1917-06-26

SENATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 104, respecting The Vancouver Life Insurance Company.-Mr. Stevens.
Bill No. 105, to incorporate The English Valley and Hudson Bay Railway Company. -Mr. Webster.
Bill No. 106, for the relief of Rozilla Lamb. -Mr. Douglas.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ROCHE moved that the House on to-morrow take into consideration the following proposed resolution:
That the resolution of April 23, to establish a Board, to be called the Soldier Settlement Board and to effect the other objects set out in the said resolution be amended and that the maximum amount that the Board may loan to settlers be increased from two thousand dollars to two thousand five hundred dollars.
Motion agreed to. .


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. A. BUCHANAN (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Crothers) a few questions on. a matter of urgent importance. Yesterday there was laid on the table of the House an Order in Council appointing Mr. Armstrong of Vancouver to look after the qperation of mines in western Canada. As I understand it, he is first to make inquiries and investigations which will delay the operation of the mines. I had understood that the Government had fully decided to take over and operate the mines and that Mr. Armstrong had been placed in charge of this work. I want to know whether these investigations and inquiries are to be made and whether the operation of the mines is to be delayed. I would think that the Government had sufficient information, now to decide what is the best policy to pursue.
I am also advised that the gentleman who has been appointed is not a friend of organized labour, but that, on the contrary he has been opposed to organized labour. If that is the case, I would suggest that it is a bad appointment to make in dealing
with a labour problem in western Canada. I would also ask the minister, in fairness to the House and the country, to make a complete statement in regard to the negotiations and efforts to bring about a settlement of the strike. I think Parliament and the country are entitled to a full statement especially when the Government has in view, such drastic action in connection with the, operation of the mines.


Hon. T. W. CROTHERS (Minister of Labour):: The statement of my hon. friend about the Director of Coal Operations in district No. 18 being opposed to organized labour is the first intimation of that sort that I have had concerning Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Armstrong reached Calgary yesterday, and his instructions are to have operations resumed at once. -No inquiry will be neces-sarj? further than to ascertain the general condition there before the men will go to work. I had a wire from him to-day to say that he would wire me to-morrow definitely. I expect he will succeed in getting the men to go to work at once, and he will make whatever inquiries are necessary afterwards. As to the full statement that my hon. friend desires, I may say to him that the House has made an order for a return of all the correspondence concerning this matter, which is very voluminous. It is being prepared now, and when it is laid on the Table he will have the disclosure of the negotiations which he desires.


William Ashbury Buchanan: I would like to ask the minister if, in ordering the men to return to work, they are to have their demands complied with by the commissioner representing the Government. Are they to be paid what they have been asking for?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I expect that the
director will settle that matter. I do not know the terms upon which they are returning to work, but I am satisfied they will return to work right away.


Mr. OLIVER:: I notice in the Order in Council that was laid on the Table yester-* day that authority was conferred on the gentleman appointed to control mines in southern Alberta and southeast Kootenay. I wish to know just what is the condition in regard to the mines in Northern Alberta.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I have not the Order in Council before me, but my recollection is that it takes in -the southeasterly part of British Columbia and the southwesterly part of Alberta, covering what'is generally known in that part of the country as district

No. 18. I am not quite certain how far north that extends.


Frank Oliver: I would respectfully ask the minister to inform the House at the earliest convenient date how far this Order does extend. It is probably the most remarkable Order that has yet been issued in Canada, and there is a very great difference created between those mines that are under it and those that are not. It is of great importance that we should know which mines are under the Order and which, if any, are not. In view of the importance of this Order and of the action that necessarily follows it, it is essential that this House and the country should know, not by a return laid on the Table of papers which do not carry their own explanation, but on the responsibility of the Minister of Labour, what the negotiations between the parties were, and why and how those negotiations failed to come to a satisfactory conclusion. This country is going into a tremendous experiment, and we have a right to begin at the beginning and know why.



MILITARY SERVICE ACT, 1917.


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden (Prime Minister) for the second reading of Bill No. 75, Military Service Act, 1917, and the amendment of Sir Wilfrid Laurier thereto, and the amendment to the amendment by Mr. Bar-ette, resumed from Monday, June 25.
Mr. JAMES ARTHURS (Parry Sound):: 
Mr. C. A. WILSON:: From- your own
party.


James Arthurs: gent was proposed, many of our people thought it was entirely unnecessary. This number has been increased from time to time, until, according to the figures that we now have before us, 420,000 men have enlisted. During the fall of
1915,	and the beginning of the spring of
1916,	an extraordinary effort was put forward, through most of the provinces of Canada, for recruiting. Hundreds of men and women gave their services voluntarily and freely to help this cause. Hundreds ,of thousands of dollars were subscribed by private parties to this end. Meetings were held in every city, town and hamlet in Ontario, and many other provinces, and the result was that we raised many battalions in a very short time. But the number of men willing to enlist decreased, and eventually, it became very difficult to secure recruits. Some pepple say that politics was the reason why voluntary recruiting failed. There may be something in that, Mr. Speaker, but if there is, the blame lies, not upon the party on this side of the House, but upon those on the other side, whp repeatedly went round, declaring that the whole game was "Tun along political lines. However, the real reasons for this falling off were; in the first place, in some parts, particularly the province of Ontario, that every available man had gone to the front. It was npt thought possible to secure more recruits, because they were not there, and, in the other case, the only men who were left were men who were absolutely essential to the workings of the farm and the industries in that part of the province.


An hon. MEMBER:: The same in Quebec.


James Arthurs: The recruits from the portion of Quebec province fropi which my hon. friend comes, were not very great in number. But the principal cause was, Mr. Speaker-and there is no use beating about the bush-that the man who was available refused to go until he saw the slacker enlisting. In my riding hundreds of ablebodied men, French Canadians mostly-I am sorry to say this, but I have to say it in all fairness-were brought in to take the places of men who had voluntarily gone to defend the Empire, and when the recruiting officer asked others to enlist the answer he received was: " When you get these slackers to do their duty, I will certainly go also." It was not because these men were afraid to go forward, but they saw the absolute unfairness of the system whereby the slackers could stay at home,
[Mr. Arthurs.!
and their brothers, fathers, and cousins went forward. While we were proud of the voluntary system, I .might say that it is always unfair, and its unfairness became more marked as the long war dragged along. Under the voluntary system, a father enlists, leaving in many cases, a large family, which is a charge upon the country, while the able bodied slacker remains at home. Under this voluntary system, the only son of a widow goes forward to do his duty, while three, four, or five sons on an adjoining farm remain at home. These are conditions which are inevitable under the voluntary system. But, Mr. Speaker, there are thousands of men in Canada who, to-day, could go forward and do their duty. These men are not engaged in agriculture, or in trades essential to the prosecution of this war, and they are, to-day, perhaps, frequenting the pool-rooms and other places of amusement. These are the men at whom this Bill aims.
I might say, however, that if the province of Quebec had done its duty, this Bill would have been entirely unnecessary, and the required 500,000 men would have been raised. Why did Quebec not do its duty? Some of the reasons given, I may say, are very childish. The leader of the Oppositiop stated, as one of his principal reasons why the men of the province of Quebec had not enlisted as freely as he would have desired, that some men were disarmed in 1760, during the continuance of a war then existing, and a few days after the surrender of Montreal to the British. He did not say that this ancient law-which as a matter of fact was a mere regulation- continued to exist, or that it had any effect afterwards. He also stated, in contrasting the enlistment of the British born, the English Canadian born, and the French Canadian born, that the English born enlisted more freely because they had not been so long in Canada. He also said that the English Canadian horn had enlisted more freely than the French Canadian born because they had not been so long in the country as the French. I cannot see how a French Canadian of eighteen, twenty, or twenty-five years of age can possibly have- been any longer in this country than an English Canadian born at the same time, but that is the kind of reasoning which we have from some hon. members. The hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) says:	While the French
Canadians have not enlisted-and he is quite willing to admit that they have not-wait until the Hun arrives on the shores of the

St. Lawrence and they will be on hand to' do their duty. He also states that the French Canadians did not enlist because the right men were not sent to ask them to enlist. I noticed from a statement made in a speech the other day that a decided effort had been put forward by the one man who, the hon. member for Rouville said, was necessary in order to conduct a successful recruiting campaign in Quebec. Col. Blondin and Major General Lessard conducted a campaign in Quebec, and while somebody was good enough to say that they had recruited 211 men, from an analysis of the figures we find that in all this campaign only 92 of those men enlisted from Quebec. This took place before the Conscription Bill was brought down; it was during the time when my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley) said that recruiting was going on well under the voluntary system. In spite, however, of the fact that the people of Quebec had General Lessard, the most acceptable man who was available for that province, and that his efforts were backed up by those of a member of the Government, who undoubtedly tried to do his duty, during that campaign the total enlistment from Quebec was only 92.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: The hon. member is giving the lie to the Postmaster General (Mr. Blondin) himself.


An hon. MEMBER:: He was sent too late.


James Arthurs: If he was sent too late, how is recruiting under the voluntary sys=-tern good at the present time? The real reason why the enlistments from Quebec are not in proportion to the enlistments from the other provinces is because the Liberal party in Quebec have been playing the political game, and the political game only. It was said openly in Quebec: This is the Englishman's war; let the Ontario man go, so much the better for us.


Mr. MEDERIC MARTIN:: That is similar to-what was said in 1911 by the Nationalists.


James Arthurs: It was said and published in Quebec that: Unless the Englishspeaking people give us what we want, we will not enlist. What the French-speaking people wanted was the right to defy or to alter materially a law of Ontario. There is no question about that. The other night the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cock-shutt) was making an appeal to hon. members from Quebec to go home to their province and carry on an active recruiting campaign for a couple of weeks in order to see
if this matter could not be settled by a last effort to secure, under the voluntary system, the needed reinforcements. The hon. member for Montcalm (Mr. Lafortune) interrupted him with this remark:
Mr. Lafortune:	If we in Quebec do as the
hon. member from Brantford suggests will the Government repeal the 'School Act of Ontario?
Mr. Cockshutt:	I am hardly ready to discuss the bilingual question on the present occasion.
Mr. Lafortune:	And we are not ready to
go.
This is the true secret why Quebec has not done her duty. According to a Teturn brought down in this House, the number of French Canadians enlisted in the province of Quebec is 6,979.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: 14,000.


James Arthurs: I will refer to the 14,000 later on; I am speaking of enlistments in Quebec province. The total French Canadian population of Quebec is approximately 1,600,000, so that the rate of enlistment is rather less than one-half of one per cent. The total enlistment of French Canadians in all Canada amounts to 14,100. This-is the official list and I believe it to be correct. In my battalion I enlisted a number of French Canadians, many of whom after enlisting were transferred to Quebec battalions, either upon their own request or upon the request of the militia authorities at Ottawa. Many made all sorts of excuses in order to procure their discharge, and in some cases evidence was produced that the same man had previously pretended to suffer from every disease from lunacy to housemaid's knee so that he might procure his discharge. Many deserted. Desertion was rendered easy because, as a rule, these men were well behaved soldiers, and I know that in my battalion when leave was requested, there was no reasonable excuse why a soldier from Quebec should not receive exactly the same treatment as a soldier from Ontario, and the soldier would go to visit his friends in Quebec, but he never came back. In the majority of cases, I honestly believe that these men joined some Quebec battalion; I think they were too brave and too good men absolutely to desert in the ordinary sense of the word, and I do not think they did. If, as I presume, they joined some Quebec battalion, they would thereby double the number of so-called French Canadians enlistments.


Mr. ROBB:: Is the inference we are to draw from the hon. member's remarks, that the French Canadians in the batu.

he raised were men who, originally came from Quebec?	[DOT]


James Arthurs: I do not know whether they did or not; I presume they did. In my riding, there is a large French Canadian population, and we are glad of it.


James Alexander Robb: The hon. member has just stated that French Canadians left his battalion to go home to Quebec.


James Arthurs: That is quite true.


James Alexander Robb: Then they must have come from Quebec.


James Arthurs: In some eases they went to visit their friends in Quebec, and in other cases they went to Quebec to join battalions in which their friends were. These men work in the mills; they are not all permanent residents of the district which I have the honour to represent. The majority are voters in my riding, although they may have friends and relatives in Quebec, and if they had enough money coming to them, I saw no reason why they should not visit their friends in Quebec, just as any soldier from my county might visit his friends in Ontario. I endeavoured to treat every man in my battalion in an equally fair manner, and although I had experience of men deserting in this way, I still gave men permission to visit their friends or relatives, because I saw no reason for detaining one well conducted man because another man had not done what was right. Personally, I have nothing to say against those men; I believe in the majority of cases they were honest, conscientious men. The French Canadians who went overseas with me and who fought in France, were as good as any other soldiers and were true Canadians. The unfortunate thing is that we have not enough of them.


James Alexander Robb: The inference we must draw from the hon. gentleman's reference to the Quebec men who joined his battalion at Parry Sound is that Quebec men were credited as residents of Ontario.


James Arthurs: The Quebec men who enlisted in my battalion were credited as French Canadians enlisted in Canada. I made more than one return. While the ex-Minister of Militia was minister, the military authorities requested me to give them week by week the number of French Canadians who enlisted in my battalion. I was also requested to transfer to Quebec battalion French Canadians who enlisted

in my battalion. I did so for a time, but later on I refused to do so, and the balance of the French Canadians in my battalion went over with me to England or France. That is the exact situation; I do not wish any misapprehension in the matter.


Médéric Martin: How many
French Canadians went to war with you to France?


James Arthurs: Very few.


Médéric Martin: I am asking
for the number.


James Arthurs: I suppose there would be about 20 or 25. I can let my hon. friend know the exact number later, if he wants to know. There were also a couple of cases in my battalion of French Canadians who had enlisted no less than four times in different regiments. This is another reason why the enlistment figures for French Canadians are abnormally puffed up. These two men had enlisted as early as in the 22nd Battalion from Quebeo; they deserted and eventually drifted into my battalion. They deserted again, and I had the honour not long ago of arresting one of them in the city of Ottawa; and I think he is still behind the bars. The fact remains that the province of Quebec with its 1,600,000 French Canadian inhabitants has sent to the front to-day only one battalion, the 22nd, comprising in round figures 1,000 men. I have nothing but praise for the 22nd Battalion and the other battalions who are engaged with the Canadians at the front at the present time, but I think it is a shame that hon. members from the province of Quebec should oppose this Bill instead of being actively engaged in securing the men that are required to reinforce the 22nd Battalion.
There is in England one reserve battalion composed entirely of French Canadians. I was in close touch with them for a week or two when I was in England, and I know that the battalion is largely composed of officers and n.o.o's; there are Very few privates in the battalions.


Mr. CARROLL:: Wlhat has become of
the rest of the 8,000 men who enlisted in the province of Quebec?


James Arthurs: The hon. member will
remember that I have stated that according to the figures I have, only 6,900 enlisted in the province of Quebec.


William F. Carroll: What has become of the balance anyway?


James Arthurs: Probably they deserted
too. It must be remembered that the enlistment of 6,900 men does not necessarily mean that number of men at the front. Many men after enlistment become unfit. They are subject to sickness, accident, disease and death just as are men who have not enlisted, and the forces are continually being depleted from these causes, if from no other. Desertions also account for a considerable number.
According to the figures given by the Premier the other evening, 325,000 in all have been sent overseas. About 126.000 are still in England or were in England on the 14tn of May, and of these, 27,000 were available for immediate service in France. In his speech last night the hon. member for St. John, using suppositious figures, placed the number of men in Canada at 17,000. and the number who could be obtained under the present system at 80,000. He then said, "Here are sufficient reinforcements in Canada to last for a whole year." That is an absolute fallacy. The 126,000 men in England are not 126,000 men newly sent over from Canada. They are what is left of the 326,000 men who have already gone forward, and include the staff, which is quite large in England, those in hospitals, amounting to between 18,000 and 20,000, and the Army Service Corps, which must be maintained in England, and which numbers many .thousands. The various noncombatant units have also to be kept up. So the actual number of men fit to fight must necessarily be small as compared with the total number in reserve in England at any particular time.
There are in England about 12,900 men who should be returned to Canada. Personally I do not believe that any man .should be kept in England who is unfit to fight in France, or about to become unfit. Every man in Class B now in England should be returned to Canada in order to provide the necessary labour requirea on our farms and in our factories. These men are perfectly fit in the ordinary sense of the word, but unfit for service in France simply through some minor defect in their eyesight, hearing, feet, or something of that kind, and which probably has been discovered after their enlistment. To my mind there is no earthly reason why these 12,900 men should be kept in England, except that if our losses should be as large in the future as they have been in the past, it would be absolutely necessary to send these men to France unless the needed reinforcements went forward from Canada.
Just a word about the referendum. I did not intend to say anything about this, for I do not think it is necessary. To my mind the referendum is a farce. We have only had one referendum in Canada, and that was on the prohibition question. On that occasion the leader of the Opposition in words just as eloquent as he used the other day, said he would give the country a referendum and if the people decided in favour of prohibition, prohibition they should have. The referendum was held and the people decided in favour of prohibition by a considerable majority. One of the provinces of the Dominion of Canada, however decided they did not want prohibition, and the result was that the right hon. leader said: "We cannot pass this Act because all the provinces are not in favour of it." That situation is exactly the opposite of what we have to-day. I can see no reason why we should get any further ahead by having a referendum to-day, than we did on that occasion. After all, what is the referendum to decide? We are all agreed-I think the leader of the Opposition and every man behind him are agreed-that it is absolutely necessary to send forward reinforcements for our men at the front. The hon. member for St. John last night very eloquently said that this Bill would tear the child from its mother, the husband from his wife, and the lover from his sweetheart. This Bill is for the very purpose of preventing that. We believe that under selective conscription we shall get the number of men required, and they will be the men who can most easily De spared. The Compulsory Service Act will avoid the very trouble that was in the mind of the hon. member for St. John. There is not a man within sound of my voice who does not know of hundreds of cases where it was an absolute shame to have men go to the front leaving their wives and families a charge upon the public. It is to avoid this very condition that the Conscription Bill is brought in. Both .sides of the House are agreed that it is absolutely necessary to get the men, and I say quite frankly that all a referendum could decide would be what class of men should go forward.
In order to prove the .absolute necessity for reinforcements, I will read a short extract from a letter sent by General Currie the other day to the Prime Minister of this Dominion. General Currie is the greatest Canadian soldier to-day. He is the man who has charge of all our Canadians at the front, the man who is responsible for their well-being, for their leadership and for

everything connected with them so far as France is concerned. This is what he said:
I note with special gratification your assurance that the troops in the field can rely upon Canada giving them all necessary support. They have given of their blood freely to maintain their nation's honour and now confidently expect that the full fruits of their sacrifice will not be prejudiced. It is an imperative and urgent necessity that steps be immediately taken to ensure that sufficient drafts of officers and men are sent from Canada to keep the corps at its full strength.
Mr. Speaker, this Bill is necessary because many men at the front have been without a day's leave for over twelve months, some of theip for over eighteen months. Men are in the line in France who should have medical attendance for diseases and minor ailments .and who .are compelled to take their places in the trenches without such attendance, as the officers cannot afford to allow them the necessary time. Platoons and corps go up into the line far under strength, which makes the work much harder for those who go. There should be reserves right at hand, and I agree with the former Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes), who said in his recent speech that it would be far wiser to have our reserves close behind the lines in France rather than in England, for various reasons. I have spoken to hundreds of our men in France, and I did not meet one who did not ask for conscription, not because they were afraid for themselves, but because they see the absolute unfairness of the voluntary system. Their fathers are working overtime on the farm while others on adjoining farms keep their sons at home. Slackers are' taking their jobs in factories at from $4 to $8 a day, while they are working hard in France, risking their lives, and are paid the magnificent sum of twenty cents a day-that is all that the soldier gets to-day in France. It is absolutely unfair to the Canadians in France that they should not be supported, that they should not have the necessary rest, or that they should not know that every man in Canada is doing his duty as they themselves are.


Sir SAM HUGHES:: I know the hon. member (Mr. Arthurs) does not wish to leave a wrong impression. A soldier in France gets more than twenty cents a day-the balance over that amount is credited to him.


James Arthurs: The soldier is paid
thirty-five francs a month. The 'balance, as stated by the ex-Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes) is placed at his credit. If the poor fellow lives long enough, he. gets 
it when he comes back. But all he gets in France is approximately twenty cents a day.
I have been quoted by some newspapers in the province of Quebec, copied, I believe, by the Toronto Star, as being opposed to conscription. I have always been in favour of compulsory service, and I am now. I am in favour of this Bill, and I will support it regardless of political or any .other consequences, because I feel that in doing so I am voicing the opinion of the great majority of loyal Canadians, and I am doing what ninety-nine per cent of the men at the front wish me to do. I have been requested by all I came in contact with in France to support compulsory service and make all do their fair share.
I have seen our boys enduring all sorts of hardships at the front. I have seen a battalion of our men twelve days in the front line, in mud .often knee deep, standing in mud and water all night without relief, every night for that time. I have seen our brave boys wounded, thousands of them, and never heard a groan or a complaint. I have seen them die, bravely, cheerfully facing the enemy, and cheering for Canada. The cemeteries of France shall always be dear to Canadians. I should not be doing my duty to these men; I should not be worthy of my place in this House if I did not vote for this Bill which is necessary to give our boys the support now needed and to ensure tnat those who have died shall not have. sacrificed their lives in vain.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my views upon this question have received so much publicity that I trust that I shall not need to trespass upon the time of the House at too great length. 1 do not think that there is any doubt anywhere as to where I stand. I shall support the Government's measure; support it with a clear conscience and a stout heart, believing that it is absolutely in the best interests of the country, of the Empire, of the world, and of the cause of civilization for which we are fighting.
I desire to approach the consideration of the question in the cold light cf facts and Teason, and to avoid altogether the language of passion or recrimination. There is no man in this House or in this country who is more opposed by nature and by training to compulsion-unnecessary compulsion-than I am. But I think that if there is one lesson which every sensible man has learned in the last three years it is that in the course of a war like this no

one connected with it can afford to cling to his previous predilections and to refuse to adapt himself to the circumstances and exigencies of the time. I heard my Tight hon. friend and leader (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) criticise, or rather oppose conscription, as I understood him, on the ground that the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) had said we would never resort to it. Well, I do not know whether the Prime Minister ever said any thing so strong as that. If he did, and is resorting to conscription, I am grateful, Sir, that he is greater in his gifts of patriotism than in his gifts of prophecy.
Think of what we have seen in the course of this war. England, that true home of freedom and of individualism, has been turned into a State-run bureaucracy. The Government has taken hold of mines and forests, of farms and factories, and the war is being better prosecuted because they have done it than if these things had remained in private hands. We must distinguish very sharply on the question between peace and war, and between conscription in peace and conscription in war. Conscription in peace is part of the machinery of a militaristic state, it is part and parcel of that militarism which-we are told on all hands, as we have been told by my right hon. friends on both sides of this House-it is the object of this war to put an end to. Conscription in war is the expedient of a country which is in dire extremity and must take the steps necessary to put forth its greatest efforts. I take it that that distinction is perfectly cleaT. I take it that the fact that we were not in favour of conscription before the war measures that we were not militarists before the war; but being in a war like this, and every man being in it, I believe it becomes the part of common sense to adapt ourselves to the needs of the moment. That is exactly the case wdth Mr. Lloyd George. There is no man in this House who is a stronger anti-con-scriptionist that Mr. Lloyd George was; there is no man in the world who is a stronger anti-militarist than Mr. Lloyd George is at the present moment, but, he has put aside all his previous predilections and become the chief advocate of conscription because he realizes that this is a war to end war, and so a man may be thoroughly logical and true to his previous convictions if he adopts conscription to put an end to conscription.
Exactly the same thing is happening in the United States.. Does any one contend
that the United States is turning its back on its whole pacific history? Does any one contend tnat the people of the United States to-day are more in favour of the war than, ever they were? We have noted the reluctance with which they went to war, the slow steps by which the President led the people up to the inevitable decision. I contend that the United States is in exactly the same position as Mr. Lloyd George at the present time. They are as pacific as ever they were when they adopt conscription, and the procession of men on the day when registration took place must have filled every impartial and thoughtful mind with admiration for that great peop'e.
If there is anything that should inspire us it is to see those 10,000,000 young Americans who left their homes under compulsion-or under the President's call, shall I say?-to register their names as citizens of a common country, and soldiers, if need be to fight and die for that country.
Conscription is the only fair method in the last analysis under circumstances such as those we find ourselves in now. It is the only method under which we can fill up the gaps in our ranks. Who can go on the platform in this country and plead that it is fair, that it is even decent, that one family in one district, or one province-and I do not name any province-should be able to shelter in comfort and prosperity beneath the flag, that other people, other provinces, and other men are fighting for? It is the * only practical method. In Britain it is notorious that whole battalions which had enlisted under the voluntary principle had to be brought back from Franceto Lancashire because it was found in the course of the war that these men were more useful in Lancashire than in France. That is a very important consideration. Conscription is necessary at this stage of the war to say who shall stay at home as well as to say who shall go. It is the method by which you are going to organize your nation and get the last ounce of strength out of the nation either for service at home or for service abroad as the wisdom of those making the choice shall dictate.
It is said in some parts of the country, and my right hon. friend and leader rather indicated a predilection for that doctrine,
I think, by the quotations he made from the Militia Act: that the proper place for a Canadian to fight is on the soil of Canada. In the same quarters of the country where this is said, it is called England's war. As an Englishman with a vein of Scotch in

me

Scotch logic I mean-it surely is permissible for me to ask the question: Is England fighting her battle on England's soil? England, Sir, is fighting this war wherever she sees the turban of a Turk or a helmet of a Teuton. She is fighting it in Egypt, in Mesopotamia, in Macedonia, in Belgium, but she is fighting it most of all in France It is there that she is pouring out her bl iod in small rivers. My friends will forgive me

I know they will forgive me-when I oay to them that if there is one consideration that should have made every drop of French Mocd in Canada course more rap' 1-ly, it is the consideration that Englishmen by the million are on the soil where the language of France is spoken and where the literature of France is produced, of which literature we have men as proud in Canada as they are proud of it in France herself.
Talk about not sending the right recruiting agents to one part of the country or the other! Who w.as the recruiting agent that the led the .sons of the Empire to leap to the colours in every portion of the world and to come trooping across the seven seas? I will tell you in one word-it was Belgium. That was the recruiting agent. Belgium, guaranteed her neutrality and independence by Britain, and therefore by the British Empire-guaranteed it also by Germany-Belgium was trodden under foot by Germany and to every full-blooded man under the flag that meant that there was" only one course for him to pursue. They felt: If the Huns trod Belgium under foot we mustaneet them with our last man and our last dollar, fight on the opposite side of the ditch and see that Belgium was restored to all that could be restored to her. And, if Belgium needed no assistance in the way of a recruiting agent what shall be said of the north east of France? Those who have been on the spot know what is happening in that country-the beautiful fields turned under, the very inside of the earth turned up, the villages desolated. These things have happened and what is happening there to-day?
I wonder if those who hesitate about what they should do on this Bill reflect that the present moment in France, as the Teuton is compelled to retire, he is taking with him every French female above the age of 14 years to work, to suffer, and God knows what else. These are the recruiting agents that appealed to the wide dominions of this Empire. May I add, not uncharitably, I hope, that if men will not listen

to this, neither would they listen to one risen from the dead.
I have referred to Germany's methods of wax at the present moment. Do I need to impress upon this House that the events of the moment on the battlefront, demand this Bill. Have we all read the figures on the bulletin to-day of the casualties in the last raid on London-150 dead in the heart of the Empire where the flag floats that floats over us-'and, we are as morally bound to act as men in support of the flag as they are in London.
One hundred and fifty killed and four hundred and thirty injured in the last German air raid, most of the killed women and children, little children going to school! That is going on now. Cargoes of Canadian produce going to Britain are being sent to the bottom of the sea at the present moment by the thousand tons. That is going on now. That cargo which we sell now is as important to us as to the British who are going to buy it, as a commercial transaction; it is more important to them from the eating point of view, of course. That is how close the war is to us at the moment. Those are the circumstances that we are living through.
And watch the diplomacy of the Huns to-day, following exactly the traditions that came down from that old blackguard -whom I could never understand God Almighty letting die in his bed, Frederick the Great, called Great because, as we all know who have read anything of his history, he was so great in defeat. At the end of the Seven Years War, beaten on the field past all hope of redemption, he tried to win his way by diplomacy, and, unfor-. tunately, by his diplomacy he fooled Great Britain at the moment. History is repeating itself to-day. There is no doubt that we are gradually getting the better of them on the field, very gradually and very slowly, and what do they do then? The powers that be in Germany use the very socialists whom they hate, and whose view's they hate, and try to get them into Russia and into Stockholm and into other places to mix with their fellow workmen, and so to win by diplomacy what they can not win by arms. That is going on at the moment, and if we removed our hand from the plough in this matter we would be faced by the danger, one of the greatest that could possibly threaten the world, of an early and therefore an inconclusive peace. That is the greatest danger to the world at this moment: that the war-weariness of the

nations will compel the people to come together, and that an inconclusive peace will be arranged. But from all I have seen of Canadians, I do not think they will take any part in that business.
And if we had an inconclusive peace, what would it mean? It would mean that the Romanoffs would be replaced upon the throne of Russia; that Constantine would probably go back to the throne of Greece, that the Hohenzollerns' hold upon the necks of the German people would be tightened and renewed, and that of the Hapsburgs upon the people of Austria. And for ourselves, what would it mean? It would mean that, just as surely as the next generation of men come around, this would have to be done again by our children or our grandchildren. May I make a personal allusion? I have a little toddling grandchild on my farm out West to-day, whose father was stricken with a gunshot wound in the neck two weeks ago. I say to you, Sir, that on my soul and conscience, I support this Bill because I believe it is part of the necessary machinery which will save that little fellow, a born Canuck, and thousands of others like him, from ever going through what his father and his uncles are going through at the present time.
I was surprised at so astute a gentleman as my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugs-ley) using an argument last evening which appears to me to be the very weakest argument that could 'be addressed to the Canadian nation. I am only talking about his argument, I never talk personalities at all. The hon. member for St. John said that there was no need foT hurry-as I understood him, although I have not Hansard by me-now that America was in the field. Well, I am proud that America is in the field. There is a nation in this world which has never fought except to conquer or at least to come out of the contest with the honours divided, except in one case, when she was not conquered, but withdrew her troops from the field, and that is the little nation of Great Britain. But America's record in regard to wars is even greater, because in the beginning of her history, much against her will, she resisted what I consider were the false fiscal proposals of British statesmen of that time, and won her independence from the Mother Country. In the middle of the last century her sons waded in their own blood to keep the unity of their nation and to free the slave; and it is a magnificent spectacle to see that
great nation, at the beginning of the twentieth century, coming at last to be possibly the decisive factor in this greatest of all world wars. A splendid history, the spectacle is grand to look at. But it is only [DOT]half the spectacle. The other picture- the old mother who lost the great colony by acts of statesmen's folly at the time, reunited [DOT]once more to her heart and in spirit and in soul and in purpose, and the two great empires marching out together with our Allies to save the world's civilization. Is that the moment that I as a Canadian am to be told that we should go a little more easily? The majority of Canadians, Sir, are not built that way. A great example never deters a well set up man from doing his duty, it leads him to do it more strongly and better. Where should Canada be when the British Empire and the United States [DOT]are marching side by 6ide? She should be where she has been from the beginning, in the front of the battle-she will be there. The glories of this little people were not exhausted at Courcelette, at Vimy Ridge or at any other of the battles where they have, won immortal glory for themselves- the glories of this little people are going to be extended, but not, by taking advantage of the entry of the United States into the war, to go a little more slowly.
We are told that organized labour is against this Bill. Well, I do not think so; I do not believe it; I think it is a slander. If it were so it would be a very unfortunate thing for organized labour, and I agree with my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and, Commerce (Sir George Foster) on this point. We approach our way of thinking from different points. I do not [DOT]know that he was ever a radical in the English sense of the term, but in the school of polities in which I was raised, I did not believe in calling a lord by'a big "L;" neither do I believe in pronouncing labour with a big "L." 'Either labour or lord, or anything between the two, is just as good as he is himself; I value a man for what ihe is and what he is capable of. And organized labour, after all, has only 65,000 enrolled members in this country. A great many of those thousands we can say are not opposed to this Bill, because we have had the evidence of the gallant gentleman who preceded me (Mr. Arthurs) that nearly every man at the front wants the Bill, wants conscription, wants compulsory service, and there are thousands of organized labourers in the trenches in France and Flanders.
But to the extent that that view has prevailed with the leaders of organized labour,
[DOT]2S64

it is a most unfortunate, and, I think, indefensible viewpoint-indefensible, in the first place, because, if Germany won this war, it would be bad enough for all of us, but there are none for whom it would be so bad as the organized labourer. He would then get conscription with a vengeance, morning, noon and night, every day in the year. In the second place, I cannot understand how organized labour can be opposed to compulsory service, because they are themselves, as members of trades unions, very considerable conscriptionists. If a man in their trade does not join the union, does not work the hours of the union, or if he works when the union does not want him to work at all, he is called a black-leg. I do not want to use that term in regard to anybody in Canada, least of all to the leaders of organized labour, but I will permit myself to say that the national blacklegs, if there are such things, are not in France and Flanders to-day. They must be somewhere else. Organized labour should be the easiest people in the world to persuade that conscription for national purposes is a good thing. Surely, according to their own tenets, if they conscript in the interests of their trade-using the very considerable compulsion of trades union rules in the interests of their trade-the greater includes the less, and we must be logical, and we must really have taken up their position when we propose to conscript in the interests of the nation.
On this head, however, I have endeavoured to learn what labour men are thinking, and what I think is that they are opposed to this Bill, as if it were the only thing that the Government were going to do in the coming months to bring about that, after all, we need at the moment, and that is an organization of the moral power, an organization, and a mobilization, shall I say, of the moral power, material power, and the man power of Canada. That is what we need at the present moment. I told the Government a few months ago that their strength in regard to this measure is that it is aimed to put Canada on all fours with Britain and the United States, and practically every other belligerent country, and that is a very great strength. The weakness of the Government is in this, if I may say - so, that, while they copy the United States and Great Britain in bringing in this Bill for the organization and mobilization erf our man power, they have been tardy and backward in regard to what I consider the proper methods of taxation for fMr. M. Clark.]
such a time as we are passing through. I was not long in placing myself oa record on this question. In the first short war session, lasting five days, I expressed regret that the Minister of Finance did not introduce an income tax. The value of such a tax, and the absolute duty of introducing it has been impressed upon the minister every session since the war began, and the reason is obvious. We cannot fight this war on the principle of limited liability. We are in it to the last man and the last dollar, and we must not stop. We must get the dollar. The other belligerent countries are taxing themselves until they suffer, and no one has suffered, sacrificed and served more freely and more splendidly than the very richest people in England. Many of them are sitting up nights in the House of Commons to vote the heaviest taxes upon themselves which have ever been placed upon the shoulders of human beings, and that is an example of patriotism that falls only short, as, of course, it must fall short, of the sacrifice which is made by the man who goes into the trenches and lays down his life for his friend, his flag and his country. These heavy burdens are being imposed on the people in England, and we should follow suit.
While I am speaking in regard to organized labour, I would suggest very seriously and in a friendly spirit to the Government, that they will make their passage through the country much smoother, if they give due weight to this proposition: Sweep all patronage out of the military service.
The Government has done an excellent thing in appointing food and fuel controllers. That is along the line of the organization of material resources. From my point of view, I say to the Government-You would do a still better thing if you gave fuel and food free of customs duties, and then you would give these controllers something to organize about? I am afraid, Sir, that the doctrine of free fuel would not find absolute acceptance, even on my own side of the House. Do some of these things, do anything else that you can, following the example of the countries with whom you are in alliance, and beside whom you are fighting, and you will disarm a great deal of the opposition of organized labour, such as it is.
I listened to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Arthurs) who preceded me, with very great pleasure. He referred to the number of men in England not needed there. If they are not needed there they should get back to the habits of their early boyhood, and go on

a farm. I could do with some of them out in the West. I would put a very fine comb very liberally through the men in khaki both in England and in Canada, and see that every man wearing khaki and drawing pay is giving services to the country, or I would get rid of him.
I have indicated, I think, in a way that will be understood, that I am supporting the Bill. It follows, of course, that I am not in much sympathy with the referendum. I was taught not to be in sympathy with referendum for I have been >a very good follower of my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, perhaps a little skittish, as he might call me, and difficult to control at times, but I will remind him at this moment that, when he came back to the old House defeated, I was one of the first of his followers in the Chamber to tell him I never received anything from him, and never wanted anything, but I was prouder of him in defeat than I had ever been before, because he stood for a principle and died politically for a principle. That was not an attitude of unfriendliness on my part. We had a naval debate some years ago, and if my memory does not fail me, there was something in the nature of a referendum moved at that time. Referen-dums seem to take origin in Quebec. The hon. Mr. Monk moved a. referendum, and my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) had not much use for it.


Mr. MACDONALD:: That was in 1910.


Michael Clark: It does not matter if it was in 1019; I am not giving lessons in history; I am trying to deal with a serious problem. If my memory is wrong as to dates, it is nevertheless all right. My right hon. friend indicated then very scant respect for a referendum. He called it unBritish. But now he will not forgive the Prime Minister for changing his mind on a more important point: conscription of men for the trenches. I consider that, after all, the clear cut policy of this Bill. The referendum idea, it will he seen, follows some rather remarkable passages in the history of the country.
I am honestly very much put out, because I think my right hon. friend, towards the end of a career which, in my humble judgment, has made him the greatest Canadian we have ever produced in politics, is taking a position in which he will be misunderstood by numbers of those who have walked with him, fought with him, won with him, and been defeated with him. My right hon. friend says: My policy is the same as that
of the Premier-Win the war. Well, so say we all. At a certain point in the history of Canada, just as at a certain point in the history of nearly all the other portions of the Empire, a proposition, which seems to have been of the most generous description, comes for a coalition Government, so that we can make better progress towards the winning of the war. The impartial historian of the future will record that the offer was magnificent, and therefore, I am afraid the declinature of the offer will be described as not quite in that moral category. " Win the war " is the common policy of both sides of this House. The Prime Minister, having failed to get the coalition he wanted, brings down a Conscription Bill, and we must remember that conscription is in force in nearly all other countries.


Mr. MARCIL:: The Prime Minister
brought down the Conscription Bill before proposing a. coalition Government.


Michael Clark: When was the Bill brought down? My hon. friend (Mr. Marcil) is a former Speaker of this House, and he ought to know when a Bill is supposed to be submitted to the House.


Charles Marcil: The condition of coalition was to carry conscription.


Michael Clark: Yes, to win the war. How does my hon. friend from Bona-venture expect to win the war? Not by orations, however eloquent. You can win the war only by putting men on the firing Mne. Again my right hon. friend runs what I consider a very grave risk of being misunderstood, because when it comes to some. thing practical in the way of winning the war, he speaks in opposition to conscription. He made no bones of his position, and I admire him for his 'honesty. His speech was a speech against conscription; we all know where he stands in the matter.
I suppose, one of these days, the Government, if it lives up to its programme, will bring down-just as it did last year, with the idea of preserving the unity of the nation-a proposition for the extension of Parliament. According to the morning papers, when that happens, my right hon. friend indicated the way he will go when he applauded the remark's of the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) last night, who said he would not repeat the mistake of last year and vote for an extension of the term of Parliament. If my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) repeats the mistake of last year and if he

accompanies his action by as eloquent and persuasive a speech as he made on that occasion, he will do something that will make all the people of Canada proud of him. But he is not going to do that. If it is a question of getting men for the trenches, or of a coalition Government, or of winning the war by keeping the people united and, if possible, avoiding an election during the acute stages of the war-it does not matter what the question is-any right hon. friend takes a road opposite to that of the Government. I want to be quite candid; I do not believe it will be possible to persuade a large number of our fellow citizens that those who are responsible for such a policy are thinking more of winning elections than of winning the war.
I want to come a little mo-re specifically to the referendum, and to give my reasons for being absolutely opposed to it. The first ground of my opposition to a referendum is that there is something deplorable and indescribably mean, as it appears to my mind-I am not characterizing the action of any one else-in the idea of taking a referendum from the people at home as to what is to happen on the firing line, when you cannot by any device you may conceive get the full opinion of the men on the firing line. My objection to a referendum is exactly my objection to an election in war time. Of course, I know we had a soldiers' voting Bill, and when it was brought into Parliament I spoke pretty frankly as to what I thought of that being of any use. You cannot conduct an election at Vimy Ridge; the soldiers are engaged in too sprious business there. It is impossible to secure .a full vote of the men at the front. And, that would be equally -true of an election or of a referendum. I have been consistent in regard to the matter. As regards an election, I think at one time or another I have had almost every hon. gentleman in this House in agreement with me. For about five minutes after war broke out we were in good agreement. Sometimes one side has been more opposed to an election than the other, and sometimes the other more than the one. There has been a little politics in more than one quarter of the globe. My first objection, therefore, to a referendum is that you cannot possibly do justice to the best men and the best voters you have. I say that without fear of successful contradiction. You cannot do justice to that section of your electorate wh.o are fighting for us; they will be debarred from having a full

voice in the proceedings of an election. There is a collateral thought in connection with that, that, by this proposition you absolutely put a premium on neglect of national duty, because you enhance in value the votes of those who stay at hbme, and you enhance in value the votes of those parts of the country which have recruited the least number of men. Is that, to upstanding Canadians not a strong objection to this proposition? My hon. friend (Mr. Arthurs) said: The greatest objection to a referendum is that it will get us nowhere, and I agree with that. By the way, this referendum is very interesting to me on the grounds of its parentage. It has a very dubious parentage. The mover pf the referendum amendment-shall I say the father .of the referendum-is my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) who is frankly opposed to conscription. But the mother-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Michael Clark: -or rather I should say, the stepfather of the amendment is absolutely a fierce conscriptionist. Therefore, I venture to repeat that the parentage of this referendum is a little dubious. We will suppose that the referendum is taken, and that according to the views of the father and the foster-father of the amendment, a general election follpws. What is going' to happeen? Suppose my right hon. friend is returned to power with a majority of Liberals at his back; where would he he in regard to conscription? I suppose my hpn. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) would sit down in a Cabinet with my right hon. friend, and on personal grounds, I should be glad to see him there. The first question that comes up is: What are we going to do about this policy of winning the war? I have no doubt that my right hon. friend will he able to get along better with the hon. member for Edmonton than he did with the Prime Minister; but where are they logically in the matter? Suppose, during war time, with our boys dying at the front looking to us for reinforcements, you have a Cabinet in power whose father is a strong anti-con-scriptionist and whose fpster-father is just as fierce a eonscriptionist; where would be your effectiveness in bringing in conscription or any other measure for the successful prosecution of the war? A Cabinet cpn-stituted on such principles would be no good for Armageddon-they would really be the first promise of a millenium. The lion frpm Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) would lie down with the lamb from Quebee (Sir

Wilfrid Laurier), with a little child, perhaps from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald), to lead them.
I do not want to forget before sitting down that with the majority of the people of this country this war is a serious business, much too serious to be committed to two opposite lines of policy in a general election. I shall support this measure on its second reading, and I shall vote against the referendum, because I believe this law is one more step in the long series of events, booming very long now, which have been marshalling Canada into her proud place in the front rank of the nations of the world -another of that necessary series of events by which Canada is moulding her own destiny at the moment that she is helping so mightily in moulding the destiny of the world and the future of the world's civilization. The greatness of the cause, the gloriousness and the certainty of the coming triumph, the honour of our country, and above all the needs of the boys make me feel sure that in this House and in this country not only this step but every other that is needed and that will be provided, as I believe, by my right hon. friend (Sir Robert Borden) until the war is won, will be supported up to the hilt.


Mr. ONESIPHORE TURGEON (Gloucester) :: Mr. Speaker, I might perhaps be permitted to say before proceeding with the remarks I have to make on this Bill, that the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) who has just sat down has perhaps never had a more sincere admirer of his policies and eloquence than I. In order not to delay the House I shall be as brief as possible. I shall have nothing new to say, no principles that I have not enunciated before-principles which, notwithstanding the eloquent address of my hon. friend from Red Deer, are as dear to me to-day as ever before. The hon. member from Red Deer looks at this question from an international standpoint. If he had been with us for thirty or forty years more he would perhaps have given us different counsel. He might perhaps have inspired us with a love for our constitution and for the traditions of this country.
I come from the largest Acadian constituency in' the Maritime Provinces. The French population of Canada has not received many eulogies since I have been in the House to-day, but let me tell you, Sir, that I was perhaps the first person in Gloucester county and northern New Brunswick to call on my compatriots to
fight in the cause of humanity and for the Empire. Gloucester county is entirely an agricultural constituency, but I am proud to say that nearly 1,000 of our young men have responded to my appeal for recruits, ninety per cent of them Acadians. In the first year of the war I went from district to district, from parish to parish, urging our young men to join their fellow Canadians from the West and East, and to sacrifice their lives, if need be, in the sacred cause of humanity and civilization. I told them when they came back they would be the idols of the nation, and that if they should not come back, their names would be written in letters of gold in the roll of Canadian heroes, while the gates of Heaven would open to their soul. Many of the Acadians of Gloucester county who have enlisted have been recruited in other parts of Canada, in Ottawa, for instance, Quebec and Valcartier. Some of our young men, wishing to avoid the sadness of parting, would leave their old fireside telling their parents they were going to other cities to find work, and would then enlist in a different part of the country. They had enlisted in the 165th Acadian Regiment, but hundreds of them had enrolled before that regiment was started; they have enlisted in the 26th Battalion under Colonel McVeity, whose name has been famous in Canada for a long time, and they have enlisted in the 104th and other battalions. The English battalions have in their ranks hundreds of Acadians from the county of Gloucester and other counties in Northern New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. In the English battalion which was recruited from the counties of Restigouehe, Gloucester and Northumberland, and which was fully equipped last December, there are 740 Acadians. So I think I may say that the Acadians of Gloucester county and the other counties of New Brunswick have done their duty in a most noble manner. Every Acadian family in Gloucester county is represented at the front. I have moved among the Acadian people for the last 46 years, and I look upon them as my own brothers and sisters. Letters come to me every day from mothers whose sons have gone to the front, perhaps at my special instigation, asking me for the assistance that they greatly Tequire and asking me also to look after the modest estates of their boys.
The blood in my veins is French, and I am proud of it. I am proud also of being a Canadian. But while I am proudest of this great Dominion and all that is is and

constitutional establishments is our representation in this House; that was the question of most vital concern at the time of Confederation, more particularly to the provinces by the sea, the smaller provinces, who were afraid of meeting a preponderance of representatives from the West in the near future, to their possible disadvantage. So it was provided that no amendment could be made until that first step had been taken. It is not the duty of the Imperial Parliament, when asked to extend the life of this Parliament, to inquire from this Parliament if that step had been taken; it was their natural inference to presume that it had been taken by this Parliament. Although I am not a lawyer, I have given a great deal of thought to this question of the only mode of amending the constitution ; I have studied it all my lifetime, and I say that if to-day the position of this Parliament were to be referred to the Privy Council, the Privy Council would dismiss us to-morrow morning.


Mr. GRAHAM:: It might not be a bad thing.


Onésiphore Turgeon: It might not be a bad thing, and I wish we could do it with as much expedition as our friends opposite desire to pass this measure. I say that we have no mandate to be here, our position is ephemeral; this Parliament really has no existence. And so, when we ask for a referendum, we ask for it because we know that the people of Canada to-day are aware that we are here without a mandate. When, in January, 1916, the question was debated, public opinion had not yet settled upon our position. A great class of people in Canada, especially those engaged in the manufacture of munitions, who were earning thousands of dollars every day, did not want an election; everything was going on well, they said, do not disturb us. Others, influenced also by a desire not to be disturbed, said the same thing. But the country would have been less disturbed by an election eighteen months ago than it may possibly be disturbed to-day by this measure, however reluctant we may be to create any disturbance.
I do not see the great objection to an election or a referendum in this country; 1 do not see that it would be a calamity in time of war. I have more confidence in the sober judgment and the sober qualities of the people of Canada than to think that to-day, because it is war time, the war
t.Mr. Turgeon.]
being fought out on battlefields remote from Canada, we would not be able to conduct ourselves like men, like Canadians, like British subjects, on the day of an election, just as we could on the day before and the day after. In my opinion it is an insult to the intelligence and the morality of the people of Canada to say that they could not, on one day, go to the polls as they have gone for the last one hundred years, and as they will have to go for all time to come. An election is the only possible means of clearing the minds of the people, who know that we are here without a mandate, and may perhaps attribute unworthy motives to us in sitting here drawing our indemnities and paying the salaries of ministers and all the expenses of this Parliament without the authority and consent of the people, which is the greatest crime against British precedents and policy.
I do not say that we should look solely to the conscription of blood to-day. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) said that he had asked from the first session after the outbreak of war for the imposition of an income tax. I have been as loud as he or any other member in urging an income tax; I did so only a month ago when speaking on the Budget of this session. Every time we have asked for the imposition of such a tax, the Minister of Finance has smiled away our proposal; and even to-day, when the Government can hear the voice of the people as expressed at various meetings and through newspapers, and know that they cannot avoid the establishment of some kind of conscription of wealth or some form of income tax, he tells us that there are a great many difficulties in the way, that perhaps later on they will impose an income tax. We have told him all the benefits that could be derived from it. I cited to him the advantage of the large increase in the income tax recently made by the Congress of the United States, under which those in receipt of a million dollars a year are taxed to 40 per cent or 45 per cent. The hon. Minister of Finance has replied to the member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) that it was a costly way of collecting taxes, and that perhaps he would not derive enough revenue from the tax to pay for the cost of administering it. I claim that if the minister would only look amongst his colleagues in the cabinet, among the millionaires of the cabinet, he would see that we could raise enough money by such a tax on them to pay the expenses of collecting the income tax throughout the country.

In 1915 the Prime Minister came hack from England and from the front, and in a very eloquent speech in England before returning to Canada he declared to the people of the British Empire and of Canada, that, so far as Canada was concerned, the whole power of the nation would be consecrated to the task of winning the war. From that day on we have 'been asking for the conscription of the whole strength and power of the nation in these matters, yet nothing has been done. To-day my hon. friend comes with another message from the front, to fill the gaps. We are bound to fill the gaps as strongly as Canada can possibly do it to-day. They tell us that, failing reinforcements from Canada, our friends may be decimated in such a way that the British authorities would allow our Canadian army corps to be disbanded, and would not replenish their ranks by soldiers from England or other parts of the Empire. I say that to put this argument before the country is an injury to the British name and to the British fame, and to the British military authorities on the other side. We want to send all the men we can, all the men we can spare, and when my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) asks for a referendum he says that, if the majority of the people of Canada vote in favour of conscription, he will submit to it, and the members from Quebec will go willingly into their constituencies, and advocate abiding by the law. Everybody in Canada .knows that there is no more law abiding people in the country than the French Canadians. If the Minister of Militia and my colleague from New Brunswick were here to-day, I would make the same statement to them. I will go to the county of Gloucester, and take the same position, and I think my voice in that county would amount to something. But, Mr. Speaker, the action which this Government is taking is not the proper one. For the last three years we have asked them to conscript the wealth. People say, " We do not understand what is meant by conscription of wealth," but put it in any form you like, call it income tax or anything else, it comes to the same thing. I believe my right hon. friend to-day is commencing at the wrong end in calling for conscription of manhood, before first conscripting wealth and incomes. We are told that England has passed a conscription law, but England is not in the same position. She has raised an immense army, comprising millions of men. Lord Roberts wished to raise a voluntary army, and it was thought it might not be necessary to establish conscription of manhood. I do not believe the army of Britain has benefited a great deal from the conscription of manhood. The recruits would have come later, under the voluntary system which is adopted in other places. I think we should commence by the conscription of wealth, resources, and utilities. One of the best informed men in the industrial line, Lord Rhondda, was sent out here in 1915, to suggest to this Government the conscription of wealth and nationalization of the services of the country. He advocated the nationalization of the large shops at Winnipeg and other places in order that they might be converted into munition works. Our authorities did not listen to the suggestion made by Lord Rhondda. Conscription has been adopted in England, but let me tell hon. gentlemen that this Government has had advice very recently from a great authority, Sir Joseph Ward, the former Prime Minister of New Zealand. Speaking at Winnipeg a few weeks ago, he said:
Let me tell you, gentlemen, that you will have to do more than make up your minds to conscript the man power of the country-you. will have to conscript the wealth also.
Britain would never have been able to introduce conscription of her men if she had not first practically conscripted the wealth of the country. She could never have put it through. If you are going to call upon certain men in this country to go out and sacrifice their all-their lives if need be-you must be prepared, you men of wealth, to see that they are properly pensioned, to see that your money is employed in the country's behalf where you cannot give yourselves, to provide the wherewithal. Canada has done magnificently, but she must go on; there must be no turning back.
That is the advice given to the Government of this country. We have the advice of the labour element. They are calling first of all for the conscription of wealth, and, if required later on, conscription of labour. We are told that the labour element is not of one mind. Resolutions have been passed: by a majority of the members of these labour unions, otherwise they would not have been forwarded to Parliament. Therefore, the majority of the labour men view the situation with the same seriousness as we view it. Not merely members on this side of the House, hut members on the other side, and particularly members from Ontario, advocate conscription of wealth to-day, no matter what the result may be, so far as the present and future generations are concerned.

Last night in the great loyal city of Toronto the council met to discuss this matter and to send resolutions to the representatives of the people. A despatch, dated 25th June, from Toronto to the Ottawa papers reads as follows:
Toronto, June 25.-The Toronto city council showed itself to he anything but, unanimous for the present Military Service Act of the Borden Government when this afternoon it defeated by a vote of thirteen to two a motion to force conscription on the eligible man power of the civic service, and listened without protest to vigorous speeches by two leaders of the council denouncing the conscription of liesh and blood without the conscription of wealth.
The motion under debate provided that all single employees of the per nanent staff of the corporation or those marri d since the beginning of the war eligible f rr military service be given until July 9th to enlist or forfeit their positions. Aid. S. Ryding, the mover, and Aid. H. H. Ball, the seconder, were the only two members of council who spoke in support of the motion.
Increase Soldiers' Pay.
At an earlier stage of the meeting Aid. J. G. Ramsden, chairman of the works committee, had introduced a motion urging the Dominion Government to increase the pay of the men at the front and this motion had carried without discussion. In speaking to the conscription of civic employees motion Aid. Ramsden took occasion to combine the two motions in his argument by declaring, "It is said if we pay the men at the front as they should be paid that the country will be bankrupt. Bourassa has said so, I presume he means bankrupt as far as cash is concerned. Bankrupt be damned.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Onésiphore Turgeon: The people are the rightful masters of both congresses and courts, not to overthrow ino Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.
There are men in this Parliament today who would pervert the constitution of Canada. Let us have this Bill submitted as speedily as possible to the people either by referendum or by general election. If both a referendum and an election are decided on, they could be held on the same day to save time and expense. I might cite one other authority, the Manchester Guardian, a paper whose standing in the British Empire is very high. I have often heard the hon. member for Bed Deer approving its doctrines. Commenting upon the Prime Minister's reluctance to submit this Bill to the people, and the proposal of the leader of the Opposition for a referendum, the Manchester -Guardian says:
It is so clearly the more honest procedure that the Canadian Government is not likely to incur the odium of enforcing it.
That is strong language. Let me refer for a moment to what has been done in Australia, the loyalty of whose people no one will question. -Hon. gentlemen say that this country is not loyal because there are some French people in it. Now in Australia I do not suppose there is a single French Canadian. A referendum was held in Australia on the question of conscription, and the loyal pepple there voted against it. We cannot blame Quebec for the defeat of the referendum in Australia, at all events. My hon. friend from Parry Sound (Mr. Arthurs) who finds nothing in -the province of Quebec to appeal to his soul or mind might go to Australia and take a lesson from the British people there.
I have said nothing new. I have stood by the constitution ever since 1873, when the trouble arose in my county over the -New Brunswick school question, as mentioned hy the hon. member for St. John last night. I was strongly opposed then to any amendment to the constitution, because I knew that one amendment Jed to others, and the constitution might -in that way eventually be destroyed.
Therefore, when we call for a referendum, we are just as loyal as any who oppose it, just as desirous of helping our young men across the sea and of sending more to their assistance. But we want these men to go in the spirit of democracy; and we hope that when they have done their bit and return to Canada, they will, as citizens of this Dominion, stand for democracy in time of peace as they have stood for democracy

and against militarism in time of war and under the greatest possible sacrifices.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 101, respecting the Canada Preferred Insurance Company.-Mr. Stevens.
Bill No. 102, respecting the Western Canada Accident and Guarantee Insurance Company.-Mr. Bradbury.

[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the proposed motion of Sir Robert Borden for the second reading of Bill No. 75, Military Service Act, 1917, resumed.
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, the Bill before the House does not lend itself to extended debate and I suppose it might well he said that every viewpoint of the question has been already touched upon by preceding speakers. In the circumstances, I might well have remained silent, but finding myself in disagreement upon the measure with my leader, and with many of my political friends; realizing my responsibility for the vote which I shall give upon the Bill, I feel compelled to briefly give to the House my views as to the principle of the measure. I do not intend discussing any of the provisions of the Bill. An opportunity for so doing will be presented to every hon. member of the House and when that time arriyes I shall deem it my duty to discuss the provisions of the Bill with frankness and candour and to suggest to the Government the amendments which I think should be made.
During my remarks, I do not desire at all to refer to the matter of the mobilization and utilization of the resources of the nation for the purpose of carrying on the war. That has been introduced into the debate and has been referred to by many hon. gentlemen upon this side of the House. I agree fully with the views which they have expressed, but the suggestion involves so much that I feel that I should rather debate the same on another occasion which no doubt will present itself to the House.
The party system of politics may have its objectionable features. It may he, as Pope said, "the madness of the many for the gain of the few." but it is only when one finds himself in disagreement with his

leader and the majority of his party that he realizes the strength of political associations and the warm attachment which comes from a long comradeship in party politics. These embarrassments have been very much softened by the generous pronouncement of my leader in extending to his supporters the utmost freedom to take the course which they thought fit upon the Bill, which far transcends political considerations and which is deserving of the most candid and impartial treatment. This announcement of our leader was not sought for; it was not asked for; it came from him spontaneously. It was particularly characteristic of the man and truly reflects his intelligent liberalism.
I appreciate fully the viewpoint of my party friends who differ from me, and particularly with the viewpoint of my friends from the province of Quebec. I think I can appreciate all that in history, tradition and experience which contributes to that conclusion. I can hear them say that the views of their leader are their views, and where he leads they will follow. That is all clear to me and I understand it thoroughly. No one will question the importance and gravity of the Bill which we are now considering. Inevitably, it creates a more profound interest in and out of Parliament than any question which we have had before us since Confederation. There is in this country, in some degree or other, amongst all classes of the people, a traditional repugnance to compulsory military service. We cannot escape, try how we will, a well defined division of public opinion. That division is applicable to the whole country ; it is applicable to both parties, diverse principles are involved and the distinctions are fundamental in their character. Inevitably, therefore, we find a very substantial body of opinion in every part of Canada against the measure, which opinion, I think, we must all respect and recognize. In opposing this view, it is only my desire to speak with modesty and without arrogance or dogmatism. I think that I clearly realize the strength of the position of those who take a view opposite to that which I propose taking. If I were dissatisfied with the opinion held in some section of Canada, in some province, I would deem it my duty, in my feeble way, to point out to them the path of duty, or the proper conception of the principles involved in the Bill, rather than attack offensively such views which I believe are conscientiously held. I somewhat regret that this afternoon, in one or two spots of the debate, there did seem to
be evidence of a spirit for which I personally did not care. For one very definite reason I felt constrained to intervene in this debate, and that is because I desire to make reference to certain views which have been frequently expressed in regard to our position in this war. A variety of views have been expressed, and I hate in mind statements made, not in this Parliament but outside of it, in respect to our actual position in the war. Newspapers report men from time to time as saying that we are fighting for Great Britain, that we are aiding the Allies and not one of the Allies, that we are not in the war primarily as a belligerent, fighting for ourselves and our country, but rather out of filial regard for Great Britain, or from purely altruistic and humanitarian motives alone. Some few days ago Mr. Henri Bourassa, a prominent publicist of Quebec, said that his province was not interested in the war, a view which I believe does not truly reflect the best opinion of the province of Quebec, and I am sure it does not reflect the opinion of hon. gentlemen on either side of the House from that province, and particularly might I say this of my friends from Quebec upon this side of the House, whom I know better. These views are heard frequently; they are not heard in one province alone. If I am correct in this, I say that such views should be discussed with candour and with frankness, because they go to the very foundation of this Bill. We should be clear in our conception of our position in this war and the purposes for which we fight, for if we are not, then our faith in the cause for which we contend will not be clearly established. For that reason I do not purpose apologizing to the House if I occupy its time for a few minutes in discussing the matters to which I have just referred.
We have now been in this war for two and one-half years, and I say it is strange to me how often I have heard expressed the statements which I have just indicated. It may be that these views are quite prevalent, and that they have militated against recruiting in this country. If such views were widely held we could not expect anything but an intermittent and indifferent and divided interest in this country in respect to the war. Whether we like it or not, we were subject to invasion and attack and-invasion was the settled policy of the enemy. Let there be no difference of opinion on that point; there cannot, I submit, be any view to the contrary, that is well founded. Our participation in this war was

inevitable for defensive purposes alone, and defensive war does not mean that it must be waged in one's own country. It is an untenable doctrine to propound in modern days that because an army has not actually penetrated into one's country that therefore that country is not at war and not vitally interested, and should not assume the aggressive. The German Empire would have struck .at Canada as quickly as it struck at Great Britain, if it could. They endeavoured, I have no doubt, to attack our coast line in the early days of the war. The battle of the Falkland islands was a battle fought to protect the coasts of Canada. We are liable to bombardment of our coasts at any moment, although that danger is now remote. Canadian ships were sunk in the earlier days of the war, and I think in one instance before our policy in regard to the war was declared by Parliament. Canadian lives and property have been lost on our own and on neutral shipping; international bridges were destroyed and public works in this country were attacked by Germans, and the defence made by these offenders was that the acts were committed by them as soldiers of the German Empire against a country with which they were at war. The vigilant secret service of the United States, I have no doubt, if the truth were known, protected our country against assault on many an occasion. It may be true as well, for aught I know, that the secret service of Canada protected us against many a premeditated assault by those resident in the United States who still counted themselves as citizens and soldiers of the German Empire. A fellow Canadian and a fellow member of this House to-uay, languishes in a German military prison. He was arrested in a country in which he had a right to be, by a nation which had no right to be in that country- a burglar and criminal nation. This act was the natural and logical sequence of the outrage committed by Germany against the sovereignty of Belgium. The arrest of the Hon. Dr. Beland is as much an attack upon the honour and integrity of Canada as was the initial invasion of Belgium by the enemy an attack upon its integrity. I have no doubt that the flag that flies over us whispers to him the hope of hd!s freedom and restoration to his native country, and, if God spares his life, I have no doubt that hope will be realized.
In the early days of this war, I think I may truthfully say, we lacked a cam-

paign of education in thus country as to the causes and the purposes of the war and the reason of our participation therein, and for this lack in a great measure we have since suffered. I repeat that we hear it frequently said that we are fighting for Great Britain and not as ia principal belligerent. That view is only possible by shutting one's eyes to the political evolution of recent years as to the constitution of the British Empire. Nothing, (in my judgment, could be more erroneous. I disagree with that view today and I have always disagreed with it, and I believe it is mischievous. It is tTue that Great Britain has saved us from the horrors of actual invasion. It is true that she has protected our trade and commerce, and by reason of that fact, we are enjoying a material prosperity equal to if not greater than that, of ante helium days. It is true that Great Briain is the ancestral home of a majority of the citizens of this country, which fact naturally ev'okes a spirit of loyalty and devotion to the country which is fighting for the democracy of the whole world. It is true the British flag is the herald of mercy as well as of might, not only for us, but for many other countries of this world to-day. I submit these reasons alone would have justified our participation in the war, and, doubtless, were a tremendous factor in impelling us in the first instance to participate in this war. But Germany was a strong maritime power. She had the will and the power to strike at any part of the British Empire, and it is now quite clear that that had long been her intention. But, notwithstanding this, I think it is well that we have in our minds correctly our political and constitutional relations with Great Britain, as component parts of one Empire. This country is not owned by Great Britain. Great Britain and Canada each form a distinct part of one Empire, and such alone are the political relations of one to the other. The autonomy of the one is as complete as the autonomy of the other. It is only by resorting to historical and political fictions, that are long since dead, that you can establish the doctrine of the sovereignty of one and the subjection of the other. We are fighting with Great Britain, and not for Great Britain. The latter proposition would import an idea of subjection, which should not exist in the minds of the citizens of this country. It is not the correct idea, and I fear it has been productive of more "or less harm. It is true the efforts of the Empire are co-ordinated for Imperial

'*purposes, but it is also true that these efforts are co-ordinated in the interest of the autonomous parts of the Empire as well. In the debate in the American Congress, on the occasion of that body considering whether or not it would support the President in his declaration of war against 'Germany, it was submitted by opponents of the President that the proposed action of the United States was designed more for the purpose of aiding Great Britain than for the defence of principle or democracy. I am glad to say that that view does not prevail generally in the United States. One of the stoutest opponents of the entry of the United States into the war was Senator Lafollette. Upon the floor of Congress he stated that, as the purpose of the nation was only to assist Great Britain, it would be better for them to furnish Great Britain with money for the purpose of carrying on the war by the purchase of Canada. He was graceful enough to suggest that they should leave Canada in the possession of Canadians until the end of the war, even if they paid the purchase money ~ at once. The idea prevails therefore in foreign countries as well, that the condition of sovereignty and subjection exists in our political and constitutional relations with Great Britain, .and the sooner we dispel that idea the better it will be for Canada. Let us understand properly what the British Empire means. Do not let us destroy its grandeur by misconceptions. But there is, Mr. Speaker, the consideration of self-interest and self-protection, which, after all, is the great motive power behind every great national and individual effort. In this war we are fighting in defense of Canada, and we are resisting an invasion of Canada just as surely as Great Britain is resisting an invasion of the United Kingdom. It is said, in connection with the South African war, by one speaker, I think, on this side of the House, that the circumstances were quite similar to the present war. I do not agree with that view. It was not possible for the Dutch republic to have struck at Canada. She was powerless in that respect, being without a navy; but in this case, by no means could we have kept outside the vortexi of the war, elveni ill we 'had so wished-We should be thankful that the battle line where fight our Canadian soldiers to protect us against actual invasion is in foreign lands, and not upon Canadian soil. Thank God, we are spared that sorrow. But though we are separated by thousands of
miles of ocean from the actual scene of the conflict, we are fighting with the Allies, not for the Allies, in defence of our own country. War cannot be conducted on purely defensive lines. A country's defence can frequently be made by aggressive means, and not always within her own territory. That is particularly true of the present war, and probably will be true of future wars. In the supreme moment of our history, I cannot but feel, Sir, that in very truth the foreign soil where fight Canadian soldiers, is really Canadian soil. This thought was beautifully expressed by a young Englishman of distinction in the realm of literature, Bupert Brook, in a beautiful poem well known to many hon. gentlemen of the House, and written, I think, just shortly before he gave up his life at Galipoli, when he wrote the words-
If I should die, think only this of me:
That there's some corner of a foreign field
That is forever-England.
I say we are in this war as an interested principal. We have, for more than two years, been fighting in defence of our country, and against actual invasion. Canadians, in the after years, when they visit the many corners of foreign fields, where are buried our fallen heroes, will truly feel that such spots are forever part of Canada, and they will, in imagination at least, project our territorial bounds to those points upon foreign soil.
I cannot, Mr. Speaker, give adherence tithe view that our Militia Act contemplates power only to strike the enemy when within our own territorial bounds. It seems to me that would render the Militia Act absolutely useless. The idea further contemplates that we must remain quiescent, until the enemy are actually within the bounds of our country before we are justified in striking. The absurdity of this position is self evident. Could that contention be legally maintained, then the constitution should be amended. There is a higher law than the constitution, and if needs be, the constitution must sometimes bend to meet national necessities.
But are we not justified and supported in our efforts in this war by reasons and motives which are higher than Imperial interest, and Canadian self interest, as suggested in the splendid speech of the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) ? Who is there in this country that has intelligently observed the march of events from the beginning of this war down

to the present moment, who does not believe that we are in the path of right, justice, humanity and duty in placing, for the protection of the world's civilization, our military strength, whatever measure it may be, in the scale against the barbaric and brutal militarism of Germany. Shall not our efforts, judged by these high considerations, go down the ages to our eternal credit, to the enrichment of our Canadian history, and a rich legacy for those who will follow us as citizens in this country?
We hear the question asked: Why should we become embroiled in the old-world issues? Owen Wister, in his very readable book, "Pentecost of Calamity," which hon. gentlemen no doubt know well, says that "He who talks of the old world and the new world, talks in a dead language." The interests and the destinies of this continent are involved in the destinies of the old world. The world he compared to a boat which never grows in size, but the occupants of which grow in number. If any occupant commences rocking the boat, it is the duty of all other occupants that love safety and peace to control the disturber, and if necessary, to throw him overboard.
If Canada were a republic and absolutely dissociated from the British Empire, she would, I venture to say, be in this war as a belligerent. She is peopled by a breed of men who would fight against a nation that has filled the world with astonishment and horror; that has hurled calamity against the whole universe and grievously sinned against civilization. She would not see democracy and freedom and national human rights crushed out without proferring a saving hand. Her people would ultimately do as our neighbours in. the United States decided to do, in order that democracy might not perish from the earth. They would at least do what the	little South
American republics aspire to do. They would quickly realize that the liberty of their constitution was in danger; they would fight for its preservation in foreign lands if the battle line was there, and they would even break the bounds ,of the constitution, if needs be, for after all it is the spirit of the people and not its political institutions that 'safeguard its freedom. They too would have turned a willing ear to the importunities of France and Belgium to save their countries from the aggressor and their peoples from immolation and a despot's lust, and we would be unworthy of the races from which we

come if we were npt willing to strike against the enemy in so just a cause. We are not a warlike country nor a warlike people. If that is our attitude, then we should be active in this war, because it is a war against war, as they speak of it in France, and the same idea was expressed this afternoon by some hon. gentlemen. We are not favourable t.o militarism, but if we despise and hate militarism, this is a splendid opportunity to destroy it, or at least to weaken it, for essentially is this a war against militarism.
Then, Mr. Speaker, relegating to- the background all the events, reasons and causes leading up to the war, do you not think that the conduct of the war by 'Germany, on the one hand, and by the Allied nations, on the other, should clearly point out to us our path of duty? If the question as. to which nation is responsible for the commencement of the war was in doubt surely the manner in which the war, since its commencement has been conducted by the Allied nations on one hand and the Central powers on the other, can there be any doubt upon which side ,our military strength should be cast? Witness the death of Edith Cavell, the sinking of the Lusitania, the desolation ,of that part of France behind the battle lines, the immolation of its innocent and defenceless people, the attacks upon defenceless noncombatants; then place against that the splendid and generous attitude so often taken by Great Britain and France in their conduct towards the enemy, when, in many instances, they might well have displayed a different spirit. Witness, as one example, the conduct of the French priest at the Cathedral of Rheims, when German wounded soldiers were being taken from the cathedral and were about to be attacked by French soldiers. This venerable priest stood upon the steps and raising both hands, he cried: " Stop soldiers, remember the ancient name and chivalry af France." As a writer of that incident states, hearts throughout the world throbbed upon reading of the incident, and eyes were wet with tears that never saw the Cathedral of Rheims. No matter how assured one felt about the strength and justice of our position in entering the war, who can but realize the contrast in the manner in which the waT has been conducted by the principal belligerents of each side. Is it not clear that our duty is to vigorously carry on.
I must apologize for my lengthy remarks upon this phase of our relation to the

world's great issue. I know that every member of this House is as much aware of its importance and as well informed upon it as I am. But, after all, everything is involved in it. It has often been said- and it will bear reiteration. With this clearly in view our duties and our obligations in the premises will be so much the clearer. If we believe the issue is serious, and it is, if civilization and human rights are in jeopardy, and they are, if our country and its future is in danger, and it is, then our course from the beginning was and is now well chartered and well marked.
What is the purpose and scope of the Bill which is now before the House? Purely as a piece of legislation does it in principle introduce anything which has not been a part of our statute law since Confederation.
I can understand how there might be a difference of opinion as to when the Act should be put into force, but surely, in principle, it is legislation that any country at war or even at peace might well have incorporated in its statute law.
What is our law at the present time in respect to military service? All men between the ages of 18 and 60 are liable to service within or without the Dominion whenever it is deemed advisable to call them up by reason of war or invasion; that is practically the reading of the statute. We entered this war of our own volition, a free people, by and through the Parliament of a free country. We believed that the issues involved were of the first importance, and that we were liable to ' attack and invasion by the enemy; there can be no question about that. Now, in principle, is the Bill out of harmony with the obligations which we assumed when we decided to enter the war? In all the circumstances, is not this measure one which wisdom dictates? Apart from our immediate needs, might it not be the part of wisdom to enact this legislation for our future protection and our future guidance? The Bill in my judgment is only amendatory of the Militia Act. Its purpose is simply to modify the Act so as to make it effective, if needs be, to meet the necessities or exigencies of the present or some future time. It means nothing more and nothing less. I cannot bring myself to believe that we are contending about a piece of proposed legislation which in itself presents a new principle to this Parliament or to this country. The principle is already upon our statute books, and has been there for 50 years without occasioning any adverse comment. Therefore, I modestly submit
that I cannot view the principle of the Bill as do some hon. gentlemen. But whether the principle should be applied now or in the near future is a matter concerning which we may fairly and honestly differ. Do the conditions justify the contemplated application of the Militia Act as proposed to be amended by this Bill? As I have already remarked, there is a clear division of opinion as to the respective merits of voluntary and obligatory military service. The exponents of each system differ in a fundamental principle, and, therefore, they are irreconcilable. But, after all, is that the real question involved in the Bill? Is not the question rather one as to our national necessities and as to whether a military necessity exists for more man power, rather than a question of which principle is correct, that of the voluntary system or that of the obligatory system? Do we need the man power? If so, how are we to get it? After all, is not that the question? Is the question of voluntary service as opposed to obligatory service the real question before us? If it is a question of necessity one would naturally ask: Has the necessity been established? Is the evidence before us as to the necessity sufficient to justify the passing of this Bill? I do not intend to make a survey of all the evidence available for or against the proposition, or for determining upon which side lies the preponderance of evidence. One man with one son at the front may say that no further men should be sent to the front. Another man, or a mother, who is, perhaps, in humbler circumstances and has four sons at the front, is of the opinion that we should send further troops to the battle line. Some say that our troops are amply supplied with reserves, another, perhaps a soldier who has fought and suffered, says that further reserves are urgently required. Another will say that the cause for which we contend is so sacred that the absolute maximum is alone sufficient to discharge our duty. Others say that we have gone as far as our financial resources will allow, and, of course, there is a limit in that direction. Some say that before we add to our military forces in Europe the United States should put into the field five or six million men. It is pointed out, in answer to this, that the more men the United States puts into the battle line and the sooner they do it the sooner the war will be over, and the less will be the sacrifice of Canadian life. One is confused by the variety and number of opinions. I do not hesitate to say that there is a vast section of public opinion

which feels that the Government's statement in this respect is not yet complete, and that a more exhaustive and clearer statement should he made as to our military necessities. In the circumstances, I think that all the facts should be placed before the people of this country in the clearest possible manner. It may be that hon. gentlemen around me are fully seized of all the facts. They may be satisfied that the necessity for future additions to our military strength has been established. But we must remember that outside of this Parliament there is a vast electorate, who are entitled to the fullest and clearest information on this subject.
I am influenced to the conclusion that the necessity has been established; because that is the view of the Government,' who are in possession of the actual facts; because it seems to be the judgment of our military advisers; because from private sources we occasionally receive evidences confirmatory of this fact; and lastly, because there seems to be a unanimous demand on the part of every belligerent nation of the world for more man-power and I cannot make myself believe that Canada is an exception. If further men are required to support our soldiers and to fight in France, then I say it is a compelling demand and one which no man can lightly cast aside. If it is true that more men are required, then in justice to those who fight and out of respect to the memory of those who have died we should feel obliged to bring forth the quota of men which is stated by the Government as being necessary. At least for myself I shall not take the responsibility of saying that further men are not required and thus oppose the Bill. Therefore it is that I intend to vote for the principle of the Bill and against anv delay in the second reading-that is I shall vote against the amendments. If a submission of the issue to the people should be deemed proper and desirable, I should choose the pathway of a general election in preference to a referendum; but in reference to that I do not express an opinion to-night. It will come before us on another and more fitting occasion for extended debate, and when it does I shall be very glad to give to the House my views upon it.
I have endeavoured to show that we are vitally interested in this war; that the necessity has been established for additions to our manpower strength; and that further troops should be despatched to Europe as reserves. 'In my mind the question naturally arises, is it necessary, in order to meet
fMr. A. K. Maclean.]
these necessities, that the provisions of the Bill when enacted, be put into effect? Just a few words upon that point. There can be no doubt, as has been said frequently by speakers on both sides of the House, that voluntary enlistment in Canada was highly creditable indeed. No credit whatever is due to the Government, or to the nation; the credit is due to the men who enlisted; it is to them alone that the credit is due. The glory is ours. The credit is due to the men who enlisted. Therefore do I say that I do not care to hear the statement, "We have, done splendidly; we have done nobly;" all the credit is due to the men who enlisted. It is true, of course, that the nation in other respects has played its part well.
The late Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes), addressed the House last week, and one would imagine that all the glory and credit of this war, so far as Canada is concerned, was his. All the mistakes and shortcomings in the administration of the war he, in the most generous fashion, passes along to his late colleagues, and they do not seem to resent the same very vigorously. The hon. gentleman seems to be under the obsession that as a soldier he is super-human, that he has all the characteristics of omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience. Putting everything together, I have no doubt that an his own mind he is quite sure that at the beginning of August, 1914, figuratively speaking and in the military sense, this part of the North American continent was without form and void, and darkness was upon the deep. And after that, I suppose he will claim, he brought foTth the light; and in imitation of High Example, he divided the night from the day; but I observe that immediately he made this division, he took all the light to himself and left all the rest of his fellow countrymen in darkness. Then, he created an army of .'S3,(MX) men; and I suppose that when he comes to write his autobiography he will say, in order to show his ability to do things contrary to the ways of God Almighty, that he made these men out of the ribs of women. The administrative career of my hon. friend, instead of being one which he
9 p.m. should have so persistently and so offensively boasted of, is one that was not at all creditable, but one that has brought forth much of the turmoil which we have to-day. He says his recruiting career was magnificent, and it was infallible; I say that he was an obstacle to recruiting and in no sense was he helpful to it. The ether day the hon. gentleman



JUlSlE 26, 1917

[Stage Direction]
thrust my name into his speech because I have refused his personal solicitations to debate here his personal grievances against the minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White). I told him the other day, while he was addressing the House, that he deliberately gave instructions that a young man living in my city was by his directions refused enlistment. I thought I would be able to read the letter which was sent by the Department of Militia here to headquarters at 'Halifax, directing that under no circumstances should this young man, who was 'desirous of fighting for his King and country, toe permitted to enlist. The hon. gentleman stated that this was done because, [DOT]as correspondent of a Nova Scotia newspaper, while in England, this young man had written letters to his paper criticising the conduct and management of Salisbury camp. Mr. Speaker, one could hardly imagine that it could happen anywhere in the British Empire, that a young, intelligent man anxious to fight-and not as an officer but as a private-was to be refused enlistment under the direction of the Minister of Militia.
The most bitter and unrelenting newspaper criticism against the war administration in England has come from Lord North-cliffe who was the other day honoured with a very high appointment to the United States. We also remember that in the early days of the war, a Montreal genteman, sir Herbert Holt, returned from England and very vigorously criticised the conduct of the war by the British 'authorities -and for a few days it caused a considerable stir in this country. I suppose it will yet transpire that, if Sir Herbert Holt has unfortunately no sons, some fool Liberal or Conservative Government will force hiim into the British peerage because he criticised the conduct of the war by the British war authorities. Here was a case where a young man was willing to seTve as a private and anxious to fight for his King and country and it was apparently the policy of the Minister of Militia to prevent him if he possibly could. Mir. Speaker, will you please pardon this diversion? I do not want to provoke any partisan discussion but I cannot help but protest when I hear the threatenings of that hon. gentleman hurled against the leader of the Opposition and other gentlemen on this side and against hon. gentlemen opposite, looking for smiles here, plaudits there. I hate skim milk, masquerading as cream, man as superman, human weakness as infallibility, and when I hear it, I protest. I
do not say this with malice. Naturally, I am disposed to be generous and I quite appreciate the position of the late Minister of Militia. It is always sad, to look upon an exiled monarch, longing for his kingdom, crown and sceptre. He always thinks of right forever on the scaffold, wrong forever on the throne. Yes, that administrative record did not help recruiting, and I want ho say to hon. gentlemen opposite that it makes it very difficult for many hon. gentlemen on this side of the House to take the position which they do by reason of the many just criticisms made by citizens of this country in respect of that record. That administrative record has planted the -seed of distrust in the minds of our people, and has militated against recruiting. It makes it difficult for the public to accept with favour and confidence the proposals of the Bill and offers a justification for the suggestion that there should be a further trial of voluntary enlistment after the Bill becomes law and before it is enforced.
I am of the opinion that in any event it should not be put into immediate operation. I do not make this statement casually or perfunctorily. I say it earnestly and sincerely. I would make the statement if I were before my constituents tomorrow and I would make it as a matter of policy. I am of the belief that a further campaign of education is necessary and desirable in this country to make clear to our people our military necessities and the purposes of the war. It took the best of our countrymen some time to catch the true vision of the real significance of the war. Some may have been slower than others. Let us not be too critical, but let us be fair and generous in assigning causes. Should a further appeal be made to our people, I believe that our young men who have so nobly responded in the past- will make a further and sufficient response if given another opportunity for voluntary enlistment under the inspiration of the sincere and united efforts of all leaders of public opinion in this country. Having put our hands to the plough, I cannot make myself believe that the young manhood of this country now want to look back. I believe that they would rather prefer seeing a magnificent beginning end in a blaze of glory. At any rate, is it not worth a trial? It will be regrettable if resort has to be made to the present Bill to secure the relatively small number who are needed if a united and sincere effort on the part of our leaders of all shades of public opinion in this country would
[Stage Direction]
bring forth the desired number of men. , If that fails and our needs still continue, then our path is made all the clearer. If we could but realize, all of us in this country, the gravity of our position, the imminent danger of the cause for which we are contending, if we could forget our political differences for the moment, and they are trifling after all as compared with the supreme question confronting us, we would regardless of party, race or creed, walk in spirit at least, hand in hand, across No Man's land into the enemy's trenches where fight our soldiers for Canada, and in defence of Canada, in order that we might live our lives in our accustomed way. If we could approach the question in that spirit I believe the suggestion which I have made, and which has been made by other hon. gentlemen, is a practicable one and one that should be tried. In that spirit I believe we could accomplish our ends and meet our immediate necessities. In that spirit let me say we should stand behind those who have fought for us and the memory of those who have consecrated with their blood the principles for which we contend.
Is it too late, Mr. Speaker, to make this appeal? My closing remarks this evening are that before the provisions of the Bill, after enactment, are put into effect, there should be a sincere and united effort on the part of everybody in every province in this country to secure the result which we all wish by a final appeal for voluntary enlistment. There has been considerable political manoeuvring on the part of both sides since the beginning of the war. It would be purposeless and useless to deny that. Political propaganda has been carried on by hon. gentlemen on this side of the House. If they indulged in any just criticism whatever, it would inevitably be termed political propaganda by hon. gentlemen opposite. Party politics may have been carried on by hon. gentlemen- on this side of the House, but, on the other hand, party politics has been certainly practised by hon. gentlemen opposite. Are they willing to abandon their practices in party politics in order to make it possible to carry out successfully the suggestion which I have made?
Mr. ROGERS:: Yes, yes.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: If my hon. friends opposite are willing to do so, I am sure that hon. gentlemen on this side of the House would be willing to join with them. With such an effort on our part, I cannot

make myself believe that we could not accomplish everything we desire by united effort; and in a very brief space of time, without putting into force the provisions of the Bill after it becomes law.


Robert Rogers: Hear, hear.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It would be a splendid thing, if, even at this late period of the war, we could approximate that period in our political history described by the English poet when he put into the mouth of the Roman minstrel who, when singing about the heroic past of his country, mournfully referred to the time
When none were for the party, and all were for the State.
That is the attitude which I think should characterize hon. gentlemen on both sides of this House, and if that were possible, I believe the suggestion which has been made by several hon. gentlemen already could be carried out, that our military necessities could yet be accomplished, without the enforcement of the Bill, by further but brief efforts to secure enlistment voluntarily.


Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (South Oxford) :: Mr. Speaker, it is with some reluctance that I rise to speak after listening to the eloquent address just delivered by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean). I must also -admit that as -the days have been passing I have become more impatient at the delay, possibly without very good reason in view of the address that we heard this afternoon by the hon. member from Red Deer (Mr. Clark), from which I can quite understand that a public discussion of the question at issue and the Bill now before the House might possibly have a good effect throughout Canada. The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat has told us that he thought a further campaign of education throughout Canada necessary. If that is the case, and it is possible that it may be so, then perhaps a discussion such as is taking place here in this Chamber will accomplish that better and more effectually than it could be accomplished in any other way.
I feel, I have thought for some time, that the people of Canada have not been fully awake to the seriousness of the situation that confronts the people of the world at the present time. We are allied with the most progressive nations of the world in a world war. This war is our war, just as much as it is that of -any other country. I think that that ought to sink down into the

minds of every one. Do not think for one moment that we are fighting some one else's battles. We are fighting our own 'battles, we are fighting for a principle. There are two principles in conflict in this world at the present time; one is going to overcome the other, and that other is going to be blotted out of existence. We believe that we are in the right, and it is our duty, holding that belief, to do everything possible to see that victory rests on the banners of the Allies. I may be pardoned if, in order to make my own position clear, I make reference to some remarks which I made in the House in the war session of 1914. In moving the address in reply to the speech from the Throne, I said:-
Dark and threatening clouds have been visible on the horizon for several years. These have at last burst forth like a tornado, and threaten the whole world with the most terrific and devastating war the world has ever seen. The greatest disaster of recorded time is at hand; many millions of men are now engaged in one of the most desperate and fearful struggles the mind of man can conceive of.
I also said:-
The Government are to' be commended for their promptness in immediately taking action to forward troops and munitions of war, without waiting for Parliament to assemble, with the certain assurance that the sentiment of the people of Canada and of Parliament would endorse and sustain such action.
And further on:-
The war may be a long and bitter one; the loss of life is sure to be enormous; suffering and want may come to many who are dependent on those who go to the front, or who may fall in battle. It is therefore the duty of the people of Canada and the Government of Canada to make provision for the alleviation of such suffering and want. Would not the tribute we would be called upon to pay be most beggarly when compared with the sacrifice, the tribute of life-blood paid by our country's defenders? There is no sacrifice the occasion demands that the people of Canada are not prepared to make. Let our response to the needs of the Empire be immediate and sufficient.
Those were the sentiments that I held at that time. I may say, also, in connection with that matter, that in the war session of August, 1914, we had no mandate from the people for the action that we took upon that occasion, yet not a dissenting voice was heard throughout Canada with regard to our action. I believe that the contention that is advanced at this time that we do not hold a mandate to enforce an Act that has been on the statute books of this country since Confederation is not well founded. I believe that we hold as much of a mandate
171	/
to-day and more than when we took steps to enter into this war. Nearly three years have passed since that time. We now look upon these questions from a different point of view. I believe that any man who would have suggested then that we would, at the end of three years, be still engaged in this desperate conflict, and that the issue would be still undecided, would have been laughed at. When Lord Kitchener, who was asked by the British Government to take charge of the military operations of Great Britain, accepted office he did so on the understanding that if, at the end of three years, the war was not decided some one else would take the office he occupied. I believe he had a clear vision as to the conditions confronting the people of Great Britain, confronting the people of the whole world.
When you realize that the enemy entered, after careful and deliberate preparation, upon the campaign which is now being waged, covering a period of forty or fifty years, and that they took every possible precaution to make as effective as they possibly could the machinery by which they hoped to subdue the world and make themselves its masters, you can rest assured that the other nations, who had not made such preparation, were very badly handicapped indeed. When we recall the events that have taken place since this war began, it seems almost miraculous that the enemy did not succeed in the early months of the war. There are three outstanding features in connection with that war which, to my mind, have made it impossible for the enemy to succeed. The first was the heroic stand taken by the little army of Belgium, when the enemy invaded that country. They held them up for several weeks; they disarranged their plans so much that what was termed by the German Emperor "the contemptible little army of Great Britain" was transported over the Channel to France, and met the invader when they came to Belgium. They put up such a fight as was never fought before on the retreat from Mons, and they enabled the French generals to mature their plans to mobilize the army, so that when the Germans got within sight of the walls of Paris, General Joffre's army was able to hurl the invader back. To my mind these are two of the things that saved the- situation. The third great factor, I believe, is the British Navy. The navy of Great Britain has done a work during this war which we do not fully appreciate. They have made it possible for the people of Canada, and the people of the whole world, to carry on business in such a way that they



feel very little of the effects of the war. As a matter of fact, did hon. gentlemen ever know, during the whole history of Canada, when we enjoyed greater prosperity than is enjoyed at the present, largely owing to the fact that our commerce is uninterrupted? Prices and wages are high. True, the cost of living is high, hut there is abundance of work for everybody. These are some of the things that we should not lose~ sight of. One of the 'principal causes of the great prosperity that we are enjoying was first the establishment of munition manufactories in this country. The enormous sums of money that have been expended here by the British' Government have had a tremendous effect on the prosperity of the country.' These are a few of the things that have -enabled us to go on and do business in a way, that I am afraid, has led a great many people to lose sight of the ultimate goal we have in view. In the early days of the *struggle, when that army of Germany was smashing through Belgium, when they were invading France, you know how eagerly we looked for the morning papers

yes, during *our sleeping hours- we could scarcely let pass from- our minds the menace that was then marching on at the heart of France, *and we felt that, if they conquered France, it would be a long uphill struggle, if we -ever were able to eubdue the enemy. We watched events carefully, and when we found that the Prussians- were stopped, and that, as month after month passed, we had strong hopes that the enemy would be repelled as soon as we could get supplies of munitions and reinforcements forwarded to the front.
The marvel of the whole world is the manner in which Great Britain has mobilized her forces* and the way in which she has- carried on the manufacture of munitions, and has equipped her aTmy of 5,500,000 men, as compared with an army of 150,000 men when war -broke out. That was one of the greatest feats that has ever been accomplished by any nation in the history of the world. Canada did not hesitate. We entered upon- this- struggle at the very outset, and when a nervous tremor was felt throughout the length and breadth of this country as to what would happen should the enemy reach Paris, our men were coming forward by the- thousands and tens of thousands. Our Government agreed to send a first contingent of 20,000 men overseas, and, in-stead of sending 20,000, they sent 33,000. They could not hold
[Mr .Sutherland.!
the men back. They were coming so fast they could not equip and take care of them, and 33,000 men were sent over a very few weeks after the war broke out. The men still kept coming on by the thousands, faster than they could be equipped, taken care of, and trained. That is something tp be wondered at, in a peace loving country like Canada, which had no military men, and which was anxious to live in peace. During 1915 men were coming forward in large numbers. The war was becoming more serious, as time passed ou, and it was found the enemy were n.ot able to make any progress on the western front, but, in the meantime, other countries were being conquered and subdued-, and Germany today holds practically the whole of Poland. The Germans have over-run Rumania, Serbia, Albania, and a large -portion of France and Belgium, and there the enemy stands to-day, unconquered and unsubdued. We have -strong faith that they will be conquered ultimately, but let me say, Mr. Speaker, that it is only by a tremendous effort on the part of the people of the Allies that the enemy .will he subdued. The failure of Russia in the last few weeks has weakened the Allies tremendously. It has released the tremendous army which Germany had in the east, and has made it all the mpre difficult to drive them hack on the west.
Sir, there is a difference of opinion in this House, and there is a difference of opinion throughout the country, with regard to the measure that is now before this House. It is not identical with the Militia Act that was enacted in 1868, -but it is very similar. It is not so drastic, I believe it is a much more reasonable measure than the former Act.
I may say that I have been in favour of copipulsory service for some time, and, in order to make clear my views on that question, I may just refer to an address which I delivered at a recruiting meeting in Woodstock, on April 10, 1916, to which reference was made in several of .the Toronto papers at the time. The language I used upon that occasion was as follows:
All honor to the men who have already-gone to the front, many of whom will never come back, and when we read of the heavy casualties from time to time, we realize the growing need for more men in this great struggle.
Never before has the call been so clear and imperative. We have prided ourselves in the matter of recruiting. We have not, as yet, found the necessity for conscription here, hut I want to say that the State has claims upon us that some may think to he an infringement of rights.

I believe the time is coming if it has not already arrived, when there should he a judicious selection of men to fight the battles of the Empire.
I should be sorry to think that it should have to come, but it is quite impossible. There are strong arguments to justify it. When we find one man with perhaps a wife and five or six children, going to the front, and another man, single, and with no other ties holding him back, we begin to question the system in vogue.
I have had no reason to change my views since a year ago; in fact, I have become strengthened in my conviction. I believe that the system that has been in vogue in this country has, from a good many standpoints, not been the proper one. At the outset of this war, it would have been impossible to put into force any other system than the voluntary system,' but I do not believe it was the best system. The enforcement of the old Militia Act which has been on the statute books of this country for many years, would be a great injustice -at this time, after three years of war have passed, and after over 400,000 men have enlisted voluntarily. A judicial selection of men is the only proper course for Canada to pursue at the present time. It has been pointed out by hon. gentlemen opposite that the United States have adopted at the outset a compulsory military service. It is very easy for them to do so. They have had the advantage of what has been going on in other countries since the commencement of the war. The people of Canada did not hesitate; they adopted methods to suit conditions as they existed in this country at that time, and they have sometimes to readjust matters in order to meet changed conditions. When the Prime Minister was in the Old Country during the long adjournment of Parliament, he was certainly in a position to secure the most definite information as to the need for reinforcements at the front, and he must' have received that information, because almost immediately on his return to Canada, he announced that a measure of compulsory service was to be introduced. Why should he make that statement immediately on his arrival in this country? Because of the fact that recruiting in Canada had fallen off to such an extent that the wastage of war was not being met under the voluntary system, and that it was a question either of introducing a measure of compulsory service or of the divisions of our army in France and Belgium gradually dwindling away to nothing.
We have heard a good deal of criticism from hon. gentlemen opposite in regard to recruiting. I have been filled with admiration for the courage displayed by some
171*	'
hon. gentlemen opposite in taking a stand in opposition to those with whom they have been associated for many years. Party ties are strong, and it is not a very pleasant task to sever them even on such a question -as this, and it must have required a good deal of courage on their part to take the stand they did. This, however, is a time that tries men, when the very best that is in them must come to the surface, when their consciences must be their guide. Therefore, I give those gentlemen credit for being actuated by high motives. Some hon. gentlemen opposite do not agree with the leader of the Opposition who has taken a very firm stand in opposition to this measure, and who has moved an amendment that a referendum should be submitr ted to the people of Canada in order to find out their views on the matter. He has received strong support from some of the leading men in the Liberal party in his position. The hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) the other night took a very strong stand with regard to the question of a referendum, and other hon. gentlemen opposite have spoken along similar lines. It is quite evident, therefore, that in this House there are many hon. members who have very strong views in favour of compulsory service, and that there are other hon. members who have equally strong views in opposition to that measure. But why should compulsory service be necessary? As I said a moment ago, it is necessary because men have not been volunteering as readily as they are required, because the wastage of our army has not been met. Quite a number of hon. members who have spoken in this debate have placed before the House the figures showing what the several provinces have done in. the way of recruiting, and it appears that in one of the great provinces, of this Dominion, recruiting has not been such as we would like to have seen it; that it has not been anything like on a par with the recruiting that has taken place in other provinces. Had recruiting in that province been as successful as in the other provinces, there would be no necessity to-day for introducing a measure of compulsory military service.
I have followed with a good deal of interest the arguments advanced and the attempts made to justify the slowness of recruiting in Quebec. This is a time when we might as well say in this House what is in our minds as say it outside, and hon. gentlemen opposite, whether they agree with me on other matters or not, I am sure, will

doubly their cause, even more than it is the cause of those of English birth, in view of the position of their motherland; and I have always said that the man who forgets the land from which his ancestors come, whatever land that may be, is a a poor specimen of humanity. The attitude of the leader of the Opposition on the occasion to which I have referred did not help to allay the feeling that existed in the province of Quebec.
The criticisms levelled at the Government with regard to the lack of recruiting in Quebec have been demonstrated by what has transpired to be absolutely without foundation. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) has suggested that this Bill, after it passes, should not be put into effect until a further recruiting campaign is entered upon throughout Canada. This position, I believe, has no strong foundation. In the past few months an attempt has been made in the province of Quebec under the man, General Lessai'd, who, according to the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. *Lemieux), could appeal to the people of that province more than any other. I was amazed, dumbfounded, yesterday when the Minister of Militia laid the statement before the House showing the actual results of that recruiting campaign all over the great province of Quebec. The result was 221 recruits; and it appears that even half of these were not recruited in the province of Quebec. It is quite evident that compulsion must be used, or we will have to desert the men at the front. That is the question, the only question, with which we are concerned. The measure, I believe, will be put through this House and it must be put into effect [DOT]and put into effect quickly. There has [DOT]been altogether too much delay already.' Time has been wasted, days and weeks [DOT]have been passed in this House, and we are not .making very rapid progress. Let us try to realize that men are doggedly fighting our battles at the front, men who have been in the ranks now for 10 p.m. upwards of two and a half years, some of them war-worn and weary and needing a respite which cannot be given them. I say it is a crying shame, it is one of the greatest outrages that has ever taken place in the history of Canada or of the world, if these men must be kept there, year after year, year after year, without opportunity to get away and recuperate.
I listened to the eloquent member for Rouville when he took exception to the state-[Mr Sutherland.]
ment made by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie). He said:
Let me tell my hon. friend from South Wellington that X have as much at stake In this war as he has. I am one of those who have given up an only son to fight the battle of liberty. At the age of 18 he left the university classroom to fight for his Iiing and country, hut he went with unfaltering steps to fight as a volunteer, not as conscript; the two things are quite different. Perhaps it is because I have French blood in my veins, hut I make quite a distinction between voluntarily offering to fight and fighting under compulsion. That is the essential difference between my hon. friend and myself, and it is quite a diiference, X am free to admit.
I congratulate the hon. member from Rouville on having a son with that spirit. If a man has a son who is of military age and physically fit, and that son has not the *spirit to offer his services to his country, he has good reason to feel ashamed of that son. I hope the hon. gentleman's son will Teturn to him safe and in good health after the war is over. But on the very day the hon. member was making his statement, I received a letter from one of my constituents enclosing two letters which he had received from his son, a boy-yes, a boy, for I tried to put his name on the woters' list last year and he was objected to by the friends of our .friends opposite because he was not old enough. This young man went over with the first contingent as a volunteer, and has been in the thick of the fight ever since. He has been through many engagements where his comrades have fallen around him. His own brother was with him, and fell at Vimy Ridge. The boy to whom I refer was wounded in the same engagement. He writes from a hospital in France, asking his friends if I could pot by some means get him leave of absence for three months. Just for three months. He felt that he was on the verge of a breakdown and could not stand the life much longe'r. Yet, is there any prospect of his getting that respite? Is there anybody..who would volunteer and take the place of that boy and let him off for three months after nearly three years of that life? Here is a case that should, touch the heart of any one. Let me say to the hon. member for Rouville who, I am sorry to say, is not in his seat, that I understand his son has not yet left the province of Quebec-I do not know whether I am rightly informed on that point or not. I am told that he is a member of the battalion that is being raised by Col. Blondin. If that is the case, I should think that the hon. member for Rouville would be one of the first men who would come forward

and advocate conscription, so that the regiment could be filled up and his boy get away to the front, rather than let him pine away here in the province of Quebec with no prospect of getting over for a long time.
I fear I am taking up too much time, but I wish to refer to remarks made by a ram-, ber of hon. gentlemen opposite who have signified their intention of voting for this Bill and against the amendment. It was rather amusing how some of them endeavoured to retain their standing in the party, and to make it appear that they were heartily in accord with their leader except on this measure.
They tried to put the whole blame for the failure of recruiting ,on the shoulders of the Government, Recruiting in Canada has been a tremendous success and is due to the men themselvesi as the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) has said. As far as the county of Oxford is concerned, which I know better than any other part of 'Canada, no more pressure was exercised by the Government there than in Queoec or any other part of Canada; it was absolutely owing to the action of the men themselves and the efforts of the people in the county that recruiting became so successful there. There was a time when the Government found a great deal of difficulty in equipping and training the men, they were coming in so swiftly. But, after a few months, a change came over the country. There were whisperings and insinuations. Finally they became louder and louder. Statements were made in the House accusing the Government of all kinds of iniquities and a lack of business methods in connection with the administration of the war. They were not charges, because it was denied afterwards by. the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Car-veEl) when the matter came up that any charges had been made. I am referring now to what were known as the Kyte charges. The people were right on edge, as it were. Statements were made in such a manner as to lead one to suppose' that they were based upon substantial facts. The same thing applied to the purchase of submarines on the Pacific c.oast immediately after the war was declared and to the purchase of the boots that were furnished to the soldiers. Hon. gentlemen opposite did everything in their power to discredit the Government, and to create a suspicion in the minds of the people that the Government were not acting as they should have acted.
I want to point out in contrast to that the attitude of the Prime Minister and the
Government. When the first of these statements were made, he immediately took steps to appoint a commissioner to investigate any charges of mismanagement that were made by any one and the commissioner appointed for the purpose went throughput Canada in order to facilitate inquiry into statements of this kind, with the result of which investigation hon. gentlemen are all familiar. You remember, when Camp Borden was opened up, all the Liberal press and the leaders of the Liberal party blamed the Government for the laying out of that camp and talked about the injustice that was being done to the men in sending them to that camp. This was just at the time that recruiting was beginning to fall off. I have not tlhe slightest doubt that the Liberal party and press are in no small measure responsible for the falling off in recruiting at that time.
I want to say a word in regard to the danger to Canada. The leader of the Opposition referring to the Prime Minister in his speech in this House on the 18th June stated:
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 insolence, cruelties, and barbarities.
He was opposed to going outside of Canada to fight the battles of Canada when he made that statement. On December 8, 1916, the right hon. gentleman made a speech in the city of Quebec, and I take from the Toronto Globe a report of that speech. I shall just quote a part of it. He said that:-
There was not a country in the world which would not be affected to the roots of its being if Germany won. If she won it would be the fall of Great Britain, of France, of Russia, and of Italy, and there would remain only Germany and the United States. The anxiety shown by President Wilson had shown how he realized the peril.
Sir Wilfrid then read extracts from a plan prepared for the German General Staff and published before the war, showing that it was their intention to add two more provinces to those taken from France. He could prove that the German idea was the imposition of Deutschtum, or German domination, on the world, and he added that the war had shown how near they had come to succeeding. If it was possible for merchant submarines to enter

much prefer that the two parties should come together, settle their differences, and carry this war to a successful issue, rather than have the whole country engaged in the turmoil which would accompany an election. I desire to say further, Mr. Speaker, as far as the referendum is concerned, that it is unfair, unjust, and there is not one strong argument that can be advanced in favour of such a proposition. The 'very fact that you would find aligned against those in favour of selective conscription men who, if they were doing their duty, would be in the ranks, is the strongest argument why they should not have an opportunity to place themselves on record. We are at war, and we are experiencing- a different condition from anything that has heretofore confronted the people of Canada. I want to say that this state is made up of different individuals who are subject to the laws of the state. The individual who enjoys the advantages of Government in this country and the protection of the state has to discharge his duties to that state when the very life and existence of that state is in the balance. The demands of the state are supreme to all other demands, and when the state requires men to fight in its defence, then, Sir, it is not a matter of submitting a referendum to the people, but a matter of enforcing the military laws of the country and making those men do tEeir duty. I want to say further, Mr. Speaker, that the men at the front do not want a referendum, and I believe those men at the front would scorn to put their mark on the ballot in a cause such as1 this. I say further that, to my mind, this is a plea that is absolutely unworthy of the right hon. gentleman who has moved the amendment to the Bill now before the House.
Let me ask the right hon. leader of the Opposition, the mover of the amendment, to submit a referendum to the people of Canada, to say whether compulsion should be used tc secure men to support those on the battle line, now that the volunteer system fails to do so. What other course is left, unless we abandon these men and see our gallant army, made up of the Canadian divisions, dwindle and pass away?
Let him have his way. Send out your secret ballot. Place it in the hands of the people of Canada. Ask them to decide the question. What would the response be? I can see in my mind's eye how readily some would respond, how eagerly the pacifist who made the war possible would sign, the coward, the slacker, the man too proud to fight would be first at the poll to mark the [Mr Sutherland.]
ballot. Now the alien enemy within our gates-and they are many-how they would applaud the hon. gentlemen for the privilege of his secret ballot, giving them an opportunity to even up with the Canadians on the battle line; every one of them would be out to mark his ballot. But still the fight goes on. The ranks of the men on the battle line are growing thinner, and ever thinner. These grim, silent, war weary veterans, many of whom have borne the brunt of the brutal conflict for upwards of two years are doggedly holding on, ever confident that reinforcements from their home land will soon be at hand. And now, when the limit of their endurance has been almost reached, the right hon. gentleman approaches them with his referendum ballot, explains to them its object and the reason for adopting it and asks them to say whether they would favour compulsion being used to secure support for them, or whether they should be left to their fate, and the cause for which they have been contending during the past three years, and which they have ever had in mind as the goal of their ambition, should be given up. These men, ivho have endured trials and agonies indescribable, who gave up friends, homes and loved ones that we might continue to enjoy the benefits and liberties our heroic ancestors had acquired for ns at a great cost of blood and sacrifice; these men who have done their full duty and have received the congratulations and plaudits of their allied comrades on their gallant conduct whether on the advance or when standing firm under the concentrated auack of the hordes of the enemy with his murderous gasses, knowing that many thousands of their comrades are sleeping their last sleep beneath the soil of a foreign land, knowing that thousands of their comrades have returned to Canada, whose maimed and broken bodies are evidence of their unfitness for further service, but who would give the people of Canada the true .story of the pressing need for men, confident that assistance will be speedily forthcoming as soon as the people of Canada realize the pressing need.
This is the condition at the front, when the right hon. gentleman arrives with his secret ballot for them to mark in the quiet and privacy of their trenches ,and dug-outs, and asks them to say whether they would be kind enough to say whether they would be in. favour of compulsion being used to secure men to support them; to force Canadians from their comfortable homes, from their families and children and their luxuries to relieve them of some of the heavy

task which they bad voluntarily assumed as a duty; to give them a respite for ever so short a time. These proud spirited men, with honour .as their motto emblazoned on their shield, are to be asked to take a chance on a throw of loaded dice with the pacifist, the conscientious objector, the coward, the slacker and the alien enemy within our gates, who have adopted as their shield a secret ballot. What reception would the right hon. gentleman receive? What would be the response of these grim proud spirited heroes? Every man of them would fling the insult back in your teeth and consign you and your cowardly ballot to a warmer place than the gouth of France, and well might they say, if that is the spirit of those left in Canada, which name they had placed high on the scroll of fame by their gallant deeds and sacrifices, if this is the code of honour left in Canada we will fight as long as human endurance will hold out and go down to our graves with those gallant comrades who have preceded us, facing the foe with the keenest, the bitterest wound in their broken heai'ts, inflicted not by the enemy but by those whom they have left at home, and for whom they have been fighting during these weary months.


Mr. JACQUES BUREAU (Three Rivers and St. Maurice):: I cannot give a silent vote on this matter, because I consider it to be the most important question ever submitted to the Canadian people. It affects two of the greatest gifts of the citizen, his life and his liberty. In considering this measure, one who is a true democrat and a true Canadian deserving the support of his fellow citizens, must use his sober judgment, and analyse carefully the consequences of the measure, scrutinize thoroughly the motives that inspired it, search with care, and ascertain the sentiments and opinions of those he represents. We have a right, and it is our duty, to express our opinions and our sentiments on this matter. Whatever opinions may be expressed or whatever threats may be made, we are willing to go before the country on the .stand we are taking, and to face all fair-minded men.
I desire to say at the outset that what we seek is light on the subject, not abuse. What we want is unity and confidence in one another, not disunion and distrust. No one is more in sympathy with the Allies or more desires the winning of this war than we Canadians of French origin in Quebec, because living in a country where we are
in the minority, where we have had to suffer and are now suffering in silence in order to avoid struggle and strife, and where pledges and treaties are our only safeguards, we are in close sympathy with those European nations, such as Belgium, Serbia and the other smaller Balkan states which occupy a similar position to ours in Canada, although not as minorities, yet as weaker powers. Our respect for Great Britain for having entered into an equitable contract with us at the time of the Quebec Act is well known, and my hon. friend (Mr. Sutherland) has confirmed the statement made in this House by the hon. member for Rouville (Mr, Lemieux), namely, that if it had not been for the senior Canadians, whom some hon. members are pleased to call French Canadians, the British flag-would not be floating on this building today, and we would not be discussing the question of conscription. The hon. member for South Oxford, after doing us the compliment of putting us in an inferior position to the Indians of this country, showed that we had some heart anyway. He quoted statements to show that in 1774 propositions were made to Lower Canada to join the American Republic. History shows that Canada was given the opportunity of becoming an independent republic; but, according to the element which the hon. member represents, we are not capable of noble sentiments and motives, therefore he endeavours to deprecate our act of loyalty on the ground that it was inspired by egotism; that, after thinking the matter over, we decided that we would not be as free; that we would not have as much liberty to practice our religion, to speak our language and to use our laws, under American rule (or as a republic, which would be ridiculous), as under a treaty with Great Britain. That shows that we understood what the contract was, and we endeavoured, in consideration of fair play on the part of Great Britain in carrying out her share of it, to show that we were going to carry out our share, without any regret.
Our sympathies for France, whence our ancestors came were great. I remember in 1871, at the time of the Franco-Prussian war the sorrow that was displayed in Canada by the senior Canadians when Germany defeated France. Others alongside of us laughed and rejoiced; we bore our grief in silence. I have shown what feelings of gratitude and sympathy we have for the two nations which are now fighting for the liberty of the world. I make the statement because by word of mouth and

by expressions in certain newspapers we have been, taxed with being pro-Germans. Of course, the truth is that we have never had any sympathy for Germany, which is the natural enemy of France, and that our sentiments of distrust and antipathy for the Germans were not horn yesterday. It is, therefore, most unjustifiable to endeavour to classify us as some hon. gentlemen opposite have done. I speak here to-night as a Canadian; I would rather not use the word " French Canadian," or the word " English Canadian;" I would use the word " Canadian." But if I were to endeavour to make a distinction between the races which compose Canada I would speak of us as the senior Canadians, as we are, and who, I claim, are the only true, genuine Canadians, and of the junior Canadians, who are in the majority at the present time.
Listening to the speeches that have been delivered so far by hon. gentlemen opposite, one would be inclined to think that we are opposed to the winning of this war by the Allied nations. Hon. gentlemen opposite tell us that the war must be .won. Certainly, the war must be won. That is not the question before the House. We are all agreed in regard to that question. In the short session of 1914 not a voice was raised in opposition to the proposals of the Government; we said to the Government: We give you carte blanche; go on and win this war. The question now before this House is: Are we to have conscription without first consulting the people? Are we to legislate on matters affecting so vitally all the people of this country without having their consent? For my part, I do not purpose tearing another piece out of the constitution. I object to the Bill, and I am in favour of a referendum, because I believe that if we are in a democratic country we ought not to legislate as to the life or liberty of the subject unless we have special authority by statute, and in that case we must live within the four corners of that statute, or unless we have a special mandate from the people.
The legal aspect of the question has been discussed, and I believe it has been shown beyond a doubt that the clause upon which we now rely to impose conscription on this country, or to send troops overseas never meant what hon. gentlemen opposite want it to mean to-day. The hon. member for Kamour.aska (Mr. E. Lapointe) the other day made an irrefutable argument to show what the meaning of the existing law is. It is well known that when you are going to give the true interpretation of a statute,

you do not give it the interpretation that will suit your purpose for the time being, but the meaning that he who made the law wanted to convey. To do this you must go back and follow from its inception the legislation, seeing what the intent has been ever since such legislation was enacted, and putting all those facts together with the various objections and the different statements made by the parties interested in the measure, you can come to a correct interpretation. I had expected the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen) to answer the argument of my hon. friend from Kamouraska.
Knowing the ingenuity and astuteness of the Solicitor General, I was surprised at the poor answer he made. My hon. friend from Kamouraska had cited all the laws from 1808 to 1868 to show that "without" in the phrase "within or without Canada," referring to the calling out of militia in the case of emergency, meant contiguous territory. To that, the first answer of the Solicitor General was that nobody had given this interpretation to the law so far, and he said that the speech of the hon. member for Kamouraska "was made for distribution in the province of Quebec." Let me tell my hon. friend that the people of Quebec do not need to have the speech of the hon. member for Kamouraska distributed among them to know what the clause means. It 'has been discussed and re-discussed and overdiscussed ever since 1911. You know, Mr. Speaker, all the discussions that have been held on this clause, and all the ink that has been spilled over it.
The second answer of the Solicitor General was that the interpretation "expressing doubt about our right to send troops overseas" is shared by no one except political agitators. 1 am not going to quote, but it will be remembered that on the 1st of August, 1914-I think the extract will be found in the Hansard report of the speech of my right hon. leader the other day-a despatch was sent by the Governor General to the Imperial authorities stating that his Government was willing to help in case of war, which then seemed to be imminent, and the question was mooted whether under section 69 the Government had authority to send troops overseas. Now, at that time the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice were in office. They had at their service to interpret the statutes a man of unquestioned authority and of the highest qualifications, a man through whose hands this particular law had passed in 1904 when it was presented to the House, a man who has pub-

lished a book on Constitutional Cases-the Deputy Minister of Justice, Mr. E. L. New-combe. I think he is a sufficiently high legal authority, and I say that the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice were either derelict in their duty in not looking up the law and getting sufficient information about it, or else they came to the conclusion that they had absolutely no authority to send troops abroad under this Militia Act.
On the 5th of August, 1914, another message was sent to the Imperial authorities by the Governor General, but not from himself; he always states " my advisors." Who were his advisors? One of them was my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and he has had a wide experience in legislation. The Governor General states in that communication that his advisors had some doubts. And what did they ask? Did they call upon the Militia Act? No, they asked His Majesty the King to put the Canadian Force under sections 175 and 176 of the British Army Act. Is that in conformity with the statement of the Solicitor General that the interpretation given to the clause by the hon. member _ for Kamouraska could only have been given by a political agitatoT? Personally, I am well content to be in company with such political agitators as His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught.
Then the Solicitor General gave his third answer. The hon. member for Kamouraska had quoted the words of the Minister of Militia of 1904 and of the ex-Minister *of Militia of the present Cabinet. The Solicitor General, following his usual practice of meeting argument by argument and reason by reason, said: "Who have you for authority? A doctor and an editor." Since when, Mr. Speaker, has Canada or the Parliament of Canada delegated to the gentlemen of the legal profession the exclusive right to present Bills in this House, to discuss and explain them and have them adopted? Since when has the legal profession had the monopoly of knowing what they want to express. The Solicitor General quoted Sir Charles Fitzpatrick as saying that the troops could be sent to India, and then he discarded the explanation given by the Minister of Militia. If my hon friend will look at the Hansard of 1904, vol. 4, p. 6471, he will see that Sir Charles Fitzpatrick said:
When drafting' a law I want to know what the party who introduced the Bill has in his mind. My functions are limited to giving effect to the intentions of the person introducing the Bill.
Therefore I conclude that the higher authority as between the Minister of Justice and the head of a department introducing a Bill, is the head of the department who knows exactly what he wants, and simply sends his Bill to the Minister of Justice to have it put in proper legal form. That is one of the reasons why I claim that the sudden change in the interpretation of the law which has taken place recently is only to suit the convenience of hon. gentlemen opposite, who know that this measure is unpopular and want to say:
" You did this yourselves; you are responsible for it."
There is another reason why I object to the Bill. I have said before, and I cannot repeat it too often, that we in this Parliament when dealing with the life and liberty of the subject should at least be the representatives of those subjects. When the extension of Parliament was granted it was never contemplated that such a radical change as this would be brought about in our domestic life. We are to-day in session under and by virtue of the Imperial Act. We are practically an Imperial Parliament, and the Imperial Parliament, having no right to deal with the life and liberty of the Canadian subject, cannot, I maintain, delegate that right to the Parliament of Canada. If we passed this Act we vould not only be setting a bad precedent, but doing something that was most undemocratic and most unconstitutional.
My third reason for. opposing the Bill- and this reason was adduced when the British Conscription Bill was introduced at Westminster-is that a law of this kind should not be passed without the general consent of the people, or at least the Government should fiave the confidence f)i the people; I claim that both are lacking in this case. The ex-Minister of Militia has stated that the members of the Cabinet had no confidence in one another. In a speech at Lindsay he said that they were poking their noses into each other's departments and watching each other, and that when he arrived at New York he was told to he careful as he was gfling to be murdered politically for standing so loyally behind the leader of the Government, and that the Finance Minister was after his scalp. Is that a properly constituted Cabinet? Are you going to tell me that the people of this country will have confidence in a Cabinet the member^ of which have no confidence in one another? I say; No. I will not tolerate any such
. COMMONS
agglomeration legislating upon the life and liberty of the subject.
There is another reason for my opposition. It may not appeal to my friends on the other side, it may not appeal to the junior Canadians; but it appeals to us the senior Canadians, and it appeals to me. We are not opposing this Bill for the purpose of creating delay, nor for political reasons; we are fighting for the preservation of our ideals, and one of those ideals is the sacredness of pledges, or, to use the words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) "plighted faith." We have had promises made. All over the province of Quebec we have been told, and repeatedly told, that conscription would not be put in force. There is no emergency that I can see that has happened since to call for conscription without first asking those men to whom we have promised that conscription would never be put in force to say whether or not they have changed their minds as the Government has changed its mjnd since the promise was made. We are interested in seeing that pledges and treaties are respected, because we are the senior Canadians and the minority; but now that the majority of the stock of the concern seems to have got into the hands of the juniors knowing their own views on these matters, we will not tolerate, if we can help it, that treaties and pledges in Canada shall be treated as the Prussians have treated theirs. When they call us "pro-Germans", and "Prussians," it makes me smile. If we are to judge men by their deeds, the inclination of these hon. gentlemen is toward Prussianism rather that toward democracy and liberty.
This is not a military question only, it is also a social and economic question. A statement has been made in this House, and not contradicted so far, that if we send another hundred thousand men across the seas we cannot produce enough to help the Allies and prevent them from suffering from famine. I read in the Free Press only the other day an account of a meeting held in Ottawa, taken part in by farmers and by members of the Board of Trade. At that meeting, a gentlemen named Black, if I remember his name correctly, a Government official, made the statement that this year's wheat crop would be between 20000,000 and 30,000,000 bushels short. A farmpr who spoke made the statement that what they wanted was help, otherwise they coifld not cultivate their farms. Lord Rhondda has made the same appeal- fMr. Bureau.!	.


An hon. MEMBER:: And Lord Shaughnessy.


Jacques Bureau: Yes, Lord Shaughnessy the same. And in the Montreal Star of to-night I find a despatch from London, dated to-day, containing this statement made to the Associated Press by right hon. R. E. Prothero, Minister of Agriculture:
"The outcome of the war," said Mr. Prothero, "may ultimately hang- on the question of food supplies, and the American farmer is allotted the essential part to play in the great struggle for freedom."
Mr. Prothero then discussed the value of cooperation of the American farmers and continued :
There is risk that the shortage of food may strain endurance to the breaking point There is as yet no indication that we even have distantly approached that point, but endurance might snap if. for instance, the milk supply failed through inability to feed the dairy herd, because then the lives of little children would be threatened. Thus, there is a greater question involved in food supply than the loss of ordinary comforts of life, or even reduction in its accustomed necessities.
"For this reason it is a welcome relief to us to know that the farmers of the United States are co-operating with the Allies, that they fully realize the essential part they play in this struggle for freedom, that they are bringing into their work the spirit of self-sacrifice and endurance and that they are determined to put out the last ounce of their strength to win the war on the ploughlands of the United States. Here and there, God speed the plough!"
That as not an appeal from this side of the House or from people who want to embarrass the Government, but from the Minister of Agriculture in the British ministry. The toon, member for Renville (Mr. Le-mieux) the other day read to the, House an advertisement published in a Chicago paper ait the instance of the Government, calling for 60,000 men to come to Canada to till the soil, .and offering these men the guarantees that if they would oome they should not be conscripted. Why should we now take the men who are coming from the United States, give our money to the Americans, and send our own men to the battlefield? I say, if you cannot fill the gaps with five divisions, make it four; if you cannot do it with four, make it three; but do not become guilty of murder, do not leave the man who has gone to the front to famish; do not let the soldiers die of hunger. I see the Minister of Labour (Mr. Crothers) smiling, hut I can tell him that nothing has been brought before the House to show that the taking of more men from the country will not impair our agricultural industry.
There is another phase of this subject, and it is with certain pain, or regret, that

I touch upon it. Reasons have been given why conscription was imposed; but the way the Leaves move generally indicates the way in which the wind blows. I find that the reasons so far given are an imputation upon the province in which I live. Although the subject is grave, the expressions of these gentlemen concerning it are evidently a vent for feelings that must have been pent up for a long time. The Solicitor General (Mir. Meighen) in the course of his speech the other day told us:	We of English-speaking Canada have the kindest feelings towards our French compatriots. Thinking of the Toronto Orange Sentinel, of the Toronto News, of the Kingston and Hamilton papers, I said to myself: These men are great verbal acrobats, because if the sentiments expressed by these papers towards the province of Quebec are kindly sentiments, I do not understand English.
It is said that voluntary enrolment lias been a failure. In presenting this Bill the Prime Minister said that in 1915 and 1916, delegations came to him and asked him to suspend or lessen recruiting.
The ex-Minister of Militia says that in March, 1916, he was not told to drop recruiting but he was told to go slow and let it rest awhile. Therefore, if voluntary recruiting has not been a success it was not due to the fault of any one except those who had put a damper on it. The exMinister of Militia says that the heads of the great industries were after the Prime Minister fearing that they would be short of labour. He, in. his ordinary gallant way, says: They came before me but I kicked them out; the Prime Minister did not have his back stiff enough to kick them out and so he gave in. He also says that they went after the hon. the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) and that he was afraid that Toronto would be up in arms. Yet these hon. gentlemen say that voluntary enlistment has failed. If it has it is because they stopped it.
Now, I desire to say a word in regard to the operation of the system in the province of Quebec. My hon. friend from Rou-ville (Mr. Lemieux) made a statement the other night which was jeered at by our Conservative friends opposite who have spoken against recruiting in Quebec. He said that one of the faults of the Government was that they had not employed proper officers for recruiting in Quebec. I back up that statement. If they had sent to Toronto, or anywhere in Ontario, as-a recruiting officer, a French Canadian who could not speak a word of English, what would have been the response to his efforts?
They would not have tolerated him for a minute, they would have escorted him to , the train and said: Go and learn English and call again. In Quebec, the Solicitor General says, of course with kindly feelings always that the numbers of French recruiting officers were legion and that when he got the list, he thought it was the list of recruits that he had. If they were legion what have they done? The services of an officer whom I know and whom I have seen at work commanding camps at Three Rivers, having as' many as 10,000 or 15,000 men under him at a time^ a man who has had experience and who is well qualified, was -at their disposal, I refer to Colonel Pelletier wdio-m I saw in active service during the Northwest rebellion. He was wounded on the field, he came back, was put in command of the Quebec district and went from there to the South African war. They cannot say that this man had no experience. He was liked -by the men who came to the camp at Three Rivers, they had confidence in him and he liked them. Colonel Roy was an officer in much the same position. General Lessard was another officer of standing and when I hear the statement made that , he secured no recruits, my reply to that is, that he -did not start well, that he was not encouraged, that he started with Colonel Blondin who had been opposed to recruiting all his life, and the people were rather reluctant to think that he had changed his views on his way to Damascus. General Lessard started and the Government thought it might, be a success but they did not want it to toe a success in Quebec.
If a man is going to war, if he is going to give his life or shed his blood for any cause, he wants to go with a man that he trusts and in whom he has confidence. He wants to go with a man whose sympathy he knows he can command. If we are to judge by the expressions of feeling that we have had from a certain element, the French Canadian has no reason, no justification, to believe that he would get any sympathy from people outside of his own r-ace. I was astounded when I read in the papers that at a meeting in Queen's Park, which was mentioned by my hon-. friend from Russell (Mr. Murphy), a returned soldier made the statement that if the Government would conscript the foreigners the returned soldiers would fight the French Canadians. I do not object to that statement so much as I do to the manner in which it was received, what is worse, because it expresses a feeling which ought not to he tolerated in this

country, was the ovation that took place amongst the auditors when that statement was made. That feeling is not confined to Toronto, it has gone farther. It was published in. the press broadcast that wounded soldiers had been insulted in the streets of the city of Quebec and that soldiers' trains had been stoned at Fraserville and Riviere du Loup. We asked for an investigation and the report has been deposited on the table of the House. Let me read from the report of the gentlemen who were appointed by the Government to investigate the incident in order to show the House whether any case has been made out against voluntary recruiting in Quebec. In clause 10 of the report No. 172, it is stated that:
Owing to the strong feeling of the majority of the soldiers that the province of Quebec has not as yet done her full duty In sending troops over, they express their views to the citizens in strong terms whenever occasion offers and this had an apparent effect on the volunteer services in these localities.
It. is useless to say, Sir, that these accusations were not founded on fact that the report of the commission showed that there was no ground for them and further that in certain instances the soldiers had attacked the civilians and it was only in retaliation that they received anything from them. Were these people satisfied to have these slurs cast upon the French Canadians within the borders of Canada? No, Sir. Just to show the animus, and to show the position that we are in, I .propose to put a cablegram before the House. The report of this military commission is dated the 18th day of May. On the 19th June a cable was sent from London addressed to the hon. member for Rouville. It reads as follows:
Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux,
Ottawa.
Major from British Columbia pretends to a pressman that his regiment was attacked and insulted passing through Quebec province. Can you send me report of enquiry committee?
(Sgd) Pelletier.
Mr. Pelletier is the representative of the province of Quebec in London. As my hon. friend from Rouville stated in this House, the American pTess is being poisoned. Now somebody is trying to poison the mind of the English people on the other side of the ocean knowing that the statements made are untrue, knowing that an investigation by the military authorities has been held and a report made to the contrary, and yet a month after that report is made this despatch is sent in order to ascertain the truth of statements made by men who are across the ocean, officers of the Canadian army.


Mr. LAFORTUNE:: Who sends that message?


Jacques Bureau: Mr. Pelletier, the Commissioner of the province of Quebec in London. Ho they want to stop in England? No, Sir: they go further; they cross the channel and go right to the trenches. The other day I read in a newspaper a letter from a young French Canadian from the province of Quebec, stating that even in the trenches practically the only thing they had to read was a paper which was circulated, a paper which was slurring and slandering the French-Canadians. It is a Toronto paper, which has for its title Jack Canuck. That is the kind of literature they get in the trenches, and that is the kind of respect that is shown not only for the slacker, but for the man who has gone to the front to shed his blood.
Not only since the beginning of the war but for a long time before, we have been insulted; but we have borne our ills with patience. The element which is so active against us cannot realize the position. Let me tell them that the French Canadians did not come to this side of the ocean in palatial steel steamers. When the Frenchman came to America he did not proceed to the Windsor hotel, there to spread a map of Canada before him, pull out his cheque hook and decide where he was going to invest his thousands of dollars. He did not come either to seek wealth. His arms and his capital were courage and a strong heart. -The wealth he was seeking was peace and happiness. The twin screw steel p_alaee that he had was nothing -but a small bark, and when he fastened it to the shore of the, St. Lawrence, when he stepped on the shore, there to wrest and conquer from the forest and from the aborigines a piece of land on which he could live in peace and raise his family he was satisfied. What he wanted was to create a home for his descendants, to worship his God according to his creed, to speak his language, and to find happiness with his family by his fireside. This man cannot have the same mentality as the man who came to Canada twenty-five or thirty years ago. This man is rooted to the soil, and his only country in the world is the spot bought by his forefathers by the sweat of their brows, and paid for with their blood. We are proud of the French blood that flows in our veins, but you cannot call us French we are Canadians. The fortune of war went against ns one day; we had to change companions and to submit to a new regime. We did it, we accepted the new companions, to live in peace with them. At that time, Sir, the

partner senior was holding the majority of the stock, 70,000 against 3,000 when men of his blood called Lafayette and Rochambault came and made him a proposition to forego his allegiance and join the American republic; he said no. He was loyal, he knew that he had sworn allegiance to his new associates. Let those who doubt the loyalty of that man go down into the province of Quebec, on the national highway along the St. Lawrence, and there they will see that the French Canadians has in front of his house the witness of his pledge, they will -see on every farm the cross, standing there to remind the French Canadians that he cannot be a perjurer. to the British Crown- and he never will be.
To show the animus of a certain element, I need only refer to what occurred this afternoon. I was amazed at the answers made by the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Arthurs). My friend from Cape Breton asked him a question. The member for Parry Sound was making a statement that there were only a thousand French Canadians left at the front, that one regiment had been decimated, that only commissioned and non-commissioned officers were in England. Upon that my friend asked him a question something as follows : You made the statement that there were 5,000 or 6,000 French-Canadians; one regiment has been decimated, 1,000 are in the trenches, where are the others? The hon. member replied: They must have deserted.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Shame, shame.


Jacques Bureau: Sir, is that noble, is that generous, I ask you, is that British-is it even decent? I say no.


Charles Avila Wilson: It is German.


Jacques Bureau: Do you think that a mother with a heart in her breast or a father with blood in his veins will tell his son to enroll under men who express such sentiments as that? What treatment can he expect? You say:	Go and fight the
Prussians; in the name of liberty, in the name of democracy, go and fight the Prussians:	Why? Because he has called
his pledges scraps of paper, because he has put his heel on the weaker nation, Belgium; because he has tried to wipe from the earth the smaller nations of the Balkans; and in the same breath you treat your fellow countrymen, you treat the men in the trenches, in this way. Read the casualty lists, and you will see that some men have deserted to go to a better land; some have deserted by shedding
their blood; some have deserted by taking Courcelette, and I ask a gentleman who says he has been in the trenches, a gentleman who says he has raised a regiment and who has nothing but words of scorn for men who have lost their lives, I ask: Are we going to enroll with such people? No. And then, Sir, those gentlemen will come-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Do not call him a gentleman.


Jacques Bureau: I am not calling him, I am talking about the gentlemen, on the other side generally. They will come and call us the white-livered brigade, the cold-feet association, the slacker band. Do they think we are going to follow their footsteps? Who is the man who is foolish enough to go and enroll when he knows he will have a greater fight with the men who are commanding him than he will have with the Prussian when he meets him? The insinuations, the implications, the slurs and slanders against my fellow countrymen were started by a certain element in the neighbouring province of Ontario. Mind you we exempt certain good-willed people. A movement was made to try and bring about a better understanding between the two provinces. There was the bonne entente delegation. I had the pleasure of being present when they came to Three Rivers, and I may say that they were all delighted and some were surprised at what they saw. A return visit was made, but some titled editors laughed and scoffed at it. Why, Sir, what we want now is unity. What we want now is not strife and struggle; we want to understand that we are a common people fighting for a common cause, and that there is no superior and no inferior race in this country. I will never consent to be a party to ratify broken pledges. I will never consent to be content when one class of the citizens is being brushed aside with the hand as unworthy of being Canadians.
As I have said, the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Arthurs) and the member for North York (Mr. D. A. Armstrong) are not the only ones. We, whc depend upon treaties and pledges for our safeguard, have heard the statement made in this House, by members who claimed they represented the people, that they did not care for the constitution I will quote the speech so that I will not be unfair to the hon. gentleman. Mr. Armstrong of North York started with the usual complimentary address:
I must say that the reason why conscription faces ixs to-day is because French Canada has failed to do its duty.



Further on he says:
I personally do not care two straws whether it is constitutional or not. Personally I would puncture the constitution a dozen times, if it was necessary, in order to stand by the boys at the front and to uphold Canada's arm in this struggle.
Going back to the opening of his address, I find he made the following statement:
Those who know the political history of the part of the province from which I come know that the riding of North York has,long claimed to be the birthplace and cradle of reform; that it has given to the public life of Canada men like George Brown, William Lyon Mackenzie, Sir William Mulock and Sir Allen Aylesworth, names that are closely interwoven with the history and principle of old time Liberalism.
Sir William Lyon Mackenzie and George Brown are gone, hut there are men living to-day who must find a considerable change in the constituency of North York. I had the pleasure ,of being closely associated with one of them, Sir Allen Aylesworth, and no man had more respect for the constitution than he had, and I ask myself, how is it that to-day North York is sending to Parliament a man who wants to puncture the constitution? He had* better go and puncture the Prussians first. What are we fighting for and what are we asked to fight for? The very same thing that the Allies are fighting for. We are asked to fight because the constitution, or pledge or treaty that Germany signed, protecting a smaller nation, Belgium, has been treated as a scrap of paper. The hon. member from North York says, " I will tear in pieces the treaty or contract which safeguards you as a minority. In the name of liberty, I enslave you. In the name of democracy I shackle you." I remember the indignation of the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce when we passed legislation creating new provinces. I was reminded of the preacher in an old church in the southern states, when he made us hear the rattling of the shackles on the young man on the plains of the Northwest, and when he made them cry, " Give me liberty or give me death." What are we to expect? Has Prussia been transported to America. Has Kaiserism been implanted in Ottawa? Has the gentleman gone into hysterics, or is it mental aberration? I do not know what to think. My people do not know what to think. Are we going to be slaves, or are we going to be treated as slaves. I say, No.
The ex-Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes) said the other day that one of the influences which worked against recruiting was that some young people would get on

the platform and call the others slackers. And he says the young men who were called slackers would get tiheir backs against the wall and say, "We will not enroll." Mr. Speaker, do not let our friends believe that, because iwe do not hold the majority of the stock in this association, we are going to run away. Don't let them think that abuse or threats are going to scare us, either inside or outside of this House.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Jacques Bureau: 
Mr. LALOR:: The hon. member says
that upon this side of the House reflections have been cast upon the clergy of Quebec. Will he kindly explain who cast those reflections?


Jacques Bureau: The hon. member for
Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes)-I cannot speak as to the year.


Médéric Martin: In 1910.


An hon. MEMBER:: We have not forgotten that.


Jacques Bureau: We discussed in this House a motion asking for an expression of sympathy for those French Canadians who live in Ontario, asking whether in the opinion of this House it would be well not to abolish the teaching of the French language in the schools of Ontario. We remember how that motion was received, and I will abstain from going into details. The French Canadians of Ontario, when they made that request, were practically told: Those privileges ars constitutional; they do

not extend beyond the limits of Quebec, and your privileges are co-extensive therewith. Therefore, the only conclusion to be drawn, although it was not put in so many words, was: If you want to. enjoy those privileges, go back to the province of Quebec. I have here an expression of opinion, not by a French Canadian, not in a paper published in Quebec, not even in a paper published in'Canada or in the United States, but in an English paper called the New Witness and edited by Mr. G. K. Chesterton. On page 78 of the issue of May 24, 1917, I find the following:
As we are in the act of celebrating Empire day, it may be well to consider what is the charter of the Empire, General Smuts said recently:	"The British Empire, or this British
Commonwealth of Nations, does not stand for unity, standardization, or assimilation, or denationalization; but it stands for a fuller, a richer, and more various life among all the *nations that compose it. And even nations who have fought against you, like my own, must feel that they and their interests, their language, their religions, and all their cultural interests, are as safe and as secure under the British flag as those of the children of your household and your own blood."
This is the comment of the editor:
And at this very moment, in Canada, we are giving the lie to his words. The slander that the French Canadian has been a slacker in the war, which has been given a good deal of publicity, was bad enough. But that slander has been effectually rebutted by the Montreal paper, La Presse. What is now happening is more serious than mere vulgar abuse. The French Canadian is being robbed of his language. Despite our solemn guarantees, tne use of French in the Manitoba Legislature has long ceased; but now the separate French schools have been abolished-a few months ago the final blow was struck. In Ontario it is now a crime to teach French to little French Canadian boys and girls in French Canadian schools. The penalty is a fine of $500 or six months' imprisonment. In the event of the French-speaking people of Ontario. refusing to submit meekly to this iniquitous rule, they are threatened with the fate, of Manitoba; their schools will he suppressed. What does General Smuts say? "Even nations that have fought against you feel that their interests, their language, their religions, and all their cultured interests are as safe under the British flag as those of the children of your own household and your own blood." But in the war of American Independence the French Canadians stood by the British flag-and this is their reward! Redress has already been refused by the Privy Council. But we cannot he content to know on Empire day that in this "free" Empire of ours we are imitating so slavishly the methods of Prussia in Poland and Alsace-Lorraine.
That is not from the pen of a Frenchman or from a newspaper in Quebec, but from an English paper published in London. How does this compare with the Toronto

News of 2nd June, 1914, shortly before the war? It boldly repudiates the pledge and says, "One-hundred-year-old treaties must be interpreted in the light of new circumstances." Just exactly two months and three days later the Prussian Chancellor was using the same language in the German Reichstag. Now they are telling us: You of the province of Quebec have no enthusiasm, or inspiration. How can we have it, Sir, when we have to fight at home. We are being attacked as if we were to be isolated. We are being slandered and slurred. Is that an encouragement or an inspiration to us? In the hour when we close onr eyes to the sun where will we find the friend, where could the word of consolation so sadly needed in that hour come from? When we see around us nothing but hatred and slander, w'hen we hear no word of sympathy,
I for one can feel no enthusiasm.
But that is not all. Why does the Government refuse a referendum? The Minister of Trade and Commerce said this was a dilatory motion moved for the purpose of gaining time.	The Prime Minister has
offered an election but has refused a referendum, and is has been stated in this House on both sides that the referendum was refused because it was feared it would be defeated. Even those on this side of the House who do not share our views have expressed the same opinion. My hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) urged that we .have an open vote, because there were men who were opposed to conscription, he said, who dare not express their views.
Mr. Speaker, a man who dare not speak his mind has no right to call his neighbour a slacker. A man who has not the courage to stand up in a free parliament and say what he thinks, or stand'up in a free country and express his opinion, has no right to call his neighbour a coward. The coward is he who is afraid to speak his mind when he thinks he is in the right. Kaiser-like, this Government, knowing the people do not want conscription, say: We will put our heel on their necks; we will be the masters. Is that democracy? Is it in the name of a democracy such as that, that we are going to compel our race, who have ideals, to enlist? Sir, that is no inspiration to us. We do not want to fight for liberty in Europe and create a condition of slavery in Canada. We do not want to fight for democracy in Europe and establish autocracy in Canada. The time has passed when we can be called to slavery

in the name of liberty, and to love in the name of hatred. Let us get together. I have spoken my mind without any reservation and without any malice. I have stated the facts as they are, and put the case as I conceive it to be. That being done I repeat my appeal to my hon. friend from North Grey. I appeal to - him and to all the ministers of the Cabinet to find half a dozen men of good will who will stop this campaign of slander and calumny in Ontario and other English-speaking provinces against Freneh-Canadians. Not till then shall we have peace and unity. Do not think because we are in a minority that we are heartless; we feel all the more on that account. We can only appeal to sympathy, and how can conditions be bettered when that sympathy is lacking, and distrust and worse is in the hearts of those to whom we appeal. If this campaign of slander were stopped and good-will were established between the two races it would not be necessary to put a Conscription Bill on the statute book to get French Canadians from the province of Quebec to enlist. When you show some sympathy to the French Canadian of the province of Quebec Tie will reciprocate and show how he is loyal and true. The things that are so dear to him, his fireside, his language, and his faith, are the only things that have kept him patient under circumstances where any other man would have lost his patience. It is his love for the land that he has discovered and conquered that has kept him silent. If I were a young man eligible to enlist I would consider that the condition I have exposed would justify me in not enlisting. If the people of Quebec have not responded the fault is not with the right hon. leader of the Opposition or members on this side of the House from the province of Quebec, but it is for the reasons I have stated.


Mr. FERDINAND JOSEPH ROBIDOUX (Kent, N.B.):: Mr. Speaker, I would take no part in this debate did I not feel bound to raise my voice in support of the measure introduced by the Prime Minister, and I take this position believing it to be in the best interests of the race to which I belong, as well as of the country generally. I have : followed with close attention the debate which has taken place in this House during the last few days, and it'seems to me that there are a few things which have been pretty conclusively established, the first of which is the fact that the principle of compulsory military service has been embodied in our statute law ever since Con-

federation. It is therefore quite clear that the proposed Military Service Act does not introduce into the legislation of this country any new principle as far as compulsion for the defence of Canada is concerned, except in so far as it provides that troops shall be raised by selective drafts and not by the methods laid down in the Militia Act, which require that the men be selected by ballot. The new Act does not trust to luck for the selection of the men; it provides that the selection shall be made in an intelligent manner, having regard to the requirements of the great industries of the country, chief among which must necessarily rank agriculture and the fisheries, which are the most important agencies of food production.
In the second place, it has been shown beyond question that the Governor in Council already has the power, under the terms of the Militia Act of 1904, to send Canadian troops beyond the limits of Canada for the defence of Canada in a case of emergency. The hon. member for Kamouraska has cited old statutes in force before Confederation, in which it was specially stipulated that the militia could be called out and marched to any place without the province, but conterminous therewith for the purpose of repelling or meeting an attack. My hon. friend cited those old statutes in an endeavour to prove that under the present Militia Act the same limitations applied. But in my judgment he has only succeeded in proving exactly the contrary proposition to that which he sought to establish. In the Militia Act of 1868, drafted by Sir George Etienne Cartier, as well as in the Act of 1904, the word " conterminous" has been eliminated, showing conclusively that the framers of the new law had in contemplation certain circumstances which might arise and might compel Canada to send her troops even beyond the seas to fight for the defence of Canada. Otherwise the word " conterminous " would have been left in the statute. Moreover the words uttered by the then Minister ot Justice, Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, at the time the clause dealing with this matter was adopted, words which have already been quoted in this House, evidently show that this is the true and proper construction to put on that clause.
There is another fact which, clear and distinct, looms out of this debate and out of the events which transpired in this country at the outbreak of the war. Canada went into this war, not only because Great Britain and the Empire were threatened

by a grave danger, not merely for the purpose of helping Great Britain and France in the tremendous struggle into which the unjust aggresision of Germany 'had thrust them without cause or warning; but Canada entered this war for the stern and fixed purpose of protecting herself and her people against a grave and serious danger which would inevitably become a disaster should Germany win out. It was mainly this sentiment of self-preservation which prompted the people of this country at the outbreak of the war, and ever since, without distinction of race and creed, to unite in a common voluntary effort to resist the German menace and help crush it, and upon this sentiment chiefly rested the appeal which was made to the youth of Canada in order to urge them to enlist and fly to the defence of our country.
Finally it has been shown by the Prime Minister, and i.t has been generally admitted by those who have spoken in this debate, that the system of voluntary enlistment had ceased to , yield the requisite number of .men to maintain the Canadian troops at full strength at the front. While this state of affairs is to be regretted, at the same time I agree with those who hold that voluntary enlistment has not been a failure. My own native province, the province of New Brunswick, has done wonders under the voluntary system. It gave me a good deal of satisfaction the other day to hear the former Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes), quoting from a memorandum on recruiting which he had addressed to the Prime Minister on July 10, 1916, state that " it must be borne in mind that the Acadians have done magnificently." While I might not be justified in saying that the Acadians in proportion to numbers have enlisted as .well as their Englishspeaking fellow citizens in my province- and there are good and valid reasons which I need not give here which can account for this-still it, can indeed be stated truthfully that they have nobly answered the call to arms and that they have performed their duty as Canadians and British .subjects in a splendid manner. But, Sir, the attitude taken by my compatriots in the present war is in line with the best traditions of the past. In years gone by, in the hour of their country's need, they never failed to respond to the call of duty. As far back ,as in the year 1812, when they had just begun to recuperate from the hardships of evil days, when hostilities broke out between Great Britain and the United States, we

find them faithfully -and courageously serving their king and country in the militia of their respective provinces. A few days ago I came across an old militia list containing the names of a comparatively large number of Acadians from my own county, the county of Kent, the population of which was small in those days, the names of men who, within a month -after the declaration of war, had enlisted to fight for their country. I would like, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, and the consent of the House, to put these names on Hansard as a matter of record:



MILITIA LIST, KENT COUNTY, 1812-1815.

[Stage Direction]
Saint Louis-Rornain Voutour, Charles Henry, Oliver Bariault, Jacques Henry, Jean Baptiste Johnson, Jean Johnson, Pierre Thebaud.
Saint Charles-Raphael Richard, Jacques Daigle, Pierre Luc Robichaud, Fabien Daigle, Jean Louis Daigle.
Richibucto Village-Anselme Bourque, Janvier Hebert, Hilario'n Babineau, Urbain Richard, Emmanuel Richard, Jean Bte. Thibodeau, Laurent Richard, Germain Thibodeau, Laurent a Petit Jean Richard, Charles Maillet and Charles Maillet (Cousins), Pierre Daigle, Raphael Caissie, Simon Richard, Augustine Maillet, Joseph Maillet, Damase Richard.
Buctouche-Francois Cormier, Andre Jaillet, Laurent LeBlanc, Thadee Bastarache, Moise Bastarache, Denis Cormier, Benoni Girouard, Joseph Girouard, Placide DesRoches, Benoni Savoie, Placide Richard, Marin Girouard.
Cocagne-Benoni Bourque, Usebe Leger, Georges Breau, Honore Desprez, Hubert Lirette, Cyrille Gueguen, Placide Gueguen
Grand Digue-Thomas Poirier, Maurice Hache, Isaac Hache, Louis Arseneau, Joachim Gallant, Placide Poirier, Fleurant Caissie.
Baie des Winds-Louis Guimond, Benoni Meunier, Dominique Martin, Louis Mazerolle.
Our young men have enlisted to bear their share in the present great struggle, because they had .a proper appreciation of the free institutions under which we have lived and prospered; because they prized highly the rights and privileges of British citizenship, and because they did not w-ant German rule and Prussian militarism to prevail. They enlisted also because of the appeals which were made to them fey the highest authorities in their church and by the public men to whom they looked for leadership. Let me quote in this connection the eloquent and earnest words uttered by His Lordship Bishop Edward LeBlanc, the Acadian bishop of the diocese of Saint John, in my province, at a mass meeting held in the city of St. John a short time after the outbreak of war. I wish to put on record the eloquent words of that distinguished prelate as they are -a true and faithful expression of the sentiments which have animated and guided the Acadians in the present crisis. Having stated that it was a

happy coincidence that his first utterance on a public platform, in (the loyal city of St. John should be for the noble purpose of encouraging our young men to enlist for the defence of the Motherland and that he was heartily in accord with the object of the meeting, and that he should consider he was lacking in patriotism and in his duty to the Empire were he, the leader of the Catholic people of St. John, to remain absent or silent -,on that occasion, he proceeded to say:
We are living in perilous times; war is being brought home to us in a way we never experienced before. England, our Motherland, and France, the land of our ancestors, the two nations that are in the forefront of civilization and human liberties, are to-day fighting desperately against a powerful foe; they are engaged in a struggle the issue of which is still uncertain. "The British Empire is now fighting for its existence. I want every citizen to understand this cardinal fact," said. Lord Kitchener the other day.
As Canadians our cause is bound up with the cause of Great Britain; her interests are ours. If England falls, we are going to fall with her, and we are going to lose all the glorious privileges we enjoy as citizens of the British Empire. Canada, now so free and so happy, so blessed by God with such great resources, Canada that has such a brilliant future before her, will be reduced to a condition of vassalage and crushed under the iron heel of a foreign and unsympathetic ruler.
Failure for England in this war will mean England's destruction and even success will have to be dearly paid for; but, let us thank God, the age of chivalry is not passed; there is still enough patriotism and heroism in the young men of this province to make a supreme effort now for England's cause. Our hope is in our young men; to them we look to uphold the honour and the glory of the British Empire, of that Empire which, rather than to break its plighted word to little Belgium has been willing to sacrifice the best and noblest of her sons.
I need not enter here at length into the causes that led to this terrible war; I need not dwell on the violation of the neutrality of Belgium, that wonderful little kingdom which the Bishop of Salford called "the victim and the saviour of Europe." I need not recall the breaking of a treaty which the powers had solemnly promised to keep intact, or England's entente with France for the protection of the channel ports. Above all this stands the one great fact that England did not want this war, but now that she has been forced into it, it is our duty as loyal subjects of His Majesty the King to uphold her cause and to rally to her defence.
Young men of New Brunswick, we appeal to you not to allow Britain, to whom we are indebted for our civil and religious beliefs, for our just laws, and for the protection and prosperity that we enjoy, to have her very existence imperilled without striking a blow in her defence. To-night from over the seas is wafted to us the cry of the Motherland: More men, more men! It is England's call to arms. Let every man who is willing to heed that cry enlist.
It will not do for Canadians to be behind; better things are expected of us; we want our best and bravest sons from this province and from the different parts of Canada to go forth to stem the tide of hostile aggression, to say to the enemies of the Empire, this far shall you come but no farther.
Remember, young men, it is just possible * that unless you strike a blow now in defence of the Mother Country, our days of prosperity may soon be ended. The enemy is dangerously near our doors. The fall of Antwerp, the occupation of Ostend and the disastrous battle off the Chilean coast a few days ago threatens them. Would it not be possible to have enacted here and in our quiet country homes tragic scenes similar to those which have taken place in Belgium,-and in north2 ern France,-prosperous villages where once reigned peace and contentment now burnt, or destroyed, magnificent cathedrals and public buildings laid in ruins, millions of innocent and suffering people seeking refuge in other lands.
Go forth to battle now, while the future of Canada is being fought for on the plains and river banks of France. Let the .spirit of patriotism prompt you to-night to say "England never did, nor ever shall be at the proud foot of a conqueror."
At a late date in January 1917, Bishop LaBlanc in a pastoral letter again urged the young men to enlist and he wrote:
As long- as the world will last, nations will have recourse to arms whenever principles are to be defended on pain of dishonour. At present, it is British freedom against Prussian tyranny; it is a struggle for right and civilization against brutal force and despotism. Realizing the justice of our cause, it is our duty to assist the Empire by every means in our power. There is no use minimizing the danger to which we are exposed. The outlook is very serious. It is to he regretted that people do not take the matter more seriously to heart. Men who are physically lit are still wanted in the army; in the matter of enlisting there should be no delay.
Chief Justice Landry, another eminent Acadian and also a 'recognized leadeT of public opinion in New Brunswick, spoke in ithe same strain on many occasions; so did Senator Poirier; so did my good friend the member for Gloucester (Mr. Turgeon) *and other men occupying leading positions in public life as well as in the church. No man in the public life of the province of New Brunswick ever had a better and a tauer conception of the many and precious advantages derived from British rule and British institutions and of the corresponding responsibilities which these advantages involve than had Mr. Justice Landry, and he did not hesitate to advise his fellow-countrymen to join the colours in this war. I shall not quote from the many speeches which he delivered on recruiting and which- were published in the papers, but I shall read a letter which he wrote to Mr. Raymond Leger, the Mayor of Shediae,
[Stage Direction]
on November 25, 1914; I quote the letter because it contains in writing, over his own signature, the view® of a man who devoted his whole life to the advancement of his own people and whose greatest ambition was to secure for them that position which they have attained in the Government of the country. I translate the letter which was written in French:
Saint John, N.B.,
November 25. 1914. Mr. Liver, Mayor. Shediac, N.B.
Dear Sir:
I regret to be unable to be present at the patriotic meeting to be held in Shediac. If my presence or my voice can stimulate the worthy and necessary work of recruiting, they both are with you to-night, although much to my regret I personally cannot be present.
Two of my sons have taken the steps to reach the firing line and I would view with satisfaction, however dire is the necessity thereof, the voluntary enlistment of one member of each Acadian family in New Brunswick. Our ancestors were heroes in the days of adversity; may their descendants display as much patriotism and heroism in the crisis which is now threatening the very foundation of Christian civilization.
May they play an honourable part in that gigantic struggle the issue of which may imperil the British Empire and carry with it the triumph of an aggressive militarism, unless the full resources' of the nation are available.
(Sgd) P. A Landry.
Let me say here that later on Chief Justice Landry became so imbued with the importance of the war, in so far as it affected Canada, and so impressed with the necessity to mobilize the forces of the nation that he did not hesitate publicly to advocate conscription, and he did so at a meeting of the Supreme Court in the city of St. John, observing at the same time that it was the fairest and most equitable system of raising an army.
Now, Sir, I am only repeating what has already been stated over and over again in the debate when I say that, to-day, Canada is face to face with a situation the extreme gravity of which cannot be oveiesti-mated. It is evident that we have reached the point where we must either adopt new methods to do that which voluntary recruiting is not doing and maintain our forces at the front, or we must gradually drop out of the war. In other words, the time has come when we must make up our minds either to remain in the war to a finish or practically get out of it.
Mr. Speaker, I think I voice the sentiment of this country when I say that the Canadian people, English and French speaking, are determined to stand by Great Brit' ain and her Allies until this war has been

carried to a victorious conclusion. They are so determined because they know that so long as Great Britain shall be in danger, Canada will equally he in danger and that, in the words used by Bishop LeBlanc, "If England falls, we are going to fall with her."
Speaking for the people I have the honour to represent, I think I can say that they are in accord with the great majority of the people of Canada on this question; that while the idea of compulsion is repugnant to them, they will not hesitate, when they realize the seriousness of the situation, to assume cheerfully and bravely their full share of responsibility in the prosecution of the war. They have behaved magnificently in the past and they will so conduct themselves in the future however difficult may be the task before them.
I must register my protest against the unfortunate remarks which were made in this House by the hon. member for St. Hya-cinthe (Mr. L. J. Gauthier) at the close of his speech. The words which he uttered were not worthy of himself and of this Canadian parliament; they were certainly not worthy of the great race to which we both belong, and I will venture to say that they do not voice the sober sense of the people of the province of Quebec.
I see no reason why there should be a distinct line of cleavage over this question between the two great races which have inhabited Canada for a century and more and have made it what it is to-day. Their interests are identical; they have the same love for freedom and liberty and for those British institutions which are the best guaranty of liberty and freedom; they are facing a common foe in the trenches of Flanders and of France, and French and English lads are fighting side by side, making the supreme sacrifice and laying down their lives for the common cause.
Sir, I believe that, fortunately for Canada, the deeds of bravery and of heroism which have been performed by the sons of French Canadians at Courcelette, at Vimy Ridge and elsewhere on the bloody battlefields of France, will play a far greater part and will wield a much broader influence in shaping the future destinies of this country than will the irresponsible speeches of demagogues and political agitators.
Under no other flag and under no other possible form. of Government would we enjoy as large a measure of 'freedom and of protection as we now have under the British flag. For this reason, and for other reasons which I have given, convinced as

I am that the destinies Of Canada are closely linked with those of the Empire; feeling as I do that the French Canadian race has more at stake in the present conflict than any other element of the population of Canada, for, should Germany win this war we would lose many of the precious rights and privileges we now have; believing as I do that, not only is it necessary, but that it is fair as well to the men who have already gone into the trenches, that sufficient reinforcements be provided for our troops in France, I will support the Bill.
On motion of Mr. Carvell the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Burrell the House adjourned at 12.15 a.m. Wednesday.
Wednesday, June 27, 1917.