1917-06-28

QUESTIONS. .

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

Mr. DEVLIN:: 1.	What is the number of bond issues of the war loan, and the amount of each?
2.	What rate of interest does each bear?
3.	What price did each issue sell at?
4.	What was the actual amount received by the Government from each sale?
5.	What amount has been paid to brokers or others for selling the bonds?
6.	What was the amount, if any, of other expenses in connection with the sales of said bonds?


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: 1, 2 and 3. Three bond issues as follows: 5 per cent 1915-25 war loan, $100,000,000, issue price 97J; 5 per cent 1916-31 war loan,

$100,000,000, issue price 97i; 5 per cent 191737 war loan, $150,000,000, issue price 96.
4.	1915-25 war loan, $97,003,600.27; 1916-31 war loan, $97,789,580.17; 1917-37 war loan, $139,882,508.04-to date; returns not yet completed.
5.	Brokers. Recognized bond and stock brokers were allowed a commission on allotments made on applications bearing their stamp, as follows:
1915-25 and 1916-31 loans, one-quarter cf one per cent; 1917-37 loan, three-eighths of one per cent.
Banks. Arrangements were made with the banks for a commission as under: 191525 war loan, one-quarter of one per cent;
1916-	31 war loan, one-half of one per cent;
1917-	37 war loan, nine-twentieths of one
per cent.	.
For the above commission the banks agreed to receive on behalf of the Government at all their branches subscriptions and payments therefor, deliver provisional receipts, interim certificates and bonds and keep the necessary accounts in connection therewith; to cash at all their branches throughout Canada the coupons of the issues free of exchange; to use their best endeavours through their several offices throughout Canada to obtain public subscriptions to the loans. The banks also agreed to make, if required, cash subscriptions of $50,000,000 to the 1916-31 issue and of $60,000,000 to the 1917-37 issue.
6.	Clerical assistance and office contingencies: 1915-25 war loan, $14,130.36; 191631 war loan, $26,998.24; 1917-37 war loan, $19,748.38 to 31st May, 1917.
Advertising: 1915-25 war loan, $36,023.16; 1916-31 war loan, $50,626.67-to 31st May,\ 1917; 1917-37 war loan, $23,367.89-to 31st May, 1917.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: I gave notice that I shall move to-morrow that the House sit in the forenoon, on and after Tuesday, 3rd Julv.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: I hope my hon. friend will consider the advisability of deferring the consideration of the question of morning sittings until the debate on the Military Service Bill is concluded. If he thinks the debate has been unduly prolonged, or that there has been obstruction, I would not object, but no such condition is alleged to exist. I think it would be well to conclude the debate before we consider the question of morning sittings.


Robert Laird Borden: I should be glad to consider the suggestion, but I do not see the reasons on which my right hon. friend's proposal is based. I do not wish to restrict the debate upon this Bill. The proposal I am making is giving greater opportunity for hon. members to be heard without unduly prolonging the debate. This is the _ usual course to pursue. The debate at this stage of the season is, likely to occupy a great deal of time.


Wilfrid Laurier: I would not say that. It is the most important question we have had before us during the session. When it is disposed of, I shall be happy to facilitate the business before the House, as far as possible. But, in the meantime, we are all very busy, and we cannot see the end of the session at the present time. I would impress upon my right hon. friend the desirability of permitting latitude upon this debate, and we will try to facilitate matters when the debate is concluded.


Robert Laird Borden: Can my right hon. friend tell me when the debate On the second reading is likely to be concluded?


Wilfrid Laurier: I think I shall be able to inform the right hon. leader to-morrow.


Robert Laird Borden: That is a circumstance that might influence my judgment very much. The motion may stand.



REPORT OF INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION.


Robert Laird Borden: Some time ago my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition made an inquiry with regard to the report of the International Joint Commission fixing the level of the waters of the Lake of the Woods. The report had really been made at the time I gave my answer, although it had not come to my personal attention. I have made inquiries, and I find that it is being printed, and that the printing, will occupy some considerable time as the report is voluminous. For that reason, I thought it desirable to obtain a short abstract, in order that the House might be informed as to the commission's recommendation. The memorandum of the report, which I obtained from the Secretary of the Canadian Section of the International Joint Commission, reads as follows:
Lake of the Woods Report.
The Final Report of the International Joint Commission in the matter of the Lake of the

Woods Reference was filed here and in Washington on June 12>. In answer to the questions submitted by the Governments of Canada and the United States, the Commission recommends the maintenance of an ordinary maximum stage of 1061.25 (sea level datum) on the Lake of the Woods, with an extreme range from 1056 to 1062.50. The former level would only be reached in years of excessive drought, and the latter in years of excessive precipita-[DOT] tion. The level recommended the Commission believes to be in the best interests of all concerned on both sides of the international boundary. It recognizes the water-power interests, particularly those on the Winnipeg river supplying light and power to the city of Winnipeg, as the dominant interests in the Lake of the Woods region, and the level recommended is one that will be of very great benefit to those interests. At the same time the interests of navigation, lumbering, fisheries and agriculture have been effectively safeguarded. The Commission's Report sets forth the means by which the proposed level is to be maintained. The outflow capacity of the Lake of the Woods is to be increased at a cost of about $175,000. Compensation is recommended to interests at the outlets of the lake and on the Winnipeg river, amounting to $2-5,000 and $30,000 respectively; to the owners of lands that will be flooded; on the United States side, $164,000, and in Canada, $81,000 ; and for protection along the water-front of Warroad and other towns, $115,000. The project involves the utilization of Rainy lake and other lakes tributary to the Lake of the Woods as immense reservoirs for the storage of water. It is recommended that the general direction of the proposed system of regulation be vested in the Commission; and that the actual control of the dams and regulating works at Kettle Falls, Koochiching Falls and Kenora, be put in the hands of an International Hoard of Engineers, with one reservation however. The dams at Kenora being in Canadian territory, the Commission recommends the creation also of a Domestic Board, to be appointed by the Governments of Canada and Ontario. This Board would control all the works at the outlets of the Lake of the Woods so long as the level of the lake remained between 1956 and 1061. When it should fall below -the former or rise above, the latter figure, the International Board would assume control. The Commission bases its recommendation on the fact that as long as the level of the lake remains between 1056 and 1061, Canadian interests only will be affected; while above and below those levels, international interests will be affected, and the International Board should therefore control the situation.
As soon as the report is printed it will be laid on the Table and made available to members of the House.
INQUIRY INTO LOSS OF ALCOHOL. On. the Orders of the Day;


Mr. STEELE:: I wish to make an inquiry of the Minister of Militia, based upon the following item appearing in the London Free Press of yesterday:
A board of officers, composed as under, will assemble on Wednesday next, the 27th instant, at

10.30 a.m., for the purpose of inquiring into and reporting upon the loss of alcohol on charge to the medical stores, M. D. No. 1.
I wish to inquire-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I think the hon. member had better place this question on the Order Paper. It is not of such importance as to require the attention of the House on the Orders of the Day.



PRIVILEGE.

Mr. HERMENEGILDE BOULAY (Ri-mouski) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of privilege. I noticed in the " Citizen ", of the 28th instant, an item which reads as follows:-
Mr. Boulay resented the manner in which French-Canadians had been treated, and referred to the reports of the affair at RiviSre du Loup which had been referred to in the House by Dr. Edwards. As to this, Mr. Boulay read the report of the investigation into the affair, but complained that in spite of this report Drt Edwards had not had the courtesy to withdraw his statements.
In justice to the member for Frontenae (Mr. Edwards) I may say that I did not refer to him in my speech. The only hon. gentleman I mentioned was the member for Dufferin (Mr. Besit).



LABOUR STRIKE IN WESTERN MINES.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. T. W. CROTHERS:: (Minister of Labour): I have a message from the Director of Coal Mining which I wish to read to the House. Mr. Armstrong reached Calgary only on Monday of this week; yesterday he sent me the following message:
Calgary, Alta., June 27, 1917. Hon. T. W. Crothers,
Minister of Labour,
Ottawa, Ont.
Directions issued to-day have been accepted and endorsed by Policy Committee and are being distributed, beginning to-night, to various camps, and I confidently expect that men will go back to work by next Tuesday. Operators have answered by stating they will loyally comply and will be glad to render any assistance in their power towards the production and supply of coal and coke from district eighteen. Some specific cases require particular treatment, which I will deal with later. Propose remaining here until mines are working. Will then proceed to Ottawa.
W. H. Armstrong.


Mr. OLIVER:: May I repeat a question that I have already put to the minister several times:	Does district 18 include the
mines in and adjacent to the Jasper Pass?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I am not very familiar with the geography of that part of the country, but I have another letter which I might read to my hon. friend. It was written on the 22nd of this month, by the manager of the 'Canadian Coal iSales Company of Winnipeg, and is as follows:
We beg to inform you that if you receive any inquiries for coal, you can obtain at present [DOT] one thousand tons and over per day from the Edmonton district, and east and west thereof.
The mines in that district will appreciate to be supplied with orders as they are only working half the time, due to the scarcity of orders. We admit that the fact of mines in southern Alberta being closed down prevents the coal dealers in southern Alberta and Saskatchewan from getting their supplies from this district as in the past, but nothing prevents them from getting all the coal they require from the To-field, Edmonton, Wabamun and Estevan coal fields, which are only working half the time at present and were closed down during the months of March, April and May for lack of orders.
We - beg to state that the complaints about coal shortage in the West are done by people who are not acquainted with the facts or by people who will not give themselves the trouble to look around and get their supply elsewhere.
Our company alone can easily ship daily from the above coal fields five hundred tons over their present shipments. We admit that the above coals are not as good as the southern Alberta ones, but they give very good satisfaction at the Edmonton Power Plant, Saskatchewan Power plant, etc.
Our experience for the last ten years has been that the mines in western Canada had to close from April to August for the lack of market. As winter comes there is generally a scramble for coal and the mines are not capable of mining it quick enough. Would it not be possible to have the Government suggest to the various town councils to see that their respective local coal dealers get their yearly coal supplies during the months of April, May, June and July, when the railways are idle, and also the mines.
There are at present enough coal mines in Alberta and Saskatchewan, when in operation, to take care of more than the demand of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and even supply Ontario if the freight rates were not so excessive.
Hoping the above may be of use, and holding ourselves entirely at your disposal to supply the requirements of any party requiring coal.
The member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) has found fault about conditions there. If the substance of this letter is true, there is no lack of coal in Edmonton and vicinity.


Frank Oliver: The mines my hon. friend has been reading about are the domestic coal mines in the vicinity of Edmonton. There never was any report of trouble in these mines. It was reported, however, >that the steam coal mines-the Jasper Park Collieries, the Brule Lake Collieries, the Mountain Park Collieries and Pacific Pass Collieries-were shut down in sympathy with the strike in the south. I should be
gratified if my hon. friend would find out whether the strike in those particular mines still continues and whether or not those mines are included in District 18.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I do not think that the mines my hon. friend mentions are included in District 18. But mines northerly from District	18	have	generally	followed conditions	in	the	mines in	District 18;
when there is a strike in District 18, there is a strike in the mines further north, and when the men in District 18 return to w.ork, the mean in the mines further north return to work also under similar conditions.
I have no	doubt	that when	the mines inDistrict	18	open next week,	the mines in
the districts further north will open also.


Frank Oliver: In the steam coal mines
that I have mentioned, the men did not take part in the .original strike in the southern Alberta mines. It is only within the last two weeks that they went on strike, supposedly in sympathy with the southern Alberta mines. The mines in District 18 are under the direction of the director appointed by the Government, but the mines that I have mentioned are not, according to a statement of the minister, under that control.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I do not think they
are.


Frank Oliver: Therefore, the question
whether the men in those mines in northern Alberta have gone back to work or not, is a separate question from the one concerning the mines in District 18.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The men in the mines in northern Alberta always follow the course taken by the men in the mines in District 18.


Robert Laird Borden: We could, of
course, take into consideration the advisability of extending the jurisdiction of the director appointed so as to include the mines to which the hon. member for Edmonton alludes, if the men should not go back to work as the Minister of Labour expects they will.


Frank Oliver: Quite so, but I do not
wish to be understood as urging the extension of the jurisdiction of the directors. I am anxious, first of all, to know what the action of the mine operators is.



PRIVILEGE-SIR SAM HUGHES.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Sir SAM HUGHES:: I find in Hansard of June 26, the statement made by the hon.

junior member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean), 'that on one occasion while I was Minister of Militia, I directed:
-that under no circumstances should this young- man-
Referring to a certain young man.
-who was desirous of fighting for his King and country, Ibe permitted to enlist
The facts are, as outlined the other day in this House, that this young man, who was, at the time, not desirous of'fighting for King and country, went over to the front as a newspaper correspondent, and he wrote back, as the public will well remember, a series of the most -slanderous, malicious and false articles that ever came from the pen of any one professing to be -ajournalist. I thought at that time that this young man was a member of one of the battalions; I learned afterwards that he was not. Later on, after he had returned to Canada, a request came before me to make this young man an officer. Being under the impression that he had previously been in the Canadian Expeditionary Force, I issued an order that under no consideration should He be promoted or taken on to the strength again, if, being a soldier, he had written those articles, unless he made reparation, as he afterwards did. As soon as I learned that this young man had seen the error of his ways and was desirous of enlisting, I took him on the force, and I believe, although I forget the details of the matter, he became an officer.
I find this further statement concerning myself from the hon. junior member for Halifax, which, from first to' last, is absolutely without one particle of foundation in fact:-
The other day he 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).
If my recollection serves me aright, the hon. member stuck his own nose into the debate the other night, so that his statement is wrong. I have no personal grievance against the Minister of Finance, nor against any other member of this House. The facts concerning a conversation I had with the hen junior member for Halifax are these. I was talking with some hon. gentlemen, and as the hon. junior member for Halifax came up to us, some one remarked that the financial critic of the Opposition was looming. Speaking jocularly, I said that I did not endorse the situation that there was such a thing as -a finan-

cial critic of the Opposition; at least, that we had not had any evidence of it; that I thought any school boy could have done about as well the the hon. gentleman had done. That was the sum and substance of the conversation. After the repudiation of a conversation which I had over a year ago with the hon. member, I would never be *found holding another conversation with him, except in the presence'of witnesses.



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 75, Military Service Act, 1917, and the amendment thereto, and the amendment to the amendment by Mr. Barrette, resumed from Tuesday, June 27.
Mr. D. B. NEELY (Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure no question before this House has given individual members more opportunity for serious consideration of their duty to themselves, their constituents and their country, than has the Bill that is now before the House. Theory is all very well in its way, but we in -Canada are face to face with certain actual conditions which must 'be met, and it is in view of those actual conditions that each of us for himself must come to a conclusion, according to the light of his individual conscience, as to the best way to meet them. I have no patience with the man or woman in this country who says that this is not Canada's war, and that, therefore, a limit should be put to the amount of effort that Canada shall put forth in the prosecution of the war. If this is not Canada's war, then this Parliament had no right in August, 1914, to take the stand it did in voting money and supplies in order to send an expeditionary force to France and Flanders to take its position side by side with the armies of our Allies there. On the other hand, if we were Tight then in entering into the war at all, we can be right now only by putting forth every effort in man-power and in the material resources of this country in order to ensure that this war shall be brought to a successful conclusion. This House and this country do not need to be told what objects are sought and desired by our enemies, the Central Powers of Europe. We know that Germany's object in this war is not merely the acquisition of a certain small territory, or territories,

on the continent of Europe, but that she seeks domination of the free nations of the world; and as we rank ourselves as one of those free nations, we cannot escape the conclusion that Canada has as much right to use every resource in her power to prosecute this war to a successful conclusion as has any other power engaged in it.
The preparedness of our enemies to carry out the object which they had in mind is evidenced by the fact that after almost three years of continuous and bitter warfare, we-and by " we " I mean practically all the free nations of the world-still find ourselves face .to face with a determined and stubborn enemy. Though we have had more or less success :in different spheres of operations, I am not optimistic enough to think .that we have by any means reached the point where we c.an expect the unconditional surrender of the central powers. Confronted as we are by this formidable foe, and with the end of the struggle not yet in sight, I fail absolutely to understand the attitude of any citizen of this country who can stand up and say before .the people of this country .and our Allies that Canada has done enough. If we had not sufficient Teason for entering the war in August 1914. the German conduct of the war from that date to the present time, their barbarities on land and sea, their throwing aside of every moral consideration and of every principle of .intternational law in dealing with neutral lives and neutral shipping, would furnish us with a .sufficient reason why to-day, .as a self-respecting free nation we could not keep our forces out of the field.
We have, Sir, the great example of the republic to the South, which kept out of the war as long as she could. But there came a time when even those of pro-German sympathies in the States .must in their heart of hearts have .come to the conclusion that if the United States was to maintain her national self-respect she could no longer keep out of the war. Had we not entered the war in August 1914 we should have found ourselves in the same position as the United States of America.
Citizenship in ia free country like Canada carries with it obligations and responsibilities, and in my judgment the man who says that this Parliament has not the right to pass a measure such as is now before the House does not properly appreciate the 'responsibility that goes with the privilege of being a cijtizen of a free and democratic country. The very foundation of
organized society, in my judgment, is that we are banded together for one common purpose, and the primary purpose for which we are banded together is the protection of the Lives and property of the individual subjects of the state.	As a
free citizen of this country if I am injured in person or property at home or abroad I have the right to call upon the state to which I owe my allegiance to give me redress, not as a favour, but as a right. If that be true, the converse is also true-that when the state is in jeopardy from enemies within or without she has the right to place her hand on the shoulders of every one of her citizens and bid them come forward for the defence of home and country. Sir, in that very principle, which is the foundation of organized society, I find the authority for the passing of such a measure by this Parliament, or by the legislature of any democratic country under circumstances similar to those which now exist. No man in this House has greater respect and admiration for my right hon. leader than I, but I must say that the same process of reasoning that leads me to vote for the Bill also constrains me to vote against the motion of my right hon. leader. If it is the duty of the state to protect the individual, and the duty of the individual to protect the state in time of stress or danger, then I say it is not a proper thing to ask the people of this country to say by means of a referendum whether individual citizens shall come forward and do their duty or not. I maintain that the obligation rests upon them to come forward whether they be willing or not, and I think-and I say this with all respect for the opinions of others-that this House would be divesting itself of its due and proper responsibility if we were to consent to deal with this question in the way proposed by my right hon. leader.
If the principle of compulsory service is right and proper to-day, it was equally right and proper two years ago, when a special session of this Parliament was summoned shortly after the outbreak of war. But for some reason or other this Government and this Parliament then decided not to adopt' this logical and businesslike method of dealing with the situation; they would rather depend upon the spontaneous patriotism of the citizens of this country.
Following that course, there grew up in the minds of the people, men of military age and others, the conviction and belief that Canada had adopted a course in this matter which was to be permanent, and that no other course would be adopted no matter



what eventualities the war might bring forth. Whether the people were right in coming to that conclusion or not, I am not prepared to say; but we must admit that a great many people did come to that conclusion. Weare bound to make some mistakes, I admit; that cannot be avoided. We did not enter upon this war in a businesslike way; events have proved that; but we did intend to do our best. If we made our mistake, at least others are benefiting by that mistake. And I say to this House and the country: Hats off to the great republic to the south, that, while slow to enter into this conflict, now that it' has entered upon it, has entered upon it as a business proposition. The object of that business proposition is the putting down of German domination in Europe and the establishing of free democracies throughout the world. But they have had the benefit of the mistakes that we have made.
Having adopted a certain course contrary to the principle which is now invoked in this Bill for securing further aid for our army, it is a question to be seriously considered whether we should not seek some other way than the way proposed by this Bill. A measure of this sort must have behind it the national sentiment of the people in order to be successful; and, Sir, in my judgment, there was the great initial error that we made when we entered upon this war. We called our men to the colours; we provided for their transport and did it in a remarkably short space of time; but there was one thing which we neglected to do, and we are suffering to-day as a consequence of that neglect-we neglected to mobilize the national sentiment of this country. Perhaps that was partly due to our failure to properly appreciate the seriousness and the magnitude of the task that lay before us, but I think this Government missed the opportunity of a century perhaps, when at the outset of this struggle, they were not the first to initiate those steps tending to co-operation between all the varied bodies of sentiment in this country that have been necessary in other parts of the Empire before a conscription measure could' be placed upon the statute book. They have conscription in Great Britain and in New Zealand, and it may yet come in Australia. What is the history of conscription in Great Britain? To read the history of conscription, you must first read the history of government in Great Britain. That history tells of a change from a party government to a coalition government, then to another 
coalition, until you have to-day practically a military dictatorship. But, if you have a military dictatorship in Great Britain, it is a dictatorship which represents in itself every section and every sentiment of the people of that country. The reason that compulsory service was accepted in Great Britain as readily, as freely and happily as it has been, lies in that very fact, and also in the fact that before the Government of Great Britain undertook to conscript the man-power of the country, it put its hands on the wealth and conscripted that for the benefit of the nation. Our little sister, New Zealand, very early in the war found what she had to do in order to put compulsory service into effect.
I say again that I see very serious trouble ahead of us in respect to the enforcement of this measure, unless, before the measure becomes operative-not before it becomes law but before it becomes operative-something is done to mobilize the national sentiment and to secure national unity. There are those who say that it is too late for any such proposals. I absolutely fail to see why it is too late for something in the line I have suggested to be carried out. It is true that my right hon. friend and leader (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) objects to this measure becoming operative at the present time and being made operative by the present Government. Then, in my judgment, there is an alternative course. That alternative course is that, this Parliament having passed this Bill, as there is every prospect it will do, again the leaders of the two great parties should get together and see if some method cannot be evolved by which we shall secure the maximum amount of assistance for our boys at the front and at the same time preserve that national unity which was sought by the Fathers of Confederation when they brought the original provinces of Canada together. It can be done, and, in my judgment, it should be done. It should be done even now. Shall we plunge this country into- strife, shall we destroy the foundations of Confederation, shall we create schism, if by any method that can be suggested by the patriotism and the zeal for the common good that must inspire the leaders of public thought in this country, the leaders of the two great political parties these results can be avoided? If a way can be found by united patriotism to lead us out from this unfortunate position that njay spell national disaster, and yet at the same time obtain the results we all seek to obtain, namely, the mobilization of Canada's efforts, of Canada's resources in men and of material wealth for

the prosecution of the war, surely it is worth while making the attempt.
I fail to see any other course open to the people of this country. We are to-day approaching the fiftieth anniversary of the foundation of confederation-we might say the Golden Wedding day of the provinces of this great Dominion. And, Sir, since the laying of the foundation stone of this confederation men have toiled and struggled in this country, building stone upon stone, until to-day we have this great commonwealth stretching from ocean to ocean, a future empire on this North American continent. Among the names that will be written in history as those of men who have performed great and noble work in building up this country, there will stand prominent the name of my honoured leader (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). And, Sir, it grieves me, asv>a native-born Canadian, to see anything occur, in this time of crisis and strife, that is likely to endanger that which it has taken fifty years to build up. If our confederation is now disrupted, it will take a century to place us again in the position in which we were prior to the outbreak of this horrible war. The maintenance and upbuilding of our confederation is, I am sure, the aim and object of every one of us on both sides of the House. Whether we support or do not support this Bill, we have one common object, the winning of the war. Does any one tell me that, while my right hon. leader is opposed to the application of this measure at the present time, he is not imbued with as earnest a desire to win this war as any other man in this House? The man who tells me that, I brand, Sir, as a partisan, and not as a friend of this country. The man who, on either side of this House or in this country, to-day attemnts by his words to set one section of this Dominion of Canada, against another, consciously or unconsciously, is just as much an enemy of the empire and of the country as if he were facing our soldiers in the trenches over in Flanders. The situation is altogether too serious for party bickering and party strife in this country; and if that can be avoided, if there is yet a possibility, and I think there is, of the mobilization of national sentiment and national effort in this country for the winning of the war, without the bringing on of party struggle and party strife, history will write it against this Parliament and against this Government and against the leaders of both sides of this House as a crime if they do not first exhaust every I77i	,
effort of statesmanship, of diplomacy, of resource and of deliberation in the effort to work out a solution that will mean a continuance of those friendly feelings that have existed between the various portions of Canada, and that will, at the same time, mean our vigorous prosecution of this war. That is the ideal I hold. I am not here to support an abstract principle so much as to speak for this ideal, which must be dear to every one of us to-day, or we cannot class ourselves as true patriots. I am not suggesting anything further than the broad lines on which I consider an arrangement and an understanding may be arrived at, even at this late date. Within a very few days this country will be celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of its confederation, and there could be no more opportune time for every member of this House, everj 4 p.m. member of this Government, for the leader of the Government and for my right hon. friend who leads the Opposition, for every one of ue, as we go to the altar of patriotism, dropping by our side party bickering, party strife, every selfish consideration,-I say there could be no more opp>rtuue time for each and every one of us to dedicate ourselves to the cause of our country and to the successful prosecution of this war, which means not only the freedom of Europe but the freedom of North America and of Canada.	.
With those thoughts in mind and with that desire strong in my heart, I am free to say that, while I am voting for the principle of this Bill-that is what is involved in voting for the second reading- and while I am constrained to vote against the amendment proposed by my right hon. leader (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), my one strong and consuming desire in offering my thoughts to this House and to this country is that even now, with this Bill under consideration, there may yet be found a way which will not only redound to the unity and to the credit of Canada, but will bring to our boys in the trenches that help and that succour which we all recognize they need, and which we are all determined they shall have.


Mr. J. L. CHABOT (Ottawa):: Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable, I might say unfortunate, that at this present time, when Canada and the Motherland and the British Empire are passing through the most critical period of their national lives, dissensions tinged with provincialism should

have occurred, and that scenes painfully unpatriotic in their purpose should have been enacted in certain sections of the country, and that in this great crisis, in even the very smallest degree, a feeling of bitterness should develop in this House. This is a time when the representatives of the people, the members of this House, should be prepared to lay aside all political feelings and all national differences, with a view of preserving harmony and presenting a united front, not only to Canada but to the whole world.
If this condition of affairs does not exist here, the fault does not lie with the right Iron. Prime Minister, (Sir Robert Borden) nor with the gentlemen who sit on this side of the House. In view of the momentous issue confronting Canada at this present moment, I feel it my duty to support a measure' whose main purpose is to bring this war to a speedy, and I fervently pray, a successful determination; to win the war, to maintain the prestige and power of the Union Jack, and what it stands for; to protect our freedom, and to save the very national life of Canada.
I do not intend discussing the details of the Bill presented for our consideration. The matter has been gone into so thoroughly and so fully that'I fear that any lengthy explanation or extended elaboration on my part along those lines would be superfluous. The selective Military Bill brought down by the Prime Minister of this country appeals to me as an intelligent and practical modification of the Canadian Militia Act established and promulgated at the time of Confederation and subsequently re-affirmed and re-endorsed, with a few alterations, in 1904. There is no doubt in my mind that when this Bill becomes law its provisions will be carefully and very judicially carried into effect, and I consider it my duty to give this Ball my undivided support for many reasons, but mainly because its chief aim is bo sustain the gallantry of the men who have been fighting for our homes and our country, beoause it is intended to relieve the men who for months have endured untold hardship and privation in the trenches. It is intended to fill the gaps im the ranks of divisions, which ranks have been very materially thinned in the last few months, and it is intended to avenge the loss of Canada's best and purest blood, which has been shed freely upon the fields of France and Flanders, and surely it has not been shed in vain.
Furthermore, the passage of this Bill will assist in bringing this terrible conflict to

a definite, and I trust, decisive issue. A referendum such as proposed in amendment- by the right hon. leader of the Opposition is in my opinion opposed to the idea and is contrary to the spirit of responsible and representative government.
We, in this House, are the representatives of the people of Canada. This Parliament is composed of men of integrity, men of ability, experience and initiative, men possessing a more thorough knowledge of the existing conditions, men who are more competent judges of the present situation than the general public. We are the custodians of the honour and national life of this country, and, therefore, we should be the arbiters in any matter vitally concerning its constitution and welfare. Besides, a referendum would not he a fair test of public opinion, because in different sections of this country sentimentality and prejudice might, and would outweigh the sense of duty of the people. Again, 300,000 of our soldiers are at the front, and would find it difficult to cast their ballots, while the thousands of slackers in this country would be in a position to use their influence and exercise their franchise to the fullest extent.
Mr. Speaker, the right hon. leader of the Opposition, when he moved his amendment, declared, rather emphatically, that at no time since the beginning of the war had he feared any danger of invasion of Canada on the part of Germany, and he also made little of the opinion and claim that Canada's first lines of defence were in the trenches of France and Belgium. I cannot understand how a gentleman possessed of an unusually keen sense of intuition, of splendid faculty for analysis, and of a wide range of information, that a gentleman possessing such eminent accomplishments, should entertain such an opinion. It reminds me of the manner in which hon. members spoke in regard to the menace, peril, or danger which we referred to during the discussion of the Naval Bill in 1913. Notwithstanding the information which we had received in the form of a memorandum from the Admiralty, we were told at that time that the supposed danger did not exist, that our fears were imaginary, and that our contentions were illusionary. But the peril came sooner than we expected, and fell upon us with a full measure of vengeance and unmis-takeable violence. Does the right hon. gentleman believe that, if this war were won by the Central Powers, Canada would not be in danger of invasion? Does he believe that if the Germans, in their first rush for Paris, had reached their objective point, Canada

would not have been in danger? Does he think that if the 200,000 Germans on their march to Calais had not been stopped at Langemark by the 32,000 Canadians, who, undergoing their baptism of fire with unfortunately disastrous results, and against overwhelming odds, by their courage and their valour held back that army of Germans for seventy-two hours, and effectually checked their advance to Calais-if the Germans had reached Calais-would not England, /and Canada also, have been in danger of invasion? Does the right hon. gentleman believe that if the German fleet had defeated the British navy and the allied fleet on the sea, or had at any time broken through the British naval cordon that surrounded them-thank God Britannia still rules the waves-it would not have become a source of great danger, not only to England but to America? I need only quote what Roosevelt, the ex-president of the United States, mentioned in one of his speeches. He declared that the British navy, and the British navy alone, kept the Germans away from the shores of America. I also wish to remind the right hon. gentleman that the most potent factor in the development of the spirit of pan-Germanism, whereby Germany expected to dominate the world, control its commerce and rule its destinies, was not only begotten by greed for power and wealth, but chiefly by the ardent-I might say insane-desire of the German Government for territorial expansion and aggrandisement.	For many
years previous to the war the surplus population of Germany had been fast outgrowing its geographical limits, and thousands oi Germans have been migrating to foreign lands; and the German	government,
anxious to keep them within the bounds of a greater and wider German Empire, cast a covetous eye on the British Empire, whose magnitude and vastness are such that the sun never sets on it. And if in this war the Germans were victorious, does my right hon. friend for one moment believe that the Germans would not cast a covetous eye on Canada-the most important of the overseas dominions-a country whose area is vast, whose possibilities are great and whose resources are innumerable? They certainly would, and I, therefore, have no hesitation in declaring that Canada is now safe but was not safe while the Motherland was in danger; and further that the safety of this country, since this war began, has depended to a large extent on the defence of the Motherland, and that our first lines of defence are undoubtedly in the trenches of Fran [DOT]*>
and Belgium.
The member for Rouville (Mr. Lemiuex) and the member for Kamouraska (Mr. E. Lapointe) declared with emphasis and a certain amount of pathos that this Bill was a direct and flagrant violation of pledges made by the Prime Minister and members of the Cabinet since the beginning of the war. I hope these gentlemen are sufficiently well informed and fair-minded to admit that war conditions to-day are quite different from what they were a year ago; that a process of transformation, in matters affecting the war as well as in matters affecting the ordinary affairs of the whole world, has been gradually going on from month to month, almost from week to week. Opinions expressed and promises made a year ago might not-perhaps would not-hold good to-day. Let me remind these hon. gentlemen of the present attitude of Russia; of the entrance of the United States into this terrible conflict; of the deeds of heroic France, which has been almost bled white during the last year; of the carrying out of the submarine warfare on a much larger scale and in a much more destructive manner.
The member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) the other evening strongly emphasized the assertion that the Government was moribund and irresponsible and that it did not command the confidence of the people because it had outlived its legal life. Let me remind the hon. gentleman that the life of this Parliament was extended on the strength of a resolution, passed unanimously, petitioning His Majesty and the Imperial Government to amend the British North America Act with a view of granting an extension of the life of this Parliament for another year in order to prevent a political conflict at a time when it would have been wholly undesirable and prejudicial to the best interests of Canada. For that reason, and in the light of common sense, fairness and equity, I consider that this Government is as legally constituted to-day as it was a year ago.
In reference to what I said in connection with the remarks made by the members for Rouville and Kamouraska, may I point out that during the last year the armies of the Allies have carried on a more offensive campaign; that larger quantities of ammunition have been at their disposal; that the use of more formidable weapons and more dangerous implements of war have created a demand for men, and more men; and that that was one of the reasons which led to the presentation of this Bill.

The right hon. leader of the Opposition, referring to the delinquencies in the matter of enlistment in Quebec, gave a very incomplete explanation and made a very weak defence. I am willing to agree with the right hon. gentleman and others who liave spoken on the subject that conditions in Quebec are somewhat different from what they are in other provinces; that Quebec is almost essentially an agricultural province; that its men marry at an early age and assume domestic responsibilities and obligations which married men in other provinces do not assume. I am willing to agree with hon. gentlemen in respect of many other reasons which have been put forth in justification of conditions in Quebec. But if recruiting in Quebec has not come up to expectations, it is because the *people of that province have not received the encouragement or the enlightenment to which they were entitled. I do not mean from officials of the Government; I mean from men who are their leaders; men who are their representatives in this House; men who should have been their counsellors and guides from the beginning of the war and should have done what we have accomplished, in Ontario. The French Canadians are a peaceful, God-fearing and law-abiding- people. They love their homes and their country; they are patriotic to the core; they are brave and courageous. I need only mention the battle of Gourcelette as a striking example and a convincing proof of the valour, the dash and the bravery of the French Canadian troops at the front. But the people of that province are more sentimental and more impressionable than their English-speaking fellow-citizens; consequently, they are more easily influenced. Unfortunately, since the outbreak of this war they have allowed themselves to be misguided and ill-advised by a certain few in Quebec whose teachings, actions and writings since the beginning of the war have proved them to be false to their Canadian citizenship and to their stand-inig as British subjects-and they should have been treated accordingly. I am a French Canadian, representing a constituency in Ontario. I love my mother tongue as dearly as any French Canadian in this House or in the country. I feel proud of the language of my ancestors, the history of whose country is as glorious as it is wonderful. I am particularly proud of the record of France since the beginning of the war, because of the valour, the courage and the chivalry of her soldiers, the spirit of self-sacrifice, the self-denial, the patriot-

ism, the devotedness and the initiative of her people, and the wonderful military feats and accomplishments of her armies, have enlisted the admiration of the whole world. But I declare that I am first and foremost a Canadian; I am proud to be a British subject.
During the past few weeks I have received many threatening letters, describing the various methods of death intended for me should I vote for conscription, conveying choice epithets galore, and qualifying me as a traitor and coward if I should support the Compulsion Bill. All I have to say as to this is that I have no fear. If doing my duty as I understand it; if telling this House how dearly I love Canada, how reverently I honour the flag, how sincerely I respect and esteem my compatriots in Quebec, and how deeply I admire the British Empire, France and the Allies, or if expressing the sentiments of my true and sincere loyalty-if that be cowardice, then I say that I am not ashamed to be branded as a coward.
The French Canadians of Ontario have answered the call of duty in a fairly satisfactory way. My compatriots in Ottawa, the city which I have the honour of representing in this House, as well as in the neighbouring and military districts, have contributed their fair quota of men to the Canadian militia service, 1,587 having enlisted from this military district. The casualty lists show that these men have been doing and are doing their duty faithfully and well, while the honour roll published from day to day sadly attests to the fact that many have made the supreme sacrifice, and, I have no doubt, have faced danger as fearlessly and have met death as courageously and ungrudgingly as any other class of Canadian soldiers at the front.
The union of the two great races in Canada was sealed in blood in 1776, when shoulder to shoulder the English and French defended Quebec against an invading army. What the English soldiers did for Canada and the Empire at Lundy's Lane and Queenston Heights, a handful of French soldiers undeT de Salaberry at Chateauguay accomplished in 1812, and since that date the English and French of this country have grown up into a common brotherhood, the brotherhood of the Canadian people. They have been living in peace; they have had their differences, they may have had their quarrels, but under the Union Jack the French Canadians of Quebec and the rest of Canada enjoy liberty and protection, religious, national and political. They

speak their own language; they make their own laws; they exercise their franchise as they see fit, and they worship at the altars where their forefathers knelt. They value their Canadian citizenship as highly as does any other class of Canadians in this country.
I firmly believe that when the purport and tenor of this Bill are fully and properly explained to the people of Quebec, fhey will be willing to do their share and to discharge their national duty as faithfully as any other class of citizens of this country.
I say this, notwithstanding the dire threat delivered in stentorian tones and with dramatic effect by the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe (Mr. L. J. Gauthier) a few nights ago. While the French Canadians have and enjoy rights, they must realize, as I realize, that they have obligations to fulfil. Our Canadian soldiers on the battle-fields of France and Belgium, fighting for the flag, for the Empire, for liberty and for our own country, have, by their valour, their courage, and particularly their adaptability and resourcefulness, covered themselves with glory. The Canadian physicians, surgeons and nurses have, at the front and in the hospitals, done themselves proud in the eyes of the whole world because of their devotion to duty, their spirit of self-sacrifice, their unselfishness and their all round good work.
If I be permitted to digress, I would like to say that the Canadian physicians and surgeons on the field, as well as in the hospitals, ably assisted by the nurses, who, since the war began, have rendered invaluable aid in various spheres, have performed their multifold duties and arduous labours in a manner which has elicited the admiration of the British and the Allies alike, have won the approval of all well-thinking people, and have earned the. profound gratitude of thousands of sick and wounded soldiers who have come under their care; and the administration and organization of our hospitals both in France and in England are, to my mind, satisfactory and excellent. Shortcomings and mistakes may have been made, but we must admit that the undertaking has been immense, intricate and far reaching. I wish to state most emphatically, from what I know of the conditions existing in those institutions, that the man who stated that the Canadian Medical Service had failed to an almost criminal degree, erred in judgment and observation; drew wrong conclusions and was animated by a feeling of unreasonable animus and failed in the discharge of his duty.
Canada has made many sacrifices since this waT has commenced; the people have endeavoured to honourably discharge their duty for the cause of humanity and civilization, and if this terrific contest is protracted, we, in conjunction with the Allies, should be prepared to spend our last dollar and to expend the last ounce of mental energy and physical strength which we possess. We should be prepared to put forth our strongest endeavours to reasonably increase our man-power at the front, with a view to bringing the Germans to their knees and crushing militarism and Prussian autocracy, thereby ensuring to the whole world a permanent and lasting peace.
Mr. A. B. McCOIG (West Kent) Mr. Speaker, in rising to say a few words on this, undoubtedly the most important question that has ever been before Parliament, at least since I have had the honour of *being a member, I wish at the outset to say that I have the good fortune to represent possibly the largest urban and rural constituency in Ontario. In that constituency we have citizens of every nationality and of different religions. I am glad to say, however, that from those different denominations I have never received a letter asking me not to do what I thought was the very best in the interest of the future of this country and of the British Empire. I am more fortunate than my hon. friend (Mr. Chabot), who has stated that he has received many letters threatening him if he took one stand or the other. The only proposition put up to me by any of my constituents was not to support the amendment to the amendment, which means that we are to do nothing to assist the Mother Country. From my constituency, of which I am justly proud, we have sent 2,000 men to take part in the great struggle which is now going on. Many of those men have been fortunate enough to return. Many of them have come back wounded, and many of them have made the supreme sacrifice on the battlefields of France and Flanders. Many of them are in the trenches at the present time. We cannot give these men too good treatment. On many occasions when I have listened to hon. members speaking about how we should get recruits, the thought has impressed itself upon me that if the members of this House were serious and would make some further compensation to those men, other men would be more encouraged to enlist. Those men enlisted voluntarily at a time when the cost of living in this country was much tess than it is at the present time.

These men have agreed to serve their country for $1.10 a day. If they could have been home last winter and seen the hardship their families had to contend with, I feel satisfied they would demand that the Government increase their pay before they return. The Government might tax large incomes of $10,000 and upwards, which would mean a considerable sum in the treasury by the time when these men return, and if they did not return the money would enable their families to make a new start in life. Many of our industries are thus setting aside large sums of money for the hard times that are expected after the war.
The hon. member for Montreal, St. Antoine (Sir Herbert Ames) said last night that it was impossible to get any more recruits. I feel satisfied that if we doubled the pay of the soldiers we would be able to get the number of men the Prime Minister promised without any form of compulsory service. Let me read a despatch in this connection:
800 Chicago Students For Canada's Farms. Chicago, April 26.-The Agricultural College of the University of Illinois has given 800 students to Canada to help harvest the "warwinning wheat crop." The first contingent, composed of nearly 500 men, left Chicago for the Saskatoon district in western Canada tonight.
The Canadian Government guarantees the boys a minimum wage of $50 a month and board, it pays tiwo-tihirds of their railroad fare in Canada, and promises each of them a homestead of 160 acres after they have served six months harvesting the 1917 crop.
If this be true, I ask this Government to give the boys at the front who are protecting this young nation the same consideration after the war is over. I believe we should then be able to get the required number of men. I have another advertisement here which appeared in the different American newspapers up to the 1st of May last: Farm Hands Wanted.
Western Canada Farmers Require 50,000 American Farm Labourers at Once? Urgent demand sent out for farm help by the Government of Canada. Good wages. Steady employment. Low railway fares. Pleasant surroundings. Comfortable homes. No Compulsory Military Service. Farm hands from the United States are absolutely guaranteed against conscription. This advertisement is to secure farm help to replace Canadian farmers who have enlisted for the war.
A splendid opportunity for the young man to investlgiate western Canada's agricultural offerings, and to do so at no expense. Only those accustomed to farming need apply.
For particulars as to railway rates and districts where labour is required, or other information regarding western Canada, apply to C. J. Buroughton, 112 W. Adam St., Chicago, 111.,
Authorized Canadian Government Agent.

Am I unreasonable in making this plea for the soldiers at the front, of whom so many kind and complimentary things have been said by every hon. gentleman who has spoken in this debate? Am I asking too much when I ask Parliament to supplement the pay of the men who are rendering such great service at the front for this country and the Empire, and to offer a higher amount to the men they propose to coerce into military service in the future?
The county which I have the honour to represent in this House has sent many boys to the Royal Military School at Kingston to take the artillery course. This course costs the parents from $800 to $1,200. On the first day of June many of my constituents who had taken this course at Kingston were sent overseas. They had had a thorough training in the artillery branch of the service, and naturally expected to continue in that branch, but after they arrived in England they were transferred from the artillery to the infantry. This was not done by the British authorities; they had nothing to do with it whatever. The whole matter was in the hands of the Canadian officials. In view of the treatment meted out to these men, how can the Government expect to get more recruits from that county? As the Prime Minister is not in his seat, I appeal to the hon. gentleman who is leading the House to give this matter his immediate and serious attention, and have this wrong righted. If the people are to have confidence in recruiting officers, the Government must stand behind the pledges given at the time of enlistment, and not transfer men from one unit to another contrary to the understanding at the time of enlistment.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Poster) said the other day that what Canada wanted was leadership. These are his words:
I prefer that this House of Commons-not fresh from the people, out yet from the people -I prefer that they, having knowledge which others in large degree cannot have, should give the people of this country a lead in this great matter.
With that I am absolutely in accord. When the National Service campaign was being carried on and cards were being sent out, hundreds of men came to me and asked if they would be subject to compulsory service if they signed the cards. I assured them on the word of the Prime Minister of this country that we would not have compulsory service in Canada. I also told them that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers), when acting for the Prime Minister, had assured the labour delegates who

waited on him that registration was no step towards compulsion. I also pointed out that the right hon. leader of the Opposition had stated that we should not have compulsory service in Canada. I have also here an interview in the Toronto Mail and Empire of October 10, 1916, with Hon. Mr. Hearst, Premier of Ontario:
The Prime Minister found little, if any, sentiment among the British people, f avouring compulsory service in Canada. There may he some among Canadian army men, hut the British people have received so much more help from Canada than they looked for at the outset, that they are not disposed to demand more.
When we have such authorities making the statement that there will be no compulsion in this country, can you be surprised when you hear that there is some opposition to this proposal, and especially in the absence of an educational campaign to place before the people the reasons for adoplting a measure of this kind? While I am alluding to the views of those who,
I admit, are amongst the foremost men in Canada, I think I might appropriately refer to an editorial which appeared in a paper that enjoys the greatest reputation for reliability and enterprise in supplying war news to the people of this land. In reply to criticism with regard to the stand that paper had taken, the Toronto Globe published the following in its editorial columns:
The Globe, in its editorial columns, has constantly pointed out that in a country such as Canada conscription is an impossibility, and that no responsible statesman of either party, capable of forming or leading a Canadian War Ministry, would propose compulsory service. Nor has The Globe unduly criticised the failure of the Borden Government to do more than it has done to assist volunteer recruiting. The criticisms of The Globe and of most Liberal papers have been exceedingly mild when compared with the vitriolic denunciations of the Toronto Telegram, the Winnipeg Telegram, the Montreal Mail, and other journals that have absolutely no sympathy with the Liberal party.
<Mr. LAFORTUNE: Will the hon. gentleman tell me if the Globe has changed its opinion since?


Mir. McOOIG:: I am not the editor of the Globe.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is the diate of that?


Archibald Blake McCoig: It is dated July 13, 1916. When the announcement had been made by all these leading gentlemen and by such a reputable journal as the Toronto Globe, can you be surprised that men throughout the country had expected that compulsory
service would not he an issue in the future? That was the reason why I assured every constituent of mine who came and talked with me that compulsory service would not be an issue until such time as there should he a general election, or at least, until it was submitted to the people through the medium of a referendum. I stand in that position at the present time. As far as the Bill before Parliament is concerned, I am desirous of doing everything possible- to assist in having it carried through if dtt is going to be any assistance whatever to the Allies in their great struggle. While I support it, I grant there are portions of the Bill that are more favourable to the objects sought to be accomplished than are the provisions of -the Militia Act, now upon the statute-book. I feel -that -in this new measure there will be -an advantage and therefore I feel bound to- support it. But, not wishing to appear illogical, not wishing to take a stand which may seem inconsistent to some people, I want to assure the House that having promised my constituents /that I would -support a referendum under which the question will be submitted to the people, and not having an opportunity of doing it on the th-ird reading, Which -would be the proper time, I intend to support the referendum when- the opportunity presents itself.
We have had many 'speakers on both sides giving the question of a referendum very scanty consideration and referring to it as an improper method to adopt on an occasion of this kind. I have heard -some observations by the hon. Mir. Balfour read in -this House and I believe it is perfectly in order to -read them again. These are the words of Mr. Balfour who addressed this House a -short time -ago. Speaking on November 29, 1911, on the question of tariff reform, he made the following statement:
The advantage of a referendum is this: that the issue is quite clear and quite precise. A referendum has an enormous advantage. It does not involve a general election; it does not involve all the personal bitterness inevitably involved in a contest between the two competitors for a seat; it does not carry with it a change of government; and it does get a clear verdict from the people.
I doubt if there is any one here who will question the great ability of the Hon. Mr. Balfour, or the importance that must be attached to any statement that he makes.
Now, coming back to the province of Ontario, I would remind the House of the campaign which is proceeding in favour of the adoption of war-time prohibition. Every

hon. member of this House must have had a petition sent to him asking for the adoption of a prohibitory measure. We have had petitions sent to us, not from one organization in the city of Toronto, but from every church in every section of the country -certainly from every part of my own county, and I have no doubt they have been sent from other counties as well-asking for war-time prohibition. What do the signers of these petitions say? The petitioners ask that the manufacture and importation into the Dominion of Canada of intoxicating liquors and beverages shall cease, or words to that effect:
Or in the alternative, if it is deemed desirable to have a vote of the electors on the question, that your honourable body may pass such an Act to go into operation within three months of the voting thereon.
Does any hon. member of this House say that these men, representing the leading religious organizations of this country, are not justified in sending an appeal to this Parliament asking us, if we cannot agree on this great question, to give them a chance to have a referendum, in order that they may express their opinions at the polls? If a request of that kind is made by these representative men wiith regard to the question of prohibition, I feel, when I say that I intend to support a referendum on conscription, that I am only doing what I believe to be the proper thing in consulting the people on such an important question as this. We recall that in days gone by we had in Ontario that grand old statesman, Sir Oliver Mowat, whose success in public life was largely due to the fact that he adopted the motto: Trust the people. With reference to the present measure, it is proposed to place upon the statute book legislation which many speakers have said will not have the endorsation of a majority of the people. In that connection let me call the attention of the House to the stand taken by a distinguished gentleman who has recently been appointed to an important office by the Government of Canada, and who, while a member of the Government of Ontario, pointed out the futility of placing a measure on the statute book unless it had behind it the support of a majority of the people. I refer to Hon. W. J. Hanna, who has recently been appointed food controller of Canada. When introducing legislation in the Legislature of Ontario with reference to local option, he said that no legislation should be placed upon the statute books unless it had the endorsation and support of at least three-fifths of the elec-

tors to ensure its enforcement. No one will question the opinion of that distinguished leader of the Conservative party, who has now gone to his reward, the late Sir James Whitney, and he expressed the opinion on many occasions that any Act that was passed by the legislature of the province should have the endorsation of at least three-fifths of the people if it was to be properly and honestly carried out.
Now, I come back to the question of conscription. It has been stated in this House that conscription, if submitted to a referendum would be defeated by three to one. Well, if this measure has not at least a majority, how do you expect that it will be properly enforced in the face of such strong opposition unless you give time to conduct a campaign to educate the people to a realization of the necessity of the measure, so that they may be fully acquainted with the facts? A referendum would give an opportunity to every man who was serious in his desire to do his part in this great struggle, to assist in educating the people and show them why this legislation should be passed. It would take no longer to conduct an educational campaign along this line than it would take to hold an election. The Prime Minister said: Pass the Bill, this Bill, then set it aside, form a coalition government and we will appeal to the country before putting it into effect. It would take no longer to have a referendum than it would do to carry out the suggestion of the Prime Minister culminating in a general election. It would not only take less time but in the meantime we would be able to take a most important step toward the holding of a true referendum. The Prime Minister has promised to bring down a woman suffrage bill. No one denies that he intends to do it. The passing of that measure and the holding of the referendum on conscription would give the women of the country an opportunity of casting their votes upon the most important question that the electors have ever been required to pronounce upon. It would be their duty to give the matter very serious consideration, something that the women of Canada are quite capable of doing. Would it not be a fresh token of respect and regard on the part of this Parliament to give them that privilege, especially when they have rendered such great service in this struggle? They have rendered a greater service possibly than any other class of the people of Canada unless it be the men who are in the trenches. Trust the women and give them an opportunity of voting on this question,

and if you do I feel satisfied that the result will be all that we could wish.
We had a campaign carried on during last spring by the Government urging greater food production. That was a campaign that we were all willing to take part in, and in that campaign the 'Statement was made and repeated that increased production was not only urgent but absolutely necessary. Let me draw the attention of the House to the statement of the right hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) that Canada's need was great in this matter. We have in the Ottawa Citizen the report of a statement made by the Hon. ;Mr. Balfour at Washington in which he said that what was needed was "food first; military aid later." The article in the Citizen is headed in this way:
Food First, Military Aid Later Is the Request of the Entente War Commission to the United States Government.
Allies have pooled all food supplies hut France and Italy still face acute shortage. Commission may establish board of experts in U. S. to act until end of war.
Then it goes on to state that what the Allies need most is food and not men. Mr. Balfour was only a ship or two ahead of the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) in coming from the Old Land, and will any member of this Parliament say that Mr. Balfour was not in touch with the requirements of the Allies to as great an extent as the Prime Minister who came oveT only a few days later? Then, we have a statement from old London made by Lord Rhondda, the Food Commissioner on June 19:	.
Allies rely on Canada and U. S. to supply food. We are doing what we can off our own hat by increasing home production and decreasing consumption, but in the main the solution of the primary problem of supplies lies in the hands of our American Allies and Canada. I am sure they will not ''let us down."
(Shall we accept the leadership of the Minister ,of Trade and Commerce in this matter or shall we rely upon the words uttered by the Controller of Food in old England and also the statement of Mr. Balfour? We have the Minister of Trade and Commerce saying one thing and we have these British statesmen saying another. Let us give this question serious consideration before we take a rash step for fear it may not be the right one and for fear it may be considered as a Teaching for political effect.
I would point out to the House that unr der the voluntary system this young country has raised as large an army as has ever been produced in the history of the world
out of the same population. If this young nation enjoys the credit and distinction of this great achievement, is it not an incen-' tive to us to join together and by a united effort try to get the required number of men without having to apply coercion or compulsion to the young manhood of this country? Let us only say that we will do this and I feel satisfied that Canada will have the prpud distinction, a record which will be handed down from generation to generation, of being the only nation that was able to raise a volunteer army of 500,000 men. Let me appeal to the Government, if this campaign is carried on, to establish large military districts throughout Canada. We could carry on a campaign in these military districts for the number of men assigned to each according to population and where these districts give the required number of men it should be understood that the compulsory service measure, even though enacted, will not be applied.


Mr. EUGENE PAQUET (L'Islet):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. George P. Graham, Sir Wilfrid Laurier's first lieutenant, approves Sir Robert Borden's policy of compulsory military service and he contends that every Liberal member is perfectly free to act, to speak and to vote as his conscience dictates. He seems to believe that freedom of speech does not exist in the Liberal-Conservative party.
I have been sitting here in the House of Commons for the past thirteen years and I have parted with Sir Robert Borden on several momentous occasions. I may assert that no one appreciates more than the Prime Minister of Canada the frankneBS shown by the members of this deliberative body in expressing their opinion.
The hon. Mr. Graham states that the fundamental principle of the Liberal doctrine is based upon the respect for individual liberty. How can the hon. member invoke that principle iwhen journalists, imbued indeed with the Liberal idea, keep on proclaiming that the French Canadians now occupying a seat in Sir Robert Borden's cabinet should be considered as traitors to their Tace and to their province?
I am impelled by that respect for individual liberty in expressing my belief that the French 'Canadian ministers, approving as they do a bill which I intend to fight as vigourously as possible, do so because they are satisfied that, by resisting the popular impulse, at the very risk of thereby ending their political life, they may be of service to their fellow-man.

I might be allowed to apply to the present situation a reflection which was made in this House by a most distinguished French Canadian: If French Canadians, Conservative or Liberal, continue to be represented henceforth in the Dominion cabinet, they may owe that privilege to the Ministers who are in it to-day.
I respect the motives which urge the Prime Minister to introduce a bill, inspired, as he says, by a deep sense of our duty. But I feel obliged to oppose this measure, because I believe that Canada's participation in this war should be voluntary. I demand that the people be consulted, in order to ensure the preservation of our national unity: the good work accomplished by the Fathers of the Confederation.
I have always contended that Canada should defend her territory and her liberties. From the very beginning of the war, our native country and our liberty have been threatened. Canada was thereby threatened with a change of institutions and the imposition of the Prussian yoke. Germany could not find a more fertile land to feed her immense population, to expand her trade and to extend her barbarous domination.
It has often been said that Canada was the British crown's brightest jewel. Should that crown become decayed or broken, what would become of the jewel? The archbishop of Montreal has declared; "We are a colony of England and therefore, should England be defeated, Germany's first prey would be Canada. Now, we do not want to be Germans. That is why we must do all we can, since Canada's destiny is linked with success of the British arms."
On November 8, 1914, Mr. Henri Bourassa wrote: " Canada, an Anglo-French nation, bound to England and to France by a thousand ties, ethical, special, intellectual and economic, has a vital interest in the maintenance of France and of England, of their prestige, of their power, of their worldwide action. It is therefore her national duty to contribute, in the full measure of her forces and by her own particular means . of action, to the triumph and above all to the maintenance of France and England's combined efforts."
On May 18, 1917, Sir Robert Borden exclaimed : " There are other places besides the soil of a country itself where the battle for its liberties and its institutions can be fought, and I venture to think that, if this war should end in defeat, Canada, in all the

years to come, would be under the shadow of German military domination."	-
These words go to show that the Canadian nation, directly interested in this war, could not remain unconcerned by the European conflict: " Horrible unbridling of a nation of prey whose passions let loose find, in the brutal realism of war, their national course."
" This war," has declared Mr. Asquith, then Premier of the United Kingdom, " is a national war. We shall keep on to the end, until entire reparation has been made to Belgium, until France has recovered her lost provinces and security, until Europe has been delivered from the incubus _of armaments, and the world from the monstrosity of Prussian militarism."
So are we fighting with 'Great Britain to repel the invader and for the triumph of those democratic ideas so well analyzed in this House by Mr. Balfour. It is as much Canada's war as it is England's war. It is yours, Mr. Speaker, it is mine. It is the war of every Canadian and of every British subject.
At the opening of hostilities, the leaders of the nation have declared that Canada's participation in the war was absolutely voluntary. " Free participation, free enlistment." Such were the words that rang forth throughout the country. The Canadian people has given a solemn assent to these feelings. Indeed, at the call to the colours, 400,000 sons of Canada, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, have willingly responded and have joined the allied troops to defend the country and defeat Prussian militarism. They know that our security at the present time rests with the British fleet. Our brethren, leaving Canada to drive back the German hordes, knew that England had not willed the war, but had risen in a body to refuse to accept the infamous proposal of William II who was violating Belgium's neutrality in defiance of the treaties signed by his grandsire. At the first call to the colours, the most authoritative voices in the clergy of various denominations, in the Canadian press, in the political associations of the country united themselves in the defence of the Allies' cause against a foe who believes only in might, cynically laughs at his own atrocities, tramples upon the most sacred agreements, ruthlessly kills children, women and old men, and transgresses the laws of humanity, the law of nations and the re-

spect of pledged troth. Odious doctrines have perverted the moral intellect of the Germanic race. Allow me to quote the following words which William II addressed one day to recruits in Potsdam:
"Recruits! before God's consecrated servant and in front of this altar, you have sworn me fidelity. You are still too young to well understand the full meaning of that word. You have sworn to be faithful to me, that is to say that, becoming my soldiers, you have given yourselves over to me, soul and body. You have now but one foe; my foe. It is possible that in these days of socialist plots, I may order you to fire upon your kinsmen, your fathers and mothers-God spare you that!-but know ye well that, even then, it is my orders you shall have to obey without grumbling. God and I have heard your oath of fealty to your war chief. .
The German Kaiser claims the empire of the very souls of his soldiers. He is cruel enough to tell them that he has the right to order them the shooting of their fathers or their mothers and that, if needs be, they' must execute his orders without grumbling. In the face of such monstrous language that cries to Heaven for vengeance and in the face of the German army's most tyrannical deeds, the Canadian people have voluntarily made, both in men and in cash, sacrifices unparalleled in our history in order to expedite the Allies victory. ' Voluntarily, the rich and the poor have subscribed to the Patriotic Fund and to the works for the war, in order to aid our valiant defenders' families, our motherland's mariners and the sufferers both in Belgium and in France. Canada's military effort has called forth the Allied nations admiration. On the, battle fields of Festu-bert, of St. Eloi, of Courcelette and of Vimy, the Canadians had accomplished feats the glory of which shall never die. The people have responded to the call by revealing treasures of energy, of devotion and of charity. In the face of these sacrifices, the Government should not lay aside the volunteering system and offer violence to the feelings of a large portion of the population by making the service a compulsory one. Men! Men! And still more men! cry the partisans of selective conscription. Nevertheless, during the year ending May 31, 1917, the total number of men enlisted amounted to 85,306 and the total losses reached the figure of 75,492. Therefore the recruits have exceeded by almost 10,000 the number of vacancies to be filled. Among
those set down on the loss columns, a large number of wounded soldiers have already returned or will return to the front. Is that what can be called the utter failure of voluntary recruiting? I am satisfied that voluntary enlistment, if well organized, would be in keeping with the military effort which is to be expected from Canada. Enlightened economists remind us that we should not lose sight of our country's youthfulness, its resources and its future. They are rightfully asking themselves whether conscription would not,, after all, render England a negative service by sterilizing in the finest of her colonies all the germs of -future life.
While the Canadian army is heroically struggling in order to expel the invader from Belgium and from France, we should says the economist, concern ourselves about economical organization and the evolving of a constructive policy.
Before the war, Canada needed all her men to continue the conquest of the soil. Europe is not producing as she did in the past years, because her soil is turned upside down and her able-bodied men are all at waT. The farmers are entreated to give, more than ever before, all their care and attention to the tilling of the land. The authorities have even called upon foreign labour. In accelerating the desertion of husbandry by means of compulsory recruiting, we would be making a mistake that must react upon our economic life. We should not forget the assistance, especially agricultural, which our country, more than any other one, is able to give England and the allied nations. Exports from Canada and from the United States, needed to supply the Allies' needs, should be immensely larger than under normal conditions. In such an emergency is it wise to throw into the War furnace 100,000 more young Canadians?
And should the war last somewhat longer, will not the leaders of the Government, taking their inspiration from the principle of compulsory military service laid down in their new legislation, demand still more victims?
Ever since January 17, 1916, I have gone by the word of our political leaders and asserted that compulsory service would not be imposed upon the Canadian people. When the National Service cards were being distributed, I advised my electors to submit to the wishes of the Government; I gave them the assurance that these cards had no reference to compulsory service. In public meetings, I quoted the words of Sir

Robert Borden, of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and of the honourable member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Descarries), to demonstrate that there would be no conscription, I am not therefore surprised to hear voices raised in the province of Quebec in protest against this bill.
Messrs. Viviani and Balfour have recalled the supreme sacrifices of the Canadians. With the grandest eloquence they have hailed our soldiers who are fighting, suffering and dying for the holy cause.
After these sublime sacrifices, it would be unjust to violently tear away from Canada her sons and to forcibly levy the imposition of blood.
To impose conscription under such circumstances, without consulting the people, why! wouldn't that be doing injury to the devotion, to the sacrifices and to the heroism of the Canadian people?
It is impossible for me to approve an enactment, the enforcement of which might endanger our national unity.
As the honourable Mr. Patenaude wrote to Sir Robert Borden, on June 18:
The proposed law, I have every reason to fear, threatens to destroy this unity, and to give rise throughout the country to deep internal divisions of long duration, and even detrimental to the needs of the present moment.
Indeed it is better to keep the country united in the present effort than to attempt a mightier one at the cost of national disruption.
The honourable Mr. Patenaude perfectly expressed my own opinion as to the new Military Service Act.
I believe this is a fit occasion to make a few remarks about the French Canadians' military effort during this war.
Ill-advised journalists have been, these two years, incessantly abusing the French Canadians because the latter have not contributed as many volunteers as the province of Ontario has done to the oversea service.
According to Government statistics, the number of French Canadians who have enlisted is estimated at 14,100. I am convinced, from a serious study, that' the French Canadians' contribution to the general recruiting is far larger than is inferred on insufficient evidence. As an historian has rightly stated it: "The number of our compatriots in active service is not the only criterion of our loyal determination to contribute to the success of the Allies whose cause for the future of civilization, for England, for France is to us so dear and so sacred."
I sincerely trust that justice will be meted out to us. We find among our Englishspeaking fellow-citizens numerous defenders. They know that since the cession of 
Canada to England, the French Canadians have been somehow the champions of British domination upon Canadian soil.
During the darkest days of our history, the French Canadians have loyally and generously fought for the British crown. In the American war of independence, our militia men placed themselves under the British government's orders and saved Canada for England. From 1760 to 1840, the English bureaucrats, through their persecution, impelled agricultural development, paralyzed trade and commerce in the province of Quebec. Nevertheless, our fathers' loyalty remained unshaken. And when, in 1813, the United States tried to seize upon Canada, our militia, commanded by Mr. de Salaberry, drove back the foreigners. I may boldly proclaim that British institutions rest, in the province of Quebec, upon immovable foundations.
It is true that the province of Quebec has not supplied men for the war in the same ratio as the population of the other provinces. We should consider that Quebec's rural population is much larger than the urban, and that recruiting is qarried on more easily in towns. Some one has written : " When it is a matter of warfare and of battles, we like to share in the glory attached to it. The fascination of arms springs from the prestige of the chiefs who set off their own valour and that of their soldiers." We have not been given French Canadian leaders; only one regiment has succeeded in getting a fair opening and in pulling through. The others that followed on have lost their identity in England and in France. All that counts in the present oiganization has been a staff almost exclusively English. How many French Canadians are there in the superior ranks? The very few compatriots who cut a nominal figure in high ranks have been so intimidated and circumvented, that they are unwittingly and helplessly so, rather a cause of discouragement.
Colonel Blondin has sounded the right note when recruiting in the province of Quebec. If the hon. Minister of Militia had organized, at the very outset of the war, a well directed campaign, the results would have been different. Since the conquest, the authorities have not encouraged the militarist idea among the French Canadians. In a general way, my compatriots seem to have been systematically ignored in the Militia Department. How could our people show any enthusiasm for enlisting when both editors and legislators consign the French Canadians of Ontario to the same

standing as the Germans as far as education is concerned? Why should our people rush to the recruiting booths, when Englishspeaking Canadians want the fusion of races, ostracize our language and try to disposses us of our holdings? One of us has said: "What we have we hold." Such is my compatriots ! rallying-cry to resist the organized attacks against our faith, our traditions and our language. The struggle which the French Canadians of Ontario and of Manitoba have to keep up for the maintenance of their language and the preservation of their schools has largely contributed to impede recruiting.
For a few months past, I have been expecting an official truce, but those who are hostile to our tongue will not disarm and are even now trying to send to jail the defenders of our language in the city of Ottawa. So strange an aggression has revived a regrettable feud. Therefore, those who persist in refusing to give our race its due; those who abuse us since 1914; those who keep on persecuting our compatriots in the capital of Canada, destroy enlisting in the province of Quebec. If this unfortunate question of the bilingual schools were settled in a fair way, the French Canadians' participation would be more effective.
Several liberal speakers have stated that the Nationalist campaign of 1910 and of 1911 had paralysed enlisting in the province of Quebec. They seem to have forgotten some most important facts of our history. As a matter of fact, in 1885, General Laurie and Colonel Williams proposed the levy of two regiments to aid the Empire and asked the Canadian Government to pay part of the expense. Sir John A. Macdonald, consulted by Lord Landsdowne, wrote that Canada ought not contribute to the wars of the Empire.
Let us recall the Liberal policy of 1896. One could read in L'Electeur:	"Why
fight for England?" In 1896, the Liberal party in the province of Quebec opposed any participation of Canada in the wars of the Empire. Le Canada, organ of the Liberal party, in 1907, opposed all contribution on the part of Canada to the defence of England. It approved any Canadian policy of abstention. In 1910, in the course of the debates upon the Naval Act, and during the electoral campaign of 1911, several Liberals in the province of Quebec were bent on lessening the Government's schemes and reduced them to a simple maritime policy. Some spoke of the creation of a navy which Canada might lend to England, others, of the creation of an exclusively Canadian fleet to be controlled * by us and by us alone. And even some others again found in this navy the best instrument to conquer our independence.
The Liberals of the province of Quebec, although supporting the Naval Act proposition, seemed opposed to Canada's participating in the wars of the Empire.
The Liberal party has always, previous to March 29, 1909, advocated the doctrine which the Nationalists defended in 1910 and in 1911. To prove this I might refer to the reports of the various imperial conferences. They show that the Liberal party has deeply engraved in the heart of the French Canadians the principle of Canada's nonparticipation in the wars of the Empire.
In the judgment of the vast majority of the French Canadians, this traditional principle is inscribed in the Constitution. The supreme reason of their opposition to enlistment and to compulsory service consists, as it seems to me, in their sincere attachment to Canada which is their only country.
The French Canadian mentality is to-day entangled by obstacles which migM be removed through a consultation of the people. Indeed, my compatriots have the sense of order and discipline and they would submit to the verdict rendered by the majority. Therefore I ask the Prime Minister, as did the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee), and other members of this House, to make, previous to putting this bill into force, a last and sincere appeal to the patriotism of our Canadian youths, to go voluntarily to the assistance of their brethren at the front. I do ask this in order to try and settle a situation full of difficulties and internecine struggles. Otherwise you are deepening a chasm between the two great races who form the Canadian nation and between classes that should respect and love one another. What would be the usefulness of the new law, if our country is rushed into an unwholesome agitation?
The adoption of this measure under such circumstances would be more hurtful than useful to the Allies' cause. Just think, Mr. Speaker, of the touchiness of the races and of the working classes. This irritability must be taken into account. It may be suddenly stirred up, powerful and threatening. Are the various classes of our society and the Canadians of all races condemned to inflict upon one another the most painful injuries by the enforcement of an Act the results of which are doubtful?
The referendum offers itself with a sort of serene majesty to act as a moderator. Let us accept it in the interest of national
)

unity. We are writing to-day one of the most important pages in our history. Should the government, in justice toward the people they represent, forcibly enlist the Canadians for oversea service, after the nation has already voluntarily made such immense sacrifices in this war.
I ask for an appeal to the people, so as to dispense with doing violence to the feelings of a large portion of the Canadian people.
I ask for a consultation of the people, in order to maintain union among the various races and not to endanger the work of the fathers of Confederation.
If we establish a comparison between the number of our people and the extent of our country, between our (financial resources and the obligations we have taken upon ourselves, we come to this conclusion that the share Canada has already assumed voluntarily in the great war can compare with that of any other country, if it does not exceed it.
In the opinion of our ministers, these noble efforts are not sufficient. They should at least regulate their new position by consulting the people. I do not believe my mandate authorizes me to modify in so serious a manner our country's traditions. In this war of universal democracy against military despotism; in this war of liberty against tyranny, this (Government should accept the very democratic principle of popular consultation. As a journalist has expressed it:	"The voice of the people
should lose nothing of its efficacy and of its eloquence in a democratic country which has already made such a splendid struggle against tyranny and political absolutism."
In Australia, Mr. Hughes, the prime minister, has not seen fit to have the Australian congress decree conscription for outside service, without asking the electors' opinion by means of a plebiscite. The majority has rejected compulsory service. (Since then, Mr. Hughes has had a general election and he has been kept in power. If Mr. Hughes believes conscription necessary, he will again submit the question to the electors, through a plebiciste. I ask the Canadian government the same favour.
The people who will pay the imposition of blood have given me no mandate to deprive them of their liberty. Therefore I pray the Government to consult the people by means of a plebiscite. Is not the right of consultation one of the British subject's most universally recognized privileges. Parliament should not impose upon the people an important modification of its social and

constitutional administration before having obtained the nation's consent.
We are, it is true, in extraordinary conditions, but do the members elected in 1911 represent public opinion when voting upon a measure which so deeply affects our national existence?
The present Parliament is sitting only by virtue of an act of its own creation, since its normal term has expired eight months ago.
Should this Parliament, elected when the question of war in no way existed, involve the country into a new policy which raises the strongest protest in several parts of the country? I do not believe I have the right to bind the population of Canada without inviting it to express its opinion. My constituents strongly protest against the compulsory military service. If the majority of the Canadian electors declare in favour of selective conscription, the French Canadians shall do their duty and respect the law.
The pretests which are voiced against conscription from every part of the country should induce the Government to call for a plebiscite.
I have performed my duty by urging a referendum which cannot effect- a change of government. If we are plunged in the whirlpool of militarism, I shall not be responsible for the violating of the Canadian people's rights.
Will the referendum be approved by the majority of the House? Many expected it a few days ago, but we now see Sir Wilfrid Laurier's lieutenants, in the English speaking provinces, approve of conscription and condemn the referendum. In my opinion, should we have general elections and the Liberals obtain the control of the administration, the majority of the Liberal members would impose compulsory ""service.
According to the debates of this House, the Conservative party and some distinguished members of the Liberal party shall be responsible for the adoption of this measure.
If this bill is adopted by both Houses and sanctioned by His Excellency the Governor General, I shall appeal to my compatriots to show due respect of the law, in order to restore union and harmony among the different classes and the different races.
The French Canadians, having all in their hearts .the greatness of their country, will surely rally under the flag of the Bonne Entente. My compatriots are the most interested in the triumph of the Allies. We need the prestige of France to set off the splendour of our national development.

As Lieut.-Col. L. G. Desjardins has written it, in his splendid work: "England, Canada and the great war." We may say and think whatever we please, but we cannot help it; France, grand, powerful, respected, shall always be one of the mainstays of our future. We therefore have the best reaeons to wish for her success, jointly with her powerful Allies, and to desire that the cordial union, which binds her to the British Empire be perpetuated, thus procuring us all the advantages we have good reason to ai ticipate therefrom.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. ALPHONSE VERVILLE (Maison-neuve):: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to treat this question from a standpoint different from that of any hon. gentleman who has participated in this debate. I shall discuss it, not from the standpoint of nationality, or of province, but simply from that of organized labour. I, as other members of this House, who have so far addressed Parliament and the country, understand my full responsibility, and whatever I may say, at the outset I will state that I assume all the responsibility. I do not pretend to say that the discussion will be pleasipg, perhaps, to a certain class of society, but it may be pleasing to others. But when a member rises in this House, it is for a purpose, and that purpose is to express his opinion as he sees fit, provided he keeps within the rules of order.
The great departure from our economic system, which the Government proposes to make in the enactment of the measure under discussion forces every one to consider the economic and national effects, as well as the general results, of such a radical change. This change may have for effect a general disruption of our economic power. Far be it from me to attempt to discuss this important subject from the constitutional point of view, but nothing prevents one from discussing its economical aspect.
The question of the day is, have we exhausted our man-power? According to the Prime Minister, we have not; according to others, we have; so then, it is a question of judgment based on figures at our command. As far as I can judge, we had exhausted this power before we reached the figure of 400,000 soldiers for overseas service. Amongst the different classes which compose our nation, two are specially called
upon to state their attitude toward the world's battle now raging in Europe and the part which each has taken and proposes to take in the future. These classes are the wealthy and the poorer classes. In many quarters they would be called the exploiters and the exploited.
So far, the former class has controlled everything even in the sanctuary of Parliament; the autocracy of capital is becoming more and more a menace to the well-being of our Dominion. They have succeeded without great efforts in creating a large number of millionaires who are tumbling over one another in the rush for titles. They have succeeded in having these titles spread over the head of many undeserving men, and in that respect we are ridiculed by our neighbours as well as by our own sound-thinking people. Is it because a large number of our man power have willingly and voluntarily embraced military life, and a large number have gone to the soil of France, have fought and died to prevent Prussian military system being established in Canada?-Is it because many have never seen the field of hostilities yet and perhaps never will?- Is it because many are receiving good appointments and enjoying fat salaries without doing much good to the country?-Is it for these reasons that so many in this class have been knighted? It is perhaps fair to expose before the public the part that each of them has and is now playing in this great struggle, so as to establish for each their responsibility, and to show which of them has been the greatest factor, as well as the amount of patriotism shown in each case.
To any observer of human nature, there are times in life when occasion presents itself to appreciate the real value of sacrifice, and it must not be measured by words, but by deeds, with allowance made for the position in which each of us is placed and for the real motives that have influenced his decision. The former class I will admit, have cleverly set in operation the machinery at their command-nearly all the newspapers of the land, reviews of all kihds, literature, pamphlets of all sorts, have been in circulation to stimulate patriotism among the people. They have appealed to the generosity of every one to assist those who suffer through the war. In many quarters this has appeared as philanthropy, and has really been philanthropy, perhaps, in a few cases. They have organized large plants and institutions to manufacture implements of war material.



they have tried to revolutionize our system of transportation. They have opened industries which had never seen the light in our country before. They have recommended the increase in food production. They have recommended thrift to all classes of society. They have accumulated a large capital so as to finance the operations of the country.
The latter class also have done their share. They have furnished voluntarily seventy-five per cent of the 411,000 men already enlisted-that is, over 318,000 of our forces. Tliey have set and kept in operation all the industries of the land. They have been, and are still, keeping in operation our whole system of transportation. They have produced the necessaries of life. They have increased production in many cases to a maximum. Through their labour they have been the means of increasing the wealth of many. They have been and are still the brain power of the machine. To sum up, they have and are still the economic power of the land.
With these few reasons set forth before this Parliament, it is proper to analyse, which of these two classes has been more useful, has done more to win the war, and has shown more patriotism. If we consider the motives of the former classes in their philanthropic, as well as in their patriotic action, we must believe that selfishness has been the determining factor with many.
Let us put the question: Is it patriotism to manufacture implements of war at scandalous profits, after being well provided, by guarantees from the Government-that is, from the people's money? Is it patriotism to secure contracts of millions of dollars at exorbitant figures, taking advantage of the needs of our soldiers in the trenches? Was it patriotism to organize a staff of middlemen so as to rob right and left the treasury of our country as well as that of the Allies? Is it patriotism to speculate in the most vital part of the soldier's existence, that is on foodstuffs? Was it patriotism to charge scandalous prices for land on which our soldiers were to be trained? Was it patriotism to charge on money loaned to the country percentages that made us the laughing stock of our neighbour? Was it patriotism to grant contracts to firms in the United States instead of to firms in Canada? Was it patriotism to prevent industries being nationalized for the better prosecution of the war? Was it patriotism to compel workingmen to contribute so many days' wages to the Red Cross or Patriotic Funds, while it was known that many could not make both ends 
meet, and publish in large headlines the fact that such an amount has been subscribed by such a firm?
Was it patriotism to reduce the wages of working men so as to make larger profits, regardless of fat prices received on contracts? Was it patriotism that induced them to force many employees to enlist, while many parasites were left in cafes, ballrooms, cricket and golf grounds? Was it patriotism that induced them to prevent the rank and. file from buying foodstuffs at reasonable prices? And so on, all along the line. These make up tout a very small percentage of the reasons for the patriotism of the wealthy classes. They are, perhaps, these so-called fathers of society who are demanding the enactment of this measure, knowing full well that they have the means to evade the law. They are playing their strongest trump card against a referendum because they are accustomed to command and to lead rather than to be controlled. This class of our population are in need of nothing. Food and the other necessities of life, regardless of price, are plentiful, so far as they are concerned. They have the power to command the powers that be to enact legislation from which they will derive large profits. If I were to take the figures of the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Middlebro), showing the amounts paid by way of taxation on profits, they would be convincing enough without giving any more. He has spread them on Hansard, and it does not take a great mathematician to figure them out. I submit that this very faction is somewhat responsible for the present legislation. The word "exemption" is equivalent to the word "protection." I am tempted to say that some pray that the present struggle may last some time yet, so that they may make scandalous profits. What has been done since the beginning of the war to get back to the treasury of the country some of this conscience money by the inauguration of a system of taxation which would not exist if these people had not been permitted to make such profits? And, of course, if that system of taxation had not existed, the expenses of collection would have been saved.
I admit that war can only be won, not by sentiment, but by practical common sense. I do not believe in the displays of sentiment that we witness, day in and day out, in this House. Those who are not displaying so much sentiment may be just as loyal as others. What is winning the war in Europe? The word " socialism " has been used more than once in this House; it has scared many

people in different parts of the country. When I look at what is happening in Great Britain, in France, in Italy, and in all the Allied countries, I see that it is the principle of socialism which is now winning the war. When Britain took possession of the railways, mines and industries she applied the principle of socialism with a view to winning the war. I ask the present Government what they have done in that respect? If they have been afraid to take action because of the word " socialism." I hope that they will apply another name to it, and take steps to do what has been done in the Old Country.
I believe that I can speak for a great majority of the wage-earners of Canada. I know their sentiments and their feeling; if any take issue with me they make up a small minority. I have had the experience of struggling for life; it is something not easy to forget. In the name of those for whom I speak I take issue w th the Minister of Labour (Mr. Crothers), as well as with the member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark), when they say that labour is in favour of conscription. I say that labour is against any kind of compulsion. The other day the member for Red Deer stated that organized labour adopts the principle of conscription because it compels persons to join the different trades unions. No one can show me in the constitution or rules of organized labour anywhere anything which indicates that organized labour compels anybody to work with them if he does not want to do so. The principles adopted by organized labour are based on freedom. If a member of a labour union does not want to work with those who do not belong to the union it is his right to refrain.
The same applies to the opposite case: if a man who does not belong to the association does not want to work with members of it, he does not have to do so. We do noit prevent the employer from employing whoever he likes; at the same time we maintain, and. rightly so, that he cannot compel us to work with those men if we do not want to do so. This iis the principle which has been adopted in every strike in the country if there are any exceptions, they are very few. Those who say, therefore, that the principle of compulsion is embodied in the constitution or rules and regulations of trade unions, are making a great mistake. I shall later, in a very few words, expose the fallacy of that argument.
Compulsion is the very evil that labour has been fighting agaanist for more than
178i
half a century, in time of peace as well as in time of war. Labour men are free and independent; free and independent they want to remain. I do not want the country to believe that organized labour is .afraid of war. They have had to engage many times in the struggle between capital and labour; besides, when you consider the number of men belonging to labour organizations who are now at Ithe front, you realize the .truth of my contention. I understood the Minister of Labour, when he was giving .some figures the other day, to say that organized labouT at ithe front did not amount to so very much, after all, because there were only about-


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I did not say anything of the sort.


Alphonse Verville: I understood it that
way; I accept my hon. friend's correction. Remember if theTe were 30,000 men at the front who belonged to labour organizations, 90 per cent of those men would have families. If you figure the number of citizens throughout the country that these men represent, you will find that they have done more than their share. I say, therefore, that they are not afraid of war.
Labour men do not forget the blood shed by their forefathers in order to obtain the advantages of a system of free association. What they got was never secured through the good-will of other classes. Every foot of ground obtained by them has cost as many lives as the present war, although in different form.
And still they are willing to join the colours, but they want to have a voice in the administration and in the enactment of the legislation by which they will have to abide. They have been trained in a school which teaches that the referendum is the most democratic platform upon which all can stand. They also have been taught that they are the producers of the wealth of the world, and that man-power is superior to all other power in the land. Is it possible to believe that with their economic education they would accept compulsion without a referendum?
The Prime Minister, in his address when moving the second (eading of this Bill, expressed what I would consider a threat from the soldiers who will return after the war is over. I have too much respect for my fellow man who has gone to fight the battle of civilization not to resent an insult-I use the word unwillingly, for I know the extreme politeness of my right hon. friend. Nevertheless, he insinuated

that the soldiers who will return will have lost all their dignity, their spirit of fraternity, their manhood to the extent of being a menace to the public security. Never will I believe that. Never will I permit any one to attack them in their dignity as workingmen without entering the strongest protest. My fellow-workingmen have known each other too long; too many are closely related and connected with one another to believe that. Did my right hon. friend think when he made those remarks that they might have a double meaning? Has he thought that the soldiers of industry are as essential as the soldiers at the front? He has, for he has said so. The soldiers of industry have made up their mind to produce everything necessary to provide for their fellow men-the best of implements and the best of food. They believe that it is not man-power which is needed at the present time, but supplies of all sorts. They know that the difficulty of transportation is a big factor; they also know that the United States are endeavouring to solve this problem, and from information at their disposal they are convinced that for Canada it is not man-power but food that is needed on the field of battle. Let me give a quotation here in support of my argument that it is man-power that is badly needed in this country. I do not want to go over the material which my hon. friend from West Kent (Mr. McCoig) brought forward this afternoon, to show the different advertisements appearing in the United States for men to come to work in this country. As he has stated, they are required to go on the farms. I have a small newspaper, La Justice de Biddeford, published in the United States.
Mr. LEMIEUX; In the state of Maine?


Alphonse Verville: Yes. In the first
column there is a small item calling attention to an advertisement in another column. I will read it first in French, and then I will try to translate it into English if I can. The article is as follows:
Nous attirons l'attention des ouvriers textiles sur l'annonce de la Dominion Textile Co., que l'on trouvera dans une autre colonne. Cette compagnie opre de bonne calaires1 pour eeux qui dfeireraient aller travailler a, Magog, P.Q.
This is the translation:
We call the attention of textile workers to the advertisement of the Dominion Textile Company that will be found in another column. This company offers good wages for those desirous of going to work at Magog, P.Q.
This is the advertisement:
	.



ON DEMANDE.

[Stage Direction]
Des employes de latures de coton.
Nous avons des positions pour les employes de filatures de coton d'experience dens quelques-une de nos Douze Piatures. On n'acceptera que des families d'origine canadienne. Des arrangements seront faits pour le . transport des families et de l'emploi sera donnS a. tous lea membres de la famille de plus de 14 ans,
Bonnes conditions de travail et bon salaire aux .personnes d'experience.
Echelle de salaires, 55 hrs. par semaine. Chambre de Cardage-
Frame tenders	$11 A $15, par semaine
Chambre de filage-
Frame tenders	$ 9 a, $11 par semaine.
Fileurs sur Mule-Jenny.$15 a $17 par semaine. Tisserands	$11 ft $15 par semaine.
Salaires proportionnels dans les autres dfipartements.
Renseignements dtadles sur les conditions de vie, les loyers, etc., seront donnes sur tout village d6sign6. Ecrive en frangais ou en -anglais ou adressez-vous en personne au
BUREAU DE PLACEMENT, Dominioon Textile Company, Limited,
112 Rue St-James, Montreal, P.Q.
Filatures a St-Henri, P.Q., Chutes Montmorency, Que. ; Hocbelaga, Quo.; Magog, QuS.; Cate St-Paul, Quebec; Kingston, Out.
Fpr the benefit of hon. members who do not understand French, I will translate this advertisement as best I can, although, of course, it will be translated in better form later on:
Employees in cotton factories wanted. We have positions for employees with experience in cotton factories in some of our dozen factories. We will only accept families of Canadian origin. Arrangements will be made for the transportation of families, and employment will be given to all the members of a family over fourteen years of age. Good conditions of work and a good salary to persons of experience.
Scale of wages. 55 hours per week.
Frame tenders,
Detailed information as to the condition of life, lodging, etc., will be given in each village designated. Write in French or in English, or address yourself in person to Bureau de Placement, Dominion Textile Company, Ltd., 112 Rue St. James, Montreal, P.Q. The factories are at St. Henri. P.Q. ; Montmorency Falls, P.Q.; Hochelaga, Que.; Magog, Que. ; Cote St. Paul, Que.; Kingston, Ont.
Every one knows that Biddleford is quite a factory centre. I am not speaking now of the farming industry. I am speaking simply of textile industries. I have given this advertisement in this American paper tp show that there is a scarcity of labour at the present time, and I believe that I am not far wrong when I say that 400,000 is the maximum man-power that we can reasonably send to the front.
It has been stated in this House that man-power should be called upon before accumulated wealth. The arguments, how

ever in support of that statement dp not appear to be reasonable. Without any compulsion we have succeeded in calling to the colours over 400,000 men, or about one-fifth of our man-power between the ages of 20 and 45 years, and before we endeavour to proceed any further by compulsion, we should extract from the accumulated wealth at least the same percentage. Why has not the Government taken such action before presenting the present Bill? They would then have had some excuse, but npt a dollar except under the unfair system of taxation which now prevails, has been taken.
Was I right when I said that the power of organized capital had a great deal to do in the administration of public affairs? But, though their power may be great, it is as nothing compared with the power of the creator of wealth. This power if put into operation would lead to the entire disruption of our present system. Organized labour has notified the Government and the country in that respect. When they say that they will use all the means at their disposal to oppose compulsion I want this Parliament and the country to know that means a general strike. And what would a strike mean under present conditions? It would mean a calamity. Would any one assume responsibility for that? If responsibility there be it rests upon those who prevent the masses from pronouncing themselves on the present measure. They alone who prevent the people from expressing themselves on this measure will be charged with disloyalty by the soldiers at the front. On them will fall all the responsibility-responsibility, perhaps, for the greatest disruption of our productive power.
The Government must not believe that organized labour does not appreciate the Government's full responsibility in this matter. I want this Parliament to understand that, even if the whole of organized labour were to be exempted, their determination would not be altered one iota; it is a question of principle, and it involves too many years of sacrifice for them to be indifferent. The Government has no right to plunge this country into the dark days of a general strike.
The Government must be big enough to understand the errors they have already committed. They must understand that organized labour has been ignored ever since the war began,. and that organized labour certainly was not consulted on the present measure.
The Minister of Labour the other night read from a newspaper which I take myself. I can tell him that if organized labour in the United States had furnished the same number of men in proportion to population as we have in Canada, every one of them over there would be against compulsion to-day. During the latter part of March 'I happened to be in the United States, visiting Detroit, Chicago, Minneapolis, Cleveland and Buffalo. President Wilson's Bill was not presented to Congress until the 2nd day of April. When I was in Chicago I spoke to three of the heads of organized labour, and learned that President Wilson had had a conference with them ten days before the Bill was introduced. The President took them into his confidence and asked what support he might expect, and as a result a large committee was formed. If the United States Government could do that, why could not this Government consult organized labour before this measure was introduced? Why have this Government not consulted organized labour [DOT] at any time during the last three yeaT6. They say:	Oh, it is too late
now; w© have to get the men. During the last ten days the whole cry in this House has been:	We want more men. Apparently it does not matter who is going to make the munitions and produce the food so long as men are got for the front. In the United States, before the Bill was presented to Congress, organized labour in the United States stipulated that not a dollar of profit beyond what was reasonable should be allowed to the large business concerns of the United States Many business firms in that country offered to manufacture goods at cost price. What a different condition of affairs we see in Canada. If anybody in this country made such an offer as that, we should erect a handsome monument to him in one of the biggest squares in Ottawa. I cannot divulge the confidential information that was entrusted to me, but I am at liberty to say that the President of the United States would not move until he had organized labour behind him. In the United States, through the co-operation of organized labour, men are moved to where they can do the most necessary work. Hon. gentlemen opposite may say that is one of the objects of this Bill. I claim that the Government are greatly to 'blame for not taking organized labour into their confidence. It may not be too late even yet.
I may be told that organized labour repre-eents only a small proportion of the wage-earners of this country, but we must not forget the number of their dependents and those who are in sympathy with them. It
[Stage Direction]
is needless for me to give the figures because they are well 'known' to all. But, taking the figures which the Minister of Labour gave, 65,000-
Thomas Wilson Crothers: I did not give that
figure at any time. What I said was that the membership of organized labour in Canada amounted to 160,000, and of that number 30,000 had goije to the front. Tak

ing organized labour as one-fifth of the total wage-earners of Canada, I said that if those who were not members of organized labour enlisted in the same proportion as those who were, 150,000 wage-earners would be fighting at the front.	-


Alphonse Verville: Surely my hon. friend, being Minister of Labour, must know the figures. He knows very well that a certain portion of organized labour is affiliated with the Trades Congress and that another portion is not. As I was saying, the number of dependents and those in sympathy with organized labour is very large, and the only way to find out their opinion is by means of a referendum.
If, at the beginning of the war, the Government had taken organized labour into its confidence, as has been done in other countries, the present position would be brighter. It is perhaps not yet too late, for I honestly believe that if a referendum, were taken and the principle of the present measure was endorsed by any majority of the people, organized labour would, as usual, submit loyally to the decision


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Alphonse Verville: -and do all in their power to see it carried out. It may be that we would have a contrary result, and then, were organized labour called upon to do their part under the voluntary system, they would answer to the call so long as the productive powers of the country were not paralyzed.
My hon. friend from Parry Sound (Mr. Arthurs) the other day told us that there are at least 12,000 Canadians in Great Britain at the present time whose presence is absolutely unnecessary. We have been told that each one of the soldiers costs the country about $1,000 a year. Taking the figures quoted by the hon. gentleman, 12,000 -and doubtless his figures are conservative-as each of these men would cost $1,000 .a year, or $2.75 per day, it costs us $32,000 per day to keep 12,000 men pn the other side of the ocean who are absolutely useless, as has been stated here. This is equal to an expenditure of $960,000 per month. This

country is spending $960,000. per month, for. what? To keep 12,000 men on the other side who are absolutely useless, and who probably could be of great use in this country. I should probably be safe in saying that $1,000,000 a month would not be an exaggeration, but I am taking my hon. friend's figures. That is, we are spending $1,000,000 per month for nothing at all. Is this because we want to say that we have so many hundred thousand men on British soil? Is it because we want to say that we have 120,000 or more men on the soil of Britain, who I suppose have never set foot on the soil of France? Is it for that reason? If it is, I would advise the Department of Militia to call all of those men back to 'Canada as quickly as possible and put them on farms or in industries where they could be productively employed, and then, Sir, we could ask for voluntary enlistment and the labourmen of this country could not say: how is it possible to maintain production when we are short of hands in every part of the country?' I said that I would not be guilty of advocating a general strike; I would not be guilty of that.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Alphonse Verville: Perhaps nobody knows better than I do what that means, and I only wish that the present Government would understand it as well as I do and realize the danger that lies in a general strike. I do not want to go into details, because they are horrors, not only for the members of this House, but for the country and for the Allies, and would be a possible menace to the successful carrying on of the war. But we must bear in mind that if you are going to force that class of men by compulsion without their being consulted, whoever is responsible for that will have to answer not only to the country but to many other countries on the other side, and my hope is that this will not come to pass, I conclude by borrowing the utterance of a great statesman, one who has been quoted as an authority in many cases, the immortal Abraham Lincoln. The language of Abraham Lincoln, the great president of the United States, has been quoted in this House more than once; I have quoted it myself. This great statesman did not very often make mistakes, and he is regarded here and everywhere as having been a grand old man. In a speech delivered by him at Hartford, Connecticut, in 1860, referring to the New England shoemakers' strike, he said:

Thank God we have a system of labour where there can be a strike. Whatever the pressure, there is a point where the workingman may stop.
Now, Sir, if a man like Abraham Lincoln would make such a statement as that before thousands of people, not only the strikers but the people of the city of Hartford, do not those words apply absolutely to this country at the present time? With him I will say: Thank God, labour has a weapon that it can use intelligently, and no power on earth can contest that right. My last appeal to the Government, to the Parliament and to the country, is, for the love of unity, for the love of the constitution under which we are governed, for the love of those soldiers now at the front, and of those they have left behind, and for the love of humanity, let us have a referendum.


Mr. W. G. WEICHEL (Waterloo, North):: Mr. Speaker, I do not see how any one can rise on this occasion without feeling that the responsibility of a representative in the Canadian House of Commons to-day is very serious and very grave. Many striking sentiments have been expressed during the course of this debate, and the one thing that stands out very clearly and distinctly is the honesty of purpose which has characterized the debate from the very beginning. I feel that right conclusions regarding great national and vital questions as they concern our country at the present time can be reached only by conscientiously and honestly striving to understand existing conditions as they appeal to us to-day. To me the situation is serious. If any man will look at the map of Europe, he will see that the responsibilities of Great Britain and her Allies in this great struggle are very grave, and that the obstacles to be overcome before this war is won are still great. A business man to-day does not know wheTe he is for twenty-four hours at a stretch, because conditions are upside down. The Russian situation, although it has cleared somewhat during the last week or two, still looks ominous to most of us, while the submarine menace, as we all know, is just as grave to-day and just as dangerous, so far as the integrity of the Empire is concerned, as it was weeks ago. These conditions appeal to me, and therefore I am one of those members of this House of Commons who to-day feel their responsibility in a crisis such as we are passing through. And, therefore, to cut the matter short, I am going to vote in favour of the Bill. There are two proposals before the House, and we are familiar with both of them. We
have heard them discussed by a good many members since the debate began. We have heard from the Prime Minister. He has been across the water. He has met the men in the old land. They, no doubt, have given him information which has caused him to come back to his native land, and to ask the Parliament of Canada to pass the Military Service Bill. The other proposal is an amendment moved by the right hon. leader of the Opposition, that a referendum be taken on this matter. Sir, it is needless and unnecessary for me to quote figures to-night, and I do not wish to occupy more time than necessary. The figures have been quoted by other speakers. All I wish to say is that, in my opinion, the Military Service Bill is a whole-hearted effort to win the war, while the referendum, on the other hand, means delay, and, as one of the speakers pointed out the other day, leads us nowhere. We have had referendums in the past, and they have only been a farce. For a few minutes, allow me to refer to some other matters, before I take up the consideration of the Bill.
I well remember those ominous and fateful days preceding the war. I was then on a trip out West, and never shall I forget the shrill voice of the newsboys on the streets of the city of Winnipeg, when, on that fateful day, they broke the news to the people of that city, in the early hours of the morning, that England had declared war on Germany. Sir, you can readily understand that war between England and Germany had a terrible meaning for me, and, like a flash, my position was revealed to me. Hon. members in this House know my ancestry. I am the only one of the 221 members in this House whose parentage is German, and I wish to take this opportunity to-night, realizing my position-and I know that the members of the House will appreciate my position- to thank every member of the House, irrespective of party, and the Government, for the many acts of kindness that have been extended to me, and to my people, since the war began. I represent a constituency, Sir, where the greater majority of the people are of German ancestry, and the war has certainly produced changes in the sentiments of the people of that riding, but I am happy to state that, although there were some differences of opinion-and these, Sir, I am sorry to say, were greatly exaggerated by the newspapers of this country-to-day there is unity of purpose on the part of the people in the riding of North Waterloo. There is only one thing that lies before

them, Mr. Speaker, and that is their duty, and they are going to do it to the very limit.
We have heard several hon. gentlemen in the House refer to the voluntary enlistment. I shall have something to say about that. The results in my riding were fair. They might have been better, but, take it as a whole, they were quite satisfactory. The rural population of my riding includes many of the class of people called the Men-nonites, who are exempt from military service, as are other classes of conscientious objectors. These people came to, Canada over a hundred years ago from Pennsylvania, and, travelling up the Grand river, sett'ed in the county of Waterloo. They are God-fearing, plain living people, and I pay this tribute to them here to-night, that no finer set of people can be found in the whole Dominion of Canada than the Mennonite farmers of Waterloo. But, Sir, let it be understood by this House toenight that we could not get any volunteers from these people who are exempted from military service; and therefore our enlistments came entirely from the city of Kitchener, the town of Waterloo, the village of Elmira, and two or three smaller hamlets near by. I think I am quite safe in making the statement that we have enlisted over 1,000 men in North Waterloo'. And of that number, nearly 300 were boys of German ancestry. I do not wish to apologize for my people, because I think they have done quite well. They did very well as far as the Patriotic Fund was concerned. They stand very high in the estimation of the chairman of that fund. They worked night and day to make the Belgian and Bed Cross Belief Funds successful and were most ably supported by the ladies of our district. We have heard a very great deal about patriotism and loyalty in the Dominion of Canada during the past two or three years, and I wish to say that loyalty and patriotism, as I have learned to size it up, count for naught if not backed up with something more than flag-waving and loud talk.
Coming down to the Military Service Bill Mr. Speaker, I might say to you-and I am .honest .and conscientious in my conviction-.that I was always opposed to compulsory service. I do not like the word " conscription," I am democratic in my ideas along these lines. But the situation, as it has been presented to me in this House, compels me to sidetrack any opinions I may have had in the past on fchis question, and to oast my vote in favour of 'this Bill because I believe it is in the interests o.f our common country. After

reading this measure, I prefer this Bill to the Militia Act I think it is moire comprehensive and more businesslike in its terms, I think selective |oonsoription is better suited to the best interests of this country than the system of choosing men in a haphazard manner. Besides it will enable every kind of labour to be supplied.
I was surprised to hear a statement made by an hon. gentleman who, it is supposed, expects to be the next Minister of Labour- the member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Ver-ville). He said-and this, no doubt, will go broadcast through the country to-morrow- that if the measure passed, a general strike would be declared by the labour unions in-Canada. I consider that a rash statement to make at this time. Suppose the boys in the trenches should organize a general strike and refuse to fight for us because we declined to send them help; what about our institutions then? What about all that we hold dear? Statements of that kind are absolutely out of place; the people do not want to listen to them. The people want their representatives in this House to discuss these matters in a manly way, not to spread-shall I call it sedition?-among the people, or to speak as my hon. friend spoke a few minutes ago.
The Military Service Bill appeals to me because men are not to he conscripted for a single purpose. It was a wise step on the part of the Government to provide that the general purpose of the Bill should be to fulfil every requirement necessary to the carrying on of the war. Agricultural interests are not to be deprived of farm help. The farmers have been urged to greater production. Would you to-day deprive the farmers of their help, who are doing such magnificent work in producing foodstuffs to win the war? Would you cripple an industry which is so essential to the winning of the war? Some hon. gentlemen have said that the Bill does not provide for this particular purpose, but I believe that it does, and that same is outlined and featured in the Bill.
I believe also that any amendments brought forward by any member of this House, irrespective of party, will be warmly welcomed by the Government.
What is expected of a representative who has been elected by the people to this House of Commons? I have travelled considerably throughout the country since the war began, and the conclusion I have come to is that there is a whole-hearted purpose among the people to-day, that of winning the war. As far as I am concerned, my

duty is clear, whether I win or lose at the next election. Mr. Speaker, I would rather go down to defeat ten thousand times than side-track an issue like this, which means so much to my country.
The old line of political talk is distasteful to the people of to-day. What they want is action, quick action and plenty of it. Sir, the men at the front are waiting to see what we are going to do. The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Verville) said that there were many labour men in the trenches. I think that these labour men who are in the trenches do not differ in their views respecting this matter from the 200,000 or 300,000 other men who are fighting the battles of Canada in France. I believe that all our soldiers are united on this question, and that they expect the Parliament of Canada to pass this measure without delay. I take my hat off to the soldier. I know many a fine fellow who exchanged a remunerative position for the paltry little sum which he receives to-day in uniform. As a citizen of Canada I cannot help appreciating the great work that is being done to-day by the men at the front, and I am the last man to deny them the reinforcements which they so badly need. We have often seen the soldiers pass by. We bade them God-speed, sent them to the firing line-'and then quietly settled back in our easy chairs and waited for news from the front. These men are tt-day in France; they are working for us; they are dying for us. What are we going to do for them? That is the question that is now before this House and before this country.
I was across the international boundary line a few days ago, and I met several prominent gentlemen in New York City. I never was prouder in my life than I was when I listened to what these men had to say about Canada's part in the war. It would do your heart good, Sir, to hear what they said about what Canada did under the voluntary system. Canada's effort is one of the grandest spectacles ever presented to the world. With a population of barely 8,000,000, she organized, equipped and sent overseas a force of between 300,000 and 400,000 men. And Canada has every reason to feel proud of the achievements of her sons at the front.
We have heard a great deal about patriotism. What is it that makes a man love a country? Because it is the land that gave him birth. " The land that gave us birth " is surely pressed upon us now as something paramount to every other consideration. The man who loves his country, is her faithful standard-bearer, and tries by every means in his power to keep her high above her rivals, must be considered a true and worthy patriot. But if he is inactive and lukewarm in her cause and does not with all his might uphold her institutions and everything that will have a tendency to elevate her in the eyes of the world, he must be looked upon with distrust, if not with contempt. What is it, after all, that makes a country? Lands, forests, rivers, mines? True, there is inspiration in these things. . But, Sir, a country is nothing without its men. Some time ago, in reading the works of a certain author, I came across the following paragraphs :
The very same country whose scenery, tame or bold, charming or awful, has been the inspiration of gallant generations may, as the wheel of time turn*, fall to indolent savages, listless slaves or sordid money-getters.
It is the nation, not the land, w'hich makes the patriot, and if the nation degenerates, the land becomes only a monument, not a dwelling. Let the nation rouse itself, and the country may be a palace and a temple once more.
In this war, democracy as we have it here is forced by autocracy as they have it in Germany to accept temporary conscription in order that the issue of this great struggle may once for all be settled. Why, I know hundreds, yea, thousands of men who left the Old Land to live in democratic countries in North-America. Theve people preferred living under British institutions and they continue to do so to-day because they are guaranteed freedom of speech and liberty of conscience, and they much prefer to live on the broad acres of Canada to passing their future existence in congested Europe.	,
I am voting for this Bill because I feel it is a necessary expedient during a grave crisis that has overtaken our Empire; but while I am doing that, I hope and trust that militarism will never Tear its ugly head in this country. Militarism is a cold code. My ancestors knew something about it, and what I know about militarism makes me abhor it from the bottom of my heart. Its unwritten laws are as unchangeable as the laws of the Medes and Persians. Under this code the end justifies the means-any act is entirely all right because it is done to>
serve the end. It is against the doctrine of " live andi let live," and against the individual himself 'be he English, French, German or any other nationality.
Voltaire, the famous Frenchman, once stated that while France ruled the land and England the sea, Germany ruled the clouds. I am fully convinced, Sir, that there are


Mr. WILLIAM POWER (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, the important question at present before the House is one on which I have no desire to give a silent vote, for it will live not alone in the life of the present generation, but of those to come, and whether our assistance to the present war by compulsory service will be beneficial or not is the question of the hour.
Our boys who have so earnestly volunteered to carry the honour and the flag of Canada in this great conflict have brought lustre and honour on Canada. Their prowess, whether on the fields of Lange-marck, Givenchy, or later on the far-famed ridge of V.imy, have earned the respect not only of the Allied nations, 'but of our opponents in this great struggle. Little did the people of Quebec, or of Canada, dream, when from that old city a flotilla 'bearing Canada's sons heaved their anchors and hied away to England's shores to stand shoulder to shoulder with the sons of England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales, that the whole world would, within a few short months, resound with their praises. But, Mr. Speaker, this was an army of men gathered from the Atlantic to the Pacific, acting together with but one impulse. Duty had called them, and there was a voluntary response, not the shackling of compulsion such as to-day is proposed to be inflicted throughout this country. Our pride in the glorious past is to be levelled to the ground, and men in free Canada are to be shackled and manacled in order that they may be forced to fight for freedom and justice.
For me, to-day, standing in this House, the self-elected representative of one of the divisions of this country, on my own shoulders and conscience alone rests the responsibility for my vote. I owe no responsibility to any elector of my division, as my mandate from them expired in October, 1916. Therefore, my responsibility on their behalf ceases, and in voting on this extraordinary measure I shall act solely and entirely for myself, and not for any elector of my division. In giving this vote, I may draw upon myself the rancour of men who

through patriotic motives favour conscription, and perhaps the plaudits of men whc for just as honourable reasons are opposed to the same. I fear not the first, nor do I seek the latter. My duty is plain and apparent: never shall I by my vote force any compulsory measure upon my fellow-men without the. people of this Dominion having had a fair opportunity to pronounce a verdict upon it.
I shall no doubt be reproached in my native city and perhaps by some of my own flesh and blood for not assisting the soldiers at the front by my vote on this Bill. If I considered this Bill an earnest and sincere effort on the part of the Government to assist the men at the front, would I desert those near and dear to me? I am not an egotist, but if there is any hon. gentleman in this House who has good reason to take an interest in this contest it is the humble individual who stands before you. Five of those who are nearest and dearest to me have been in the conflict since its earliest days. One of those boys was gassed on the bloody field of Langemarck, the second is lying wounded in the Crimean Hospital at Woolwich, and the three others are doing duty somewhere in .Flanders. I may be reproached by them, but if I thought it was the purpose to assist the soldiers at the front by this measure, I would toe the last man to oppose it. But, in my own heart and conscience I feel that there is something underlying this measure, an object which I will not dare to bring before this House because the passions and prejudices of men are running very high. The day will come when the people of this country will know the object for which this measure has been brought before the House.
I am not a lawyer, I am only an ordinary business man, and I will not attempt to go through and dissect this Bill, nor to deal with the many classes of exceptions contained therein. That is the duty of lawyers. But there are exemptions which, if the Government put this Bill through in the interests of the country and the soldiers at the front, they must consider, and I will take these up one after the other.
As we hear on the floor of this House, as we have heard from the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White), so we have heard from the food controller of the Mother Country, that it is not men we want; it is food to feed our people and soldiers. The cry goes abroad: Produce, produce, produce. If such is the case, are the farmers and farmers' sons going to be conscripted

by this measure? No, I say they must and will be exempted. Secondly, there are great munition factories scattered throughout the length and breadth of this land. With the promoters of the factories I have no concern. For those men who have, with the cognizance of the Government, profited out of the life-blood and honour of our soldiers at the front, I have nothing to say. But in. these factories are hundreds and thousands of humble toilers who are working night and day in order that we may send munitions to our soldiers at the front. Are these men going to be conscripted? No, they will also be exempted. Thirdly, we have our great railway systems extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific. On these railroads hundreds and thousands of the ablest, brightest and noblest men that any country ever produced are working day and night in order to maintain the trade and commerce of this country, to bring the grain from the great West to the seaboard and to bring munitions to the seaboard. I ask you, Mr. Speaker: Are these men going to be conscripted? No, Sir, they will be exempted. Fourth, we have hundreds and thousands of dock labourers at the seaports and lake ports of this Dominion working night and day owing to the scarcity of tonnage in order to assist our soldier boys at the front. Are they going to be conscripted? No, they too will be exempted. Fifth, from the whole world a cry goes up to the terrible menace of the German submarines which are daily and hourly doing their utmost to torpedo and sink the many vessels bringing food and supplies to our Allies and our soldiers. The cry goes up: We must replace these vessels. In the United States and Canada men are toiling night and day to put in operation the many deserted shipyards in order to build new vessels and thereby help our Allies. Can this great work be done by waving a magic wand and without the assistance of labour? Can we find men to build ships if this Bill passes? No, we must have labour, and I ask if these men are going to be conscripted? No, they are not; they must be exempt. A coal controller has been appointed by the Government of the day. Is he going to go down into the bowels of the earth and bring up these miners? In the interests of shipping, of the railways, of our own firesides, it is necessary that we shall have miners remaining in the coal mines. Are these men to be conscripted? No, they will be exempt.
Then, I ask: Whom is this Compulsory Bill going' to send to the front to assist our

brave volunteers? I have heard hon. gentlemen in this House declaring there are thousands and thousands of young men to be found around the cities, towns and villages in Canada. I have heard it said by the hon. member for Parry Sound the so-called hero of Vimy Ridge who stated he said good bye to hundreds of his men at the front. Why did he leave, what for? Was it to come to this House to raise passion and prejudice against the province of Quebec, and to be acclaimed as a hero by the Minister of Inland Revenue? Are these the men whom we are going to send to the front to protect our brave volunteers? Are the men who go prowling around at night in our towns and villages, night hawks, barroom loafers, horse thieves, gamblers, men whose carcases are loaded down with liquor and who are steeped in debauchery of the most degraded kind-are these the men that this Bill is going to send to protect our noble soldier boys? No, I would sooner let my son meet a soldier's death upon the field of Flanders than that he should be protected by such men and I am not certain but that most of the fathers and mothers of our soldiers would feel the same as I do. I am ashamed of the actions of some of the hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House who have chided and derided members of His Majesty's loyal Opposition and who have charged that our opposition to this measure was merely due to partisanship. There is no partisanship about me where the interests of the boys at the front are concerned. The men who say such things about the members of the Opposition know not the feelings of the good, the patriotic, mother, when the glorious news is flashed across this country from the Atlantic to the Pacific of victories at Langemarck or elsewhere, or the anguish which is mingled with her pride, when at the end of the message she reads the words: "Casualties are heavy." Do some of these gentlemen ever realize the feelings of these patriotic mothers who, when this nerws is flashed across the Atlantic, lie in their beds at night waiting for the dawn when they shall read the daily press, not to see the fashion plates, not to see the social items, where Sir this or Lady that has been attending some tea party, not to read of the plaudits besto wed upon the eloquence of hon. members in this House; no, but to read the long list of casualties to see if there are included the names of those who are near and dear to them. But with even greater dread do they wait in their humble homes throughout the breadth
of Canada for the tinkling of that bell which will bring to their homes that cold, dastardly telegram which emanates from the Militia Department at Ottawa: Regret your son is killed, your son is missing, probably is a prisoner; your son is wounded, lies dangerously ill at clearing station number one or number two. Then, when the poor mother *seeks for further information from Ottawa, what is the response? We know nothing more. And yet these men dare to say that the members of His Majesty's loyal Opposition are disloyal to their country. Those are the men who want to send their sons and our sons to stand shoulder to shoulder-with a ragged, ruffianly mob collected throughout the streets of our cities under this compulsory measure. What is the cause of this Bill being before the House? It is the cause of the fall of many a man, it is pride. It was pride on the part of the Kaiser that brought on this cruel war, and to-day, Sir, I am sorry to say from my seat in this House that it is pride on the part of the hon. Prime Minister of this Dominion (Sir Robert Borden), a man for whom I personally have the greatest respect, although I am sorry to say I have not much respect for some of his colleagues-but it was pride, I say, on the part of the hon. leader of the Government that led him to launch this Bill before the country, to declare that his party were pledged to it, and they must carry it through this House. It was then, Sir, that he offered the gloved hand of conscription to our honoured leader of His Majesty's loyal Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier).
He said to him: come with me into a Cabinet, let us form a coalition government; we will pass a consoriptive Act in the House and then we will go before the people and ask them to ratify it. But this is not asking them to ratify it, this is dictating to them. Had the right hon. leader of the Government given the ungloved hand of peace, friendship and conciliation to him who has devoted his life to upholding the national honour and unity of Canada, had he given the ungloved hand of friendship and conciliation to him, even at this late stage, and said to him:	come with me
down to my native province, come with me down to the sea, le.t us stand in the old historic town of Halifax shoulder to shoulder appealing to the people for recruits to assist our boys at the front; then come down with me *through (the towns and villages of Nova Scotia, down through New Brunswick, over to Prince Edward Island, and then on to


Mr. P. MICHAUD (Victoria, N.B.):: continue to make sacrifices without being compelled to do so under the Bill now before the House. Let us, with one mind, devote ourselves to the winning of the war. Let us be a united people, having only one purpose in view.
Two-thirds of the population of New Brunswick are English-speaking, and one-third French Acadian and French Canadian, yet in that province the people are one. There are no difficulties between the French and the English-speaking peoples, because we understand and respect one another. The majority of the people are not following the advice received a few weeks ago from somewhere in Ontario. The English-speaking Canadians in New Brunswick know that the French-speaking Canadians and Acadians are doing their full duty. Like our English-speaking friends, we have our history. To the history of Canada we have contributed many pages, which are read at the firesides of our French Canadian people, who shed tears as they read. My ancestors became British subjects about two centuries ago; to-day their descendants willingly form part of the great army of the Allies in the fight for freedom and liberty. The French Acadians and French Canadians in New Brunswick have enlisted in good numbers. What is the trouble with the, highly-paid political campaign writers in Ontario who are sending to New Brunswick literature similar to that which is being used against the province of Quebec? I ask my friends on the other side of the House to stop sending that seditious literature, for we want to continue to respect one another; we want to continue to work together for the one great purpose of winning the war.
My masters in politics are the electors in the section of Canada which I represent, and the result of their decision through the medium of a referendum on this question shall be my guide in respect to such an important measure as that which is now before the House.


Mr. E. W. TOBIN (Richmond and Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, as I do not wish to give a silent vote on this important question, I ask the indulgence of the House while I state my views with regard to it.
The life of the present Parliament has now expired, and the present Government and their followers do not represent the will of the people. The introduction of conscription involves a constitutional change such as was never even dreamed of by the people of Canada when electing their

representatives at Ottawa-to say nothing of the fact that the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) and other members of the Government have repeatedly stated that it was not the intention to introduce conscription. The introduction of conscription by the Prime Minister is a step towards autocracy and kaiserism and away from democracy. The Canadian boys at the front are fighting against autocracy and kaiserism and for the principles of democracy.
What objection can there be to an appeal to the people, the true masters in all such cases, but particularly in this one? Are the present Government afraid of the people? And if they are afraid of the people, is it because they believe that the people will vote down conscription? If that is their belief, their sole aim in adopting conscription without a referendum is to impose upon the people something they do not want. If that is not autocracy and kaiser rule, I would like to know what it is.
One of the grounds upon which the Prime Minister proposed coalition to the leader of the Opposition was that conscription should be passed first and that the Government should go to the people afterwards. Why should they go to the people after the passing of conscription? Do you not think it would have been proper for the Prime Minister to approach the leader of the Opposition before announcing to the House and to the country that he intended to introduce conscription? But no; like all autocrats, he proposes his policy, and then says: You must do as I say, or there will be no coalition.
If the Prime Minister had had his heart in the winning of the war, should he not have united the two great parties in this country by calling upon the leader of the Opposition before he went to England, or even at the outbreak of the war? If he had done this, he would have had the co-operation of the leader of the Opposition and of the whole Liberal party since the beginning of the war. I can assure you that if that had been done, many blunders and much muddling would have been avoided. The right hon. leader of the Opposition and the Liberal party have shown, by their co-operation with the Government, by voting large credits and otherwise, that their heart is in the winning of the war. But they cannot be asked to go so far -as to allow the people's money to be squandered and the public treasury to be looted. That is not in the interests of Canada or of the British

Empire; nor is it the proper way to win the war. In order to win the war you have to keep Canada strong financially, agriculturally, industrially and economically, as well as strong in arms at the front.
I believe that the Government have failed in all of these points. I believe that the financing of the Finance Minister (Sir Thomas White)), borrowing money in Canada, when he could have got it as cheap or at a cheaper rate outside of Canada, is bad from every point of view. If the policy of borrowing outeide of Canada had been followed, we to-day should have $300,000,000 more money in Canada than we actually have, and we should be that much stronger economically. The taxation imposed by the Finance Minister is unfair, because it tends to kill industries and to discourage the investment of capital, instead of to tax the incomes of those who receive the profits earned by companies.
No action was taken :by the present Government to assist the farmers, except very recently, when for political purposes they introduced their free wheat resolution and told the farmers that they were going to arrange for agricultural credits. In my opinion, this was done, not for the purpose of assisting in the war, but for the purpose of helping the Conservative party. It was only when, they thought that a general election was imminent that they brought in the free wheat resolution.
The Government have not kept Canada strong industrially. They have taxed industries in such a way as to cripple them and to prevent capital from being invested in this country. In addition to that, they have driven thousands of dollars outside of Canada for investment in foreign countries. Speaking from an economic standpoint, I say that the Government have done nothing to control the foodstuffs. They have done nothing to control the profits that were made ;by munition workers. They have done nothing to save in time of war; they have gone ahead with lavish expenditures not only for war purposes^ but for every purpose that would tend to assist the Conservative party.
The methods followed up to the present in the matter of voluntary enlistment have taken from agriculture and other industries-including mining, the distribution of coal, and forestry exploitation,-the quality and quantity of workmen of which these vital industries have absolute need. In consequence, we have the present high cost of living. If a measure of selective
conscription had been adopted at the beginning of the war and applied with intelligence, it would have been somewhat of a remedy; but at present the adoption of conscription to increase the size of an army raised by voluntary enlistment can only make matters worse.
Some weeks before the entrance of the United States into the war the Government found it so necessary to fill the wide gaps in the agricultural army that it launched an appeal to the American workmen. This appeal was published in more than 700 American papers. The Government estimated at 70,000 the number of Agricultural workers that it was necessary to bring at any price from the United States. At the moment of the declaration of war by the President, 700 Americans, or thereabouts- had responded to Canada's appeal. Unfortunately, the authorities at Washington have put a sharp end to this drain on American mam-hood, and the agricultural army of Canada has not the 60,000 recruits which the Government judges it is absolutely necessary to have to allow us to produce on Canadian soil the food for which England has so pressing a need.
Comparing the military effort of Canada with those of England and France, we have actually in Europe or in training camps in Canada, 420,000 soldiers besides those in auxiliary service. If we estimate the population of Canada at the beginning of the war at 7,000,000 people, we have enrolled six per cent of our population for the European conflict. This is equivalent to an army of 2,400,000 for France, and 2,700,000 for the United Kingdom. Now, in spite of these figures on paper, England has not yet sent to France, in the two years and ten months of the war, this number of men. If we measure our military effort by the number of population, the figures of the effectives and the cost of the armies, the comparison is most striking. Canada has spent for its army three times more per soldier than England, and .four times more than France. If we take into account the difference in the wages, pensions, transports, etc., these figures are modest. We must, therefore, multiply by four the corresponding figures attributed to France, and by three those attributed to England. Therefore, the cost of the actual army to Canada is equal to what it would have cost England for an army of 8,100,000, and France for an army of 9,600,000. This is more than our two Mother Countries would put into the field if the war should last five years. Now France and England are, apart from the



United States, two of the richest nations in the world to-day, and Canada is one of the poorest.
In my opinion the government have not done what they should have done for the encouragement of voluntary enlistment, and I would refer you to 'General Sir Sam Hughes' statement to this effect when he said that some months previous to his getting out of the Borden Cabinet, Tecruiting was not being encouraged, and if you will refer to a return laid on the table of the House, you will see that only $3,996 was spent for recruiting in Quebec, whereas in Ontario $18,544 was spent. As a matter of fact, no appeal for recruits was made throughout Quebec by the Conservative-Nationalist party. The first recruiting meeting held at St. Hyacinthe, a city of from 12,000 to
15,000	inhabitants, was held by General Lessard and the Postmaster General (Mr. Blondin) only a few weeks ago. The same can be said of many parts of Quebec where on many occasions the only recruiting officers that visited the French districts were Engish-speaking officers, who did not possess a word of French; in fact, the matter is so notorious that one can come to no other conclusion than that a deliberate attempt has been made to ostracize Quebec in order to allow the Conservative party to raise the race cry once more, and appeal to the English-speaking people against the French-speaking people.
I have the honour of representing a constituency composed, in a large part, of French Canadians, and no truer or more loyal people to the British Empire live in this Dominion. They have been educated to believe that Canada is their country; they are proud of the liberties they enjoy under British rule and under the Union Jack, and they are not deserving of the attacks that have been made upon them by the Conservative party and the Conservative press.
I said a moment ago that I thought that this policy was for the purpose of creating a feeling between the English speaking and the French-speaking people of this country. Allow me to say that I believe that the Conscription Bill was introduced for another purpose, namely; that of creating an election cry that would allow the Conservative party to appeal to the passions and prejudices of the English-speaking people of this country; and, Sir, if you want proof of this, read the Military Service Bill as introduced, and you will see that it is an appeal for party purposes, and not for conscription. Because the law as it stands is not enforceable, and I do not be-

lieve it was ever intended to be enforced, but was drafted simply for the purpose of creating a division among the people of this country. In an issue of this kind the question is: Are the people to rule, or are they to be ruled by Sir Robert Borden? There should toe no question of race or language, and there is no need of raising what is popularly known as the race cry. The simple issue is: Should not this question be referred, by a Parliament that has been dead and buried for a year past, to the people of Canada for their verdict? Present the facts to the people and allow them to vote " yes " or " no " to conscription. The only way the question can be made one of race or creed is by the politicians making it one, because it is a pure question of the will of the people of this country, and one that is to be decided by the people and no one else. Why cannot the people of this country, although they are not all of English origin, decide this issue in the same way as the people of Australia, who are all English-speaking, and of British descent, have done? When they were called upon to decide this issue it was not a question of race or creed, but a question simply of whether the people of Australia were to change from voluntary enlistment, which they had adopted from Great Britain itself, to conscription. That is the issue here, and not one of race or creed.
Many people who are attacking the province of Quebec forget that the French Canadians were abandoned on the shores of the St. Lawrence river over three hundred years ago, and, although subsequently their colony was ceded to England, from the days of their abandonment to the present time they have looked to this country as theirv only country and their only home, not only professing loyalty, but showing their loyalty on many occasions toy taking up arms on behalf of itheir new King. They remained always loyal, always good Canadians, always good British subjects, until the Nationalists and Conservatives started preaching the doctrine that French Canadians owed nothing to Great Britain. Nationalist eloquence and Conservative gold h'ad its effect in the teaching of this doctrine, and in 1911 twenty odd candidates were returned from Quebec, elected on the doctrine that they owed nothing to England, or to the British Empire, and when you take into consideration the fact that in the recruiting that has been carried on Quebec has been purposely neglected and isolated, and nothing has been done to undo the

harm that was done by the Nationalist-Conservative party, it is little wonder that volunteering has not been so enthusiastic in that province as in some of the others.
Before the Government propose conscription to the House it should place before the House and the country the full facts of the situation. They should let us know what is required for the production of food, for munition factories, for transportation, for the carrying on of coal operations and to keep all the great industries of this country going. They should let us know what the effect will be upon Canada itself if more men are taken out of this country, and give all the facts with regard to the requirements of men, not only at the front, but in keeping .this country a strong live part of the British Empire in order that it may continue to do its proper part in this great war for democracy. Then when we have all these facts and figures we can, as sensible business men, decide as to what should be done. Let us see that there is no leaping in the dark-no more doing things first and thinking afterwards. Let us think, this time, before taking such a step as the introduction of conscription in this country. Let us think first and act afterwards, and I am convinced that no matter where these facts lead us, the people of this country will do what is best for the winning of the war. For these reasons I will vote against the Bill and support and vote for the amendment of my leader, and I will vote against the sub-amendment of the hon. member for Berthier (Mr. Barrette).


Mr. MED ERIC MARTIN (Saint Mary's, Montreal):: Mr. Speaker, I must prelude my remarks with thanking the hon. member for Maskinonge (Mr. Bellemare) for giving me his turn so as to permit me to leave tomorrow to attend to my duties in the great metropolis.
For nearly nine days both sides, of the House have been discussing the most important question which has risen since Confederation.
I have the'honour, Mr. Speaker, of speaking on behalf of a population of 700,000 souls, which is more than several other members of this House can say.
Religious and racial questions have been mooted and insulte hurled about. I may say that if there is one who has been insulted, besides the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), it is your humble servant, the mayor of Montreal, since he is a public man.
Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to explain and place the responsability where it belongs 1794
for what is now occurring in our province, *and especially in the city of Montreal.
In 1911, when came the federal elections, there was a compact between three persons. One is now deceased, and. I regret to mention here the name of Hon. Mr. Monk; the others are Mr. Bourassa and Mr. 

A great meeting was held in the village of Saint Eustache. I was not on the platform, but with the crowd in attendance, and if anybody then insulted the British flag, the Prime Minister of to-day and the prime minister of that time ('Sir Wilfrid Laurier), they were those three gentlemen. They had undertaken to preach one policy in the province of Quebec and another in the West.
Their plan has succeeded. They went all over the different counties of the province of Quebec and deceived the electorate to such an extent that the former Prime Minister, who is now leader of the Opposition was defeated and twenty-two candidates supported by these .three gentlemen were elected to this House with a mandate which they had never expected. 'Such was the compact.
After being insulted, as was the present Prime Minister, by these three gentlemen, including Mr. 'Monk and Mr. Bourassa, what happened the very next day? The portfolio of Public Works, the most important of the Borden Cabinet, was given to Mr. Monk, which well proves what I have just said.
Hon. Mr. Pelletier, to-day Judge Pelletier, for whom I have the highest consideration, and other honourable members on the other side of the House have mentioned the name of Mr. Armand Lavergne. Mr. Pelletier at the time was bowing low to Mr. Lavergne who was then but a young man, and was calling him his leader; yet here was he the very next day" accepting the portfolio of Postmaster General. All the others went to the Government side. My hon. friend knows something of it; he well knows what happened in the province of Quebec.
Now, Sir, when you see such things, and others still worse, for I will show the means taken to deceive the people-I am not at all surprised at what is happening to-day in the province of Quebec.
Since Confederation, the Conservative party has always resorted to insult and has always had recourse to a double-faced policy; one for the province of Quebec and the other for the province of Ontario.
It was said in the province of Quebec when I was a boy, for I am concerned in elections since I am ten years old, that Sir

Wilfrid Laurier was ;a traitor to his race, that he had sold Canada to England; they eaid in the West that Sir Wilfrid 'Laurier was not enough of an Imperialist, but a papist and the champion of Quebec only.
I have no hesitation in stating that those responsible for what is happening to-day are the Conservative Government and the twenty-two members who had the honour to be sent here, but who never heeded their mandate.
It was said in this House, Sir, that the province of Quebec was not loyal to the British flag, and that we have not done our duty.
There are two ways' to solve the problem which is now submitted to us: We have to decide if our contribution must be in money, if we have to pay the toll of blood in sending men overseas or if our contribution will be by sending supplies to the Allies.
The city of Montreal alone, and if I speak here, it is in consequence of a resolution adopted by the city council of Montreal, dated June 5, 1917, and worded as folio .vs:
Copy of the minute of proceedings of the special meeting of the Montreal Municipal Council, held on Tuesday, June 5, 1917.
The order of the day having been read for the consideration of a notice of motion by Alderman Mayrand on the question of conscription, are submitted and read: (a) A communication from His Honour the mayor, transmitting a letter from Mr. D. C. Hould, secretary of a citizens' league re conscription; (b) petitions from Montreal citizens objecting to conscription for the oversea service.
Alderman Mayrand moves, seconded by Alderman Vandelac:
That the members of this council have always been of the opinion that Canada should do its full duty towards the triumph of the Empire and of the Allied powers; but they believe likewise that it is their duty to oppose any conscription scheme under whatever form it may be introduced, as long as it shall not have been approved by the people of Canada by means of a plebiscite, and to declare that the enforcing of the Militia Act or of all other conscription laws, far from reaching the object in view, would create throughout the country a useless perturbation and would prevent us from supplying the Empire and the Allies with all essentials needed for the prosecution of the war;
That copy of the present resolution be sent to Sir Robert Borden, Prime Minister of Canada, and to Sir Wilfrid Laurier, leader of the Opposition ;
That His Honour the Mayor, Mr. Mgddric Martin, M.P., be respectfully requested to submit the present resolution to the Federal authorities, together with the various petitions which have been sent to the Council, on this subject.
And, a discussion having ensued,
Alderman O'Connell moves, seconded by Alderman Blumenthal:
That the council now adjourns.
The council divided upon the said motion, as follows:

For: O'Connell, Ward, Blumenthal, Macdonald, Weldon-5.	[DOT]
Against: LariviSre, Turcot, Mayrand, Menard, Vandelac, HoulS, Elie, Dubeau, Lamarre, Brodeur, Lafortune, Bedard-12.
And it is rejected.
And a discussion ensuing,
Alderman Ward moves, seconded by Aider-man O'Connell:
Whereas the question now before the council is now the subject of the most serious attention of both political parties in Ottawa and that any intervention on the part of this council might be interpreted as a lack of confidence in the House of Commons and the Senate;
That the discussion of the motion now before the council be suspended until the Federal authorities shall have passed upon the question.
The said amendment being put, it was lost on division:
For: O'Connell, Ward, Blumenthal, Macdonald, Weldon-5.
Against: LariviSre, Turcot, Mayrand, M4-nard, Vandelac, Hould, Elie, Dubeau, Lamarre, Brodeur, Lafortune, Bedard-12.
The main motion being put, it was carried, on division.
For: LariviSre, Turcot, Mayrand, Mdnard, Vandelac, Houle, Elie, Dubeau, Lamarre, Brodeur, Lafortune, Bedard-12.
Against: O'Connell, Ward, Blumenthal, Macdonald, Weldon-5
Resolved : In consequence. .
(Certified.)
(Signed) J. CrSpeau,
Deputy Clerk of the City.
This resolution, Mr. Speaker, was adopted by a vote of 12 to 5; there was an amendment to adjourn moved by alderman O'Connell who, though not opposing conscription, wanted to delay the question in order to allow the two political parties of this country to decide the question, and ha further stated that the adoption of such a resolution would be likely to hurt them to a great extent. It is said that Montreal, as well as the whole province of Quebec, generally, have not done their duty in the present war. I will take the liberty to mention to you the fact that we have adopted, since the beginning of the war, more than thirty resolutions, and the first, adopted by the Board of 'Commissioners and sanctioned by the *Council, is good evidence we have done our duty. We have done, twenty-four hours after the war resolution, what the Government had not done and also what the Council of the Queen city of Toronto had not done. On August 4, 1914, when I saw that England was at war, as well as France, I submitted to the Board of Commissioners the following suggestion:
Resolution of August 5, 1914, with a view to pay half-salary to the families of the permanent employees who have left to defend their country.
I considered that the half-pay alone was not sufficient, and I did not weary. On the 17th of the same month, I went back before

my colleagues and I had them adopt the following resolution:
Resolution of August 17, 1914, with a view to amend the resolution of August 5, 1914, so as to allow the payment of the salary in full.
That is what has been the attitude of the Montreal City Council, of those who represent the ideals of the people of Montreal, and would any one be right in coming to tell us that we have done nothing.
By means of thirty resolutions we have spent since the beginning of the war $7,580,791.51, distributed as follows.
Resolution dated October 5, 1914, granting $1,500 for ten beds in an hospital organized in Paris for the care of wounded soldiers.
Resolution dated October 5, 1914, granting $10,000 to the Belgian Fund.
Resolution dated November 24, 1914, granting $10,000 to the French National Fund.
Resolution dated August 28, 1914, advising the city council to vote $150,000 for the Patriotic Fund.
That amount was in answer to the first request we received for a contribution.
Resolution dated September 3, 1914, calling upon the municipal servants to subscribe to the Patriotic Fund-An amount of $12,509.39 was subscribed on that occasion.
Resolution dated March 8, 1915, advising the city council to grant an additional sum of $50,000 to give help to the unemployed labourers.
Resolution dated May 3, 1915, recommending a grant of $1,000 to the Montenegro Benevolent Fund.
Resolution dated May 18, 1915, recommending a grant of $5,000 in favour of the Red Cross Fund .	. .
Resolution dated October 19, 1915, inviting the municipal servants to help the Red Cross Fund. The amount subscribed on that occasion was $8,323.13.
Resolution dated November 12, 1915, to raise to $10,000 our contribution to the Red Cross Fund.	.
Resolution dated November 23, 1915, granting $5,000 to the Khaki League.
Resolution dated January 26, 1916, inviting the municipal servants to subscribe to the Patriotic Fund. This subscription amounted to $16,462.29.
Resolution dated February 12, 1916, granting $300,000 for the Patriotic Fund, and towards helping several public benevolent associations.
From this grant $250,000 went to the Patriotic Fund and $50,000 to the Benevolent Associations.
Everybody knew at the time that there was no employment to be found in Montreal. The wives of the soldiers that had enlisted were starving and we had to vote the money to help them. How many people have I seen lining up in front of my office, every morning! Hundreds of mothers told me that they could do nothing to save their children from starvation. Is there any justification, Sir, for the charge that the province of Quebec has been lacking in patriotism?
Resolution dated March 18, 191G, recommending a grant of $25,000 to the St. Vincent de Paul Society.
I must state that that Society had never before applied for help from the city.
Resolution dated March 25, 1916, granting $10,000 to the Charity Organization Society of Montreal.
We have here, Mr. Speaker, the undeniable proof that we, the French Canadians of the Metropolis make no racial nor religious distinctions. We make a fair distribution of the grants and we see to it that equal justice is dealt to all deserving parties.
Resolution dated May 9, 1916, granting $4,000 to the Baron de Hirsch Institute and the Hebrew Benevolent Society.
Another proof, Mr. Speaker, that we are giving fair treatment to all people. A large number of Hebrew citizens were in such a plight that they could not provide their families with the necessaries of life. You know as well as I do, Mr. Speaker, that those people, as a rule, are not poor; they generally have fairly large amounts to their credit. But this time they had been caught napping.
I feel it my duty, on this occasion to offer my hearty congratulations to Mr. Beaubien, mayor of Outremont, and a brother of the hon. Senator Beaubien. He foresaw that a good many of our soldiers who are fighting for liberty, will come back blind and with the co-operation of the Grey Nuns, he laid the foundations of an institution in which those maimed heroes will find work and the means of making a living for themselves and their families. The Government had nothing to do with that organization; they could not think of everything.
It is often said that enlistments, in the province of Quebec, have not been satis-fastory. What was the duty of the Government before proceeding to enlist our young men? I am speaking of the Canadians from the whole Dominion. For my part, I maintain that before enlisting our married men the Government should have provided for their wives and children; they should have provided for the wives of the soldiers a sufficient allowance for their maintenance and the maintenance and education of their children; they should have seen to it that the families of those soldiers who suffer a glorious death on the battle field, will not live in dire poverty till the end. The Government have done nothing to that end.
Hon. gentlemen have no idea of the number of complaints that come to me every day,

as mayor of Montreal. Poor women come to my office and tell me that the head of the family has been killed and that they do not get a single dollar for the blood that has been generously poured in defence of the common cause.
Let me take up once more the list of the grants voted to help the various organizations in Montreal:
Resolution dated March 27, 1917, granting $1,500 to the association "Help to the Blind." Resolution dated March 27, 1917, granting $2,500 to the " Comity de Culture."
Resolution dated June 8, 1917, granting $5,000 (budget of 1918) to the Overseas Campaign Fund of Y.M.C.A.
Budget of 1917. British Sailors' Club, $20,000.
Budget of 1917. Red Cross Society, $12,000, payable at the rate of $1,000 a month.
Contributions of the municipal servants, for 1917 (approximatively), $7,000.
To the deputation "Bonne Entente." $86.50. War Relief Fund, $10, $74, $140, $66.
For works on draining canals that were not urgent, but were executed to help the large army of unemployed, approximatively, $5,000.000.
Our contribution, to date, amounts to *ever $7,000,000. We have also voted one million dollars for the Patriotic Fund. I regret that my hon. friend for St. Antoine (Sir Herbert Ames) is not at his seat. He would bear testimony to the generosity and geniality with which the city of Montreal has answered every call for the Patriotic Fund. In justice for all interested parties I must say that this fund is well administered, notwithstanding the efforts of certain newspapers to cast discredit on tho^e who have charge of its administration. In my capacity of Mayor of Montreal, I state positively that all the monies, to the last cent, have been judiciously and honestly distributed. It is hard work to stop the people from talking. There will always be found some one inclined to hurt his neighbour. As far as money is concerned, I have no hesitation to say that we have done more than any other province of the Dominion, in proportion to our wealth and our Dopul-ation.
On a certain date, in compliance with the wishes of the Imperial authorities, the Lieutenant Governor, Sir Evariste Leblanc, invited the province to organize a Tag Day for the benefit of the Red Cross. He asked me to take charge of the organization in the city of Montreal and do you know, Mr. Speaker, what was the result of a single day-eight hours-in the city of Montreal? We collected, in round numbers, no less than $93,000. Does not that compare favorably with what has been done by certain large contributors? The hon. me.n-

ber for St. Antoine (Sir Herbert Ames) told us last night, that certain big corporations had. given $200,000; but remember that in eight hours time the workingman took nearly $100,000 out of his pocket. Is there not more generosity in this contribution of the workingman, than in the suberiptions of big corporations who-as it was explained last night by the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville) by several newspapers before that-made up for their losses by a cut of 20 per cent in the salaries of their staff? They have been generous at the expense of the workingman. There is no sense in reproaching Quebec with having failed to do her duty, and having exhibited a lack of loyalty to the British flag. We have constantly submitted to insults. You can have the proof of what I am saying, Mr. Speaker, by referring to Hansard, page 288, .229 and 707, Vt>l. I 1910-11, and pages 3219 and 3329, Vol. II of the same session. There you will find what the ex-Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes) said concerning the French Canadian clergy. We all remember what happened in this House, concerning the Eucharistic Congress, one night that a Catholic bishop was in the gallery.
We are bound to respect all creeds, and when insult is offered to wbait the French Canadian holds nearest to his heart, his religion, that is not calculated to promote harmony between the various elements of our population.
In spite of all that, Mr. Speaker, in spite of all which has been said against us, we are just and fair.
In the administration of the city of Montreal, we have Englishmen, we have Irishmen, we have Jews, we have all kinds of nationalities.
When I came into power, as mayor, two hundred poliqgmen had to be engaged. One of the conditions I imposed was that the policemen should have a knowledge of both languages, not perfectly, but enough, so that when a tourist would ask for some information, these policemen would be able to furnish it, for every one knows that when a stranger visits a city and needs some information, he generally applies to the policemen. They must therefore speak both languages.
Do you know what happened to me?
The first one which I had to swear in, when I asked him if he had paid any money to get his position and put him a few other questions in French, started to cry, saying he could not understand a single word.

You can see in what a plight I was. I thought that if I refused him, I would be charged with discriminating between the English and the French Canadians, so I turned around and said to him: " Here, my boy, go back to the chief, take your uniform, I allow you three months' delay, and you come back to me three months hence to satisfy me that you are able to say a few words in French."
That was three years ago. He never came back to me, but later when I inquired about him from the chief, the latter declared: " He is the best man we have on the force."
A month and a half later, being obliged to swear in a new man, a French Canadian, who could not speak a word of English, I dismissed him, I refused to accept him.
Take our department, for instance; we have many which are split in two, in order to do justice to the English population- In. the Parks department, there are two superintendents. Why? We could get along with only one. It was to be fair to the English speaking population. The Mountain Park superintendent is Mr. Henderson, and the various other parks are under the direction oc Mr. Bernadet. In the various departments, even justice is dealt out.
In every department, we strive to be fair to all. Why do they not act the same way in Ontario? My own opinion is that they deliberately will not do it. Should we not live in harmony and help one another as brothers? Everybody remembers that, some three or four years ago, in a certain city of Ontario, there was only one French Canadian policeman, a Mr. Lambert, and he was discharged.
Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) was speaking in this House, two or three days ago, referring to the Prime Minister who wras asking the hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) to form a Coalition Cabinet, with . the object of having the French Canadians of the province of Quebec submit to the conscription law, did he not ask the Government to employ five or six of the most influential Ontario men, in travelling over this province and in urging the population to discontinue the campaign of slander and abuse against the province of Quebec? No, I repeat it, as to the animosity which exists between these two provinces, we are i!n no wise responsible, we of the province of Quebec, and we do all that we possibly can to maintain the Bonne Entente.
Bo you want another example? Every one knows that, very recently, a Bonne Entente
delegation came to Montreal and afterwards visited the different other most important towns of the province of Quebec. In Montreal, this delegation was the object of an official reception, and we spared nothing to receive it well. What happened? In a small municipality, it had been thought fit to pass a vote of thanks to the mayor, but the same courtesy was not extended to the mayor of the Canadian metropolis. We have also had. the visit of the Win-tlie-War delegation, the city council voted a sum of $2,500 for the good work undertaken by these gentlemen. Have we not done in Quebec all that we should do?
Now, some aTe surprised that Quebec does not enlist. To show that the hon. Prime Minister has not kept his word, although I must repeat what was said by the hon. leader of the Opposition, I will quote the words he said on January 17, 1917:
" I therefore asked the Prime Minister to positively state whether, yes or no, we would have conscription. Put into such a fix, my right hon. friend replied-here is his answer, when I asked him if his offef of 500,000 soldiers meant conscription, or not:
" My right hon. friend has spoken of conscription, of the idea entertained in this country or elsewhere that conscription might exist in Canada, Speaking during the first two or three months of the war, I have clearly had the Canadian people to understand that we did not intend to establish conscription. I again declare it explicitly."
This is not all, Mr. Speaker. Referring to the law which is now before this House, if we consult " La Presse " of December 7. 1916, we will find the words which were uttered, before an audience of 2,500 to 3,000 people, by the Prime Minister when a reception was given him in the Monument National in Montreal; we will be in a better position to see what kind of a man is the Prime Minister who to-day wants to impose such a brutal law. I understand that in the course of a year, circumstances may be altered; but I will point out that this reception was given on December 7, 1916, not more than six months ago. We shall see what say these so-called democrats who pretend to safeguard the people's interests, but who, in reality, safeguard the interests of the Empire. I will even say that it is we who take the true interests of this country, by supplying the Allies with both ammunitions and food. Here is then what the Prime Minister said:
" Canada is a State in a larger State, which is the Empire. Our country enjoys the benefits of a constitution which was granted

to us fifty years ago, and which was written through the wisdom of the Fathers of the Confederation, men whose names are dear to every Canadian heart, the Macdonalds, the Cartiers, the Browns and the Tuppers.
It is true that there are no more such men on the Government side.
" By keeping within the limits of that Constitution, the people of Canada govern themselves, and every citizen exerts his personal and individual influence, when he is called upon to declare in which way he. intends to be governed."
Is that what the Government is proclaiming to-day? That principle, Mr. Speaker, which was advocated in the Monument National, on December 7, 1916, by the Prime Minister, is the very one which the right hon. leader of the Opposition is putting into practice to-day.
" It is a right established conformably to the principles of every democratic government."
I repeat it, Mr. Speaker, is that what the Government wants to-day? The referendum which we are asking in the name of the whole people of Canada, they want to deny it and to impose an arbitrary law. Is not that exactly the condition as in Germany?
I .say (that it would be ia good thing if the taxpayers of the country had the courage to come up here, in 'Ottawa, and make a clean sweep of the present Government, without injuring them, 'for no one has the night to do that. That is whait should be done with these people who do not respect the Constitution, who do not respect the given word, who indeed; db not respect anything, and here I refer most particularly to those members of the province of Quebec who .are preaching to-day the very contrary of what they preached in 1911. Is this democracy? No., I claim they iare autocrats and nothing else. Can anyone he surprised after all if, today, the province of Quebec turns a deaf ear to the Prime Minister's words?
I continue:
"But every tight necessarily imposes a corresponding duty. The State .protects the citizens, their person .and their property; it sees to the enforcement of the laws .and to good administration. Every citizen must, therefore, give a certain sum of service to the State, there never has been and perhaps there never will be an occasion to make that duty more imperative, more necessary, than the one now offered.
"For the Belgian land the French, the oo-cupation of the national territory by the foe, the implacable manifestations of his iron hand, the .terror inspired 'by his devastations constitute the most eloquent plea in1 favour
[Mr. M. Martin 1
of .the organizing of the national service for every citizen. To ns, the need seems more distant, but it is not the less real for all that.
That is what the Prime Minister had said *if even, 'at that time, he had said: gentlemen, the circumstances are such 'that they compel ns to .change our minds, Canada is in danger, perhaps oiur own territory miay be 'invaded by the Germans.
No, Mr. Speaker, never will -Canada be invaded by the Germans. We have to protect us the United States, and on the other hand, we have England who will do everything possible to keep us among her colonies because it is 'her own interest to do so.
Here is what was .said by the hon. member for Jaeques-Cartier (Mr. Descarries), in reply to. the speech from His 'Excellency the Governor General (See page 15 House of Commons Debates):
I believe, in any case, Mr. Speaker, and I think I am voicing the opinion of the majority of the hon. members in stating that the constitution of the country forbids sending our soldiers to fight outside of Canada, without special legislation being enacted in this House and that no such legislation altering the very basis of our constitution would be enacted without its being first submitted to the people of Canada. No, Mr. Speaker, there can be no question of conscription. Obligatory enlistment is not needed. The people of Canada have given noble proof of their loyalty. Freely and voluntarily, four hundred thousand men have already answered the call. If they are required, one hundred thousand more will follow of their own free will. And thus the Prime Minister will have given to the Empire and the allied nations a royal and magnificent contribution to restore the peace of the world, which, let us hope, Providence will soon grant to Europe.	.
That was on January 18, I believe, ox the 21sit or 22nd. Mr. Speaker, with men who have mo longer any mandate, men who are here only by their own will and by that of the Imperial Government, I say that they hiave not the right, as it .suits their fancy, to fry .and take away the people's liberty, and especially .so, after the .speech .made by the Prime Minister .in the Monument National.
It is said and -repeated that enlisting has not been a success. In Montreal, they put .at the -head of -recruiting, as -stated -by my hon. friend the member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) a Protestant -minister, .a perfectly honest man, I .attended the first meeting he held in a theater. The clergy have done all they could. When one considers how the Prime Minister bias -deceived his Grace the Archbishop of Montreal, about the National Service -cards, can one he surprised that no one gives any more credit to the Prime Minister's words? Obviously, th-e people are in-

censed, -tbait their own ATch bishop has mot been respected. I regret to be obliged to say this. I concede ibait -a common individual may make a mistake, but when it as the Prime Minister of Canada who, in the space of five or six months, changes his speech several times on itihe floor of the House. . .
I say that the defeat of that man is not distant. He will perhaps pass the Bill now being considered by this House, there is no doubt it will be adopted by the majority at his back and who do not respect the mandate entrusted to them. I regret to be forced to say this. As stated by the member for Maisonneuve, the workingman is intelligent, buit we have our full measure of ills in Montreal, we don't want any thing of this.
Here is where we are at: we have reached the point of having a Government in no wise responsible, having no longer the right to legislate.
On the second of next month, the fiftieth anniversary of Confederation will he celebrated. It is the end of Confederation that is coming, nothing else, if we continue to insult one another. Most frequently, it is the fault of certain newspapers, in order to make .a few dollars- I say that if such abuse is continued, if this law is passed, you will have, unfortunately, civil war in this country. We have enough war, enough hardships, without having the Government bring about what they are bringing about [DOT]to-day.
The Prime Minister has promised 500,000 men to England. He had no right to do so. He should have, at least, consulted his ministers, he should have, at least, consulted the leader of the Opposition; but no, he leaves, he goes to England, he returns; at a given moment, completely changed, the pledged word is broken, there is no more constitution, the people doesn't count. The people can be deceived once, twice, but the third time, they strike hard.
Mr. Speaker, I rely upon the opinion of ia clear-sighted man, I refer to the greatest Canadian living, after Sir Wilfrid Laurier (Lord Shaughnisssy) a good Irishman, who has received the highest honours which England can -bestow upon one of our own. What did he say, when he returned from England:	"That i.f the Government gave
500,000	men, it was calculated to disorganize the country." This interview has been published in the press, therefore I pass over many things. I had promised my hon. friend, the member for Maskinonge (Mr. Bellemare) to speak only ten minutes ; I beg his pardon if I am taking advantage of his
goo-d nature, but I do not want to resume my seat before having added a few more remarks.
We, of the province of Quebec, we believe we can better serve the interests of the Empire and of the Allies by supplying them with ammunitions and foodstuffs. That is what was stated by Lord Shaughnessey, and if there is a man well informed as to our situation from the economical point of view, he is really the one; for me, he is in Canada the man who knows best. He is at the head of a large institution, the Canadian Pacific, which alone is worth more than the city of Montreal, more than the city of Toronto. Here is a peer of England, who comes to us and declares that, in the interest of the Empire, as well as in the future interest of Canada, our duty is neither more nor less, to supply munitions and to feed the soldiers.
The member for Red Deer (Dr. M. Clark) -said the other day that while we were discussing, some one hundred and thirty people bad been killed by German bombs and that victuals and munitions intended for the Allies had been sunk, had been sent to the bottom of the sea.
Now, a conference was held most recently in New York city, between Mr. Emile Level, the representative of France, and Mr. Hoover, -the United States' representative. England's representative, whose name has been mentioned a few minutes ago, did not attend that conference.
Here follows a report of it:
France's envoy demands a billion bushels of grain.
Emile Level exposes to Mr. Hoover the allied nations' as well as the neutrals' needs.
The task of the United States and of Canada. Our own farmers will have to supply a considerable amount of provisions over and above the ordinary production.
Washington, June 2, 1917.-The Allies, as well as the neutral countries, will need a billion bushels of grain during the next twelve months, besides what their respective countries can produce, according to a detailed statement -prepared by Mr. H. C. Hoover, who has been appointed by President Wilson food controller for the United States.
According to Mr. Hoover, the United States and Canada will he called upon to furnish the greater part of this grain which the belligerent and the neutral nations will divide among themselves as follows, always after his own calculations :
Flour.
Great Britain . . ..	225,000,000
France	 175,000,000
Italy	 90,000,000
Belgium and Portugal	 50,000,000
Neutrals In Europe. 10,000,000 Other neutrals.. ..	5,000,000
Forage.
170,000,000
70.000.	000
60.000.	000
116,000,000
665.000.000
416,000,000


Médéric Martin: From good authority. As for yourself, it is true you have fourteen children, hut not one of them has yet enlisted. Yon may have some nephews in the army, but no son of yours.
Who is in favour of the referendum? I aiswer: the people. Now, who are those in favour of conscription? The Montreal Board of Trade, the Government contract-holdei s and those beyond the age limit.
They want to give women the right to vote. Does anyone believe the women will vote for conscription? I am sure of the contrary.
As I said a few minutes ag), the people of Canada are against conscription and the reason I gave is that, during the thirty-six months which have elapsed since the war broke out, and all those who believed it was their duty to enlist have had all the required time to do it. And the real reason why a referendum is refused, is that the people would declare against compulsory enlistment. Some Ontario and Western newspapers would be in favour of an open vote upon this question, but that would be in order to prevent the people from giving their free opinion. Do you really believe that the farmer, who has not seen fit to induce his son to enlist, would now be disposed to have him sent away forcibly?
As for these gentlemen who have boys, Papa's own boys, who axe sent to college until they are 25 or 30 years old, do you believe they will be in favour of conscription, when, for the past thirty-six months, they have not seen fit to advise them to enlist and to go and defend the cause of Liberty? Do you believe that the married women who have, until now, had plenty time to advise their husbands to enlist, do

you think they will vote for conscription? I say no, for all those who wanted to get rid of their husbands, have already done so. Do you believe, Mr. Speaker, that the young girls would vote for conscription? The evidence is to the contrary, there have been more weddings than ever during the past four or five months; the young ladies feared conscription and would not let their friends depart. The proof of my statement is in the very Bill itself, which contains a special clause stipulating that young men married, on and after June 11, shall be considered as unmarried.
I declare, Mr. Speaker, that the present Government have not the right to pass such a la w because they have no longer any mandate, and I say that you are doing just what Germany is doing. You are a murderous Government, nothing else, and you imitate the Kaiser.
A reproach was made to us, a few moments ago, that the enlisting had not been a success. I say that the Government should not have permitted those moving pictures, representing the horrors of the war. These scenes are reproduced here in a Sparks street theatre, as well as in our own theatres in Montreal. The only practical result has been to scare the people. The opinion prevailing among the people of Quebec is that the Government have tried by every possible means to stop enlistment. You have the case of General Wilson who is a perfect gentleman, but who does not know a word of French; if he does not know it, it is not our fault. If the Government had taken the necessary steps in order to stimulate enlisting, they would have had as much success as anywhere else. You have evidence of this in Major Asselin's regiment which was completed within two months, also in the case of a second regiment which was organized just as quickly.
Now, do you know what happened during Marshal Joffre's visit to Montreal.
When the time came for the inspection of the troops at the base of Mount Royal, where some 400,000 people were present, the general commanding the division could not say a word in French and as Marshal Joffre does not know any English, they could not understand one another. Marshal Joffre must have made this reflection:	These
soldiers must then all be English? Where are the French Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, the French Canadians of the province of Quebec cleaves to the soil. Our province is not like the other ones. We have only two big centres: Montreal and Quebec. There may well be Three Rivers, Hull and St. Johns, but when we speak of large
centres, we have only two. We need all our manual labour for the manufacture of shells, which we are asked to make, and for all other articles required by the people of the province and of the other parts of the Dominion. What we need' is farmers. The farmers clamour for help.
My hon. friend, the member for Parry Sound, in his speech yesterday, stated that Toronto, the province of Ontario, could not afford to give another man, that it was impossible, that they absolutely needed aid for farmers. It is the same thing in the province of Quebec. We stick to the native soil, but we also stick to our language and to our religion. We are, as said the member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) in his speech, the pioneers of this country. When the French landed here to colonize 'Canada, the first thing they did, in disembarking, was to plant the cross and to celebrate mass.
Now, Mr. Speaker, our Ontario friends are trying, by all ways and means, to insult our faith. We are strongly attached to it, [DOT]and we have the Tight to believe as we please, just as much as they have the right to believe what they please- When it has come to the point of attacking that which is most sensible in the human being; his faith, his tongue and his nationality, I say that those who are doing it are doing a nefarious work and only disorganizing the " entente " which has been advocated for so many years by the hon. leader of the Opposition and by the Fathers of Confederation.
For what is happening to-day, Mr. Speaker, they are responsible. Now, let us discontinue these ill-boding struggles, let us shake hands, let us blot out these religious and racial differences; we are all Canadians; French or English, we are all Canadians. Will our Ontario brethren at last understand? I hope so. As for us, we are familiar with such maxims, our religion ^teaches it, we know that we should live as brothers in this world.
As was stated the other day by the hon. member for Three Rivers, it would be desirable to send into our sister-province five or six good men to say to these people: Put an end to these struggles. Life is too short. When war will be over, the question, of sharing will arise between the nations. Do not get away with the idea that the United States are fighting for nothing. I know that the United States owe a great deal to France and specially to Lafayette, but it might very well happen that the province of Quebec, which is divided. . . exempted by an imaginary line, the 45th, it is possible that

they might say: you will give us Quebec. It is not what I *wish, tout if this is kept going, you will see what will happen.
May I be allowed to recall a word uttered by the late hon. Mr. Mercier, stating that Confederation had been instituted, nevertheless, to serve the interests of a party, which was the Conservative party, and that it might mean the removal of the French Canadian influence.
Mr. Speaker, at the end of fifty years, the discussion upon this 'question of race, of religion and of language is still alive. His words come true.
Well now, Mr. Speaker, when we shall celebrate, next week, the fiftieth anniversary of Confederation, on the site where the Parliament buildings are being erected, I do hope that, then and there, an understanding will be for ever concluded, that it shall be stated that never hereafter we will attack one another. We, the French Canadians, we are always ready and we must do it, it is not a sacrifice, it is a duty; but the yellows, with their Orange press, are provoking trouble wherever they are. Why? Have we not the right to exist as much as they have? We are the pioneers here. Well, Mr. Speaker, to conclude, I say that the best way to serve the interests of the Empire and our own country's interests for the future, is not in sending men; we have sent 420,000. I do not say that we have done too much. No, we owed it to England, to do what we have done, and we should even" do more, if possible, but that, we should do it voluntarily and not forcibly.
When two persons are forcibly united, divorce soon follows suit. That is what is going to happen, you will create civil war in the country; you are not able and you have no right to say to the 700,000 tax payers whom I represent, you have not the right, do I say, to take their own opinion away from them. A man's opinion for the community, that may be nothing, but a man's opinion for himself, that is everything, and it is what you are trying to take away from him.
The Prime Minister, not very long ago, before a large audience in the Monument National, in Montreal, often referred to Democracy. Democracy like those, we find them in Germany and here.
I shall support the amendment of my right hon. friend, the leader of the Opposition, because I believe that the people should be consulted, I am convinced of it, they are loudly crying for it, and it is the only way to obtain a fair and honest opinion. It is the only way that will give you the

right and power to do what you may wish to do.
Mr. Speaker, if I have gone a little too far, I regret it; I should probably have restrained myself a little more, but in the heat of the debate, the fact that I was speaking on a question as important as the one now before us, and after having heard in this House all the speeches made by persons better informed than myself, I may perhaps have made some mistakes.
Now, take notice of what is going to happen.
The present Government's act means that you will have a third party here at the coming elections. That party will be called, just so, the Unionist Labor party, who certainly will not act as did the Nationalist party in 1911, but will stand between the two parties, and when a question of public interest will be brought before the House, the workman who has always taken a deep interest in all public matters, will as ever before keep his word and will thereby hold the balance of the two parties and have the people's rights duly respected.
Mr. Speaker, I understand that it is not the right time to do what I will now suggest, because we are at war, but I am one of those who are against war; I would like that, at a given moment, in the understanding which will take place, when this war will be settled after the war is over, 1 would like to see, as I say, every gun to the last one melted, every piece of ammunition cast into the deep seas, and a general disarmament ordered. There is no reason whatever for the nations to cut each other's throats as they are presently doing it. It is only family quarrels among the governments. 'Sometimes, these quarrels, these wars are only roused in the sole interest of the big manufacturers.
Indeed, what do you see after these wars? You see colossal fortunes spring up and all this wealth is always made, during the war, out of the people who, for centuries, can never get out of it; the families run into debt, they are left in misery for centuries. Therefore, I do not hesitate to declare that I am one of those who are opposed to war, and I believe that after this war, as I have just said it, there should be a general disarmament.
Among the questions which should be dealt with, after the war, one of the first should be that of creating a tribunal of universal peace, which, to my mind, should be composed of representatives of all the powers in the "whole world, from the crowned heads to the lowest of the Indian tribes. That is what should be done in or-

der that no nation in the future can attempt to do what is now going on. When we witness the painful spectacle which brings misfortune to the whole world, for the sake of a family quarrel between crowned heads, well,
I say that this should stop, and the idea put forth by President Wilson will become a full reality.	_
Mr. Speaker, much more could be said upon this subjest, but I am through. I might, however, be allowed to say this more: Why send our men to the front if actually, as reported the other day by a newspaper, there are,'according to the Minister af Labour, 3,500,000 men fit for military service, and that, of this number, 1,200,000 are to be found in the taverns, in the theatres and in the gambling places. Then, why not take these men and leave the population of Canada in a large country like ours, where we need labour for agriculture, in order that we be able to exist in the future.
Do they really mean to put us out of the way entirely, to replace us by others? It looks very much that way to us, it seems to be the present Prime Minister's policy.
No, the Government's act is a brutal act, which is not constitutional. This Parliament has not the right to legislate, because it has no mandate. You must appeal to the people and the people shall pronounce and' decide.
I conclude by thanking this House for the kind attention given to me.
I will vote for the referendum proposed by the right hon. the leader of the Opposition, because the people want it and because I am here to do the people's will and not to do as I please. That is the way I understood my mandate and it is the way all the members should understand it.


Mr. A. BELLEMARE (Maskinonge):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. Marie (Mr. Martin) who has just spoken although it was my turn, promising to speak no longer than a quarter of an hour, or thereabouts, has broken his promise; how can he blame the Prime Minister for having broken his? May I be allowed to register a second protest against conscription? I say a second protest, because on the 30th January last, before the hon. Prime Minister's departure for England, I took the liberty to warn the House against this project which was even then threatening us as likely to be imposed upon the country. Indeed, at that time, I did believe that on his return from England, the Prime Minister would comeback to us thoroughly imperialized and would force upon the country compulsory military
service. I am entirely opposed to this Bill, and will be as long as the people will not have been consulted and declared their will. I say that we are opposed to the passage of the present Bill, because it is against the 'Constitution. Actually, if we ransack the pages of our political history since the establishment of the Parliament of Canada, we will not find a single instance where our great men, English and French Canadian, have at any time admitted the principle either of the colonies intervention in the Imperial wars or even of going beyond our own territory, except for the exclusive defence of Canada. In that regard, Lord Elgin, who was one of our best Governors, wrote to Lord Grey, on December 18, 1854:
Although I hold that so long as the colonists have no voice in the imperial councils they are entitled to look to the imperial authorities for protection against hostilities which they have no share in provoking, and that it is therefore fitting that imperial garrisons should be maintained at certain important military stations, such as Quebec, as a pledge that this protection, when the contingency occurs, will not be invoked in vain, 1 am confident that nothing will more effectually tend to the security of the empire or to the establishment of a high standard of national and manly morals among the colonists, than the assumption by themselves of some portion of the responsibility in respect of self-defence and the preservation of internal tranquillity, which has heretofore been cast upon the mother country. "Nevertheless,
I am confident that if the inhabitants of the colony did assume a share of responsibility in the defence of their country and the preservation of internal order, a responsibility which until now has been entirely left to the mother country-nothing would more effectually tend to assure the empire's security and to establish in the colony a lofty national ideal and virile morals.
Holton, a minister in, the Tache-McDonald cabinet, who was not a French Canadian, speaking of the Militia Act of 1856, said:
This measure imposes to the province all the charges of an independent sovereignty without conference upon her sovereign . rights and privileges. The ministry propose to tax the people in order to maintain a military force upon which they will exercise no control, and to pursue war operations decided upon without their having a voice in the decision.
And Galt said at the same date:
In a case of war with the United States, a conflict which might arise from a quarrel in which we would have no interest but that would just the same cover our country with bloodshed, this measure would oblige us to maintain the militia under arms at our own expense.
Mr. Christie, a member, also adds:
This Act confirms the principle of imposing without representation the tax required to pursue wars in the declaration of which we

have no voice. It puts upon the people of Canada the obligation of supporting Great Britain in all her disputes with the United States, without having a voice in their settlement nor the right to be consulted.
Aind, a little later on, when a new Militia Bill was introdueed 'by J. A. Macdonald,
he says:
In case of war with the United States, England would undoubtedly be willing to spend her last penny and give her last man for our defence. It is her duty to do so; we shall receive the support of all her forces; we have, however, the, evident duty of organizing a large and efficient army, whose object will be to fight on our own territory, for our own possessions, our own privileges and our own liberties.
Upon the overthrow of the Cartier-Mac-donald administration, during the same period, Hon. Thomas Loranger, an exminister also said:
It is perfectly understood that Canada left to herself would not make war nor be drawn into war. Should the country enter into a conflict with a foreign power, it will be the consequence of England's quarrels with that power.
What did Lord Lansdowne do in the case of the expedition to Egypt? He did not ask Canada any compulsory assistance; he replied to the British Government:
That the Government is ready to approve of recruiting in Canada to serve in Egypt or elsewhere. These forces should be specially enlisted under the authority of the Imperial Army Discipline Act and taken from various local battalions, the entire expense to be borne by the Imperial Exchequer.
From what I have just quoted, it can be seen that the sentiment of the Canadian people was in favour of establishing a militia, but only for the defence of Canada, and that everywhere, at all times, the principle, that no Canadian troops could be sent outside of Canada to take part in England's wars, was recognized. It was openly declared that we were ready to defend ourselves for the preservation of our homes, but, at the same time, they refused to accept any principle that might involve us in the participation to external wars. That was the idea of the English of Canada, as well as of the French Canadians and no one can suspect lack of patriotism in a man like Colonel Rankin, who had been employed by the English Government to suppress the insurrection of 1837-1838 in the province of Quebec. That Bill, therefore, looks to me to run amuck with the constitution. That we should voluntarily assist the Empire in a universal war like this one, wherein the world civilization is at stake, that may be tolerated, but that we should be forcibly sent over there, seems to me illegal, unconstitutional, and it threatens to 
disturb the peace of Canada. We have no special mandate to impose such a measure. Last year, we granted ourselves a year's extension of our parliamentary term, so that the measure you would force upon the people is drastic and anti-national. I say anti-national, because, under the circumstances, we could render greater services to the Empire by employing our full manpower in agriculture, in munition factories, etc.
The wheat supply being almost exhausted in Europe, the world being under the menace of a general famine, I believe that we could; as I say, render greater services to the Allies, by providing them with foodstuffs in larger quantities.
A few days ago, I met a commercial traveller who used the following comparison. I will suppose that, crossiing the Atlantic, you had three trunks to save; one contains the life of Canada, another the life of England and the third one, the life of France. The boat is sinking and they tell you that your trunks being fated, you can save one only. As a Canadian subject, which one are you going to save? .
Obviously, it will be Canada's trunk which contains your own life. I was struck with that comparison, and considering the dangerous economic situation of Canada, I conclude that, "as true charity begins at home", we should moderate our participation in the present war and begin to safeguard ourselves before sinking into the depths of imperialism.
Some will say: the hon. Prime Minister has authorized 500,000 men, he must keep his promise. I will answer that never has the Canadian Parliament been consulted on this subject, neither has it given him any authority in the matter. We are told that we are in imminent danger; I say that nobody can prove such a statement and that, consequently, we should stick to volunteering. When I courted election for the first time in the county of Maskinonge, the mandate given me was to work against excessive imperialism, and the parishes of Maskinonge, Saint Leon, Louiseville, Saint Unsule, Saint Ignace du Lac, Saint Charles de Mandevil'te, Saint Paulin, Saint Didace, Saint Justin, Saint Alexis des Monts, etc., have sent me numerous petitions, strongly protesting against the passing of the conscription bill. Consequently, representing the opinion of my electors and out of respect for democracy, I declare in this House that I bow to the wish of my constituents. It will be thanks to the independents elected in 1911, if this measure be not adopted before the general elections.

It is we, the independent members, who will save the people from the spectre of compulsory service. It is thanks also to the doctrine of the referendum now adopted by the hon. leader of the Opposition, with the help of a certain number of his friends-who do not appear to me very numerous-if we obtain that the people be consulted before this Bill is enacted. I congratulate the members on the left of the Speaker who are in favour of the measure. In 1911, I myself, in my county, advocated the referendum on the Naval Service question. I wanted the people to be consulted, and the same to-day. I say that we advocated that policy in 1911. Indeed, how read the Saint Eustache resolutions, in that year? They were to the effect that no contribution of men and of money should be granted, unless authorized by a referendum. That is exactly, says Le Canada of June 21 what Sir Wilfrid Laurier proposes to-day.
I will therefore support as strongly as I can this amendment or any other measure of a nature to prevent the adoption of this Bill.
I am much afraid that it may be said, in after years, of several among us, as Sir Hippolyte Lafontaine did say, one day, while speaking upon an important measure in the old parliament of United Canada: "You have saved the ministry, but you have sacrificed the people."


Mr. JOSEPH GIRARD (Chfcoutimi-Sag-uenay (translation):: Mr. Speaker, I deem it my duty on so momentous an occasion in Canada's parliamentary history to give a few explanations for the stand I have decided to take in regard to a Bill which the Prime Minister has seen fit to submit to this House for its approval.
As I am not a lawyer or in any sense versed in the law, I must refrain from discussing the legality or constitutionality of this measure. But, after closely following the discussions carried on by the principal legal lights of this House, after listening with surprise to statements made here by the best lawyers of the Liberal party in the various provinces, who regretfully part from, their leader because they are in favour of the Bill, I am wondering whether in their inner conscience those men are not satisfied that this Bill is constitutional. I * learned, to know them, during the seventeen years I have met them in this House. I have had many evidences of their high sen.se of honour, of their disinterestedness and their enlightened patriotism, and I know that, in so serious a circumstance, they are acting only 'after most serious consideration and for reasons entirely free of
sectarianism. Duty is their only guide. Hence it is evident to me that the Prime Minister and his colleagues have also, necessarily, been guided by the same sentiments of honour and of duty.
The same considerations prove to my mind the urgency of the measure. Moreover, if we consider the unpopularity of this law, a fact which the Government as the lowest of the electors could readilly foresee, it is plain, that only the greatest emergency, vividly impressing itself on the minds of those in office, could impel them to take such action.
I may say to the Prime Minister that I accept with pleasure his momentous declaration, when presenting the Conscription Bill before the country, that he acted only as Prime Minister of Canada, performing his duty, and never under the pressure direct or indirect of any external influence. I respect him enough and I know too well his sense of honour to allow myself the liberty of questioning his word in any way whatever, above all when he gives it so solemnly as upon this occasion.
I am not of those who believe our Prime Ministers should be locked up in the country as traitors* and avoid the contact of the men who govern the Empire and the European nations. I rather believe that we have all to gain, by letting our rulers travel abroad, in order that they may study and open all kinds of connections, to increase our trade facilities. Without being an Imperialist more than it is necessary, I do not believe Imperialism be such a dangerous scare-crow that we must avoid even the thought of it.
Neither am I in accord with those who contend that the Act of Confederation has been a mistake. On the contrary, Confederation has been the work of great men and an act of which the Canadians are proud. On the other hand, here comes the leader of the Opposition, a lawyer of long standing and a most experienced parliamentarian, supported by other important lawyers, contending that the law is unconstitutional and that this is not such an emergency as would justify such an action. His supporters come from all the provinces, especially from the province of Quebec, which is almost unanimous upon this question.
They maintain that volunteering is sufficient to provide the promised number of men, that Canada's effort is already too great for her population, and that to go any farther would be to drive the country to actual ruin. I notice that, on account of such claims, a minister representing the

province of Quebec has resigned, fearing a danger for national unity, which Canada needs so much. In certain quarters it has been charged that the province of Quebec has not furnished her full quota of men, and they even go as far as to charge my province with 'being disloyal. If the Government should be credited with good faith, honour, uprightness and a strict sense of duty, one must also necessarily recognize in those of different opinions the same qualities' and the same motives.
In my province there are well-read men with good judgment and moderate views, and who have long pondered and reflected before taking a .stand. Therefore, 'to me-[DOT] as I am no advocate nor lawyer-their judgment, once rendered, especially when these men are friends of the present 'Government, must be an almost infallible .guide. It is true that the Conservatives of Quebec are not absolutely unanimous, but the large majority are opposed to the Bill. It is well understood that I only refer to the laymen. Then, is the .law constitutional and is there an emergency? The majority of Parliament shall say and decide that question.
Indeed, we are facing a terrible problem, the consequences of which cannot be foreseen, especially if the element shouting rebellion predominates. But I cannot be led to believe that, in this abominable worldwide storm where the best pilots know no longer how to trim their siaals, what is going on in Europe cannot he repeated here. Over there also, terrible resistances aTe encountered; there also they speak of revolts, but just when everything seems .lost, the good common sense gains the upper hand and the rulers .succeed in guiding their people towards the sole object of all the Allies and of the Canadians; the utter reduction of German barbarism.
Honest people, good citizens and responsible men are everywhere numerous enough to prevent a greater evil and let common sense have its way. But it is painful to me to hear in this House some authorized voices say they are not ready to admit that the people would he wrong in revolting.
Has Canada done her share generously? Yes, she astonishes the world. Can she go any further? Those who oppose the Bill say no, unless it be with great care and moderation. It is the almost unanimous contention of the province of Quebec.
In the district which I have the honour to represent, the friends of the Government, unanimously, were the first to address me long before the Bill was introduced; resolutions adopted in every parish, on the request
fMr. Girard.]
of the central Conservative organization of the county, asking me to lay before the House their unanimous opposition to any conscription scheme, for the following reasons:	Conscription endangers national
unity, voluntary enlisting suffices, if well organized1; Canada's financial situation is in jeopardy, seeing the immense debt already existing .and daily increasing; in the country-places where is barely the number of farm-hands required for the agricultural production which must be daily increased; the cost of living is already too disproportionate; the Canadian industries cannot be maintained if the labour is reduced, and moreover the United States will send to the front millions of men who will be ready before the proposed Canadian levy.
My friends are those of the Government; they are unanimous with the Conservatives of my province. Among them, there are very wise men and men of great experience, and I must add that my adversaries think as they do. I have promised my electors that I would be the echo of their opinions; my duty, therefore, is to represent them here as they want me to upon this so important and so momentous question, and to vote against the Bill.
Now, why such an immovable opposition, by my friends, to the proposed law? First the assurance, often repeated, that there would be no conscription. At my request, the late lamented Hon. Mr. Oasgrain held three meetings in my district-at one of these, he was accompanied by the Hon. Mr. Patenaude,-to explain Canada's situation in its true light, and give confidence to the population in the war organization. The word of these men was well received and respected by large audiences who had faith in their statements.
On this point, I believe I should add a few remarks. The Prime Minister, the leader of the Opposition, and all of us, we have spoken too much, although in good faith. All of us, we were in the first place satisfied that the war would not last so long, and no one could foresee all the complications which, since August 4, 1914, have arisen almost every day. Who could have foreseen Russia's defection? Who could have foreseen this abominable submarine war? Who are those who foresaw Rumania's disaster? Who are they who have not made mistakes, in Europe and in America, since the beginning of the war?
During the last fifty years, outside of Germany, who are those who had a clear foresight? England alone who, noiselessly, had so prepared the future that, when war was

declared, she was able to bottle up, around Heligoland, the immense fleet of Germany which has not been able to stir since. And England has been able to keep the word she had given her colonies, to wit that she would protect them at all times.
I remember ia day, in the good times Oif peace, when all was calm and iserene, the Parliament of Canada saw fit to ask England to denounce her treaties with Germany; if England had not been able to bottle up the German fleet, I wonder if the Kaiser would not have remembered the action of Canada and crossed the Atlantic to avenge that denouncement of the treaty. And, therefore, if the provinces of eastern Canada, especially Quebec, are not like Belgium since October, 1914, that is due only to England's mighty fleet, to her foresight, to her respect for pledges and to her firm stand at the right moment. If the trade of Canada and of America has been practically continued since the declaration of war, because the high seas have been cleared of the pirates by the British fleet, that also we owe it to England. How much does it cost daily to the English people, that gigantic effort of which the British colonies reap the first benefit and the whole world besides? It is good to recall these facts.
How dearly the whole world i-s paying, at the present day, for having refused ito believe in the constant growth, under its very eyes, of an infernal power whose intentions were plain, and whose sudden action was ias much of ia surprise that we are now forced to admit that it wiill probably take the entire strength of the nations of the world to reduce it.
Considering this universal lack of foresight, it is not surprising, I think, that the Prime Minister, the leader of the Opposition and all ithe members of this House should have made statements which it would have been preferable to dispense with, and the effect of which Was been to mislead public opinion. But we must admit that, even in December Last, in the 'face of the war's ever changing fortunes, the Prime Minister refused to guarantee that there would not be any conscription. lit was a notice given to the whole country, land what was the result? All that work which 'has- been done through winter, in Montreal and elsewhere, in order to create iam opposition to the principle of conscription. If the efforts of Hon. Mr. Blondin have been so little productive, what is the cause of it; if not that a certain press was eager to ridicule him and that certain men, even in this House, tried to deprecate him? That is how public opinion was guided, land iso the doctrines 'advocated have borne fruit. That prepOiSterous organization of recruiting appeared so objectionable to the people in my district that, six months ago, I felt obliged to notify Ithe Militia Department that I would no longer be responsible for its working and left it ,to them entirely henceforth; land, as a matter of fact, after I had xepealtedly complained about the way .things were being managed in my county, matters seemed to be going from bad to worse. And 'I informed them that the result of it was a public opinion wholly averse and opposed to everything in connection with the war.
And now we 'are reaping the fruits to-day and the harvest is a rich one: absolute and unanimous hostility to anything pertaining to the war, because what has been tasted of it only breathes of deceit, wastage 'and dishonesty.
Many times, among friends, we would say that all that immense scandal could be nothing but deliberate conspiracy against the Government, for all the strangers sent to do recruiting were undisguised Liberals, among whom two brothers of Dr. Michaud, the Liberal candidate chosen for the coming Federal elections of Chicoutimi, who had nothing else to do but to carry to his friend Elie certain cheques payable to soldiers' wives which he thus had the 'advantage of distributing. That is why I cannot help laughing when I hear people say that the Government was using recruiting to serve its political ends.
Necessarily, the odium of all this is laid at the door of the Government. But, for those who know, it should be attributed' to the power behind the Throne who, I do not know how or why, can laugh at the minister and even resist him when he commands. The military laws, so I am told, are so made and, to overrule an officer, it would almost take the King himself. Indeed, the one, who, from the start, was responsible for that deplorable organization is very guilty, if results are to be taken into account.
I hold as responsible for this condition of affairs the headquarters whose formation I know nothing about, but who, through inexperience I hope, have created the. sad situation we are in. In Quebec, they have established rather a breeding station where the best trimmers have succeeded in getting positions in large numbers, at high salaries, as recruiting officers, instead of leaving for the front- That is the mammons opinion in my district, where every one is asking for months past, why these good-for-nothings



are not yet at the front. There, at least, they might earn the money we pay them. If recruiting has been done every where in Quebec as it was in my district, there is no reason to be surprised if they talk of revolt in some localities.
However, from my district, a good number of men are at the front since 1914. German bullets have reached several of them, and the Demeules, Dube -and; Topping families mourn the loss of their sons, heroes who have fallen for the defence of the law of nations. The famous Capt. Tremblay, whose reputation as a fighter is widely known, is a son of the county I have the honour to represent; we have then done our share and we are proud of those who represent us at the front, but -all the same, we believe we are perfectly right in making the objections we have to increased efforts.
It must also be admitted that as soon as it became known that the French Canadian forces, organized under the understanding that they would -form units over there, under officers who spoke their own language, were being disbanded and sent here and there in foreign regiments, the enthusiasm cooled down enormously and it is only common sense. How many English Canadians would enlist if they were assured of being commanded by French -Canadians from Quebec who would not speak English?
Here are the three great causes which, necessarily, have paralyzed recruiting in my district and throughout the province, and, indeed, they are most serious. First, the bad organization of the recruiting work; secondly, the disbanding, on the other side, of the French Canadian units, no longer commanded by officers of their language; thirdly, the education given since 1896, and even previously.
I am glad to -acknowledge, as I think I should, that the present minister of Militia (Sir A. E. Kem-p), since his coming into office, has shown himself much more sympathetic and much more energetic than his predecessor, in his relations with the public as regards the work of recruiting- It is my duty to make this statement which he greatly -deserves, from all reports I have received regarding him. But he must allow -me, in th-e name of public decency and of the respect due to him, to -ask him to put out, as soon as possible, from my district, the remainder of the idle so-called recruiting agents, who have shocked public opinion by their presence for too leng a time, and to accept the patriotic offer made by the united officers of the 18th -regiment of -Chicoutimi, [Mr. Girard. 1
who are desirous to handle recruiting in Chicoutimi-Saguenay, under Mr. J. E. A. Dubuc as honorary colonel. All of them, Conservative or Liberal, -are citizens of good reputation; they enjoy the people's confidence. Major Lachance has the honour of having a youthful son at the front, who fought like a lion at Vimy. Let us try to please the people, specially in war times.
Had recruiting been well organized, the necessity -for the proposed act would never have arisen and Canada would be proud to be at her post without having to go through the present crisis.
But it is easy to remedy the situation by resorting to proper means, creating a spirit of confidence which -must soon develop, having merely been set back by the causes which I have just mentioned. The French Canadian is peaceful at home and his heart is in the right place. He loves hisi King, he is proud of his flag, and for it he will give his last drop of blood and his last cent. But he wants to be respected as a man, he wants to deal with honest people, and he wants to see his sacrifices appreciated at -their real value, and lightened as much as possible by a friendly, sympathetic and even-handed leadership. iLet me give you an instance to prove that voluntary recruitment, well organized and by popular men, gives good results. Captain Piuze, of Fraserville, a young man of good repute, has organized the 189th regiment in his district in a very short time. -Major As-selin who, however, had fought the Nationalist battles in Quebec, has also formed a battalion in no time. Here are two striking instances that go to demonstrate most evidently that, when the organization is good, when the organizers are known and deserve confidence, the people do answer by confidence. But the treatment inflicted, later on, upon both these regiments, has had a dampening upon the people's enthusiasm. Let us then try again voluntary recruiting by men of good sense, like Piuze and Asselin -there is quite a number of them in Quebec -and we are sure <to get the same results.
Not one discordant note was heard when Canada entered upon this war; it was a question of heart and of duty. Let us regret the deplorable errors of the past, but let us repair them by means which appeal to the heart that is not dead, but only sick on account of mistakes committed by subordinates who had the power to make them, and who have had the hateful courage to commit them.
Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of talk about Quebec nowadays; in certain quarters,

she is abused and insulted, and her sons are falling over there every day. Her clergy, so noble, is being made an object of public scorn and obloquy. For instance: that infernal card which was distributed in this very House. They have forgotten our bishops' collective letter of 1914, enjoining their flocks to do their duty in the war.
Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the two first names my mother taught me were those of God and of the illustrious Queen Victoria, and all the French Canadian mothers were doing the same in those days and all of them have since upheld the same principles of education for their children, only substituting, when circumstances made it necessary, the name of the King. Every Sunday, at the foot of the altar, the French Canadian people pray God for their King and throughout Quebec, every one is proud of belonging to the British Empire. Therefore, how regrettable it is to find in the Dominion, westward from Quebec, some Englishmen, more English than the King, brutally attacking my province and her language and her children.
A few days ago, one of our good friends in this House was asking himself if it would not be possible to find twelve good men, independent men, who would go to Quebec and speak the language of the present times and appease the minds that, according to him, see things under a false light. This is a good idea which I accept, if my friend could on the same day find also in Ontario twelve good men independent citizens who would go through his own province to calm the people who scorn Quebec, who persecute her children while allowing them very little French and religious education in their schools; these same gentlemen should also go to Manitoba where they have completely turned out of the schools both Christ and the French tongue, and also into the two western provinces, where every year some new attempt is being made to also put out both French and religious instruction from the schools. What a splendid work these men would accomplish nowadays, if they could succeed in having the province of Quebec known as she actually is: the paradise of Liberty, where Protestants are masters of their schools as at home, and where the Irish Catholics are treated just as brothers; and if they also succeed in obtaining that in Ontario and particularly among our Irish Catholic co-religionists who do not speak our language. Quebec would be respected. During these dark stormy days, how good it would be to see all our family troubles forever gone!
To be fair, the position taken by Quebec does not speak disloyalty, no more than that taken by the English element which thinks like she does and which is larger than is generally admitted.
To stop a little, reflect and look into the future which is gloomy, that is prudence, that is wisdom, that is reasoning. The Germans must be beaten, that -is agreed on by all; but in order to beat them the soldiers must be fed and clothed.
Now, in my district, we just have the farm labour we need; the large industries we have are often short of hands and the fisheries along our northern coast occupy the whole population, so much so that the mills of Clark City have to import men. And they would want to take away a portion of our manual labour. Those who live in the district know what the circumstances are; and so, the people do resist. An agricultural producer departing for the front would cause a deficit in the food production equal to that of thirty soldiers. Let us keep our farmers at home.
Then, there is the high cost of living; here is a problem which is appealing to all. It is almost beyond control, for neutral countries have to contend with it as much as ourselves. But it was particularly difficult of settlement in Canada, as long as the United States did not join the Allies. Now, it can be more eff ctually remedied by the joint work of both governments.
Upon this point, I wish to make a few remarks. In 1880, I landed at Lake St. John as a settler, to live on the land. Then and for the three or four years following, the settlers of the district I have the honour to represent, were facing the same problem. There was no war then, the country was prosperous and things were in a fair way. In those days, we paid flour $11 a barrel- and such flour

pork, 5 cents a pound, syrup $1.50 a gallon, salt $10 a bag, and it took three days to procure these indispensable articles. The wages were 50 cents a day, and in winter, the lumber dealers paid $10 and $12 per month, and young men would come to the Ottawa lumber camps where they got $15 to $20 a month, with their board included of course. And it was at that time, that people worked like Trojans in my district, to make of it the fine agricultural county, which the province of Quebec is so rightly proud of to-day. How is it that, nowadays, with salaries of $4, $5, $6 and $7 a day, people can hardly live?
At that time, Mr. Speaker, the unbridled extravagance which predominates to-day was absolutely unknown. The requirements

of ease and of comfort, extended, as they are to-day and have been for several years, to their utmost limits, are the greatest cause of the present moral and financial disarray. It takes some money to support a family, but how much more will it not take for clothes, if the thought of the future .and the idea of what is proper do not predominate? My explanation of the high cost of living is to be seen in the scandalous displays in every shop window. Should we not reproach ourselves, every one of us, in every rank of society, for having allowed to be created in our country that false education which has made the fortune of the shop keepers and maintained in poverty the workman and the farmer? If the prohibition campaign had been started 20 years ago, if intelligent economy, had been advocated, we should not hear so much of drunkenness, and there would be to-day less jewels, trinkets and silks, the sight of 'which are so painfully offensive to our common sense. Luxury is ever the parent of all vices and the cause of all ruin; let us throw it down, now is the time.
Since the present horrible war calls daily for money and still more money, why not tax heavily all the useless fancy goods which ruin our population? Have they not seen to this in England and are not the responsible men generally preaching economy? Have not the higher social classes set the example?
Let the Canadian Parliament seriously attend to this question and the cost of living will no longer be a bugbear. But, nevertheless, there must be no delay in laying the hands upon the vampires who are sucking the people's blood and getting rich in a dishonest -way through iniquitous speculations.
Should we still take part in the war? I believe everyone is agieed on this point, in Quebec as elsewhere; but we ought to proceed with prudence, with calculation and with due care. The effort we have made is the wonder of the world; perhaps, have we. in our enthusiasm, proceeded too quickly? Then, let us now be cautious.
I have heard it repeated many a time thait there .are presently in the country one hundred thousand men who have no visible means olf support, produce nothing, help nobody and are, for the greater part of them rather a public nuisance. If that be true- .art *all events, it is certain there is a large number of them lin the cities

1st us find them and send 'them, 'across to fill the gaps; over there they will be useful, they will be *a credit to the flag and their temporary -absence from the country will do no harm.

Under, the present Military 'Service Act, it would be an easy matter to reach them, by inserting ia special section providing that the generally unemployed having no regular trade be the first called.
Mr. tSpeaikar, we are now facing, I fear, not ra (political, but -a national crisis. The parties lare divided 'and the 'leader of the Opposition seas his dearest generals leave him in siuch numbers that, before long, his family will be greatly disunited. And the Government's forces will be very strong upon this conscription issue. Before long, Quebec shall stand alone solidly against this measure and .facing the other provinces badly divided. And what next? What terrible responsibilities are being shouldered in these dreadful times; one cannot but tremble cat the thought!
Quebec is 'intelligent, patriotic, sincere and loyal to the extreme; buit Quebec believes it is time to look to the future 'and not rush blindly into bankruptcy. Quebec believes that conscription is useless, oppressive and contrary to Canada's interests. A certain port of the population thought that the leader of the Opposition would save the situation by his prestige over 'his party; but that was on illusion .and it is evident that, were he in power with his friends, he would *impose conscription, not selective, but by ballot which is still worse, and without referendum, as in 1910. Then, whither are we drifting?
The Conservative party of my province and of my county is unanimously opposed to the Bill. Among them are to be found *men most friendly to the Premier, great thinkers and great -philosophers. My duty in this House is to- voice the opinion of my electors who are to ;a man, opposed to the measure; that duty I shall fulfil by speaking -and voting 'against the bill. I so notified *the Prime Minister -a long time -ago.
I must add that I sincerely regret to be forced to part with the Prime Minister upon *a .measure of such importance; I kno w that he is sincere, I know he is upright landtbat he is 'actuated solely by the idea of performing an urgent duty. 1 know the uprightness and the disinterestedness of his colleagues; I know that every one of them realizes the terrible responsibility he assumes; could they possibly be right?
Considering the situation in this House as I see it, I must admit that the future is far from being bright.
The leader of the Opposition, whom I respect, proposes that the present law be submitted to the people, before it be applied, for most serious reasons which he men-

tions; I know that his Quebec friends rely upon his great prestige to maintain his party and defeat the Government. He seems in favour of the principle of conscription, but he will not so state until the people has rendered his verdict, he has to second his motion, his former colleague who, for his part, is against the Bill because it does not go far enough; he would like to have it settled by drawing lots. What a difference between the arguments of the mover and those of the seconder !
But now his leading partisans who, every day, declare themselves in favour of the Bill, are compelled to state that they part with their leader with his permission, but that they remain in the Liberal party. Let us suppose a general election and the Borden Government defeated, what policy will the country face? Selective conscription will be defeated and then we wifi have conscription by drawing lots, as provided in the Militia Act. An interesting question to put to. the electors. Why did not the leader of the Opposition, as he diid in 1896, move the six months' hoist? Never has a similar political situation been witnessed to my mind, in this country. Would all this agitation resolve itself into a mere party move? What is now going on in Quebec is pregnant with suggestions. I received this letter signed by a man of the 'highest character and it reads as follows:
June 18, 1917.
Sir,-Will conscription pass (according to the newspapers, the Liberal members are going to vote for that Bill), or will there be general elections? Jos. Guay is giving lectures on agriculture ; he gets the parish priest's endorsation and says nothing worth while. On the 18th, he gave four, at Hgbertville, at St. Bruno, at St. Joseph d'Alma and at Delisle. He speaks for an hour; he says: When the agriculturist will come here later, listen to him carefully and follow his advice. If you listen to him, you will produce ten times more, but he ends by stating: I have a son at the front and I might say a few words about the war ; and that is a pretext for speaking against the Government. Enough has been done or too much has been done. Borden had promised there would not be any conscription. By imposing it, he deceives the people. He has deceived Mgr. Bru-cht'si. Then he gives the names of important people who have told him that Canada had done too much for the past two years. He says: Borden has tried to catch Laurier in his trap, but Laurier told him: " Go back, Satan, with thy coalition," and, immediately like the good old hen, he has called all his little ones under his wings, and at the roll-call, the Liberal party solid as a rock will vote against the Borden Bill which will jump into the lower regions under the eyes of Laurier, who is the saviour of the people. Then, in his thundering voice, he cries hurrah for the old rooster. That's Jos. Guay, all right.
I tell you these things, not to blame any one, but to keep you advised of what is going on here.
Yours truly...
Have tbe Quebec Government come to the point of sending their political heelers through our parishes, and announcing them as agricultural lecturers paid by the province?
This is a serious case which I believe it my duty to denounce immediately. Jos. Guay is an hotel-keeper of Chicoutimi, proprietor of the big six-room hotel called "La bonne menagere", whose milk has stopped. He has Spanish blood and delights in Toreador tournaments. He is greatly interested in poultry andi his young daughter is the President of the Chicoutimi FarmTng Ladies Circle, under her father's guidance. Two years ago, at his request,
I obtained from the Government, for his circle, the shipment of twenty-five hens and one rooster for their henhouse; the whole 'lot was duly received in good order, according to the official correspondence, but considering that the cost of liying was already increasing, a way was devised to declare the hens sick-they had been put in the cellar of "La bonne menagere", instead of placing them in the poultry-houses built with Federal money-and the boarders of "La bonne mdnagere" ate the twenty-five hens, bragging, in the cars, that the Borden chickens were delicious. The rooster was left for the circle. I do not know whether Jos. Guay refers to this poultry-breeding experience of his in his lectures. I am giving it out to the public so that 'it may be recalled, should he forget.
The appeal to the people is a fine business. It is the people who govern. But, in the United States, are the people the rulers, when in November last they elected a peace Congress who set them at war a few days after their mandate was in force?
And does not our historical records show that the people's decision is null and void when, in most cases, election programs axe ' burned on the night of votation and buried in the victory; 1896 and 1897 are there to demonstrate that fact.
We have here friends of the leader of the Opposition pretending that often the people prefer being guided to directing themselves; but the Liberal leader wants an appeal to the people; some of his lieutenants say no, because the people prefer to be led. The leader of the Opposition declares the Bill unconstitutional; his lieutenants reply that it is perfectly constitutional and they support it; but, at the same time, they declare they are all of them under the crook of the same leader.
In what state of chaos are we! What future is there in store for us? Many serious people are asking themselves that question

and praying God that the national unity be not broken and that the people's good faith he not deceived. After having studied the facts, here is the situation as I understand it: If the Government were left alone with their friends, the Bill would perhaps not be adopted; then, it is the adhesion of almost all the leading English Liberals which makes the Government's position tenable and which will cause the Bill to be carried by a respectable majority, I believe. At this moment, the Liberal party must assume its equal share of responsibility, before the country and before the electorate, and the confidence of the anti-conscriptionists in the prestige of the leader of the Opposition is a terrible illusion. And these important members of the Liberal party, who assume that responsibility, I know them, they are all of them men of high education and perfectly upright in every respect. For them, the Bill is not directed against Quebec, as it is sometimes unfortunately stated. On this point, may I be allowed to publicly thank the hon. member for Halifax (!Mr. Maclean) and the hon. member for Bed Deer (Dr. Clark) for the sincere sympathy towards my province I have heard them express, not long ago, in the course of a private conversation where I was not alone, as well as the embarrassment they felt in the face of the position taken by Quebec. And their other colleagues think the same way, I know it.
So then, here we have such important men who refrain from overthrowing a government which they have most severely criticised upon war questions and who extend their full support to pass a law of which they know the absolute unpopularity, as well as the terrible possibilities implied. Necessarily, conscience alone speaks and dictates to these men and I have no right to attribute to them any unworthy motive. It is not therefore a duty for every public man in the face of such a situation to urge the whole population of the country to be calm and every class of the society to remain within bounds?
Before resuming my seat, Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to make to the Prime Minister and to his colleagues, as well as to all those who support him, an appeal which springs from my very heart:
Considering that the population has not-been prepared for the enforcement of the proposed Act;
'Considering that it is evident that voluntary recruiting has not given the expected results on account of its thoroughly objectionable organization;

'Considering that its reorganization on a business and common sense basis might quickly give good results;
'That, if the law passes, its application be suspended until there is absolute evidence of the failure of well organized volunteering and until the people have been'con-sulted.
I may state that, in my district, there is no reason to fear a revolution, whatever be the Parliament's decision; but it is painful to hear vituperation against friends whom we respect.
Let me assure you also, Mr. Speaker, in concluding, that whatever may happen, the province of Quebec and my district, especially, in the future as in the past, on awakening every morning, shall hail, though perhaps with tears in their eyes, their God and their King. In both of them, I hope, and through them our rulers may finally find the right way to fulfil their present duty and preserve at the same time the national unity upon which depends the future of our fair Canada.
Should the Bill pass, the leaders of both parties in this House shall have a serious task to perform, if we are to preserve that national unity which must be saved, at the cost of any sacrifice. Such is the wish I express from the bottom of my heart: Be they equal to the task, for thereafter responsibilities there will be for them greater than ever. The whole country is watching them.
On motion of Mr. Boivin the debate was adojurned.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Hazen the House adjourned at 12.10 a.m.
Friday, June 29, 1917.