1917-06-18

CANADIAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE - CASUALTIES.

Sir EDWARD KEMP:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Murphy)

asked a question on Friday last in regard to casualties. The answer to his question is as follows:
"Casualty" Is the conventional term applied to the following categories: Killed in action, died of wounds, died of sickness, presumed dead, wounded (gassed and suffering from shell shock), missing, prisoners of war. The term does not apply to unwounded men in hospitals and convalescent homes.
For the whole period of the war, up to the 5th June, 1917, the number of casualties reported to Militia Headquarters came to 99,639.
That total includes 68,629 in the "wounded" category. This does not mean that 68,629 men have been wounded. Men wounded on more than one occasion are counted twice, or oftener.
Of the total sick and wounded, some have died, and some are still under treatment overseas. On the 4th June, 1917, there were 23,265 patients C.E.F. in hospitals and convalescent homes in the United Kingdom.
As to the remainder: Some have recovered and returned to duty in England or France, but the number of them actually serving in the trenches has not been reported; according to latest returns, upwards of 1,500 medically unfit for further service, have taken their discharge in the United Kingdom, and more than 12,600 invalids have been evacuated to Canada.



PAPERS PRESENTED.

[Stage Direction]
Correspondence in connection with the resignation of Hon. E. L. Patenaude as Secretary of State for Canada.-Sir Robert Borden.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 84, to incorporate The Canadian Division of the Aerial League of the British Empire.-Sir Herbert Ames.
Bill No. 85, to incorporate The Canadian Council of The Girl Guides Association. Mr. Northrup.
Bill No. 86, respecting The Western Life Assurance Company.-Mr. Schaffner.
Bill No. 87, respecting The Empire Life Insurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Mac-donell. .
Bill No. 88, for the relief of George Mai-sey.-Mr. Wilcox.
Bill No. 89, for the relief of Herbert Featherstone Conover.-Mr. Henderson.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 80, respecting £. certain patent of the Sharp Roiary Ash Receiver Company, Incoporated.-Mr. Currie.

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

Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Have fines been imposed upon Wm. H. David and Lawrence David of Port Fe'.ix, N.S., for violation of the fishery laws?
2.	If so, what was the date and the amount of said fines?
3.	Was any property forfeited? If so, what?
4.	Have the finee been collected? If not, why not?
5.	If property was forfeited, how was it disposed of?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	November 6, 1915.	$50 each.
3.	Yes, a boat.
4.	Fine imposed on Lawrence David has been paid, but that imposed on Wm. H. David has not yet been paid, but proceedings to collect it have not been dropped.
5.	By sale.


SALE OF LANDS-BLACKFOOT INDIAN RESERVE.
Mr. BUCHANAN:: 1.	What were the terms of payment to the auctioneer who conducted the sale of lands of the Blackfoot Indian Reserve?
2.	What was the total amount received by the auctioneer in commission or salary for his services?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	One-half of one per cent, not to exceed $200.
2.	Payment not yet made; will receive $200.


OGILVIE FLOUR MILLS COMPANY- BUSINESS PROFITS TAX.
Mr. KYTE:: 1.	What were the net earnings of the Ogilvie Flour Mills Company, Limited, and the profits distributed, for the accounting period ended August 31, 1915?
2.	What was the amount of Business Profits Tax levied upon the Ogilvie Flour Mills Company, Limited, for accounting period ended August 31, 1916?
3.	What were the net earnings and the profits distributed by the said company, for accounting period ended August 31, 1916?


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: 1. Net earnings $1,519,594.04; net profits $1,517,116.04. Dividends amounting to $2,478 were deducted from the net earnings under the provisions of sub-section (b) of section 3 of the Business Profits War Tax Act.
Profits distributed. According to the annual statement of the company the dividends distributed were as follows:

On preferred stock	$140,000	00On common stock	
200,000	00Total	$340,000	002.	The returns for accounting period ended 31st August, 1916, have not been received. Section 10 of the Business Profits War Tax Act provides that returns shall be delivered to the minister on or before the first day of July in each year.3.	No information.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN.
Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: 1.	What are the names and addresses of the parties on Prince Edward Island who have been engaged or who are now engaged in recruiting for the army and navy or doing other work of a like military character, since August, 1914?
2.	What remuneration or pay does each of the said parties receive, and what allowance is given for travelling or other expenses?
3.	What is the total amount each person has received up to the 1st of June, 1917?
CORRESPONDENCE RE CONSCRIPTION. *Mr. MURPHY:
1.	Has there been any correspondence between the Government or any member thereof, and any Prelate or Prelates in the province of Quebec on the subject of conscription?
2.	If so, will the correspondence be laid on the table of the House, and when?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: There is no official correspondence on this subject, and the Government have no information in regard to the private correspondence of any member of the Government. -
UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS. Mr. LANCTOT:
For a copy of all accounts, papers, claims and correspondence regarding demands put forward by all persons who have claimed to have sustained loss or damage by the Are in the Parliament buildings in February, 1916.


Mr. CHISHOLM:: For a copy of all telegrams, letters, petitions, etc., in any way referring to the appointment of the storm drum officer at Grand Etang for the present season.


MILITARY SERVICE ACT, 1917.
[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. Sir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of Bill No. 75, Military Service Act, 1917.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on the introduction of this Bill I gave a pretty full explana-
tion of its provisions, and of the reasons and considerations upon which it is based, so that in now moving the second reading it will not be necessary for me to detain the House at any length.
According to the usage of Parliament, it is upon the motion which I am now presenting to the House that the principle of the Bill is t,o be discussed. I emphasize what I said upon the introduction of the Bill, that no new principle is invoked by the measure which is now presented for the consideration of the House. It is based upon precisely the same principle as that which was embodied in the Bill introduced in 1868 tby Sir George Etienne Cartier and passed in the same year. The principle embodied in Sir George Etienne Cartier's Bill was renewed and affirmed when the Militia Act was re-enacted in 1904. The chief difference /between the measure which has been presented to the House and the Militia Act is this:	in
the Militia Act the selection of men for military service in case of emergency is effected by the instrumentality of the ballot-in other words, of blind chance. We do not think that such a method could for one moment be justified under the conditions which now confront the country. Consequently, we have brought before the House a measure embodying the principle of compulsory service which was established in 1868 and which has ever since remained in force. But we have changed the method of selection from one of blind chance to one of intelligent selection, based upon a consideration of the need and of the present condition of the country. We have endeavoured to frame the Bill so that the tribunals which are to make that selection shall be absolutely beyond suspicion. If suggestions can be made to us from either side of the House the adoption of which would seem to surround the Bill with betteT safeguards, while not detracting from its efficiency, we shall be only too glad to consider them.
I wish to call the attention of hon. gentlemen to the statistics which have been placed 'before the House and which have been compiled by Mr. R. H. Coats, head of the the Department of Census and Statistics, who is a very capable and careful official. In this statement Mr. Coats points out, under note 1, that under the heading " single " are included " widowed " and "divorced"; those whose conjugal condition was unknown are included under "married". In 1911 the total number of widowed and divorced males between

the ages of 20 and 45 was approximately 17,000, and of the " unknown " 'between the same age periods, approximately 14,000.
In note 2, he points out that the heading " foreign-born " includes all persons not born within the British Empire, whether naturalized or not. Of the total of 286,062 foreign-born in 1911, it is estimated that about 115,000 *were' naturalized.
In note 3, he points out that the figures of the table are those of the census of 1911. It is estimated that the increase since 1911 in the male population of Canada of ages 20 to 45 lies between 300,000 and 400,000. As approximately this number has already been recruited, the figures of 1911, it is thought, reflect rather closely present conditions in the Dominion as a whole, though changes have doubtless occurred in individual provinces.
I now come to the statistics which Mr. Coats has presented. Upon the principle which he has adopted, he estimates that between the ages of 20 and 45, both inclusive, there are in .Canada 760,453 unmarried men and 823,096 married men, a total of 1,583,549.
He makes the following further estimates as to the number of married and single men of various ages at present in Canada. Between the ages of 20 and 24, both inclusive, 319,610 single men and 66,247 married men, a total between those ages of 385,857 Between the ages of 25 and 29, both inclusive, 205,125 single men and 165,369 married men, a total between those ages of 370,494. Between the ages of 30 and 34, both inclusive, 112,011 single men and 198,328 married men, a total between those ages of 310,339. Thus the total number of men, both married and unmarried, between the ages of 20 and 34, both inclusive, is 1,066,690, according to his estimate.
I come to another aspect of these statistics. He estimates, as I have already pointed out, that there are, between the ages of 20 and 24, both inclusive, 319,610 single men in Canada. The number of single men between the ages of 25 and 29, both inclusive, is estimated at 205,125 and, between the ages of 30 and 34, both inclusive, 112,011, making the total number of single men between the ages of 20 and 34, both inclusive, 636,746.
Taking the married men as distinguished from the single men, he estimates the number of married men in Canada between the age'' of 20 and 24, both inclusive, as 66,247; between the ages of 25 and 29, both inclusive, 165,369, and between the ages of 30 and 34, both inclusive, 198,328, making the total
number of married men between the ages of 20 and 34, both inclusive, 429,944.
I need not remind the House that from this number there must be deducted those who would not be fit for military service when their condition was' disclosed upon medical examination. My recollection is that of those who have volunteered in Canada for active service overseas, about 25 per cent have been rejected upon the first examination. A certain smaller percentage-I do not know just what it would be, but possibly 10 per cent- would also have to be deducted, representing those discharged as unfit for service after having been taken on. Then all the considerations have to be taken into account which are enumerated both in the exceptions embodied in the schedule to the Act and in the principles upon which exemptions are to be carried out. I went pretty fully into these matters on the first reading of the Bill, and it does not seem to be necessary to repeat now what I then said.
I will therefore conclude by commending to the House this measure, which has been prepared with great care and with an earnest desire to do justice to all classes of the people, I trust that it may be received in the spirit in which it has been prepared and presented. I do very earnestly -hope that the opinion of the House with regard to it may be expressed as speedily as possible in order that whatever aid and support this country is capable of giving to the gallant men who are fighting to-day our battle and the battle iof humanity shall be given with the least possible delay.
Right Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, a week ago the Prime Minister in his concluding remarks on introducing this Bill expressed the hope that the measure would be discussed with fairness and moderation and without any bitter words or taunts. I can assure him that so far as we on this side of the House are concerned it will be our endeavour, even though we do not agree with the Bill, to facilitate it and to find out the truth about it, and we shall do that in such a spirit as to represent the views of -all those who in this matter have nothing at heart but the interest of our country as God gives them to see it.
Indeed, I will go -so far in this direction as not even to challenge the ominous words, amounting almost to a threat, which the Prime Minister used when he said that he was less concerned with the day when this

Bill should pass, than with the day when our soldiers might return and find this Bill not passed. Sir, let me with moderation take absolute issue with my right hon. friend upon this point. The Canadian soldiers are citizens of Canada. They have left their avocations to do battle for a cause which they deem, and rightly deem, the cause of freedom. I would be loath to believe that when they return they will forget the principle to which they have dedicated their lives, whatever may be the fate reserved for this Bill by a still free people.
In approaching the discussion of this Bill with moderation and fairness we shall not depart from the path that every one of us in this Chamber has followed, and especially during the last three yeaTs. I appeal, Sir, to the sense of justice of all members of this House, whether, from the day that Canada entered the fiery furnace which has been raging now with unabated fury for nearly three years, we on this side' of the House, His Majesty's loyal Opposition, have never uttered one word of dissent from any measure which has been presented by the Government for the prosecution of the war. To every such measure we have given our assent without hesitation, having always before us the preservation of hatmony between all classes and races in this country, -harmony whichris so essential to the task we have in hand. If to-day this harmony no longer exists, the fault is not with this side of the House.
To-day the Government bring down a measure to substitute for voluntary service, compulsory service-compulsory service, which the Government from the day the [DOT]war broke out up to the 18th of April this year have said they never would resort to. But they have cast aside their oft-repeated assurances, and I rise to ask, with my humble voice, that we should pause and see whether or not this new measure will not be more detrimental than helpful to the cause which we all have at heart. Up to this date we on this side of the House, although sometimes sorely tried by the laches of the Government in the discharge of the momentous duties entrusted to their care, have never criticised except where criticism was unavoidable, and in such criticism we have always endeavoured to keep our divisions to ourselves, to uphold the prestige of England, and to show to the world, as far as we could, that all the races of this vast Empire were bound together in this tremendous struggle for freedom.
But I am sorry to say that the course which the Government is taking to-day is
TSir Wilfrid Laurier. ]
not in accordance with those principles of free government which we understand to be at the very foundation of the British constitution. If I rise to-day to oppose this Bill it is rather a sadness to me than otherwise, for my views have not changed upon the objects to be attained in this war. My heart is where it ever has been from the day that war broke out; I- have not changed at all, and if any there be who think I am not consistent in taking the position I now take all I have to say is: Hear me; hear me for my cause.
The Prime Minister, in introducing this Bill a few days ago, said he was not deviating in any way from the law of the land. On that 1 again take absolute issue with him. The .law of the land, which antedates Confederation, not by many years, but by many generations, .and which was reintroduced very shortly after 'Confederation, emphatically declares that no man in Canada shall be subjected to compulsory military service except to repel invasion or for the defence of Canada. The law of the land goes so far as to give to the Government power to raise for the defence of Canada men not merely between the ages of 18 and 45, but between the ages of 18 and 60.
The law of the land gives power to the Government to repel invasion-that is what I understand by "the defence of Canada" -by summoning not only the class of men between 18 and 60, but by summoning everybody, old men of 70 and 80, and children of any age. They may summon everybody when the enemy is at the frontier, in order to preserve intact the soil of this our land. That is the way I understand the existing law. And in this the law of this land is not singular, for such has been the law of civilized nations everywhere. It was the law of France when Canada was in possession of France; it was the law of England when Canada came into possession of England. In France that law remained unaltered until 1798 when compulsion was introduced for the first time; it remained the law of England until last year. If ever there was a principle which was embedded in the very soil of Britain, it was that the King could demand no service of his people except for the protection of their land and the repelling of invasion. It is well known that the King of England could not for any other purpose claim the service of any of his subjects. The English people were always afraid of permanent armies; the English people again and again have fought against their kings, to vindicate the principle that large permanent armies be not established in Great Britain.

Now, the Prime Minister says that he is introducing no new principle, that he could have sent abroad the 400,000 men who have been sent, under the authority of the existing Act. Sir, I take issue with my right hon. friend on that, I say he had not any such power; I say that he could not under the Act as it is, send anybody across the ocean to serve in the war. He said the other day, and he has just repeated it, that the first line of our defence to-day is in Flanders and France. I claim against him that there never was any danger of invasion of Canada on the part of Germany. If I have taken the position I have hitherto taken it is not because I feared an invasion of Canada by Germany. Nobody could say consistently that at this time, or at any time within the three years of the war, Canada was for one instant in danger of invasion. If I have taken the position I have taken, if I have been, as I was and as I am, in favour of our participation in the war, it was not because I feared invasion but because I believed that the victory of Germany would mean for Canada, as for the rest of the world, envelopment in the black shroud of German hegemony with its insolence, cruelties, <and barbarities.
In support of this contention of mine that this Government could not, under the Militia Act, send the forces that they did, I will contrast with the Government of to-day the Government of 1914. The Government then did not pretend that they were using the Militia Act in sending Canadian forces across the sea; they did not send them under that Act at all. Here is a despatch of His Royal Highness the Governor General, sent by the Prime Minister which is an absolute refutation of the doctrine which has just been asserted by him. This was sent by the Governor General to the Secretary of State for the colonies, and dated August 1, 1914:
Ottawa, August 1, 1914.
In view of the impending danger of war involving the Empire my Advisers are anxiously considering the most effective means of rendering every possible aid and they welcome any suggestions and advice which Imperial naval and military authorities may deem it expedient to offer. They are confident that a considerable force would be available for service abroad. A question has been mooted respecting the status of any Canadian force serving abroad as under section 69 of Canadian Militia Act the active militia can only be placed on actual service beyond Canada for the defence thereof.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: If it was "for
the defence thereof" what was the necessity of stating that there was doubt as to the status of these troops?
It has been suggested that regiments might enlist as Imperial troops for stated periods, Canadian Government undertaking to make all necessary financial provision for their equipment, pay and maintenance.
Thus, at the very beginning of the war, it was recognized that the words "for the defence thereof" could not apply to this case; that the troops could not be sent under the Militia Act, and that they should be sent as Imperial troops and as serving voluntarily In the war. That is conclusive.


Sir SAM HUGHES:: What is the date of that despatch?


Wilfrid Laurier: First of August, 1914. Then there is an Order in Council, passed on August 6, as follows:
The Committee of the Privy Council have had before them a report, dated 6th August, 1914, from the Minister of Militia and Defence, representing,-in view of the state of war now existing between the United Kingdom, and the Dominions, Colonies, and Dependencies of the British Empire on the one side, and Germany on the other side, creating a menace to the wellbeing and integrity of the Empire, and having regard to the duty of the Dominion of Canada as one of those Dominions to provide for its own defence and to assist in maintaining the integrity and honour of the Empire, that it is desirable to mobilize Militia units of the various arms of the service of such effective strength as may from time to time be determined by Your Royal Highness in Council, such units to be composed of officers' and men who are willing to volunteer for Overseas service under the British Crown.
And so this was for voluntary service alone. Nor is that all. There was this despatch sent by the Governor General on 5th of August:
My Government being desirous of putting beyond doubt status of Canadian volunteers requests that His Majesty may be pleased to issue an order bringing these volunteers under sections 175 and 176 of the Army Act.
Thus, being in doubt of the power of the Government to send troops under the Militia Act, they asked that the Government of Great Britain should issue an order to enlist them for the British Army. And so we have reason to believe that the Militia Act, as we have understood it, never applied to this case.
But I go further. It does not matter whether the position taken by the Government to-day is taken under one statute or under another. It does not matter whether the Bill that is proposed is an amendment of the Militia Act or is a new law, as I contend; the fact is that to-day the Government are bringing in a compulsory ser-

vice Act, though they declared in this Parliament, from the day war was declared until the 18th April last, that compulsory service they never would resort to.
What, then, is the condition, Mr. Speaker? It is a new condition altogether. I shall be told, of course, that the people have the right to change the laws, and that if conscription has not been the law of the land up to the present day, the people have the right to change the law so that henceforth conscription shall be the law of the land. To this I have certainly no objection to offer, with this I completely agree, as every man must agree. It is the people who must change the law, and all I ask is that the people have opportunity if they so wish to themselves change the law and not this Parliament, which, I claim, has not the right. Let the people speak and I have no objection and no complaint to make. Let the people speak and express their will. With that I shall be satisfied; I ask no more.
But, Sir, that is not all. I said at the commencement of my remarks, .and I repeat it, that, according to the well understood principles of the British Constitution, this Parliament has no right to pass this law. The Prime Minister has no right to ask Parliament to pass this law according to its own declaration made once, and more than once, on the floor of this House. On the 1st of January, 1916, my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) issued a message to the Canadian people that he would offer to contribute from Canada 500,000 men. My hon. friend referred to this in the opening sentences of his observations the other day, and he said that to this declaration no exception was taken, that with regard to it no observation was made, and that the credits for such a force were voted. He took that as a pledge. He had not intended it as a pledge, he said, but the Canadian people had so interpreted it. Here are his words, and I had better quote them in order that there may be no ambiguity:
No criticism was made in Parliament of the action which the Government thus took; no motion was moved against the Government's action, and the necessary Parliamentary appropriations were voted unanimously. In many parts of the country my message was construed as a pledge. It was not issued as a pledge; it was the authorization of a further increase in the Canadian Expeditionary Forces; but it has been deemed to have been a pledge made on behalf of the Government and the people of this country, and I am content so to regard it.
Upon this point I have again to take issue with my right hon. friend. I say that
(.Sir Wilfrid Laurier.]
the words which he pronounced upon an occasion subsequent to his offer, that is to say in the debate on the address of that year, constituted on his part a pledge that these 500,000 men would not be raised except by voluntary service and 4 p.m. not by compulsion. I take issue, I say, with my right hon. friend, and it is for the House to decide when he says that we voted the appropriations and that we made no observations. On the contrary, we did make some observations. I wanted to know from him what it meant, whether this was to be done by obligatory or by voluntary service and in the debate on the Address I spoke in this way:
My right hon. friend the Prime Minister has the first day of this year issued a statement that he was prepared to offer 500,000 men. I shall not to-day discuss whether or not the premature statement of my right hon. friend was exactly on the lines of parliamentary government. I put aside all these questions on such a day as this. I understand that we shall have a statement made upon the offer of 500,000 men, which it seems to me is a large contract, but, again, upon this I pass no judgment. I shall be prepared, and my friends around me will be prepared to listen to, and to discuss in the spirit in which all such propositions should be discussed, the proposition which the Government deems essential to carry on the fight in which we are engaged. But let me say-and I believe that upon this we should have an expression of opinion-that we must repel at once the impression which has been sought to be created that this offer is a preliminary step to conscription. There is to be no conscription in Canada. Sir, there has been an attempt made for many years to frighten the people with the spectre of conscription. There are some men in this House, as you know who in the elections of 1911 stated that the enactment of the naval law was a prelude to conscription. There are men in the province of Quebec who have been asserting that the moment conscription was adopted in Great Britain, conscription would be adopted or proposed in Canada. The naval law has been for six years on the statute book. It is still there; it has not been repealed, as many members in this House were pledged to repeal it. It is there, and there is yet no conscription. Conscription has come in England, but conscription is not to come in Canada. So far as conscription in England is concerned, it would be in bad taste, nay, it would be impertinent for us to attempt to pass any remarks, either of approval or of disapproval with regard to it. For my own part I am free to say that I expected that Great Britain would be able to carry on this stupendous war under her old system of voluntary enlistment. The British Government have thought otherwise; they have thought that the magnitude, the stupendous magnitude of the war we have to face, compelled them to resort to conscription, and the step taken by the government seems to meet with the approval of the great majority of the English people. But, Sir, the conditions are not the same in Canada as in Great Britain. The reasons why there can be no conscription in Canada are obvious.

Then I pass on to the conclusion:
That there is some foundation for it I believe, but I do not think the movement has assumed such proportions as are here indicated. At all events, there is enough to show that it is important that we should have at once from my right hon. friend the Prime Minister an authoritative statement upon this point.
That is, I asked, for an authoritative statement from the Prime Minister as to whether or not there 'was to be compulsion or no compulsion. My right hob. friend, thus challenged, answered, and here is the manner in which he answered when I asked him whether or not this offer of 500,000 men meant conscription or no conscription :
My right hon. friend has alluded to conscrip-tion-to the idea in this country or elsewhere that there may be conscription in Canada. In speaking in the first two or three months of this war I made it clear to the people of Canada that we did not propose any conscription. I repeat that announcement to-day with emphasis.
Could anything be- clearer than that this was not a step towards conscription, but that it was intended that the 500,000 men should be raised simply by voluntary enlistment?
But, that is not all. Time went on and a great number of men were enlisted. In the debate on the Address of this very year, in the month of January last, this subject was referred to and this is the manner in which my right hon. friend spoke of the result of his attempts to obtain 500,000 men: With regard to recruiting, the response has been good-*


Samuel Hughes: What date?


Wilfrid Laurier: In January,
1917; I have not the exact date, but it was during the debate on the Address.
With regard to recruiting, the response has been good from all the provinces of Canada. It has been splendid. It may be that at first the Maritime Provinces and the province of Quebec were a little slower than some of the other provinces of Canada, but I know from information which has reached me recently that the enlistment in those provinces is now all that could be desired, and is thoroughly responsive to the call which has been made. It is appropriate that I should here pay a tribute to those Canadians of French origin who are fighting in France for the Fatherland of their ancestors. Among them are many who have distinguished themselves. At the moment I recall the names of Papineau, Barrfi, Dansereau and Roy. No greater, no more heroic deed has been or could be performed in this war than that of Major Roy, who died in the endeavour to save his men from danger. His name, for that gallant deed, ought ever to he blazoned in the memory of all Canadians.
Thes-e words were spoken not more than six months ago, in the first days of this session, in the debate on the Address, and 153
you will find that, certainly by these words of the Prime Minister, it was not his intention to resort to compulsion. Nay, he was quite satisfied with the progress in recruiting that had been made in all the provinces. Yetr-that is not all. Time went on and the Government seem to have been changing their opinion.
Rumours were commencing to be heard to the effect that, after all, there would be conscription. Then another view prevailed, and it was not to have military service but to call for 50,000 men for home defence. And on the 16th of March last an Order in Council was passed authorizing the Minister of Militia:
To raise 50,000 men for home defence, excluding troops already called out under Order in Council dated August 6, 1914, and that it forms part of the force of 500,000 men to which reference is made in Order in Council dated January 12, 1916. It is understood that the conditions of enlistment applying to the above-mentioned partial mobilization of the aotive militia apply only to service in Canada for home defence.
Service .for home defence? Against whom were these men called upon to defend Canada? Who was threatening Canada in the month of March, 1917, so that she required 50,000 men to look after her defence? Where was the enemy? Sir, that was not the real intent of this Order in Council; it was a pretense. The real intent is to be found in the numerous paragraphs which appeared at that time in the ministerial press to' the effect that these men were to be trained and that after they had been trained they would probably enlist voluntarily for overseas services. Sir, this Order in Council was certainly passed with great levity. Who could have expected that the Government would find men ready to enlist for home defence, that is to say, to kick their heels in the streets of the cities, without having anything to do and no enemy to fight against? Who could have expected that any man would come forward and proclaim himself a coward, that he would not enlist to go and fight, but that he would enlist for home defence only when there was no -danger. This Order in Council was repealed almost as soon as it was passed- I do not know whether it was actually repealed, but if it was not repealed it was at all events not -acted upon, and it is still dormant in the dust of the pigeon holes of the Militia Department. But, now, after nil this, suddenly, without any preparation, without a word of adcvice, all of a sudden tile Government, on the 18th of April last, come forward and say that they are going to introduce compulsory military service!



That is not all; there is something more. In the speech from the Throne in 1916, there was a statement that an extension of the term of Parliament was to be asked. Parliament was to expire in the month of October of that year, and the statement was put in the mouth of the Governor General that an extension of the term of Parliament for one year more would be asked. In due time the resolution came up for the acceptance of Parliament. When it first came up, shortly after the debate on the Address, we had still in our ears the pledge of the Prime Minister that there would be no conscription whatever, and that the 500,000 men would be enlisted on the voluntary principle. And having that pledge in our ears we granted voluntarily an extension of the life of Parliament until the month of October of this year. Would any one believe that if the Government had told us at that time that they contemplated introducing the new, radical, principle of conscription, Parliament would have been extended? If that statement had been made, if Parliament had been led to believe that there was to be conscription, that compulsory service was to be proposed, would Parliament not have said: Let . the Constitution take its course, and let the people at once deal with the question. That would have been the attitude of Parliament.
Sir, in the face of all those pledges made by the Government to Parliament, and through Parliament to the people, I say that Parliament has not the right to pass the law which it is now asked to pass. It has the power to pass it I know, this moribund Parliament may have this might, but it has not the right, and might and right are two different things, as we know. Eight against might is the very principle for which we are fighting in this war. I ask my right hon. friend if he is doing fairly by the people of Canada when he asks this moribund Parliament to enact such a law. Yes, it is not only a moribund Parliament, it is a rump-it is nothing but a rump Parliament at the present time. There are twenty seats vacant of the members elected in 1911. There are twenty-two more seats to be filled which must be filled by the new provinces of the West whose population justifies this addtional number being added to their representation. So that you have vacancies of over forty members out of two hundred and twenty members, almost twenty-five per cent of the whole membership of this House. And yet, you are asking that this Parliament should [Sir Wilfrid L#aurier.l
take on itself to pass such a law as this For my part I say, and I place myself in the judgment of the country, and of this Parliament also, that when the Government asks this moribund Parliament to pass such a law it is an abuse of the authority which has been placed in them by the people of Canada. But I shall be asked, perhaps: can you not do what has been done in the United States? In the United States they have just passed a law establishing conscription, and is our constitution inferior to the American constitution? Inferior? Our constitution on this point is superior to the American constitution. Our constitution is elastic; the American constitution is drastic and rigid, it cannot be extended. But, Sir, under our constitution it is a principle now admitted that if any new question comes up during the regime of a Parliament-a question which would vastly change the whole condition of things in the country-then under such circumstances it is preferable to have a dissolution, and to have the people pass ' on it. Then we may be told, perhaps: But what is now asked of the Canadian Parliament was also asked of the British Parliament, and it is hardly one year ago since the British Parliament itself passed the law of conscription in the two kingdoms; Ireland being excluded. Sir, again there is a vast difference. It is true that the term of the British Parliament has been extended. It is true that that law has been passed. But it is true also that it was passed after long preparation; it was not brought on of a sudden. Another fact is that the British Parliament through byelections was complete and has been complete at all times throughout the war. Every seat as it has become vacant has been filled, and by this means the British House of Commons has been kept in touch with the people. But here we have not had a by-election for two years except elections in cases when newly appointed Ministers of the Crown were compelled to seek re-election. Outside of these there has not been an election; Parliament has not been in touch with the country for two years and more, and it seems to me that this is an additional reason why we should not proceed with this Bill.
But, Sir, there is more than this. Let us put aside this aspect of the question altogether and let us come down to the merits of the question now placed before this House. Hitherto I have discussed the power of this Parliament to pass the law.

I do not dispute that Parliament has the power, but again I dispute its right to exercise the compulsion which it is sought to impose to-day.
My right hon. friend made a passing allusion to the fact that he had asked me to go into a coalition with him in order ^ to pass a conscription law, and the correspondence which passed between us has been placed before Parliament. I stated 'then that I could not agree to go into a coalition Government.
I suggested to him that if my humble advice in regard to this law would be useful I should have been called in sooner, so as to- be able to discuss the principle itself. It seemed to me, in the fitness of things, that that would have been the proper course in the interest of the country-that the services of the Opposition, such as they might be, should have been called in for the purpose of initiating such a new policy. The first thing to be done, in my belief, was to consult the Opposition in regard to that policy, but I was called upon to be an adjunct, an appendix, to endorse a law which had been already framed, and to go into a Government one-half of which would have had to go out, if I had come in. I submitted my objection to my right hon. friend. He told me, however, that he thought it preferable that the Bill should be prepared before submitting it to me. When I stated my position to my right hon. friend he said he thought differently, and I knew that he thought differently. He knows now that -I thought differently also, and it is for the country to judge who thought wisely upon that occasion.
Coming to the merits of this proposition: Should we, or should we not, have compulsion. That brings me to the very basis of the whole question. Conscription is a new word in the language of Britain. It wks in existence in France 100 years before it came up for discussion in England, but when it was discussed in England it was thoroughly discussed. The war broke out in August, 1914, and in January, 1915, the matter was brought up by Lord Middleton in the House of Lords and was fully considered. It was brought up again in the House of Commons, and again later on, in October, 1915, the Derby system of enlistment was introduced, and that system was supposed to lead to conscription, and conscription was passed. But even when the measure was made law it was not endorsed by everybody. Sir John Simon, one of the luminaries of the Bar, then Attorney General, resigned his seat, and, when it came to the final division,
153*
some forty of the Liberal members went with him in to the Opposition lobby. All this shows that the country was prepared for conscription when it was brought up. It was not dashed at them without preparation. It was not introduced, as it has been in Canada, without any preparation of the people by educating them to an understanding of it. The one thing which I suggested to my hon. friend and to his Government-the one thing of all in which I think he failed-was the fact that there was a public opinion in the country which had to be reconciled upon this matter, and that any such legislation as this is always sure to bring forward a very sincere opposition. This is exactly what has happened, as we see to-day, because, after all, everybody in this House is aware that at the moment I am speaking there is a deep cleavage amongst the Canadian people. I ask my hon. friends opposite are we entitled to vote on this question now? Under this system no doubt a few more recruits will be obtained, but they are encouraging a line of cleavage which is already too far advanced. When I speak of cleavage I do not mean cleavage between province and province, but cleavage among classes of the same origin, and the same language, all over Canada, because everybody knows that if there is an accentuated opposition in one province, to which I shall refe(r later, there is in all the provinces of the Dominion at the present moment, amongst the working classes, an opposition to this measure which is not wavering, but which is becoming stronger every day. We all know that resolution after resolution is being passed by organized labour and associations, not only in one province, but in all the provinces of the Dominion, from British Columbia, on the Pacific to the provinces washed by the Atlantic. It is asked why the labouring classes should be opposed to conscription. It has been asked if they were less patriotic than the other classes of the community. No, they are not less patriotic. They have as much at heart the success of our cause as have any other, but it must be remembered that there are no classes of the community upon which the sacrifices, which are involved in war, fall so heavily as upon the labouring classes. This is the reason why I shall ask the Parliament of Canada to take some further step, to which I will allude in a moment, before such a measure is enacted. I repeat what I said a moment ago, that the sacrifices and hardships of the war fall most heavily upon

the working classes. The wealthy young man who goes to war is a hero. He goes to war and sacrifices his life at a time, perhaps, when life has the greatest attractions. In this he is not on a different footing from his poor neighbour, who sacrifices his life, and to whom life is just as dear as to the man who happens to he wealthy. If he loses'his limbs, or is crippled in any way, the wealthy man comes to a home in which he will find every comfort, but the poor man has to go to a home where he cannot have comforts, since because of his physical infirmity, he can no longer earn his living. It is no wonder that among these classes there should be opposition to the scheme, not because they are less patriotic, but because they feel that if they are to be conscripted, and called upon to <pay that tribute with the rest of the community, at least certain things should be done which would somewhat equalize matters. And what do they ask? They ask that if they are to be called upon to give their blood, the wealthy class should, at least, give their wealth in support of the cause.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Wilfrid Laurier: They have
asked something more. They have asked that this Parliament should, not pass tiiis law until it has had the advantage of being thoroughly debated before the people, and that the people should have an opportunity to express their opinion upon it? Is that an unreasonable or unjust demand? No Sir, it is neither unjust nor unreasonable, but it is denied. I ask nowcis it too late to ask the Goverriment to yield to the petitions which have been received from all the working classes, praying that the people shall be consulted? No, it is not too late, and in the name of union and good-will, I personally present the plea of these classes at the bar of this House, and I ask that the people be consulted.
But there are objections stated to this course, and what is urged by those who object? They say:	"No, this cannot be
granted, because recruiting must proceed at once, and the gaps must be filled immediately." So be it. I do not deny that, but I ask, which is the course most conducive to success in. the war compulsion with irritation and bitterness and a sense of intolerance and injustice, or, consultation, with consequent union and universal satisfaction all round?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Wilfrid Laurier: This is the
cause for which I constitute myself the humble' apostle before the Canadian Parliament at this moment. But there is another class which has been strongly opposed to conscription, I refer to the French Canadian portion of our population. This is a tender subject, and I desire to approach it with	all moderation,
as I belong to that race.
It has often been wondered why the people of Quebec have riot volunteered in larger numbers. It has been asked: Has their blood degenerated? It is sufficient to say that those French Canadians who have enlisted have given answer to that question upon the battlefields of France and Flanders, where they ,have performed their duty in such manner as to win the applause of all their comrades in arms, and of all the Canadian people.
The fact that the men of Quebec have not enlisted in larger numbers does not, mean that they have degenerated. Conditions prevail in the province of Quebec which do not exist elsewhere. According to the figures of enlistment which were brought down a few days ago, the Englishspeaking portion of the community contributed 280,000 men; of these about 125,000 were Canadian-born; the remainder were English-born. The number of French Canadians enlisted was given as 14,000. I have given a good deal of attention to this subject. I followed the enlistment movement very closely as it proceeded. A friend of mine who is competent in statistics, and who followed matters closely for me, tells me that he thinks the figure of 14,000 is inaccurate, and that the number of Canadians speaking the French language who enlisted is about 20,000. The figure may or may not be correct; I shall not dispute them. . Even at 20,000, it is very small compared with that which represents the enlistment of English-speaking Canadians. If the enlistment of French Canadians does not compare favourably with the enlistment of their compatriots speaking the English language, it is to be noted that the disparity between the enlistment of men who are Canadian-born and men who are British-born is also somewhat marked. What can be the cause of this disparity? The English-born are at the top of the list, the Canadian-born speaking the English language come next, and the Canadian-born of French origin are at the bottom of the list. It is suggested that enlistment has proceeded negatively in proportion to the length of time that the men have been in the country. The French-Canadians, who have been

longer in the country than any other class of the community, have contributed fewer than the others. The native Englishspeaking Canadians, who have been in the country not so long as the French Canadians, but longer than the British-born, have contributed the next lowest number of men, while the British-born, who have been in the country only a short time, have contributed the most. At all events, the French Canadians have had no relations with France since 1760. I am sure that not one man in the province of Quebec has any relatives natives of France, unless it be as a result of recent marriage. I think it may be truthfully said on the other hand that there is not an English-speaking family in Canada which cannot claim relatives in Great Britain. Immigration has been constant from the British Isles, and the connection between the British settler and his motherland has been maintained. This is not the case as between the French Canadian and old France.
But there is another circumstance to which attention should be given. The French inhabitants were disarmed shortly after the long struggle between England and France for the possession of the northern part of the continent a struggle which was carried on over this portion of the continent from Cape Breton to the Ohio river. They were disarmed shortly after the last contest in this great struggle between Montcalm and Wolfe, which resulted in the defeat of Montcalm, a defeat which the Chevalier de Levis could not retrieve. The disarming was not done brutally, offensively, or after the German manner; yet it was done. As soon as the struggle between France and England ceased, rumblings of discontent were heard, in the British colonies, and the British Parliament not unnaturally thought that it would not be prudent to leave arms in the hands of His Majesty's new subjects. I hold in my hand a proclamation issued by General Amherst, who was at that time commander of the British forces on this continent. In this proclamation, which was issued about three weeks after the surrender of Chevalier de Levis at Montreal, the disarmament of all Canadian subjects was ordered. It is in French, but I will translate it:
Let it be known that we have constituted and established Monsieur Gage, Brigadier ot the armies of the King, to be Governor of the city of Montreal and of its dependencies; and that we have also appointed Monsieur Burton, Colonel of His Majesty's troops, to be Governor of Three Rivers and of its dependencies. All the inhabitants under the government of
Three Rivers who have not yet surrendei ed their arms must deliver them at such places as shall be designated by Monsieur Burton.
There is another paragraph to the effect that officers shall be permitted to retain their arms and that arms may be possessed also by those who hold special permission.


Samuel Hughes: That was before the treaty of peace was signed.


Wilfrid Laurier: We came back with 37 and the Conservatives with 27, and almost every man of those 27 was elected on the platform and the promise that Canada should never participate in the wars of Great Britain. The polling figures are still more significant. The Liberal vote polled in that election was 164,281, and the Conservative 159,299; so the people were divided pretty equally. In view of these figures, and the fact that those 27 were elected upon the platform of no participation by Canada in the wars of Great Britain, is it surprising that there has been so little enlistment in Quebec? When the Government wanted the people of Quebec to enlist they could appeal to only one-half of the province and not to the other half.
But that is not all. I have another reproach to address to the Government of the day. They never took any steps and never did anything conducive to enlistment in the province of Quebec. If Quebec had been properly appealed to, for my part I believe the people would have responded on an equal footing with the other provinces.


Samuel Hughes: Were any different steps taken in the province of Quebec from any other province?


Wilfrid Laurier: Oh, yes.


Samuel Hughes: Not at all.


Wilfrid Laurier: I will say
this. The selections that were made were very unhappy indeed. After all, men are composed of flesh and Iblood, and if my hon. friend had put at the head of recruiting in Quebec a man of their flesh and blood the results would have been different. The French people of Quebec are no better than any other class of people in this country; they are no worse either. They have their passions and their prejudices; I do not deny that they have their prejudices. In a matter of this kind it is wise to appeal not to the passions but to the good feelings and the pride of men. I repeat that if my hon. friend had taken any share in that respect the results would have been different. To the testimony of the ex-Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes) I will oppose the words of a member of the present Government, one of his own colleagues. I cannot give him a better answer than this: Mr. Blon-din took off his coat-


Samuel Hughes: Pardon me, Colonel Blondin.


Wilfrid Laurier: I stand corrected. There are so many colonels in this 
country that I had forgotten this one. I am blesssed with a pretty good memory, but there is a limit even to counting, and I do not know whether the ex-minister himself knows how many honorary colonels he has appointed. But let that pass. Colonel Blondin says in his letter:
Short as it was, it was enough to show that if Quebec had been well organized from the French Canadian point of view at the beginning of the war, and if the organization had been immediately placed under the direction of a man like General [Lessard, and an appeal made to all French Canadians to enlist in French Canadian units and preserve their identity, Quebec would have replied en masse.
Those arc the words of Colonel Blondin. Though I do not often agree with him, in military matters or in anything else, I feel satisfied that on this occasion he spoke absolutely correctly and conclusively. Shall 1 give my hon. friend one instance where a mistake was made? "Mr. Asselin, with Mr. Bourassa, was one of the organizers of the Nationalist movement. He was a man of considerable authority, and was one of those who said that under no circumstances should Canada ever fight for Great Britain. But to his eternal glory Mr. Asselin came to the front in 1915 and offered his services to the then Minister of Militia. I am proud to say that the minister accepted his services ; he even offered to make him a colonel, but Mr. Asselin had no desire to become a colonel; he accepted a minor rank, as he said he had no military experience, and he helped to raise a regiment. That regiment should have been sent to the front immediately it was raised, but instead it was *sent to Bermuda, and when eventually it was sent from Bermuda to England it was broken up and the men scattered in different units. If Major Asselin's regiment had gone to the front intact, it would have made a reputation for the French Canadians, because if there is one man of courage it is Major Asselin. If his services had been utilized in recruiting, or the services of Captain Papineau, Colonel Barre, or the other men mentioned by the Prime Minister at the beginning of the session as having distinguished th.emselves in the war, the results would have been very different.


Samuel Hughes: Every gentleman my right hon. friend has named tried to recruit and failed.


Wilfrid Laurier: Captain Papineau never was asked to recruit.


Samuel Hughes: He was hooted off the platform in Montreal not so very long ago. Papineau came home and failed as

regards recruiting, if my recollection serves me right.


Wilfrid Laurier: There are Papineaus and Papineaus. Captain Talbot Papineau, who by the way is a great grandson of Papineau the agitator, and a second cousin of Mr. Bourassa, has never to my knowledge returned to this country since he went to the front, but it is not too late even now, I hope. I say that when my right hon. friend had in his possession such a letter as that from his colleague, Colonel Blondin, he was not justified in changing from the policy of voluntary recruiting to compulsory service before making another attempt with the voluntary system.
There is another man who should have been sent to Quebec immediately war broke out, and that is General Lessard. He is a French Canadian, at least partly so, and a good soldier. He was brought up in Quebec, served in South Africa, and has a splendid military record. According to Colonel Blondin, if General Lessard had been sent to Quebec immediately on the declaration of war, the results would have been very different.


Robert Laird Borden: Might I interpose to correct an impression which might be created by my right hon. friend's remarks? I did ask General Lessard about a year ago, In June, 1916, to take charge of recruiting in the province of Quebec. Further than that, I would ask my right hon. friend to remember that General Lessard has been recently engaged there in recruiting with Colonel Blondin, and I regret to say with not very great success.


Samuel Hughes: Perhaps my right hon. friend would permit me to say-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Samuel Hughes: If the right hon. gentleman does not wish to get it now, he will get it later.


Wilfrid Laurier: The objection did not come from me. Go on.


Samuel Hughes: During the very first year of the war General Lessard was asked to go to Quebec. He stated that he had no influence in Quebec, that he detested the place, and that they detested him. Moreover, I spoke to leading French Canadian gentlemen, and they advised me not to send him there, as he had no influence in the province; I think that statement has been borne out by the results of his campaign with Colonel Blondin.


Wilfrid Laurier: As to the controversies between the ex-Minister of Militia and General Lessard, I have nothing to say, as I know nothing about them. I have simply stated what Colonel Blondin says, and I repeat it:	'
Short as it was, it was enough to show that if Quebec had been well organized from the French Canadian point of view at the beginning of the war, and if the organization had been immediately placed under the direction of a man like General Lessard, and an appeal made to all French Canadians to enlist in French Canadian units and preserve their identity, Quebec would, have replied en masse.
I repeat that, in my humble judgment, when the Prime Minister had in his possession such a letter as that, coming from his own colleague, he had no justification for substituting compulsory service for voluntary service.
This is not a case of the province of Quebec alone; it applies to all the provinces of the Dominion. We have before us one of the most complicated questions that has ever come before Parliament at any time. There is no doubt at all in regard to it there are deep differences of opinion in the country, and deep differences of opinion in this House. There are liere to-day men with whom I have worked in political association for thirty years, who are in favour of conscription; and men there are on the otheT side supporting the Government who are opposed to conscription. When you have such a state of affairs you see how deep are the differences on this question. Can you say that it is wise, that it is good policy, that it is conductive to harmony, in the face of such a condition, to force upon the people compulsory service? It seems to me that the Government would have been better advised if, instead of proposing compulsory service, they had maintained the unity of all the elements that compose our population. There is no use in blinking the facts; the facts are as I have stated. Let us face the situation courageously, and face it so as to have harmony amongst ourselves, and so that we may bring the greatest strength to the support of our troops at the front as well as to the cause of the Empire in the war in which we are engaged. We live under British institutions. We are a democratic country. Problems we have, problems we have always had and shall always have. The solution of our present problem is to appeal to our people, to appeal to them to lay aside passion and prejudice and ask them to make a sacrifice of something that they hold dear upon tho altar of our common country.

Before I depart from this subject, may I be permitted to refer for a moment to a speech delivered a few days ago in the city of London by General Smuts of South Africa. The Prime Minister, I am sure, will be the first to admit, having met General Smuts, having been with him in the Imperial Conference, that for the time being he was the lion of London. It was natural that whenever he appeared in London or elsewhere in Britain, every one should recall the fact that fifteen years before South Africa was at war with Britain, and that he himself had been one of the foremost generals opposing Britain in the war. Today he coines to Great Britain to represent his country, now part of the British Empire, and endowed with the blessings of British liberty. Here is a spectacle which is not seen every day-which has never been seen, perhaps, anywhere except in England itself. What a spectacle it is; what a lesson; what a triumph for British institutions. The Romans used to make slaves of defeated nations; it was their custom to chain the most illustrious of their captives to the chariot wheels of their victorious generals. Britain makes freemen of her defeated enemies, and places the most illustrious of them at the head of the procession in every triumphal march. This could not be anywhere but in England. , These facts are known to everybody, but I may be permitted to refer to the lesson they have for this country. In 1901 Mr. Bour-assa, then member for Labelle, brought in a resolution to condemn the course we had taken in the South African war. I had to reply for the Government, and I said that in my estimation Britain's cause in the war was absolutely just and that under the circumstances she could not avoid war. I reminded the House that President Kruger had invited British immigrants to settle in South Africa under the promise and pledge that they should be treated as citizens of the republic. I told how British immigrants came in large numbers, had opened mines, had founded cities, had added greatly to the wealth of the country and contributed heavily to its treasury. I told them that the pledges made by President Kruger had been violated; that instead of being made citizens of the republic these immigrants were made out-landers; that the period of probation had been extended from one year to five years, from five, to ten, to fourteen years, making it absolutely impossible for them to become citizens of the republic; yet

they were heavily taxed, and yet deprived of power to present their case in Parliament. I reminded the House of the telegrams, the audacious telegrams sent by President Kruger, calling upon the English to get out of South Africa. I said that these Dutch had appealed to the arbitratment of war, that they had lost and must take the consequences. And I added:
I pledge my reputation and my name as a British subject, that if they have lost their independence they have not lost their freedom. There is but one future for South Africa, and that future is a grand confederation on the pattern of the Canadian confederation. It is a federation in which Cape Colony and Natal, and the Orange Free State, and the Transvaal, and Rhodesia, shall be united together under a federal constitution, under the British flag-, and under the sovereignty of England.
The prophecy to which I pledged my word and reputation has 'been more than verified. The Transvaal was conquered. But in 1906 Britain gave them a charter of freedom as complete as we have in this country, as complete as they have in Great Britain. Of that new country, that British country, General Botha became the Prime Minister, and it was a colleague of General Botha, General Smuts, who was in England to represent his country at the Imperial Conference. I come now to the words which were spoken by General Smuts at a banquet given him a few days ago in England by the two Houses of Parliament. I wish I could quote his whole speech, but I shall give only a few .sentences.
All the Empires we have known in the past, and that exist to-day, are founded on the idea of assimilation, of trying to force human material into one mould	 You don't want to
standardize the nations of the British Empire; you want to develop them towards a greater nationality. These communities, whether they are the offspring of a Mother Country, or territories, like my own, which have been annexed after the vicissitudes of war, must not be moulded in any one pattern. .. That is the
fundamental fact we have to bear in mind______
that the British Commonwealth of Nations does not stand for standardization or conventionalization, but for the fuller, richer and more various life of all the nations comprised in it.
If there is any place where these words should be remembered, it is in this country of Canada.
If they mean anything they mean that we should always remember that all human flesh cannot be put in the same mould, they mean that if the British Empire is to live, as I hope it will, it must be in accordance with the idea of unity in diversity, and diversity towards unity. If these words of wisdom uttered by General Smuts were to be remembered throughout Canada, whether

it be Ontario, or Quebec, or any of the other provinces, the bickerings and suspicions which too often prevail 'between race and race would be forgotten and there would be that growth in the commonwealth of British nations of which General Smuts has spoken. That is the idea which I want to impress upon this Parliament and this country. We are of diverse races, but we are all British subjects; we want to remain British subjects, and to preserve the unity of all the races that compose the British Empire. But if we are to attain that end we must respect one another. There is the prejudice which I have spoken of. The French people have not enlisted as they should have. That I admit, and nobody regrets it more than I. But in British countries there is only one way, and the sovereign way, of meeting all these differences. It is to appeal to the country and to appeal to the whole country, not to one section, but to all sections, and when the country has pronounced then the question is settled and all must submit to the law.
What I propose is that we should -have a referendum and a consultation of the people upon this question. I have taken the referendum, not that I have been very favourable towards it, but I find that the idea of the referendum has made enormous progress in Canada, and that it has been adopted by the political associations in the western provinces as a method of political action. If we are to have peace, if there is to be unity, we must meet the wishes of the labouring classes, who have asked for this privilege. When the consultation with the people has been had, when the verdict has been pronounced, I pledge my word, my reputation, that to the verdict, such as it is, every man will submit, and I claim to speak at least so far as is concerned the province from which I come. Is that an unfair situation, is that an unfair appeal? Can anybody say that it is not in accordance with true democratic principles? This I leave to the consideration of those whom I see before me.
But in presenting this motion I do not . intend-and I beg to make myself perfectly clear upon that-to bind any man of those who sit behind and around me and with whom I share the honour of representing Liberalism in this House. If there is ever to be a time when every man should think for himself, decide for himself and act [DOT] for himself it is the present. This moment is too solemn, the issue is too great, the ques-' tions involved in the measure are of too far-reaching importance to have them decided by any other voice than the voice of
each man's individual conscience. I am very firm in the belief, I am unshaken in it, that when the voice of every man has been heard, the aggregate will be the true voice, the right voice, and the right solution. At all events, it will have this effect, that it will be the final arbiter and it will put an end to the agitation which is now going on; it will bring about harmony, now much disturbed, and it will be a vindication of that spirit of democracy which we hope and believe must be the future social inspiration of the world. I beg to move, therefore, seconded by Mr. Oliver:-
That all the words of the question after the word "that" he struck out and the following he substituted therefor:-
"The further consideration of this Bill be deferred until the principle thereof has, by means of a referendum, been submitted to and approved of by the electors of Canada,"
Before I sit down let me at once answer an objection which has been made. It has been stated that this referendum should not be taken because the soldiers could not vote. Soldiers could not vote? What does it mean? Soldiers are electors and if they are electors they have the right to vote and must vote. But, it has been stated that they cannot vote because they are at the war. What nonsense is that, I want to know. Why could they not vote because they are at the war? To tell us that they cannot vote because they are at the war is to tell me something I do not understand. We know that there may be difficulties in the way. We pointed that out two years ago when we discussed the Bill providing for soldiers' voting, but we obviated those difficulties and before the Bill was passed we asked the Government that it should be submitted to the War Office to ascertain whether there was any objection to it. The War Office responded that they had no objection to it. The Bill was sanctioned. Then, it was said that it would take a long time to take the votes of the soldiers, that the boxes could not be sent without delay. The boxes have been in England for two years; they were sent immediately after the Bill had been sanctioned, at a time when it was supposed and stated, that the people were clamouring for an election in tones louder than thunder. So, the boxes are there, the thing can be done, and, Mr. Speaker, if there is a referendum at all, every class, every interest, the soldiers included, should be given an opportunity of casting their votes so that we shall have the true verdict of the people. Again, I repeat that when the verdict of the people has been given, there can be

no further question, and everybody will have to submit to the law. And again I repeat the pledge I gave a moment ago on behalf of my own province that every man, even although he is to-day opposed to the law, shall do service as well as any man of any other race.
Right Hon. Sir GEORGE E. FOSTER (Minister of Trade and Commerce):	Mr. Speaker, nothing could be more moderate or milder, than the tone in which my right lion, friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has taken part in the discussion this afternoon. I might say with equal truth that nothing could be much more indefinite than his argument and his conclusions. The most of his speech was taken up in threading old and long-used paths.


Mr. C. A. WILSON:: They are the best
sometimes.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: I had an idea that progress meant rather the blocking out of new paths. One would not have gathered from my right hon. friend's speech from beginning to end that a titanic struggle such as the world has never seen before is going on at this very hour on the plains of France or that 400,000 Canadians, 5 p.m. cheered by my right hon. friend, bidden God-speed by him as they paraded on Parliament Hill in this city on their way overseas were now fighting in the trenches and expecting as they have reason to expect help from their fellow Canadians, and support up to the final moment of triumph.	[DOT]
In .all these long days of praise and admiration of. the heroism of the sons of Canada, British-born and Canadian-born as well, there was no intimation from my right hon. friend that when in time of deadly peril their call for help came from the blood stained trenches he would wait to take a referendum td determine whether the sorely needed help should be forthcoming.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


George Eulas Foster: It seems to me that my right hon. friend is scarcely living in the atmosphere of to-day, but that he has transferred himself into historic times, and that his strong penchant for historic recollections and reminiscences has led him to pay too little heed to the strenuous issues, the tremendously grave conditions, that face us at this moment. I am not going to follow closely all the arguments he has made. I will, however, touch lightly upon a few. His first was the constitutional or legal

ai eminent, which I am scarcely in a position to debate, because I have had no special legal training. But I have a knowledge of English and I think I know what English means. I read the section of the Militia Act to which my right hon. friend alluded:
Her Majesty may call out the militia or any part thereof for actual service either within or without the Dominion-
That does not mean that the militia are to be called either within or without the Dominion, but that the -militia are to be called out for service either within or without the Dominion. Surely that is a plain English statement.
-whenever it appears advisable so to do by reason of war, invasion, or insurrection, or danger of any of them.
I think that is a clear English statement
And the militia men when so called out for actual service shall continue to serve, etc.-
There is the language itself, a common-sense interpretation conveys a clear meaning. I am supported also by legal opinion, the highest legal opinion that the Government has to guide it. Our Department of Justice-as it was constituted in 1904 in my right hon. friend's time, as, with its experience and knowledge and traditions, it is constituted to-day, both in 1904 and today-gave it and gives it as its opinion that the Militia Act under that wording did give authority that 'Canadian soldiers could be sent out of the country when the circumstances that are detailed there arose. My right hon. friend is a lawyer. There are other legal men in this House, but I think that Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, who was Minister of Justice in 1904, and who gave that opinion, and the Minister of Justice of to-day (.Mr. Doherty), and his able deputy-, who gives the same opinion now, will be acknowledged by my right hon. friend to have come close to the real legal interpretation of this clause.
My right hon. friend is more optimistic and less fearful with reference to this great war and the perils which surround us on account of it than I could wish to be or than I would dare to be. [DOT] He never has believed, he says, that there was danger of an invasion of Canada by the German power. He never believed that there was danger of invasion.. But what is the purpose of a Militia Act? What is the purpose of a military force or an aggregation of military forces if it is not primarily and absolutely to defend the. country, to

keep it intact from a possible or an actual enemy, wherever that enemy may be, and at any time that that enemy may threaten or wage war against the nation which is concerned? And common sense teaches me that if armies are for the defence of a country, their efforts should be applied at that point where there is emergency or danger, and where their efficiency would be greatest. So if there be menace (and my right hon. friend would not deny that there is to-day - menace) we should surely do our utmost to meet it at the most effective point. A much more numerous people than ours, the nation to the south of us, with one hundred million and more of a population, with tremendous resources in men and material for the defence of their country, have, after nearly three years of patient consideration of all the conditions and the perils involved, come to the conclusion that it is wise for them (a great nation of one hundred and ten million inhabitants) not to wait until this struggle of to-day is decided, and chance the issue, but, to preserve and defend their country, its liberty and its ideals, by sending an army and a navy to the seat of war, and to participate with the other Allies in the defence of their country and of the liberties of nations, and of humanity. The people of the United States are not led away by simple hysteria, they are too strong to :be frightened at imaginary perils or tbreat-enings. That great nation, desirous of maintaining peace; democratic to the very centre, with all its races, and kindreds, and creeds, and denominations, after a three yers' contemplation of the whole question at .issue, comes to the conclusion that to best safeguard itself, its liberties and its rights, it must send its army across the seas, and meet the enemy at the most advantageous point. If that is true of the United States, which might well have remained neutral, and, with its tremendous strength, defied any outcome of the war in favour of the central nations; if that country has come to a conclusion to participate in the distant conflict, how could we avoid coming to a like conclusion, as we did at the commencement of the war? We are a part of an Empire which is at war-an Empire which, taken altogether, is most dreaded and hated by the German power. As an integral part of that great Empire, how could we come to any other conclusion than that our best point of defence was on the far distant lines, where the vantage ground was held
and could be held, and where the hordes of devastation could be kept far from our own home land?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


George Eulas Foster: It strikes me
that common sense teaches us that if there is emergency, peril, or danger of an invasion, and if the integrity of the dountry as threatened, the place to do our fitting part in the contest is at the point where the ultimate decision is at last to be made. My right hon. friend would not let the militia stir hand or foot until the Hun was victorious in Europe, and Asia, and had made himself the predominant power, and then, with his navy and army, landed on the shores of the St. Lawrence. Then my hon. friend would admit that the Miliia Act should be called into force.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


George Eulas Foster: Therefore, it
appears to me that neither according to legal interpretation, nor in a common sense point of view, is there anything to be said in favour of the proposition of my right hon. friend. If that Militia Act was framed for anything, it was framed for the defence of Canada. The framers of that Act saw beyond the conditions of that day, and placed within its sections the provision that the militia could be used in or out of Canada, on any invasion or any threat of an invasion, and, therefore, it was made wide enough to include the action which Canada has taken. lAnd, in these three years of war, my right hon. friend has seen that action and he has not protested against it. He.has only felt, it .seems, that, at this particular moment of crisis, it is his duty now to question the Act, and its powers, and to present a new and dilatory solution of the difficulty.
My right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition took up the pledge said to have been given by my right hon. friend the leader of the Government, and, at this late day, he challenges the course Parliament and the Government have taken in respect to the pledge of 500,000 men. It is within the fair knowledge of all in Parliament, and out of Parliament, that this war has been one of the most unexpected developments that the w6rld has ever seen. No man skilled in strategy and military experience, no nation or empire, however far back its warlike prowess and warlike traditions might extend, and no nation or leaders of a nation anywhere, but have been absolutely surprised at the new and fresh develop-

ments which have taken place in this war. There is no need in an intelligent body like this to labour that argument for a single moment. Everybody has been surprised, and everybody has had to make change of methods and of ideas. Was there a nation more deeply embedded constitutionally, in experience, in traditions of the theory of the defence of Empire, even to strong and widely distributed offensive operations, by virtue of enlistment, and voluntary enlistment at that-than the Mother Empire of which we form a part? When that war commenced there were few men in Britain, statesmen or soldiers, who did not believe the contest could be fought and victory won on the old voluntary principle of the enlistment of British people for the defence of their country. War was commenced with that thoroughly embedded in their minds, and embedded in the practices and methods by which they sought to carry on the war. But experience is the mightiest teacher of all, and before necessity the most stubborn of inherited beliefs must give way, and the time came when Great Britain's statesmen, military men, business men, and working people as well, dame to the conclusion that, if Britain was to be saved and the war was to be won, something other than voluntary enlistment must be appealed to, and applied, and it has been appealed to and it has been applied, and millions and millions of men from those little islands in the North sea have cheerfully submitted to compulsion, changed their beliefs and their methods, and did so because it was necessary for the defence of their country, and the victorious outcome of the war.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


George Eulas Foster: And in Canada as well we had known nothing of compulsory enlistment. Ours had been the militia system, which is a voluntary system. We started in the beginning of this war with all our fervour, zeal, and devotion to principle, on the line of voluntary enlistment. We thought that would suffice, and if the war had lasted no longer than it was generally supposed at its commencement that it would last, voluntary enlistment would have carried us over the war, and would have brought us to victory. But it did not so pan out. The war did not end in six, twelve, twenty-four, nor thirty-four months. It is still continuing, and the principle of voluntary enlistment, if it was ever thoroughly tested m a country with

confidence that it would do the work was .so tested in Canada, and it has failed. It did not meet the continued stress of the war and the continued call for men. At the commencemeiit of the war we adopted the voluntary system, in the belief that that system would be sufficient. We proceeded upon that line of action; we expected to continue it; we expected by it to gain the victory and to achieve the result for which we were striving. Proceeding upon that line of action, we sent forward 300,000 or 400,000 of the citizens of Canada. They marched towards the trenches; they went with our plaudits, our good will and our prayers. Not one of them left these shores with the least doubt in his heart that the people of Canada would stand behind the work to which he was devoting himself. My right hon. friend makes much of suggested cleavages, of possible dissensions, and of adherence to constitutional principles. But is there not an implied contract in the great deed of consecration of 400,000 of our men, who, putting their lives in the balance, went out with our plaudits-to do what? Flash a temporary spark of heroism into the atmosphere of the world, which would reflect credit upon Canada? No ! This they were willing to do; this, indeed, they did. But they went forth to win a great world and Empire fight. That is what they went forth to do; that was our contract with them. Shall we make it good, so that as they fall something effective shall be done to guarantee that their heroic sacrifice shall not have been in vain and that the purpose for which they went forward shall be accomplished? That is my way of looking at it; is that not an eminently practical, a moral, and a fair way of looking at it? At this moment the men at the front look back and listen for the footsteps of comrades marching to the front to help them and to take on the work when their arm fails. Is there not in that all the sanctity of a contract which we must fulfil? And ought not that implied contract to count against little differences and little dissensions that may be caused here if.,we take the only step that will bring victory and that will achieve the results for the attainment of which we passed on all this precious and priceless material of manhood as of full weight and put it into the balance?
So, after nearly three years of trial, voluntary enlistment fell down, but not until it had been fully tried. In no country in the world was there a. better class o.f men and women than those who throughout the

major .part of Canada traversed every settlement, every town and every hamlet, and, by all kinds of appeal and encouragement, called for volunteers. There was the finest co-operation amongst the civilians of Canada, and it told mightily in the enlistments that took place. But the inevitable happened, and at last there came the dreary months when fresh enlistments were scarcely more than sufficient to make up the wastage among those troops in Canada who had enlisted for overseas service, but who were gradually subjected to weeding out. That went on from week to 'week and from [DOT] month to month until those earnest souls who had in countless numbers spent their energies, their time and their money in attempting to bring about enlistment, came to us in one great body and said: we can do no more; we can go no further. Was that the experience in Canada, or was it not? It is open to us to answer that question for ourselves.
Then, Sir, still wishing to make full trial of the principle of voluntary enlistment, we designed a force of 50,000 men for home defence. It was honestly designed, 1^ may tell my right hon. friend-although he casts some disparagement upon its motive. My right hon. friend must remember that some 50,000 men who had .enlisted for overseas were kept here in Canada for purposes of guard and for home duty. The enlistment of 50,000 men for home defence would have liberated those 50,000 men who had been kept here for purposes of home defence. There was common sense; there was possibility of aid, in that arrangement. It was tried honestly and to the uttermost, and, for one cause or another, it absolutely failed.
Then the Prime Minister spent some weeks in England. He was at the very centre of the forces; he saw the very inner core of the conditions; he became acquainted with the precise nature of the situation at the front and with the matters reviewed in the councils of war in Great Britain and France. As Pirime Minister he has, from the time war broke out, uttered no backward word; taken no retrogressive step. He has in season and out of season pressed the issues of this great conflict upon the people of Canada and unselfishly devoted [DOT]his time and his energy to the great duty of carrying on the war. He came back from the front convinced that the necessities of the case, the peril of the occasion, made it absolutely necessary that our men should be sustained^ Adding that conviction to the knowledge gained when he came home, he arrived at the conclusion -and we arrived at the same conclusion- that more would have to be done than could be done by relying upon voluntary enlistment.	'
And this measure is the explanation and the interpretation of the conclusions to which he and we arrived, and it is now before the House and the country. Because the Prime-Minister, working along the lines which I have briefly indicated, wished to avoid compulsion or selective conscription, whichever you may call it as long as possible, and desired to work on the old voluntary lines, whilst they seemed possible of success, is it to be urged that he failed in duty if, in order not to injure to the least possible degree the fulness of the work that might be accomplished under the voluntary system, he had uttered no discouraging word? But at last he had to come to the conclusion that if the war was to be won he must pass over - from the ground of voluntary enlistment and ask for a reasonable and intelligent application of the principle of selective service, and he is now here with that conclusion, forced upon him by the necessities of the case and the experience of three years of war.
My right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, when we face such conditions as that, chops logic and talks of the Constitution. Logic is good in its place and constitutions are most excellent, but neither logic nor the Constitution is superior to the people, and they cannot be allowed to be a bar to the people's necessary defence and ultimate salvation. Constitutions are methods through which government of the people is carried on by themselves, in an orderly and methodical way. But the good of the people, the happiness of the people, the salvation of the people, are the basic things which are to be sought after, and just at this very moment it seems to me that in Canadavin the Empire, and throughout the world, we have a situation surrounded with conditions altogether unusual in the history of the world, and which demand action of the real strong red-blooded type for the support of the men we have sent to the front, and for the salvation of the country for which they have gone. My right hon. friend may talk about the Constitution and urge his points in a logical way, but that does not satisfy me. If necessity is upon us, we must act.
I will put this case to my right hon. friend. Suppose that what he hinted at as

have rivalled each other in peace; they have proved doughty assailants in vrar and they have proved strong and firm friends in peace. These men live in this country and we live in this country and the Dominion belongs to us both. Pity it is, pity it will ever remain, if because of this fight for freedom and high ideals and for the liberty and defence of our common country, we do not march more closely side by side with each other so that in the future we may walk more closely side by side when the war is over and the victory won, the country safe, and we are left to our long generations and centuries of mutual toil for progress and advancement in this country. No one hates dissension on this line more than I do. No one could wish more deeply than I do that we saw more eye to eye in this particular matter.
But, the French Canadian is a law-abiding citizen and if he is convinced that this war, to be won, must be won by throwing men into the contest more and more than we have; if the Parliament of Canada comes to that conclusion, and the people that is behind it arrives at that conclusion towards this measure, no one can convince me that the French Canadian will not walk side by side with his fellows in obedience to the law and in perfect unanimity therewith.
I have to speak now with complete frankness and without any other thought than to come to the right and the truth of the matter, and I put a question to my right hon. friend. In all these three years of the war, the French-Canadian has had less opportunity for learning the rights of this great cause and of this great contest, whether from his occupation and his rural habits of thought he is less in the sphere of information and of knowledge. I have just one thing to say, and it is that I believe that things would not be as they are to-day if my right hon. friend and his able, loyal and enthusiastic French followers had done something more than they have done to enlighten the masses of the people in Quebec., with reference to the paramount issues of this war. The words gripped my heart and made me optimistic when my right hon. friend said on one occasion: "No danger from Germany, none, her policy is to be a friend of this country, but if she ever does show her teeth, if sh6 ever does come in opposition to this country with her fleet or her army, then I will go down into the province of Quebec, and I will stump that province from one end to the other in order
TSir (leorge Foster.!
to rouse the people to the defence of the country." For three years this sanguinary war has been going on. I do not want to attempt to admonish or teach other people their duty; I simply state frankly that I deplore the fact that further means of educating the French people on the vital, paramount issues of this war, have not been put in operation in Quebec by its representative men. Whether it is the fault of Sir Sam Hughes, of Sir Edward Kemp, the English people or the French leaders themselves it is deplorable that more has not been done in that direction. If more had been done in that direction, we have the authority that was quoted this afternoon by my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) that the French people would have risen en masse in favour of this war.
Now, putting all these things together, I come to the end of my remarks with one final reference to the referendum. It may be the practice of democracy. It has been occasionally the practice of statesmen in Canada, when subjects difficult of solution arose, that they did not wish to give a lead upon, to refer these subjects by referendum to the people, and do nothing thereafter, but the referendum moved on the second reading of this Bill, at this particular time in the crisis which is upon us is, to my mind, a miserable dilatory motion, and nothing else.
* Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


George Eulas Foster: With our men in the very front trenches, for members of Parliament and of the Government to down tools in the face of the trenches and enter upon a two or three months' excursion throughout the Dominion of Canada on the idle wind of a referendum, which would settle nothing, but would set us back four months or more, would be little short of criminal. We still would have to make laws, assume responsibilities and carry on in the best interests of Canada, referendum or no referendum. I can see some merit in an appeal to the country on a settled policy, either from this Government or from a coalition government such as was offered to my hon, friend a few days ago.
I can see some finality to that, but to a referendum, none. -It is a dilatory motion, pure and simple. It can result in nothing, but months of turmoil and bitterness at home and delay and confusion and loss abroad whilst the Hun wears down our sons and kinsmen at the front who call to us in vain for help. But I am not very much afraid on that score, because my faith is

constant that this House and Parliament will not give its assent to such a method of avoiding our responsibilities and shelving, for months the war and the most important question that the war has imposed upon us.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
I
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Edmonton):: Mr. Speaker, I was struck, as I am sure the House was intended to be struck, by the suggestion in the first sentences of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), that the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) did not know there was a war in progress. This Bill was brought before the House on its second reading, by the Prime Minister of Canada, without reference to its provisions, to its scope, to its possibilities; a Bill that, if it means anything, means the taking of son from mother, of husband from wife, of father from children, from one end of this Dominion to the other-and it is not worthy a word of explanation by the Prime Minister of Canada when he brings it before the House for its second reading. Does the Government of Canada know the meaning and effect of this measure that it is bringing before the House? Does it know that Canada is at war? We are in a world crisis, the greatest crisis in history. Canada is a participant in that crisis, and the first lieutenant of the Prime Minister, in addressing the Parliament of Canada, through all his rounded periods, through all his well-turned sentences, preserved an air of detachment as though the Government of Canada of which he is a member had no responsibility for the direction of Canada's affairs in this war. We are dealing with a measure for the conscription of men, of one hundred thousand men, to take part in this war, and this measure of conscription is passed over as lightly as though it meant nothing. If it is adopted, it must be adopted, because voluntary enlistment in this country has broken down in Canada. And why has voluntary enlistment broken down? Who is responsible for the breaking down of voluntary enlistment?


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Frank Oliver: Who is the Government of Canada, responsible ^for the direction of its affairs? If we are to-day faced with the
necessity of this measure, a measure terrible in its character and in its consequences, my hon. friend and his colleagues would do well to take a few minutes of the time of the House and of the country to explain why that measure is necessary, because under, their administration voluntary enlistment has broken down.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Frank Oliver: My right hon. friend (Sir George Foster) spoke in eloquent terms, in moving terms, of the responsibilities resting on the people of this country, responsibilities to the men who have gone to carry our name with honour at the battlefront. He said, we were to support them, to see that the sacrifices they made were not in vain; their sacrifice was to be recognized by others and still others and still others of our citizens, so that the honour of Canada would still and always be maintained, not by conscription, but by voluntary service, a service that would do honour to Canada and do credit to the Empire. I say the question is up to the members of the Government to-day to tell this country why it is now, at this stage, necessary to resort to this measure of conscription. The country that has sent 350,000 men to the battle front in voluntary service, is that country lacking in enthusiasm for the cause of the Allies? Surely the country that sends 350,000 can send a few more, could send a few more, would send a few more, if the enthusiasm that has been exhibited in the past had received proper direction and encouragement at the hands of this Government, of which my hon. friend is such an eloquent member. Is there no responsibility resting upon him and upon them? If that river of men has ceased to flow, what strange thing has occurred in Canada that, at the end of April, 1917, this river was still flowing, there was no question that it would continue to flow, and in June, 1917, there is no further flow of voluntary enlistment to be expected, if the honour of Canada is to be maintained it must be maintained by compulsory and not by voluntary service? The honour of the people of Canada in their support of the Allies in this war is discredited by my hon. friend in his remarks to-day, as by the measure that is before the House in whose support those remarks were made. There is some responsibility somewhere in this country of Canada, and it rests upon the Government of Canada, in regard to the direction of our affairs. Has there been honest endeavour,

~ COMMONS
has there been persistent and honest endeavour, to maintain the honour of Canada by voluntary enlistment during the three years that have passed? I do not wish to delay the House seriously, but that is a point that should be settled, and I am fortunate in being able to produce the reports of Hansard to show what direction the efforts of the Government took. Sir Sam Hughes, speaking on January 30, 1917, said:
But here another hindrance stepped in. I do not know whether it was in the interest of munition workers or not.
I think he meant munition " makers He continued: t
But I stand here to say that I look on all this talk of munition workers as piffle, compared with the need of men at the front, piffle of the worst kind-this kind of piffle of considering men getting $7 a day in munition works as compared with a man in the trenches, running the risk of being blown to pieces. It is piffle, and the commonest sort of piffle.
An order in council was passed forbidding the Department of Militia from authorizing a battalion here, there or elsewhere, and it is said that the reason was that too many battalions were being raised in Toronto, Winnipeg, Montreal and other large cities.
Continuing, he said:
The point is that they said:	Here, you
must not have so many regiments recruiting in Toronto or so many recruiting in Montreal.
Sir Robert Borden:	I think what my hon.
friend says might be misunderstood. There was not an order in council passed saying that no further battalions should be recruited, but that no further battalions should be recruited without an order in council.
Sir Sam Hughes:	The object being to prevent two or three being raised in Toronto or Montreal, for instance.
Sir Robert Borden:	Too many being raised
in one place.
On the same date, Sir Sam Hughes said:
In other words, three months were lost, not in organizing the battalions, but in getting the power to organize them. I am not criticising, only there seems to be a desire to play to the gallery in connection with these munition workers. There was a drop in recruiting at all events. I have heard, all sorts of stories, but I have never asked my officers. When I came back my officers made certain statements ; they had been directed to go slow in recruiting, but I never asked; I do not know whether it is true or not.
However, seeing the falling off, seeing the need of straining every nerve we could strain at the front, when I came back I set to work to try and get the pulse of the boys. I have always been in favour of universal service, training the boys. I did not deem conscription necessary, and it was not. I could have raised 500,000 men by voluntary enlistment. I could have raised 600,000 by voluntary enlistment without any trouble, I believe. That is only a statement; but I believe I could have done it. However, this order in council stopping the authorization of regiments was

passed, and the talk came on from every hand I presume paid for by German agents- against taking men from munition works.
Speaking on February 1, Sir Robert Borden said:
The fact that we succeeded in the first three and a half months of the past year in recruiting a hundred thousand men or more is an indication that the work was carried on with a good deal of vigour and with a great deal of success. The criticism has been made that proper regard to selection was not made. I discussed that question with the ex-Minister of Militia and Defence more than a year ago- I think in the autumn of 1915 for the first time. The course which my colleague took in that regard was that he did not think at that time that any more systematic method was necessary, and he said that it would be possible, through instructions given to his recruiting officers, to prevent unwise selection, selection which might result in the closing up of industries essential for the prosecution of the war, - when recruits might have been obtained from other classes whose work and service were not so essential. I was informed by General Hughes that instructions had been given in various instances to adopt methods which would give some system to that purpose.
Mr. Oliver:	About what time was that?
Sir Robert Borden:	I think it was in the
autumn of 1915 or early in 1916.
Sir Sam Hughes:	Early in 1916.
Sir Robert Borden:	Early in 1916, I think,
and afterwards it was thought better that the purpose could be carried out in connection with other objects in a more comprehensive way by the proposals for National Service, and that is the explanation of the course which was taken.
So that we have it on the authority ,of the ex-Minister of Militia that so early as the fall of 1915 or early in 1916 a deliberate policy of retarding of recruiting was entered upon as between the Prime Minister and the Minister of Militia. At whose instigation? At the demand of the fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters or children of the men who were volunteering to go to the front to carry the flag of Britain and uphold the honour of Canada? No; at the instigation of the munition makers, the munition profiteers who are fattening upon the blood of their country and who, through the Prime Minister and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, denied to their employees the privilege of going to the front to fight the battles of the Empire and uphold the honour of Canada.
On February 1, Sir Sam Hughes said, as reported on page'373 of Hansard:
Take one special instance in which I was asked to take definite steps along this line was when the Prime Minister brought up the matter of the Sydney mines. The Prime Minister will remember that I rubbed the delegation up a little about their treatment of these fellows in days gone by. However, I did ask some of the recruiting officers not to take spe-

cialists or men expert in certain lines if they could possibly get along without them, or, at any rate, not to bring much pressure to bear upon them.
I heard the Minister of Trade and Commerce say in this House that he himself refused to allow his private secretary to volunteer because he considered that he would be of more advantage to the country acting as his private secretary than he would be as a s.oldier in the trenches. I heard the Minister of Customs make practically the same statement.


Mr. REID:: What statement-that I
would not let my private secretary go?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


John Dowsley Reid: No statement of that kind
was made by me.


Frank Oliver: Then it will have to remain as a question between my hon. friend and myself. I will take the opportunity of looking up Hansard.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


An hon. MEMBER:: Take it back.


Frank Oliver: I beg the hon. minister's pardon. I certainly withdraw, in deference to his statement. But it is very clear in my mind that such a statement was made by the minister in regard to some official in his department.


John Dowsley Reid: I would like the hon.
member to show me any such statement as he refers to. I have no recollection of ever making such a statement.


Frank Oliver: I will take the opportunity of doing so; I have not Hansard under my hand at the moment. If I am not able to produce the statement, I certainly will tender the hon. gentleman every apology.
As to the position taken by a member of the Government on the floor of this House -and the idea was carried through the whole of the Government service, as far as the Government could reach-that there was not as great necessity for the services of able-bodied men at the front as there was in other places, I ask that member of the Government why my son or another man's son should go in the place of his secretary? Our sons are just as good to us as my hon. friend's private secretary was to him.
Having reached the point where the munitions makers of Canada have the sanction of the Premier and of the Minister of Militia in preventing the recruiting of their employees or near-employees, it does not
154J
come with good grace from the Minister of Trade and Commerce, eloquent though he may be, to declare on the floor of Parliament that Canada is not able to make good any promise she has made in the matter of voluntary enlistment. Let those who first made the promise and who later stood in the way of its fulfilment take the responsibility.
My hon. friend suggested that the leader of the Opposition by his proposal of a referendum was standing in the way of efficient and timely prosecution of the war on the part of Canada; I think that was the impression he desired to convey. The leader of the Opposition is the leader of the Opposition. It is his business to bring to the attention of the country sueh direction of its affairs as appears to be best in his judgment. It is the business of the Government to direct those affairs, and if it is true, and it is true, that voluntary enlistment has shown a decrease since the middle of last year, I ask my hon. friend *what he and his colleagues have been doing between then and now to protect the interests of this country should there be a German invasion? It was known in June of last year that there was no prospect under the conditions then prevailing of the promise of the Prime Minister being fulfilled, that the rate of enlistment was such that there was no likelihood of the complement of the 500,000 men being raised within any reasonable time. What was the course of the Government under those circumstances? There was plenty of time between then and now to have taken a referendum, plenty of time for the Germans to have invaded and over-run Canada. They appointed my good friend from Calgary as Director of National Service, and sent postal cards presumably to everybody in the Dominion. That was their idea of how to deal with the question when the Hun was at the gates. They got some of those postal cards back, and the Director of National Service is still the Director of National Service. But there is no Service, individual or national, so "far as any one can judge. This Government spent its time month after month, and month after month practically walking around in a circle, deluding its friends who were in favour of more drastic action into the belief that National Service meant conscription and at the same time giving Dorchester and other places in that neighbourhood clearly to understand that National Service did not mean conscription.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: What member of this Government ever said that National Service did mean conscription?


Frank Oliver: 
Arthur Meighen: Read the Order in
Council.


Frank Oliver: I have answered my hon. friend's question. Will he answer mine? i


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman told me he would not answer my question. I, however, will answer his. The terms of the Order in Council speak for themselves.


Frank Oliver: Then the terms of the Order in Council are no more than sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal. There have been no results either from the Order in Council or from the efforts of my hon. friend the Director of National Service.


Charles Avila Wilson: The Calgary trumpet.


Frank Oliver: If the conditions are in any degree as my hon. friend declared them to be, what answer has this Government to make to the fact that for one whole year they knew of those conditions and did nothing to remedy them? They did worBe than nothing. When the announcement of National Service was made the effect was necessarily to injure still further voluntary enlistment. When it was announced that the Government was going to take upon itself the responsibility of deciding whether this or that man should go to the front and this or that man into a munitions factory, the responsibility of choosing between the man who was to get $1.10 a day with the privilege of getting shot, and the man who would earn $5 a day in a munitions factory and live in comfort, what young man, unless he was inspired by enthusiasm in more than the ordinary degree, would not naturally say, "The Government is taking the responsibility off my shoulders. It is no longer for me but for the Government to decide whether I shall go to the front or into a munitions factory." I ask you, Sir, whether that was a stimulus to recruiting? When that announcement had gone abroad and recruiting still further fell off, the 'Government did nothing more. They [DOT]simply sent out their cards, got some of *them back, talked one way in one end of the country and another way in the other end; but they did nothing.
The climax of it all was the proposal to enlist 50,000 men for home defence. Fifty

thousand men to be taken out of productive industry at a time when it was believed that productive industry required all the . help that it could get; taken out of productive industry, but not sent to the firing line. How many (months did the Government spend on that project, and what was its result? Does the Minister of Trade and Commerce think that the Government is justified before this country in spending the time between June of last year and June of this year in talking one thing and doing a different thing; in talking action, but pursuing inaction? Is that his way of winning the war? And to-day, when there is placed before this House a suggestion that the power of Parliament is exhausted, that we hold no authority from the people of Canada, and that when we are imposing upon the people of Canada a measure, which, however necessary, however patriotic it may be, is still a most burdensome measure, we should ask the authority of the people to impose that measure; we are told that this suggestion is most unpatriotic because it would mean delay. It is right for the Government to delay, to walk up and down, to go round and round, for twelve long months; but it is absolutely unpatriotic for the leader of an Opposition to suggest that the people of Canada shall rule-because it might mean a delay of three months.
Now let me touch on the references made by the hon. gentleman to the province of Quebec. The province of Quebec has not sent as many men to the front, in proportion to population, as other provinces have. That is to be regretted. My right hon. friend thinks that the blame for the inaction of the province of Quebec-assuming that there has been inaction-rests upon whom? Upon the Government of the country? Oh, no; the blame rests upon the leader of the Opposition, the man from whom the majority of the people of Canada took the responsibility of office in 1911, the man who has held no responsibility of office since that time. He, we are told, is the man to blame, if blame there is, for the state of affairs in the province of Quebec, while the Government has no responsibility in the matter. In my humble judgment, a government constituted as this Government is, whose members from the province of Quebec were elected as being opposed, not to conscription fherely, but to military or naval service on behalf of the Empire-a Government with these men in its councils, supported by their colleagues from Quebec, who represent within a fraction of half the people of that province and number within ten of half its representation in

this House, must carry the responsibility for failure to recruit in the province of Quebec, and any lack of military enthusiasm in that province must fairly rest upon the shoulders of this Government, whose members are opposed, not only to conscription, but absolutely to military service.
The question before the House is serious; it is serious beyond measure. Surely, if there is danger of division, in this country, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce said there was; although he brushed it aside lightly, it was a small thing-if there is a possibility that one of the provinces of this Dominion is likely to be opposed to the policy which is about to be undertaken; and if it is the fact-and the right hon. gentleman said it was the fact-that the leader of the Opposition is responsible for public opinion in the province of Quebec, would it not be reasonable, would it not be common sense for the Prime Minister and his colleagues to take the recommendation of the leader of the Opposition?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Frank Oliver: If the facts are as the
Minister of Trade and Commerce says they are-I do not say these are the facts; he says it-that is a reason why the proposal of the leader of the Opposition should be accepted by this Government in the interest of the wellbeing of the country, in the interest of its unity and therefore of its strength.
In speaking on this question I have dealt with it from the standpoint of voluntary enlistment and of the failure of voluntary enlistment in this country, and of the necessity, if necessity there is, for the introduction of this conscription measure. I think it only right to place before the House certain facts in regard to the measure of voluntary enlistment that is going on in Canada to-day, voluntary enlistment that is going on not because of the efforts of our Government but in spite of the efforts of our Government. I have here the latest issue of of the sheet called The Canadian Patriotic Fund, and I find a statement showing that the total enlistments in Canada for the Canadian Expeditionary Force for the month of January, 1917, were 7,721; for February, 7,644; for March, 6,648; for April, 5,420, a total of 27,433; or for one year, if continued at the same rate, 72,299. I note that a despatch from Kingston says that "456 recruits signed up in the Third Military District during the last two weeks." I say, in spite of this Government, and not because of it.
I desire to draw the attention of the House to an item which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of a day or two ago to the [DOT]effect that the enlistments in the city of Ottawa had fallen to a certain figure and the reason was because the enlistment office for the artillery service had been closed up. They had refused, during two weeks of the period to accept any recruits for the artillery service. It appears to me that when we have the evidence of the number of Tecruits during the preceding period, and when we have the evidence that this Government refused to accept recruits for any branch of the service here in this capital city of Ottawa, the Government has no right to say that voluntary enlistment is a failure in Canada or that people of Canada are lacking in their enthusiasm in support of this war.


Albert Edward Kemp: Did my hon. friend say that we had refused to accept artillery recruits?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Albert Edward Kemp: That is so, but it was at the instance of the British Government who say that they have' more artillery recruits in England than they need at present.


Frank Oliver: I notice that the British Government comes in conveniently when my hon. friends desire to escape from a difficult situation, but it appears to me that if the casualties at the front are as they are reported to be, and there is no doubt they are, this Government would not be placing the British Government at any disadvantage if they accepted all the artillery recruits that offered and gave them the training that is necessary for efficiency in the artillery service. I am still compelled to believe that the closing up of the recruiting office in Ottawa, and the refusal of artillery recruits, was rather in the line of emphasizing the necessity of this Military Service Bill than of satisfying the demands of the British Government.
No one is more disappointed than I am that the Government should have felt it necessary at this stage of the proceedings to say to the country that their policy of voluntary enlistment had" broken down. There is, after all, something of inspiration in the idea of a man who volunteers, of men who, of their own good-will have left house and home, farm and land, wife, children and friends and have taken upon themselves, for their own credit and for the-honour of their country, the responsibility and sacrifice of the war. There is some-

thing insipiring in that, something to be proud of and Canada has reason to be proud that so many of her citizens have taken that position and have done her that measure of honour. It is a matter of the deepest regret to me as one citizen of this country, and as a member of this Parliament, that we are not going forward in the same line and to the same result.
While I say that, I also take the position, which I have taken in this House in times past-and I think I was the only member in the House to take it-that universal compulsory service was the only logical service under such conditions as prevail in the world at the present time. I believe that universal military service is the logical and efficient method of bringing to beaT the full strength of our country under present circumstances and conditions. Given a proper measure of universal military service, and there is equality in the distribution of the burden, an equality that does not exist in the case of voluntary service. While voluntary service has tremendous advantages in many ways, it has the disadvantage that the, willing horse carries the whole load. It is only fair that every horse should carry his share of the load. It is only on the principle of equality of service-of absolute equality of service-that the compulsory principle will be recognized or accepted. It is the only principle that is fair. If there is not equality of service under the compulsory principle, then, instead of i't (being a, democratic method of meeting a great emergency, it becomes an instrumeent of tyranny and unfairness in every particular.
The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) used the words " selective conscription ", and the Prime Minister explained that he was not able to adopt the Militia Act now on the statute-book because it did not contain the selective principle, and the selective principle must be provided for by special legislation. In the adoption of this selective principle there is vast room for anything but fairness in the administration of the Compulsory Service Bill. In that provision for selective conscription, it appears to me, there rests the greatest reason for objecting to the measure as it appears before the Hpuse. I have said in this House before, and I say again, that the great necessity to win this war is able-bodied men on the firing line, and any provision or measure before the House that takes the view that equal service can be rendered by an able-bodied

man in any other capacity, takes a view that I for one cannot agree with. And when I see a measure brought before the House as this measure is and advocated as this is, I am compelled to say that I do not look upon it as such a conscription measure as I would be willing to support.
To deal with a certain provision pf the Bill; It is provided, as the Prime Minister has told us, that there shall be a Board of selection, a Board of appeal, which amounts to a Board of selection, and this Board of appeal shall be absolutely independent- that is to say it will be absolutely irresponsible, absolutely irresponsible. In other words, that Board will express the sentiment of the men who compose it, who again will express the sentiment of the people amongst whom they live, And it is provided that this Board shall grant a certificate of exemption on the ground:
That It is expedient in the national interest that the man should, instead of being employed in military service, be engaged in other work in which he is habitually engaged.
That is to say, this irresponsible Board has all the authority of this Parliament to say: this man shall go and this man shall stay. There is neither let nor hindrance, there is neither direction nor suggestion, and this Parliament is asked to support that measure and call it a measure of conscription. It is a measure of conscription, but not a measure of conscription as I would feel able to support.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon.
member is objecting to this method. Does he prefer the method established in the Militia Act, of selection by ballot, or how does he suggest the selection should be made?


Frank Oliver: I would suggest that this Bill that is brought before the House should tell us how the selection is going to be made.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, it does.


Frank Oliver: I beg pardon, it does not. It says that two irresponsible appointees-


Albert Edward Kemp: Irresponsible !


Frank Oliver: Irresponsible, not responsible to any one-shall say that Smith shall go and Jones shall stay, without any reason whatever, except their own sweet will.


Arthur Meighen: To whom should they be responsible?


Frank Oliver: I am not drafting the
Bill. I am saying that this Bill says this

and that, this is the provision of the Bill that this Government has brought down, and asks this House to vote for. Now, 1 am a conscriptionist; I believe in universal military service; but I believe in universal military service on a fair basis, and I do not believe in a Bill that makes provision that Brown shall go and Smith shall stay and does not suggest, even in the remotest degree, why Brown should go and Smith should stay.


Robert Laird Borden: I really did say, in introducing the Bill and again to-day, that we would be very glad to have suggestions which would improve the Bill. If my hon. friend is so strongly opposed to the provision which we have suggested, would he be good enough to give us the benefit of his suggestion as to what the provision should he?


Frank Oliver: Really I do not appreciate that as being my function.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Frank Oliver: That is the business of
the Government of this country. They have brought down a Bill, they are challenging public opinion upon it; they have a right to do so. My business in this House is to show how and where this measure falls short of being in the best interests of the country, if in my judgment it does so fall short. Having done that, I have discharged my responsibility.


George Eulas Foster: Oh.


Frank Oliver: And I again point out that this Government has brought forward a measure here, under the pretense that it is a. measure that shall he a fair measure of conscription, and it is a measure that does not contain within its four corners the first element of fairness in the matter of conscription.


Robert Laird Borden: What would be fair?


Frank Oliver: I am saying to the Prime Minister that that is hie business.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh,
9 p.m. oh.


Frank Oliver: It is the business of the Prime Minister to bring in a measure that will be fair, and let me suggest to the Prime Minister and his friends that this is a responsibility resting upon their shoulders just as the administration of Canada's affairs in this war have rested on their shoulders, and I think they are
under a great mistake if they think that that responsibility is one thaf can be treated with levity.


Mr. BURNHAM:: If the hon. gentleman does not feel that he owes any duty to this Government, does he not owe a duty to the country to make suggestions?


Frank Oliver: I do.


John Hampden Burnham: Why not make them?


Frank Oliver: I aim discharging my duty to the country according to my best judgment. Let me show how this provision will work out. In the part of the country where I live, where we have sent more men to the war in proportion to population than have been sent from any other part of the Dominion of Canada, where the men on homesteads, on the side lines, on the back streets, have gone in their thousands, and every day brings out its toll of casualties, carrying death and wounds into every side line and into, almost every house and cottage-we knew something of war in that part of the country, anid when you talk of conscription we want to know what it means. We have been led- to believe that a conscription measure would be fair to the country, and as we have done our duty, in a measure, so it would compel the people in other parts of the country to do their duty.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Frank Oliver: Now, that is the kind of conscription measure I want to see, but that is not the kind of conscription measure my hon. friend has brought down, because when a board is appointed in the city of Edmonton, where the people have gone to the war and where the sentiment is in favour of maintaining our position in the firing line, and a man is called up and he appeals, the board will naturally say: Well, your neighbours have gone and you must go. That is what we would expect of a conscription measure in that part of. the country. That is to say, in our part of the country those who have not gone would be compelled to go. But shift that position down into the good province of Ontario, in some of its localities, or into the neighbouring province of Quebec, or possibly into the Maritime Provinces; you will find localities in all of those provinces where the people have not very enthusiastically volunteered for active service overseas, where the sentiment of the people is not favourable to such military service, and you have your tribunal there, just as you

have it in Alberta, and a young man appeals from the call and goes before this its authority under this provision to permit the man to remain they would he chased out of the country. The result would be that, we at Edmonton, who have sent of our best, and who have sent so many of them, will have to send still more, and those who have sent none will still send none, under this provision as it stands. This provision bears the closest possible relationship, in sentiment and idea, to those National Service cards, which were drawn up for an express purpose, and worded so that the man who believed in conscription was told " This is the beginning of conscription " and the man who did not believe in conscription was told that it certainly did not mean conscription, and we have the evidence of the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Sevigny) on that point. We have a Bill that, to the people of Alberta, means conscription, but to the people of other parts of the country means just as much conscription as they want, and just the way they want it. That is not the kind of measure I would call a conscription Bill, and is not the kind of provision that I think is required to meet the Hun at the gate. It is not the way to do honour to this country and credit to the Government which brought it forward. I do not know, but it may be that this Bill has some resemblance to some Bill in England, or some measure passed in the United States. I can only say that we are legislating for Canada according to the conditions of Canada, and legislation that may be absolutely adapted to the conditions in England is not necessarily adapted to the conditions in Canada. Legislation which is adapted to the United States may not be adapted to our country. In case this legislation should be modelled on the English Bill, let me give the House some information as to how the English Bill is administered, and ask their opinions as to how they would be pleased to have similar -administration in Canada. I read in the Toronto Saturday Night of June 16th, an article from England written by an English correspondent, Lacey Amy: He speaks of the conditions in England, and- particularly of the conditions surrounding the enforcement of the conscription measure there. He says:
Tribunals all through the country continue to hanil out exemptions to huntsmen, variety artists, store managers, clerks, luxury manufacturers, frankly declaring that their mission is "to protect local industry". One district alone fMr. Oliver.]
granted 30,000 exemptions during the past fourteen weeks.
Even the Government joined the Freedom League. Only a few departments are not still to a large extent manned by eligibles with influence. In this 34th month of the war it is still the custom to hand a list of names to a branch of a department with orders to And places for them. A regiment is permitted to retain at home its football players and runners and boxers. The great markets of London

Smithfleld, Covent Garden, Billingsgate and the rest:-phave scarcely been touched, because their combing out was left to committees of themselves and they have been unable to agree.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, if that is the way they like to have it in England, it is not the way we like to have it here, and if this measure is modelled on the terms of the British measure, and if thesd are the results of the British measure, I say this is not a conscription Bill, according to my judgment, and is not entitled to my support.
There is this further feature of the volunteer system: that if a man volunteers, he does so for reasons of his own. He takes his chance. He accepts what he gets in the way of treatment, or casualties, or whatever it may be, and we who stand here, legislating for Canada in some measure, can carry the responsability lightly. But if we, by legislation, reach out our hand, take that man forcibly from his business and his family, bring him under military control, and send him into the firing line, it is for us to see in every step taken that every safeguard is afforded, and every justice meted out to him. In looking back over the part taken by Canada in this war since August, 1914, I regret to say that I cannot sec in the administration of our affairs, that spirit of fair play and of consideration for what is right and just that I would require to see in a government in whose hands I would entrust a measure of conscription of men.
I will not delay the House on the point, but I have here a clipping from the Montreal Star, a special cable from London, England, May 29th, by their correspondent, F. A. Mackenzie. Mr. Mackenzie has been at the front, and he states as follows:-
My visit to the base more than ever convinced me that we are suffering both at the London and French bases from over-systematization, which maintains thousands of unnecessary clerks, docking, indexing, the precise writing systems. The fault is not with the officers who are administering. I strongly urge the Dominion Government to have the system rigorously simplified in order to prevent the present staffs being overwhelmed by red tape and routine.
The dissolution of certain old battalions doing excellent service has been necessary.
The divisional staffs asked me to try and remove the impression prevailing in some parts

of Canada that the battalions were broken up because inefficient and unsatisfactory. Among them are several considered among the pick of the army. The necessity which compels the disintegrating of the veteran battalions with brilliant records and splendid esprit is considered deplorable. One dissolved battalion held a funeral service and the men erected a tombstone "To commemorate the last resting place of the 48th Battalion, raised by patriotism February, 1915, destroyed by politics May, 1917."	'
Further on he concludes:
The armies are heartily sick of politics, believing the politicians a curse to the service in their intrigues, forcing a number of unsuitable men into posts.
Such a record does not seem to me to warrant us in placing in the hands of this Government the power of life and death, of honour or dishonour, over our people by the tens of thousands.
This Government that comes to us with this conscription measure, and assumes to itself that, because it proposes conscription, therefore ^ it wants to win the war, when because of its course, of its action and of its inaction in carrying forward Canada'.- effort to win the war, conscription has to be resorted to. In, this as in every other case I am in favour of prompt and effective action. If a Government holding a mandate from the people believed in its wisdom that it was necessary to introduce a measure of conscription, it would be its duty to introduce such a measure, and to enforce it, if it could enforce it. But that is not the position; this Parliament holds no authority from the people. It was elected in September, 1911, for a period of five years; to-day it sits here, self-elected, but confirmed in ' position by the authority of the Imperial Parliament. It is competent for the Government to dissolve Parliament and appeal to the country, but in the Governor General s address at the opening of the House it was announced that such "was not the intention of the Government; that a further extension of the life of Parliament was to be arranged. On the Order Paper to-day is a notice that the Government purposes introducing a resolution for-the extension of the life of Parliament. We of the Opposition cannot command the Government. We know that we hold no mandate from the people; that our authority, so far as the people are concerned, was exhausted in October last. We see that the Government proposes still further to extend the life of Parliament; that it does not intend to go to the people for authority. Under those circumstances, the only way in which the authority of the
people can be secured is by the adoption of the amendment offered by the leader of the Opposition.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman says that he is is favour of conscription, but that fee would not entrust it to this Government. Will he say whether he would entrust conscription to the leader of the Opposition?


Frank Oliver: If the leader of the Opposition became leader of the Government, I certainly would.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman would entrust the enforcement of conscription to one who is altogether opposed to conscription.


Frank Oliver: I do not know that he is altogether opposed to conscription.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Frank Oliver: I heard him say here to-day that if his amendment is adopted and it is agreed to by the country, he would be a party to assisting the enforcing of conscription.


Arthur Meighen: But he is opposed to conscription. Would the hon. gentleman, then, entrust such a measure to him?


Frank Oliver: I certainly would entrust to the leader of the Opposition, if he were leader of the Government, the authority to enforce conscription, believing that he would enforce it if it were the law of the country and if the people had declared for it. But the leader of the Opposition and others on this side of the House are not prepared to take the responsibility of supporting a conscription measure when, having usurped the authority of the people, we sit here by our own authority, not by the authority of the people. 'That is the position that we want thoroughly defined. If the Liberal party stands for anything it stands for the rule of the majority of the people. We believe in responsible government, but when a Government that is absolutely not responsible to the people, and which holds office without regard to the people, brings forward a measure which lays a burden upon all the people, then all the people have a right to be heard with regard to that measure before it is put in force. That is what we-say, and that is all we say.
The leader of the Opposition has said that if a majority of the people are for conscription he will do his part in seeing that the law is carried out. I noticed how lightly the Minister of Trade and Commerce considered the authority of the people; it struck me that that certainly was good Tory doc-

trine. The fact that this Parliament did not hold authority from the people was a matter of the smallest possible consideration. We were Parliament, and because we were Parliament we should exercise our authority according to our judgment. If the military enthusiasm of our people declined, and if, because of the mismanagement of the Prime Minister in his leadership, our men at the front were not being supported, then we must make the people go-because we were Parliament.


Mr. BURRELL:: My hon. friend said just now that this Parliament had usurped the authority of the people. Does my hon. friend not believe that when the members of Parliament unanimously extended the life of Parliament for one year in order to ' avoiil bitter contest during the war the people in vast majority cordially approved that action?
Mr. OLIVER,: I do not know whether they did or not. We were careful not to take any chances on their doing it; we simply elected ourselves. I am not arguing that there was not at that time good and sufficient reason for the action that we took.
I	am arguing that because we took that action at that time is not a reason why we should take_ the same action again. Having taken the law into our own hands; having set ourselves up in a position independent of the people, we should, before forcing this measure upon them, submit it to their judgment and obtain their opinion upon it.
The leader of the Opposition drew attention in some measure to the condition of the House itself, aside from the fact that its term had expired and that the authority of the people, so far as we were concerned, had been exhausted. Taking the House as of 221 members, 9 seats are vacant by death,
II	by resignation, and 5 by reason of the members being unavoidably absent. There are two double seats: that is, two members each sit for two seats.
There are under military orders and pay 26 members of this House. These men under the military law are subject to service and entitled to pay therefor. I maih-tain^ that that is in effect an infraction of the independence of Parliament, whether it 13 inside the law or not. I am not criticising either the man or the military service, but it goes without saying that no matter who he is or how great the service he may render, the member of Parliament who is under military orders and receiving military pay is not in the position an independent member of Parliament should be in. He is 
not, as a matter of fact, an independent member of this House.
There are in this House, if I am correct in my count, 20 seats which are represented by men who were elected absolutely on the principle of opposition to Imperial Military service. It is this House, with this composition, that is to enforce conscription. Is it any wonder that the Conscription Bill is of the character that it is? We have had an administration of our military affairs since the war began that has not been to the credit of Canada, and I am one of those who believe that the influence of those men in the Cabinet and outside who were absolutely opposed to Canada's participation in Great Britain's wars is one of the great reasons why we have not had a more effective administration of our affairs in this war.
My right hon. friend the Prime Minister in his Speech a few days ago suggested what might happen to members of this House if the Conscription Bill were not passed. What does he think will happen to members of this House and of this Government who armed the men in the trenches at Ypres with rifles that would not shoot under stress of circumstances, and who kept them armed with those rifles and sent other men into the trenches armed with the same rifles for one long year after they had it on the authority of the British general that the rifle was inefficient? Perhaps it was not the influence of those who were opposed to Canada's participation in the wars of the Empire that was responsible for that condition, but undoubtedly that was the con-[DOT] dition that did exist, and for that condition this Government is responsible, and it will be well for other members of the Government and other members of Parliament if they can show that it was those who were opposed to Canada's participation in the war who were responsible for the blood of the men who died at Langemarck and Zille-beck because the Government armed them with a rifle that they knew to be inefficient.
In a House of 221 members we have 9 seats vacant by death, 11 by resignation, 2 double seats, 5 unavoidably absent, 26 under military orders and pay, 20 elected to oppose military service for the Empire, 2 are under-secretaries, and 2 occupy special positions without pay, but with allowances,
I suppose; I speak of the Director of National Service and the hon. member for East Kootenay (Mr. Green), who is now acting for the Government in the coal strikes. There is a total of 19 seats which are either vacant or the representatives of

which are not in the position of an absolutely independent member of Parliament. In a House of Commons of 235 seats, as it would be after a general election, there would be 79 as above, 22 unrepresented, and 8 over represented, a total of 109 seats,or nearly one-half not represented as they ought to be. It is this Parliament, which has outlived the term for which it was elected, with nearly one-half of the seats unrepresented or represented by members who are not in the position they should be in, that proposes to put through a Conscription Bill compelling 100,000 of our men to give military service at the front, under the plea and pretense that the loyalty and military enthusiasm of our people have failed us in this time of stress. This conscription measure is brought forward as an excuse and apology for the Government's failure to discharge their duties and responsibilities for the honour of Canada and the safety of the Empire.


Mr. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the House was very much .surprised this afternoon when the right hon. leader of the Opposition moved an amendment to the second reading of this Bill, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton. We have listened to the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) for an hour and three quarters endeavouring to show in the first place that the Bill does not go far enough, and in his next breath telling the House and country that the Bill is an iniquitous measure because it will tear the son from his mother and the husband from his wife. He tried to show that the Bill was not a Compulsory Service Bill, that in its working out it would practically defeat its own ends, and yet his chief condemnation of the Government tonight was that the Bill would have the dire effect upon the manhood of the country to which I have alluded. He says he is in favour of compulsory service, and always has been, and then deliberately seconds an amendment which amounts to a hoist for the Bill which would bring in compulsory service.
And he refuses, even though invited by the Prime Minister, to make a single suggestion to improve the Bill. He would send the Bill as it stands to the people to be ratified by the people, and would hand over the administration of it to the leader of the Opposition who is absolutely opposed to it; and yet he refuses to give any suggestion for the improvement of the Bill. To my mind, such a position is illogical and untenable.
Another point that my hon. friend makes is that this Bill is weak because, forsooth, Alberta and some other provinces, my own province for instance, have already contributed very liberally under the voluntary system, and it will take from these provinces certain individuals while allowing individuals in other provinces to escape. And why? Because he says the Bill provides for administration by an independent board which he chooses to call ' irresponsible." What would he have said had the Government brought down a Bill to be administered, for instance, by the Minister of Militia or by some special committee of this House? He would at once have declared that it was a Bill for a political end, that it should have been entrusted to the courts. But because the Government bring down a Bill to be administered by the courts of the land, he says, forsooth, that this is an "irresponsible" way to administer the Bill. He might as well say that the courts of the land, from the Supreme Court and the Exchequer Court down to the police court, are irresponsible and do not administer the ordinary laws properly day after day. The very same men, the judges of the county courts, the judges of the Supreme Court, are the men chosen by the Government to administer the exclusion clauses of the Bill; and I repeat, his reflection upon these men must carry with it the inference that they are incapable of administerihg the ordinary laws of the land. Otherwise, his criticism means absolutely nothing; it is merely a captious criticism.
Referring to the munitions work, he took the Government to task because, he alleges, early in the year 1916, the Government and the Minister of Militia of that time had prevented the men, skilled workers, engaged in the manufacture of munitions, from enlisting. I have not heard of a single case of a man who insisted upon enlisting being denied that privilege.


Samuel Hughes: I was not here when the hon. member for Edmonton spoke. Did he say that there was interference with the men employed in munitions enlisting?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.
Sir SAM 'HUGHES:	It is an absolute
falsehood.


Frank Oliver: I only read from Hansard what the ex-Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes) said.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) said something to the effect that there was a conspiracy 'between the Prime Minister and the Minister of

Militia of that time to prevent individuals from enlisting and to keep them in the munition factories. That is a most unfair criticism of the Government; for the hon. gentleman himself, from his place in the House in 1915, and also I think in this very session of 1916, attacked, condemned, and maligned the Government because it was not assisting the Mother country in getting out munitions and was not giving sufficient support to the men at the front who at that time were suffering because munitions were not supplied in sufficient quantities. He knows that the one thing needed in 1915, when our boys went in at the front, was munitions; the thing that caused the slaughter at various points in Flanders was that they had not heavy artillery and munitions. And what gives the British at the front the advantage to-day? The tremendous quantity of munitions. And how have they been brought up to that point? By Canada, the United States, and the Motherland bending their skill and energy to their manufacture. The hon. member knew very well, when he made his unfair criticism, that the British Government brought men back from the front-thousands of them-to * put them at work on munitions rather than allow them to remain in the front line. He seeks-and I consider it a most unfair and unkind criticism-and makes it an object of petty, picayune political attack, to compare the heroism of the men in the factory with that of the men on the firing line. We know that the men at the front, willing' to lay down their lives, and hundreds of them making that last great sacrifice, are rendering to the country a service that can never be too highly appreciated. At the same time, it must be admitted that the men in certain walks of life can do their country a great service for the time being by sending to the men at the front the support of munitions. Let me give an instance. A young McGill student from my own city, skilled in analysing steel, enlisted as a private and was on his way to the front. But the former Minister of Militia got hold of him, and that young man is now in the Ordnance Department filling a position as a skilled engineer testing steel in the manufacture of ordnance, a thing that very few men in Canada understand. Would the hon. member for Edmonton take that young man out of the Ordnance Department and send him to the front? We on this side who differ with the hon. gentleman in political matters have always regarded him as an honest, rugged fighter, whatever we may 
have thought of his opinions. But his criticism to-night did not do him credit, nor do I think his constituents will approve the stand he has taken.
The hon. gentleman also referred to the failure of the voluntary system, and he very glibly tells us that the responsibility lies at the door of the Government. If this Government is entirely responsible for the failure of the voluntary system, then it follows absolutely that this Government and its supporters alone Were engaged in the promotion of volunteering. But that is not true; the hon.- gentleman and I know that it is not true. We can speak with assurance when we say that throughout Ontario and the West, and 'throughout Eastern Canada we know, but not with the same personal knowledge, both Liberals and Conservatives in every walk of life have joined hands in the work of making the voluntary system a success. We on this side have never hesitated to give credit to our Liberal friends in the West, and I could name them by the score, who have done great service in that line. But when the hon. gentleman stands in his place and seriously, on this solemn occasion, tries to make the House and the country believe that this Government alone is responsible for the voluntary system, he acknowledges that he and his friends have failed to do anything for that system.
He complains that this Government took no action between last June and this June, and this, he said repeatedly, is the time when the volunteer system failed. He says the Government should have taken action last June, and yet says that the Government having delayed for twelve months, it should delay for three months more, and perhaps not pass the measure at all. In one breath he charges the Government with not proposing conscription a year ago and in the next, with all his power, eloquence and influence, he seeks to delay the matter for another three or four months.
If the Government was at fault, as he says it was, it is his duty, and the duty of every citizen of the country, to see that the thing is done now. Delay is not going to improve it. As a matter of fact, he knows, and I think the country at large knows, that there was an earnest effort on the part of the Government to avoid conscription. Why? In the first place, I think we had a decided pride in the fact that Canada had done so well under the voluntary system. I want to pause a moment to pay a tribute to Canada, to my country, for the splendid manner in which it has responded to the

call in this great war under the voluntary system. I was hoping, as I am sure many others have 'been, that we would have been able to get the 500,000 men and stand out as the one country in the world that did not require compulsory service. But, unfortunately, for various reasons that has not been possible, and so the Government come down now, after exhausting every other effort to secure the men, with a compulsory measure. My hon. friend refuses to make any suggestions to improve this Bill. He chooses at this most critical time in the country's and the Empire's history, at this most critical time in the history of modern civilization, to enter on a course of destructive criticism and refuses to make a single constructive suggestion to help the Government, notwithstanding the fact that the sincerity of the Government in inviting such suggestions was conclusively shown by the fact that my right hon. friend the Prime Minister allowed this Bill to stand for several weeks after it was introduced in order to give the leader of the Opposition an opportunity of joining with him in a national, coalition Government. When my hon. friend seeks to cast a reflection upon the Prime Minister and his Government, he * has to reckon with that fact, and I believe that the country will properly weigh criticisms of that kind.
We are faced with a single condition. This war is either justifiable or it is not, it is either right or wrong, it should be sustained or it should be abandoned. That is the situation with which we are faced to-day. We have no choice except between these two courses. There is no middle course. Either we must sustain the men at the front by sending reinforcements or we must abandon them. There is, I repeat, absolutely no middle course. It ill behooves us as members of this Parliament to stand in our places here, as the leader of the Opposition did this afternoon, go back to the Boer War,, or to the Drummond and Athabasca election and rake up all the political squabbles that have arisen in this country during the last twenty years. Such a proceeding is unnecessary and ill-timed. The thing for us to do is to face the conditions now. The conditions are clear, and again I say there is no middle course. If we admit, as I think we must admit, that our cause is a just one, and that we are battling for right against despotism, tyranny and brutal might, we dare not abandon the fight, we must not fail at this time, and we must concentrate our efforts upon bringing into play to the
utmost our national strength. This Bill presented by the Prime Minister is calculated to do that very thing, to bring into play the full strength of the manhood of the country.
My hon. friend from Edmonton, as did his leader this afternoon, raises the constitutional quibble-I have no other word to characterize it-that as a moribund Parliament we have no power, no mandate, and no right to go on with this measure until we have consulted the people. Let us look at the logic of that for one moment. Year after year the Finance Minister has been bringing before Parliament methods of financing which were equally as revolutionary as compulsory military service. Last year he brought in a new method of financing; this year he extends it. Certain hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House condemn these measures as too drastic and far reaching. Why did not the hon. member for Edmonton and his leader on those occasions demand that the Finance Minister submit these measures to the people; they were more revolutionary than this measure, because there is no question but what this Bill simply contains what has been on the statute book for the last fifty years. The hon. member for Edmonton smiles, but I will reach the clause again, although it has been read two or three times. Clause 61 of the Militia Act of 1868 is as follows:	,
Her Majesty may call out the militia, or any part thereof, for actual service-
Mark the words.
-either within or without the Dominion, at any time whenever it appears advisable so to do by reason of war, invasion, or insurrection, or danger of any of them.
My hon. friend from Edmonton and the leader of the opposition will no doubt say that it is perfectly true, but that there is no danger of invasion. I do not think that the member for Edmonton would urge that, because I frankly believe that he realizes the seriousness of this war, and that it really means invasion if it means anything at all. But if that argument is raised, I quote what the leader of the opposition said in this House on August 19, 1914. Here are his words;
Our territory is liable 'to attack and to invasion. Our shipping to Great Britain has been interrupted. England to-day is not engaged in an ordinary contest.
Could anything be clearer? The right hon. gentleman this afternoon urged seriously, and emphasized from his place in

the House, that he never believed we were in danger of invasion. He said in 1914, in the first war session:
Our territory is liable to attack and invasion, our commerce has been interrupted.
Again I call attention to the Act, in order that I may put this question for ever at rest:
Her Majesty may call out the militia, or any part thereof, for actual service, either within or without the Dominion at any time, whenever it appears advisable so to do by reason of war, invasion, or insurrection, or danger of any of them.
Surely that is clear enough. But there is another phase of the question that I would call the attention of the House to. Supposing it is admitted for the sake of argument that there was no danger of direct invasion, but supposing we found that our commerce was interrupted. What would be the result? The property of Canada is not all contained within Canada. Wherever there are ships carrying cargo from Canada, there lies the property of Canada, and wherever lies the property of Canada, in a ship or otherwise, there lies the duty of Canada to defend that property. If the Canadian Government and the Canadian people say: We will send our cargoes out in our ships, and the minute they pass the three-mile limit we will have no further interest in them, their sense of national responsibility is about as low as that of any nation that we call civilized. It is not the ease. The case is this, that wherever there is Canadian property, wherever there are Canadian lives or citizens, there lies Canadian duty and the duty of the Canadian Government to protect and defend them.
I wish to ask now this question:	Who
are particularly opposing this Bill? And I find, after careful thought, that there are two, or perhaps three elements. First, there is a section of organized labour, and I use the word "section" advisedly, a section of organized labour, because the sentiment is not by any means unanimous among the organized labour of Canada, who oppose the Bill, I shall refer to that later. Then there is almost a unanimous Quebec. I say almost because there are quite a large number of citizens of Quebec who are certainly in favour of this Bill and of prosecuting this war to a successful issue, and to these we give all honour and credit. But there is unquestionably a strong . sentiment in that province opposing it, which I shall review in a moment. Third, there is a miscellaneous group, the slacker, the individual who has a mis-

guided opinion that it is a sin to defend one's own family and hearth and rights, that in some way or other we should lie down and allow ourselves to be abused to any extent without offering any violence in return. There is that element, but I do not think they amount to much or have much influence in the upbuilding of the country.
Let me refer briefly to the situation in Quebec, and I hope to deal with it in all moderation and in a spirit of sincerity and kindness. I must Tefer, in connection with this subject, to an epoch-making event when Edward the Peacemaker consummated the entente cordiale_ between the two gteat-est democracies in the world, when they joined hands in the inspiring duty of preserving to the world those noble principles for which both had separately contended for many centuries. Sir, that was, I say, an epoch-making event which was welcomed by the democracies of the world as an evidence of the triumph of democracy over autocracy in the future history of events, and I think we can say this, that genuine and mutual were the efforts of the statesmen of both countries to bring that great event to a practical issue. But, sir, it rested with this great war to bring it to its ultimate result and effect, and this war has sealed that agreement, has sealed that Treaty, has sealed that understanding, with 10 p.m. the 'blood of the noblest sons of . the two nations, on the common field of battle. So in Canada, when war broke out, while we realized that there would undoubtedly be serious results, that there would be suffering, we welcomed to a certain degree this war, because we hoped it would for ever strike out of the national life of Canada the differences between the two great races in this country. I remember perfectly well how it was welcomed as an evidence of the good will of the two races in Canada, and we had hoped that now we could have a common ground upon which we could travel along side by side, in pursuance of our country's welfare. But, unfortunately, things- have occurred that have dissipated that hope. I wish to read to the House some words that fell from the lips of the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) _at that time, inspiring .and graceful, so far as language is concerned. I suggest that the House .should listen to these words, because they have unquestionably the right ring to them, and while we are sometimes .mystified to harmonize the actions of the right hon. gentleman with his words, we at least must admire the sentiment expressed in them:-

It is our duty, more pressing upon us than all other 'duties, at once, on this first day of this extraordinary session of the Canadian Parliament, to let Great Britain know, that there is in Canada but one mind and one heart and that all Canadians stand behind the Mother Country, conscious and proud that she has engaged in this war, not from any selfish motive, not for any purpose of aggrandizement, but to maintain untarnished the honour of her name, to fulfil her obligations to her Allies, to maintain her Treaty obligations, and to save civilization from the unbridled lust of conquest and domination.
I submit that these are noble words and noble sentiments that fell from the lips of the right hon. leader of the Opposition. But, I ask, what has happened in the last three years to change all this? What is there that makes the situation any different to-day? Has anything occurred in the past two or three years to make it less necessary that we should give our whole service to the Empire? Is there any reason why we should delay now,, whereas the right hon. gentleman then said " at once " we should do this or that in support of the Motherland? He went on to say:
Long have we enjoyed the benefits of British citizenship; to-day it is our duty to accept its responsibilities and its sacrifices.
In my estimation, in these words we have a complete answer to the right hon gentleman's opposition to this Bill. There are responsibilities that he must take, that every member of this House and every citizen of Canada must take. We have heard from his lips and also from those of the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) the constitutional question of whether this Parliament has the power or right to proceed with the Bill. This country is ruled or governed by a responsible Parliament elected by the people. It is true that our term expired last October, but it was, by a unanimous vote of this House, in which both of these hon. gentlemen concurred, extended, and what for? Not to carry on the ordinary business of the country, but to carry on the business of this war. That was the underlying principle of the extension of Parliament, that the business of the war might be carried on. Will the right hon gentleman or my hon. friend from Edmonton say that this Bill is not calculated to advance the cause of the war? Will they say that it is not necessary? Will they say that we can delay for two or three months in securing reinforcements for the front? It is perfectly useless for them to say that we did not do our best in the past. The past is gone, we are dealing with the present and with the immediate future, our duty rests there and does not rest in the past, and no amount of criticism of the past will bring about the needed assistance at this time. There are certain arguments which have been advanced by those who are opposed to this measure, and I think they are pretty well summed up in a resolution passed in Montreal the other day. I will deal very briefly with a few of these utterances. In this resolution they say:
Prepared as we are to defend the territory of Canada against all foreign attacks, we are equally determined to defend the autonomy of Canada and the liberties of its citizens against every agression from within.
In other words, this is what is said: We are quite prepared to defend Canada from attack, but we are not prepared to do anything in the defending. In other words, supposing there was a band of outlaws loose in a neighbourhood, some of the people might congregate together for the common defence of the community; others would say: We will not take any part in the defence against these, outlaws until they attack our premises, nor until they come to our farms, our stores or our houses, then we may take measure of defence, but so long as they do not attack us on our own soil we will make no defence.
It seems to me that is a parallel ease. Here we are a nation among nations, a people among peoples, a democracy among democracies, and when the soul of democracy is attacked by the most villainous and brutal power the world ever developed, one of the greatest portions of that democracy, or nation among nations of democracies stands back and says, "No, we will go no further" until when, forsooth? "Until our own shores are attacked." That was the argument of the right hon. leader of the Opposition, and it is the argument set forth in this resolution from Montreal, in the province of Quebec. I contend that such an argument is absolutely untenable.
It is claimed by those same people that conscription violates the constitution. 1 have already set that at rest. Conscription does not violate the constitution, because one of the first Acts passed by this Confederated Dominion contains a clause for compulsory service within or without Canada, and I think that argument should be abandoned by those who are opposing this Bill, because it absolutely fails from end to end. They say it violates the constitution, and what do they suggest? The hon. gentleman from Edmonton suggests a refer-

endum. Where will he find, in. the whole constitution, authority for a referendum on a question of this kind? It is not there. Of course, we can create a system of referendum, and I have no particular objection to it, but we are living under a system of responsible Government by a representative Parliament, elected by the people. That responsibility is resting on us now, and this is not the time to discuss whether we are going to change our system, introduce re-ferendums, and amend our constitution. This is not the time to squabble about new policies. It is the time to take advantage, as I have already suggested, of the powers we have and to put them into execution. This resolution goes on:
We believe that all new efforts on the part of the nation should be directed to the sole object of re-organizing the economic forces of the country, and of supplying the allied nations, whose cause Canada has joined, England especially, with the foodstuffs which they so insistently ask for.
That is their idea of their full duty. In other words, it is suggested that Canada should devote all her attention to selling foodstuffs to the allied nations, to take the homely illustration I cited a moment ago, " We will not go out with the posse, but we will feed the posse at reasonable terms, we will not proceed to fight the Huns or stand in the way of their invasion and aggression, but we will gladly feed those who do the fighting - at profitable rates That is the argument, without any question. Another objection or suggestion was made by Edouard Monpetit, a professor in Laval University, who said that " Canada had done more than her share in the war, and that her moral obligation had been fulfilled." Reference is also made to the question of devoting our attention to supplying foodstuffs. There is no question that it is important, but if Canada emerges from this war with her honour intact and unsullied, but bankrupt, I contend she will be infinitely better off and richer in her national life than if she came out with hundreds of millions of dollars, reaped from the war, but failed, at this time, to do her part in sustaining the Empire.
I will refer, briefly, to another, phase of the argument advanced by labour advocates and draw attention to a few of their statements. I shall quote the official organ of the labour party in my own city. I have no objection to any responsible citizen advancing views adverse to my own, or to those which are held by the party to which I belong. 'It is perfectly right that they should do so, but I reserve the right to defMr. Stevens]
bate those views, and, if possible, to answer them. I wish to show that those among the trades unions of Canada who are opposing conscription are really not consistent in the action they are taking. At the outbreak of the war, the Dominion Trades and Labour Council inserted a clause in their report stating that organized labour was behind the Allies until they had gained a final and decisive victory. They admit the war is in the interests of democracy, and that the principles at stake are democratic. I will read an editorial in the British Columbia Federation, the. official organ of the Labour Party of Canada, written June 1, 1917, and, while in this article is an argument against conscription, nevertheless I want to quote it,. to show that they realize that this is a democratic war, in the interests of the best principles of democracy. The writer of the article says:
The old idea that the war was a natural consequence of trade, and that the present one had its origin solely in conflicting trade rivalries, has long since become so thoroughly shot to pieces, that it is no longer entertained except by the most- shallow and superficial thinkers. It is now very widely acknowledged that the terrible spectacle now being staged by a veritable world at war, is but the inevitable and deadly struggle between the despotism and autocracy of the older slavery (chattel and feudal) and the democratic tendency and spirit of the latter (the capitalist form). It is a struggle to the death between the political concept of the former, which was of necessity despotic and stationary, and the political concept of the latter, which is democratic and progressive.
In other words, this editorial writer properly contends that this war is one between autocracy represented by the German States, and democracy, represented by the Allies. Admitting that, they argue that conscription is an attempt to resurrect despotism. The whole case of labour organizations against conscription rests upon the one point, whether or not the measure of conscription before the country to-day is a despotic measure, reactionary and liable to introduce the old autocratic system. If that system can be proven, then it is wrong. If on the other hand, it can be demonstrated that it is rather a measure to support the- cause of democracy, then I say the last excuse of the labour representatives is removed. Democracy gives privileges to all classes pf the people. The democracy of France, of the United States, and of the British Empire, gives to the people of these countries the highest type of personal and national freedom that any country or any people ever enjoyed. b[one can gainsay that statement. If that be the

case, there goes with it the corresponding duty of defending those rights and privileges, and the democracy that gave them to us. The very basis of democracy is compulsory service.
If you accept the idealistic view of the socialist who is opposing conscription, you accept the view that every man should be placed by the State in the sphere in which he is to move from time to time. The extreme view of the democratic socialist is that the State must control the activities of every man in the State; that is the underlying and fundamental principle of their belief. Yet these very men deny that principle when it is applied to the defence of the democracy which they claim to uphold. The situation is clear and unanswerable:
If you accept the principles of democracy as advanced by the extreme democratic socialist, you accept the principle of compulsory service in various walks of life. To adopt compulsory military service, therefore, is actually to carry out the principle for which they so strongly stand.
It is argued that the people were not consulted. I ask the member for Edmonton and others who advance that argument: Was Belgium consulted when Germany invaded her territory? Was Serbia consulted? Were the people on the Lusitania consulted? Was Edith Cavell consulted? Was Captain Fryatt consulted? Were the members of families in Belgium consulted-not three years ago, but only last year-when they were separated and taken away to the worst kind of slavery in Germany? Were the common laws of humanity consulted on these occasions? It is contended that we should stand back and submit this proposal to an academic discussion throughout Canada, spend three or four months in deciding whether or not we should go ahead with it, while Germany with all her brutal force is-doing what? Consulting the con- . venience and comfort of the people with whom she is dealing? No; ruthlessly defying every law of humanity. The member for Edmonton and his leader suggest that these are times when we should engage in academic discussions; when we should quibble over principles; when we should debate whether such action is constitutional or unconstitutional; when we can afford to incur delay. The solemn duty rests upon those of us who are in Canada to do our part just as nobly, in our own limited way, as the boys at the front are, day after day and month after month, performing their duty. All this discussion, all this quibbling, all this political side-stepping, is wholly *out of place; I am tempted to characterize it as almost a disgrace to this Parliament.
We have heard a great deal about conscripting wealth. But those who advocate the conscription of wealth are unable to defipe what they mean by the conscripting of wealth. " The conscripting of wealth " is one of the most convenient political phrases that I have ever heard. It is almost a twin sister to the term " free food." It has no meaning; it has never been defined; no one seems to be willing to take responsibility for it. What has the Finance Minister been doing during the last two years but conscripting wealth? Hon. gentlemen who now say that we should conscript wealth, not more than three ot four weeks ago told the Finance Minister that he would ruin the industries of Canada, if he took too much of their profits. As a matter of fact, what is being done towards the conscripting of wealth? . Hon. gentlemen aTe familiar with what is being done; it is only necessary to reiterate what has already been said. Twenty-five per cent of excess profits of 7 to 15 per cent is taken by the Government. Of excess profits of 15 to 20 per cent, the Government takes 50 per cent, and of excess profits 20 to 100 per cent, the Government takes 75 per cent. Surely that is a fair step towards the conscription of wealth.
It may be said, with a certain degree of force, that we should have an income tax. The Minister of Finance told us that it would be necessary to bring down further taxation later, and that it was not wise to launch every type of taxation at once. The taxation which he has launched and which takes a portion of excess profits during war time is the fairest type of taxation ever brought down in this House-and it is sufficient for the time being. Next year- if necessary, perhaps this year- the Minister of Finance can bring forward further methods of taxation.
The argument of our friends in Quebec that Canada has done enough may be answered in this way. I wonder if those hon. gentlemen opposite who have declared very loudly that they are going to vote against this Bill-one or two of them have already stated on the floor of the House that we have done too much for the Motherland in this war-ever think of the gentleman who ought to be sitting alongside the member for Edmonton, our colleague, Dr. Beland? Do they remember that the doctor had been in France when war broke out, and that he cheerfully gave his services to the French and Belgian Governments



in order that he might aid the wounded and the dying? Do they remember that he and his wife were imprisoned, and that when his wife died the brutal Huns refused to give him an opportunity of seeing her on her death-bed? Not long ago a despatch stated that our colleague, after two or three years' imprisonment, lies at the point of death, and that he is not likely to survive much longer. ^If hon. gentlemen from Quebec who declare that they will oppose this Bill have forgotten the other atrocities and outrages that I have mentioned, have they forgotten their colleague, Dr. Beland? If they have, we have not.
Without any question, this is a war to defend the most cherished principles of democracy. If we fail in this struggle because of lack of attention to the duties that now present themselves, then, Sir, that democracy fails. To hear the arguments of some of the gentlemen who have spoken throughout the country-not on the floor of the House, I admit-one would almost think that it would be better to live under the Hun than to adopt compulsory service in Canada in defence of democracy. That was really the substance of his argument. It is inconceivable to me how anyone can consider such a thing for a moment. If we do not measure up at this time to the proper height, then democracy receives its death blow. There is only one course before us in my opinion, and that is to accept the Bill. If the Bill has weaknesses-, let us point them out, as the Prime Minister says. In Committee of the Whole-we are here discussing the principle-I shall cheerfully join with other members in a careful consideration of each clause. If we can strengthen the Bill let us do it; if we can make it more rigid, let us do so. If we can define any points more clearly, let us do that also. No one knows better than the hon. member for Edmonton that it is absolutely impossible to get what he calls an equitable Bill. He says if this Bill was equitable and fair he would accept it. He knows very wel-l that there is no law on the statute book that is absolutely impartial. We can only get as near to that ideal as the intelligence of this House will permit, and it behooves the hon. gentlemen and every other member of this House to make this Bill the best of its kind that can be produced.


Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure) :: Mr. Speaker, we have heard a great deal this evening about the Hun at the gate. My hon. friend who has just preceded me (Mr. Stevens) represents Vancouver, ofie of

the gates of Canada. My constituency lies near the other gate, and the Eastern gate is nearer the Hun than the Western gate. Speaking on behalf of my people, I can assure you, Sir, that we near the Eastern gate of Canada do not fear the Hun.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Why?


Charles Marcil: Because we can meet him as we have met him before. I come from a province where something was done for the British flag, before British Columbia and other provinces in the west were in existence. There might have been no British flag in America at the present time but for Quebec; that question was settled over a century ago and there is official evidence testifying to it. I represent a constituency which is largely French-speaking, although it has a large proportion of English-speaking . settlers too, descendants of the United Empire Loyalists, and I know, I am speaking for them in the remarks I shall make tonight. I am, according to Parliamentary doctrine, as much a representative of Vancouver as a representative of Bonaventure. Once a member is elected to this house he represents the whole of Canada, and it is as a member representing the whole of Canada that I intend to sneak this evening and not on behalf of one locality or one province.
I was born in the province of Quebec. My ancestors came here nearly three centuries ago, and I hope to die and be buried on Canadian soil. I belong to this country and am faithful and loyal to it, and since the outbreak of war I have done everything it was possible for me to do in company with ministers of the Crown and others to stimulate recruiting and bring about the effort which I think Canada should make in the great contest before us. A great deal of interest is being taken at the present time in the situation in the province of Quebec. The leader of the Opposition, in his magnificent speech this afternoon, pointed out some reasons why recruiting had not been very active in that province. Many other reasons could have been given, but the chief reason is that recruiting in the province of Quebec was badly handled from the .start. Even now it !is not too late to adopt proper methods. If this measure were withdrawn and recruiting was carried on in the province of Quebec ,as it should be, by General Lessard, Colonel Blondin and other compatriots of the people of the province, I am sure we should get satisfactory results. Suppose, for a moment, that French-Canadians had been sent into Alberta, or Ontario, or British Columbia, and had asked the English-speaking people

there to listep to French recruiting addresses, and to join French battalions, and practise French military manoeuvres, what results do you think, Sir, would have been obtained in those English-speaking provinces? Men are men, and blood is thicker than water. The recruiting has not been properly handled in the province of Quebec. When Colonel Blondin undertook to raise a battalion he adopted the proper method. He was accompanied by General Lessard, who is one of the best men we have in Canada and should have been employed from the very start, but why he was not, we do not know. They went into those parts of the province where they were likely to get recruits, and the results they obtained were very satisfactory. Col. Blondin declared that he stopped recruiting because of the introduction of conscription, not because recruiting was a failure in the province of Quebec.
I was sent to this House to help administer the affairs of this country as best I could. I have sat now for 18 years in Parliament; I have seen 179 members come and go, and a score of Cabinet ministers; I have seen a half dozen men occupy the Speaker's chair; I have voted for all kinds of measures, for the buildings of railways, and for the opening up of Canada in every part. I have taken as deep an interest in the province of New Brunswick as in the province of Quebec, as deep an interest in Ontario as in the Maritime and Western Provinces. After 18 years faithful service I claim to stand before you to-night, Sir, as a Canadian who has done his duty well not only by his own people but by the people at large. I consider it my duty now to say that I have no mandate, and have not been authorized to vote in favour of this Military Service Bill which has been introduced by the Government. I want the Allies to win this war. Everybody in the province of Quebec and everybody in Canada wants the Allies to win. There is not a man, woman, or child in this country that does not want us to win the war. Our Bed Cross associations, Patriotic, and Belgian Belief Funds are doing everything possible for the soldiers, and to all these our people are contributing with results that have done Canada so much honour. Canada has sent forward a volunteer army of nearly 400,000 men. In the early days of August, 1914, the Government began in fear and trembling by offering a division of 30,000. Was that the extent to which they wanted Canada to participate in this war? They were not pro-
155i
phets, but they felt that Canada could well send 30,000 men at that time. When Parliament met in the old building in August, 1914, members from the province of Quebec and every other province unanimously assented to all the measures brought down and cheerfully voted for every dollar that was asked for by the Government to win. the war. We went into it as a band of brothers because we wanted Canada to figure prominently in this war for the great, principles of humanity and -freedom which we all have at heart. Why was this done?' What did the leaders say? What did we all say in our recruiting speeches? What did the Minister of Finance say when he appeared with me in. the Bussell theatre in the city of Ottawa? lie said that Canada's participation in the war was entirely voluntary, and every man had to settle with his own conscience the question of enlistment. That was the appeal that was made throughout the country; we appealed to the hearts of the people, and that was why we met with such success. Now the Government brings down a measure of conscription in a moribund and defunct parliament, in which 20 or more seats are vacant and several members away. We have overrun our term by several months.
If this Government wish to serve the Allies, if they wish to make more effective the participation of Canada in the war, if they are sincere in favouring participation, there is only one course for them to take, and that is to appeal to the people, to trust the people.
This Bill was announced when recruiting was going on at the rate of about six or seven thousand a month, and this notwithstanding that the Minister of the Interior found so great scarcity of labour for our prairie farms that he felt it necessary to send to the United States to bring help. Surely, this rate of recruiting was satisfactory. But it will all be wiped off if you have this conscription measure.
We are told that there is opposition to this measure in the province of Quebec. So there is. But in many other provinces also there is opposition to it. That opposition exists chiefly because this measure is introduced as a change of the rules after the game has begun. We went into this war voluntarily. The Prime Minister has just returned from the Imperial War Conference, and he has told us that nothing new in respect of the autonomy of the Overseas Dominions was touched upon or decided, because it was understood that that autonomy was to be preserved. If

ever there was a question coming before the House on which the autonomy of the people must be preserved, it is a question in which the liberty of the subject is affected. If you want Canadians throughout Canada to participate actively in this war, do not attempt coercion, but appeal to the big heart of the nation, appeal to their patriotism and their better spirit; do not come down with the big stick and have half the population chasing the other half.
How is this measure going to be enforced? Are you going to jail two or three hundred thousand people? These people consent to the active participation of Canada in the war, tout they are not going to be drummed into it. Gladstone, when he had to deal with Ireland, always said that coercion was of no use. Why is Ireland being left aside in the conscription measure in Britain? Because Lloyd George declared that he would not lose time in trying to enforce conscription in Ireland until Ireland was free to accept it voluntarily. Let the Irish question be settled, and Ireland w'ill accept conscription and will do what she has always done, and Scotland too-and England as well, but never more than Ireland or Scotland- she will send forth to uphold the Empires cause the best soldiers that Britain has had to support that cause throughout the world.
We want this matter dealt with fairly. We want to take the people into our confidence. We want dissolution of this Parliament, that we may go hack to the men who sent us here, the men who. are to pay the money and who ultimately will have to shed their blood. We want England io be victorious in this war, and we want Canada to participate, but in order that Canada may participate most effectively, we must go back to the people and go hack immediately; we must appeal to their 'best feeling, hut not try coercion, because coercion will not bring results.
Those who favour this coercion measure say they do not want to go to the country. And why? Because, they say, if it were submitted to the people it would be rejected. If rejected, it would be because the people do not like to be tyrannized over, and tbis is nothing more or less than an act of tyranny. What the Prime Minister should have done-and he ought to know it better than I or any other member of this House, because he has inside information-was to seek a renewal of his mandate to Strengthen his arm, that he might carry on this war more effectively.
What would be the result now if this coercion measure is persisted in? You will

apply it, but how many recruits will you secure by it? Do you thiruc you can impose a measure of this kind upon an unwilling people who will not submit to it? We have evidence already that in some large cities in Canada there is no intention of submitting to coercion unless voted by the people in a constitutional manner.
I want Canada to continue her noble effort in this war. I think Canada has done splendidly ever since the war commenced. I think we have given evidences of our good-will in this matter of which we may well be proud, not only sending 400,000 men across the sea-np small contribution for a country of 7,000,000 of people-but assuming financial burdens so enormous that our children's children will hardly be able to pay them off. These things are greatly to the credit of the Canadian people. But why should not we remain united? Why should not Canadians from all provinces continue the effort so well begun? Why resort to coercive measures? Why not say to the people: our mandate has expired; we come hack to you, and if you have confidence in the Administration we will go back and continue Canada's participation in the war according to the means that our country can command.
The right hon. the Prime Minister said that as a Ne<w Year's gift he would authorize the raising of recruits to the number of 500,000 men. Hardly had the words fallen from his lips when one of the ablest men of Canada, Lord Shaughnessy, said that 500,000 .men could not be sent to the other side without seriously crippling our industries all over Canada. And those industries have been greatly affected as it is. We are told that we must maintain four divisions at the front 'The laws of the Medes and Persians alone could not he changed. Why must we maintain four divisions? Why not three, or five? I am not a military expert, and I question whether there are men in this House who are sufficiently qualified as military experts to say what is the particular value of four, pr three, or five divisions. Canada must continue to do what she can to help Britain and win the war. But we have been told over and over again that production in this country is necessary, that it cannot be dispensed with, that the man on the farm is as valuable in his way as the man in the trenches. Why not, before resorting to coercive methods, have a really competent tribunal, composed of men big enough to impress their views upon the country, tell us that Canada can raise so many men for military purposes, but must

retain so many men for production, and munition work? Are we to be told, on the mere say-so of the leader of one political party, that such and such a thing is to he done, and the whole country must submit?
The province of Quebec has objected to this Bill and will object to it because it has no faith in the present Government. For one thing half of the membership of the House from the province of Quebec has been elected to oppose the present Government and the other half from that province was elected in 1911 after the gospel had been preached that the citizens of Canada had no duty to fulfil to Britain outside of Canada in defence of her own territory. The result of that nefarious campaign in the province of Quebec was the bringing into power of the present Administration. The present Administration would never have occupied the treasury benches but for the men who were elected in Quebec under the resolutions adopted at the meeting at St. Eus-tache, and framed by Mr. Henri Bourassa and the late Mr. Monk. That was the platform upon which the colleagues, or allies, of the present Administration were elected in Quebec. We of the Liberal party, who stood loyally by the participation of Canada in British wars, who stood loyally in favour-of the creation of a Canadian navy, because we thought it our duty to do what we could for the defence of the Empire of which we are part and parcel, were condemned on every hustings in Quebec although Quebec stood loyally by us to the extent of half of its membership in. the House. To-day the views we preached are recognized by all parties in this province.
This afternoon I listened with a great deal of interest to the speech of my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster). The minister went back to what happened in this House in the last three years and put to us the question: What we were going to do about it. Were we going to stop our efforts? Were we going to tell the men in the trenches that we were not going to send them any more assistance? My view of it is this: If you attempt coercion you will send less men to the trenches than if you appeal to the proper spirit of the people. Let us go now before the country. I am sure that my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition will consent to the adoption of the remaining Supply and we can have the verdict of the people in the next two months. If that verdict is in favour of coercive measures everybody will submit to
it. But if the verdict is in favour of carrying on the war as we have carried it on up to the present time, by appealing to the better sense, the better sentiment, of the Canadian people generally, we shall have the policy instituted and we will see that it is carried through.
I shall not, at this late hour, undertake to answer many of the points which were brought out because the House is pretty well informed upon all these things now. We have heard a great many allusions made to the province of Quebec and I do not want to say anything more particularly about that province. But, I will say that the people there are quite capable of coming to a decision 'and doing their duty properly. I am prepared to go back to my constituency, composed as it is of English and French-speaking Canadians, to meet the strongest representatives of the present Government that can be sent in joint debate before a French and English speaking audience, not only in my constituency but in any part of Quebec, and I am prepared to submit to the verdict of the people loyally no matter what that verdict is because in British governed countries when the people have spoken we must submit to their verdict. If the people of Canada think that coercive measures, that Germanized and Prussianized methods should prevail in Canada, and that they can do more for the allies than the methods of conciliation and union that we are preaching today, we shall submit to the verdict. But, I am satisfied that the people shall want first of all that Canada shall give the Allies a great example. What would be said tomorrow throughout the world if one-half of this country should chasten the other half and, by coercion bring about a contribution to the war when Great Britain is participating in this war on account of liberty and freedom?
We want to continue to do our full duty but we want to do it generously, we want to do it freely, we want to do it of our own free will, we want the man from Ontario to feel that his fellow Canadian citizen in the province of Quebec is prepared to defend his country, we want the people in the West to realize that if the Hun ever came to Canada it would be up the Saint-Lawrence river and that the citizens of Quebec would be the first to meet him. The citizens of Quebec have been called upon to meet the invader before. They met the invader in 1776, they repelled him from before the fortress of Quebec and forever after the British flag was kept flying over the citadel. They met the

invader on the banks of the Cha-*teauguay in 1812 and on that occasion de Salaberry and his 300 men were able to turn 7,000 Americans back to their own lines. In the present war the handful of French Canadians, 14,000 or 15,000 in number, who have enlisted in Quebec have shown at Langemarck, at Saint-Julien, at Ypres, and at Courcelette, that they are worthy descendants of the pioneers of Quebec. We want to do our share and that i3 why we do not want to be tabooed, we do not want to be ostracized, because after all the French race are the oldest Canadian settlers. This is our native soil and this is the flag that we accepted freely when the other was returned to the country from which it came. We of the province of Quebec are the oldest inhabitants of this territory. Quebec remains as it was at the time of Confederation, the keystone of the aroh. Without the free consent of the province of Quebec there would not have been any Confederation and the Prime Minister in quoting the words of the Militia Act repeated several times the name of Sir George Etienne Cartier. You will find such names as George Etienne Cartier and Louis Hippolyte La Fontaine at every step in the constitutional history of Canada. The corner stone of free, constitutional government in Canada was laid by the broad manhood of the British stock of Ontario and the Frenchmen of the province of Quebec who accepted the new duties imposed upon them as subjects of the King were loyal to the country.
But three or four days ago the Governor General of Canada accepted an address in the city of Quebec from the Mayor and the Premier of the province and was given assurance that the province of Quebec remained still the old Loyalist province of the Dominion. Is it because you fall short of a few thousand men that you are going to ostracize these people? Is it because after 150 years of faithful service to the British flag you are going to tear asunder the bond of friendship that exist between the French and English in this country?
I do not think that after mature deliberation it will be found to be the intention of the present Government to do so. We have the evidence of the Prime Minister who was willing, if the leader of the Opposition entered a coalition, to pass the measure and then submit it to the people. That was the intention of the Government. Why not do it now? If you have a majority and you pass the measure, it will be 
a slim majority. Suppose you have 25, 15 or 10 of a majority, is that a mandate to impose such a coercive measure as this which will deprive any citizen of Canada of his personal liberty? Do you consider that you have a mandate in the seventh session of the twelfth Parliament* when the constitution of the country says that five years shall be the terrp of Parliament, when you have 20 seats or more vacant, when the western provinces are not represented as they should be and when we have been elected on a franchise framed on the census of 1901 which is 16 years old? We have here twenty seats that are not represented. I receive letters daily from Kestigouche, in New Brunswick, which adjoins my own riding; people write me saying: Our member has been dead for four years, we are not represented at Ottawa, will you kindly attend to this and to that? I do so cheerfully. Is that the kind of Parliament that should undertake to impose such a measure as this upon the people? I say no, Mr. Speaker. The Premier of Canada comes from a province where British principles are better understood than this. He comes from the old province of Nova Scotia, which was the first North American province to adopt responsible government. He understands what the British principle is, that to give force and strength to a measure you must have public approval, and you must have the consent of the people, the consent of the governed.
I say this, and these are my last words, we in this Chamber, no matter what our origin is, no matter what language we speak, whether we speak one or two or three languages, we are all citizens of Canada, we are all British subjects, we are friends, devotees of the Allies, admirers of the great principles for which they are contending; and I would be unworthy of my origin, and every member of this House would be unworthy of his, if he fell back at the present moment. But when there is such a serious difference of opinion on this point, I think that there is ample justification for sending this measure to the people. We should have another general election, we should explain to the people the position as it is now, we should make them understand exactly what has been done and what remains to be done, and I have faith in the verdict of the people; I have faith that there is still enough patriotism left, not only in my own province but in every province of Canada, to send back to this House a body of men who will be deter-

mined to uphold our institutions, because we know that the defeat of Britain and her Allies in this war would mean the wiping out of our free institutions in North America. We differ only as to method. I appeal to the majority of this House, I appeal to the majority who come from Ontario and from the western provinces as well, to delay this measure, not to go too fast with it, because they may do more harm than good. I am not in favour of the slacker, I am not in favour of protecting the man who should do his duty, but I want a mandate to do that; I want to go back to my people, and when I get that mandate I will come back and I will legislate in this 'House any measure that is called for by the circumstances. . But at the present time I have no such mandate, and for those reasons I shall vote for the amendment offered by the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), and against the second reading of the Bill, regretting to do so, because I would have liked, for the name and for the honour of Canada, that we should have continued our participation in the war unanimously, both parties agreeing to all our w.ar measures as in the past. But if necessity compels me to vote against the Bill I shall do so. I shall do so, not because I am opposed to conscription as >an anti-democratic measure, but because I have no mandate from my people, and because I want to serve the cause of the Allies by clearing up the situation and coming back with a mandate before imposing such a measure.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman appeals to the House for a dissolution and a general election, as he desires a mandate. He states that he is not opposed to conscription. In the event of such a dissolution, would he appeal for a mandate for conscription or against conscription?


Charles Marcil: I would go back to the people and explain the position exactly as I found it and knew it, and if the people favoured conscription I would come back here and support it.


Arthur Meighen: What would you yourself ask for?


Charles Marcil: If you would supply me with the information that the Prime Minister of this country has I could give you my answer, but until I get that information I am iasked to vote in the dark, and, therefore, I cannot do so.


Arthur Meighen: You do not know
whether you are against it or for it?


Charles Marcil: I am not against conscription, per se, or because I think it an antidemocratic measure, but if it had any worth in it it should have been adopted in 1914, and the Liberal party should have been called in then to join hands with our friends so that we could have had a united effort. But we did not insist on that; we supported you just the same.


Arthur Meighen: It would not have been tyranny or coercion then?
On the motion of Mr. Morrikon, the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Sir Edward Kemp, the House adjourned at 11.05 p.m.
Tuesday, June 19, 1917.