1917-09-14

WAR-TIME ELECTIONS ACT.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Sir ROBERT BORDEN moved:: That the debate upon the third reading of Bill No. 133, the War-Time Elections Act, shall not be further adjourned.

The motion of Sir Robert Borden was car ried on the following division:

Messieurs:
Armstrong (Lambton), Arthurs,
Bennett (Calgary), Bennett (Simcoe), Borden (Sir Robert), Bowman,
Boys,
Brabazon,
Bristol,
Burnham,
Clark (Bruce), Cochrane,
Donaldson,
Edwards,
Elliot,
Foster (Sir George), Glass,
Guthrie,
Hanna,
Hartt,
Hazen,
Henderson,
Hughes (Sir Sam), Jameson,
Lalor,
Lewis,
Maclean (York, O.), McCurdy,
McLean
(Queens, P.E.I.), Marshall,
Meighen,
Merner,
Morphy,
Morris,
Munson,
Northrup,
Rainville,
Reid,
Roche,
Rogers,
Schaffner,
Scott,
Sexsmith,
Shepherd,
Steele,
Stevens,
Stewart (Hamilton), Sutherland,
Taylor,
Thompson (Yukon), Thornton,
Turriff,
Webster,
Weichel,
Wright.-55.
NAYS. Messieurs:
Boivin,
Bourassa,
Brouillard,
Bureau,
Cardin,
Delisle,
Demers,
Devlin,
Ethier,
Fortier,
Gauthier
(St. Hyacinthe), Gauvreau,
Kyte,
Lachance,
Lafortune,
Lanctot,
Lapointe
(Kamouraska), Lapointe
(Montreal, St. James) Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Maclean (Halifax), Marcile (Bagot), Michaud,
Murphy,
Neely,
Oliver,
Papineau,
Proulx,
Pugsley,
Seguin,
Sinclair,
Truax,
Verville.-32.

(List of Pairs supplied by Chief Whips.) Messieurs:
Ministerial.
Alguire,
Ames (Sir Herbert), Ball,
Barnard,
Best,
Boyce,
Bradbury,
Burrell,
Carrick,
Chabot,
Clements,
Cockshutt,
Cromwell,
Crothers,
Davidson,
Opposition.
McMillan,
Nesbitt,
Turgeon,
Achim,
Ross,
Martin,
Cruise,
Douglas,
Power,
Beland,
Knowles,
Charlton,
Tobin,
McCoig,
Carroll,

Doherty,
Green,
Kemp (Sir Edward), McLeod,
Middlebro,
Morrison,
Nickle,
Rohidoux,
Sevigny,
Stanfield,
S tewart (Lunenburg), Stewart (Hamilton), Thoburn,
Tremain,
Walker,
White (Sir Thomas), Wilson (Wentworth).
Marcil (Bonaventure) Buchanan,
Robb,
Carvell,
Pardee,
Molloy,
Kay,
Copp,
Lemieux,
Macdonald,
McKenzie,
Loggie,
McCrea,
Chisholm,
Bickerdike,
Graham,
Wilson (Laval).


Mr. MARCIL:: I was paired with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty). Otherwise I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. CARVELL:: I was paired with the hon. member for York, N.B. (Mr. McLeod). Otherwise I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. KNOWLES:: I was paired with the hon. member for Comox-Atlin (Mr. Clements). Otherwise I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. TOBIN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Cromwell). Otherwise I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. McKENZIE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Stewart). Otherwise I would have voted against the motion.


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: I was paired with the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham). Otherwise I would have voted tor the motion.


Mr. BRADBURY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Cruise). Otherwise I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. COCKSHUTT:: I was paired with the hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). Otherwise I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. DAVIDSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll). Otherwise I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. WALKER:: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Lawrence (Mr. Bicker-dike). Otherwise I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. CROTHERS:: I was paired with the hon. member for West Kent (Mr. McCoigb Otherwise I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. THOBURN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. McCrea). Otherwise I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. SPEAKER:: May I be permitted to say that it is unnecessary for hon. members to mention that they are paired. The pairs all appear in Hansard, and it would save time if hon. members did not repeat them.




[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. Sir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime Minister) moved the third reading of Bill No. 133, the War-Time Elections Act.
Mr. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, with the strict application of the rules restricting debate in this House, this Bill has reached its final stage. I have followed the discussion with the most careful attention, and while listening to the advocates of this legislation I could not help recalling the words of Disraeli: "a conservative government is an organized hypocrisy." The right hon. the Prime Minister and other gentlemen who sit on the other side sought to convey the idea that this enactment was for the benefit of those very men who are going to be its victims. They also stated that the winning of the war required this, as it required the giving away by the friends of the Government of millions of the public money to the Canadian Northern. They protested in loud terms that no party consideration had been contemplated and no political benefits had entered into account in the introduction of that Bill.
Sir, if the Government does not expect or hope for another verdict as a result of the change they are effecting in our electoral law, why do they make the change at all? On the other hand, if they expect such another verdict resulting from such a change, I state that it constitutes 9. dishonest manipulation of the franchise in order to thwart and frustrate the will of the people.
The Secretary of State (Mr. Meighen) who has been given credit for this undemocratic legislation, after having already been the recognized father of the closure rules and other narrow Tory enactments, was more frank in his cynical admission that he expected the Conservative party to get the votes of such as are given the franchise by this Bill, and the Liberal party to lose the votes of those whose

rights are taken away. Sir, I like to believe that the Secretary of State was not speaking seriously; he did not do justice to himself. I have much admiration- for the talent of the Secretary of State, but I do not hesitate to- say that a man whose ethics and convictions would permit him to consider as justifiable the tampering with the election law of the country on the eve of -a general election in order to secure the return of his party, cannot be morally fit to occupy a prominent position amongst the rulers of this country.
This Bill is an expression of distrust on the part of the Government, distrust of themselves and distrust of the Canadian people. It is an admission that they lack the support and the confidence of the country; it is -an indictment ag-ainst themselves, and such an indictment only needs to be ratified by the people. The Government and its supporters are trying to get away from the judgment of those who have elected them and. who are their natural and regular judges; they desire to escape a great popular consultation; they want to be judged by a sort of family jury.
This Parliament is being compelled by the Government to enact a measure which is opposed to the most elementary principles of democratic government. It does away with this fundamental rule without which liberty cannot exist, namely, the equality of -all citizens under the law. One of the main -articles of the great charter for which the people of France fought in older days read:
"Every citizen has an equal -right to -participate in the formation of the law and to the appointment of its representatives and agents."
A representative parliament must properly and justly reflect the nation; it must receive and return the nature, the proportions, and the peculiarities of such nation. Every citizen of the country has a sacred right to ' his proportional share in the national representation. Those are not German principles, they constitute the doctrine of liberty, and it, is for the maintenance and conservation of such principles in the world that Canadian soldiers are to-day fighting in Europe.
This Bill shamefully destroys and takes away that equality and that proportional share which all -Canadian citizens are entitled to in the -administration of the affairs of Canada. The first main provision gives the suffrage to -all fern,ale relatives of soldiers, whether such soldiers -are dead or alive, are still in active service, or are dis-
charged -and again residents of this country. This is -class legislation-; it is the creation of -a military autocracy; it is the ve-ry oupo-site of what is done by all the free countries of the world. Honourable gentlemen opposite are indulging in rhetorical expressions regarding the noble sacrifice- of our -soldiers. Most -assuredly, we are proud of our soldiers; France also is proud of her soldiers; they are an army of heroes. Do you think, -Sir, the French soldiers are given -any controlling influence in civil affairs, in the parliamentary representation, in the elections of the representative body of the great republic? On the -contrary, no soldier and no member of the national army has the right to vote in an election whether in- peace or in war, except when on leave of absence for -a period of at least 30 days. And I am not aware that at any time this condition of things has ever been detrimental to the great effectiveness of the army. But the French people have made too many sacrifices, they have spilled their blood too freely for the conquest of liberty to surrender the rights of government to a military class or autocracy-, Here, in this country, we have given votes to all the soldiers, we have given votes to men who have never seen- Canada, who do not know any thing about the affairs of this country, and we are now enacting a measure that will give votes to 400,000 women, on account' of their relationship to those soldiers.
The Government is creating a situation which is fraught with grave and unexpected danger to the welfare of this- country. The civil power must predominate over the military power, and not be subjugated to- it. We -already see in the newspapers telegrams and written statements emanating from generals, colonels, and other military officers criticizing the actions of this Parliament, and giving direction or advice to the Canadian people on questions which are debated o-r discussed in this Parliament and before the people of this country. This is a state of affairs which would not be tolerated by any self respecting people in the world, and I do not hesitate to say that the right honourable the Prime Minister should have taken steps to put an end to that most improper indiscretion. A few months ago, one of the foremost generals of France had to resign as Minister of War as a result of an equivocal word which was construed as putting in question the rights of control of the Parliament over all that relates to the army. The rights of the people, the privileges of this Parliament must be safeguarded.

But what can we expect from this Government when they set the example and show an utter disregard of the authority of this Parliament. On the 1st of January, 1916, the Prime Minister issued a statement or proclamation ordering that the army of Canada would thereafter be raised to 500,000 men, and that was done a few days before the opening of the session of Parliament and without seeming to realize that it was pertaining to this Parliament to make such a decision, and not to the Prime Minister, however, distinguished he may be. A well settled line of difference must exist between the legislative and the executive power, as there must also be a line between the civil and military power. Canada shall not stand for any kaiserism and that is the reason why this Bill is so repugnant to the people in all parts of this county.
I have another objection to this provision granting the vote to the female relatives of soldiers. I am not a partisan of women suffrage as many gentlemen in this House seem to be. In the province from which 1 come, this new move does not get the general approval of public opinion. We have been taught to consider the woman ak a queen-the queen of the home-and we have always been afraid, rightly or wrongly, that by taking part in our bitter political contests, she should be exposed to lose some of that very delicate and superior respect that we all have for her.
But I am free to admit that in most of the other provinces of the Dominion, a strong current of public opinion is in favour of a woman suffrage, and that its being embodied in our electoral law cannot ^ be successfully opposed. What is most objectionable is the granting of the suffrage to one particular class of women. If the granting of the vote to women is done to recognize their services and their sacrifices, and as an act of gratefulness on the part of the State and the Canadian people, by all means do not make any uncalled for distinction, but grant it to all Canadian women, for they are all qualified for such recognition.
I now come to the other provision of the Bill, which is perhaps the most objectionable. You are going to deprive Canadian citizens, British subjects, of rights and privileges which they now possess and which have been granted to them by a ' solemn 'contract to which the people of Canada, as represented by this Parliament, was a party. And, you are going to do this, not because of any misconduct or any act of hostility on their part, but as a penalty for having had the misfortune
to be bom in countries which they have left to get away from oppression and tyranny and in order to accept our invitation to come and help build up this country and breathe the free air of liberty. Is this British fair play, is this Canadian justice?
Let me read the section of our statutes which deals with the rights that have been granted to those citizens:
Section 24 of chapter 77, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, reads as follows:
An alien to whom a certificate of naturalization- is granted shall, within Canada, he entitled to all political and other rights,^ powers and privileges, and he subject to all obligations, to which a natural-born British subject is entitled or. subject within Canada, with this qualification, that he shall not, when within the limits of the foreign state of which he was a subject previously to obtaining his certificate of naturalization, be deemed to be a British subject, unless he has ceased to be a subject of that state in pursuance of the laws thereof or in pursuance of a treaty or convention to that effect.
So that by receiving their naturalization papers they have been granted, unreservedly as far as this country is concerned, all the rights, political and others, which are being enjoyed by other Canadian citizens.
The hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Bennett) contended, and I was amazed to hear him bring forth such an argument-although one may expect almost anything from that great apostle of Toryism-the hon. gentleman contended that because our naturalization papers do not conifer the status of British subjects outside of Canada, our naturalized citizens cannot claim in this country all the rights 'and privileges pertaining to British subject citizens of Canada. I would like to know what the Minister of Militia Overseas (Sir George Perley), who is only a naturalized Canadian, as those we are dealing with are, thinks of such a doctrine.


Mr. R. B. BENNETT:: I suppose the hon. gentleman'is aware that Sir George Perley has been naturalized under the statute of 1916, and has world-wide naturalization?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: What difference does that make?
' Mr. E. LAPOINTE: That makes no difference in the line of my argument. Is it to be. supposed that because a third party refuses to recognize a convention entered into by two parties to a contract, any one of those two parties has the right to cancel the contract or to refuse to he bound by it? Surely this cannot be argued seriously.

Those whom you are going to disfranchise are free citizens of Canada and are entitled to alll the rights of the other British subjects in this country. They are subject to the heavy taxation which it will be necessary to impose on account of the scandalous expenditures for which this Government is responsible, they shall have to pay their share of the millions which will be paid for the valueless stock of the Canadian Northern Kailway Company, they and their children shall have to pay, for many years to come, their large share of the enormous sums of money and the many . obligations this country will have to meet as a result of our participation in this war. H et they will hereafter be refused representation in this Parliament; nobody will have the right to speak for them, and this House shall no longer be the true expression of the general will and of popular sovereignty.
I have only to isay in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, because I did not like to hear the sound of your gavel, and I wish to finish my remarks before you use it: The Government is expecting much of this Bill as an electoral scheme. I must admit, however, that some of their friends are not altogether sure of what may be the result. To a crazy ship all winds are contrary. It is always dangerous for a government or for a political party to play with the franchise. The people like fair play, they like an honest game, they favour a loyal fight between parties as between men, and I have enough confidence in the people of Canada as a whole to trust that they will strongly and effectively resent this last desperate act of a despotic government.


William Erskine Knowles: Mr. Speaker, having once taken our place in this great world struggle and having, as a people, approved, as we have approved, of the action of the Government in placing Canada by the side of the Mother Country in this great conflict, the question must always be present with us in the conduct of our public affairs: what is in the best interest of the carrying on of this great struggle? And all questions that are presented to us for solution must be brought to the bar of that test and decided in the light of whether they are in consistency with the purpose of this war and eonduciva to our maximum military effort in this great struggle.
When I spoke upon conscription, I endeavoured to address myself to the subject along that line, and I desire to ap-
proach this question to-day from the same viewpoint, to ask ourselves whether the Bill which the Government asks this House to endorse is one that is in the interest of Canada from the viewpoint of doing our utmost in. our way, small as it may be, to bring about victory and to relieve the suffering of the world in this great conflict. And in this connection I cannot but recall that in August, 1914, the two greatest Empires of the world classified themselves voluntarily, deliberately. The German Em. pire classified itself as a nation that was ready to pay a terrible price of money, blood .and sacrifice on the side of broken faith and broken pledges. The British Government had no selfish or material object in view, but it was ready to classify itself on the side of keeping its pledge, even if it cost, as it has cost, hundreds of thousands of lives, for no material, political or partisan gain, but simply because they believed that the name of England would ring down through the nations in disgrace if she did not stand by her pledge and by her plighted word. We have asked our soldiers to go to the front and shed their blood for nothing material, but for principle, and we .are still asking and will continue to ask them to do so. Many of them have fallen and it has been mine, as it has been yours, to walk in cemeteries in Flanders where thousands of our boys lie sleeping, and the only consolation is that they lie there because they loved principle more than material things, because they believed that the plighted word of England must be sustained, and that the honour of England must be kept high as it has been down through all the centuries before us. But now we in this country are asked to support a measure that takes the plighted word of Canada given in the name of His Majesty the King, and for no reason other than a miserable political reason tears into scraps of paper, not one treaty, but thousands, perhaps thirty thousand or forty thousand treaties and covenants, and in so doing we voluntarily classify ourselves in the same way as the Prussian Empire voluntarily classified itself in August, 1914. I have here the document which we hand to the man who gives to us the consideration for it, the oath of allegiance. That document reads:
This is therefore to certify to all whom it may concern, that under and toy virtue of the said Act "so and so" has become naturalized as a British subject, and is, within Canada, entitled to all political and other rights, powers and privileges.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Just read on.


William Erskine Knowles: The balance has no
cogency to my argument, but since the minister asks me to do so, I shall read it.
-and subject to all Obligations to which a natural-born British subject is entitled or subject.
The weakness of my hon. friend the Secretary of State is shown in the fact that he asks to have read something that is entirely irrelevant to my argument, and he knows it. We- have given to that man while in Canada, in the name of the King, -all rights, powers and privileges of a political nature in Canada; and to-day, while he is still in 1 Canada, the Government is taking those rights from him for no other reason than the same reason for which a robber will pillage things that do not belong to him, namely, for his own personal aggrandizement.
The record of these men -in this country who took ns at our word and made their treaty with us is one that can be studied with the closest criticism and scrutiny, and all the pages of the history of these men as a class in this war are free from any objectionable conduct on their part. From the very opening of this war they behaved themselves in an exemplary manner, and the Government has admitted this in the present debate. I go back to the -short session held in August, 1914, -and o-n page 14 of Hansard I find the following statement by the Prime Minister, dealing with the - native-born Germans 'and Austrians.
We have no reason to believe that those people are inspired by the militaristic tendencies which influence the German Government at the present time or the Austrian Government for that matter. We have no reason to doubt, and we do not doubt, that these people will be absolutely true to the country of their adoption.
In the succeeding session, 1915, on page 20 of Hansard, the hon. Prime Minister, speaking of the Austrian and German-born:
So far as the others are concerned, I repeat what I said in August last when we were considering matters connected with the war that those of German birth and those born in the Empire of Austria-Hungary who have come to this country to be citizens of Canada have with very few exceptions borne themselves worthily and well. I believe that I can speak with peculiar knowledge as to this, because it has been part of my public duty to make myself acquainted with their sentiments and with the part which they are taking at this juncture of our affairs.
Deliberately, in the month of February of the succeeding year, the Prime Minister repeated -the assertion which he made in August, 1914, and which I have just read to you. But it is not necessary to go -that
far back. We have the statement of the Pri-me Minister in this debate at page 5891 of Hansard:
I have not one word to say against the loyalty to Canada of these men.
And the Secretary of State said:
I am quite free to admit, that, taken all in all, those who come from alien enemy countries have, in the main, during the progress of this war, conducted themselves satisfactorily within lines of obedience to the laws of Canada. It is not based ^>n any complaint of that kind that 'the principle embodied in this Bill is adopted.
Therefore I say that they are tearing up the srap of paper, for no reason of -a national nature whatever. There is no suggestion seriously made that those who have come amongst us and made this country tbeir home are -anti-British in their feelings, and no suggestion that, at the polls, they will select men who do not wish to carry on the war. The thing is a falsity on the face of it. Those residents of western Canada are represented in this House, as has been said before, by bon. gentlemen who, irrespective of their party affiliations, have stood for the prosecution of this war to the utmost, and there is no suggestion that that is not the case. We have in Canada to-day unfortunately, many men who are far more against the win-the-war policy, as hon. gentlemen opposite, boas-tingly call it, or the carrying-on of the war policy, than are those naturalized citizens. We have men holding riotious meetings in certain parts of our country. We have certain men in the unions of Canada who have pledged themselves against conscription and they are quite within their rights in so doing. There are men who will come out in the open and say that they do not approve of the methods of the present Government in reference to conscription. There are stronger argument against some of the men I have referred to than against these men in the West, who have kept silent. We have Mr. Bourassa and his press, and we have friends of the Government, who have preached to the people, and the first precept they would teach them was that, on no account, should they	give	any aid to Great Britain,and	they	were discouraging people
from helping us in the present war.
But there is no suggestion of disfranchising Mr. Bourassa, or Mr. Lavergne, o-r any o-f the friends, or quondam friends, of this present Government. The fact of the mat+ ter is that these German and Austrian citizens, so far as I know, came from Europe to disassociate themselves from the conditions which prevailed in their own coun-

tries, and they would be the very last to be filled with enthusiasm for those conditions, or the militaristic power in Germany. I am convinced that their wish is that the military powers in Germany may be crushed and overthrown. That is my belief, from my knowledge of the men, and there is no desire on their part that kaiser-ism, or the militaristic powers of the German Empire should be sustained. If, in this election which is coming, this great struggle, these people were allowed to vote they would have given their support to those pledged to win the war, because the candidates of both parties in the West will be in favour of a continuance of the prosecution of the war. If it could have gone forth to the world that the new citizens coming amongst us were filled with the desire to perpetuate, and to make victorious Canadian and British principles, it would have been one of the grandest encomiums that could have been pronounced, and one of the greatest compliments that could have been paid to Canadian and British statesmanship. It would have 'been a message, even to the Kaiser himself, that his militaristic days were numbered, that even those people from his own country were sending to Parliament men who were supporting the Allies in the prosecution of the war.
There is no way in which this Bill can be justified. If the Government were to lay down either of two broad principles I would say they might justify the Bill. The first principle would be this: that none should have the franchise unless they were actively engaged in the war. That principle, of course, is not laid down, and it would mean a straight military electorate. The other principle which they might lay down is that no one who is against the Government should have a vote. The Austrians and Germans in western Canada do not, generally speaking, live in cities, 'and they are largely Liberals for the same reason that English-speaking people in t'he country are Liberals, because they believe in the Liberal policy. We have not very many naturalized Austrians and Germans in our cities. They do not have to naturalize, and the people in the country . must be naturalized, in order to get their homesteads, and over 95 per cent of the voting power of the native-born Austrian and Hungarian is a rural, or agricultural vote, and it is Liberal, not because of the war, but because it believes in the principles of Liberalism, and does not believe
[Mr. Knowles. 1
in the perpetuation of the high tariff power now in Canada. The hon. gentlemen are not manly enough .to adopt the great broad principle that Liberals should be disfranchised and follow up that 'broad principle, but they come here in this insidious way, in this solicitor general way-I use the word in this sense as an adjective-and they beat round the bush, they draw red herrings across the trail, they split hairs, they appeal to race and passion and everybody in the country knows that this is a Bill for the perpetuation and the relief of the Conservative party, first, last and all the time, and it has no justification therefore, in the national way, and the Government itself is ashamed of the Bill.
I look upon this Bill as a great peril to us. If we are to lay down the principle that a government that is in power can go behind the Bill of Rights, and1 the principles of the Magna Charta, and can say, " We believe we must be perpetuated and continued in power, and we will disfranchise people who would vote against us," then the democracy is destroyed, and any tyrant who would assume power in this country could continue to possess that power, if you are going to once allow the principle that he is to be lalble, to dictate as to who will vote. I view Ithe matter with the greatest alarm, and I Tegret that the Bill is going through Parliament, and I say to hon. gentlemen, opposite-to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), who, in my opinion, is not a bitter partisan-that it is unfortunate that through the passage of this measure the day will never come in Canada when the tyrant will look in vain for a precedent when he is desirous of putting, his autocracy and his tyranny into effect. The day will never come when the wolf will not be able to look upon other instances in which the lamb has been devoured. The day will never come when autocrats will not have a precedent for asserting the German principle that "might is right." It is a sad day for Canada when we must admit that the Government, notwithstanding the fact that our boys are falling in the fight for the maintenance of our principles and our honour, have put before principle, before the honour of the country, political expediency and the( serving of their own party purposes.


Mr. W. H. BENNETT:: Did the hon. gentleman approve the adoption by the Saskatchewan legislature of ia Bill to exclude from the right of voting naturalized Chinese persons in Saskatchewan, for which measure

the member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely) [DOT]voted?


William Erskine Knowles: That is a fair question;
I can only give a fair answer. As far as I know anything about it, I did not approve of it. I do not like the principle of it, but I never studied it; it was not my duty to do so. However, that has nothing at all to do with this question. This Bill is following the German principle that might is right, not the British principle that right should prevail.
You, Mr. Speaker, were a member of a group of persons-I myself was among them-who had the privilege of meeting a number of men, from South Africa, while we were for a month in Europe a year ago. You saw among them men who had fought m the Boer army against Great Britain; the Minister of Trade and Commerce also saw them. To-day those men are filled with undoubted loyalty to the Empire and to the British King. You were told, I doubt not, in conversation with them and with their English colleagues from South Africa,	that they were
won over beyond peradventure to the British Empire first and foremost because from Great Britain they had received a square deal; they had received freedom and liberry and justice, even while their hands were still warm from the butt of the rifle with which they had beer fighting the troops of [DOT] Ihe British Empire. That is what made South Africa, when the great test came :n 1914, loyal to the core as a British colony; it had learned from the British Empire the great principle, synonymous with British history, that men must have their rights; that the British subject, poor, humble, primitive as he may be, should not be denied his rights because the great, the powerful, the wealthy, the mighty, endeavour to disturb him in his enjoyment of those rights. I ain not afraid of any substantial difference being effected as against the Liberal party by the operation of this Bill, but I can only say that my heart is sick for my country when I think that there) are men in power who will force this iniquitous, vicious, un-British, Prussian Bill through the House simply because they want, to gain partisan advantage in the coming election.


Charles Marcil: Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this Bill. I do so on the ground that it is contrary to the general policy of Canada, contrary to her past history, contrary to her future interests. I have had the honour of sitting
many years in this House and of seeing men come in and go out. To say that the membership of the present Parliament is superior to that of the one which preceded it would be unfair-unfair to this Parliament as well as to the preceding one-and I shall not institute any comparison. But I doubt very much whether the men who laid down the basis of Confederation, with whose names every school boy is familiar, should have been led at any time to introduce a measure of this kind. Canada has been well styled the fairest and most brilliant of the daughter nations of the Empire. In the hosiery of the Empire Canada has played a most brilliant part, because in the framing of the Act of Confederation 'and in other legislation we have laid down precedents which are known and recognized throughout the whole of the Empire. The name of Canada stands high to-day throughout the world because she is inhabited by two of the great races now carrying on this war in the interests of humanity and civilization. If we look back to the elementary procedure introduced here by the British Government by the Acts of 1791, 1841, and 1867, we see that at all times Canadian statesmen, backed up by British authority and by the British statesmen who came to this country, were actuated by a desire to have in Canada perfect equality, to make sure that Canada should remain what it always has been, a loyal colony of the Crown. Canada has on many occasions given evidence of her loyalty,
4 p.m. but she has perhaps never done so in more striking manner than she has done since 1914. We all remember how this war burst upon us; how we were then enjoying a vacation in the summertime, thinking of anything but war. But when the call came; when it was announced that the Government of Canada had decided to send a division to the other side, Parliament was summoned-and let it be said to tlie credit of this House that not a dissenting voice was heard within its walls against all the measures submitted by the Government with a view to carrying on Canada's part in the war. That happy union which was effected in this House in . the month of August, 1914, was continued until the present session of Parliament.
Canadians are loyal to the Crown and to British institutions. They have shown that cn many occasions; they are still loyal. But, while they are loyal to British institutions, they have learned from the Britisn Constitution itself and from precedents



These are the men who saved the honour of the province of Quebec, and if other methods had been .adopted for the purpose of bringing about a larger recruiting percentage in that province, better results could easily have been achieved. Not long .ago I read a letter .addressed to the Prime Minister by Colonel Migmault of Montreal, who had been entrusted with the enlistment in the province of Quebec. When he returned from Europe he found that recruiting had fallen off, and he -said that during his absence fully 100,000 men had become employed in the munition .factories in the province, especially in and around Montreal, fulfilling contracts for war purposes. He gave this as his reason for the falling off of recruiting. They had been told that the man who worked in the munition factory, the man who worked on a government contract of .any kind for war purposes, was doing .as effective work .as the man in the trenches, .and the people of the province of Quebec had -acquired that idea. Outside of Montreal the people of .the province of Quebec are, for the mos t part .a f arming people. In my own constituency, for instance, they -are practically -all fishermen or farmers. How many of these men could leave Canada without bringing .about a loss to the country? They are all producers of food, .and they are all necessary in the country, and I know .the exemption tribunals which will sit in that part of the province will exempt the great majority of them on that ground, because their presence will be more valuable here than it will be on the other side.
I do not want here to indulge in any further criticism of the Bill. I condemn the whole principle of it, because I think it affects what Canadians should uphold as the most sacred part of our Constitution- the .sanctity of the ballot box. If we once admit that the fountain of power in this country were .setting a precedent which might be unfortunate for the country in future years, if the present Government for alleged reasons of war takes upon itself to disfranchise -a large class of citizens of Canada, and to enfranchise another class, what is there to- prevent another party, or even the same party, which may be in power -in future years, from doing the same thing at every general election, for other reasons? It is a mo.st unfortunate state of affairs, and I believe tar that reason it will be condemned throughout the country because it looks too much like a party measure which has not the support of the	whole House that it
should have had if it were a purely war TMr Marcil.]
measure. You have nodded to me, Mr. Speaker, that my time is up. I tliank you tar the patient hearing you have given me, and I conclude by saying that I know when the election day comes those women who are enfranchised in the province of Quebec and in the constituency which I represent will join us in bringing about the true condition of affairs which should prevail in this country, equal rights ta-r all and privilege to none.


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Edmonton):: Will not they rather be turned to some other country, to some other condition under which they can achieve that which they thought they had achieved when they landed on our shores? I do not see how it can be otherwise than that we have turned back in the minds of these people that course of sentiment that was bringing them on and on and building into them the ideal of Canadian citizenship. We are doing what we can to prevent them from ever adopting our ideals and becoming citizens with us in this country.
The inspiration of Ithe /Government is toeing well taken up by those who are supporting them throughout the country. I read in this morning's paper a despatch from' Regina which is as follows:
Regina, Sask., Sept. 13.-A deputation of army and navy veterans has heen appointed to go to Prussia, Saskatchewan, and demand that the Teutonic names of streets, such as Kaiser Wilhelm and Hanover, be changed to those of more British origin.
It can only be expected that the lead given by the Government will be followed by their supporters and that a course will be taken in these prairie provinces, such as has been taken in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. In the Prairie West ,we have had no collisions of any kind whatever, and our people have lived in harmony and amity, we now see introduced there, as a result of this legislation, and las a result of the policy of the Government, the same conditions that have prevailed in Ontario and Quebec. _
I say that this Government is committing a crime against Canada in the legislation that is now before the House, a crime the effect of which may be more far-reaching than any man can now see. And this legislation is being introduced by a Government which has been proclaiming far and wide for the past four or five months that it desired to govern Canada on non-partisan lines, that it desired a union government. And it is giving evidence of its good faith in desiring that Canada should have a union government in which there should be no parties and no divisions, where everybody should toe united, shoulder to shoulder in war effort, toy introducing a measure such as was never before introduced in the Parliament of Canada as a partisan measure; it is introducing a measure that goes far beyond the question of political partisanship to the question of disfranchising, decitizenizing, tens of thousands of the people of the country.
_ And this is the Government that wanted Ihonest Liberals to take share with it in ad-
ministering the affairs of Canada! We have heard across the floor of the House of the mutual bargainings between so-called Liberals on this side .and members of the Government on that, the bargainings as to the exchange of principle for place, in the name of patriotism, in the name of honour, in the name of loyalty. Well, it is a long. time since the man who was traitor to his principles had honour with the people. I think the same attitude of the public mind that prevailed 1,900 years ago and that has been handed down through all those centuries to the present time, will still regard the crime of Judas as the climax of villany.


Mr. G. W. KYTE (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, in the speech with which the Secretary of State (Mr. Meighen) presented this Bill to the House, he endeavoured to argue for its justification out of the precedent of similar legislation in Australia. I quote from his speech (Hansard, page 5725):
There has not occurred as yet in any great country engaged in this struggle ot unprecedented dimensions a general election. Where democracy governs nations in this war, it has not as yet left to individualism, >hy means of the ballot, the determination of the conduct of the war, save in one country alone. That country is Australia. When they were, in Australia, facing a situation such as we face to-day, but by no means as aggravated as ours, they prepared by legislation for the contest along lines similar to those of this Bill. They, however, disqualified for the war-time election all of their citizens who were of alien enemy birth, no matter how long they had been in Australia or how long they had been naturalized. This Bill does not go that far.
I endeavoured to get a copy of the Australian Act which was cited by the Secretary of State but have been unable to do so.


Arthur Meighen: I think the only copy
in Canada is in the possession of Mr. O'Connor, where the hon. gentleman may see it.


George William Kyte: with the Hon. Wallace Nesbitt, K.C., on behalf of and representing that niekle corporation. But, Sir, if more proof is wanted that there is a connection between this Government and the German interests that sought the nickel in Canada to manufacture into munitions to destroy the Canadian soldiers, all I need cite to the House is the fact that, when an investigation was demanded by the member? of this Parliament, both Liberals and Conservatives, as to whether or not Canadian niekle was [DOT]being shipped through the United States to Germany, the gentlemen appointed for the purpose of conducting the investigation in New York was Mr. Graham A. Bell, the comptroller of the Department of Railways and Canals. We have every confidence in the ability of Mr. Bell as a comptroller of the Department of Railways and Canals. But when it came to holding an inquiry into the operations of the German niekle trust and its associate companies in the United States and Canada, one would imagine, if this Government were sincere in their desire to get at the bottom of things, they would have selected another gentleman instead of Mr. Bell to carry on the investigation.


Mr. STEVENS:: I rise to a point of order. The matter which the hon, gentleman is discussing is not relevant to the question before the House.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Rainville):: I thought the hon. gentleman was getting away from the subject before the House, and I was going to ask him if he proposed to use the statements he is making as an argument against the third reading of the Bill.


George William Kyte: I have sometimes the habit of getting away from the matter under discussion, and I also have a habit of coming back to it. I propose coming back to it, now. I made this statement to the House for the purpose of showing that, if this Gov. eminent is anxious to follow the precedent set by Australia in matters of legislation, it is unfortunate they did not follow the precedent set by Australia in dealing with the German interests in that country. I pointed out that the War-Times Election Act in Australia was passed by a non-party Government. I am not sure as to the date on which that Act was passed, but if it was not passed by a coalition government, it has to be enforced and applied by a coalition government. Non-partyism is the very essence of success in war measures. The Government of Australia may be justi-
tied in passing the War-Time Elections Act which has been referred to, because eve, since the war broke the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia has been concerned exclusively with the passing of war measures. That is not the case with respect to this Government. While we have been uniting our energies for the purpose of carrying on the war, and devising legislation best calculated to direct all our resources and energies to the carrying on of the war, the Government has not been content to limit its legislative activities to war measures. This Government has placed party legislation before war legislation for the last three years. If this Government-had confined their legislation exclusively to war measures, they might be justified under the circumstances in passing such a disfranchising Act as we have under consideration at the present time. Instead of confining the legislation to war measures, this Government in the session of 1915, passed an Act for- the purpose of increasing the tariff and reducing the British preference. That was an issue upon which the parties in this House might well divide, as parties in this country are divided upon this question. They passed the income tax during the present session of Parliament, which is a ,substitution for the excess war profits tax, which has Ipeen in operation for the last two years. Party opinion is divided upon the wisdom of terminating the war profits taxation at the end of the present year, and (Substituting therefor an income tax, which will relieve the friends of the Government who have made huge profits during the war of a large proportion of the taxation which ought to go to swell the revenues of the country. The electors of this country who are disfranchised under this legislation will be debarred from passing judgment upon these party measures which the Government passed during the last three years, under the guise of war measures. Again, the electors who will be disfranchised by this Bill will be prevented upon expressing their opinion on other legislation which has been passed by the Government. There is the legislation with reference to the Canadian Northern railway, which involves >an addition to our burden of some $600,000,000, and a payment of at least $30,000,000 at a time when the resources of our country and the ingenuity of the Minister of Finance are taxed to the utmost to procure money for necessary war purpo ses.
Then there is the legislation which transferred the Quebec and Saguenay railway to

the Government. We had under discussion a few evenings ago an item of nearly $4,000,000 passed toy this Parliament in defiance of the judgment of Sir Walter Cassels, judge of the Exchequer Court of Canada. These matters the electors who are now disfranchised by the Bill before us will be unable to vote on.
There is another question in which the people are vitally interested and upon which they should be permitted to express their opinion. I refer to the failure of the Government to deal with the high cost of living and the fixing of the price of food products-matters which have been dealt with successfully by the governments of every other belligerent country. The Government hope to get by with everything done by them against the public interest, every failure on their part to properly perform their duties, by this legislation under which they purpose disfranchising 50,000 people in this country. All these' things are done under the guise of war measures- all because we are at war. When the exnMin-ister of Public Works resigned his portfolio on August 20, the folowing statement appeared in the newspapers:
While Mr. Rogers was favourable to the original scheme of coalition government and to conscription, he is known to very strongly oppose the idea of union government on the lines now proposed. There was also a marked divergence of opinion on the question of disfranchising citizens of enemy nationality. The former minister insisted that it should be done. Sir Robert Borden would not agree to such a proposition, which he characterized as "ruthless."
This legislation shows that the member for Winnipeg (Mr. Rogers) is more powerful outside the Cabinet than he was inside. He failed to convince the Prime Minister that this ruthless legislation should be carried by the Government through Parliament, but he has since succeeded in getting the Prime Minister to introduce it into the House. It is generally suspected that the resignation of the ex-[DOT] Minister of Public Works does not place him very fax from the realm of influence with the Government; it is the general view that he is as competent to-day and as influential with the Government as ever he was. The ex-Minister 'of Public Works resigned because the Prime Minister would not give his consent to the disfranchising Act. We have now before us the ruthless legislation which the Prime Minister bad refused to accede to, but which has been acceded to -since the ex-Minister of Public Works left the Government.


Mr. D. B. NEELY (Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to repeat in substance the arguments that I -advanced against this Bill the other day on its second reading-arguments having mainly to do with the injustice accorded by the Government to a large number o.f the citizens of Canada, particularly of western Canada, who -are to be disfranchised by this Bill. This -afternoon I w-ant to view the question from -another standpoint: that of the breach of faith on the part of this Government with the members on this side of the House, especially those -from western Canada, who supported the Military Service Act, which is now the law of the country.
I am sorry that the Prime Minister is not in his seat, because I wish directly to charge him with breach of faith. The Military Service Bill was carried with the -aid of twenty-seven Liberals who voted with the Government. In voting as they did, the western Liberals voted as representatives o-f the people whom this Bill now proposes to disfranchise, namely, naturalized British subjects in Canada of alien enemy birth or extraction. If the Government thought that we were casting an honest and sincere vote on that occasion, then -they are open to the charge of having broken faith with those who supported them on the Military Service Bill. We by our votes stood sponsors for the people whom the Government now proposes to disfranchise. The Government are declaring to the country that they have no faith in 5 p.m. the word or -the vote of the men who stood sponsor for this large class of citizens in western -Canada. That being the case, I should like to have ask^d the Prime Minister, had he been in his seat, what was the reason of this change of front. So far -as I know, not a member on this side of the House from western -Canada who voted for the Military Service Bill has been consulted -as to the effect the legislation now under consideration would have either upon their own constituents or upon the people as a whole. I should like to [DOT]hear from the Prime Minister the reason why in this measure he casts an insinuation and -a slur upon the honesty and -sincerity of members on this side of the House who voted for the Military Service Bill and who at the same time stood sponsors f-o-r the class of citizens whom this present Bill proposes to disfranchise? Was it because of certain resolutions that were adopted -at the Winnipeg Liberal convention on the 7th and 8th of August last that the Government have made this change of front? Some very dm-

portant resolutions were adopted at that convention. One was a resolution condemning the Borden Administration because during three years of war it had carried on Canada's part in the war as a purely partisan proposition. That resolution I shall now read to the House, so that hon. gentlemen may judge for themselves whether or not the Liberals of western Canada were justified in adopting it. The resolution is:
This convention of the [Liberals of the four western provinces of the Dominion assembled for the purpose of assisting in the solution of the many serious problems facing Canada at the present crisis feels compelled to place on record its most severe disapproval of the war administration of the Borden Government.
War is essentially the business and concern of the entire nation and- not of any section, class or political party. It can be waged to the greatest advantage only when behind its prosecution all classes of its people are enlisted in the same passionate determination to defend the' right, and triumph over the forces of despotism and unrighteousness.
Any attempt to arrogate to one section of the people or one political party a monopoly of its prosecution and the prestige of the conduct of a national struggle for freedom and exist-' ence can be characterized only as base and unworthy in the highest degree.
Because the Borden Government has sought from the outset to make our national life and death struggle a prerogative of one political party, to the exclusion of one-half of the Canadian people, and an instrument for selfish political advantage rather than the triumph of national ideals, because it has exhibited gross incompetence and inefficiency in the face of national peril; because it has substituted partisan selfishness for honour and fair dealing; because dissension has overcome leadership in its councils, and weakness and vacillation have taken the place of firmness, resolution, courage and efficiency in execution, we condemn it as no longer entitled to the confidence of the Canadian people.
Is there a line or a word in that resolution that is not absolutely justified by the history of Canada's participation in this great struggle for the last three years? The Prime Minister has himself condemned his own administration quite as much as the western Liberals do in the resolution which I have just read. Why has he been in conference week after week and month after month with Liberal leaders from the West and othpr parts of Canada for the purpose of forming a national government, if partisan government was not contrary to the interests of Canada in her war efforts? I say that the conduct of the Prime Minister for months past, since he made his first proposal of coalition to the right hon. leader of the Opposition, verifies in every line and every sentence the resolution against the Borden Administration passed by the Liberal Winnipeg, convention.

Does the Prime Minister, or any man on that side of the House, say for one moment that Canada's efforts in the war up to the present time have not been conducted on a party basis? If they were to deny that fact, the country would simply laugh at them. Even in connection with the proposal of coalition that was made to the right -hon. leader of the Opposition, there had to be announced a policy which, in days to come, future Conservative leaders in this country could say was a Conservative policy, and that that policy had saved Canada's efforts in the war. I repeat that that resolution passed by the Winnipeg Liberal convention is verified to the fullest extent by what the Prime Minister has said and done with regard to forming a so-called national government after three years of party government during this great struggle.
There was another resolution passed at that convention which seems to have exercised the Tory press and the Tory political leaders throughout Canada to a very great extent. It was a resolution which I am proud to say I had the honour of proposing to the convention, and which received its unanimous support. It was the win-the-war resolution.
home hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


David Bradley Neely: I know this is bad medicine for some hon. gentlemen opposite, but they may as well take it; they are going to get it anyway. There has been a great deal of criticism, on the part of Conservative newspapers and Conservative leaders throughout the country because a certain, amendment proposed by the hon. member for [DOT] Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) to the win-the-war resolution was not agreed to by the convention. It was an amendment proposed to the second clause of the resolution. I do not wish to put on Hansard the whole clause, but will just read clause 2:
By the maintenance, in unimpaired strength at the front, of our fighting forces, and the taking of all steps necessary to secure the required reinforcements for this purpose.
My hon. friend from Assiniboia moved on the floor of the convention to amend that by adding the words "by compulsion, if necessary."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


David Bradley Neely: Before you rap the gavel, Sir, I hope you will take this unseemly interruption into consideration.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I will give the hon. member full credit for any interruptions, but I might point out that I think he is going

rather far afield. The question before, the House is the third reading of the War-time Elections Act.


David Bradley Neely: My point is this-in this War-time Elections Act the Government have broken faith with the men on this side of the House who supported the Military Service Bill, .and I am asking the reason why. I am asking whether or not these resolutions of the Winnipeg convention were the foundation for this change of front on the part of the Government. My hon. friends opposite applauded too soon. I want to tell them that before the Liberal members of this Parliament went to the Winnipeg convention they had a conference in the precincts of this House, and passed certain win-the-war resolutions, which were supposed to he the basis of a resolution that we hoped would be adopted by the Winnipeg convention. In that resolution, which was given to the press by my hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), there was not a single word of reference to compulsion or conscription, except that the idea was implied, just as it is implied in the win-the-war resolution passed by the Winnipeg convention. We reached that understanding by common agreement. I am sure hon. gentlemen will not question the good faith of my hon. friend from Red Deer on this point, who I am sorry is not in his seat to confirm what I say. But he was the man who in our little caucus in the precincts of this House was absolutely set and opposed to having the word compulsion or conscription in a win-the-war resolution, because he said the object should not be to emphasize the idea of compulsion or conscription, but to emphasize the idea of national service. It was because of that agreement reached by the Liberal members of this House who voted for the Military Service Bill, that the word compulsion or conscription was deliberately kept out of the resolution, although the idea was implied in it. I have the resolutions adopted by the so-called Conscriptionist Liberals in this House before the Winnipeg convention was held. On that basis the Resolutions Committee of the Winnipeg Liberal convention agreed unanimously on the win-the-war resolution, with the exception that my hon. friend from Assiniboia moved his amendment in committee. He could not find a seconder, however, because every member of that committee, every conscriptionist member of that committee, felt that the resolution covered everything that was necessary to secure Canada's maximum effort for the winning of the war.
In moving his amendment the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) deliberately -I will not say maliciously, because you would rule me out of order, Sir-broke faith with his colleagues in this House and with his colleagues on the Resolutions Committee in Winnipeg, when he went on the floor of the convention and moved his amendment to the second clause of the win-the-war resolution. His amendment could not be accepted, for the reason that we could not submit to its implication that we were passing a win-the-war resolution which did not mean everything it said. If that resolution is the reason why the men on this side of the House who voted for the Military Service Bill are to have a large number of their constituents disfranchised, then I say we have obtained a very raw deal from the present Government.
Mr. MoCREA: What else could you expect?


David Bradley Neely: In my judgment, the present measure negatives the sincerity of every effort that has been made by the Prime Minister in the weeks >and months gone by for the formation of a National Government in this country, because the right hon. gentleman knows that he cannot secure representative men from western Canada at all events to enter his Government and pass such a measure as this and put it on the statute books. It is true he may secure the support of certain members on this side of the House, but they are very few, and I want to say further, that if they are so secured, those men no longer represent Liberalism in this House or in the country, because they not only have voted with the Government on the Military Service Bill, but they have voted with the Government to force through Parliament by closure every autocratic measure they could devise. I say these men have ceased to be representatives of Liberalism in this House or in this country, and a Government that in-f eluded them would in no sense be representative of the great Liberal party throughout Canada. To my mind the effect of this measure has negatived the sincerity of the efforts of the Prime Minister to secure what he calls union or national government. The first blow he gave to that movement was when he sent Sir Clifford Sifton West to mobilize the sentiment of western Canada in favour of the proposition of a national government. I am told that that hon. gentleman had even portfolios in his pocket which he was prepared and authorized to submit to certain western leaders if they

could be secured for the formation of a national government.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman's statement is absolutely inaccurate. I did not send Sir Clifford Sifton West; he went entirely of his own initiative, and so far as I am aware he had not the promise of any portfolio to any one.


David Bradley Neely: The country will be very glad to know that, because the people failed to understand why preceding that Winnipeg convention Sir Clifford Sifton made it a point to gor West and make the speeches he did. Evidently he had the blessing of the Prime Minister, if he had not his actual endorsation or authority. I may tell you that the West has no use for Sir Clifford Sifton. The people believe he betrayed them in 1911, and so far as he is concerned the West is short on faith and long on memory. I think I have almost reached the limit of my time, although there were some interruptions. I presume there is no hope the present Government will abandon this measure. I wish to- say to this House that I go back to my constituents with shame and sorrow in my heart.
So-me hon. MEMBERS:	Oh, oh.


David Bradley Neely: That is the way with ho 1. gentlemen opposite. They often go off at ha'f cock. I go to my constituents with shame and sorrow in my heart that any representative body -of men in Canada, let alone this Parliament, should mete out to innocent men such a measure of injustice as this Bill proposes. The people I speak for are in every respect law-abiding citizens, who have given freely of their substance for war effort, and who- have refused no form of national service; nevertheless they are disfranchised, and their political rights are taken -away without any pretext that hides a purely partisan motive. I make iny protest, and if it were the last word I should speak in this Parliament-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


David Bradley Neely: -but it is riot going to be, and hon. gentlemen need not worry about that. If it were the last word I were to speak in this Parliament I would declare that this measure is unjust, unBritish, autocratic, and damnable to theyery last degree..


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Take it back.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think the hon. gentleman should- withdraw the last adjective. It is not properly used.


David Bradley Neely: Then, I withdraw it, but
I looked in Webster and I find the meaning of the word " damnable " is " worthy of condemnation."


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It would he -better to
use the expression " worthy of condemnation."


David Bradley Neely: Therefore, to make my protest effective, I beg to move the following amendment:
That the said Bill be not now read a third time, but that it be again referred to the Committee of the Whole with instructions that they have power to amend it by eliminating from it all such provisions as tend to remove the franchise from any class of His Majesty's subjects who are now qualified electors according to the laws of the province in which they reside.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The question is on the
amendment.


Mr. GAUTHIER (Saint-Hyacinthe) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, I shall improve the twenty minutes, allowed to us by the ruies of this House to express my views upon the Bill now under discussion, and also upon the proposed amendment. I shall make my observations as concise as possible and I wish to enter my most formal protest against this piece of legislation submitted to us.	-
To give emphasis to the views I entertain, I may say that the present Bill is the last bom of a whole family originating and conceived in the most absolute iniquity; that it is worthy of its authors and also that it does not disown its elders.
The Bill under discussiion is iniquitous by the fact it grants the electoral franchise as it does. It is doubly iniquitous because, it takes away that same franchise from those who now are entitled to -it. Let me use the comparison which has already been instituted on several occasions in this House. It has been said that the franchise legislation laid before this Parliament would be worthy of the German Kaiser. I think it is doing -an injustice to the Kaiser, to compare him to this Government.
The German Kaiser, Mr. Speaker, fights in broad day-light; he sticks to the conviction that in order to maintain -his Empire, might conquers right; he does not -hide himself, but fights in the open. And to show to what extent he is imbued with that doctrine, he does not fear to take the offensive. For that principle, he struggles, although the majority of -his people complain that the populations are dispersed, the territories devastated, but he, the emperor of Germany, knowing that this

principle is at the very root of his power, scoffs at the civilized world and faces, so to say, the whole world. He has let loose upon mankind a beast which he had unmuzzled and it will require the united efforts of civilization to overcome the ferocious animal Now, Mr. Speaker, is there not some grandeur in that act?
Everyone hopes that Prussianism, such as it has been created by the Kaiser and those who surround him, shall be some day crushed; but we must nevertheless give it that credit that it fights for a principle and that it has the courage of facing its enemies.
Now, what do we see in this House? The most iniquitous measures, the most unjust and the most outrageous to the liberty of the citizens, are introduced into Parliament and in what way? As the sponsor for such ,a Bill, they pick out the man with the softest, the mellowest voice, a real eunuch's voice, might I say to express its full justness and sweetness. Well! I shall denounce that Act for just what it is. It is the worst legislation ever submitted to this Parliament. The Alsatians and the Lorraines have had to bear the yoke of Germany during forty-seven years; they have incessantly longed for the coming of the French armies and, in this heroic war, overflowing with memorable facts, no action has gone more quickly to the heart than that visit of General Joffre to Alsace and Lorraine, at the head of his victorious armies. That illustrious (general thought he could do nothing better than to put a kiss upon the burgomaster's cheek, saying: "This kiss I give you, I give it to you in the name of France-you will again become French."
Well, Mr. Speaker, is it not pushing irony to its extreme limit to say to these gentlemen who originally came from Alsace and Lorraine, who bear impressed on their features and in their hearts that nobleness characteristic of the French race: "You are German subjects and, by virtue of this Act, you no longer have any voice in Canada's business management." Is it not the same for the Slavs and the Moravians, whose fellow citizens are still groaning under the yoke of Austria-Hungary? Their eyes and their hearts are turned towards the Allies, .anxiously expecting the blessed hour of deliverance; but because they are weighed down under the foe's oppression, are they to be denied their rights? And what is to be said of the Italians born in the Trentino or Triest? At her very entering into the conflict, Italy sent her armies towards these provinces; her soldiers crossed the Alps and sprang to the relief of their brothers crushed under the yoke of Austria-Hungary.
Technically, they are our foes, but all their aspirations, all their hope rest upon the Allies' victory. These are the people you are treating as enemies, by disfranchising them, and that for the only reason that Providence has willed that they be born within a territory that happened to be under the domination of Austria-Hungary. Mr. Speaker, this is an iniquity from beginning to end, but I may immediately add that it does not surprise me.
The Government are to-day forging the last link of the chain around their necks and we intend to use that chain, not to strangle them, but to drag them before the bar of public opinion. In spite of all the Prussian laws and -all the iniquities committed by the authors of those laws, which have no other object but the muzzling of the people, public conscience will rise; there will be a start among the people and the Government will pay the penalty for the injustice they are to-day committing by disfranchising citizens whose only wrong is of having been born in enemy territory. These citizens, anxious to have a place under the sun of freedom, went into exile and came to our shores, trusting our rulers' good faith when they told them, through their agents, that, should they comply with certain obligations, they would enjoy the same privileges as the' native Canadians. They wanted to escape from a tyrannic government, and believing that freedom reigned here, they came over to Canada.
They have found it so, they have had it until now. When they decided to leave their native land in order to enjoy liberty, they Came and settled here in order to help us in developing Canada; but they will find out that, even in Canada, there are still people who do not hesitate in laying their hands upon individual liberty, and denying to citizens of this country their rights. Why? Because, in certain quarters, it is believed that those people might vote against the Government.
Mr. Speaker, if the present Government had the courage of the German Kaiser, to whom its members have been compared, they would have framed a very simple Bill; an explicative clause, and then an organic one.
The explicative section would have stated: the word "person" means the whole male and female population of Canada;
Section first and only section: "Every person believed to be in favour of the Government shall have the right to vote and all the others shall be denied that right."
It is plain sailing, as you see. But no, that would have smacked too much of Prus-

sianism; and these gentlemen have a refined Prussianism of their own.
They want to hefool the people they are about to disfranchise, into the belief that they are doing them an actual service by denying them the franchise; those, at least, who have approved or condemned the Administration who are about to go before the country, they had the right to vote, and that right is taken away from them. Why are they denied their franchise? Ah, Sir, for a very simple reason: the Government wants to stand by the Tory doctrine. The Tory party believe , they have the absolute right to rule mankind; it is their divine right to administer, public affairs and when, unfortunately, they are turned out of office, we all recall their meanings and their groanings. Had they both the courage and the power, they would enact that never must the Liberal party aspire to administer the affairs of the country, because the country's affairs, just as its citizens, must be the absolute property of the Tory party. And the present Bill only reflects the light which strikes those who are now ruling us.
Mr. Speaker, the women of this country, who did not ask the franchise, have it given to them. Upon what principle? Is it to replace the soldiers' vote? Oh, no! If however, they had said: every man who has risked his life to go and defend the country, to fight for the triumph of Liberty, Justice *and Civilization, should have a proxy in order that, when the day of voting shall come, he may be heard from and, if he has made the supreme sacrifice and his body hes buried somewhere in the soil of old Europe, that he may have a proxy who /vill express, in his name, his approval or his disapproval of the Government we have had for the past six years.
Not only shall the soldier vote, but all the women of his family are enfranchised. The Government are carrying things to such extremes that they do not hesitate to enact class legislation; the Government, instead of enacting have from the standpoint of public interest are resorting to expedients in order to get another lease of power.
Had I the time to do it, Mr. Speaker, I using the language which you seem to understand so well, I should like to emphasize, the comparison I wish to institute with regard to these hon. gentlemen.
Every man, on his deathbed, looks back to his past life, with remorse and regrets his errors; the adulterer remembers with distress the wrong done to his wife; the thief laments having taken his neighbour's

goods; the drunkard remembers with sorrow the ruin he has heaped up during his lifetime, the wrong done to his wife and children, and on his dying bed, he wishes he could get a longer lease of life and turn over a new leaf.
There is only one being in the world who, upon his dying day, is impervious to remorse. It is the gambler. He also regrets iife, not in order to change his ways for the better, should he begin life over again, but that he might again feel all hlis heartstrings quiver, all his fibres move and feel the full delight of handling the gold he risks and of heaping tup the gold he wins from his gaming companions.
The Government is like unto the gambler. The Government is impervious to remorse for, to feel remorse, one must have a conscience, iand this Government has no conscience, it can have no remorse. I say that this Bill shows it to the eyes of the people such as it actually is and far from demanding that it be voted down and thrown out or amended, I say: Let it stand such as it is, let it be crystallised into law, and the [DOT]future generations will say that, in the year of our Lord 1917, this country was unfortunate in being ruled by an Administration steeped jo Toryism to an extent unprecedented in the history of this country.


Mr. ETHIER (Two Mountains) (translation) :: soldiers, and lastly, others again have given their time and their energy for the success of ail kinds of works in order to relieve the Belgians, the French, in the regions laid waste, as welle as the Poles and the Serbians. Is it not unfair, Mr. Speaker, to refuse them a privilege which is granted to others?
By virtue of the second part of this Bill, British citizens are deprived of their right to take part in the -country's affairs, a right they had -acquired by their labour, -and that because they fear that the great majority of those -voter-s -might declare theim-selves against the present -Government. That Act, Mr. Speaker, is worthy of -another -country than the one we live in. It is not in conformity with the liberties of which the British flag is the emblem. To judge such an A-ct -at its value, we mu-st recall that the citizens wh-o -are to be 'disfranchised- came into this -country more than fifteen years ago, that they -have -contributed to its development by their labour, and moreover that, since their -coming here, they have contributed their full -share to the -administration's expenditure and to the w-ar expenditure. But you do not -hesitat-e to -commit su-ch an injustice.
Air. RAINV-IDL-E (presiding) (translation) : I wish to point out to the hon. member that Parliamentary procedure demands that he -address himself to the -Ch-air.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: Mr. Speaker, by depriving these citizens o-f their right to vote, the Government are in direct contradiction with the Act they caused to be passed in 1914 concerning naturalization. -In 1914, the Government saw fit to -amend the Naturalization Act -by stipulating th-at the period of residence required fro-m an alien should be five in-stead of three years, if I remember well; -and, on the other hand, wishing to give these -aliens mere extensive rights, it was provided-what -did not exist in the Naturalization Act-that, in the future, all citizens naturalized under -this Act would have al-1 the rights of British citizens throughout the British E-m-pire. To those people, who have -been naturalized for three years-, were given -the rights of Imperial -citizens -and it is those very rights they want to take away from them to-day.
Those who have become naturalized have taken the oath of allegiance, they have sworn fealty to the King of England. But, if these -gentlemen have taken an oath, they have the right, in return, that the pledge given by the British -Crown-when the civil courts granted their request by which they
[Mr. Ethier.l
asked to become British citizens-they have the right, I say, to expect that the pledges made by the British Crown be respected. What is that pledge? The very text which the judge reads, in His Majesty's name, to the naturalized citizen, is -as follows:
This is therefore, to certify to all whom it may concern that, under and by virtue of the said Act, the said A. B. has become naturalized as a British subject and is, within Canada, entitled to all the political and other rights, powers and privileges, and subject to all obligations to which a natural-born British subject is entitled.
What do they now do with that pledge? They go -back o.n it, they repudiate it, they treat it -as -a scrap of paper. It is worthy of the Teuton -spirit, it is worthy of the Boche -spirit, which seems to -especially animate, for some weeks past, the hon -members opposite and the present -Cabinet. Mr. -Speaker, i-3 it fair to disfranchise 50,000 citizens who will not have the -advantage of being able to -say, when -the people of the Dominion will ibe called- upon to judge the Government, that they condemn the methods which have characterized the present Administration and especially the Militia Department, since the inception of the war?
With their "Win-tbe-W.ar" -cry, the Government believe they can make the electorate forget all their turpitude since 1911; they thi-ruk they can th-us -cause the people to forget all the scandals which have -m-arked their passing upon the ministerial benches an-d- which have defiled Canad-a's political history; but the electorate will have their revenge.
Will those whom you are disfranchising be -called upon to pay the $600,000,000 which the -Government has borrowed to meet the war liabilities? Will those forty or fifty thousand disfranchised -citizens be asked to pay the income tax which the Minister of Finance has put in the -statute hooks during this sess-io-n? Will they be exempted from paying the -pension funds to the families of th-e soldiers who have fallen -on the fields of honour and for the disabled soldiers- now returned or f-or those who will -come -back after the war?' No, and yet -all their rights are taken away from them. They take away th-ei-r right to -say what they think of the present Administration, -and still they will compel them to pay.
There is -another -clause in the Bill- which i-s also an iniquity, that which says that the -man who will not -answer the call, under the -Compulsory Military Service Act-, will -lose his Tight to vote.
Yes, this is another iniquity of the reign of terror, of the reign of despotism and( in

-spite of the efforts of my hon. friend, the member for Three Rivers (Mr.' Bureau), the Government would not listen to his suggestions, they bring us back to the Elections Act previous to 1896, to the old institution of revisors which the Laurier Government had -abolished. However, the Franchise Act -has better operated in the country since 1896 than under the old Chap-leau Act.
Instead of leaving the preparation of this list, created by this nefarious Bill, in the hands of -competent persons, such -as the municipal secretary-treasurers-I refer to the province of Quebec

an. enumerator -shall be needed-, not only in every voting district, but in e-very polling division, as stated in section 42 t(l) of the Bill as amended.
This section 42 (1) reads as- follows:
Subject to the provisions of section 65A of this Act, -the Governor in Council may appoint enumerators in each province to make lists of the electors in each electoral district, and the returning officer of each electoral district shall assign one of such enumerators to each polling division therein: by inserting between the words "such" and "appointments" in the first line of subsection (2) of said section the words "or sufficient", and by striking out of the ninth line of said subsection (2) of said section the words ''one or more polling divisions" and inserting instead the words "polling division by striking out from the fourth line of subsection (1) of section 46 the words "or each of the polling divisions" and by adding as subsections (2) and (3) to said section the following.
It is evident that the returning officer, who will be -a creature of the Government, will -appoint -an enumerator of his own -choice, who may him-self operate the machinery to suit 'his taste, in the hands of his creatures-and they -call that "fair pl-ay." Thus, in the rural counties, if there is one with four polling divisions, there will be four enumerators. The provincial Act works well; the federal Act has worked well sin-ce 1896, and the preparing of the lists w-a-s in the hands of th-e se-cretary-treasn-rers. In the province -of Qnebec, in September, the secretary-treasurers have completed the electoral list for every polling division. From September 15 to 30, those w-ho find they have been wronged may -complain, have the required corrections made -and the municipal council, after September 30, if there are any -complaints, must revise the electoral list, from October 1 to October 15. This co-sts nothing to the country And if. is done -by -competent -parties. You know those facts, Mr. Speaker.
Upon the whole, I say that this iniquitous and unjust Bill will be a cause for -corruption in the making o-ut of the lists -and in the application of this Act.
Mr. Speaker, I bow down, my time is up,
I -am done.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. E. PROULX (Prescott):: Mr. Speaker, when this war was declared, about three years ago, all classes in this country responded to the call of the Government to enlist and go across the ocean to help Great Britain and her Allies. There was no distinction of race or creed in the call or in the response. No opposition was offered by any party in this country to the participation of Canada in the war. When the first war session was called in August, 1914, the Liberal party unanimously supported the policy of the Government and voted the money -asked for by the Government to equip, organize and send the troops across the seas. Now the Government propose to disfranchise some of the people who responded to that call. If they did not answer the call by enlisting, they answered it by contributing generously to the Patriotic Fund, the Red Cross Fund, -and other patriotic works. Shortly after the outbreak of -the war I remember hearing the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) express his belief that people of Austrian -and German extraction would be loyal to the British flag and to the country of their -adoption. Nothing has happened since to change that opinion and belief of the Prime Minister. There have been no acts committed by those subjects whom this Bill -seeks to disfranchise to lead Parliament to believe that they do not deserve the rights of British citizens. I had always believed that citizenship carried with it the right and privilege of the suffrage. The first case which determined that point, as 1 remember, was the case of Ashby vs. White. In that case an elector was refused the right to cast his vote, by a returning officer, and he sued the returning officer for the restitution of his right. Under the common law in England it was decided that there was no infringement of rights without a remedy, and the court rendered judgment against the deputy returning officer, and declared that the right of the elector had been infringed, because British citizenship carries with it the right of determining who shi.il govern the country, and how its affairs

shall be administered. Some of the subjects whom it is proposed to dispossess of the franchise came to Canada fifteen, twenty-five or thirty years ago. They did not all become naturalized immediately. Some of them came from the United States. They had been Americanized before they were Canadianized. They had learned the benefits and blessings of representative . institutions. They had agreed to respect the American constitution and then afterwards the Canadian constitution, which is framed on the British constitution. They have worked for and increased the wealth of their adopted country. They had been invited by this Government to come here in large numbers. The countries of Europe were scoured tyy our immigration agents to find people to come and settle the unsettled plains of the western provinces. Now, Mr. Speaker, for political purposes, for the purpose of retaining power, the Government propose to infringe the most sacred rights of citizenship and to disfranchise a large class of people who have shown themselves to be loyal, who have shown that they love the country of their adoption, and .some of whom have offered their services as soldiers in the armies of the Allies. Those who have not offered their services have given largely of their means to help the cause. I remember that when it was rumoured that a Franchise Bill would be presented by the Government to disfranchise a certain number of people in this country, one of the principal organs of the Government, the Montreal Gazette, discouraged the Government from bringing such a measure before the House and condemned any measure of disfranchisement. Another of the principal organs-of the Government, the Mail and Empire of Toronto, in an article published on the 7th of this month, justified this measure only on the plea that the Liberals had opposed the extension of Parliament and had refused to join in a union or national government. That is the only excuse offered by that journal for this action of the Government. One of the principal newspapers of this country, which, though not usually supporting the Government has been supporting it on the Military Service Bill and other important measures, strongly condemns this Bill. In an article which appeared on the 7th of this month, the Toronto Globe had this to say:
The Disfranchising Bill.
The War-Time Election Bill is a party measure. The attack on the political rights of a 
large group of foreign-born Canadians is tempered by -their exemption from combatant service, but the principle of the Bill is wrong. It is inconsistent with national honour and British traditions. When men of alien birth were given their naturalization papers they were also given the full privileges of Canadian citizenship. It was a contract to which the good faith of the country was pledged. The Bill will cancel the chief article of the contract, the franchise, without proof that the voter has forfeited it by conduct unbecoming a patriotic Canadian. The presumption of innocence until guilt be proved, which underlies the common law, is reversed. It is true that the disability applies only to men who have been naturalized within the past fifteen years, but the country offered them the franchise three years after their arrival, in order to hasten the process of Canadianizing them. It is now proposed to deprive them of the badge of citizenship.
The Bill is aimed at the large element in the West of German and Austrian birth. These men came to Canada to escape the conditions of life in their native lands, and they came upon the invitation of the Canadian people, whose agents scoured Europe for immigrants to till the empty prairies. They have added immeasurably to the wealth of the country.-During the war they have given no trouble as a class; one hears no echo among them of the seditious propaganda of Teutons across the line. Many are Ukrainians

the Galician branch of the family-whose sympathies, formerly with Austria, though never troulblesomely so, have turned to Russia since the Revolution, which has given a new hope and vision toi their race In Europe. Disfranchisement will be only for the period of the war, but the memory of it will survive for a generation, and will tend to undo the great work of assimilation carried on by the schools, the churches, and, not least, by the ballot, the pledge of their civil and political equality. The Bill is therefore not good national policy. It is more German than Canadian or British in its character.
I think this Bill and its provisions are very well characterized, by this article of the Globe. It is my belief that this is not a Bill which is fathered by the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) or even by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster). I believe that my right hon. friends, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who come from the Maritime Provinces, who were reared in the provinces bathed by the sea, who have breathed the freedom of those provinces and of Canada, would not be guilty of such an infringement of British and Canadian rights. I rather ascribe this measure to the Secretary of State (Mr. Meighen). He comes from the West, and in the West, well, they take chances-they are more addicted to gambling; they do things that are not done in the eastern provinces. I believe that this is a penalizing measure, and that if the negotiations for a union and national government had succeeded the measure, would not have been introduced. But as these negotiations

did not succeed, I believe the Secretary of State brought this measure before the House with a vengeance, he wanted to get even with those infernal Grits of the West who did not want to join with this Government. The Liberals of the West would not join with this Government, especially after they introduced their measure to purchase the shares of the Canadian Northern railway, and to punish them, the Secretary of State has brought in this measure to decrease the strength of the Liberal party in the West. As the member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) said this afternoon, this measure is a menace to the union and to harmony between the races in this country; it is going to create disunion and discord. We had union and harmony until this year, but by the Military Service Act and the Soldiers' Voting Act, and now by this nefarious Bill, the union and harmony of this country are again threatened. Not only are they threatened, but the union is disrupted, and will remain disrupted, probably, for many years to come.
The Government say that this measure is only for the time of the war. But the war may end next year and Parliament will still be elected for five years. There will be important questions after the war which will affect the people whom this Bill disfranchises as well as those who retain the right of the franchise. A very considerable war ^debt will be contracted, and this debt will have to be paid, if not the capital at least the interest. The money will have to be got somewhere from somebody. The people disfranchised by this Bill will not bo exempt from taxation, but they will have no voice in the election of members of this Parliament. This Parliament will be elected for five years, and if the war ends next year they will be sitting for four years without these people having had one word to say in the election of their members and the framing of the policies of the Government. Not only the right of franchise, but also the principle that there should be no taxation without representation will be infringed upon. That is a principle which: has been held sacred in all British countries-that there should be no taxation without representation. It has always been held sacred in Canada. In the municipalities you would not think of taxing a person without giving him a vote and a voice in the election of -members of the municipal council. These people will have to pay the income tax, and the customs tariff tax, and they will have to put war stamps on the patent -medicines they buy and on the
cheques or promissory notes they issue, just as do other citizens. They will not be exempt from war taxes, but still they will have nothing -to -say in the administration of the affairs of the country. Two great principles always recognized by the British constitution, the right of the -suffrage with British citizenship and the principle that there shall he no taxation without representation, are violated by this Bill.
There is one feature of the Bill which particularly I do not like. When we were in committee the Secretary of State said that the enumerators who are to prepare the lists will be appointed by the deputy returning officers. I suggested then that these enumerators should be appointed by the judges, as some of the members of the local -tribunals under the Military Service Act are appointed. We know that those appointed by the Government are usually friendly to the Government, and oftentimes partisan. The Secretary of State said they would be appointed by the deputy returning officers, who, as 'a rule, are fair. I believe that, as a general rule, the deputy returning officers are fair; but the deputy returning officers do not prepare the lists. By reading the Bill, I see that -the minister did not fairly state the position. The enumerators are not appointed by the deputy returning officers, but by the Governor in Council. That means that they will ibe recommended by the sitting member or the defeated candidate, the person who has control of the patronage, and the Secretary of State on this recommendation will appoint them. All that -the deputy returning officers will do is to assign their work to them. We have no guarantee that they will evep be residents of the municipalities in which they will do the work. The hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) wanted to have it inserted in the Bill that those appointed should be resident, and should he the -secretary-treasurers of the municipalities in Quebec, as they are familiar with all the electors; and some members from Ontario also suggested that the municipal clerks of Ontario should be appointed enumerators. But the Secretary of State would not accept any of th'ose suggestions, although they were fair- and the Government pretends that it wants to be fair, that it wants fair enumerators and a fair list. If it wants to be -fair, why will it not accept the suggestions made by hon. members on this side and have impartial men appointed as enumerators so as to -insure a fair enumeration and -a fair list?
r.EVISED EDITION

My hon. friend from Three Rivers .asked the Secretary of State to assure us that these men would be qualified. We have no assurance that they will be qualified. I believe the only 'qualification will be that these men must be friendly to the Government. That will certainly be their main qualification. I say that these officials will have too much discretion and too much latitude. They can take names off the list, as well as .add names to it. On what evidence will they take names off the list? There is no provision in the Bill in regard to that. They will take the Ontario lists prepared in 1916. The Bill does not provide that they shall hear evidence, but they will use their own discretion, and take names from the list for certain reasons. If these officials .are partisans, they will perhaps act unjustly. In order to secure the benefit of the vote of those men whose names are taken off the list, the voters will have to appear before a judge 'and testify. Their vote will only be received on a recount, .after their right to vote has been established before a judge. I think the Secretary of State should have accepted some of .the .suggestions made on this side of the House, and should have given us .an assurance that the enumerators would be fair men, and that a proper list would be prepared, for a fair list, is the very basis of .an election. The 'Government should not load the dice. The Government *has secured enough advantage by the passing of the Soldiers' Votes Bill, and the provision that these votes may he distributed to any county the voters designate. The provision permitting the bunching of the votes gives .them enough advantage, without giving the enumerator the right to take voters from .the list. I should like to make further remarks .about this Bill, but those who follow me will he able to show many deficiencies in the Bill and I certainly intend to vote for the amendment and against the motion for third reading.


Mr. W. G. WEICHEL (North Waterloo):: stated the other evening, quite a few of these boys of German origin have given up their lives on the battlefield. These boys enlisted only because they felt that it was their duty to do so. We are proud that in the constituency of North Waterloo over 300 boys of German origin enlisted; and many of them are to-day in the trenches in France. As a matter of simple justice, as a matter of right-because these people have been here not for five or ten years, but half a century longer than many of us can remember, I ask the Prime Minister and members of this House to back me up in my simple request that these people receive some standing in the community by being granted naturalization as soon as possible.
I wish to refer to a remark made by the member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) in this House the other day. He stated that at a patriotic meeting held in the little town of Elmira, he received a frigid reception. I believe that the hon. member is mistaken with regard to the sentiment that prevailed at that meeting. Elmira is *my home town, my birthplace, and I think I know the people there about as well as any man does. They are not given a great deal in these days to handolapping and flag-waving, but my hon. friend's speech that night must have made a tremendous impression, because the secretary of the Patriotic Fund informed me to-day that the little town of Elmira stood almost as high as any town or village in Ontario in respect of the amount of money given. In justice, therefore, to the town of my birth,, it is only fair and right that I should make this remark with respect to what the member for South Wellington said in this House. I do feel that he was entirely mistaken with regard to the sentiment that exists in that place.
I have placed my request before the Prime Minister and the members of the House; I feel that if it is granted the country will be the gainer. We mu6t remember, Sir, that this is a cosmopolitan country. We invited these people to come here to be citizens of Canada, and they have accepted the invitation. They are here; they own property; they have tried to build up their part of the country, and in my riding they have succeeded wonderfully well in that respect. I therefore hope that the Prime Minister will see his way clear to granting some relief to these people, and I can assure him it will be very highly appreciated.
Let me read a clipping from the Detroit News of a few days ago. It is dealing with

the situation across the border, which in my opinion is practically the same situation we have here, for theirs is a cosmopolitan population to a greater degree even than ours. The Detroit News says:
Whatever has happened in the past three years, we should now begin to get our balance, and renew our trust and address ourselves to proving to our Canadian friends and fellow-citizens of German ancestry that a democracy is not merely a name, but that it has at its core a profound brotherly feeling of man for man, whatever his ancestry; that it means at root justice and fair dealing: that it means sympathy and love for those with real heartaches ; that it means mutual help and mutual service; that it means the strengthening and building of inseparable bonds of friendship and the banishment of doubts and fears; that a true democracy is a realm where -each may do and must do his part for the help of all, and do that which he is Qualified to do best for the upbuilding of the nation, which in plain truth means to make our neighbour wiser, stronger and better; that in thus making each citizen stronger we make the nation so powerful for right that might has no place in our life.
The conscientious objector when exemption from military service is granted is deprived of his voting privileges during the war-time election. In my riding I have many of this class, called Mennonites. I have lived among them all my lifetime and can vouch for their honesty of purpose and integrity of character. They are God-fearing people, whose faith teaches them to abstain from taking up arms. I can conscientiously say that they have lived up to their faith, and many of their leading men have intimated to me their desire not to take part in any war-time election.
Lastly, I hope that the Prime Minister may make a statement regarding the request I have placed before this House and the country.


Right Hon.   S@: As my hon. friend from North Waterloo (Mr. Weichel) has made a personal appeal to me in the observations which he has just addressed to the House, it is proper that I should make a statement as to the policy of the Government in such matters. The Secretary of State spoke with regard to this matter the other evening, and I have little to add to what he placed before the House on that occasion. I entirely agree with what the hon. member for North Waterloo has said with respect to the good service which have been rendered to the country by the class of citizens to whom he referred. We all know that there are no more prosperous, progressive or thriving communities in the Dominion than those which have been built up by men of German descent in those counties in the

province of Ontario to which my hon. friend lias alluded. The remarks I am about to make will also have some application to certain conditions mentioned by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) a few days ago. It would appear that in the communities mentioned by these hon. gentlemen there are men who for twenty, thirty or forty years have been citizens of this country, and who during that period, or for the greater part of it at all events, have believed themselves entitled to exercise all the rights of British citizenship. They have voted at elections, taken the oath of allegiance, filled positions of trust and responsibility in the community, have served as aldermen and members of municipal councils; and they now find, sometimes to their surprise, that, although they have been engaged in all these national activities for many years, they have never been naturalized and have never technically acquired the rights of British citizenship.
At the commencement of the war there was correspondence with the British Government with regard to the granting of naturalization under the Act of 1914-the Act which was passed in that year both by the Parliament of the United Kingdom and by this Parliament, after a great deal of negotiation and after much discussion in both Parliaments. Hon. gentlemen will remember that under the terms of that Act naturalization is to be granted by the certificate of the Secretary of State, and not by a judicial tribunal as under the Act which w>as previously in force in this country. It will also be recalled that under the provisions of the previous Act the period cf residence was three years instead of five, and that that Act conferred naturalization which was valid and effective in this country only, and not beyond the limits of our Dominion. The policy laid down by the British Government under the Act of 1914 was to refuse, during the period of the war, naturalization to men of alien enemy citizenship. We acquiesced in that policy, and we have hitherto acted upon it.
So far as naturalization under the law in force previously to the Act of 1914 is concerned, there has been a divergence of judicial opinion. The courts of the country were entrusted with the power of granting naturalization under that Act. In some of the courts it has been held that, notwithstanding the war, naturalization can still be granted in proper cases. Other courts have held that the existence of a state of war debarred the judges absolutely from granting naturalization to a person of enemy nationality.
The conditions in this country with regard to those who have come to Canada to make their home here are somewhat different from those which prevail in the United Kingdom, and we think -that these differences of condition ought to be taken into account. The subject has been brought to our attention during recent weeks, and an Order in 'Council was passed only a few days ago, a copy of which will be laid on the table of the House either to-morrow or Monday. That Order in Council -sets out the policy hitherto pursued will be in the ing naturalization under -the Act of 1914 to persons of the class and character and residence described by my hon. friend from North Waterloo in the very interesting address which he has just given to this House. The purport of the Order in Council is this: That where men of enemy nationality have for many years resided in this country, where no exception can be taken to their dhar-aeter, -and there is good reason for believing that their sympathies are with the Allied Powers in this war, where they have had reason to believe that they were British citizens and have exercised their rights as such, we shall depart from the principle hitherto pursued, -and the Secretary of State for Canada will be prepared to grant naturalization To such persons. I am very glad to believe that this divergence -from the policy hitherto pursued will be in the best interests of this country, and also that it will -be appreciated by those who find themselves in the position described by lmy hon. friend from North Waterloo.


Sir WIFRID LAURIER:: Is it the opinion of the offlcer-s of the Crown that the Governor in Council has that power under 'the statute?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes. It is a question of policy under the Act. While the policy of the British Government is of the character to which I have alluded, we have thought, in- view o.f the considerations which have been brought, to o-ur -attention in respect to persons -falling within the description -placed before the House by my hon. friend from North Waterloo, that it would be a proper departure -from the policy heretofore pursued, for the Secretary of State for Canada to grant naturalization in such cases. That is the policy which will be pursued.


William Pugsley: Will my right hon. friend allow me? As -a result of this, will the . present Bill be amended or any supple-

mentary legislation introduced to prevent these people from being disfranchised?


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend from North Waterloo (Mr. Weichel) pat forward the question solely with regard to naturalization. We do not intend to alter the Bill already presented to the House. As the persons alluded to naturally feel that their status as citizens in this country has been affected by the fact that they have not been naturalized, although they have in the past exercised the rights and fulfilled the duties of British citizenship, it seems- a proper and reasonable course, and a course which would be appreciated by them, if that divergence from the policy of the past to which I have alluded should now be undertaken, I entirely concur in what my hon. friend from- North Waterloo has said as to the splendid efforts of these citizens of German descent in the province of Ontario in sustaining and assisting the Patriotic Fund. I very well remember that in the first appeal made on- behalf of the Canadian Patriotic Fund in Canada, the citizens of Kitchener made it a point th-at they should surpass in their proportionate contributions any city or town in Canada. My recollection is that they pretty well succeeded in doing so. We have every appreciation of the loyalty and devotion thus displayed, and we believe that the course which I have indicated is no more than is just and fair under the circumstances.


Mr. J. G. TURRIFF (Assiniboia):: Since the question of conscription was first brought into this House -a few months ago, I have been endeavouring to treat all these matters in connection with winning the war as free -as I possibly could of partisanship. It is a somewhat difficult position, especially as this afternoon I was made the subject of an attack by my friends -on this side of the House. However, I do not pay very much attention to that. The question we are now discussing is the Franchise Act, and I look on the Franchise Act as more or less connected with winning the war.


Edmond Proulx: Winning the election, you mean.


John Gillanders Turriff: It is not necessary for
any one to put words into my mouth. I know what I want to say, and I propose saying it in my own way. If I were disposed to do so, I might say that I think the winning of the election will have a great deal to do with the winning of the war. However, the question we are discussing to-

night is the Franchise Act. I do not agree with all the features of the Franchise Bill now before the House. I can-9 p.m. not bring myself to believe that disfranchising anybody is a good policy or is a necessary policy for winning the war. During the local election held a short time -ago in Saskatchewan, that question was up rather strongly, brought about principally by my hon. friend from North Simeoe (Mr. Currie). I took a strong -stand then against disenfranchising anybody, and I do not propose to change m-y views on the subject, and on this occasion, in spite of the ill-natured remarks-as I take them to be-of my hon. friend from Humboldt (Mr. Neely) this afternoon, I intend to support h-is amendment. During this debate I have on two occasions voted in favour of the closure, and I did so feeling absolutely certain that as we are right at the closing of the term of Parliament, unless the closure were adopted this Bill would never have got through at all, and there would be no Election Act whatever, and we would be in a state of confusion. Judging by the bright speeches which have been made during the last two or three weeks under closure, better debates have taken place than when every member was given all the latitude he chose to take. My judgment is that many men on both sides of the House on this occasion have put as much into twenty minutes as would be put into an hour's- and very often into two hours' discussion without closure. It seems to me when the next Parliament meets it would not be a bad idea, whichever party is in power, to take up the question of curtailing discussions in this House, -and so shorten the -sessions, that we may not be here -six, or seven, or eight months.
This Bill, as I look :at it, is mo-re or less of a party Bill. It could not be otherwise. It is brought in by one party. I think I am fair in saying that it i-s introduced more for winning the war than -tar -any advantage to the Conservative party, because if my hon. friends on the other side of the House think the Bill will help them win elections for many years to come in the West, they are labouring under a delusion. However, whose fault -is it that the Bill is brought in -as -a party measure? I -think it is only fair to say that the right hon. leader of the Government has made every effort to have a union or national Government to bring in this measure. I feel th-at -a much better measure could have -been prepared by -a union or national Government. At the same time, I do not think it is the fault of

the present 'Government that we have not a national government to introduce this measure. In my judgment a national government would be better than any party government could possibly be during the war, and I am satisfied if we had a national government there would have been no necessity for disfranchising anybody. I would have preferred to put the matter squarely before all classes of people and take my chances. Possibly, by disfranchising certain diasses of people, we may help win the war. This Bill may help elect a win-the-Wiar government, but I am not so sure of that, and for what little advantage there may be in it I do not thinx it was worth while. If I understood my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) rightly this afternoon, he likened us twenty-six Liberals who had voted for conscription to Judases.


Frank Oliver: May I correct my hon. friend? I think I made myself perfectly clear when I alluded to the offers and counter-offers that were made across the floor of the House for positions in the Cabinet. I made no allusion to men who voted according to principles.


John Gillanders Turriff: That may be what was in my hon. friend's mind, but he certainly referred to members on this side of the House, although he did not have tho courage to designate them, as my hon. friend from Humboldt had.


Frank Oliver: I think my hon. friend's conscience is bothering him.


John Gillanders Turriff: My hon. friend from Edmonton need not worry about my conscience. If the appellation Judas can be applied to a man who votes against his party, my hon. friend from Edmonton is certainly an authority on the subject. I remember that, not so many years ago, he made these lialls ring with his denunciation of the very people he is now so anxious about, and he was voting against his party, which was in power then, almost as often as he was voting with it. However, he had a perfect right to do that if he wished, and I have ao objection. I do object, however, to be called a Judas because on one occasion I have differed from my leader.
My leader, the right hon. the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), has been bigger, as we would naturally expect, than my hon. friend from Edmonton or my hon. friend from Humboldt. He said to every man on this side of the House: If you do not agree with my views, do exactly
as you like. But the hon. member for Edmonton and the hon. member for Humboldt apparently think that because a member on this side of the House takes that position, he must, if possible, be driven out of the party. I usually use my own judgment and nothing they can do, one way or the other, will influence me in the slightest degree as to what position I will take on this or any other question that may happen to come up.
The hon. member for Humboldt stated this afternoon that I had broken faith with the conscription Liberals by the action I took at the Winnipeg convention. I did nothing of the kind. He also stated that my amendment to the win-the-war motion that was brought up in the convention was unanimously voted against. If he had been watching-and he was on the platform- he would have found that some hundreds of votes were given in favour of my amendment.


David Bradley Neely: What I said, and it will be found in Hansard, was that the win-the-war resolution which I proposed was voted for unanimously, not that my hon. friend's motion was voted against unanimously.


John Gillanders Turriff: I accept the correction; I may have taken it wrongly. But, certainly, I broke faith with nobody, and if the resolution which my hon. friend moved in the convention was passed unanimously, what has taken place since then in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta shows that it was not unanimous with the Liberals of the country. Mr. Speaker, I have said what I wanted to say and I do not propose, even if the twenty minutes is not up, to take up any more of the time of the House. I am against disfranchising anybody, I will vote against that and I will vote for the amendment of my hon. friend from Humboldt.


Mr. W. F. NICKLE (Kingston):: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention when I came here to-night to speak with regard to the measure which is now before the House but in view of the fact that the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely) has moved a resolution which practically means that this House is asked to express an opinion as to the wisdom or otherwise of our putting into effect legislation that has the effect of disfranchising certain foreigners, coupled with the speech of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff), it becomes necessary that the attention of this House and the country should be directed for a minute or two to the tremendous

change that has taken place in Germany in relation to the naturalization of men who have left that country and to the dual nationality that their law now recognizes. The prior law in Germany with reference to naturalization was the law of i870, by a provision of which a German lost his nationality provided he had left Germany and remained abroad without interruption for ten years. The wonderful tendency towards settlement of the German people and the pan-German scheme, which seems to have influenced that race during the last fifteen years, 'brought about in Germany a great change of public opinion with the result that in 1913 a new law in reference to naturalization was passed. Some of its provisions were of the most unique and startling character. The general principle of international law seems to recognize that if a man chooses to expatriate himsplf and assume the nationality of the country in which he settles he loses the nationality which he formerly had and becomes a citizen of the new country. For instance, the British Naturalization Act 33-34 Victoria, chapter 14, section 6 says:
Any British subject who has at any time before or may at any time after the passing of this Act when in any foreign state and not under any disability voluntarily become naturalized in such state shall from and after the time of his so having become naturalized in such foreign state be deemed to have ceased to be a British subject and to be regarded as an alien.
That recognizes the general and fundamental principle of international law that when a man loses the citizenship of one state and assumes the citizenship of another he becomes a citizen of the new country and has no further right to look to his former country for protection or assistance.
If I might direct the attention of the House to what is commonly known as the Delbriick law, which was passed in Germany in 1913, I think it will be convinced that the Germans who have come to this country, as well as those who have settled throughout the world, occupy a very different position from others who assume to become naturalized in a foreign state. Section 25 of that law reads as follows:
A German who is neither domiciled nor permanently resident in Germany loses nationality on the acquisition of a foreign nationality if the latter is acquired on his application or on the application of the husband (in the case of a married woman or legal guardian in the case of a ward.) A married woman or ward, however, only loses nationality if the conditions are fulfilled under which a discharge could be applied for in accordance with sections IS, 19.
As I previously said, the law in force in Germany, prior to the passing of this [Mr. Nickle.j
law, was that a German who had left Germany for ten years and settled in a foreign country lost his German nationality and ceased to be a citizen of Germany. This law of 1913 laid down the new principle . that a German did not lost his nationality unless he took steps voluntarily to acquire a new nationality. That is consistent with the English law that I have just read to the House and is consistent with the general principle of international law recognized throughout the world. But the German law did not stop there. In keeping with the sophistical tendency, of German thinking, with the principle that recognizes that wherever a German goes he .must, if possible, still be regarded as a German and with the wonderful capacity of the German people for colonizing throughout the world, a second clause, paragraph 25, was enacted in the Delbriick law of 1913, which reads as follows:
A person does not lose his nationality if, before acquiring a foreign nationality, he has applied for, and received, the written permission of the competent authorities of his home state to retain his nationality. Before the grant of such permission, the German consul is to be consulted.
What does that mean? It means that a man may have left Germany since 1913, or, as a matter of fact, may have left almost ten years before and he may have lived in Canada, hut if he did not voluntarily, of his own free will, (become a citizen of Canada prior to the passing of this Act, (he has the right to apply in Canada to become .a Canadian or a British subject, and though he may become naturalized as a British or Canadian citizen, he its still regarded by the German state as a German citizen and entitled to all the rights of German citizenship and German protection.


Frank Oliver: Is the law that the hon.
member speaks of German law or Austrian law?


William Folger Nickle: I am quoting from the
German Imperial and State Nationality Law passed on the 22nd day of July, 1913, together with a memorandum prepared by the British Embassy at Berlin, the memorandum being presented to both Houses of Parliament by command of His Majesty in March, 1914.


Frank Oliver: I asked because 99 per
cent of the foreign settlers in the West are not from Germany but from Austria.


William Folger Nickle: At the present moment I am dealing with my attitude towards the amendment of the hon. member for Hum-

boldt (Mr. Neely), and the reason I will vote against it is that I believe the great problem before this country to-day is the wipning of this war; I believe that, in the winning of this war, as -a war-time election, to my regret, has become inevitable, we should endeavour to secure a fair expression of the people's will. We have some 300,000 men as members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force who cannot take in this election the same interest as they otherwise would. We have from 25,000 to 30,000 men dead in Europe, and I do not know how many lying ill in the hospitals there or prisoners in Germany. I am hot prepared to admit that under these circumstances the members of a State whose laws of naturalization admit that they may take the oath of allegiance that entitles them to become British citizens and at the same time retain their home nationality, should at a time like this, be entrusted with the franchise. If I understand at all the principle of naturalization, it is that, that when a man swears allegianop to the Crown of Great Britain, it means that he has cut himself off from his former state and that Great Britain has a right to expect his service and his sacrifice and bis support. And I say that when another nation says: you may take that oath; you may deceive the state in which you are settling; you may conceal the facts from that nation and we will if you ask us still give you protection and regard you as a German citizen-its citizens are not entitled to the franchise in Canada. But the law does not stop there; some might argue that this is a little thing and does not amount to very much because very few would take advantage of it. But let us refer again to 1913 law and see how much further it went. The general principle of naturalization is that once a man has lost his nationality in one country he cannot re-acquire it unless he again settles in the country. Let me refer to section 13 of the same law:
A former German who has not settled in Germany-
Note, he has left Germany, has become naturalized in another country and has not returned to Germany.
A former German, who has not settled in Germany, may he naturalized on his application by the Federal state to which he formerly belonged if he fulfils the requirements of section 8, paragraph 1, numbers 1 and 2; the child or adopted child of a former German has the same legal position. The Imperial Chancellor is to be informed before naturalization'; naturalization does not take place if the Imperial Chancellor raises objections.
The provisions of paragraph 8, to which reference is made, are:
A foreigner who has settled in Germany may he naturalized, on his application, by the Federal State in whose territory such settlement has taken place-	.
(1)	If, according to the laws of his previous home state, he is absolutely capable of transacting business, or would be absolutely capable of transacting business in the eye of German law, or if the application is made in accordance with section 7, paragraph 2, section 2, by his legal guardian or with his assent.
(2)	If he has led an irreproachable life.
What does that mean? It imeans that anybody who came to Canada from the very beginning of the colonization that took place in this country until to-day, could become a German citizen again if be cared to make application to Germany, although his residence was still in Canada, by demonstrating to those at home that he had a capacity to carry on business and that his character was good. It means that the entire German population of the Northwest, if they so desired, might lead us to believe that they were no longer Germans, having become naturalized in Canada prior to 1915 and that, having made application tO' the German authorities at home they might become German citizens and entitled to all privileges of that nationality. Are these men to be entitled to vote, men whom :we have thought to be British citizens but whose native country permits them at the same time to be German citizens? Are they to be entitled to the franchise at a trying time in the history of Canada and .to 'be let cast a ballot-when their brothers may be fighting against our men in Flanders, when their sentiment may be in favour of the early conelusioin of the war, while the national sentiment of this country may be to carry it to a definite conclusion? That does not seem reasonable.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: To what class of citizens is the hon. member referring, the Germans in Ontario or in the West?


William Folger Nickle: I am speaking on the
general principles of nationality as applied to the Germans throughout the world. Apply it specifically or generally as you will.


Mr. GRAHAM:: Is not the hon. gentleman's argument at variance with the promise of the Prime Minister to the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Weichel) a few moments ago with regard to the naturalization of men in Ontario?


William Folger Nickle: No. The policy of the
Prime Minister, as I understood it, was that these people who had been in Canada for

twenty-five years or thereabouts would be granted naturalization if they desired it.


Mr. MACDONALD:: They would be German subjects.


William Folger Nickle: No, they would not. The . principles of the law are these: Since 1914 by the principles of the Delbruck law, any German who desires to be naturalized throughout the world for business or commercial or professional reasons, as a citizen of a nonjGerman country has a right to become naturalized, and if he has had the consent of the German authorities, as set out in paragraph 25, to become naturalized, he is still entitled to retain and does retain his German citizenship, and the German Empire recognizes the dual nationality. That is my first proposition. My second is this, that if, prior to that date, any German had become naturalized anywhere in the world, he has a right, under paragraph 13, to become again a German citizen. For the sake of my argument, .assuming he had lost his German citizenship under the law of 1870, he can again become a German citizen by making application to the Federal State or to the Imperial authorities by showing that he has business capacity and has led an irreproachable life. In other words, my argument is that the law of 1913 recognized a dual and fluctuating nationality.


William Pugsley: Does my hon. friend say that an Act passed in 1913 would apply to those who became naturalized British subjects ten, fifteen or twenty years before in Canada? Is it retroactive?


William Folger Nickle: No, it is not retroactive, nor does it need to be. A law does not need to be retroactive which gives a right to a man to re-acquire his German nationality while in a foreign state it would apply to the future.


William Pugsley: Where previous to
naturalization in a foreign country he had got leave from the German Government. Therefore, it cannot be recognized.


William Folger Nickle: My hon. friend opposite (Sir. Pugsley) is confusing the argument. Let me repeat the law, as I understand it. Paragraph 25 Hays down the principle that if, prior to making application for naturalization subsequent to 1914, the German gets the -consent of the German authorities provided for by the second paragraph of 25, he can retain his dual nationality, -and he may become a British subject, and still be a German -subject. He may become a citizen of the United States, 
and still be ,a German subject at the -same time, and if, prior to that date, he acquires the nationality of any one of these countries, or of any other country, while he loses his nationality by doing this -prior to the passing of the Delbriich law, by section 13 provision is made for him again becoming a German citizen, although he continues to live in the foreign state in which he acquires nationality; in other words, it recognizes the dual nationality.


William Pugsley: Would not my hon. friend's remark as to the right to become re-naturalized -in Germany apply to the very worthy gentleman from Ontario whom the Prime Minister has indicated would be naturalized?


William Folger Nickle: It certainly would, but in tire case of the man who has lived in the country for twenty-five or fifty years, and helped to build it up, I am prepared to take chances, but I do not want to take any chances with the men who have come to the country within the last five, ten or fifteen years, and who have not became imbued with our -ideas of civilization. I -am prepared to take chances with the man who has been here for twenty-five years, who has cut himself off from the home land, and who occupies a position, as my right hon. friend says, that the French Canadian occupies, namely, they have cut themselves off from overseas relatives, and are Canadians in sentiment and ideals. However, a totally different condition prevails with reference to the condition of the men who have left Germany within the last ten- or fifteen years, and who, perhaps, have brothers and sisters over there who are still members of the German Empire, and are interested in the success of the German arms and the cessation of hostilities.
I am in favour of the Bill for another reason. I believe the -mothers, sisters, daughters and the wives of our soldiers are entitled to the vote. I think they are entitled to it because some 300,000 of our men are out of Canada, over at the front, and cannot, therefore, exercise in this election the influence they would ordinarily have; and owing to the fact that some 30,000 are dead, and others lying in the hospitals. I was surprised the other night to listen to the speech of the hon-. gentleman from Shefford (Mr. Boivin), who seemed to treat with scorn the sacrifices which the relatives of the soldiers had made in this war. He said they stayed at home and drew separation allowances and from the-Patriotic Fund. He must have come from a district where men

have not gone overseas in large numbers.
I come from a section of country whence the very best of our blood has gone to the front. I have seen women hold their children to their breast and smile as they said good-bye to the men who were entraining to go overseas. I have seen them hold their children close to them as the train pulled from, the station, as they turned away with a sob in their throats. I have been in contact with these people month in and month out, year in and year out, since the war commenced, and I have seen sacrifices made by them which made my heart bleed. Yet, we are told these women made no sacrifices, and that their financial condition is better than it was before the war. Perhaps the financial condition of some of them is better than before the war, but surely the people who have made tremendous sacrifices are entitled to a great deal of consideration. Surely these women who have borne the shock of the telegram handed to them telling them of a brother or a husband being taken away, are entitled to consideration. If I know the sentiments of the women of this country it is this: that, although they may want the vote, and many worthy women may be disappointed at not getting it, I do believe there are but few reasonable women from one end of Canada to the other who will not be prepared to say that the women who have sacrificed so much by giving their male relatives to this war have a right to say what Government shall take charge of the destinies of the country for the next few years, whether a government which is determined to see this war carried on until it is brought to a victorious conclusion shall be placed in power, or whether we are to have a government in power which is opposed to selective conscription, and which will only endeavour to secure reinforcements by voluntary methods. Those who have been connected with the history of the effort know that it is futile now to attempt ,to get further men in that way. Are the men who have died and given their lives in Flanders, to have made that sacrifice in vain? Are those of us who have said good-bye to friends we will never see again to say that the sacrifice these men have made amounts to naught? J. McDonald Mowat, the man who opposed me in the last election was a brave man. No braver man could be found. He went to the front and his dust enriches Flanders. He gave his life to the nation, and am I to stand by and see this sacrifice made in vain? I cannot bring myself to it. I voted
for conscription because I believe the men at the front are entitled to reinforcements from Canada, and I will vote for this Bill for the same reason. I desire to see this war carried to a successful conclusion, and I believe the true Canadians are in sympathy with my ideas, in sympathy with the cause of the British Empire, and in sympathy with those who have said to the men now at the front, "If you volunteer and go, we on our part, will see that no stone is left unturned to see that the last man and the last dollar that Canada can spare is used to secure you necessary reinforcements." I vote for this Bill, so that those whose sympathies are with the British Empire and with democracy, may have the decision as to what Government shall be in power after the next election takes place.
Mr. D. D. iMcKENZIE (North Cape Breton): I am sure that any observations which are made by hon. gentlemen 'supporting the Government to the effect that *the people of this 'Country are anxious to win the war, and anxious to do anything and everything necessary for the support and comfort of the soldiers at the front is not controverted by members on this side of the House, or by anyone else in this country, as far as I know. I am surprised that a member of the experience and intellectual talents of the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) should find it necessary to stand up in this House and make an argument that he is supporting this Bill because, in some far-fetched and indirect way, he thinks it is going to- help the soldier at the front. I am sure there is only one mind, heart and thought in this country so far as that subject is concerned, and I trust the hon. member for Kingston will, for all time, dismiss from his mind the ideA that there is any other thought on this side of the House, or in the Liberal party of this country. I am sure he has not found any man on this side of the House voting against any proposition, financial or otherwise, that was calculated to advance the cause ,oif the Allies in this great struggle.
I cannot agree, Sir, with the philosophy of the member for Kingston concerning Germans in 'Canada, either those 'in the far West or those in Ontario. It seems that under Tory rule, and according to Tory doctrine and Tory belief, the thraldom of faraway countries is still binding upon subjects of those countries who come to settle *in Canada. Before Tory rule was commenced, it was a generally accepted principle that the moment such men set foot

upon British soil, they became free. According to the member for Kingston, that is no longer the law; that is no longer the principle that is to govern Canadian and British institutions. According to him, a man -who comes into this country .and takes the oath of allegiance to the Sovereign, thereby being invested with all the rights belonging .to a British subject, must be treated as an -alien, as a traitor, as another Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, one moment a German and the next a Britisher. If I know anything about the manhood of this country and about our constitution, there is-to recall the story told by the member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver)-"no such animal " in this country.
I cannot reconcile the doctrine laid down by the member for Kingston with the promises made by has leader. When -the member for North Waterloo goes home, he will carry on one side of his horse the promise made by the Prime Minister and on the other the speech of the member for King-' sion. It is unfortunate that he should have to do that, because the speech and the promise are absolutely irreconcilable; they are unmiixable; they conflict with each other. When the member for North Waterloo gets home, 'he will have not even a gTease spot of a promise to present to his people. But I suppose the member for North Waterloo understands the game. He understands that promises are made, but that they are not necessarily carried out if the party making them is returned to power. He understands that the Prime Minister is not to be taken seriously. The Prime Minister on various occasions promised the country that there would be no conscription; yet he betook himself to compulsory military service. He promised 2,000,000 women in Canada .that they would have the franchise. This promise he tears up as a scrap of paper land these 2,000,000 women confront the Prime Minister -and ask him. to implement his promise. If these 2,000,000 women bring actions for breach of promise against the Prime Minister in the courts of this country he will have a busy time during the election. His time will be well occupied defending himself against this army of indignant women who insist upon .the fulfilment of .the promise that he made and so ruthlessly broke. I am sure, therefore, that the member for North Waterloo will understand that he has nothing to expect as a result of the promises made by the Prime Minister and by the Secretary of State. It "was arranged that the promise should be made by these gentlemen, and that the 
logical, clear-cut speaker from Kingston should stand up .and say that .such .a thing could not be done; that no remedy could be afforded to these people. That is for consumption in one part of Ontario; the promises of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State are fox consumption in another part of the province. We on this side of the House understand how the machine works; we understand how bon.' gentlemen opposite swallow all that is said by members of the Government. Recently we had .an example in the other Chamber of the extent of the reason and the logic that governs the actions of the Government majority. The leader of the Government in the Senate was asked by the Liberals the other night to accept amendments to an Act passed by this House involving the expenditure of millions of dollars of the people's money. He made this concise, crisp reply:	"The only amendments that yon will get, gentlemen, will be thirty-seven, forty-three." That, of oourse, .meant .the count that would be taken on the vote-and we get the same thirty-seven, forty-three in .this House. We cannot expect anything but .machine politics from hon. gentlemen opposite. In that machine the member for North Waterloo is a cog; he goes round with it, and I never saw him do his part better than he did this evening. I have no doubt that the member for North Waterloo was telling the truth when he said that he represented an intelligent people. But I do not think he was doing them justice when he blamed hon. gentlemen on this side for the condition of things that this Act is creating. What has Liberalism to do with the bringing forward gf this Act? He tells us that the people of his county are true and loyal to British institutions. No Liberal in this House has ever said anything to the contrary. The member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), since he struck the trail for the Tory Damascus across the way, has seen a good deal of light. He tells us that the people of North Waterloo are not loyaL We are ,not responsible for anything that he says in that regard. So far as this Bill is concerned he is not speaking for us. But, as hon. gentlemen opposite are taking the member for South Wellington to their hearts, let them settle with him the question whether or not he is giving proper testimony with regard to these men. If he is, these people have no right to apply for enfranchisement or for the rights of citizenship. We on this side are open-minded on this question. We have not asked for the disfranchisement of anybody. We are willing

to put ourselves in the hands of the people who live in this country and who have enjoyed our institutions. We are not afraid to compare our institutions with those of any other country in the world. We believe that the men -and women who come into Canada and enjoy the rights and privileges and educational advantages of this country for fifteen or twenty years'-aye, for three year s, the period set out in our Naturalization Act-are .so seized with the benefits of our institutions and the superiority of our laws, that they will he loyal, true and faithful to Canada. We believe that they are not willing to exchange the conditions under which they previously lived for those which they now enjoy in .this country, no matter what country they came from.
That is the principle of Liberalism; that is the principle which we are willing to follow, and if there .are -any heartaches in this country because men and women are being disfranchised, the parties who have introduced this Bill, and other Bills almost as drastic, must take full responsibility; it is unworthy of the hon. member for North Waterloo to state that the trouble created by this Bill is attributable to us.
My hon. friend from Aseiniboia (Mr. Turriff) has given us a piece of logic which I cannot very well digest. He says that the foreigners in the West and in Ontario and other parts of this country would be excellent" and loyal citizens under a union government, blit they are disloyal under the present Administration.


John Gillanders Turriff: I did' not say anything of the kind.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The hon. member said that if a union government had been formed this Bill would be absolutely unnecessary. What am I to understand from- that? I am sure my hon. friend, with his well-balanced mind, must see that when he tells us that under a union government this law would not be necessary it means nothing else but that the creation of a union government would make loyal those whom he to-day brands as disloyal. I cannot understand or accept any such logic. If they are loyal and true to-day to. the institutions of this country, then, no matter what kind of a government we have, they will be loyal tomorrow, because they are still the same people. Therefore, I cannot understand the reason by which the hon. member for Assini-boia is bringing himself to support this measure, and support the Government that is behind it.


John Gillanders Turriff: I must ask my hon.
friend not to put words in my mouth that I did not use. I did not say that any settlers in the West or any other place were disloyal. I am voting against this Bill. My hon. friend is altogether wrong. He is away off.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not know whether I am wrong or away off, but I do know that my hon. friend is not on the track where he used to run. So I think it is he that is off, and being off in one thing, he may be off in the whole. My hon, friend is not quite at home in the new element with which he has surrounded himself, he is not quite comfortable upon the diet on which he feeds.
A good deal of what would be regarded as deception outside of the House has been practised upon us by hon. gentlemen opposite in explaining the origin of this Bill. We were told at every turn that this Bill followed the Australian Bill. There is one peculiar provision in our Act to the effect that if a man goes into a booth to vote with a grey coat on, and white shoe laces, the presiding officer can declare him to be an alien and not entitled to vote, whereas if "the same alien appears in a black coat and with black shoe laces, his appearance would justify the presiding officer in saying that he is not an alien, but a British subject and entitled to vote. When we found fault with that absurdity we were told by the Secretary of State that the provision followed word for word the terms of the Australian Act. I refer any hon. member of this House to page 5 of the Australian Act, a copy of which I had in my hand tu-day, but which the Secretary of State required for some purposes of his own, and I have not got it now. There is only one copy of the Act in the city of Ottawa, I believe. If you will turn to page 5 of the Act you will see that there is no such provision lin the Australian Act at all. The presiding officer in Australia has nothing to do or say as to the appearance of the men who appear before him to vote. So that when the minister stated that he had followed the Australian Act in that respect, he was deceiving us. Another thing is that there is nothing in the Australian Act creating a new franchise or machinery for a new Act. The old Act is followed in every particular. If it is thought a man is not entitled to vote, he 'has to take the oath when he comes up to vote, as has been the case in this country at all times. I submit, therefore, that it was not fair for the

Secretary of State to take advantage of the fact that there was only one copy of the Australian Act in Ottawa. It was not right of him to say that he had a precedent in what was done in Australia, when such was not the case. I trust such. practices will not be followed any more in this House, and that the minister will take an early opportunity of putting himself right. Perhaps he has been misled. When a minister makes a statement in Parliament there should not be the slightest doubt that he gives the facts, particularly when dealing with an Act of Parliament of another country.
I also wanted to deal' briefly with the breach of faith on the part of the Govern- ment in this matter of votes for women. We were told that there was no time to bring about the changes that were necessary in order to give the vote to the women. The Government seems to blow hot and cold at the same time. In, 1916 the Government was asked to provide Dominionwide prohibition in Canada, and the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister told us it would not be fair to pass a Dominion prohibitory law when the provinces themselves had not adopted prohibition, and they passed a law to aid any province which had passed a prohibitory law. If they were true to that principle they would now extend the franchise to the women of any province who have the right to vote *at provincial elections. They were willing to follow the provinces on the question of temperance, when, it was to their interest to do so; but now when it is a question of following the same principle, in taking advantage of the provincial franchise for women, that does not suit them at all. They do not want the women of this country to have a voice in the selection of the next Parliament. So they say: We will not follow the principle we adopted in 1916, but will disfranchise these women altogether. No matter what technical objection may be raised, I submit that bur law clearly gives to women the right to vote in a Dominion election unless they are prevented by officers of this Government. There is no question but that the law gives the women of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario the right to vote. Section 6 of the Election Act says:
For the purposes of any Dominion election held within the limits of a province, the voters' lists shall, except as herein otherwise provided, be those prepared for the several polling divisions established, and which, on the sixtieth day next preceding the day fixed for the nomi-

nation of candidates for such Dominion elec

tion, were in force, or were last in force, under the laws of that province, for the purposes of provincial elections.
Section 10 of the same Act states the qualifications of voters, and I say emphatically that, on the face of it at all events, this covers the cases of women to which the local legislatures have given the vote. The section says:
The qualifications necessary to entitle any person to vote at a Dominion election in any province shall, except as herein otherwise provided, be those established by the laws of that province as necessary to entitle such person to vote in the same part of the province at a provincial election.
Nothing can be clearer than that. These two ^sections give the women of the Dominion of Canada the right to vote, but for some reason or another-perhaps for the reason that they fear the judgment of these women-the Government refuses to give them the franchise. This Government is supposed to be a democratic government, which is supposed to represent a free people, which is supposed to have its life for the constitutional term of five years, and under that constitution it is compelled to go back to our free people to pass judgment upon it. It is not an act of bravery or a constitutional act for this Parliament, or this Government, to change the.condition of things from that which existed when it received the mandate from the people. It should go back to the same free people that elected it. But it has changed the law, and has put itself in the position of the man who is on trial for a crime, and who arrogates to himself the right to make the law under which he is to be tried, to appoint the judge who is to pass judgment upon him, and to select the jury which is to try him. That is the kind of government we have to-day, a government which has thrown aside the constitutional right which the people of this country have been enjoying; and now that they are before the bar of public opinion, and when the trial is on and the indictment is about to be made, they take to themselves the power of naming the jury, naming the judge, and making the procedure under which they are to be tried. I submit that is not fair treatment for the people of this country, and I believe that the people will not tolerate any such doctrine or any such principle, but that that freedom which characterizes our people, that freedom of which we are so pTOud, will be maintained, and that >any one who endeavours to contaminate, the streams of justice and freedom in this country will go

down 'with the stream and perish forever out of sight.	'


Mr. J. A. CURRIE (North Simeoe):: I would not .at this late hour and at this late date in the session presume to occupy any of the time of the House were it not that during the debate the other evening unfortunately some charges were made against me by the horn, member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie). Under the rules of the House it appeared impossible for me to make -any explanation, however


Edmond Proulx: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member is not keeping to the subject under discussion. The question before the House is the Franchise Bill.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: I will take note of the point of order raised. The hon. member for North Simeoe (Mr. Currie) has just said a few words, not sufficient for me to make up my mind.


John Allister Currie: 
William Pugsley: Some of the people.


John Allister Currie: That is the issue. Three or four weeks before the next election, there will be only that one issue before the people of this country. We must submerge all questions of economics for the moment.
I confess that as a hide bound protectionist I have had to surrender all my tenets in the presence of the common danger, and many a Liberal has had to surrender his theories of free trade in presence of the common danger. For that reason, when an hon. member rises in his place in this House and casts reflections upon a member of the House who is debating this Bill, it comes within the purview of these rules. The hon. member for North Cape Breton stated that I was up to my neck in mud in a dugout whilst my men were fighting. There are thousands of soldiers in the dugouts in Flanders to-night. The dugouts in my day were -not what they are -now, concrete bombproof dugouts. The testimony of my men in regard to my conduct in -the war is ample, so far as I am personally concerned. That testimony speaks for itself. I never was in a dugout during a battle, unless it was to carry a wounded man into some of the little shelters tha-t were then termed dugouts. Many of the poor men that I carried into those dugouts during the battle were afterwards -bayo-netted by the Germans, -to whose relatives my hon. friends opposite -are so anxious to give -the vote. They will never come forward to give testimony as to what I did on that occasion. I will meet them perhaps; I am assured that I will meet them, in the future; but in this world they can never give testimony

as to what I did for them. It was impossible for me to be with all my men but I was with a certain number of them in the front line. I never left the front line throughout one of the greatest battles in history. I remained all the time during the battle until I was ordered to retire. I have the "order" to retire the remnant of my battalion still in my possession and when we retired I wa3 the last man to leave the benches. I am only stating the facts. It is very difficult for a man to stand up and boast or blow about his own actions. These are not things that a man feels like boasting about to the public. It is not pleasant for me to think about them, and it was not necessary for me to go about the House blowing about the number of men I had slain. The scenes that I have witnessed are too terrible for me to apeak of even to my best friends. As to this question of a dug-out, there were no dugouts. They were all blown up in fifteen minutes after the action started, just as the British are blowing up the dugouts to-day. They were only frail structures of mud. Therefore, that charge falls to the ground. I remained with my men.
The Government have in their archives the reports of other officers with regard to myself. They have the reports of the officer of the 7th who took command when Hart McHarg was slain; He reported to me and his report is in the Militia department. I was on the furthermost line in the .second battle of Ypres. I met the .second in command of the 10th, who is now a brigadier-general, and he also reported to me. His men were being sent down to assist the remnant under me that was still holding out. At that time he had, out of a great battalion, something like 150 men left. He wrote in his report that he had reported to me, a moment later he was wounded and carried off the field. I was with my battalion then and that wae only an hour or so from the time that we were ordered out. How could I have been .away back four or five miles from the firing line?
The ex-Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes) has done me justice on several occasions. I did not know that he had sent my name in for promotion There is one thing that I have not sought and that is .promotion. Because of political consideration or because of being a member of this House I never asked the minister for a single favour in the way of promotion. When I was going to Valcartier I went in to bid my chief good-bye. He said "Col. Currie, you shall have a brigade". I said: ":No, Mr. Borden, I would prefer to go with

the men I am bringing with me and I want to go as a colonel". In those days promotions were not as much sought as they are to-day. We all thought that the best place to win our promotion was on the field. Never, since I have come home, have I importuned with the Minister of Militia for any promotion. When I left France I was fifth in seniority of the first division. I was asked to come home by the Government, I did not ask to come home. I was asked to come home by the Government to give some information and to assist in.recruiting here. I came home. Little did I expect that when I came I would find so much excitement in the country and that I would have to meet the charge of having run away from my men. I never asked the minister to give me any promotion. I was in the West for a month after he returned and did nOt know anything about those beautiful lies they were passing around about me. The minister told me that he was going to promote me as I should have beeg promoted automatically. According to the customs and rules of the service, whilst I was in the King's service on active service and had done nothing wrong, I was entitled to be kept in my position under the Militia Act. Promotion comes according to seniority. When they were giving promotion to others in the service my promotion should have come automatically. But my promotion did not come automatically. Others were put over me in the Militia List and others given command, over me at home who were never at the war. Naturally, I- did not feel that I was dealt justly with in that regard. Still, I make no complaint. I did not earn any subsequent promotion in the field and I do not think I should say anything about it. I have covered the question of my promotion, of my conduct in the field and of my service.
I tried to serve in accordance with the best traditions of the British House of Commons. I thought that if I did anything wrong it would be a big reflection on this House. I went to the war in the first place so that it could not be said, in so far as the House of Commons was concerned, that it was a nest of slackers that never gave any service to the war in con-tradition to the fact that the British House of Commons has given over 150 members to the war. This House has given a number of members to the war , but it has not looked to its ancient dignities and rights in the honours which it has conferred upon its members .who have gone

overseas. Some of the members who have gone abroad and served have not been given the opportunities for service which might very well have been given to them. ,A member who goes to the war makes a great sacrifice. There are members of this House who have raised one or two regiments andi sent them over to the war and gone over with them. One hundred years ago, if a man raised a regiment for the King's service, he would have been made a baronet or a knight for that deed.


William Pugsley: They make them knights and barons for much less than that now.


John Allister Currie: They have to be munition makers or something else. It is not a soldier member who gets rank and title now. Many members of this House who went over in good faith have been recalled without being given an opportunity for service. I regret very much that such should he the case, and I do not think that they were given the opportunity to which they were entitled. However, the opportunity of service came to me, and I served for weeks and months- in the trenches, day in and day out, when there was constant action and death -constantly calling. There never was a day that somebody was not wounded or killed. During that whole period there never was- a court of inquiry on me or any complaint against me in any manner, shape or form. There was no court-martial asked for or ordered. Unlike some hon. gentlemen opposite, who have been preaching politics a good deal lately, I did, not undergo any court of inquiry and- I did not need to be whitewashed by a court-martial to keep me from being cashiered out of the service.
Hon, gentlemen opposite have opposed, not only this measure, but virtually everything in connection with the war since the beginning of this session. We have bad constant obstruction, of course, of a constitutional kind, and when we glance over the gentlemen on the other side of the House who have been most prominent in this obstruction, we find the hon. member for St. John, (Mr. Pugsley), the hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie), 'and the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair). The hon. member for North Ca-pe Breton said I had remained quiet for a long time in the House.
I remained quietly for -a long time -in tin House because I did not wi-s-h to interrupt or to lengthen -the -session. I knew the need of reinforcements, the importance of carrying -this war on, -and I did not 'wish to pro-370
long the debate. But if you ask yourself what have these three gentlemen done for the war; the mothers, the sisters, the women of Nova Scotia who -sent th-eir sons -and brothers to the w-ar, the wom-en of New Brunswick-let them ask themselves if those three men have done their duty so far as th-eir children are concerned, and ask the rea-son. The hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) has a eon. Has he been at the war distinguishing himself? Is he sleeping in a dug-out up to this neck in mud at night? Nothing of the kind. The hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) should be the last man in this House to say a word about the war. His son has been tucked away out of sight during the war. Months -ago he should have been -at the w,ar along with the other brave Highlanders from Oape Breton. The Highlanders are supposed to be -a brave race, and I must say the majority of them are; but there are occasional degenerates amongst them. The exceptions only pTOve the rule.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I -do not think the hon. member has any business to refer to my son. He is in khaki receiving his training, getting ready to go to the front as speedily as he can.


John Allister Currie: I -thought the hon. gentleman would make that statement. He w-as old enough to have gone with the First Division. He takes on his khaki and uniform as an officer now when this conscription Bill is introduced in this House. He does not w-ant to take his chance going over -as an ordinary conscript. The h-on. -member for Guy-sborough (Mr. Sinclair) remains silent and -his case is on a -similar level.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: If the hon. -member will allow me I will answer him.
Mr. 'CURRIE:	I want an -explanation
from you as a Scotchman.


John Howard Sinclair: The attack 'the hon.
gentleman is making shows the kind of soldier he is, and -shows the colour of his liver.


John Allister Currie: Make your explanation.


John Howard Sinclair: I will not say it is
white, because that would not be parliamentary; but I will -say this to the hon. gentleman, that it is a mean and cowardly thing

Some h-on. MEMBERS: Order.


John Howard Sinclair: -f-o-r any gentleman to attack a young Canadian who is not present here to defend himself.


John Allister Currie: Mr. Speaker, I think that interruption w-as altogether uncalled for.


John Howard Sinclair: He has mentioned my son and I should be given a chance to answer.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: Order.


John Howard Sinclair: I am not going to break the rules, I am going to make a short explanation.


William Pugsley: The Speaker ruled that in order the other night.


John Allister Currie: I want the hon. gentleman to explain why his son is not in khaki, that is what I want.


John Howard Sinclair: I will explain it if my hon. friend will give the opportunity.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: I hope the
hon. gentleman will use language in accordance with the dignity of the House of Commons.


John Howard Sinclair: My son was one of the first to enlist in the town in which he lives, at the time the war broke out. He offered himself for service and he was turned down by the medical authorities at that time as not being fit for service. He was anxious to do something and still persisted in his offer and they accepted him and sent him with a company of the 85th Highlanders to Canso to do service in connection with guarding the cable stations there. He remained there about fifteen months carrying out such instructions as were given to him by the military authorities, and at the end of that time his company was dismissed or isent back and another company was put in place of the Pictou company to do service at Canso. Consequently he returned home. The National Service was started about the same time. He received a card from the National Service and filled it up offering to do anything that it was in his power to do, was quite willing to perform any duty that the Militia Department might assign to him I am sorry to say that his health has-not been good of late and that he has recently come out of the hospital after a serious operation. That is the story so far as my son is concerned, and I think the hon. gentleman who has been boasting of his courage cannot say that it is a courageous thing for him, to attack in this House a respectable young Canadian who is not here to defend himself.


John Allister Currie: I trust Mr. Speaker, you will observe that there is about eight minutes of my time being taken up with interruptions. All I have to say to these
[Mr. Sinclair. 1
three members is that they have sat here ,a)ll session sneering at returned officers and soldiers on this side, attacking this Bill, the Military Service Bill, iand the Soldiers Voting Bill, and when you come to listen to their excuses for their sons, what do they amount to? They are the fathers of "home guardsmen," that is all they are.


Frank Oliver: I want to say that what
the hon. member says is contemptible.


John Allister Currie: Not more contemptible
than the charge that the hon. gentleman made against the hon. leader of the House earlier in the session.


Frank Oliver: That has nothing to do with to-night's performance.


John Allister Currie: The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) sent to the front a boy who gave up his life and who was not in the home guards he gave up his life in Flanders. The hon. member favoured compulsory service surely in -several speeches which he made in this House, but when a Bill was introduced for that service he turned his back upon it and became a politician, much to the astonishment of his friends and best neighbours.
I have a word to say about the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). We know that there has been plenty of interruption in this House and plenty of obstruction. Every effort has been made to prolong this session so that the session would end automatically with the death of Parliament without anything having been done so far as conscription is concerned. The leader of the Opposition did not take very much part in the obstruction himself, hut he gave the lead to his party, and that is that he is opposed to conscription. The boys at the front well know that. The men at the front know the need for reserves to make up for casualties and sufficient to enable some of those who have been at the front from the beginning to come home on a few weeks furlough, which none of them have been able to do. The right hon. leader of the Opposition has not only burked everything in this House, but he has sat in his seat for four weeks when his followers in Montreal were using dynamite and threatening daggers to public men in this country, but never once did he get up -and denounce these men and say they had nothing to do with the Liberal party and were not his followers. But the public must have surmised, and come to the conclusion, that the official Liberal party has several ends to it, that it not only has a constitutional

party or a constitutional end, but that it has a force party,-a party that endeavours to intimidate people in this country, to threaten the lives of members of the Government, with dynamite and daggers. I ask him, how can any soldier at the front vote for a party of that kind?


Frank Oliver: Mr. Speaker,-


John Allister Currie: How can anybody in this country vote for a party tied up to an outfit such as that in Montreal?


Frank Oliver: Is the honourable gentleman aware that two of the dynamiters arrested are ticket-of-leave men let out by the Minister of Justice a short time before they coommited the crime-possibly for the purpose of committing the crime?


John Allister Currie: You will observe, Mr. Speaker, that I have about two minutes.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The deputy Speaker, who has been in the Chair, informs me that the hon. member has two minutes.


John Allister Currie: I will occupy my two minutes in stating that I think it is time, -after four weeks in this House- that the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) spoke. He stood with me on a platform in Ottawa after I returned, and I was very proud of him when he spoke in favour of the war as he did, asking the people to support our boys at the front. Why did he not keep up that record? I say when he now sits for four weeks in this House, when men are cheering for him in Montreal and threatening to use dynamite against innocent people, why has he not rebuked them? It is too late now, after the Bill is through, for him to come through and say he had nothing to do with it.
I have read a resolution passed up in Lambton at a convention, the other day in which they said they wanted the Liberal candidates to win the war as Laurier wanted them to and they said: They were all for conscription the same as Laurier wias. Sir, the speakers outside this House supporting the right hon. leader of the Opposition are those who have spoken for him with dynamite in Montreal. Not one single argument has been advanced by him or his speakers on the public platform in my province or in any English-speaking province to show that his heart was in the war or that he wanted to support the men at the front.


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Speaker, it was not my good fortune or bad fortune to hear the whole of the speech of my hon.
370i
friend from Simcoe (Mr. Currie). I came in when he was referring to a young man, the son of an old friend whom I have known personally from boyhood up to the present time. If my words would mean anything, there never was a more unseemly and unwarranted attack upon a young man than the attack of the hon. gentleman upon the son of the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair). This young man was one of the first to enlist, was eager to do so, and is not in the force to-day because his health would not permit of it. He had to go to the hospital to undergo a serious operation which disables him for the service. That ought to be sufficient for the hon. gentleman. If he has any manhood in him he will not rest where he has left the matter, but will apologize to the young man, who is just as worthy as himself to wear the King's uniform-and if he does not wear that uniform it is through no fault of his, but because he cannot do so; otherwise he would be in the trenches to-day. As to myself, my record is before the House. Tt has been before the House since the commencement of the waT. Everybody knows it; I have been in favour of the war. I have been and am against conscription. As to the attack made upon me by the hon. gentleman that the men to-day who are using dynamite in Montreal are my friend3, all that I have to say to him is, that the men who are using 'dynamite in Montreal belong to the criminal classes. There is only one of them to-day who is not of that class and that is Mr. Lalumiere, the man who took part in the election when Mr. Coderre, now Judge Coderre, went before the electors after the resignation of the late Mr. Monk. When the hon. member says men are cheering for me in Montreal, there are some who have done so, but does the hon. gentleman not know that some others at the same meeting cried, "Down with Laurier"? If the hon. gentleman does not know that, he does not read the papers. It is a matter of public record, and everybody knows it except my hon. friend. I think I have been too long in public life to defend myself from these attacks. I have been endeavouring all my life to fight a square and honest battle. The charge made against me on the floor of this House, where I have sat for more than forty years, is shown by what I have said to have not a shadow of foundation. I do not want to meet such people as he has referred to. I do not belong to the class of men who have come from the penitentiary. I have nothing to do with them, and I do not know any of

them. All I have to say is that I shall continue in the future as in the past, to try to perform my duty as a British subject and a Canadian to the best of my judgment and ability. It cannot foe expected that in a free country like Canada we should all see alike upon these matters. No man's heart is deeper in the war than my own. But because I do not agree with other men upon the policy of conscription, gentlemen say my heart is not in the right place. That is a matter of judgment. Whether I am right or wrong to-day, my conduct and position is before the Canadian people, and I am quite willing to leave it there.	_
But, Sir, I did not rise at all for the purpose of defending myself. Those who have been in the House for the last six years, and those who have been here before that, know that on no occasion did I ever take notice of any personal attack made upon me. I rose to discuss the question now before the House, and in the few minutes I have at my command it is impossible to survey the whole situation, and I shall confine myself to the question now before the House. The indictment which we make against the policy of the Government, and against this Bill, is that it is a breach of faith. Our position, which I lay before the gentlemen on the other side of the House as well as upon this side is this: The exclusion which it is sought to make of men who for the last fifteen years we have recognized as fellow-countrymen is an absolute and unwarranted breach of faith. This accusation has been resented by members of the Government and by their followers, .and by none more vigorously than the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Bennett). It was not my privilege to hear the speech of the hon. member for Calgary the other day, but I read it with great care and attention. I thought it was a very high-class address, (but it seemed to me to be based upon an absolutely fallacious foundation. He said very truly that citizenship and franchise are not convertible terms, that a man may be a citizen and yet not be an elector. To this no exception can be taken. All -this had already been enunciated by the Secretary of State (Mr. Meighen) who in the -course of the debate stated that no pledge had been given to any class of citizen for the franchise except, possibly, to the Mennonites and Doukhobors. Indeed that is perfectly true. The Doukhobors and Mennonites were especially given an exemption from military service, and all that it implies, and all 
this was done by Order in Council cited in this Bill, on the 13th August, 1873, by the Government of Sir John Macdonald, as far as the Mennonites are concerned, and on the 6th December, 1898, by the late government, -as far as the Doukhobors were concerned. These two classes of His- Majesty's subjects, the Mennonites and Doukhobors, are exempted from military service. They have en-joyed the privilege of exemption ever since they came into this country. Now they have to purchase their release [DOT]from military service by forsaking their franchise. If they keep their franchise they lose everything that they have been given by these two Orders in Council, ft is true that the same privileges are not given to the other aliens, who are enfranchised, but what does it matter to-day? Even if such a solemn declaration of exemption as has been given to the Mennonites and Doukhobors, were given to these aliens, they would not be any more advanced, because the solemn promise made to the Doukhobors and Mennonites is today treated as a scrap of paper-in fact, it is not worth the paper on which it was written; it is of the same value as the signature of the King of Prussia on the treaty which guaranteed the independence of Belgium. It was observed so long as it suited the purposes of the King of Prussia, now the Emperor of Germany, but when he found that treaty in his way, he simply set it aside, as we are doing with the solemn promises which we gave to the Doukhobors and Mennonites.
But, Sir, it is not on this ground that I rest the assertion that I have made that we-are breaking faith with those we brought into this country when- we pass this Bill. What I submit to the hon. member for Calgary is this: when we invited these men, and sent out agents to Germany and Austria to bring them to Canada, when wre gave them naturalization, there was an implied pledge that never, under any .circumstances would their origin be a reproach to them, that they would never be debarred from all privileges of British citizenship, and there would be no abridgement of any privileges given to them.
Does my hon. friend dispute that position? Does he think it is right that, having by naturalization -given these people the privilege of citizenship, we -should, by telling them that they can be citizens, but not electors, set aside one of those privileges? Why -can they not be electors? It is admitted by the Prime Minister and by everybody who has spoken in -this debate that those who have been naturalized since

April, 1902, no matter what country they came from, have behaved splendidly and have fulfilled everything expected of them. Tlie only reason these men are disfranchised now is because they are distrusted, because it is believed that they cannot be trusted with the privilege of casting their votes according to their conscience. The member for Calgary knows as well as anybody that * under British institutions every man has always Iliad the right to say what he wants to say and to do what he wants to do, provided he is within the law. This privilege, however, is now to be denied to certain persons. What reason is given for this course? My ihon. friend went further, and tried to justify the action of the Government by saying that these men should not be trusted, because, according to some authority, the name of which he did not give, blood is the most potent incentive of the actions of men. I am not sure that I agree with his philosophy. Blood is certainly a powerful tie; we all admit that. But there is a tie still more powerful, and that is the tie of home; the associations connected with home >are more potent than ties of blood. When a man leaves his country to settle elsewhere, though the land of his ancestors may be dear to him, the land of his children is still dearer. When a man leaves a country he does so because he is not satisfied with the conditions that he leaves behind him; if he were satisfied he would remain in the land of his ancestors. He leaves, he comes to Canada; he is welcomed; he comes upon invitation; he is given all the privileges enjoyed by other citizens; he is entitled to become an owner of property and to have the franchise. Suddenly we tell him: We cannot trust you any more. It is quite true that "citizenship" and "franchise" are not synonymous terms. But it is true, also, that citizenship is the basis of franchise. My hon. friend pointed out that Nova Scotia and Quebec had adopted laws effecting an abridgement of the franchise in respect of some classes of His Majesty's subjects-for instance, person employed by the Federal Government. That is true, but I am not aware that this law of exclusion has worked to the advantage of anybody. I am not aware that the Government which introduced or the legislature which adopted such a law ever derived any benefit from it; on the contrary, I believe that all such legislation of a restrictive character has rather proved a boomerang than helped the Government which introduced it.
But my hon. friend brought forth an argument which was really of some consequence. Discussing the status of these German citizens of Canada, he asserted that they were still Germans and that, therefore, they should be deprived of the franchise. In connection with this point Re made an argument, which I could not exactly follow; with regard to the amendment to the naturalization law which is to come into force on January 1, next, under the Act passed in 1914. Our naturalization law as it now stands is effective only within Canadian territory. If a man of foreign birth becomes naturalized in Canada and goes to another country, he is no longer a Canadian citizen or a British subject. No matter what country he goes to-United States, England, a foreign country-he is not a British subject; he is a foreigner. The effect of our law after the 1st of January, 1918, will be that a man who is naturalized in Canada will be a citizen of Canada and a British subject no matter what part of the British Empire he goes to. I hope that similar legislation will be introduced in other Dominions, providing that wherever a naturalized British subject shall go he shall continue to be a British subject.
The member for Kingston laid down a new doctrine, to which I am unable to agree; that under the law of Germany a man could have a double nationality-he could be a British subject in Canada and a German subject in Germany. My impression all along has been that the German law claimed jurisdiction over the German subject, no matter where that German subject was naturalized. My hon. friend says that there is an international law on this point.


William Folger Nickle: By the law of 1870, if a
German had 'been continuously out of Germany for ten years he lost his nationality. The law of 1913 changed that.


Wilfrid Laurier: I shall not
dispute that point with my hon. friend. My impression has been that the German law always claimed jurisdiction over the German subject, even when he was naturalized elsewhere. There is .no international law on this point, so far as I know. Every nation has its own law in respect of naturalization. Great Britain foregoes her claim upon anybody who goes abroad and becomes naturalized in another country. Other nations do the same, hut some nations, including Germany, do not follow that plan. Under the German law, once a German a man is always a German; at

all events that is the law to-day. I do not speak of my own knowledge in this matter; I simply speak of my impression of it. But I notice that the member for Calgary the other day said that if a citizen of Germany is naturalized in Canada, he remains a citizen of Germany and would be liable to be shot if taken prisoner in the theatre of war. This is what he said:
Ceasing to "be Britons, if they were taken prisoners in the front line trenches, they would be shot as traitors, because they owed military allegiance to Germany and Austria.
I think that the member for Calgary is right in that respect. If we sent a man of German origin to the front, he would, if taken prisoner, be treated as a deserter and accordingly might be liable to be shot. Our own Naturalization Act has been cautious on this point. The certificate of Naturalization says:
This is therefore to certify to all whom it may concern, that under and by virtue of the said Act	 has become naturalized as a British subject, and is, within Canada, entitled to all political and other rights, powers and privileges, and subject to all obligations to which a natural-born British subject is entitled or subject within Canada, with this qualification, that he shall not, when within the limits of the foreign state of which he was a subject (or citizen) previous to the date hereof, he deemed to he a British subject unless he has ceased to be a subject (or citizen) of that state, in pursuance of the laws thereof, or in pursuance of a treaty or convention to that effect.
In other words, we do not pretend in our Naturalization Act to claim jurisdiction over a subject when he goes to liis own country. We cannot do that unless his native country divests itself of jurisdiction over him, or unless there was a treaty between the two countries, and so faT as I know there is no treaty betweeh Great Britain and Germany. So I think the position which, was taken the other evening by my hon. friend from Calgary is perfectly sound. If we were to send a man of German origin to the trenches, and if he happened to be taken prisoner, he might be treated as a deserter 'by Germany. What is the conclusion we are to draw from this? The Military Service Act which we passed the other day makes no reservations on this point. Section 2 says:
Every male British subject who comes within one of the classes described in section 3 of this Act (that is, between the ages of twenty and forty-five) shall he liable to be called out as hereinafter provided on active service in the Canadian Expeditionary Force for the defence of Canada, either in or beyond Canada.
This means that every man of military age, whether he is ,a British subject by birth
[Sir Wilfrid Eaurier.J
or naturalization, is liable to be conscripted. Take the case of a boy six years of age, who happened ito come to this country with his father in April, 1902. He would now be twenty-one and a voter, and liable to be conscripted. I agree with my honourable friend from Calgary that it would be unthinkable, it would be murderous, if we were to send such a man to the front when there was a possibility of him being treated as a deserter by our enemies if he were taken prisoner. The measure before the House takes care of that in the following provision:
All persons who are by the terms of paragraphs (g) and (h) of section 67 of this Act disqualified from voting, with such of their sons as on polling day are not of legal age shall he, and shall be held, exempt from combatant military and naval service.
In other words, a man who is liable to be conscripted can purchase his release by renouncing his privileges as a citizen and as a voter. That, I think, is a proper interpretation of the Act. My hon. friend from Calgary argued that a man of the class I have just described could be conscripted unless he renounced his privileges as a voter. I take a different view from my hon. friend both in his premises and in his conclusion. It seems to me that this man ought not to lose his privileges as a voter. He has left Germany and come to this country. He has become interested in this country, so much so that he desires the privileges of British citizenship. The Government which he has left still claims the right of life and death over him. It seems to me that this man ought to be treated as a British subject. His heart must be somewhere, and his heart would probably be where his home is. I would say this to my hon. friend from Calgary: there is far more to he gained by trusting people than by distrusting them. And if I object to this legislation, it is not so much for its present effect, as for the effect it will have in the future. We are striving to make Canada, young nation as we are, a great and powerful nation. We have long realized that to do that by ourselves would be a long and painful task. We have opened our door to the whole world, and have sent our agents everywhere. I have here a pamphlet in the German language urging Germans and Austrians to settle in Canada: we offer them everything we have. Many of these people have come to our country; they have settled here and behaved well, and we cannot break faith with them. The Germans have committed crimes in this war that have no

parallel in the last fifteen hundred years, but the blame is to be attached not so much to the German people as to the government of Germany. For my part I have not lost faith in the German people. I rather hope with President Wilson that the German people themselve will help to finish the war and deal with their own government. I have faith in the German people; I have faith in our fellow-subjects of German origin in this country. These men have been [DOT] proud of their new allegiance up to the present time, but will they have any reason to be proud after this day? Will they have the same pride in their new country as they had before? Do you believe, Sir, that the legislation we are discussing tonight is going to tend to make them more happy and more British than they were before? Sir, we must take the human heart as it is. The treatment those men are now receiving from men who claim to be their fellow citizens will have very far-reaching effects. The Government may win a temporary triumph; this measure may help to win the election. But the Government's gain will be the country's loss. If this be the Government's conception of how to make Canada a great country, it is not o'ur conception on this side of the House. Our conception is to trust to the human heart and appeal to its better sentiments. If we cannot win by that method we do not want to win on any other basis.


Right Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, from the commencement of this debate I have not taken any active part in it but I have been a pretty diligent listener. I have a few general remarks with which I would like to trouble the House. I shall not follow closely the line of argument which has been taken by my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) with the object of making a reply to him. I am quite willing to !et the statements which have been made by the hon. member for Calgary (Mr . E. B. Bennett) and the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) go against the statements which have been made by my right hon. friend. They can be digested, and members of the House can come to their own conclusion.
The general remarks I have to make are along this line. Should I be going too far if I make the statement that in approaching this question some of us make the great mistake of not taking the proper relativity of questions into account? What I mean by
that is: too many of us, I am afraid, have been arguing this question upon normal lines, as if the condition of affairs in the world, and the condition of affairs in Canada particularly, were the same as they were twelve years ago, ten years ago, eight years ago, or four years ago; and we are stickling for what we call privileges and rights and the permanence of certain phases of our political constitution, just the same if there were no cannons roaring and no great war in the world. That, I think, is the fundamental weakness of much of the argument that comes from the other side. My hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) or some other hon. gentlemen on the other side have asked the question: what is this Bill for; what is the purpose of it?


Frank Oliver: I did not ask the question.


Sir GEOEGE FOSTEE:: And they have made the answer: "It is to win 11 p.m. the election for the Tory party;
that is what it is for, and it is for nothing else." I do not think that is a reasonable position to take. I might make the retort to them that as far as profession of opinion and purpose and policy is concerned, taking the leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Government, there is one efficient war party in this country, and there is one war party which is not efficient, and if this Franchise Bill enables the efficient war party to win the election, and win the position to carry on what they have been carrying on for the last three years; if it helps to win for the Government it helps to win for the country and for the Empire. I have been at the inception of this Franchise Bill; I have watched it in its first discussions; I have followed it through all its stages. I have been a member of the' Council and the Government which has worked with this Bill, which has brought it to its stage of perfection, whatever that may be considered to be, and which has launched it before this House. Speaking for myself, I do not think I ever had the idea that it would be a particularly pleasant thing for the Government of the day to introduce a Bill which would have the effect of disfranchising citizens of this country, who formerly had the franchise. I have not been particularly impressed that it would be . a thing which would add very much, taking this year, and next year, and future years, to the prospects of the Liberal-Conservative party as a party. I have not

viewed it along these lines, but I will tell the House along what lines I have viewed it. I have viewed it along the line, which I consider the proper line, of putting as much punch and power behind the war government of this country, whatever Government it may be, as it is possible to put. I think there is necessity for that.
If I may be allowed an expression of my own opinion, I am sorry that wo have ever been forced to hold an election in Canada in the midst of the turmoil and the burdens of this war. Aside from all questions of constitutional right, and constitutional practice, to my mind there is a -condition in the world and a condition in Canada which might have been better met in this country by-all of us coming to -the eonblusion that we could do without for another year exercising the right of ballot and devote ourselves entirely and wholly to the prosecution of the war. I am sorry that we have had to go to the country and hold an election during this war period, but it is not my fault. It is not the fault of the leader of the Government, it is not the fault of the Liberal-Conservative party. That we have to go to an election is the fault of my right bon. friend who sits opposite (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), if it is the fault of anybody. He had it all within his own power, and if he had done as he did a year ago, his party would have followed him, and we would be without the turmoil of an election. But now that the election is imminent, and must come, it is a war election, and nothing else. We are not in this election into which we are now entering to determine the question of permanent suffrage for any class of people in this country. We -are not voting upon and determining what shall be the tariff policy of this country. We are not determining by our votes what shall be the policy of the -Administration in any civil line. Now when we make the first step, and as we make every other step until the day upon which the votes are to- be cast and counted, we are more and more determining the war policy of this country, and only the war policy of this country. That is the way I look upon- it. i Now, if it is to be a war election, this measure which is before us is a war franchise measure. We would not have had it if there were no war. We all admit and believe that. We have this War Franchise Bill because we have a war, and because this is an election which is to he particularly and preeminently fought out with reference to the policy which shall prevail in carrying on the war. Let us taike a step 
further. If we are in the throes of a war election, and if that election is to decide the measures which shall be taken- and the efficiency with which the war policy shall be carried out and I think that view is held by the members of this House and by the country at large-we can only have an efficient war policy carried out with due regard to what we have already done, with due regard to the men who are at the front, and with, due regard to their support, through one method, and that is [DOT] the method of selective conscription.
Do we think that or do w-e not? The votes of this House, with 27 of them from the other side, affirm that -most -solemnly in this House and- the votes of this House, with 27 fro-m the party led -by my right honourable friend voting -along that line, reechoed the sentiment of this -country-a sentiment that a man with red blood in his veins * ought to have due respect for. They did not echo the sentiment of the s.acker, of the -soap-box orator on the -streets of Montreal or in any other city. They -did not represent the policy of Mr. Bourassa and Mr. Lavergn-e. They did not represent the policy of dozens of members o n the other side of the House who supported my right honourable friend- -and who subscribed to the -idea that Canada had done enough. There is no one here more glad, or more proud- that Canada has done what -she has done -for the su-c-cess of this war, than those who cast those votes, and by and large they represent the sterling national, loyal sentiment of this -country from one end of -it to the other. That, then, is the position to which we have -conie.
This franchise is meant to strengthen that sentiment. That is the purpose of this franchise and -that is the purpose which I think it will achieve. Have we not a right to -strengthen that sentiment? You say that 300,000 of our men have gone out from this *country-the pick of its citizenship? That is true. Of these men, only ia certain proportion -can by any possibility give their votes. Not a -single one of them can use his legitimate -and usual influence in this cc-untry towards the determination of what the policy of the -Government -shall be. The dust of thirty thousand of these men lies silent on the other side of the ocean. Others are imprisoned, others -are interned-, and others are incapacitated in various ways.
When this country -comes in a few months to register its voice -as to whether those men shall be -supported- and this war

shall be efficiently carried on; when upon the register at the poll is found the name of John Smith, a loyal citizen of Canada who has taken the oath of allegiance to his sovereign, has enlisted' in the forces, has gone to the front and has made the supreme sacrifice, and when he is not there to answer for it at the poll, his wife is there. 'She, who gave 'the husband of her youth, the support of her family, the father of her children -says:	"My husband
has passed over in doing his duty, his name is called and I. am here to answer." There is not am honourable gentleman on that side of the House and there is not an honest, straight forward, lover of his country in the whole domain of Canada, who would refuse that appeal of the wife of the husband who had given his life and was no longer here to say what should be the policy that should follow his sacrifice.
Hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House have admitted the justice of that appeal and they have little or no objection . to this part of the Bill. But they cavil and find fault. They forget again, as I said at the first, that this is an abnormal condition of things under which we are acting. Although the mothers, wives,, sisters and daughters of the soldiers who have gone into active service are admitted to have the right to represent their kith and kin, they will cavil, as my hon. friend from St. John does. He does everything possible to defeat this Bill, to minimize its importance, to raise objections to it, and to excite prejudice against it by doing what?-by saying: You have not been consistent; if you give to some women the right to vote, you should give it to all. The hon. gentleman opposes this measure because we did not go- so far as to give it to all. There is where, I think, he makes the mistake of not taking into account that this is an extraordinary condition under which we find ourselves and that we are not legislating under normal conditions.
There is one point I want to- make about that. There are noble, devoted women outside of those who have sent relatives to the front, who have done splendid service, hut there are degrees in service and in sacrifice. There is tbe service and sacrifice of sympathy, which while it is not one of personal interest in the war, it is yet sympathetic with those who go to the front. There are hundreds and thousands of women who have made sacrifice and done service through sympathy. But there is a degree that is
still higher, and these women would be the first to acknowledge it. That is the service and the sacrifice which is not simply emanating from sympathy, but ivhich comes from heart strings wrung, which looks out of tear-bedimmed eyes, which comes from sleepless nights and anxious days, which comes from the part of flesh and blood and family that is far from them and which is exposed to constant danger. No one doubts that this kind of sacrifice and service is far higher than- the other. 'That is the distinguishing line upon which we -base this franchise Bill, and we trust to the good common sense of the people of this country to do -away with those little refinements which the hon. member for -St. John is so fond of indulging in and -upon the main, broad question of distinctive righ-t say that, "This is all that can be expected in war time, -this is a right we freely concede to them and we will await our time until under normal conditions the whole franchise of this country can be put -upon a permanent basis."
_ Let me go on to- the other part of my right hon. friend's speech. My right hon. friend speaks of disfranchisement. You would think to listen to the speech of my right hon. friend to-night, that before a single Buc-kowinian or Slav started from his home in Europe, we sent an accredited member of this Government to -si-t down with him -and that we concluded a treaty, signed, sealed and delivered, as to what he should get when he came to this country. An attempt is made to prove that because a man has certain information put into his hands in regard to the country to which he comes, that country enters into a solem-n compact with him as an individual which might be comparable to a contract or treaty entered into between -sovereign powers. Of course, nothing like that takes place. The man who leaves his distant home leaves to better himself. Probably the last thing he thinks about is what vote he is going to get or what voting power he is going to have in the country to which he goes. He goes to that country, -becomes a citizen, has all its privileges. What is the use of trying to make it appear that those who are disfranchised under this Act are shorn of- every right -and privilege they had in this country? The man simply is asked to stand aside when the destiny of this country is being determined, to stand aside for the time being on account of relationship, of possible prejudice, of possible active sympathy with the enem-ies of this country.

That is all that he is asked. He keeps his liberty-not a bit of it is infringed upon. He has his security, he is as safe now, under all the laws of this country, as he was before; he has all his betterments, his prospects, his rights and his privileges. The simple one thing that he is asked to forego for this one war election is, when his own kith and kin are the enemies of this country and blood flows between them in one common vein, to consider that he is in a position where it is better for himself and better for this country that he shall stand aside for the time being. Why, if a jury is being called to try a man for his life, and one of the jurymen on being challenged allows it to become clear that he has a prejudice or has expressed an antipathy to, or an opinion adverse to the case of the man on trial-although he is a citizen, although he has all his rights, he stands aside without question and does not feel that any hardship is inflicted upon him. In this great national trial, when the destinies of this country are being decided, he is asked to do the same thing and to stand aside. He is not asked to fight, he is not asked to be a combatant, he is isimply asked to forego one right; and I want to say that, so far as I judge it, it is the best thing possible for the man himself, and that it will in the end conduce more to a feeling of amity and of good will than if he were thrown into the arena of a political contest, to become the object of appeal by both parties. I believe that on that account he is in a position which Tends itself more to future amity and good will than if he became a contestant in the political contest as it was going on.
My time is np and I shall take my seat, but before I do so, just one word. While this closure has been going on, I have come to the conclusion that this Parliament and every future Parliament would be wise if it adopted some rule by which we should keep discussion down to about twenty-five or thirty minutes for each member. By that means we should have a better House, we should have better debate, and we should do our work in one-half the time.	'
Hon.' GEORGE P. GRAHAM (North Renfrew): In regard to the last remarks of my right hon. friend (Sir George Foster) so far .as he is concerned I agree. I am inclined to think that when he is compelled to condense his speech into about twenty-five or twenty-six minutes, he gets at what he wants to say better than when

he takes a long time to build a foundation bn which he does not base his argument. My right, hon. friend has fallen into the habit lately, which has not deserted him in his twenty minute speech, of lecturing. He has not forgotten his old university days when his chief occupation was to lecture students. He looks over at us on- this side of the House-and this is not the first time -and says we have lost our sense of proportion, we have not the interest in the war. I want to tell him that he does not know what interest in the war is.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


George Perry Graham: In the heart of hearts, where the heart strings are torn, he does not know what interest in the war is; and he has no right to lecture us in the House, any of us who have as much interest in the war as he possibly can have. I do not object to him advising, but when he takes on his air of lecturer .to men on both sides of the House as to our lack of sense .of proportion and not giving this war the prominence it should have, I say he is assuming a role for which he is not qualified.
My right hon. friend says he hates very much -an election in war time. He was a party to sending ballots to Europe to have an election in war time, ' and he sat in the Government and allowed money to be expended, without authority I believe, to. print ballots and rush them over to the Old Land to prepare for an election, in war time, when we were in the midst of an appeal for recruits.


Robert Laird Borden: I would remind my hon. friend that that was done in pursuance of an Act of Parliament, and it was my hon. friend's advocacy of the passing of such an Act in the first instance that induced the Government to take it np.


George Perry Graham: If my right hon. friend is not nearer right on most things than he is on this, I am not surprised that some people in his party are crying for leadership. There was no necessity for sending ballots to Europe for an election because there was an Act on the statute book. We have an Election Act on- the statute book, but we are not peddling ballots, not having an election always. This Act was put on the statute book to provide for an election if it was -called, and the fact that the Gov eminent intended to call it was proven by the other fact that they sent the ballots to Europe to be prepared for the election. My right hon. friend lectures us because he tells us that his party is the party to put the punch into efforts for the war.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


George Perry Graham: The way the hon. gentleman wants to put the punch into war efforts financially is by voting in this House to give a value to common stock that hon. gentlemen opposite themselves voted had no value, and to mulct the country in millions of dollars. The way the hon. gentleman wants to put the punch into war efforts is to vote to give his friends both in Toronto and Quebec millions in the Quebec and Saguenay railway, so much so that the member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) revolted at it and had to vote against it.. Another way in which he wishes to put the punch into war efforts is by voting a quarter of a million dollars for new telephone services merely for political purposes throughout Canada because an election is coming, although we had the pledge of the Finance Minister and the Minister of Pub-lie Works that no new work would be undertaken while the war was in progress.
Sir, the finances of this country are very important at the present time, and I want to say that the Government has at this session voted to squander millions of the people's money in a direction not at all required, at least during the war, and has taken the punch out of war efforts more than anything that the Opposition has done or could do.


Mr. LALOR:: The Globe and Star did
not say so.


George Perry Graham: I am not particular what any paper said. I am making my own remarks and am prepared to stand by them. The Minister of Trade and Commerce also referred to the disfranchisement of certain citizens of Canada on the ground that it was for the safety of the State, and it has been said to me quietly that the reason I opposed this Bill is on account of a certain German vote in a certain constituency. I want to tell the House now for the first time that nearly all that German vote went for this Government's candidate, and a good many did so at the request of my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who was afraid of the drop of poison being infused into the body politic by my being returned. I want to tell him that the members of the Government now who speak so disparagingly of the German vote sent at least twenty men into the German settlement to live with the German people during the by-election in South Renfrew, and the Germans nearly all voted for the Government.
Mr. EDWARDS. They did not send the ballot papers.


George Perry Graham: No, my hon. friend might hiave captured them on the way. The German vote, as we may call it, or the alien enemy vote as described by my hon. friend from Kingston (Mr. Nickle), in the West is not of German origin, or is not a real German vote as he described it, as coming under the law which he read as passed by Germany. The great majority of the vote referred to in the West I am told is Austrian and not German. So that the law my hon. friend read to-night as to their retaining their dual nationality does not apply to the vast number of men in the West, because these men are not Germans. [DOT]
I want to refer to those of German origin in our own province of Ontario. The matter brought before the House by the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Weichel) was brought to the attention of the House by the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy) the other night but it was brought up by the latter gentleman at fifteen minutes of two when this House was in committee, when there was no way of saving the franchise of these men in Ontario, who have been here from twenty to forty years, hut who have not gone through the formality of being naturalized. They always thought, up to the last municipal election in the city of Kitchener, that they were British subjects, and were always treated as such. I want to point out that I brought this subject to the attention of the committee in plenty of time to have this Act amended if I had had any support, but I got no support whatever from either of these * two hon. gentlemen, although the question applied particularly to the counties of Waterloo and Perth-more so than to the county of Renfrew. On the 10th September, when we had plenty of time to have the Bill amended before we got to the third reading, I made the following remarks:
There are men in this country who came from other lands, took up their residence here, and for twenty years they have been voting in Canada. Hon. members in this House can call them by name. They are good citizens, and they believed they had the right to vote. That right of citizenship was never questioned by either side of politics. When this war broke out, they discovered that, although they had been voting for many years, they had never gone through the formality of becoming naturalized. Being loyal citizens, and to show that they were true to the Union Jack and the British Empire, they immediately took out their naturalization papers.
I was wrong in that, and that matter was explained to-day. I said further:	*
But they have only been naturalized two or three years. And although they have been building up this country, paying taxes and rais-

ing their families, although they are a credit to the country, by this Bill they find themselves disfranchised, and marked among their neighbours as men unworthy to be trusted with citizenship.
That was some days .ago.


Mr. MORPHY:: The hon. gentleman has not mentioned what people he is referring to. He has not used the word "German." Was he frightened to use that word?


George Perry Graham: I said they were not Germans; they were Austrians. If the bon. gentleman reads my entire remarks he will find what I was talking about.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Pretty dry reading to wade through all the hon. gentleman has said.


George Perry Graham: The hon. gentleman has done drier things than that since last September. I want to submit this question on the third reading. These men are in a different class from men of alien enemy origin who have come over to this country within the last few years. These men have been here for many years, .spread over the province of Ontario, and exercising all the rights of citizenship and the rights of franchise. No person ever questioned those rights, and they never dreamed that they did not possess them. They look upon this measure as depriving them in an arbitrary manner of some right which was never disputed for many years. I think these men who have resided in Canada for a number of years, who voted regularly as citizens, might be allowed to retain their franchise. The men of the province of Ontario of German origin are among the best men we have in the province. Those of us who have gone through Ontario from end to end and have met these men would never dream of putting them in a class where there was the least semblance of disloyal utterance or action-. And, if it is not too late yet, I would gladly support the Government in some amendment which would permit these men to retain their rights. I have appealed to these men and the Minister of Trade and Commerce has appealed to these men. We have addressed many audiences standing side by side and they have responded, they have contributed; and it seems hard that- these old citizens of Canada should toy this Act be deprived, notwithstanding their loyalty and devotion, of that which perhaps men hold among the dearest things of life, the right to exercise their franchise.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman mean men- who are not yet naturalized?


George Perry Graham: I do.


Arthur Meighen: If so, they never had the right.


George Perry Graham: You are talking technically and legally, but as a matter of fact, possession of almost anything gives you ownership after a number of years.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, no.


George Perry Graham: Speaking technically,
these men never had' the right, but they have exercised what they believed to be a right, and exercised it wisely for the last 30 years. They not only thought they had the right, but their neighbours thought it also. Neither this Government, nor any political party ever objected, because these men have been here so long they are landmarks in the section in which they reside.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Does the hon. gentleman
think anybody is going to prevent them voting more than before?


George Perry Graham: They would be violating the law if they voted.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: They are in exactly the
same position.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend says that, although he is going to support the law, he believes it is going to be violated. I say these men ought to have the right to vote as they always had, and I believe it is possible to frame the Bill* to accomplish that object. What I object to generally, regarding this law-it was hinted at to-night by the Minister of Trade and Commerce,and it was intimated by the Secretary of State the other night, is that hon. gentlemen opposite are proceeding upon the principle, that there is but one loyal party in Canada. We are back to the days of the Family Compact, when a few people got together and said that the loaves and the fishes, the rights and the privileges, of the people, indeed, everything belonged to this one party. Nothing was left to the remainder of the people except the duty of paying the taxes that the Family Compact levied upon them. According to the language of ministers, the principle is laid down that this Bill is expected to assist in electing friends of this Government and that in doing so it will assist in carrying on the war. If this is not the case, why prevent so many people in Canada from voting? Sir I re-

sent that. I do not think it is fair for a member of the Government to insinuate such a thing in this House. The time has gone by in Canada when thinking men will listen very seriously to that kind of talk; the history of Canada points in a very different direction. Under the 'leadership of the present leader of the Opposition, the first step towards closer union between the motherland and Canada was taken in the Imperial preference. During the years that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) was in charge of the Finance Department, he talks about an Imperial preference; his friends passed resolutions upon the subject, hut they never took it into their active consideration. The first step, therefore, to give the motherland a preference in the Canadian markets was taken by the present leader of the Opposition. Moreover, the first man as head of a Canadian Government to provide troops to go across the water and help the motherland was the present leader of the Opposition. .His predecessors had had similar opportunity, but had declined to take advantage of it; and some of the men who assisted the present Government to get into power in 1911 left the Liberal party on account of the then Prime Minister's action in that respect. The loyalty of the Liberal party in Canada should not be reflected upon. The history of the grand old Liberal party in the motherland is replete with incident after incident, act after act, showing that this party has been at the head of nearly every loyal movement launched in that great country. I resent being lectured on the ground that the Liberal party is not loyal. Since the beginning of the wai; gentlemen on this side of the House have supported every war measure that the Government brought forward, but they do balk at supporting a measure that is not a war measure; a measure that is devised to assist the' Government in the coming election.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What about conscription?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend need not ask me anything about conscription. He talked about it where it was popular, but I supported conscription although in my constituency it was not popular.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is the reason why you oppose it.


George Perry Graham: Oppose what?


Henry Herbert Stevens: You oppose it because
it is not popular in your constituency.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Wake up.


George Perry Graham: The hon. gentleman has been asleep; I did not oppose conscription. Since the beginning of this war there have been no Liberals and no Tories so far as the sacrifice of the people is concerned. Members on this side of the House have done what they thought was light. I resent the imputation made by ministers that because a man happens to vote for a Liberal at the coming election he will be voting for a party that is not truly loyal and devoted to the interests of the Empire. We have disagreed on this side of the House as to details, but no one has shown more loyalty or more devotion to the Empire in the matter of carrying on the war than the leader of the Opposition. There is an endeavour to spread throughout the country the idea that the Tory party is the only party that is in favour of carrying on this war. That is not in the interests of the war; as a matter of fact, it is detrimental to the carrying on of the war enthusiastically- ( and hon. gentlemen know it.
In this' war we are engaged in a great struggle; Grits and Tories, young men and older men, forgetting the differences at home, are struggling side by side for what they believe to be the best for mankind. Apparently we have come to the time when hon. gentlemen opposite are playing upon the feelings of the people throughout the Dominion in respect of that war for party purposes-and that is why this Bill is introduced. If this Bill meant winning the war or assisting to win it, I would support it. But no argument has been submitted to show that the Bill is designed to be of any assistance in carrying on the war. The Minister of Trade and Commerce made an eloquent appeal, as only he can, for the wives of the soldiers. Sir, we are all in favour of that. We are in favour of giving votes not only to the wives and female relatives of soldiers, but to the wives of their neighbours who .are doing all they can to further the cause that ,we have at heart. Hon. gentlemen opposite are in favour of restricting the franchi-se; we are in favour of extending the franchise. The Governments of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario, led by friends of hon. gentlemen, have granted to the women of . their respective provinces the right to vote.
We have always accepted the provincial qualification, but when it comes to winning the war, this Government balks at accepting the provincial qualification-as if the noble women of these provinces were not
l

as competent to vote in time of war as they are to vote in time of peace. Is the wife of the man who has contributed largely to patriotic and other funds connected with the war, to be denied the vote? Is the waeherwotaan who has sacrificed out of her mere pittance fifty cents a week for the Patriotic Fund not entitled to cast her ballot simply because she has no relatives to go to the front? Hon. gentlemen seem to have forgotten those words of commendation, " She hath done what she could." Sir, these women have done what they could. It is their misfortune that they are not able to send sflns or brothers to the front. But their spirit has shown itself beyond doubt; if they had had relatives, those relatives would have gone to the front. It is not to the credit of this Government that, for some reason which they have not mentioned, they have deprived the women of these various provinces of the franchise that they would enjoy were it not for this Bill.


Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I do not rise to
speak on the third reading of this Bill through any desire to hear the sound of my voice in this Chamber. I should not participate in this debate if I did not feel that the occasion was a most serious one. During a session in time of war, the discussions of questions that have come before this House have been greatly prolonged from day to day. If I expressed my opinion of some of the speeches that have been made, I am afraid, Sir, that you would call me to order.
The third reading of the War-Time Elections Act comes in conjunction with the two measures that have recently been put through the House, the Military Service Act, and tjie measure .giving the soldiers the right to vote. The War-Time Elections Act is surely a necessary one, considering the conditions that confront the people today.
Since this war began there has been a strong feeling throughout Canada that we should have no election, in this country as long as the war lasted, and no one voiced 'those sentiments more strongly than hon. gentlemen opposite and the Liberal press Of the country. As the war went on, I believe that that feeling became even stronger.
It is not so very long ago that the right hon. leader of the Opposition, protesting ' in the city of Toronto against the idea of holding an election during the war, said that he did not purpose opening the portals of office with a bloody key. A year ago a
I" Mr. Graham.]
measure for the extension of the life of Parliament was passed unanimously by this House; we have practically reached the end of that extension. I say that if there was one reason then why there should be an extension of the life of Parliament, there are a hundred reasons for extending it to-day. Hon. gentlemen may say that there was no Military Service Bill before the House last year. Let me tell them that there was a Military Service Bill on the statute book at that time, and it was far more rigid than the one recently passed by this House. The measure recently passed was most reasonable compared with the Act on the statute book at that time.
I have listened to the right hon. leader of the Opposition and some of his colleagues to-night, and I say that the sentiments they have advanced are not in accordance with the sentiment of the people of this country, as I understand it. The right hon. leader of the Opposition stated a few minutes ago that this measure was a breach of faith with a portion of our population, and he went on to say, "My faith is in the German people," referring, of course, to the Germans who had come to this country. His statement to-night reminded me of a statement he made in the old Parliament Building not so very long ago, when the proposal of the Government for the building of three dreadnoughts was under consideration. He said:
There is one fact in the situation which, I think, shows that there is no intention on the part of Germany to attack England, and that fact is the German Emperor.
The German Emperor is undoubtedly one of the great men of the present age. By intellect, by character, by moral fibre, he has shown himself wonderfully endowed. In the first years of his reign some of his utterances sent a shiver through those who had the peace of the world at heart. Many believed that he was, perhaps, hankering for the glamour of military glory. But as he advanced in years, and as crisis after crisis came, his potent influence was always directed towards peace. And the day may come when, like his illustrious Uncle, our late King, he may be called the peace-maker.
I have always said that the man who has no regard for the country from which his ancestors came is not t^ie best kind of a citizen. I believe that many of the people who have come out from Germany and settled in this country are prejudiced against our cause; their sympathies are naturally with the country from which they came. I say that no hardship or injustice is being done to these people by passing this Act at the present time. When the leader of the Opposition and the hon. mem-

ber for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) say that an injustice is being done to these people who have been here for twenty or twenty-five years, they are saying something that is not in accordance with the facts, for these men will not be affected in the slightest degree by this Act. It is only those who have come here since 1902 who will be affected, and if these people who have been here twenty years are not naturalized now, it is their orwn fault.
Furthermore, when the hon. gentlemen opposite say we are doing an injustice to a large portion of the women of this country by depriving them of the franchise, they are making an equally erroneous statement, because the women of this country have never had the franchise, consequently, they cannot be deprived of it. No one in this country has protested more strongly against the granting of the franchise to the women of this country than the leader of the Opposition. In this House, not so very long ago, he protested against forcing the franchise upon the women of the province of' Quebec, and he wanted a sort of patchwork affair conferring the franchise upon some women here and there. The Bill is granting the franchise to the wives, sisters and mothers of the soldiers who have gone overseas. It is a recognition of the services that have been rendered by these men. When you think of what these men have endured, and then think of the abuse hon. gentlemen opposite have heaped on some hon. gentlemen on this side of the House who have offered their services, fought in the trenches, and done everything possible to help win the war, I can come to no other conclusion but that it is a guilty conscience that made the hon. member for South Renfrew get up in this House and make the statements he did a few minutes ago, when he accused us *>f charging the Opposition in this House and the Liberal party with disloyalty. I have never said that they are disloyal. But I do say that the Liberal party in this country, and I know many of them, are ashamed of their leaders at the present time.
I want to say on behalf of the women of this country that they are not claiming that an injustice has been done to them in recognizing the wives and sisters and mothers and daughters of those who have gone to fight the battles of the Empire and of the 30,000 men who have already fallen in battle. On the contrary, many of them who were most active in urging that the franchise be granted to women have come forward and said that they are heartily in
accord with the measure that has been introduced, and are prepared to wait for an extension of the suffrage until the war is over. But they say it is a right and proper thing that the soldiers' women relatives should be given the franchise.
Other speakers have pointed out the influence that 300,000 soldiers could exert in an election if they were present in Canada. As they are absent, it is only right and proper that their representatives here should have some say in the election. This is going to be a war-time election, and it necessitates the passing of .a War-Time Elections Act. If there was no war on, hon. gentlemen opposite might have some cause for complaint. The right hon. leader of the Opposition says that this measure involves a breach of faith with those who have come from enemy countries and settled in Canada. Do these people expect the franchise at this time? They are not called upon to serve this country as combatants.
Hon. gentlemen opposite are protesting against compulsory military service. I say that the state has demands on the citizen which the citizen cannot escape when the life of the nation is at stake. It is the duty of every citizen to render every possible service to the state. It is the duty of the Government to see that 'that service is rendered, but not by going to those who are opposed to military service and asking them whether they would approve of it or not. Compulsory military service has been on the statute books for fifty years, and hon. gentlemen opposite, notwithstanding the efforts which have been made by the right hon. leader of the Government ever since he came back from the Old Country to form a union government by which we could avoid an election, have persistently refused to co-operate. They insisted on an election. They hoped that by reason of the disloyal element-'and there is .a disloyal element in this country

'they hoped by a union of that element with the slackers and the hide-bound partisans whom they expected to support them, that they would gain the ascendancy, and that the leader of the Opposition would be able to open the portals of office even with a "bloody key."
I can quite understand that they feel to-day it would be a tremendous disadvantage to them if the female relatives of the soldiers overseas were recognized and given a voice in this election. They realize that many of those who are in sympathy with them are not going to be permitted to poll'their votes in this election,

by reason of the fact that those people are not going to be called upon to serve in the war, and consequently are not going to be entitled to a voice in a-war election. Canada is facing the most serious condition that ever confronted any people in this world, yet we. are sitting here to-night, after a session, of eight months, treating matters in a manner which I believe is not very much to the credit of some hon. members. Only a few minutes ago I heard the right hon. leader of the Opposition endeavour to censure an hon. member (Mr. Currie) who had served at the front, for certain remarks he had made here. The right hon. gentleman did not censure one of his supporters a short time ago when he made a statement with regard to the attitude of that hon. gentleman, sneering at a man who had raised a regiment in this country, and who had fought in Flanders and done everything he possibly could. The conscience of the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) must have been troubling him when he said that the Opposition in this House were charged with being disloyal. The situation is so serious that we cannot afford to treat it lightly.
I read an editorial in the- Toronto Globe this evening, which shows there is a possibility of the Canadian divisions at the front being reduced, and that instead of the fifth division, which has been in England for some time, being sent overseas, drafts are being sent from it, and if conditions go on as they are -at present, considering the number of casualties and the number of recruits, it is only a matter of a short time until the four Canadian divisions at the front will be reduced to three, then to two, and then, perhaps, disappear altogether. The issue at the present time is, are we going to continue in this war, or are we going to drop out of it? If we are going to treat -this matter seriously we must realize that we are at war and are to have a war-time election. If we are to be forced into a war-time election we must -take measures to see that the enemy within our country-and such there be-are not given an opportunity of throttling the men who are fighting our battles at the front. Let us see that the influence of those men overseas will, to some extent -at least, be preserved by granting to their near relatives the right to exeicise the franchise in this election.
If I had time I could refer to certain statements which have been made here by different members of the House. The right hon. leader of the Opposition spoke about unseemly attacks. Let me ask 
you, Mr. Speaker, if a more unseemly attack was ever made in this House or outside of it upon the Prime Minister of -any country -at -a time when that country was at war, than was made upon the right hon. leader of the Government (Sir Robert Borden) by the hon. member from St. Mary's (Mr. Martin), who said:
If anything happens in Montreal I shall be very sorry -because I do not like trouble, but if any trouble happens the soldiers will be responsible for it.
Further on he said:
If anything happens, if blood flows in the streets of Montreal or in any other city, the fault will be with the Prime Minister and with those who helped him pass the law.
Those are the sentiments of the supporters of the right honourable leader of the Opposition, yet he does not reprove the men who make such statements but casts aspersions upon the actions of a man who has served at the front, and whom I saw leaving Valcartier with as fine a regiment as ever left the shores of any country, a man who acquitted himself in one of the most difficult positions in whidh anyone was ever placed in a manner which has never been found fault with, by any of the men who were with him; yet some politicians who wished to ruin this man's reputation endeavoured to make it appear that he had not done his duty on that occasion. Does the right honourable leader of the Opposition censure his followers for an attack of that kind? Does he censure the honourable member from St. Mary's when he makes an attack upon the Prime Minister of this country? No. But he finds it convenient and it suits his cause to make the attack he has made here to-night. When the honourable member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) endeavoured to reprove the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) as he did here to-night, he never presented a more sorry spectacle in this House.
In conclusion, I want to say that I consider it would have been a crime if we had not passed a War-time Election Act. It would have been, a crime that would forever redound to our shame if we had allowed anything to happen in this country that would curtail our effors in this war, if we had allowed such a combination as I have referred to, -and allowed the Opposition to attain the objects they hoped to attain as a result of that combination. The WarTime Election Act is before us and I am sure it will satisfy the people of this country.
Mr. F. N. MeCREA (Sherbrooke): Mr. Speaker, before the Prime Minister went to

England he declared on several occasions that conscription would never be resorted' to here. When he came back, he had evidently changed his mind. It is plain that he found conditions on the other side such as to indicate that more effort and more force would have to beputintothiswar. They said tiheir sole intention was to win the war. Let us review what has taken place since that time and see whether the action has justified the pretension. We are told that actions speak louder than words. If we analyse the actions and means resorted to by the Government, we shall find that it is not the winning of the wax that is uppermost in their minds but the winning of the election. The right honourable Minister of Trade and 'Commerce told us practically that they were the only true and loyal people in this country, that they have been the loyal party and the only party capable of putting the necessary energy, force and drive into the war. He further told us that the people were behind them in this matter. If the Government believe that they have the confidence of the people and that the people are behind them as the win-the-war party, why are they resorting to such methods as these? Why do they resort to the expedient of disfranchising a lot of people who are true and loyal citizens and' proceed to enfranchise a lot of other people who never aSked to be enfranchised, never thought of it and do not want it? When the right honourable Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) came back from England he said that he believed that the time had arrived when we should put forth .a greater effort, and that that effort could not be put forth without a coalition Government, because he declared that a conscription Bill could not be legitimately carried out by any one party. I am not going to give the Prime Minister credit for having any great amount of diplomatic ability, but I still think he is too shrewd and wise to have gone about the formation of a coalition government in the way in which he did if he meant what he said. He said that he had come to the conclusion that we had to have more recruits, that a greater effort was to be put forth and that the first step 'in that direction was the formation of a coalition government. If he believed that, instead of going into this House and announcing his conscription measure, why did he not call my right honourable friend (Sir Wilfrid LaurieT) into his councils, give him his confidence-371
and state to him the conditions which he found. The conditions which the Prime Minister says he found overseas were very different from what he believed them to be before he went away. When he went away he said that conscription would not be resorted to, but when he came back he said that conscription was necessary. If the right honourable gentleman had believed that, the first thing he, as an intelligent and sensible man, would have done, would have been to call in the leader of the Opposition and lay before him the condition that he found overseas and say : Now, cannot we come to some arrangement for	the	formation	of	a	coalition, or	union	government	so	thatwe may	carry	this war to a	successful conclusion ? He	did	not	do
that. He first announced his conscription measure, knowing well that the leader of the Opposition was a man of very strong views upon some things and that he had an aversion to compulsion in any form. He knew he was a man who had spent nearly his whole life in trying to bring the different elements in this country together by persuasion, and that he would not favour a resort to force unless it was finally and absolutely necessary. Did that show that the leader of the Government wanted a coalition government? It did not. The fact of his announcing a policy that he knew beforehand the leader of the Opposition was opposed to, instead of taking him into his confidence, would indicate that it was not a coalition, or win-the-war government that he had in his mind, but that what he desired to do was to bring about a dividing of parties in this country.
Then he brings in the Military Voters' Act. Nobody finds any fault with the proposal to give every soldier of Canadian birth a vote. He is entitled to it. Nobody would object to the wife, sister, mother, or daughter, of a man who had lost his life being enfranchised. It is only common sense and reason that the man who is at the front should have the right to .vote. He has the right to vote under this Act, and that being so, why should five or six of his sisters have the right to vote? I ha\ie in my mind the case of a young man who is at the front. He has seven sister and a mother. He will have a vote himself and the seven sisters and the mother will each have a vote-nine votes in all. Is there any reason for this unless you give votes to other women? There are men enlisting in the Canadian ranks who never saw Canada but

58&4

who enlisted on the other side. They probably wanted to go to the war, and like intelligent people they enlisted where they got the best pay. They did not enlist for the sake of getting the vote, they were not asking for the vote. These men have never seen Canada and have no interest in Canadian affairs. They are interested, as British subjects, in winning the war and they did not enlist for the purpose of getting the vote. They may vote wherever they are placed by the machine. Does that indicate that the Government believe that the people are behind them? They tell us that they are the only true and loyal people, that they are the only people who can carry this war to a successful issue. They say that the people of Canada are behind them. Yet they resort to these methods.


Mr. MORRIS:: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Mr. McCREA:: No sir; I am talking now. The next matter brought up in this House probably had nothing to do with military matters, that was the question of the formation of a coaliton Government. The Government wanted somebody to join them and take the curse off their shoulders, the Canadian Northern Railway Bill. The Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) in this House on different occasions stood up almost with tears in his eyes- I was not very close to him and my sight is not good, but from his trembling voice I think he had tears in his eyes-and deplored the fact that when they came into power they inherited a terrible load of woe in the railway system. Probably there is something in that, that railway construction had been overdone. But I ask if the fact that we have had more expenditure on railways, which in some cases paralleled each other, than was really justified, is a reason for passing legislation to place a value, on stock that has no value according to the report of a Commission appointed by this Government.


John Allister Currie: I think the rules of the House are being transgressed.


Francis N. McCrea: I think I am as near my subject as you were. You talked about yourself, saying you were at the front when other people said you were hiding.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: I think the hon. gentleman should come back to the subject.


Francis N. McCrea: I am nearer to it now than he was; he spent his whole time talking

about himself. During the discussion of the Canadian Northern Railway Bill, the Minister of Finance read out a list of the directors of the Canadian Bank of Commerce. I do not know what connection the Canadian Bank of Commerce has with the Canadian Northern Railway Bill, but he read that out. I wish to say that I am not now and never was a director of the Bank of Commerce, but if I was, that would not be a justification of my voting to rob the people of this country to reimburse either the Canadian Northern railway or the Bank of Commerce.
This- Franchise Bill disfranchises about 50,000 people ratepayers property owners, naturalized citizens, many of whom have taken the oath of allegiance. If I understood the Prime Minister rightly, he intimated that for such of those as were naturalized and had taken the oath of allegiance and had always behaved well, some way of qualifying might be found. I was wondering if they would take the oath of allegiance to the Tory party instead of to the King, it would not be abetter qualification to give them a vote at the present time.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: It is worth
taking into consideration.


Francis N. McCrea: The Canadian Northern Railway Bill, whatever the award may be, whether it is one dollar or $30,009,000, is just so much money stolen from the people of this country, and the Quebec and Saguenay railway is very much in the same category. This franchise Bill proposes to enfranchise all the female relations of soldiers. whether the soldiers are alive and voting for themselves or whether they are dead. I think every fair-minded man would say without hesitation that the wife or sister of any man who has lost his life at the front should have the right of voting; but I do not believe that the women whose sons or brother are at the front are much concerned about voting. I have one son at the front, and he is not one of the rear guards in London either; he is in the front line in France and has been since May. I trust he is still living. He has a mother at home.


Avard Longley Davidson: What is his view on conscription?


Francis N. McCrea: I do not know what his views on conscription are, but if he is like his father he is in favour of all just and fair measures, and I think he is likely to-

follow his father's example. I wish to tell you that his mother is not worrying about votes. She is knitting, working for him and other boys, most of her time when she is awake and dreaming about him when she is asleep. She has troubles enough without worrying about politics or about how the vote will go, and I think it is heaping injustice on the women of this country to ask them to take a part in politics. They have troubles enough at this time without being called upon to take part in the political struggles of this country. However, I have no objection to the mothers, sisters, daughters or other womenkind of soldiers having a vote. But I say it is an injustice, and I think you will reap the reward of your injustice when the time comes- I am not worrying about this thing =-it is unjust and unreasonable and a blot on the fair name of Canada, to send agents to foreign countries and invite men to come to this country and settle, promising them that they will have the right of citizenship and enjoy all the privileges of British subjects, and at this particular time, when the Government is heaping on all kinds of taxes, and our taxation is only beginning, and although we place this burden on these men not allow them to have anything to say as to how the money shall be spent. It is the fact that this Government feel down in the bottom of their heart and their soul that they have not the confidence of the people of this country that they are placing this unfair, unjust and disgraceful legislation on the statute-book.


Mr. L. A. LAPOINTE (St. James, Montreal) :: I rise again to protest against the passing of this Bill. I said on one occasion that I represent the city of Montreal where there are a lot of law-abiding citizens who will be affected by this Bill which disfranchises thousands of men who have been accustomed to live with us, paying their taxes, and being as law-abiding citizens as the best class of citizens in Montreal
People imagine that men in the city of Montreal may be all alike. It is not so. Those who have been attacking the Government have been attacking Sir Wilfrid Laurier and myself in the same manner. These men do not count. I an) speaking on behalf of quite a number of Jews of German descent, and many others, I have received many communications from these gentlemen asking me to protest. They are not very quiet men and they are not going
37li
to take this matter as easy as the electors of my hon. friend from North Waterloo (Mr. Weichel) do. I do not know whether that hon. gentleman has authority to speak for the electors and to say that they would be satisfied with what he appealed to the Prime Minister to give them. The men in Montreal of whom I speak are not going to be satisfied with that. On one occasion my hon. friend from North Waterloo told the House what his people were doing. He said that a thousand men in North Waterloo enrolled, and 300 of those who went to the front were boys of German descent. Is he asking that these people should have the right of citizenship, but no vote? Is he content with the statement of the Prime Minister that he would pass an Order in Council and give them some right of living, but not the right of representation, though they pay taxes? The Government continue to collect taxes from these disfranchised people in Montreal just the same, and yet all these people will have no right to vote. I call this Bill a measure of expediency. You have only to look at three or four pages of the Bill, and you find nothing but enumerators. We see provision for thousands of enumerators, and they are to be given the right to do whatever they please. We never had such a thing in our province. In my constituency there are many polling subdivisions. One polling subdivision has only four electors, but there will be an enumerator for that subdivision. In one part of my waTd there are nine polling subdivisions, with 196 electors. There will be nine enumerators for that district. There will be 3,000 enumerators in Montreal, friends of the Government.


William Pugsley: They will get their work in.


Louis Audet Lapointe: You bet they will work up to the day of the election, because they have the right to send anybody to the poll to vote. The returning officer, with the enumerator, and some assistant returning officers will prepare the list, and hon. gentlemen can see where we will stand with an election at this time. This Bill, as I have said, is a measure of expediency, to win an election. To win the war is another question. The war will not be won by this Government or the other government. The hon. gentleman from North Waterloo (Mr. Weichel) read from some paper a statement that the women of his county were not opposing the measure, but were satisfied, and that statement was placed on Hansard. He showed himself so satisfied in every way
58G6

with the Bill that I am convinced it is more partisanship than anything else that satisfies him. I desire to place on, record a protest against the Franchise Bill, and I take the report in to-day's Montreal Gazette. It reads:
At a meeting of tlie Equal Suffrage League in the Royal Arcanum Chambers last evening, the various speakers criticised the Federal Government and Sir Robert Borden oyer the Franchise Bill which is at present be-ng discussed in the House of Commons. Although the meeting was not of a political nature, the presence of a few men gave it the air, at one stage, of a partisan gathering. The business before the meeting was the report of Mrs. Rose Henderson of the reception by Sir Robert Borden of the deputation which went to Ottawa early in the week to advance their views on the new Franchise Bill. After everything had been said about the franchise question, discussion drifted until toward the close, Food Controller Hanna came in for some sharp criticism.
About thirty persons attended the meeting, most of whom were women. All, with the exception of two men, seemed to be in sympathy with the views expressed and the action which had been decided upon.
None of the ladies who spoke claimed to be close relatives to soldiers on active service and consequently enfranchised by the proposed law.
In speaking of the delegation's work at Ottawa, Mrs. Rose Henderson declared that they had gone down to meet the Prime Minister on short notice, as the Franchise Bill was being rushed through, and they wished to discuss it with the Government leader before it finally passed. She said that the deputation felt that the bill was anti-democratic, and was a direct refutation of the facts, for which men have been sent overseas. "I don't think such an autocratic measure has ever passed the Canadian House of Commons, as this one," said Mrs. Henderson. "According to the terms of the bill a large proportion of men will be disfranchised, while there is also a tremendous discrimination in the case of women. Why is it that women who have worked for the Red Cross and for the Patriotic Fund are deprived of the vote by this measure?"
Continuing, Mrs. Henderson stated that the deputation wanted to know why the Government could only trust soldiers' relatives, and not Canadian women who have been doing more than their share to help win the war. It was for these reasons that they decided to go to Ottawa and ask Sir Robert to explain.
Mrs. Henderson then gave her report of the meeting with the Prime Minister. She said that he gave them a long lecture on how and why they were to be discriminated against. Women, said the Premier, are not citizens. Until they came into full possession of citizenship, he did not see how they could have the ballot. He also declared that according to the Imperial Council meeting in 1914, certain naturalization laws had been passed, and as a result of these any woman who married a man of foreign birth or citizenship had to accept the naturalization of her husband, that is, if a Canadian-born woman married a German, she herself became German. Because of this. Sir Robert considered it an injustice to give these women the ballot. However, after this he assured the delegation that if he was returned to power at the coming elections, he would give the women a limited franchise.

On asking the Premier what he meant by a limited franchise, they were answered that a woman to qualify for the ballot after the war would be required to reside in Canada for a period of five years, and also have educational qualifications. The latter would be most important. The delegation then asked Sir Robert if the women whom he had enfranchised by the new Bill were required to possess these qualifications, but he replied in the negative.
Mrs. Henderson then declared that the delegation, therefore, came to the conclusion that the new Franchise Bill was not a measure of right, but simply an expedient measure; not so much to win the war as to win the election. She said it was ridiculous to have women of Russian or Polish birth who could not speak a word of English, and who had only lived in Canada perhaps for a few months before the war, given the right to vote, while women who have been living here all their lives and who have been working for the good of their country were deprived of it.
Sir Robert Borden, continued Mrs. Henderson, agreed that the present Bill was an injustice to the women of Canada. He showed that even his wife, who had been doing a good deal of patriotic work, and the wife of Hon. Martin Burrell, would be unable to vote. He said that the measure would have to go through, and the only thing the women of Canada could do was to wait and hope. Sir Robert said that many soldiers have died on the battlefield and as a result their principles and ideas should be expressed through their widows or nearest relatives.
Mrs. Weir, who spoke next, said that according to the outlook it seemed as if a military caste was being formed in Canada. She told the audience that the latest rumour she had heard was to the effect that the Government had told the soldiers in France that if the present Government was returned to power, all the soldiers would be given free passage and six months' leave of absence.
Mrs. Henderson, who presided, replied that there was no doubt but that the Government is trying to get elected by every possible means. "The Government," she continued, "has set a bad precedent by depriving a number of peaceful citizens from voting at a time which they consider to be a crisis. What is to prevent a government in the future from saying that there is a tremendous crisis when they desire to pass an important measure, and take the vote away from some other people who happen to be interested in the question contrary to the Government's wishes?" said Mrs. Henderson.
Mr. A. Lanouette, the first gentleman to speak, said that the Franchise Act was certainly an injustice, and also an insult. "It is nothing else than a political action. It is power they want, and power under any circumstances." In his opinion the Equal Suffrage League ought to organize immediately, agitate, and call public meetings similar to the one in Verdun last week, to place the issue before the people. "An open air meeting looks pretty good," he said.
"We might be arrested," said Mrs. Weir.
"No danger in Verdun-all the policemen are our friends," he answered.	[DOT]
After this one man in the audience sharply attacked the meeting for criticizing the Government during such a crisis. He said that everybody should join together at a time like this and help win the war. The question of

votes for women could be argued out after the war had been won, because "if we did not win we would be a crushed people and nothing would matter," he said.
Mrs. Rose Henderson then took the matter of public meetings up, and it was decided that a meeting be held at the corner of Ethel and Church streets, in Verdun, on Saturday night. Another meeting will be held on Phillips Square on Monday evening. Speakers will be secured to address the audiences, and both sides of the franchise question will be discussed.
You can see that there is going to be quite a lot of discussion in Montreal about that. The article continues:
After the question of meetings had been decided upon, discussion drifted towards the food question and the food controller. Mrs. Henderson gave a vivid picture of conditions among the poorer classes in Montreal, where people had neither bread nor butter. 'We have a food controller who is a huge joke^" said the speaker. "The only thing he is controlling is the appetites of the people. He advocates, eating fish on two days of the week, and as a result fish dealers raise their prices on those days." The food controller, in Mrs. Henderson's opinion, has failed lamentably, and until a really capable man was given charge of the question she did not think that things would take any turn for the better.
It is useless for me to appeal to lion, gentlemen on the other side of the House with regard to this Bill, because they have made up their minds that it shall go through. When the Bill was in committee we offered many, suggestions by way of amendment, but only those that had been prepared in advance by the Secretary of State could pass. We suggested that in the city of Montreal the polls be kept open until seven or eight o'clock in. the evening, but the Government would not accept that suggestion. Everything was cooked in- advance; everything was ready, and as a final touch the gag was applied.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Mr. Speaker, the right to vote is not a natural right, nor has it ever been so regarded by any legislature or any state. It is conferred by legislation and newer any-jwhere upon all the people. Speaking generally, persons under twenty-one years of age have not been given it, nor have judges. Aliens, Indians, criminals or those being maintained: toy public charity. At our last election in 1911 only one-quarter of the people in Canada were entitled to vote, and that right had been given to them by legislation. Consideration must always be had to the conditions existing in the country. The question of the franchise is a matter not of theory, but of conditions. No statesman establishing a government in Central Africa would think of enfranchising the
natives.. It is generally conceded, I think, that our cousins across the line were unwise in granting the franchise to the coloured man before he was fairly qualified to exercise it. Conditions affecting the interests of the State determine to whom the right to vote shall be given. To-day very exceptional and abnormal conditions prevail. What are they? The safety and independence of Canada, the honour and integrity of the Empire,, and the liberties of humanity, are in danger. If the Central Powers finally win the war everything for which life is worth living will be lost by us. The question to be determined in this election is as to whether we shall continue in this war or whether the war shall cease so far as we are concerned.
For three years a majority of the people of this country of both political parties have struggled valiantly for the preservation of these priceless possessions. Loyal Liberals have shown no less anxiety than Conservatives to win this war, and to that end have contributed of men, means and service no less generously than Conservatives. All classes alike mourn the loss of loved ones fallen. Parents, wives and children in all ranks of life in common sorrow weep for those who never shall return but they all find solace in the thought that their men died bravely in a rightful cause; others suffer with anxiety for those still surrounded by death and danger.
The war is the thought uppermost in the minds of people everywhere, and one has to come to Parliament to find anyone worrying about anything else. But here we find men obsessed with the illfounded anticipation of the enjoyment of the pride of office. Some months ago I expressed the opinion that there were men more anxious to win the treasury benches than to win the war, and the opinion I then expressed has since developed into a firm conviction. These men, however, will be rudely awakened to find that the paramount question is, shall we continue the contest and maintain to the end the glorious record our brave men have already won for us or shall we at home declare to the world that we are unworthy of them, that we are sluggards or worse? Shall we sacrifice our all, disgrace our country in the face of the world, dishonor our heroes dead and desert our soldiers living? Our national honor is involved. Shall we go forward or quit? That is the issue to be determined within the next few months by the electors to be designated by this Bill.
Could the people of this country rest m the conviction that whatever the result of
. COMMONS
the approaching election, the Government of Canada -will continue a vigorous participation in the war, they might properly consider questions of lesser magnitude. Were they satisfied that the leader of the Opposition and his followers are as determined that Canada shall continue to do her duty in this war as are the leader of the Government and his supporters, they would probably regt content with a peace time election, for their chief concern would be attained whatever the result, and the extension or restriction of the franchise would not be of so much importance. But they are not so satisfied. On the contrary the evidence seems conclusive, as well concerning the attitude of the leader pf the Opposition himself, as that of his chief supporters, that for Canada's effective contribution in the winning of the war it is essential that the Government be sustained, ft is wed known and everywhere admitted that Sir Robert Borden and all the supporters of the Government will, to the last ounce of strength, sustain our brave men fighting, while all the anti-war elements in the country will be ranged up behind the leader of the anti-war Liberals, himself encouraging their attitude, at least to the extent of refusing to denounce it. If the Government is sustained the war will proceed with renewed vigour; if the Opposition win, our participation in the war will virtually cease. Is there any doubt about that? Does any sane man believe that the leader of the Opposition could or would vigorously prosecute the war, relying chiefly for support upon men avowedly opposed to it, supplemented by all the anti-British, pro-Germans, slackers, and all those Liberals more partisan than patriotic, in the country? Water cannot rise higher than its source. Gan any one of clear vision imagine the leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux)', and the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald), reviewing a battalion for overseas, the hon. member for .Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville) being standard bearer, and commanded by the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe (Mr. Gauthier), who boldly tells us his constituents are ready to rebel rather than obey the law, and that he is ready to lead them?


Louis-Philippe Gauthier: I never said that.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: On page 2662 of Hansard the hon. member (Mr. Gauthier) said:
Before resuming my seat I shall he very frank with the House. I want to make a few remarks in the name of my people. This is one of the most solemn hours of my life. It may be the last opportunity I shall have of addressing the House of Commons and my country. I say to the . rMr. CrotHers.]
Government, if you press this measure through, my people, declaring that this Government has no mandate, will use the very Bill itself to fight the matter out. We acknowledge that in this fight there will be pain and suffering. We may have to go to the direst consequences. My people are willing to go to the limit if you impose upon them such a piece of legislation ; I believe they are right, and I will do as they intend to do.


Louis-Philippe Gauthier: Is that rebellion?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: 
William Pugsley: Whose speech is the hon. gentleman reading from?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I am not reading from a conviction for .manipulating and misappropriating trust funds in connection with the purchase of a saw dust wharf.


William Pugsley: I rise to a point of order. If the hon. gentleman is in his right mind to-night he is guilty of slander of the worst possible description.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, ordeT.


William Pugsley: The 'Statement he has made has not a particle of truth in it-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Pugsley: It is absolutely false in every particular-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: I have not
noticed the hon. minister (Mr. Crothers) accuse any one.


William Pugsley: We all know what he referred to-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: How quickly he recognizes an old accomplice.


William Pugsley: and I repeat it is an
act of slander unworthy of any member of this House.
iSome hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


William Pugsley: I repeat it in the strongest language possible. The hon. gentleman ought to know better.


Mr. BUREAU:: Let him read his conscription speech . He had not time to make it.


The DEPUTY MINISTER:: The hon.
minister has not referred to any particular member on the otheT side of the House. I do not think the hon. member foT St. John has the right to call it slander.


Mr. PU  GSLEY@: I rose to a point of order, and I characterized the remark as slanderous-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


William Pugsley: -and false


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


William Pugsley: -and cowardly

Some bon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


William Pugsley: -and I repeat if. You cannot get away with stuff like that.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The reference I made was proved to the hilt in this House a few years ago. I will not take the time to go over it,


William Pugsley: I deny that absolutely, Mr. Speaker. The hon. minister must know his statement is false, or he ought to know


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The sterling people of this country will not be deceived by any such buncombe.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Time.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: No, my time is not up yet. The leader of the Opposition has several times said that the introduction of the Military Service Act threw the apple of discord into this House, that it would make for disunion between the two races in Canada, and that every effort should be made to preserve union and harmony between them. Preserve " is not the proper word in that connection

Mr. LAFORTUiNE: (translation): I rise to a point of order. I see that the hon. gentleman is reading his speech, which is not allowed by the rules of this House.


Some Hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: Would the hon. gentlemen be kind enough not to interrupt?


Mr. LAFORTUNE:: (translation): I ought to be allowed to rise to a point of order.
Mr. DEPUTY 'SPEAKER (translation): If the hon .gentleman does not stop interrupting, I shall have to name him.


David Arthur Lafortune: (translation): You may name me if you choose, but that does not give the minister the right to read his speech.


Mr. BOIVIN:: (translation): Should not the hon. member for Montcalm be allowed to rise to a point of order, as any other member of this House?


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: The hon. gentleman is not rising to a point of order; he is stating that the time of the hon. minister has expired.
Mr. LAFORTUiNE: (translation): 1 am not stating that the time of the minister has expired; I say that the minister is reading has speech. .


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I was about to say
" preserve " is not the proper word


David Arthur Lafortune: I demand your decision upon this point of order.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: "Preserve" is not the proper word in that connection, because such union and harmony has never existed, does not exist now, and ne.ver will exist until our patriotic vision-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: -embraces the Empire as well as all Canada-until we all become nationalists in the true sense of the word.

as distinguished from provincralists and racialists-until we all realize that we are living in the twentieth rather than in the eighteenth century.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: Will the hon. Minister kindly use his notes as reference.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: It is vain to say-


Georges Henri Boivin: I rise to a point of order. A ruling has just been given to the effect that the hon. Minister had no right to read from his notes.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: The rule is a member cannot read his speech. He is permitted to have reference to his notes.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: We have had to listen to members on the other side of the House during the last week and during the last month who have read their speeches in full. Some hon. gentlemen do not appear to appreciate what is being said. I was about to say, it is vain to say at the same time, that one is in favour of conscription and is supporting the leader of the Opposition who is opposed to it.-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Time.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: -and who if he were returned as leader of this House would not adapt conscription and could not get any recruits by any other means, so that, those who are in favour of conscription cannot consistently support the leader of the Opposition. That is confirmed by a statement I read a short time ago in the Toronto Globe, the leading and most, influential Liberal paper in Canada. Let me read what it said on the eighth day of this month, that every man in this country who is opposing conscription is encouraging Canada to drop out of the war.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member's time is up.


William Humphrey Bennett: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of any honourable gentleman on the other side of the House having anything to say of an uncomplimentary nature about this Bill, I will trespass upon the attention of the House to say something complimentary. Anybody who has heard the debate to-night would not realize that there was a question ns to whether or not there should be a franchise Bill in this country. Hon. gentlemen have drifted far afield in discussing the Bill and the reason is plain. They are so mortally afraid to condemn the policy that they

are afraid to say anything about it. There has been but one hon. gentleman on the other side of the House who has demurred to soldiers' wives being included amongst those who should have votes, and that one hon. gentleman is the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. McCrea). I challenge any hon. gentleman on the other side of the House to say that he objects to the wives, daughters, sisters and mothers of the soldiers having votes. They will not do it because they know it is right and while they argue by the hour that females' generally should have votes they have not sufficient confidence in themselves to move an amendment to that effect. It is all humbug and hon. gentlemen opposite realize that. They are living on humbug and nothing else. One knows that from listening to their speeches in the House. The hon. member for Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles) addressed the House, and when he was getting towards the close of his remarks, as Hansard will show, he turned around to the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) and_ to hon. gentlemen from the West and from different parts of Canada, who had supported the Government on the conscription Bill, and declared that they were all voting to save their own necks and that there was no principle in them. There was not one of them who had the common honesty to get up and say that he was voting on principle on the matter. Yet, they will go out to different places in this country and tell the people that their vote in the House was not an honest vote and that while they voted1 for conscription they did not mean it but that they were only trying to tune up to popular opinion in the country. That is what these hon. gentlemen say whenever they meet their friends. There is no question about that. It is published in the press of this country and they have not the manliness to deny it.	*


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think the hon. member-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Let him go on; there is no other man in the House who will go as far as he does.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We know his size.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. member will please take his seat when the ' Speaker rises.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I beg your pardon.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I must ask the hon. member (Mr. W. H. Bennett) to modify his language.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Let him go on, we do
not mind.


William Humphrey Bennett: They have not
the manliness to deny it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: He is the only man who can get up and make any kind of a statement in this House.


William Humphrey Bennett: Let the political sewer-pipe from Carleton county possess his soul in patience.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think that remark
ought to be taken back.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Let him go on. He is
entirely irresponsible.


William Humphrey Bennett: I will withdraw
it in the House, but I will make it outside the House at the earliest opportunity. There was a meeting held in Toronto by a number of Liberals and the proceedings of that meeting were published by the Toronto Telegram of August 30.


Edmond Proulx: What is the question before the House?


William Humphrey Bennett: What did the
genial member for Prescott ask?


Edmond Proulx: I asked what was the question' before the House.


William Humphrey Bennett: 
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What does Sir Clifford Sifton say about it?


William Humphrey Bennett: I presume that
whatever Sir Clifford Sifton says he will stand back of, as I will stand back of what I have to say hefe to-night. Now let us come to this meeting. The record I am going to read from is as true as any gospel that was ever written, and not one of these gentlemen who have returned from that meeting will dare deny a word of it. The hon. member for Russell (Mr. Murphy) and the hon. member for Prescott (Mr. Proulx) were both there, and when they hear me! read those statements they will not deny them. Why will they not deny them? There were thirty other men, candidates in the prov-


Frank Oliver: That is a reliable paper.


William Humphrey Bennett: That is a reliable paper. Fancy the hon. gentleman from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) denouncing the Ross rifle. The hen. gentleman from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) says that is a truthful paper. Picture the member for Pictou standing up in this House,by the hour to champion the Ross rifle, but when he gets off in the west, in Alberta, he denounces it as an instrument that was murdering the Canadian soldiers at the front. Let us have an end to this humbug forever.


Mr. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: I had not intended to take part in this debate this evening, but being, naturally, of a kindly disposition, and recognizing that hon. gentlemen opposite are in somewhat of a quandary as to who shall speak next-


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: About twenty men on this side want to speak.


Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG:: Why do they not speak?


John Wesley Edwards: They will get the opportunity. If there are that many members to speak, I am surprised at the lack of consideration shown by the hon. member for

North Sydney (Mr. McKenzie) in occupying so much time himself, and allowing those hon. members no opportunity to say a word. As no one rose to speak when my hon. friend sat down, I waited a reasonable time, and thought I would help them out. The hon. member from Sherbrooke (Mr. McCrea) found fault with the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden), because he said he had not approached the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laur-ier) in a proper spirit in regard to coalition. He said that the Prime Minister should know, that the leader of the, Opposition was a man who had spent all his life in an earnest endeavour to bring all classes of race and creed in this country to a coalition of amity and perfect love. I could not help thinking, when he was making those remarks, that some of the past history of the right hon. leader of the Opposition had. entirely escaped the memory of my hon. friend from Sherbrooke. I thought of some of the past political history of the country, when the leader of ' the Opposition, instead of being a man of peace, was going to shoulder his musket, and fight on the banks of the Saskatchewan. It did not seem to me that that was in keeping with the statement of the hon. member for Sherbrooke, that the leader of the Opposition was a man of peace, and trying to bring all classes of people together. I thought also of the time when this country, as a part of the Empire, was engaged in the terrible war, and when there was every reason why men on both sides of politics should lay aside their political differences and try and bring the people together, the right hon. leader of the Opposition brought up on the floor of this house a question which he must have known as well, or better than any other man in Canada, was bound to create dissension and discord, and that was the bilingual question-a question which he raised in Parliament, not with any intention to bring about amity and concord between the races of this country, but in my humble judgment, with the deliberate intention of consolidating his own province behind him in the next election. I also call to mind, in this connection, many utterances by the leader of the Opposition in regard to the independence of this country, in regard to England, and British connection, and British institutions, which could not have been intended to have the result, and which could not have had the result, of causing the different races of people in this country to live in greater amity and 
accord. Another remark made by the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. MeCrea) caught my attention, in regard to giving the vote to women. That did not exactly suit the hon. member for Sherbrooke. He rather took exception to the fact that some soldier overseas might have five or six relatives on this side of the water who, under this Bill, would be enabled to cast their ballot in the coming election. He mentioned the fact incidentally, not in any boastful way, of his own son being overseas, and I congratulate him on the fact that he has a son overseas, who, I dare say, is doing noble work in this great cause. He said the mother of that boy did not desire a vote, and was not worrying about votes. I can understand that the mother of that boy is thinking of the boy overseas, but it seems to me, that this Bill is giving some worry to the member for Sherbrooke, (Mr. McCrea) because I cannot conceive it possible that the mother of that boy, thinking of him overseas and the danger he is going through, and knowing that he "hould have proper Support, will cast her ballot in favour of a candidate, even though that candidate were the father of her boy, who did not want to send proper support to the mem at the front. What is worrying the member for 'Sherbrooke, and worrying honourable -members on the other side of the House is the fact that they know down in their hearts, that these women who are spending sleepless nights, their eyes filled with tears and their heart' wrung with anguish because o.f their boys overseas, having been given the ballot will cast their votes in support of this Government, because they know they can trust this Government to keep faith wdth the boys at the front. That honourable gentleman took exception to the fact, as had others, on that side o-f the House, to some men, British subjects, who, for some years, have been living in the United States, coming over into Canada, putting on uniforms, going across the .seas and fighting. They take exception to these men being given the ballot. They are British -subjects, living on the other side of the line. They say they have no interest whatever in this country. But can they say truthfully of a man when he chooses to risk his l-ife in defence of ~"a country, that he takes no interest in that country? It is all right for these British subjects to come from another -country in-

to Canada to put on the uniform and go overseas to fight for the defence of Canada, but they say it is not right for these men to fight in defence of Canada with the ballot. We on this side of the House say if they see fit to go overseas and defend Canada with their bayonet, they should also have the right to defend her with their ballot and prevent the country getting into the hands of men not in sympathy with Britain and British institutions, and with the cause of our boys overseas.
.The honourable gentleman also referred to coalition. I leave it to you, Mr. Speaker, to eveTy honourable gentlemen in the House, and every man in Canada, could any gentleman have done more than has been done by the iPrime .Minister of Canada, in endeavouring to secure a coalition or union government? From the beginning of the war the right honourable gentleman at the head of this Government has shown that he had before him but one object and purpose in life, and that was the winning of the war.
He has been prepared to sacrifice himself; he has shown that he has had no personal ambitions; his only aim has been the successful prosecution of this war. He made the leader of the Opposition such an offer as, I venture to say, never before was made by the leader of a government to the leader of an Opposition in any civilized country in the world. He offered him, an equal footing, a fifty-fifty basis of coalition. He did his utmost to further this proposal, but the leader of the Opposition would have nothing to do with it. Why? Because the leader of the Opposition and many hon. gentlemen on his side of the House were opposed to conscription. We have the statement of General Sir Arthur Currie, the head of our Canadian troops in Europe-a Liberal, by the way-that assistance is imperative if we are to maintain the proud position which our boys have won for us upon the fields of France and Flanders. That statement is backed up by the statement of the editor of the Globe, Stewart Lyon, the accredited correspondent of the Canadian press overseas, a man who a few months ago was opposed to conscription, but who, having seen conditions on the battlefield as they really are, has arrived at the conclusion that there is only one way to support the boys at the front and that is by adlopting compulsory military service. We have further the evidence of other men, who are nonpartisan, and have been impressed by the conditions at the front, and who regard
conscription as the only- means of giving proper support to our boys overseas. We have also, in support of the contention that conscription is the only means of giving our boys proper support, the attitude of twenty-seven Liberal members of this House, who by their votes and by their speeches have shown that in their estimation the leader of the Opposition is to bring about the passing of conscription If these gentlemen meant what they said; if their votes really meant anything they should have backed up	this measure; they should have	backed up
the Government in every step taken to bring about the passing of conscription and to keep in power the party that will best make that Conscription Act effective. An election is pending; the issue at the election will he the question of compulsory military service. There is no other issue before the country. The question is: shall we enforce conscription and get the necessary ni'en to support our boys at the front? The attitude taken by the leader of the Opposition is that if the people of the country should, through an election or referendum, express themselves as being in favour of conscription, then a .measure of compulsory service should 'be adopted. But what if a referendum should have an opposite result? The men who are overseas should receive no support; that is the only conclusion that can be drawn from his argument. that is impressed upon the minds of the women of Canada, especially those who have relatives fighting in the Canadian forces overseas.
It has been said by different gentlemen on the other side that the purpose of this Bill is to win the election. If hon. gentlemen mean that, then we must conclude that they oppose this Bill because they think that by retaining on the voters' list those whom we propose to disfranchise, and by keeping off the lists the names of the wives, daughters, and sisters of soldiers, they will -be enabled to win the election. Viewing the matter from that standpoint, let us suppose an election is on. The leader of the Opposition, at the head of the anti-conscription party, is reviewing those who give him their %upport in that election. We will suppose also that the Prime Minister, wiho is in favour of conscription, is reviewing before him those electors and voters who are favourable to his side of the case. Let us look at the two crowds as they pass before the leaders. In the crowd passing before the leader of the Opposi-

tion, you find the anti-British element from the province of Quebec.
The member for Sherbrooke (Mr. McCrea) may smile; but you would find that element there. I do not say that the member for Sherbrooke is anti-British, but I am telling him where he will find himself in this election. You have men in that crowd who tried to murder Lord Atholstan and to blow up his house with dynamite.


Jacques Bureau: I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman has no right to say that he will find men in that crowd-pointing to the Liberal party-who tried to murder Lord Atholstan. Those people belong to the hon. gentleman's crowd.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I followed carefully the remarks of the hon. member for Frontenac. He was not referring to hon. gentlemen on my left as a crowd; be was referring to those whom he considered were supporting the leader of the Opposition and he was going over a list of them.


Jacques Bureau: We deny that they support the leader of the Opposition.


John Wesley Edwards: We will find in that crowd-I am using the word "crowd" without offence; I do not know what other word I can use-
An. hon. MEMBER: Aggregation.


John Wesley Edwards: That is a good word. We will find in that aggregation which is passing in review before the leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau).


Jacques Bureau: And he will not be
ashamed of it, either.


John Wesley Edwards: If we judge by their actions how these men will vote, we shall find in this aggregation the soap-box orators and the dynamiters from Montreal and other parts of Quebec. We shall find in this aggregation the men who threatened to blow up the Parliament buildings and to murder the Prime Minister. We shall find also in that crowd Austrian and German reservists vho failed to get out of this country in' order that they might use their bayonets against our Canadian soldiers. We shall find in that aggregation the anti-British and foreign element in this country, the element who are opposed to Canada's doing her utmost in the war. You will find also the element who are opposed to Canada's keeping faith with the boys overseas. You will find in that aggregation men who in various parts of the 
country are tearing the Union Jack to shreds arid stamping it under their feet. But you will find in the aggregation passing in review before the Prime Minister the red-blooded men of this country whose relatives are overseas, the men who are willing to back up the boys at the front. You will find by the thousands in this aggregation men who are willing tp support this Government; the wives, mothers, daughters and sisters of soldiers, who will cast their votes at the polls with a view to seeing that the mantle of shame is not thrown over this country's honour through the return to power of hon. gentlemen opposite. A man is known by the company he keeps, and hon. gentlemen opposite in the election which is coming on will be in one aggregation or the other. For my part I do not want to be found in tjhat crowd or aggregation which will be supporting and trying to put into power in this country the right hon. leader of the Opposition.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: At this late hour my speech will be very brief. I have had great pleasure in listening to the speeches that- have been made on this side of the House this evening, and particularly to that .of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster). Since his eloquent explanation of the position of the Government with regard to this Bill hon. gentlemen opposite seem to have been struck dumb. It is true the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) attempted to make a reply, but you could see that he was very much annoyed and very disappointed to hear the true position of the Government placed before the electors in the eloquent words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I can tell hon. gentlemen opposite that that eloquent speech which we listened to to-night, though it lasted for no more than twenty minutes, will be heard on every platform in Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific during this election, and if the facts as presented by the Minister of Trade and Commerce do not sway and carry the loyal and patriotic people^ in every constituency in this country, with the exception of the province of Quebec, I shall be very much mistaken. I believe even now the people know the facts pretty well. I think they have the leader of the Opposition and the party that supports him pretty well sized up both in On-, tario and the West and the provinces down by the sea. When the election comes on and1 the people hear the matter fully discussed, I think hon. gentlemen opposite will be almost as dumb in this country as:

they have been in this House for the last two hours. I do not know whether it is a realization of the position they occupy in the minds of the people of this country, or the forlorn hope they will lead in the next election that' has struck them dumb or not, but they must be a very disappointed party, because it is not so very long ago that they wanted an election at once, because they thought they were almost sure to win. Now things have taken on a different aspect.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The sooner the better. Bring it on to-morrow.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: We are going to bring it on before very long, and we hope we shall have our friend from North Cape Breton back with us, because we want some one opposite to keep the leader of the Opposition from getting lonesome.
The hon. member for South Renfrew has made some remarks about the German voters in this country, in a speech that was designed to influence, if possible, the German electors of Ontario and other provinces of the Dominion. The fact is that the measure now before the House does not change the position of the old German settlers .in Canada one iota; they are in exactly the same position they always have been in, and no one knows that better than the hon. member for South Renfrew. Every one knows that no- .man in this country could vote unless he bad taken the oath of allegiance and was enfranchised, and that is the position to-day. I represent a constituency where there are a great many Germans, and I resent any suggestion that this class of honest .and respectable settlers and citizens should be disfranchised by this or any other Act of this Parliament. There is no better class of .settlers in the county I represent than these fine old German settlers; there is no better class of settler in all Canada than these men who came here forty or fifty years ago. There is no part o-f my county I enjoy visiting more, or where I have moTe enthusiastic and loyal supporters than in these communities of German settlers in the county of Haldimand, and I would go down to defeat in my county rather than have these men disfranchised. I am sure it is not the intention of the Government, or the intent of this Bill, that these men should he disfranchised. I -am making this statement so that the German people in my county may know that the Government have no such intention, and that any insinuations to that effect are untrue, because these settlers are in exactly the same position they have always been in as regards -the franchise in this country. They are honest and law-abiding citizens, and among the best farmers in the county of Haldimand. I am on record as having made speeches in this House in defence of the German people of my county, even before the war broke out, and there is nothing that I ever said on their behalf that I propose to retract or change in the slightest degree.
Hon. gentlemen opposite are not very much in favour of extending the franchise, to the female relatives of the soldiers overseas. True, they have not come out very [DOT]strongly in opposition, to it, hut they try to becloud the issue by agitating that the franchise be extended to the women of Canada generally. I am very proud indeed to know from statements that have been made here this afternoon and from press reports that the women's organizations throughout Canada, through their presidents and vice-presidents, have told the Prime Minister of this country that they do not want the franchise at the present time, and would prefer that the female relatives of -the soldiers overseas should be given that honour. It is estimated that at the next election 500,000 women will be enfranchised and vote at a federal election for the first time in the history of Canada. I am in favour of a general enfranchisement oi women when the proper time comes, but this is not the time. It is a war-time election that is coming on. It was stated this afternoon, or at all events during this debate by an hon. gentleman opposite from the province of Quebec, that the women who will vote at the next election do nothing but draw pay from the Government. I do not know whether he was alluding to the wives of soldiers or not, but if there is any class of people in this country who are entitled to the franchise and will do honour to it, it is the female relative? of the soldiers who have gone overseas.
As members of Parliament instances come before us almost every day. When I heard the gentleman make that statement, I thought of one of the women in my town whose husband is unfortunately in the asylum. She depended upon a young man for her only source of livelihood-a splendid well-educated -boy. He went to the front and unfortunately made the supreme sacrifice. Is that woman entitled to a vote? Would any man on this other side of the House insinuate that that woman does not do anything but stay at home and draw pay from the Government? I say it is a shame

that the man who represents a great constituency as does this gentleman should stand up in the House and make such a statement as that. It is not to his honour, nor to the honour of the Parliament of Canada. This is only one instance among many. I had a letter to-day from a Presbyterian clergyman in my town, telling me of an aged couple in the western portion of my county whose son had just made the supreme sacrifice. Surely women of this class are entitled to consideration, more than any other class of women in Canada. 1 believe all the women of Canada are proud of the fact, and will be proud of the fact that the franchise bas been extended to those of them who are relatives of the soldiers overseas. We have instances of a good deal of division on the other side of the House, and I want to speak in all kindness with reference to it. Twenty-seven Liberals voted with us on the Conscription Bill. The bon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Craham) said to-night that when he voted for conscription he so voted with the approval of his leader-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: And we have received a lot of credit for it to-night, have we not?


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Those who so voted did it conscientiously, and will get credit from their electors-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We have not got it from the Tory party anyhow.
M.r. LALOR: Twenty-seven Liberals supported the Government on the question of conscription. I want to give them credit for it, and I think the people of Canada will give them credit for voting honestly and conscientiously; they did not do so, because they thought they would lose votes if they did not. They supported it conscientiously and honestly, because they thought it was the right thing, and that the policy of the Government should be the policy of winning the war.


Air. AIARTIN:: We thought the people of Canada were against conscription, and they are against conscription, and you will see it at the next election.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: The hon. gentleman says
we will se it at the next election


William Melville Martin: Sure.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: We expect that in the province of Quebec the Liberals will come back to this Hou^e with the pretty strong following-
[Mr. I .a !o,r j


William Melville Martin: , Not in my case. I will not ran any more.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: But your representation
from the other provinces of the Dominion will be mighty slim when the election is over. I want to tell the Mayor of Montreal (Mr. Alartin) there is nothing which lias .so moved the people of Canada ,as the riots and the anti-conscription meetings in the province of Quebec


William Melville Martin: What the hon. member
says is. not true; he does not read the papers.
Some hon. A1EA1BERS: Order, order.


William Melville Martin: I am trying to do everything possible

Some hon. A1EMBERS: Order, order.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


William Melville Martin: -to stop these anti-conscription meetings. The hon member does not know what lie is saying


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If hon. gentlemen do not resume their seats when I stand I shall certainly name them. No member may interrupt the hon. member who has the floor except by that hon. member's permission.
Air. LALOR I cast no reflection upon the Mayor of Montreal. I do not insinuate anything in reference to himself, but he is mayor of the city and he should enforce the law

	[DOT]


William Melville Martin: And he will be mayor
again.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: It is his duty to enforce
the law as mayor of the city. He knows whether it is being done or not, and we know of the riots about which we read in the papers every day. We know of the anticonscription meetings which are held attended by thousands of his fellow French Canadians


William Melville Martin: And English too


Francis Ramsey Lalor: -and we have read their speeches and listened to some of their statements in this House. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Crothers) referred to one of them to-night. What is going on will help carry this election, because people will not stand for that sort of thing. The Conservatives, and the Liberals as well, throughout the Dominion of Canada, are loyal people, with good red blood in their veins. They have sent their sons and their husbands overseas to fight our fight, and to do honour and credit to the Empire and to the Dominion as well, and they have done credit to it. They do not like to hear of the condition

of affairs in the province of Quebec, and of the small number of enlistments there. I was speaking of the men on the other side of the House-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I must ask the hon. member not to refer to hon members as "men on the other side of the House". It ie not parliamentary.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I want to say to the members *cn the other side of the House who have supported conscription, and have stood by it honestly and constantly, that they deserve the credit of this House, of their constituencies, and of the country, and I believe they will get it without any question of doubt. There is just one other matter to which I wish to refer, and that is, union government. I have always been in favour of union government. I believe that the great problems we have, not only of sending men overseas, but the financial problems, the problem of our returning soldiers, and many other great problems in this country, are such that we should have had a union government in Canada. I believe the Prime Minister has made every honest effort to bring about such a government. He has offered the Opposition fifty-fifty-one-half of the portfolios. That offer has been refused. I am sorry indeed, as a member of this House, and as a good Canadian, that we have not had a union government in Canada. However, the offer has been refused, and now I presume it will be a party election, which is most unfortunate. I regret that we must have an election at all. I am sorry hon. gentlemen opposite did not see their way clear to extend the life of Parliament until after the war, thus avoiding all the turmoil an election will bring about, and all the feeling that will be aroused by that election.
The amendment of Mr. Neely was negatived on the following division:

Messieurs:
Barrette,
Boivin,
Bourassa, [DOT]	#
Boyer,
Brouillard,
Bureau,
Delisle,
Demers,
Devlin,
Fortier,
Gauthier
(St. Hyacinthe), Gauvreau,
Kay,
Kyte,
Lachance,
Lafortune,
Lanctot,
Lapointe
(Kamouraska), Lapointe
Montreal, St. James), Macdonald,
Maclean (Halifax), McKenzie,
Marcile (Bagot), Martin,
Michaud,
Mondou,
Neely,
Oliver,
Pacaud,
Papineau,
Pugsley,
Turriff,
Verville.-33.
NAYS. Messieurs:
Armstrong (Lambton), Armstrong (York, O.), Bennett (Simcoe), Blondin,
Boys,
Brabazon,
Bristol,
Champagne,
Clark (Bruce),
Clarke (Wellington), Cochrane,
Currie,
Donaldson,
Edwards,
Elliot,
Foster (Sir George), Fripp,
Glass,
Guthrie,
Hanna,
Hazen,
Hughes (Sir Sam), Jameson,
Lalor,
Lewis,
McCurdy,
McLean
(Queens, P.E.I.),
McLean (Sunbury), Marshall,
Meighen,
Merner,
Morphy,
Morris,
Munson,
Nicholson,
Nickle,
Paul,
Reid,
Roche,
Rogers,
Schaffner,
Sexsmith,
Shepherd,
Steele,
Stevens,
Stewart (Lunenburg), Sutherland,
Taylor,
Thompson (Yukon), Wallace,
Webster,
Weichel,
Wright-53.

(List of Pairs supplied by Chief Whips.) Messieurs:
Ministerial.
Arthurs,
Ames (Sir Herbert), Alguire,
Ball,
Burnham,
Barnard,
Bowman,
Bennett, R. B., Borden, ftir Robert, Best,
Bradbury,
Burrell,
Boyce,
Carrick,
Chabot,
Clements,
Cockshutt,
Cromwell,
Crothers,
Davidson,
Doherty,
Green,
Henderson,
Kemp, Sir Edward, McLeod,
Middlebro,
Morrison,
McLean, W. F., Northrup,
Rainville,
Robidoux,
Sevigny,
Stanfield,
Smith,
Scott,
Stewart (Hamilton), Thoburn,
Tremain,
Walker,
White, Sir Thomas, Wilson (Wentworth).
Opposition.
Truax,
Nesbitt,
McMillan,
Turgeon,
Murphy,
Achim,
Proulx,
Hughes, J. J.,
Laurier, Sir Wilfrid, Ross,
Cruise,
Douglas,
McCraney,
Power,
Beland,
Knowles,
Charlton,
Tobin,
McCoig,
Carroll,
Marcil (Bonaventure), Buchanan,
Sinclair,
Robb,
Carvell,
Pardee,
Molloy,
Cardin,
German,
Seguin,
Copp,
Lemieux,
Macdonald,
Neely,
Ethier,
Loggie,
McCrea,
Chisholm,
Bickerdike,
Graham,
Wilson (Laval).



The motion of Sir Robert Borden for the third reading of the Bill was agreed to on the following division:

Messieurs:
Armstrong (Lambton) Armstrong (York, O.) Bennett (Simcoe), Blondin,
Boys,
Brabazon,
Bristol,
Champagne,
Clark (Bruce),
Clarke (Wellington), Cochrane,
Currie,
Donaldson,
Edwards,
Elliot,
Foster (Sir George), Fripp,
Glass,
Guthrie,
Hanna,
Hazen,
Hughes (Sir Sam), Jameson,
Lalor,
Lewis,
McCurdy,
McLean
(Queens, P.E.I.),
, McLean (Sunbury),
, Marshall,
Meighen,
Merner,
Morphy,
Morris,
Munson,
Nicholson,
Nickle,
Paul,
Reid,
Roche,
Rogers,
Schaffner,
Sexsmith,
Shepherd,
Steele,
Stevens,
Stewart (Lunenburg), Sutherland,
Taylor,
Thompson (Yukon), Wallace,
Webster,
Weichel,
Wright.-53.

Messieurs:
Barrette,
Boivin,
Bourassa,
Boyer,
Brouillard,
Bureau,
Delisle,
Demers,
Devlin,
Fortier,
Gauthier
(St. Hyacinthe) Gauvreau,
Kay,
Kyte,
Lapointe
(Kamouraska),
Lapointe
(Montreal, St. James), Macdonald,
Maclean (Halifax), McKenzie,
Marcile (Bagot), Martin,
Michaud,
Mondou,
Oliver,
Pacaud,
Papineau,
Pugsley,
Lachance,	Turriff,
Lafortune,	Verville.-32.
Lanctot,

(List of Pairs supplied by Chief Whips.) Messieurs:
Ministerial.
Arthurs,
Ames (Sir Herbert), Alguire,
Ball,
Burnham,
Barnard,
Bowman,
Bennett, R. B., Borden, Sir Robert, Best,
Bradbury,
Burrell,
Boyce,
Carrick,
Chabot,
Clements,

Opposition.
Truax,
Nesbitt,
McMillan,
Turgeon,
Murphy,
Achim,
Proulx,
Hughes, J. J., Laurier, Sir Wilfrid, Ross,
Cruise,
Douglas,
McCraney,
Power,
Beland,
Knowles,
Cockshutt,
Cromwell,
Crothers,
Davidson,
Doherty,
Green,
Henderson,
Kemp, Sir Edward, McLeod,
Middlebro,
Morrison,
McLean, W. F., Northrup,
Rainville,
Robidoux,
Sevigny,
Stanfield,
Smith,
Scott,
Stew'art (Hamilton), Thoburn,
Tremain,
Walker,
White, Sir Thomas, Wilson (Wentworth).
Charlton,
Tobin,
McCoig,
Carroll,
Marcil (Bonaventure), Buchanan,
Sinclair,
Robb,
Carvell,
Pardee,
Molloy,
Cardin,
German,
Seguin,
Copp,
Lemieux,
Macdonald,
Neely,
Ethier,
Loggie,
McCrea,
Chisholm,
Bickerdike,
Graham,
Wilson (Laval).-


John Howard Sinclair: I was paired with the
hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson). Otherwise I would have voted for the amendment and against the Bill.


Edmond Proulx: I was paired with the
hon. member for East Huron (Mr. Bowman). Otherwise I would have voted for the amendment and against the Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the third time and passed.
On motion of Sir George Foster, the House adjourned at 2.30 a.m. Saturday.
Saturday, September 15, 1917.