesson for us in Canada in statements such as these made by reputable men who know the conditions in the Motherland intimately, and I think it is the duty of this Government to take strong measures in regard to this question of food supply. I join with my friend from West Middlesex (Mr. Ross) in saying that in my judgment very few farmers should be permitted to enlist. The production of food is so important, the number of men who have gone from the farms is so great, that it is an absolute necessity for the successful prosecution of the war on the part of Canada that the food-producing industries of this country should be very carefully safeguarded. We have seen an unprecedented rise in flour within the past year. I think the Government should face this situation for the coming year and, if necessary, commandeer every flour mill in the country, and should commandeer also packing houses, cold storage warehouses, canning factories, and all other concerns that supply food to the people and derive undue profit from the sale of the same. I know for a fact that men in western Canada

 and all men are human when money enters into the question-men of small caiptal, are going about the country buying all the eggs and butter they can find, and storing them, in expectation of high prices. They look for a price of at least a dollar a dozen for eggs during the coming winter. In ordinary times I should have no fault to find with men doing this sort of thing, but under the circumstances of to-day I think it is the duty of the Government to see to it that profiteering of this kind is not permitted for the people suffer by it, and suffer very severely, and our effectiveness in the war is hindered by this means.
Let me briefly sum up my views on this question. I consider compulsory service the only fair means of the -State receiving from its citizens that full measure of service to which it is entitled. By this I do not only refer to those of its young manhood who are called upon to risk their lives on the battle front. I believe that in a crisis such as -now confronts u:s' there is a service every man and woman is called upon to perform, and it is the duty of any Government to so organize its forces that this duty will he performed in an equitable manner. This should be the true meaning of compulsory service. I heartily approve of any plan of taxation which will reach the people who are deriving a certain measure of prosperity brought about by this war.

Every man who remains at home should be called upon to contribute something to aid his country in its .hour of trial. I consider the farmers of this country are doing just .as patriotic work in winning the war as the munition workers and in my judgment the Bill should specifically state that no man engaged in the production of foodstuffs shall be liable for military service. In my province too many of our producers have felt it their duty to go overseas, and to-day we are facing the very serious situation that our production 'this year is likely to be less than last year. This is a most alarming condition and every effort must be put forth on the part of every one to have this remedied, and I am firmly of the opinion that the great industry of agriculture should be exempt from the operations of this Bill.


Mr. J. E. MARCILE (Bagot) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, at this late hour of the night, I will not undertake to discuss the legal aspect of Bill No. 75, now before us; I am ho lawyer, and as that phase of the Bill has been sufficiently debated, I shall not touch upon it; no more than on this Parliament's power to enact such legislation, as in my opinion, it has been sufficiently demonstrated that we have not the right, under the present conditions, to enact compulsory military service.
Mr. Speaker, although I have given my opinion, on the 10th of May last, upon recruiting and upon Canada's participation in the war, I believe it my duty not to let this conscription Bill, now before us, go by without making a few remarks, so that there may be no equivocation as to where I stand in the matter of compulsory service.
On August 4, 1914, England declared war against Germany, because the latter trampled under foot a solemn pledge, signed by herself, to respect the neutrality of Belgium. No honourable man there was but approved of the stand taken by the British Government.
Canada's Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) thought he should offer this country's support to the motherland, in the conflict then beginning. Parliament was convened and, on August 19, it was proposed that we should send over a contingent of 22,000 men. Every one thought this was generous and even more than generous. We approved, without a word of dissent, because we did believe that, under such circumstances, our duty was to help, within our means, to destroy Prussian militarism and to show England, and especially our friends
194*
here-those of Ontario-, in particular-that we were always ready to fight for the pledged troth and, above all, for national honour. Unhesitatingly, we voted the money asked for, although it was quite a lajge amount. Instead of twenty-two thousand, thirty-three thousand men enlisted and went to the front. Since that date, Sir, nearly three hundred thousand more have left. Any one who, at the outbreak of hostilities, would have dared to mention such figures would not have been taken seriously. Moreover, we have in this country over one hundred thousand volunteers awaiting orders to leave and join those who lare gone. Notwithstanding that incredible contribution in men, the Government is not satisfied; they are endeavouring to impose compulsory military service, although publicly and officially they have asserted that compulsion would never he resorted to in Canada.
Can there he any surprise, Six, if the people protest loudly, ,and want the Government to live up to that pledge, since it is exactly what our sons are fighting for overseas, as has been so eloquently said by the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. McCrea).
My two sons-the only two I have-were so incensed at the Kaiser's treachery that they took up arms. Must one suppose that this disposition on the part of the Kaiser is a contagious disease? If so, complete isolation should have been resorted to; no Canadians should have been allowed to cross the Atlantic, and thus be exposed to contamination.
As one of the reasons for this Bill, we are told that the Prime Minister received a message from the boys at the front and in the hospitals -asking for -assistance. When the right hon. gentleman made that statement in the House, I could hardly refrain from rising and giving vent to my outraged feelings. They calling for assistance at the front when there are in England fhree millions and a -half young men who have not yet deemed it proper to enlist! They are calling for assistance at the front, and over one million and a half men in restaurants, bar rooms and such places have not the mettle to answer the call of tho-se who are fighting for them! They are calling for assistance at the front, and we have in England 126,000 of our boys awaiting the word to start for the firing line! Have they not been told that their brothers were crying for help? These men, at least, would have

beauty, I am ready to lay down my life. Fearing for its future, I shall vote for the amendment, of my hon. leader, that the military act now proposed be submitted to the people, for its approval or its disapproval, trusting in the wisdom of the popular verdict and ready to submit to it. It is as a Canadian loving his country, desirous of seeing peace and happiness reign over it, as these are indispensable conditions of a happy future for the nation, that I conclude these remarks by asking the hon. Prime Minister to take them into 'serious consideration and by declaring that I am against the principle of forcing others to do a thing which I would not want to do myself, that is to say, I am against any kind of compulsory service, and I shall vote accordingly.


Edmond Proulx: Mr. Speaker, I shall take the advice of the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) and promise to be brief, but I cannot promise that I will take his advice any further in reference to this matter. Had the question hot been so important I would have been satisfied1 to have given a silent voe, but the matter being of so much importance, and establishing a new principle in our traditions and policies, I consider that it is incumbent upon me to give the reasons for the vote that I am about to cast in a few minutes. When this war was declared in 1914 the Prime Minister made an offer to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and the people of this country agreed to that offer. The response was very generous. Parliament was called, and did not object to the offer which had been made. It unanimously voted the money that was asked by the Government to enable the Government to send across one contingent and more if it was thought necessary. When the Prime Minister made the offer he did not intend to apply the Militia Act, which he said the other day could have been applied, (but as my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) proved to this House the other day he made the offer to the British Government on the understanding that our soldiers would serve as British troops under the British Crown. The Prime Minister had grave doubts that the Militia Act would apply, or that the defence of Canada was at stake. If the defence of Canada was not at stake in 1914, how can it be said that it was at stake in 1917? Canada is not now more menaced than it was in 1914, and although Parliament may have power to pass this

Bill, I am of the opinion, with my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, that Parliament has no right, has no mandate, to pass this measure. It has never been before the people. At the last general election in 1911 this Government came into power on the policy which was preached in the province of Quebec of no participation in the wars of Great Britain. You may say that this is not a war of Great Britain. I admit it is not. I am not one of those who say that we must not fight for Great Britain. This war was not declared by Great Britain. Great Britain was not prepared for war, and it is to the credit of Great Britain that she went into this war to protect Belgium and to honour her signature to the treaty which was made in 1839.
But that does not change the situation, and it does not prove that it is Canada's war. I maintain that Parliament has not the right to pass this law for sending Canadians to go across seas to take part in this war. There was no 'question in the session of 1914 that it was a free offer which the Government was making to the Government of Great Britain. It was an .offer which similar to the one which was made in 1899 by the Government of that day at the time of the South African war. The only difference was that the number of troops and the expenditure were much larger. But Parliament was not asked to send these troops under the Militia Act. I am not going to read the despatches which were sent. Members of this House must remember them. They were read the other day fey the leader of the Opposition. The first one was sent on the 1st August, 1914, and the second on the 5th August. The Government had five days to consider the matter and though they had five days to consider it they did not change their mind. They still had grave doubts as to whether our soldiers could be sent across as Canadian troops and they preferred to send them as Imperial troops. Parliament assented to the request of the Government and at subsequent sessions Parliament voted freely and unanimously the moneys which were asked by the Government to permit equipping and sending the troops overseas. The Prime Minister made a promise on the 1st January, 1916, without consulting Parliament. It is said that in Germany the Chancellor is the mouthpiece of the Kaiser and that he presents to the Reichstag the policies which the Kaiser wants him to present.
It seemed that at that time the ex-Minister of Militia was the Kaiser of Canada, and that the Prime Minister was the mouth-

piece of the ex-Minister of Militia. It was also said at that time that the ex-Minister of Militia was anxious, .and had the ambition, to send a large number of soldiers from this country to the front, and, in fact, wanted to send the last man, if it was necessary. In a country governed by a Parliament elected by the people I think that Parliament should have been consulted before the Prime Minister promised to send
500,000	men. Great Britain never asked us to send that number. In fact, I think Great Britain was surprised that we should send over 200,000 men. At that time Great Britain did not expect that we would send over 150,000 men, and if the Prime Minister made this offer without consulting Parliament he should not be surprised if some members in this House refused to give him power to procure the 500,000 men by a compulsory measure. The mandate of this Parliament expired in October, 1916.


Mr. MORPHY:: Does the hon. gentleman intend to take his sessional indemnity this session?


Edmond Proulx: I cannot appreciate my hon. friend's question. I say that our mandate has expired, as far as the vote of the people is concerned. We are only here by our own consent, and before we make a new departure such as this Bill proposes I submit we should go back to the people, if not by referendum, at least by general election. My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Descarries) went even further than my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, and said that this Parliament had not the power to pass this Act, that if this Bill became law it would be ultra vires of this Parliament. He may be right. I am not a constitutional lawyer, but I would prefer that the Bill be not made law before consulting the people, because, if this Parliament passed this measure, I believe the law would not be declared constitutional. I do not think the Governor General would refuse to sanction it, and even if the Bill were reserved for the consideration of the Imperial Parliament, I do not believe that body would veto it. If my hon. friend does not want to see this Bill become law, I think it would be safer for him to vote for the referendum, and if the referendum does not carry, to vote against the second reading, and not to adopt the principle of the measure. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister, said that it was never suggested to him while he was in England that we should adopt conscription, and he was, in fact, a little exercised because some people
in this country suggested that he had been Requested, while in England, to enact such a law. In introducing the Bill he said:
Some people afflicted with a diseased imagination have asserted that I took my present course at the request or direction of the British Government. No more absolute falsehood was ever uttered by human lips. The subject was never discussed between myself and any member of the British Government; if there had been any such suggestion from them, I for one would not have tolerated it. The Government, Parliament and people of Canada are the only authorities that can deal with or determine questions such as those which are embodied in the Bill now presented to this House.
And this is confirmed by the dispatch which we saw in newspapers on the 21st June, coming from England, that the hon. Mr. Walter Long, Secretary for the Colonies, said that the Prime Minister had not spoken of the question at all when he was in England, and, in fact, the Secretary for the Colonies was surprised to see that the Prime Minister had asked the Canadian Parliament to adopt the law so soon.
What are the reasons of the Prime Minister in asking Parliament to pass this Bill? If I remember well, when my right hon. friend the Prime Minister landed in this country with his colleagues, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and the Minister of Public Works, in an interview with the reporters, the Minister of Public Works said that he did not think it would be necessary to have conscription in Canada, as it had been found necessary to adopt it in other countries. I presume my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works must have been in the confidence of my right hon. friend. He left this country in February to make the trip with him, stayed with him all the time he was in England, and returned to Canada with him. So that it would appear that my hon. friend the Prime Minister was not thinking of conscription when he landed in Canada. When did he think of conscription? Was it when he reached Ottawa, and ascertained that the ex-Minister of Militia intended to bring the matter before the House? If he had permitted the ex-Minister of Militia to bring the question before Parliament, he could not have avoided expressing his opinion, and taking a stand on the matter, and when he found that there was probably a large contingent behind him favouring conscription, he thought he might be obliged to adopt conscription, and all the credit would have gone to the ex-Minister of Militia. So that the ex-Minister of Militia

would again have loomed very high in the public eye, and if my hon. friend had not listened to him, and adopted conscription, the ex-Minister of Militia might have divided the Conservative party and endangered the chances of the Government at the next general election. It was the intention of the Government to use this measure as the slogan to win the war. Some people'in this country think that the slogan should be changed, and that it should be said that probably the Government is more anxious to win elections 'by adopting conscription than to win the war. We are told that conscription is adopted to fill the wastage. The Minister of Militia states that there are over 126,000 men in England, waiting to go across to France. That is probably more than would be required this year. Over 400,000 men were recruited in Canada. There are to-day over 300,000 men overseas, in France or in England, only 138,000 of them being in France-four divisions, and the auxiliary services. The period of offensive for this year is more than half over, .and if we judge by the wastage that took place last year, perhaps not half the
126,000	men now in England will be wanted in France this year. I do not see, therefore, why there should be so much hurry in adopting this measure.
The member for South Bruce (Mr. Truax) asked a few moments ago for an explanation in regard to the 75,000 men who could not be accounted for. Are they in England? Will they go to the front, or will most of them come back to Canada without having gone to the front? It is said that about 7,000 officers left Canada for England, but never went to the front and will not go unless they go as privates. They cannot be forced to go as privates, as they left this country with commissions. The country, therefore, is spending money uselessly in sending overseas officers who stay in England for several years and. come back without having gone to the front. Besides enjoying their pay, they take up precious space in the transports. When the people learn that so many men have commissions and do not fight, they do not like to enlist as privates and receive only a private's pay while bearing the brunt of the fight. The result is that Teeruiting is discouraged.
I do not want to vote for the principle of this Bill before it is submitted to the people 'by means of a referendum, as is suggested by the right hon. leader of the Opposition. The member for West Middle-

sex (Mr. Bose) said that men of twenty should not be conscripted because they have not a vote; he suggested that the minimum age should be twenty-one years. But the Government would deny to those of twenty-one or over the right to express their view in regard to this Bill before it becomes law. Why should not those who are liable to be conscripted have a say in the matter? Should they not have the privilege of saying whether this Bill should become law? There axe people in the country to-day who are clamouring for conscription, but when you speak of the conscription of wealth, they object. We have the example of the Montreal Board of Trade. That body some time ago adopted a resolution calling upon the Government to adopt a measure of compulsory .military service, but when the member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) proposed that wealth be conscripted, they sent a deputation to the Finance Minister objecting to the conscription of wealth. The conscription of men is much more important than the 'conscription of wealth; therefore, if some men object to the conscription of wealth it is not surprising that the labour men object to the conscription of men. They are the people who will bear the brunt of the fight if this Bill becomes law and they ask for a referendum. The member for Maisomneuve (Mr. Verville) who is supposed to know the opinion of the labour men of Canada, said the other night that at least 85 per cent of the men who belonged to labour unions were in favour of a referendum'.
I shall not delay the House any further; I intend to vote for the 'amendment of the right hon. leader of the Opposition.
.Mr, P. J. A. CARDIN (Richelieu): Mr. Speaker, the terrible war which is presently convulsing the countries of Europe seems to have caused quite a commotion in people's minds; and especially so in Canada. I can-pot account in any other way for the origin of the extraordinary theories which we have heard enunciated by those who would impose "on our country compulsory military service. The most ancient of these theories has been unearthed by the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen) the present Government's recognized sophist. His doctrine is that Canada's sacrifice in the present war, must extend to her last dollar and her last man. Another theory no less extraordinary, is that advanced by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) who has proclaimed that, as times go, we must sup-

press or ignore all the rules of logic and throw aside all the teachings of experience and the dictates of reason. Another of these hon. members who demand 'the imposition of a conscription law, would be ready, in order to attain that end, to rend every r.iticle of the constitution. Among these extraordinary theories also, we find the boastful and childish pretension that we have allies, and that we are playing in the present conflict a part equal in importance tc- that of the autonomous nations, such as France, England and Russia. Lastly, another claim which is devoid of common sense, would make of the present war our *war, Canada's war.
And add to that, Mr. Speaker, all the other absurdities which we have heard, which we have read and which are all included in the exaggerated and irrational vocable: Win the war.
People talk of the crushing of Germany, of the Kaiser's downfall, with the unconstrained language of schoolboys enjoying tiheir holidays. In all those theories we find the precepts of the most appalling anarchy combined with the teachings of the most complete and most absolute auto-ei acy.
But, meanwhile, what becomes of the true Canadian sentiment? It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that it is forgotten. This perturbation in the Canadian mind would leave us quite unconcerned, if from the chaos of these incoherences had not sprung up the Military Service Bill. Offspring of excitation, prematurely ripened by the scorching breath of prejudices, this measure is apparently justified by the Government by two arguments, both absolutely worthless: First, our promise to those who have left, and secondly, the absolute necessity of filling the gaps and keeping up our effective forces.
Our promise? I have listened with great attention to the speeches which have been made since the opening of this debate, but I yet fail to find in any one of these speeches a satisfactory proof of such a promise. When the country decided to take part in the present war, it was understood that such participation would be absolutely voluntary, and that those who would enlist under Canada's colours, would do it 'freely and of their own volition, absolutely so.
The public men of the country, the right hon. Prime Minister himself, and after him the right hon. leader of the Opposition, have stated everywhere, not only in this House, but at all the public meetings that were held, that the enlistment was absolutely voluntary, and that never should we resort to compulsion.
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, the volunteers who have gone to fight overseas, have left, knowing that it was the Government's determination, supported by t!he Opposition, to always maintain volunteering and never to impose conscription. They were not put under any false impression; they went away fully aware of the Government's intentions, and no one can surely find in their voluntary enlisting, nor in the solicitations made to them, a promise to impose conscription.
But, is it said, we must keep up our effective forces. Where is the evidence that the Allies, and that England, in particular, need fifty or a hundred thousand men, who would have to be levied under such difficult circumstances as may arise from the enforcement of this compulsory military service? It has been established, beyond all doubt, by the Prime Minister himself, and by others who have folowed his lead, that England had never asked Canada to impose compulsory military service and, Mr. Speaker, we understand the wisdom of England in not requesting from our Premier the imposition of such a law, because it is evident to-day that England herself has not thrown into the struggle all her manhood nor has she seen fit to employ all the resources she can dispose of. In support of. my statement, Mr. Speaker, allow me to quote from the speech of the hon. member for Edmonton -(Mr. Oliver) who has seconded the amendment moved by the right hon. leader of the Opposition. This quotation, Mr. Speaker, bears out my assertion that Great Britian has not put into this war all the forces she can dispose of; probably, because she has not yet found it necessary. The extract is from an English paper, and forms part of a communication from a resident in England:
" Tribunals all through the country continue to hand out exemptions to huntsmen, variety artists, store managers, clerks, luxury manufacturers, frankly declaring that their mission is " to protect local industry." One district alone granted 30,000 exemptions during the past fourteen weeks.
" Even the Government joined the Freedom League. Only, a few departments are not stil'l to a large extent manned by eligibles with influence. In this 34th month of the war it is still the custom to hand a list of names to a branch of a department with orders to find places for them. A regiment is permitted to retain at home its football players and runners and boxers.
"The great markets of London-Smithfield, Covent Garden, Billingsgate and the rest-have scarcely been touched, because their combing

out wag left to committees of themselves and they have been unable to agree."
When we have such an admission as that, made by a person living in England, it seems to me that we are perfectly right in denying any urgency for compulsion in Canada; and far less should we be charged with disloyalty because of our opposition to such a measure.
To further justify our position, we would only have to refer to the situation in Ireland where, according to reports there are
150,000	soliders employed in maintaining order and where it appears, there would be from 200,000 to 300,000 Irishmen who would be ready to enlist if they were granted Home Rule.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there is another reason for Canadians not rushing headlong into compulsory military service. It is the entrance of the United States in the conflict. When the United States shall have done as much as Canada has done, it may then be time, perhaps, to impose conscription or to ask more of Canada than she has done up to date.
Our effective forces must be maintained, is it said. What are our effective forces, Mr. Speaker? The soldiers we have sent across have been incorporated at the Government's own request, into the British army; they belong to the British army; .they are no longer Canadian soldiers, they are soldiers belonging to British regiments and forming part of the British army. And I assert it boldly, because I believe every member of this House should be allowed to plainly express his views and state the bare facts. If Canada is not presently able to fill the gaps which are being made in the regiments she has sent across, if for this purpose voluntary service proves inadequate, I say that England must take upon herself to fill those gaps before the Prime Minister can come and ask us to foist compulsory service on Canada.
But we are told, Mr. Speaker, that the soldiers are looking to us; that we must win the war, and that Germany must be crushed! Let us leave mere words aside, and stop making big drum politics and considering the people as an agglomeration of ninnies who will jump at theories of any sort.
Let us not, therefore, allow the fever of excitement and the heat of prejudices to take the place of collected reasoning. Let us give up this speculating upon the glory of those who have gone and also not lessen their sacrifices by intimating to-day that they enlisted because they feared that conscription would come or that their action
	,
was prompted by the belief that sooner or later they might be compelled to take up arms. They did go away freely, Mr Speaker; and that is why we do admire them and why our souls are so moved by the remembrance of their exploits. All those soldiers, who so generously went over, had it in their heart that they were going to fight for liberty and justice, and in my humble opinion, they must frown on those who to-day want to ostracize their own compatriots.
Mr. Speaker, I must confess that I nowise understand the position taken by certain members of this side of the House who support the Military Service Bill. I was just listening a few moments ago to one of these hon. members who was trying to justify his support of the Bill on the ground that it contained more exemptions than does the present Militia Act. In that case as well entitle this Bill, as did an hon. member who spoke before me, the Exemption Act, rather than calling it the Military Service Act. Moreover, the Government has been 'taken to task by Liberal supporters of the Bill for not having conducted voluntary enlistment as they should; for having given undue preference to their supporters in awarding positions, and one of them added, not long ago, that he thought he had found in this Bill, now before the House, certain signs that led him to believe its object was purely political.
If these gntlemen do entertain such opinions, I wonder how they can afterwards speak in favour of this Bill and pledge themselves to vote for its second reading; the more so, when they take the pains to add that it is dangerous to entrust the administration of such an important measure to a Government who have not the people's confidence. Is it at all surprising, Mr. Speaker, that the people are growing uneasy since the Bill has been introduced? The country is not accustomed to such coercive laws and our people are not prepared for a measure of compulsion. I think the general disquiet is well justified; the masses may well feel anxious, for, after all, they alone will have to bear the burden which this Bill seeks to impose on the country. Just to realize the instinctive force of self-preservation among all the elements that compose our population, one .has only to consider, not the statements, but especially the actions of certain organized groups of financiers. How easily, how very disinterestedly did the Montreal Board of Trade, at one of its meetings, pass a resolution demanding compulsory military service and decide that it would be in the country's interest and that it had become

necessary for the Government to enact such patriotic legislation. That is all very well. But let us now come to these gentlemen's actions. When it became known that the Government intended increasing the burden imposed upon wealth, and tax business and industrial profits on a larger scale than was the case last year, immediately these same gentlemen organized a delegation to come to Ottawa and beg the Government's favour. When these gentlemen, who are all of them exempt from military service, discuss the expediency of imposing conscription upon the people and of compelling the poor and the labourer to enlist and defend to a certain extent, the very wealth of these privileged classes, their patriotism runs high. But, when it comes to put out money to pay the expenses and the small wages of those who by this legislation will be coerced into active service, it is readily seen that their patriotism is only measured by the closeness of their fobs.
A great number of reasons, Mr. iSpeaker, have already been given against the passing of this Bill. I will not repeat them. But it might be added, I believe, that this Act shall be absolutely nugatory and ineffective and that, besides, it is antinational.
I say that this Act will be nugatory. Canada has, until now, made a splendid effort which has commanded from every nation of the world a deep admiration and has brought to her most deserved and cordial congratulations.
Canada's intervention in this war was surely proper. Why? When the declaration of war came as a clap of thunder in the serene sky of Europe, England was taken by surprise. Her fleet was ready to meet any foe on the seas; but her army was not in a fit condition to fight against a serious foe on land. She had not enough soldiers to effectually fill the part she had to play in this war. She needed the aid of her colonies; and every one of them rose up, ready to give the required co-operation. What has been the result of that intervention? It was secured for her an expeditionary army that contributed to the first victories over the Germans in the foreign land of France. Thanks to the intervention of the Canadians, the Australians and the inhabitants of all other colonies, England had the time to organize her forces; she had the time to prepare for the fray; she had the time to impose compulsory military service.
Now, when she is able to line up for battle several million men, it seems to me that our effort should abate; that we must think of 'the preservation of equilibrium in
our economical conditions, and that we should not, without due consideration, spread misery and ruin throughout our territory.
Moreover, this compulsory military service law is useless, because England, who has adopted a similar one, has not applied it in all its strictness; it is applied with all possible discretion inspired by the most motherly feelings. A large number of people have been exempted from military service. Every one admits the fact, for lit has been stated by an eminent personage in British politics that there are almost three million men in England, affected by this law, who have not yet been sent into active service. More than that, the compulsory military service law does not apply to Ireland. We are called disloyal because we object to compulsory military service in Canada. Are we not right, Mr. Speaker, after the splendid effort our country has made? If we are disloyal, I would ask what word we could use to qualify the action of Ireland who has quite a number of representatives in the British Parliament.
They now propose to enlist some 50,000 or 100,000 mien. Is not that an insignificant number when the intended effort of the United States is taken into consideration? It seems to me that before a mere colony like Canada is compelled to destroy all her industrial, agricultural and commercial organization, before she is reduced to the point of sowing misery in her own territory, the autonomous countries, who will reap all the immediate benefits at the end of the war, should at least make as large sacrifices as this colony has already made. It is averred that when the United States shall have raised an army as large as that of Canada, in proportion to their respective populations, German militarism will have been annihilated, and Germany and her allies utterly defeated.
All our efforts 'should tend toward a more absolute necessity than enlisting men: agricultural production. In so doing, we would give a better and a more practical aid to the Allies' cause than by sending over a contingent of some fifty to a hundred thousand men, a mere drop of water in the ocean-if we consider the innumerable quantity of soliders now fighting on European soil and the still greater number of those who are preparing to join in the conflict.
Conscription is, moreover, an antinational measure, because it detracts from the merit and nobleness of Canada's effort. After enlisting more than 400,000 men in

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that those who are to be drafted have the right to be consulted. It has been said and repeated in every tone, during this debate, that the most interested ones, those who should, above all, have their say in this matter, were the soldiers who have already crossed the sea. Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to take exception to this doctrine. The men who have already gone to the front have done so of their own free-will; they were not led there through coercive means; nobody forced them to enlist.
But when it comes to forcibly send over those who have already used their own judgment'and have decided to stay at home, I believe that we cannot deny them the opportunity to express their opinion.
Some may find too severe what I am about to say; but it is my duty to speak and of my statement I take beforehand the full responsibility. I do not fear to express my opinion here. They refuse the referendum in apprehension of the result, because they dread the verdict of the majority of the people of this country, which might confirm the opinion already expressed by the province of Quebec. They want to be able to say throughout the country that the province of Quebec is the only one to oppose conscription; that the French Canadians only refuse their co-operation to the Empire. They wish to s^jeculate upon this campaign of prejudices inaugurated a few years ago and which is being waged throughout the country against the province of Quebec.
It would be useless to insist. To point out such an object, means to submit it to the most severe judgment of the honest conscience of every true Canadian.
I deny the Prime Minister the right to wrap himself up in The mourning flag of our country in order to preach ms the destructive creed of Imperialism land .to attempt the 'Germanizing of omr political morals.
Let us have no discussion, Mr. Speaker, upon the tomb which covers, united in the same glory, the ashes of our fellow-citizens, English and French, mowed down together by the war.
Their common tomb is a symbol of peace and harmony among the races. From this union of the races in death, let us draw a lesson of good understanding for those who survive. And upon this glorious tomb let us respectfully incline our thoughts to find therein, teachings of tolerance and of liberty.


Mr. M. S. DELISLE (Portneuf) (Translation) :: 
Mr. EDMOND FORTIER (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, as I do not intend taking up uselessly the time of the House, I shall dispense with repeating what many members have with good reason done and said against the Bill No. 75 introduced by the hon. Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden). Therefore, without ,any dilly-dallying, I shall deal with the subject and consider a few of the outstanding features of this debate, which has been going on for two weeks already.
Representing a rural division, I cannot let this opportunity go by without letting this House and the country know the stand I 'believe it my duty to take upon this selective conscription Bill, as well as on the amendment proposed by the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). Asi for the amendment to the amendment, I consider it perfectly useless and I can immediately declare I shall vote against it.
When the extension of the parliamentary term was voted last year, not a single member of this House would have surmised that such a measure as conscription would be imposed upon the country. Since that extension has been granted, the leaders of both parties, as well as their friends, have declared that conscription would not be imposed. Volunteering alone was to be established for enlisting in His Majesty's imperial army, in order to assist the Allies and more especially the'mother country and France, who are the principal powers having joined other countries to avenge outraged Belgium, to protect minorities and democracies, whilst safeguarding the rights of justice and liberty against Prussian barbarity, the vandalism of the Central powers of Europe and of their Balkan allies.
This wrar, Mr. Speaker, is not waged against any country in particular. It is rather against this Prussian militarism, this vandalism organized by Germany and her allies, in order to conquer and to subdue the world by means of this revolting prussianism of the Huns and assume worldwide supremacy. In order to reach their ends, the foe had to first strike at the most formidable powers, such as France, England and Russia, by overrunning smaller countries who are the martyrs of patriotism and whose heroism even exceeds all that

what has been said, in Franre and what has been printed in France, Canada will not need to contribute 500,000 men. And, besides, that balance of a total amount of 500,000 men which they ask us, what does that represent in the present conflict where we are fighting together, or against one another, some twenty millions of men; and if that total of 100,000 should have no influence' upon the result, we would be forced to -admit that this balance of the 500,000 men which, before two months, six months or a year are over, may perhaps be raised to two or three hundred thousand men, will be useless; that we hre needlessly depriving Canada of these men.
There are, at present, so we are told, more than 100,000 of our men in England. For more than a year, these men have been over there; that is to say that, for over a year, the country has been deprived of their help, agriculture has been deprived of the aid of a great part of these 100,000 men, trade has likewise been deprived of the help of these 100,000 men, and; yet what can they have done for the Allies' cause? What good have they been to the Allies, since they have not yet been at the front? And those other 100,000 men they are asking us, when will they reach Europe? Before 100,000 men can be landed in Europe, it will take at least one year, and that also means that for one year our country will be deprived of the labour of these 100,000 men, and that means moreover that the Allies will not have the aid of these 100,000 men before another year. That would be, you must admit it, unfortunate, both for the farmers and for the manufacturers of our country. In short, we should not deprive farming of its necessary hands, nor our mills and factories of the labour essential to their activities. I might say the same thing as to our commercial firms and here, perhaps, it might not be out of order to inquire as to what would become of our important firms such as, for instance, the Ames, Holden & McCready Company, of Montreal; it is safe to say, as for the latter, in particular, they would no longer be able to realize, within a year, about 120 per cent, net profits.
This compulsory Military Service Act is put before the country and then they give, as a reason, that the province of Quebec has not done her duty. We should then infer that this conscription . Act would have the province of Quebec as its object, -and that, to quite an extent. Can these gentlemen yet wonder wihy the .province of Quebec has not contributed just as many men as they

would like to see on the fields of battle? Ever since the war began, or rather, as I should (have said, ever since 1911, there has been lacking in the province of Quebec an essential element, I might even say an indispensable element for the success of recruiting; that element was the trust that this province should have had in her rulers. Deceived in 1911, deceived ever since, deceived by all and more especially by the Government leaders, Quebec has come down to the point of asking herself in whom she may trust. The Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) has declared before this House and before the country that there would be no question of conscription in Canada; during the session of 1916 he again asserted it explicitly. He may probably answer us that events have changed, that since 1916 circumstances have become so serious and the future so gloomy that he has been compelled to modify his opinion. But, Mr. Speaker, in the course of January last, could not the Government then realize the situation. Through the seconder of the Address in reply to the Governor General's speech (Mr. Descarries) did1 not the Government inform us that there would never be any conscription in this country, and after this declaration has any member of the Cabinet stated that the hon. member for Jacques Cartier had unwisely spoken or that he had not expressed the whole truth?
I would ask those hon. members who, ever since the war started have never ceased to abuse ns, if they would have acted any other way flhan the province of Quebec has seen fit to do. No, Mr. Speaker, for some time there has passed over the province of Quebec a storm of abuse of every description; a storm of hysterical abuse and I do beg you to believe, Mr. Speaker, that I use the term "hysterical" to be decent and in order to not apply the true name to the sickness now affecting the men who- attack us. That sickness, if I can judge of it by the way some of the members of the right are behaving, has become a chronic one. When some of those gentlemen speak of the province of Quebec and of the French Canadians, you can see hatred1 depicted upon their faces, and their eyes sparkle with joy at every abusive word uttered against us; and when I hear them vomit this abuse, I always imagine I hear the sounds uttered by a Hun pirate who, after having sunk the ship, cries and yells out to his gunners the order to sink the life boats also. They pretend that the province of Quebec, in particular, and Canada, generally, have not

done enough for Uie war. Let us sum up the situation: Canada has contributed more that 400,000 men, she therefore had to deprive herself of that many. She has paid these soldiers' expenses, both at home and abroad, and considering our total enlistments in proportion to our numbers, as compared with the corresponding figures for the United States, France or England, we cannot come to any other conclusion than this one: That Canada has done her duty, not only as regards the number of enlisted men, but also as regards money contributions. Eight here, Mr. Speaker, it may perhaps be appropriate to mention the fact that our Canadian soldiers draw $1.10 per day, whilst in France they only get 25 centimes; that means, therefore, that our army of 400,000 men represents, as far as expenses are concerned for pay only, 9,000,000 men.
Mr. Speaker, among other insults they were pleased to hurl against Quebec is this one: They call us "slackers". If I can understand well enough the meaning of this term, I believe it would be what we call in French "tirer de l'arriere." I have endeavoured to find in Quebec and, particularly, in the Quebec district, what they do call slackers. After lots of trouble, I must admit that I actually found only one of them. I remembered that, last year, the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Sevigny) had it widely advertised by papers in his pay that he was going to raise a regiment and lead it himself across the deep to slay as many Germans as possible. Did he even go midway? That is a thing I could not vouch for, but what I do positively know is that the regiment was never raised and that the hon. member for Dorchester, instead of being in the trenches, is now occu-prying a seat, in the cabinet.
Mr. Speaker, we find everywhere some points of resemblance, as I have already stated. The hon. member's conduct reminds me of the story of a certain King of France. History reports that this king was most terrible when he spoke of combats; he was ever ready to declare war against his neighbours but, as soon as he heard the clash of swords and the clearing of the decks, he became such a poltroon that he would literally swoon as soon as the word " battle " would be mentioned to him. If my memory serves me right, that king was Charles the Bald.
Was it fear that thus inspired the member for Dorchester? I don't believe it. He cannot have studied the theory of Safety First, but he must have rather believed that he would be giving a better proof of
intense patriotism in immolating himself upon the altar of sacrifice for the salvation of the French Canadian nation.
Quebec has not made enough sacrifices, has not contributed her share in men, do they say? I might perhaps be allowed to read to this House the following extract of a letter from Captain William Chandor Tnnes, of Toronto; here is how he speaks of the province of Quebec's contribution.
This letter had been addressed to the Toronto Telegram where its publication was refused, but it came through anyway.
After the first contingent, twelve French Canadian battalions were authorized: the 2'2nd, the 41st, the 57'th, the 150th, the 163rd, the 165th,. the 167 th, the 178th, the 189th, the 206th, the 230th and the 233rd. The larger part of those units were levied and sent for overseas service, and they have covered themselves with glory. You have oiily to glance over last year's list of dead and wounded, and you will see that the French Canadians are largely represented.
Besides these figures which amount to a total of 17,0*00, the province of Quebec has contributed three stationary hospitals and a field battery. With the number of French Canadians disseminated among the various English battalions, particularly in the Engineering and Forestry battalion (in which the French Canadians represent 90 per cent), I believe we may reach a total amount of 20,0,00 men from the province of Quebec.
The Laval University has, moreover, furnished an ambulance corps (one of the best in the Allies' service, according to despatches) and a dental corps; more than that, a large number of these students and graduates make themselves useful in various ways at the front. The Maritime Provinces have contributed a French Canadian battalion and the English battalions from that section of the country count over 3,00'0 French Canadians in their ranks the western provinces have in their local battalions more than 4,000 French Canadians.
You might allow me to say a few words about the recruiting in the province of Quebec, where I have resided several years. I know the French Canadian as a loyal subject in the full sense of the word, and it would be most unfair and erroneous to size him up after the Bourassa standard. Those unfortunate comparisons between Quebec and the other provinces as to recruiting, should never have been made.
He states that, since the first contingent was recruited, twelve Canadian battalions were authorized: the 22nd, the 41st, the 57th, the !50t,h, etc. Most of these units have been levied and sent away on overseas service where they have covered themselves with glory. Yoiu only have to glance over the list of last year's dead and wounded and you will see that the Canadians are largely represented.
Besides these figures which form a total of 17,000 men, the province of Quebec has contributed three stationary hospitals, one

field battery, and many French Canadians disseminated among the various English battalions, especially in the Engineering and Forestry battalion. And, moreover, Laval University has furnished an Ambulance corps, one of the finest in the Allies' service-so say the despatches-and a corps *of dental-surgeons.
I refrain, Mr. Speaker, from going through this list which makes us really understand what this impartial Englishman says of the province of Quebec.
On the other side, on your right, Mr. Speaker, there seems to be two parties who differ in their ways, but whose efforts have the same object. They want to weaken the country in order to reign. One of them tries to weaken the country by splitting it; if has set the English race against the French race. A gale of abuse coming from there has blown over the province of Quebec, a storm of hatred has fallen upon us. Those who compose it believe they are the greatest men of their race, greater than the British Empire, truer than history, mightier than right, more patriotic than the French and English struggling together shoulder to shoulder in the most terrible war the world has ever seen. They are blending their *blood for the defence of a grand idea, for the triumph of a holy cause; Liberty. That should' certainly be enough to force strong roots and wide branches to sprout from the tree of concord in the fertile soil watered by French blood and by English blood, and in its shade the 'Canadian nation could find a safe shelter.
The other party wants to weaken the people by impoverishing them. It shouts for poverty; it will soon shout for misery. If has given a free hand to speculation, to monopoly, to stock-jobbing, to such an extent that the old den of the Forty Thieves would' be too small to shelter all the public embezzlers and squanderers. They have hoarded up fortunes. Gold is powerful, I know it, powerful for an individual, for a family, for a caste. However, open the history of nations, and you will have to admit that there still is a greater power, which has overthrown institutions which 'had braved storms for centuries. Beware! the people are patient, because they are strong. Beware! you have sown the wind; very soon, harvest time will be with you, and you will gather the storm. For my part, I deny imyself the right to coercion. Following my leader's example, I recognize only one master in the country, it is the one who pays, it is the one who suffers, who prays,

who supplies the blood 'and the flesh for cannon. It As him I want to consult and 1 will bend before his supreme will.
We are now threatened with civil war .and I cannot see wherein the Allies could get any benefit from it. For my part, I ask the Government to well consider the scope ol their Act; it is an extreme and destructive measure, which may give results far contrary to those expected. I recall what stand was taken in 1911 to impose an appeal on the people. It wias then alleged that the Liberal government bad not the right to modify oui commercial relations with the United States without consulting the Canadian people. How much more important is the legislation now before ns, since it actually amends our own constitution to quite an extent?


Mr. OVIDE BBOUILLABD (Drummond-Arthabaska):: Mr. Speaker, no doubt the Prime Minister of Canada does; to-day realize to what extent the autocratic character of his measure is unseasonable. We are under the threat of a calamity which, from the Canadian point of view, shall be irreparable. Civil war is at our very doors. I regret, Mr. Speaker, that I should have to declare that the reasons put forward by the Premier do not have, as I can see them, the merit of sincerity. I have come to the point of asking myself what kind of sickness attacks the Government leader, every time he comes hack to us from England. When he first returned, in 1913, he raised quite a storm in this country by telling us that England did not know what to do. The Empire was on the point of foundering if Canada did not immediately vote thirty-five million dollars in order to ensure the building of three dreadnoughts to increase the British naval forces, The people as well as the Parliament of this country were put under the impression that the voting of such a sum would meet the British government's objects and wishes. Well, since then the very facts have demonstrated that England had never asked us a single dollar. The Prime Minister's reputation must necessarily suffer from this, even to-day, a severe counter-blow, and he can have, no fault to find if his hysterical imperlialism leaves us quite unconcerned.
This is not, however, the only time that the Premier has allowed his word to falter. Every one in this House remembers that when he introduced the Bill demanding the grant of thirty-five millions to England, the Prime Minister stated that if such legislation were not passed, he would immediately make an appeal to the people.

Well, that legislation did not pass and there has been no appeal to the people. That was four years ago-yes, four years have already passed and never since has the Prime Minister even dreamed of thinking that the first care of a man of honour is to redeem his pledged word-it would surely not be an act of temerity on my part, should I to-day assert that this appeal to the people is what the leader of the Cabinet apprehends the most. And, judging the present by the past, I have no hesitation in saying that the Prime Minister seems more anxious to remain in power than to redeem his pledged troth. The measure now before the House, a measure of exceptional importance, is submitted to us as being of imperious necessity. The only guarantee we have of that necessity, is the word of the Prime Minister. For my part, that is not sufficient, past experience justifies me in demanding something more substantial. I regret that I should be obliged to so express myself, but, in fine, it is no fault of mine if the leader of the Government has put himself in such a position that a reputable backer is now demanded in support of his word.
Admitting I am quite unable to discuss the Bill now before the House from the legal point of view, I will simply limit myself to state in a few words, what I think of it from the national and economic standpoint, I have most heartily agreed to our full participation in the present conflict. And I am one of those who declare, without any hesitation, that our duty is to continue the effort so generously put forth up to date. It is most unfortunate, however, that the Government should have tolerated speculations which, in these critical times, have a criminal character.
The attitude taken by.the American government since the United States have entered into the war, shows plainly to what extent our rulers have been careless, not to use a harsher expression. The blood imposition was already painful enough, without adding to it the scandals which have kept on increasing since the beginning of the war. Whatever be the case, our duty would have remained the same, and those who have tolerated the abominations we did witness, must bear their full share of responsibility ibefore history.
I admit I am unable to see the opportunity of the measure now before this Hou=e. A fewr months ago, the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Bennett) enthroned as head of the National .Service, spent hundreds <.f thousands of dollars to draw American
labour towards our western prairies. That step was a straight admission of the lack of hands to perform the required labour in this country. To-day it is perfectly admitted that this effort of the hon. member for Cail-gary was a lamentable failure.. Since then, the American, people have joined hands with the Allies, and no one ignores that we can expect nothing from the support our neighbours might have given us. The lack of farm labour is being daily more visible and it is to my personal knowledge that, in the province of Quebec, our farmers are seriously anxious to know how they may be able to gather in their wheat and their hay. The same anxiety exists in other provinces. Recruiting, although less active, is just the same taking away every month thousands of helpers from the farm fields. 'Every day we are being informed that the Allies are crying for munitions and still more munitions. How will we be able to feed our soldiers and supply them the means of defence if, through an improvident policy, we put ourselves in the impossibility of producing and of gathering in. It has been stated that Russia's attitude was one of the main reasons demanding a more strenuous effort on our part. That reason no longer exists, and the Russian victories are now becoming a subject of admiration for the civilized world.
The United States have now thrown themselves, body and soul, into the furnace. The millions of soldiers they will add to the Allied forces will soon give an overwhelming numerical superiority to the cause of the Allies. On the one hand, the Allies have a superabundance of soldieTs; on the other, they need what we are in a position to furnish them: ammunition and bread.
Why should the Government be so obstinately I ent upon placing us in the .actual impossibility of doing that, which would be the most useful to the common cause? Is it only to redeem that imprudent boast of contributing five hundred thousand men? It would be simply [DOT] dispensing with the fulfilment of a national duty, just to justify an arrogant personal boast. It would be a crime of high treason against our own country, Is it, as some have stated, in order to better reach the province of Quebec? That would be most hateful and infamous; Quebec knows her duty, and she needs no one to dictate it to her.
I do repeat what I said in opening my remarks; we are threatened by Civil .war- I do not see what the Allies could gain by it. I realize what their cause might lose through it. For my part, I beg the Govern-

ment to duly reconsider the scope of their Act. It is an extreme measure and one evolved toy extremists. Statesmen should know how to maintain fair equipoise, more so in a country like ours. Moderation only and a fair appeal to the best sentiments of the whole nation, will give the most desirable results.
I still remember that in 1911, the then Opposition forced an appeal to the people, alleging that the Liberal government had no right to modify our commercial intercourse with the United States, without first consulting the people. How much more important is the proposed legislation now submitted to us. The exchange of commercial commodities is like child's play compared to the blood sacrifice you wish to impose upon us.
'These are, Mr. Speaker, some of the reasons which may expose the grounds upon which I have decided to vote against the Government's measure, and which will induce me to support the amendment offered by the right hon. leader of the Opposition.


Mr. SPEAKER:: With respect to the amendment to the amendment, moved by the hon. member for Berthier (Mr. Barrette), a point of order was raised by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Boivin) as to whether it could properly be received. To my mind, there is no question that the amendment to the amendment is in order, and can properly be entertained Ipy the House.


William Pugsley: I was paired witih the
hen. member for Thunder Bay and Rainy River (.Mr. Carrick). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. DUGALD STEWART:: I was paired
with the ho.n. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The question is on the
main motion.
Mr. ARTHUR B. COPP (Westmorland): I am sure that during the debate on this Bill, hon. members must have been impressed with the fact that all were of one mind with regard to the main question- the duty and the intention of Canada to assist in every way within her power bo assist our allies in the great struggle in which we are engaged.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I understand that the
toon, member is (speaking on ttoe main
motion ?
/


Mr. COPP:: Yes. It seems to me that the only line of cleavage between those who differ in this debate is on the question whether this Bill affords the best means of bringing our greatest force to the assistance of the Allies. This measure has given me a great deal of thought. I 'have approached it with an entirely open mind-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Arthur Bliss Copp: -and have carefully followed the debate, that I might decide my course fairly, and as wisely as I could, in this matter.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I must ask hon. members to maintain order.


Arthur Bliss Copp: During the past two weelss, I have given to hon. gentlemen discussing this measure, a respectful hearing; I -ask of them the same. The discussion in this House has not followed political party lines, but each member has sought to understand the question and has voted as his conscience dictated. The main argument of those who support the Bill, ,as well as I have been able to understand it, is that the Prime Minister, having attended the Imperial Conference overseas during the recess, has come back imbued with the idea that our boys >at the front must have reinforcements, and to get them we must introduce a conscription measure because voluntary enlistment, which had been taken up by the Government and endorsed by the leader of the Opposition, has fallen down. Some hon. members who usually do not support the Government have come to the same conclusion, but their reasoning is altogether different.
. Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
Mr. COPP; I put myself on record here, I care not what hon. members may say, "hear, hear," or with what derision they may treat my statements'-I put myself on record that I am firmly at one with other hon. members as to what Canada's duty is in this crisis; I believe that we should give every possible assistance to the Allies in this war both in men and money . But the question that arises in my mind is, whether, in order to send the necessary reinforcements -to the front at this time, it is better to have coercion and compulsion in the form of this Military Service Bill, or whether it is better to follow the course declared for by the Prime Minister time and time again since the war broke out, and carry on voluntary enlistment. Hon. members who support this Bill tell us that voluntary enlistment has fallen down, and that we cannot raise the necessary reinforcements except by enacting this Military Service Bill and forcing men to go to the front. Yet when you follow the arguments you find that even those who declare that we must have this Military Service Bill because we need these reinforcements and need them now, invariably tell *us that the Bill is not to be brought into effect except by Order in Council, as provided in the Bill itself. If this measure is left on the statute book and not brought into effect voluntary enlistment is killed. That means that we cannot get the nun in any way. I say it would be far better to
[The Speaker.]
continue voluntary enlistment than place a coercive measure on the statute book which will not be effective, which will not even be enforced. I have just returned from a few days in my own constituency, and while there I received, information of the most reliable kind that a member of the other Chamber, a strong supporter and appointee of this Government, was going through the length and breadth of the different counties of that, province, absolutely assuring the people of those counties that this measure would not be brought into force. Now, if that statement is being made -and that it is being made I am assured by most reliable authority-and if the Government are not going to bring into effect the Military Service Bill, and bring it in at once, then, I say, the effect of passing it would be absolutely to put Canada out of this war. For voluntary enlistment is at a standstill, and if this Military Service Bill is to be made the law and yet not be brought into force, while you get no voluntary enlistment from any part of the country, you certainly cannot raise reinforcements under a law that is not in operation.
The Prime Minister on January 1, 1916, told the world that Canada would offer 500,000 men to assist the Allied Powers. No one found particular fault with that except that the statement was made by the right hon. gentleman on his own responsibility. In January of that year, when the House met, the right hon. gentleman made the statement that recruiting and voluntary enlistment Were satisfactory, and that there would be no conscription and no compulsion. He reiterated that statement on different occasions, and last January he made the same statement at the opening of this House. The argument made by hon. gentlemen in supporting this measure is that the present pressing need at the present time of men influenced the Government in bringing down this Bill. It does seem rather singular that the number of men that the Prime Minister asks for in connection with this Bill coincides exactly with the number of men he said was required eighteen months ago. When the Prime Minister brought home the demand for more men two months ago, he had the same number of reinforcements in mind that he had eighteen months ago when he made the statement that Canada would supply 500,000 men.
I am in favour of voluntary enlistment. That has been followed up in the past. I have spent a good deal of time myself assisting in getting recruits in my own portion of New Brunswick, and I am glad to

say that the effort in my province has been very successful, indeed. Much has been said in regard to other sections of Canada, but I want to pay a tribute to my Acadian friends in Westmorland, New Brunswick, particularly for the manner in which they have enlisted. Westmorland, according to population, I believe, has given its full proportion of troops of both races. I went on public platforms and on tours holding open air meetings and inducing as far as I could, the young men of my own county to rally to the flag and do their part. I did not say to them: You should go. I left it to their consciences to decide as to how the matter appealed to them. I appealed to the upright, honest, intelligent young men of my county to determine for themselves whether they were going to wait for this coercive measure or whether they were going to volunteer. If recruiting were carried on in a proper manner, and if the matter were taken hold of in an intelligent way, and free from any political bias, I believe the young men of Canada would respond to the call and would put themselves on record in such a way that Canada would not be in danger of being told in future years that coercion had to be adopted to get the 500,000 men that were promised to the Allied Powers. It is my opinion, based on the information I have, that a splendid class of men would respond if the call were properly made by a united country and united parties.
I did not rise for the purpose of detaining the House at any length. I am convinced that a better, an easier and a more reasonable way to get men to go to the front and fill the gaps in the ranks would be to continue thoroughly and systematically the volunteer recruiting campaign. Many arguments have been used during this debate. There is nothing new left to bring to the attention of the House. Many things have been said in regard to the conscription of man power, the conscription of wealth, the conscription of resources and the levying of a tax on those who are best able to stand it for the purpose of carrying on this war. I am with those who have put themselves on record as being in favour of the wealth of this country bearing a large part of the financial burden of this war instead of handing it down to posterity by long term loans. Some hon. gentlemen have spoken of the United States coming into this war and have expressed the belief that probably the United States would furnish more men and that the demand upon Canada would
not be so great. I am not in sympathy with that view of the situation. I think Canada should send every man she can irrespective of what our neighbours to the south of us do. The more they send and the more Canada sends the nearer will be the ending of this great struggle. But, I do not see very much difference between the Americans going over to fill up the gaps in the Canadian lines than the Government going to the United States and getting money to pay our boys for fighting at the front. We get that assistance from them and we work hand in hand for the betterment of our soldiers and the betterment of the country generally. I have always had a very strong feeling that the financial arrangements in connection with the support given to the dependents of soldiers have *not been upon a proper basis. I have always frowned upon the idea that the dependents of soldiers who have gone to the front to protect our homes, our property and our lives, should be forced to look to charity for a part of their support. Times without number the wives and dependents of soldieis at the front have come to my office, making inquiries of me as to ^ the money coming to them from the Patriotic Fund, and when I would explain to them where they had to go to obtain it they absolutely resented the idea of going around from pillar to post and asking for a sum of money from the Patriotic Fund. I never thought it was a proper way of giving assistance, and it looked like seeking for charity. Now that the referendum has been defeated, and the Bill now before the House must soon become the law of the country, if we are going to conscript the young men of Canada to go and fight our battles by compulsion, we should, at least, sweep away any thought or idea that their dependents must look to charity for support. It was all very well-I would not say it was very well, but it was different-under the voluntary enlistment. Every man knew what was expected of him, what pay, separation allowance and Patriotic Fund allowance would be coming to him and his family. After having .all this information and knowledge, he placed himself before the country as a recruit, to go forward in defence of his flag and Empire. This situation did not apply to him so strongly, to my mind, as it applies to the Government to-day, when they are passing the Military Service Bill, .and going to force men to go to the front. When a man leaves his employment, throws up a good job, perhaps, and goes to the front, his dependents should not be forced to throw

V
themselves upon charity for their support. The Government should provide funds for their support, before the man is forced to enlist. He should have definite assurance, not simply a statement from some one that the fund is doing wondrous things for the soldiers and dependents. If a man is sent to the front by force, the question of the support of his dependents should not be left to charity, or in the hands of any committee, or left topsy turvy, so that he would not *know where the support of his wife, his widowed mother or family would come from. Therefore I move:
That all the words of the motion after the word "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:-
That the further consideration of this Bill be deferred until such adequate provision has been made for the dependents of soldiers enlisted for overseas as will remove the necessity of raising money by public subscription for their support.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If I had reference solely to section 54 of the British North America Act and rule 77 of this House, and, perhaps, to rule 40, .as to the question of notice, I would feel disposed to rule the proposed amendment out of order. But in view of decisions which have heretofore been given in this House upon questions of a similar character, I have some doubt in my mind as to whether I would be justified in making strict application of the rules. I made reference to the doubt in my mind for the reason that I do not wish my decision in this instance to 'be regarded as a precedent, leaving it open to me to go into the subject more fully when I have better opportunity.


Right Hon.   S@: I hope my hon. friend will not regard me as wanting in respect for him if I do not dwell at any great length upon the observations with which he has favoured the House at four o'clock in the morning. Indeed, I think we would all have been very grateful to him if he had made an endeavour to express himself a little more concisely. I was not able to follow his argument in every respect. During one portion of his remarks, it seemed to be his *conclusion that if this Bill should pass we shall not be able to get any more men, and I also understood his conclusion to be, that if this Bill does not pass we shall not be able to get any more men.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I said we would not get any more men under the voluntary enlistment.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: That is the way my hon. friend's remarks impressed me.

My hon. friend's amendment is obviously a purely dilatory motion.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: Intended as
such, and intended as nothing else; and I desire to say that the Government does not propose that any such dilatory amendment shall stand in the way of the second reading of this Bill. In order to relieve my hon. friend's mind, I may also assure him that the Bill will be put in force.
With respect to his observations as to the Patriotic Fund, let me make one or two very brief remarks. The gallant men who are fighting at the front for Canada to-day are as well provided for, in every respect, as any men who are now doing battle for the cause of civilization and humanity in the Allied armies. It is customary in all countries, not only in Canada but in Great Britain, in Australia, in every dominion in this Empire, and in the United States, to make provision for certain matters which are not usually dealt with by the Government of the country. A magnificent example was afforded to us only a few days ago when, in a single week's campaign the people of the. United States, by voluntary contribution, laid aside $130,000,000 or thereabouts, for aid to their troops who were going to the front. We have done the same thing in this country, not only for our own men, but for the men of the Mother Country, the soldiers and the sailors who are fighting for the Empire. We raised, I do not know how many million dollars in Canada for the British Red Cross Fund. We raised pretty well up to a million dollars by voluntary contribution in this country for the sailors of the Empire who are maintaining their splendid vigil in the North Sea, and safeguarding the rights and the interests, not only of the Mother Country, but of the people of Canada, by their courage and sacrifice and by the toil and the hardship which they are enduring there. We have raised magnificent sums of money for the Canadian Red Cross Fund, for the War Contingent Association, for the Canadian Patriotic Fund.
There is no charity associated or connected with the Canadian Patriotic Fund. That Fund is an organization established for a national purpose by an Act of this Parliament to which my hon. friend himself gave his assent, which passed this House without question, and which has the endorsement and sanction of the people.

We have done many other things, Mr. Speaker. We have raised large sums of money for the relief of the people of devastated Belgium. We have aided the people of Serbia. In every possible way by voluntary 'contribution the people have done their full share, and I am thankful for it; it has been a blessing not only to those for whose benefit these sums were raised, but also to those who made the contributions.
When my hon. friend, therefore, at this hour attempts to delay indefinitely the passage of this Bill by a motion purely of a dilatory character, and intended as such, and seeks to bring the Canadian Patriotic Fund into discredit before the people of Canada and of the Empire, I say that I have no sympathy either with his motion or his motive, and without any hesitation whatever I declare to this House that the Government cannot accept it.


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Edmonton):: Mr. Speaker, I am more than astonished to hear the Prime Minister-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Frank Oliver: I am more than astonished to hear the Prime Minister declare that a motion which affects the welfare and the interests of those who are dependent upon our soldiers who are fighting at the front


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.
.Mr. OLIVER: -is a dilatory motion-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Frank Oliver: -and one that should not be considered by this House. I should like to take this opportunity, even at this late hour in the morning


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Frank Oliver: -of saying that if the Prime Minister cannot agree with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Copp) who has just spoken, neither can I iagiree with the Prime Minister. Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Frank Oliver: We have had experience in matters affecting the war and the support of those who are carrying on the war which leads some of us to the conclusion that some of the things that have been done in the past have not been well done, or, if they have been well done, should have been done better. In this the third
year of the war, it is high time that we should see that the things which particularly concern those whom we honour so highly, those of whom we speak as our boys in the trenches-


An hon. MEMBER:: And that you do
not want to help.


Frank Oliver: That we do not want to help?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Frank Oliver: That we do not want to help? The Prime Minister and the men behind him are using their authority and their majority in this House to prevent their being assisted.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Frank Oliver: Mr. Speaker, it is not
*only the men who. are prevented from being helped; it is their wives and their children-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.
Mr. OLIVER-their mothers and their sisters, who are not to receive the attention of the House or of this Government, because it is four o'clock in the morning.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Frank Oliver: The Prime Minister has told us that the dependents of our men are getting as good treatment as the dependents of the soldiers of any of the Allied nations-or did he say that their treatment was better? It does not concern me what treatment other countries give their men or the dependents of those men; I am not responsible for that. But 4 a.m. I am responsible ' as a member of this House for the treatment that this country gives our soldiers and their dependents, and that responsibility, with all due deference to my right hon. friend and those who sit behind him, I propose to discharge on this occasion.


Mr. EDWARDS:: How about royalties on coal mines?


Frank Oliver: Did I hear my hon. friend make a remark with regard to riots in coal mines?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Royalties.


An hon. MEMBER:: Or singing God Save the King.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I must ask hon. members to bear in mind that this is a deliberate assembly.


Frank Oliver: In reply to the interjection made by my hon. friend, may I say that a Government which undertakes to settle disputes in coal mines by sending out a partisan supporter of the Government as representative of some of the men concerned is not taking proper, means to settle those strikes.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. I must ask the hon. member-


William Cameron Edwards: I did not say "riots," I said "royalties."


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. I must ask the hon. member to adhere more closely to the subject under discussion. His last remarks had no bearing upon the question before the House.


Frank Oliver: Certainly not; neither did the interruption.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There was no possible opportunity of my preventing the interruption.


William Pugsley: Warn the hon. gentleman against a repetition of it.


Frank Oliver: Let us understand what we are doing for our soldiers and for their dependents. We have been told how much we owe the soldiers. If we do owe the soldiers much, we do owe their dependents support at the cost of this country.


An hon. MEMBER:: You owe the soldiers support, too.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If an hon. gentleman wishes to address the House, he must do the House the courtesy of rising in his place.


An hon. MEMBER:: They do not know what courtesy means.


Frank Oliver: What are we doing for the dependents of our soldiers? Are we providing for them a decent support at the cost of this country?


Mr. J. A. M. ARMSTRONG:: How about God Save the King?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


An hon. MEMBER:: Put him out.


Frank Oliver: I have here an announcement contained in the Bulletin of the Patriotic Fund of the date of February, 1916. It is headed, "A Message to the Canadian Soldier's Wife," and it says, in part:
When the war broke out and our brave men came forward to enlist it was felt that there might be some, among those left behind, who would not be sufficiently provided for by the government grants. Men who could not en-[The Speaker.]
list, but who desired to help, felt called upon to step into the breach, and are endeavouring to make good to the soldier's wife the difference between what the Government gives her, and the amount needed to enable her to live in decency and comfort.
That Sir is an indictment against the Government and the people of Canada by the Patriotic Fund in its official organ. For my part, I do not wish to be responsible for the condition that enables that indictment to be made, and at this time and on this occasion when, as my (hon. friend from Westmorland (Mr. Copp) has said, we are' going to put our hand upon the shoulders of oiur young men and compel them to serve uis 'at the front, surely the same theory of 'Conscription should apply to the money of the country sufficiently to provide for the dependents of those men so that they shall not have to rely upon the passing of the hat, the 'appeals to benevolence, to charity, to meet the needs of those whom they have left behind. Is that the stimulus to patriotism that we, the people of Canada, offer to our soldiers? Is it any wonder that voluntary enlistment in this country has decreased when we offer to out soldiers the proposal that we shall collect money as charity and dispense it as charity-


An hon. MEMBER:: 
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Frank Oliver: I say, I hope they are
proud.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Frank Oliver: But I must say that if
they are, I am very much ashamed of them. Some hon.'MEMBERS:	Oh, oh.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon, member, when he says he is ashamed of the position taken by the Government on this question, is surely exceeding the rules of debate.


Frank Oliver: 
Sir HERBERT AMES:: My hon. friend has been quoting from documents that are from one to two years old. He is absolutely incorrect when he says the Patriotic Fund has been cutting down the allowance to the soldier's wife. If he had not had this speech

in pickle for a year or more he would have known that we have (been increasing the rates steadily to correspond with the advance in the cost of living.


Frank Oliver: To correct the hon. member, I may say that part of what I read was -from the Bulletin of September, 1916.


Mr. J. R. MOLLOY (Provencher):: In rising to address the House, I want to assure the leader of the Government and every hon. member of this House that I am taking part in this discussion with no intention whatever of delaying the measure now before us. I am not here to oppose the Government because they think they are right, but I am here to oppose the Government and anybody else if I think that I am right, and if anything I may say in the few remarks I have to address to the House will help the Government to assist our soldiers, my time will be well spent. If we are to have compulsion in this country I take the ground that we are compelled to provide properly for the soldier wherever he may be.
The present Government is taking upon itself the most tremendous responsibility ever shouldered by any Administration of this Dominion. It is asking from Parliament permission to take the men of the country from their employment, their homes, and their families and to place them on the battle front. It is taking the responsibility of forcing men to make the greatest sacrifice men can make. From present indications the Government has no intention of attempting to equalize that sacrifice by forcing those who will not be affected, and whose wealth the men who go are protecting, to give of their means while other men give their lives. The question: of the conscription of wealth, however, I do not intend to discuss here. But I say this, Mr. Speaker, and I say it with the 'greatest sincerity, that the Government which takes upon itself the tremendous responsibility of sending men to the front must see to it that the wives and children, and dependents of these men are left in such circumstances as not to add to the horrors of the trenches the anxiety which must come from the feeling that their dear ones are in want. That duty is plain, and cannot be evaded.
It is a notorious fact that separation allowances, and assigned pay, which at the beginning of this war may have been adequate to keep the dependents of soldiers from penury and want, are to-day abso-
lutely inadequate, and must be supplemented by certain forms of what I choose to call charity. The pay of the soldier, and The amount of money he is able to leave his dependents is the same as it was when the war broke out. The separation allowance is the same. But the cost of living has more than doubled, thanks to the exploitation and manipulation of the prices of the necessities of life, permitted, and condoned by the present Administration since the war commenced. The soldier's wife has watched her meagre pittance dwindling day by day as the cost of the necessities of life has soared. She has been compelled to ration herself and her family as her husband at the front is rationed, but on a far less generous scale. She is often compelled to move from the neighbourhood in which she has resided beside her more fortunate neighbours whose husbands or sons have not gone, and to take up her residence in more humble quarters. Materially and socially she suffers.
Under the 'Government's present system of financing the war, by borrowing and letting wealth go free, the soldier who goes to the front will find when he returns, if he does return, that to the sacrifices and hardships which he has endured in the trenches will be added the hardship and burden of paying by taxation the interest on the debt incurred by the war. He has had to fight; he will have to pay. Probably he will not grumble. But for the present at least it is incumbent upon this Government and this country to see to it that while he is away his dependents are looked after.
I wish to bring before the House one particular case. In the town in which I live a platoon was raised last year. Every man, woman and child, even the little boys at school and on the street assisted in recruiting the men required. I myself materially assisted, and when I ask a man to enlist, and he d.oes so, I feel that I have assumed a responsibility. These men left on the 2nd day of last November, and a short time afterwards they were in the trenches. Among the great many men who went from the county of Provencher with that platoon was the only spn of a man who is now between 70 and 80 years of age. The boy's mother died many years ago. The boy's poor old father is a confirmed cripple and has no means whatever. He was officially notified on the 31st pf March that his son had been seriously wounded. What do you think, Sir, that poor old man has been living on since his boy went away? He has been living on the assigned pay of his boy

who went to fight your battle and mine many, many miles away from home. Getting on the train about the middle of last month, a man came to me and said that So-and-So had lost his left arm and his right eye. And the poor old father of that boy, that boy who has made such a sacrifice for the country, is left to live on $15 a month.
It is late in the morning, but it is not too late for this country and this Parliament to be told that there is at least one case of this kind. When the session opened in January last, I took up that case. I wrote a letter, as strong as I could write it, to the Assigned Pay and Separation Branch. I got a courteous reply, stating that no provision had been made for such cases. When I came back I took it up again. I called up Major Ingalls, a perfect gentleman, who treated me with all kindness. I stated the case over the telephone. He asked me to write him a letter and send it by special messenger. I said: "I will write the letter and carry it down myself." And I did. He went into the case as well as he could, calling in the gentleman who had charge of that department and discussing it with him. They told me there was no provision for a case of that kind. In discussing the matter, I found that there were only two fathers in this country who were drawing separation allowance. I say, it is not too late in the morning to discuss a matter of that kind, and to call attention to the case of this poor old cripple, who would starve to death if it were not for the charity of his neighbours in the district in which he lives, while this country stands by and, so far as Parliament is concerned, does nothing for him. I was advised to take up this case with the Patriotic Fund in Winnipeg, and I wrote to the secretary. I said, just as 1 have said here, that I would write a letter and carry it myself. I wish to thank the representatives of the Patriotic Fund in Winnipeg from my place here in Parliament for the way in which they treated me. I found there two gentlemen of the highest character who made inquiry into the matter, and the result was that that Patriotic Fund granted that poor old man $10	a month. That	is	not	the	wayfor	this Government,	or	for	the	men
who form a government in this free country, to treat the father of a boy who has offered his life in defence of the country and who, though living, has lost one arm and one eye and has had his face torn in pieces by shell fire.
I do not want to criticise the Government in these matters, I want to help them. Such- contributions as were made in these cases are regulated according to the judgment of a committee who claim the privilege of digging into affairs of the families and dependents of our soldiers. This gives such aids all the features of charity -which is most objectionable to a proud people such as we have in Canada. Many instances are on record where the dependents of soldiers are too proud to admit that they are deriving their substance from the charity of the public, and as a result refuse to 'be helped in this way. Why should the element of public charity enter at all into the method of looking after dependents of our brave men who are prepared to give up their lives for such a cause as our country is fighting for? The Patriotic Fund, in my judgment, should be paid into the treasury of the country and all aids given should issue therefrom, rather than have it placed in the hands of a committee, the members of which, in many cases, are most objectionable to our soldiers and their dependents. Is it fair that a member of a Patriotic Fund Committee should have the right to go	into the homes of our soldiers and demand an accounting of how moneys are being expended and what are the sources of revenue of such families?-a privilege which no one would dare exercise with the humblest citizen in our country. Remove this entirely by providing for the s.oldier's dependents out of the treasury of ,our country in generous manner worthy of the great sacrifice made not only by the boys but by the wives, sons and daughters, the fathers and mothers, who are giving up so much for the cause. The separation allowance given by the country should be increased, and should bear a direct proportion to the number depending for support on the soldier. This amount should be paid every mpnth to the proper person, and such amount should not depend in any way on the amount assigned by the soldier. If we are undertaking to care for those dependent on pur soldiers we should do so in such a way as to entirely remove from our gallant boys' minds any anxiety about their families comfort. Voluntary recruiting would receive such a stimulus from such a policy, as, in my judgment, would entirely remove the necessity for any such legislation as is before the House to-night.
When we look around us and see the wages enjoyed by our labouring men in



munition factories and reflect on the fact that' our soldiers who go foitfch to risk their lives to defend our country are only paid II.IO a day and their families receive the munificient sum of $20 a month, is it any *wonder that recruiting is not as lively as we would like? Is it not discouraging to the proud,, warm-hearted young man to realize that if he goes forth to fight for his country, that foils family may suffer from want or may be driven to the necessity of appealing to the generosity of a local Patriotic Fund Committee, the members of which, perhaps, are too small-souled to appreciate their wanits, or perhaps instead of coming to their assistance will rather attempt to lecture them on domestic economy.
Dependents of soldiers should be properly provided for by the Government. First, because it puts the matter on the footing of a public duty. At present it is a system of private doles, which is humiliating to the recipients because it makes them objects of charity, where they should he pensioners pf the Dominion treasury. The money paid to the dependents of soldiers fighting for the security of life and property in Canada must not he considered anything but a merited return for the services and the sacrifices the menfolk are making for the common weal. Second, the Patriotic Fund as at present administered is the subject of much complaint, on account of the inquisitorial nature of its proceedings. i I do not intend to go into the question of conscription. I have my opinion hut I am going to set forth my opinion by my vote. But I might as well say that I believe that had there been a little more judgment and a little more care on the part of the Government in the many many instances that have come before them no doubt, and in which the claims made have been set aside, there would have been less of a feeling that the demands of justice had been left unfulfilled. There are many other reasons, I can tell the Government, why enlistments have dropped off in Manitoba, and there are other members of the House from that province who could back up what I say. And let me say to the Prime Minister, that he will find, when the men come back of whom he has spoken, that there is a strong belief that some of the public appointments he has made are not to the credit of the Government and were not made in the interests of the country.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: What business shall we take up this afternoon?


Robert Laird Borden: We will go into committee on this Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House adjourned at 5.07 a.m. Friday.
Friday, July 6, 1917.