1917-09-08

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. E. M. MACDONALD (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to move, seconded by Mr. Marcil, for leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance: The necessity of supplying munitions to Great Britain during the continuance of the war in view of the fact that they are being decreased and stoppage of the1 same is threatened.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member for
Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) desires to move, seconded by Mr. Marcil, for leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance: The necessity of supplying munitions to Great Britain during the continuance of the war in view of the fact that they are being decreased and stoppage of the same is threatened.
I may say with reference to this proposed motion, that it is competent for me to rule that it is not a matter of such importance as to properly be discussed under rule 39. On the other hand, when I have a doubt in my mind, it is my duty to submit the motion to the consideration of the House. Many considerations present themselves to me. One is that the subject of munitions has been discussed at various times during the present session. The one feature of the case that leaves a doubt in my mind is that tihe supply of munitions has recently been curtailed. The interpretation which has been placed upon the rule is that a definite matter of urgent public importance must be one of recent occurrence. The circumstance that the decrease in munition supplies has been recent leaves a doubt in my mind as to whether tihe hon. gentleman ought not properly to have the right to present his motion to the House. Having that doubt in my mind, I think I should give the benefit of the doubt to the hon. member and afford him the opportunity of presenting his motion. That being the case I purpose submitting the question to the House as to whether the hon. member shall have leave to move this motion.


Eight Hon.   S@: (Minister of Trade and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, under ordinary circumstances, I would not make any objection to a motion of this kind although there is .a doubt in my mind as to whether this constitutes such a question of urgent public importance as to justify the House in interrupting its course of necessary business in order to give up the time which will be consumed by tihis discussion. The matter referred to in the hon. gentleman's motion is:
The necessity of supplying munitions to Great Britain during the continuance of the war in view of the fact that they are being decreased and the stoppage of the same is threatened.
There is no doubt that this is an important question to various interests in the Dominion of Canada. If the decrease in munitions as manufactured and supplied from Canada, does not result in a decrease of effective and aggressive power at the front there is no Imperial menace and no menace to the Allies or to the Empire. There is no doubt in my mind-I do not imagine that there is any in the mind of any hon. member of this House-that whatever variation or restriction in kinds of munitions which have heretofore been'made in Canada and the manufacture of which will be gradually decreased is well within the ken of the British Government and will be decided with absolute regard to the necessity for these munitions of war at the front. Therefore, it is a matter only of comparative urgency, simply to certain interests in the Dominion of Canada-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I submit that under the rule of procedure, it is open to my right hon. friend (Sir George Foster) to take objection, but not to argue the question.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: As I understand, the right hon. member who is leading the House (Sir George Foster) purposes making an objection, and he is laying the groundwork for that objection. Otherwise he would not be in order in speaking at this stage.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: Under the recently applied closure rule the discussion of this motion is not in order.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This is not the closure...


William Pugsley: But the closure rules apply.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: A certain amount of latitude will always be allowed by me to
[The Speaker.]
the leader of the Government or to the leader of the Opposition in addressing the House or in giving reasons for taking a certain position. While the right hon. the leader of the House, as I understand, proposes to make an objection, I think it is but right that he should have opportunity to lay the basis for it.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: I had no other idea than to make an objection but I wish to give point to my objection by laying the groundwork. I have given one reason why I make objection, but there is another and a still more urgent one. This House has been in session for six months; we are approaching within four weeks of the time when the term of Parliament will expire by effluxion. We have very important business now on the Order Paper which we proposed to go on with this day. This motion is interposed. I think it is a matter of relative urgency, which the House should take into consideration, as between this motion and the measure which is before the House taking into account that it has to be passed through this House, and through the Senate, and that the time is very short in which to do that. I think the. relative urgency is altogether in favour of going on with the regularly proposed business of the House. Furthermore, and stronger still, it is the wish of this House, and it has so been expressed that as soon as possible the country may come to a decision as to the point at issue. It is impossible for the country to have a basis of coming to a decision, unless we have a franchise measure and provision for the preparation of the lists passed by both Houses, for the country to give its decision upon. That is absolutely necessary. When these great matters absolutely necessary to the decision of the country are pending, why should we interpose with a subsidiary matter and one of less relative urgency? It is on these grounds, which might be amplified if it were necessary for me to do it-hon. gentlemen can see the point for themselves-that I object to the time and business of this House being broken into by the discussion of a question, the discussion of which cannot come to any final issue and which precludes the attention of the House being given to hiatters of infinitely greater urgency and more essential importance.


Eight Hon.   S@: As to the latter objection which my right hon. friend (Sir George Foster') takes, that it is important to proceed with the consideration of the Franchise Bill which is

now before the House, I have only to say that we have a Franchise Act already and that we do not require any Franchise Bill at all. The measure which has been introduced is not at all an improvement in the Franchise Act which we have on the statute book. I think it is a distinctly retrograde step to interfere with the Franchise Act which we already have. However, that is only by the way. As to the motion of my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) you, Sir, have taken the objection that the matter of munitions has been very often discussed during the present sessions. It has, but it has never been discussed from the point of view that is now raised by my hon. friend from Pictou. We have discussed this matter from different points of view but it now takes on an entirely new aspect from the fact that we are threatened with a suspension or cessation of the manufacture of munitions. That is the point to which my hon. friend wants to call the attention of the House. If it be true that the manufacture of munitions is about to cease in Canada, may I not suggest to you, Sir, that there is no subject of more importance to-day not only to the Imperial forces and the Imperial cause but to the Canadian people themselves than the matter which has been brought to the attention of the House by my hon. friend. Everybody knows that the manufacture of munitions is about the only industry living and prospering at the present time in Canada and if it ceases altogether economic questions of the greatest importance must be taken into consideration. It is for these reasons that I say that the motion of my hon. friend is perfectly in order. It directs the attention of the House to the question of munitions from a point of view from which it has not been considered before and it is highly desirable that we should have the consensus of the House on this matter.	.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Objection is taken by the right hon. the leader of the House (Sir George Foster) to the motion presented by the hon. member for Pictou. It is my duty to ask the House to decide whether it will accept the objection taken by the right hon. the leader of the House or whether it will permit the hon. member to proceed. Objection having been taken, I will ask those hon. members who support the motion to rise in their places.
And more than twenty members having risen in their places:


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I call upon the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) to proceed with the motion.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have no apology to make to the House or the country for directing the attention of Parliament this afternoon to this important matter. We have on various occasions in the past, when questions of this kind have come up ' for discussion, been told that they were: not proper matters for the consideration of Parliament. I do not know upon what ground that suggestion is made because any one who follows the deliberations of the Imperial Parliament has seen that the methods of producing munitions and the arrangements for their supply, are subjects often discussed in that Parliament. No subject has engaged the attention of the British Parliament to the Same extent as this question of the organization of the nation for the purpose of obtaining its munition supply. In every nation which has engaged in this war, in every overseas dominion that has played its part at the front and has had anything to do with furnishing supplies, either food supplies or munitions for the purpose of enabling the fight to be effectively carried on, the problems of this service have always been regarded as of the first importance. In view of the fact, Sir, that we have been told that this country should be congratulated upon the wonderful part it has played in providing munitions of war in the past, when we are reaching a stage when the industry and the production are being absolutely menaced, if not actually and completely effaced, I am surprised that the leader of the House should venture to say that this is not a matter of prime importance.
My right hon. friend the leader of the House seems to be one of those gentlemen who, after they have expressed themselves with regard to the war, with that broad Tory spirit which has always been characteristic of him, think that, no matter what the views of other hon. gentlemen may be as to what Canada should do in the war, they have no right to open their mouths. I have as much right to express my opinion as to what Canada should do in this-war as has the right hon. gentleman, or any other hon. gentleman.
What are the facts in regard to this matter? Shortly after the war began this country was supposed to be in no position to produce munitions. There arose this great industry at a time of the great depression in Canada in the fall of 1914, which has given employment to thousands of men and women throughout the country. As the result of that industry, we have been able to send to Great Britain thousands of shells

of the most effective type and of the best possible construction, which have been of the most material assistance to the Allies and to the homeland in the fight in Flanders and elsewhere. Now we find that within the last two webks the intimation has gone abroad that those industries have in a great many cases absolutely discontinued the manufacture of shells. Great numbers of men and women have been discharged from employment. Many of these men are not of military age, but they were giving their best service to the country in the war. The women also were playing a great part by helping to produce munitions. Under those conditions I am astonished at the right hon. gentleman having the audacity to say to the House and the country that we have no right to discuss the question of the stoppage of that production. Not only have we been sending shells of different varieties, but we have been sending steel ingots from which the shells were being forged on the other side of the Atlantic. I understand the situation in Canada to be that a great number of the industries which have been producing certain types of shells have been notified that they must stop altogether. This notification comes without the slightest preliminary warning. Large amounts of capital have been invested in these industries, and machines of all kinds have been obtained and put to work. People who were dependent upon these industries for employment and for their livelihood have been laid aside without any notice whatever. There is no suggestion of compensation either to the people who have their capital invested or to the workers who have been depending upon the industry for their livelihood. Without a word of warning they are notified that no more shells will be produced.
What is the reason of this? There has been no large discussion upon this shell question during this session of Parliament. Whenever hon. gentlemen on this side of the House ventured to mention the matter we were told it was a matter of Imperial concern, which is not correct for it is largely a question of Canadian concern. On 25th August last I asked the right hon. gentleman who leads the House (Sir George Foster) for some information in regard to the matter, and he said:
Sir George Poster: I should prefer that the full answer be given by the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister, but if there be any stoppage of the manufacture of shells in this country or any diminution, as I believe there is to 
be, it is because the variety of shell whose manufacture will be diminished or discontinued is not now needed from Canada, as they are able to produce them in sufficient quantities in Great Britain.
'That is all the hon. gentleman knew of this important question two weeks ago. Has he learned anything further about it since? The Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White), on the following Monday, made a further statement in regard to the matter, and in the course of that statement, he said, as reported in Hansard of that day:
The minister-
That is, the Imperial Minister of Munitions.
has now advised that it is unnecessary to continue production in Canada on the present scale. He has directed that certain lines shall be discontinued; that other lines shall toe produced in lessened quantities; while some lines are to be continued as at present.
The effect of this will he to stop the production of shells and components at some plants which are now producing sizes no longer required.
The manufacture of the larger shells has been discontinued. The orders for these small shells have been coming in, but it is impossible to maintain these industries, or to continue their organization, under these conditions. The result is that the production of shells in Canada is to be stopped altogether. The Minister of Finance went further and said:
These changes have been anticipated by several important Arms, who have already resumed, or are planning to resume, their prewar activities in their own lines.
In all these steel industries there were no pre-war activities. Under the regime of hon. gentlemen opposite, in the summer of 1914, the steel industries of this country were closing their doors. Perhaps my hon. fliend's policy will bring about the same condition again. IHe does not oare whether shells are produced in Canada and sent to Great Britain, as long as he gets his Franchise Bill put through. The Government, through its inaction, is bringing back the pre-war condition, the pre-war lack of work and bread, which existed in this country previous to 1914, without attempting to provide a remedy. My hon. friend went on to say:
During July, we advanced $35,000,000 ; during August we are advancing $35,000,000, and we have arranged to continue the advances of $25,000,000 a month, during September, October, November and Dei'ember, so that the Dominion Government will continue to make the advances which we have been making in the past.
If hon. gentlemen in this House or any gentleman in the country can tell us, from

these two explanations, what the attitude of the Government is in regard to this business, I hope he will do so. For myself I confess an inability to gather it. The situation is that the shell industry in Canada has been stopped, and why? Is it because shells are not needed across the ocean, where the war, in all its cruelty and fierceness, is proceeding with greater intensity than in previous times? The demand for shells is just as great now as ever. Are we in Canada going to stop supplying shells? If so, why? We must remember that the history of this whole question of shell production in Canada is this: The Government, through the original committee, proceeded to form an organization which allotted contracts and initiated the shell production. That was carried on for some time. Then we had the Imperial Munitions Board. But nothing has been initiated by this Government in any way in connection with shell production. Why should we not ascertain, where we are in regard to this matter? Is the Government going to move in it, or is it not? What course was pursued in Great Britain? There they had a registration of the man-power of the nation, and they nationalized the shell industry. Every shell manufactory was taken over by the Government, and operated by them. It is a well-known fact that a great number of men were brought back from the front in order to engage in the shell industry in Great Britain, while a large number of women of the old land were engaged in these industries. Is it because there are plenty of shells being made in Great Britain, that they do not require assistance from outside? If that is the reason, the country should know it. If there is any other reason the country should know it. Is it because of any financial reason? In this connection I would call the attention of the House to a speech made by Mr. Rowell, as reported in the press, in which he gives a financial reason for the stoppage of the manufacture of shells.
Britain is giving her orders for munitions to the United States and our workers are threatened with closing down, for why? Because Great Britain has now come to the point where she cannot possibly pay in gold, after the great assistance she has given to the allies and she must purchase on credit. The United States can sell her on these conditions, and why should not Canada be able to do likewise?
I think the question asked by Mr. Rowell is a very pertinent one. The discussion to ascertain where we stand on this matter was absolutely necessary. Will the Minister of Trade and Commerce, or will the Minister of Finance, tell us that the situation- is that, by reason of financial arrangements by Great Britain, she is now purchasing shells in the United States, while, by reason of no financial arrangement having been made by Canada, Britain is not going to purchase them in Canada? If these are the reasons we ought to know it; because if financial arrangements can be made under which this industry can be continued, such arrangements ought to be made, for Canada, and our people should be called upon, if necessary, to make sacrifices to that end. What has been the position for the last three years? All over this country, by reason of the shell industry, and the tremendous amounts of money that have been paid to those who work in that industry, we have had prosperity in every industrial centre, which prosperity has helped the Minister of Finance to swell his revenues and has provided the money with which his loans were taken up and our patriotic funds maintained. All these things were largely due to the shell manufacture and its correlative industries. Every iron and steel industry in this country that could produce shells has been working overtime; they have been disregarding the production of staple articles in order to -engage in the manufacture of shells. Are these activities to be stopped? Is this country to be thrown back to where it was in 1914?
Is the question one of transportation? Tremendous injury has been inflicted upon the shipping of allied and neutral nations by the German submarine campaign, and the suggestion has -been made in some quarters that that accounts for the difficulty experienced in transporting shells. While the shell itself is not being exported, I understand that Great Britain is still importing from the United States and Canada large quantities of steel ingots, out of which the shell is bored. If this raw material can be transported in large quantities, there is no reason why the shell itself cannot be transported. It does not weigh as much as the ingot, and it does not take up as much room; so that the argument made with regard to the difficulty of transportation does not prevail. If shells -are needed at the front and if they can be transported as easily as shell steel can be transported, what justification is -there for the present condition in- respect of the manufacture of shells in Canada?
I have referred to the advantages which have come to Canada as a result of this industry. Those advantages are well known; why should they be swept away?

If the question of finance is not at the bottom of it, why has the Minister of Finance made the statement that he has made? Why havie we had the statements that have been made in the matter by Mr. Eowell? Is it a fact that this country is not in a position to supply the money for the production of shells in Canada? Great Britain is paying the cost of the maintenance of our troops overseas. Instead of sending money across to pay those bills, we have been paying for the production of shells sent across the ocean. Is that practice to be discontinued? If Canada is in this way to stop paying what she owes to Great Britain, the people ought to know it; such a course would be a grave mistake on the part of the financial people of Canada. Is the shell industry of Canada to be allqwed to become extinct? Men over military age have mortgaged their properties in order that they might engage in the shell business; are they to be told,, upon a week's notice, that the whole of the product of their capital is worth nothing? Are the machines that have been used in the shell industry all over Canada to he scrapped? What is going to happen to my hon. friend's business profits tax? He will* have to revise his estimate of the amount of money that he will receive during the year 1917 if the business profits of the men who have been engaged in the shell industry are to be swept away for the remainder of the year.
The method adopted of dealing with 'the production of shells in Canada is not satisfactory. There should be no Imperial Munitions Board in this country; Canada should herself deal with the problem of manufacturing shells. Canada should do what Great Britain did:	take over and
operate the shell factories. If the shell industry is to be destroyed it is not because shells are not required at the front; there must be some other reason. I represent a constituency in which 2,000 men are thrown out of employment, a great number of them mpn over military age, who now have no means of livelihood-and we are on the threshold of another winter. This matter is one of most urgent importance. I want to know, first, whether this country is to have its hands tied; whether A is to go out of the business of helping the Allies in the war through the production of shells.
I want to know, secondly, why it is that men who have invested capital in this industry are to lose their money; that workmen who have been dependent upon this 
industry for their livelihood are to be thrown out of employment. I want to know whether Mr. Eowell was right when he said yesterday in Toronto that Great Britain had made an arrangement with the United States under which Great Britain should purchase supplies in that country, not by payment in gold, hut through the medium of credit. If the United States can sell to Great Britain under these conditions, why should Canada not be able to do so? It was in order that this important matter might be discussed that I moved the adjournment of the House. The men who have invested capital in this industry want to know why they should be struck down at one blow; the men who have been employed in the making of shells want to know why they should be put out of work when there is great need for shells across the ocean. Hon. gentlemen opposite, during the last two and a half years, have been laying the flattering unction to their souls that prosperity has come to Canada through the war, particularly through the manufacture of shells, and have claimed unlimited credit from the people. Yet when the shell industry is discontinued the matter is not of importance to them; Parliament, in their view, should not devote an hour and a half to its consideration.
Parliament has a right to know frankly and fully from this Government what they are going to do in regard to this matter. Are there difficulties which cannot be solved? Are the conditions insurmountable? Is Canada not to play her full part through the production of munitions in assisting Great Britain and the Allies to the utmost of her industrial ability? Is she not to provide employment for the older men and for the women who are compelled to remain at home?


Sir THOMAS WHITE (Minister of Finance) :: Mr. Speaker, although I am of
opinion that it was entirely unnecessary for my hon. friend (Mr. Macdonald) to bring this matter to the attention of the House, a full statement having previously been made respecting it, I desire to make a very brief reply. On August 27, I stated, in reply to a question by the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) with reference to this matter, that the Imperial Munitions Board, which represents the British Government in the placing of munition orders in Canada, had handed out to the press the following explanation with

regard to the production of munitions in this country on a slightly different scale from what had prevailed hitherto:
Ottawa, 21st August, 1917. Towards the close of 1916 the capacity for producing munitions in Great Britain had so increased that the Minister of Munitions advised that it was unnecessary to continue the production of munitions in the United States for British account, except for a few special lines. The production in Canada, however, was continued as before.
The minister has now advised that it is unnecessary to continue production in Canada on the present scale. He has directed that certain lines shall be discontinued; that other lines shall be produced in lessened quantities; while some lines are to be continued as at present.
The effect of this will be to stop the production of shells and components at some plants which are now producing sizes no longer required. In other plants, where shells are made of sizes of which a reduced output only is required, it will mean working during the day only, thus stopping night work. In other plants, however, where sustained production is required, operations will be continued night as well as day.
These changes have been anticipated by several important firms, who have already resumed, or are planning to resume, their prewar activities in their own lines, while others are engaged in the production or preparation for production, of equipment needed for ships now under construction or to be built during 1918.
The reasons for the diminution of shell oiders is clearly set forth in that statement. It is no doubt within the knowledge of the House that, by reason of the exchange situation which prevails between Great Britain and the United States, it is an object to Great Britain, from a financial standpoint, to manufacture as much of her own requirements as possible on the other side of the Atlantic. She is continuing to order in this country the shells which she sjtecially requires, and my hon. friend is entirely mistaken in his statement that the shell industry of Canada is to be effaced. He had the information in the answer which I gave him, which would have told him that that conclusion was entirely unfounded, as I know he believes, because, instead of the Dominion Government decreasing the amount which we have supplied to the Imperial Government for the production of shells in Canada, we have, during the last two or three months, greatly increased that amount. I pointed out to my hon. friend, upon the occasion to which 1 have referred, that we had been paying $25,000,000 per month to the Imperial treasury for the purpose of paying for munitions in the Dominion of Canada. I may say that in July and August we paid out much more than $25,000,000 each month
for that purpose. 1 may say further that we have arranged, as my hon. friend has stated, to pay the sum of $25,000,000 per month for September, October, November and December for shells, and it is our intention to continue such payments as long as the war lasts. Let us consider for a moment what that means. $25,000,000 per month is easily said, but $25,000,000 per month means $300,000,000 per year. That is equal to two loans of $150,000,000, one every six months
In order that this House may see how the Dominion Government has risen to the occasion so far as supplying funds to the Imperial Government is concerned, I desire to submit just a few figures, promising not to take up too much of the time of the House. In round figures we have supplied the following amounts to the Imperial treasury during this year: January, $20,000,000; February, $25,000,000; March, $34,000,000; April, $25,000,000; May, $26,000,000; June, $36,000,000; July, $48,000,000; August, $37,000,000; and the estimate for the month of September is $40,000,000. Not only is the Dominion Government supplying money to the Imperial treasury for the production of munitions in Canada, but it is by reason of the action of the Dominion treasury in financing the Imperial treasury that the dairymen of Canada today are able to sell their cheese to the British Cheese Commission. For many years the cheese industry of Canada has been built up by reason of the export market which existed in Great Britain. If the Dominion Government had not undertaken to supply the $40,000,000 which represents the value of Canada's export cheese, the dairy farmers of this country would not today be able to sell their cheese in Great Britain, and there is no market to-day for that cheese in the United States. The dairy farmers of Canada, by reason of the action of the Dominion Government in furnishing that $40,000,000, are deriving ever 21 cents per pound for their cheese. The Dominion treasury, therefore, since July, has undertaken to furnish $25,000,000 per month and more for munitions, and in addition has undertaken to supply $40,000,000 for the purchase of cheese by the British Cheese Commission in Canada, and some $10,000,000 additional for purchases made for the War Office account by the Department of Agriculture.


Mr. R. B. BENNETT:: Have any arrangements been made with relation to the purchase of wheat?


William Thomas White: No arrangements have been made as to the purchase of wheat. That in the past has always been carried out, as my hon. friend knows, through the chartered banks of Canada.


Mr. OLIVER:: Will the minister mention what is the condition in regard to bacon?


William Thomas White: I was coming to that in a moment-I am glad1 my hon. friend reminded me, although I do not think I would have forgotteen it. At present Canada's bacon is going forward to Great Britain, but it has been drawn to my attention that the British Government may require some assistance in connection with the purchase of Canada's bacon, which means so much, as my hon. friend from Edmonton knows, to the hog industry of Canada. Nobody knows that better than my hon. friend. The only reason I mention these things is that I desire the 'House to know that the problem is a large one and not confined to munitions. It touches the farmer in his production of cheese, hogs and cattle, so that the financial question is a large one, and the point I desire to draw to the attention of the House is that the Dominion Government has been supplying the Imperial treasury, for the purposes which I have mentioned, with vast sums of money, sums which it would in the period preceding this war have been deemed absolutely impossible for us to supply. I venture to say that no member of this House, and no citizen -of this country, would have predicted that it was possible for the1 Dominion Government to assist the Imperial treasury to the extent that I have indicated since the outbreak of this war.
I desire the House to know in connection with this debate, although it has been placed in Hansard before, the magnitude of the financial operations which the Dominion Government has carried on for the Imperial treasury. It is not -sufficient to say that these operations are a set-off to the expenditures made by Great Britain for Canada in respect of our troops overseas. The fact of the matter is that Canada has been able since the beginning of this war not only to pay her own way, but to give Great Britain a sum exceeding $100,000,000 towards the prosecution of the war, through the purchase of munitions and supplies in this country. Since the outbreak of this war the Dominion Government has advanced in cash and securities, which securities were pledged in New York and furnished the basis of an Imperial credit1 there, no less a sum than $443,000,000.


William Pugsley: Would the minister explain the nature of those securities?


William Thomas White: 
William Pugsley: Does the Imperial Government have to pay interest?


William Thomas White: No, we pay it.


William Pugsley: Does not the Imperial Government pay interest to this Government?


William Thomas White: No. We have given them the securities, and we pay the interest because the securities are given.


William Pugsley: I wanted to know
whether or not the Imperial Government pays interest to Canada upon the advances that Canada makes.


William Thomas White: There is an adjustment of interest on both sides. We charge interest here, and they charge interest there. The point I was making was that Canada has advanced in cash and securities $100,000,000 more to Great Britain than Great Britain has advanced to Canada since the outbreak of this war. So far as the munitions industry is concerned, the Dominion Government is furnishing more money now per month than it has furnished since the war began. I have stated that it is our intention to continue the payments of $25,000,000 per month until the end of the year, and it is our expectation that we shall be able to continue them until the end of the war. Further, the Dominion Government has financed for the Imperial Government the purchase of Canada's export cheese production, which otherwise would not have been able to find a market, and we have been approached and are now' considering the question of furnishing credits which will enable the Imperial treasury to buy other foodstuffs in Canada.
This financial question is a large one, and we have met it in a large way. The only objection I have to make, although I do- not desire to be controversial, is this: When I was- faced in July last with the problem of raising over $100,000,000 with-

in a period of two months to meet the requirements of the Imperial treasury in its purchase of munitions and sup-4 p.m. plies in this country, and when, in order to do that, I went to New York and faced the interest conditions which I was obliged to face there, and floated a loan of $100,000,000, I was never criticised more severely by the horn member for Pictou and other hon. gentlemen opposite. That was done in order that the Imperial Government might be supplied with money for the purchase of munitions, cheese and other supplies from this country. In war time you face war conditions, pay war rates of interest, and war rates of commissions. The Dominion Government has used every effort in order to meet the huge financial requirements of the Imperial treasury in making purchases of munitions and other supplies in this country. That has been our policy, and that will be our policy.
There was no reason why this motion should be put forward, because the munitions industry is not by any means threatened with effacement. The Dominion Government is paying to the Imperial Munitions Board every month more than it has ever paid in preceding months, and we propose to continue the policy which will give to Great Britain the shells which it requires and which can he made in this country. But it must be borne in mind that the Dominion Government and this Parliament have a large family. There is not only the manufacturer of munitions to be considered, but the farmer, with his cheese, and hogs and other foodstuffs. All these things must be considered in connection with the financial programme of the Imperial treasury and the assistance whicn will be afforded by the Dominion Government.


Mr. W. M. GERMAN (Welland):: I have not very much to say on the question now before the House, but it does seem to me that the remarks of the Minister of Finance amply justify the motion of my hon. friend from Pictou. If tthe only result of this discussion were to clear up the situation and give to the people of this country the information which they desire on this matter, my hon. friend would have been more than justified in making his motion.
I cannot quite appreciate the argument of the Minister of Finance. He has stated that Canada is continually paying out hundreds of millions of dollars to aid the British treasury. But we all know that Great Britain is paying out hundreds of millions
of dollars continually for the upkeep of our troops in France and Flanders and Great Britain, and we, therefore, are simply discharging a debt which we owe to Great Britain for the upkeep of our soldiers. The question resolves itself into this: It is stated that the manufacture of munitions in Canada is to be stopped, and that the manufacture of munitions in the United States is to be continued, because the British Government can get munitions in the United States on credit, but cannot get them 'here on credit, as apparently Canada is not able to finance the munitions industry. Canada up to the present time has dope nothing more than meet its obligations to Great Britain for the upkeep of our army in Great Britain and France, and has hardly done that. The minister has not yet explained to the House, on this or any other occasion, whether our munitions factories are to be maintained in the position which they have occupied in the past, and which we 'hope they will maintain in the future. As was stated at the opening of this discussion by the leader of ithe Opposition, the munitions factories in Canada are about the only factories that are really profit-earning institutions at the present time. So far as the Niagara district is concerned, in the town of Welland we have four large munitions factories, all of which are on an excellent financial basis. These factories have all expended large sums in extending their plant and putting in new machinery, and up to the present they have not made enormous profits, even though prices have been high.
If the manufacture of munitions is shut off in Canada, these institutions instead of being profit-earning institutions, will practically be operating at a loss. It will be a very great disaster to Canada, not only in that particular section, but all over Canada, if the manufacture of munitions is cut down. As faT as I am -able to judge, there is no reason why munitions should not be manufactured in Canada as well as in the United States. There is no reason why they should not all be manufactured in Canada instead of any of them being manufactured in the United States, inasmuch as it is a question of the credit that can be given by the Canadian or the United States Governments. Our Government is very expert in preparing legislation for franchise, and voters' lists Acts for winning elections, apparently, but they are not so astute in preparing legislation to protect the industries of this coun-trj in this time of strife and trouble. The

minister should have given, us very much more information than, he has given and he should have assured the .people of Canada that the manufacture of munitions would not be curtailed, much less put an end to, and that all the munitions which are to be made on this side of the Atlantic for the British Government would he made in Canada instead of being made in. the United! States.


George Green Foster: My hon. friend has twice made the statement that whilst the order has gone forth that the manufacture of munitions for the British army would not be continued in Canada, they are continuing to purchase similar munitions in the United States. Is my hon. friend sure of his ground? My information i6 absolutely to the contrary.


William Manley German: The report which goes forth to the country, whether correct or incorrect, is that the British Government will purchase their munitions in the United States and that the manufacture of munitions in Canada, if not wholly done away with, will be curtailed to a practically infinitesimal amount.


George Green Foster: By taking up that report and taking iit as true, if he does not know that it is true, my hon. friend puts behind it the responsibility of a member of Parliament. Perhaps I might go a little farther and say to my hon. friend that if there be any such report as that it is absolutely unfounded.


William Manley German: The circumstances of the situation do not appear to show that it is unfounded, because the manufacture of munitions in Canada is being very largely curtailed.	-


George Green Foster: The manufacture of similar munitions for the British Government in the United States was curtailed months ago. Contracts that were entered into were dissolved and no new contracts have been entered into.


William Manley German: Whether or not the statement which my right hon. friend makes is correct-.and I will not deny that it is correct-we know that the manufacturers of munitions in Canada are being told that they will not have an opportunity of supplying these munitions in the future as in the past, whereas, at the same time, the manufacture of munitions in the United States is being carried on to a very large extent. Whether correct or incorrect, the

report is that the British Government will be .purchasing more munitions in the United States, because they can get credit there and they cannot get credit in Canada.
If that report is incorrect, then this discussion is well brought before us to-day, because it will be a very excellent opportunity for the Government to explain the whole situation, that the people may know just where they stand and what is likely to happen. We cannot afford to allow the industries which since the war broke out have been really the back-bone of this country, to be cut down or curtailed, if it is at all possible to maintain them by any action of this Government in supplying larger credits to Great Britain. That is the whole question. If we can provide the credit up to the extent that munitions can be supplied in Canada as well as they are being supplied in the United States, then our industries will get the benefit. It behooves the Government at this time to take great care that our financial situation is such that we can maintain a credit here which will result in the maintenance of those industries which have been in existence during these years, and which we hope will continue during the remainder of the war.
Mr. G. W. KYTE, (Richmond): I desire to say a word or two upon this subject) because a very considerable-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, Oh.


Mr. KYTE:: I am sorry to see that some of my hon. friends on the other side are like the Minister of Trade and Commerce in not considering this a very important question.


An hon. MEMBER:: You do not, either.


George William Kyte: It is a very important question. A large proportion of the population in easteln Nova Scotia has been engaged in the manufacture of munitions during the last three years. I might recall to the House the condition of affairs wlych existed as regards unemployment in Canada previous to the outbreak of the war. We know that in the large cities, from 1912 to 1914 there was a very severe condition of unemployment. We also know that in the city of Ottawa, in the very shadow of the Parliament Buildings, a procession of 500 unemployed men walked to the City Hall and demanded that provision be made by the city for the support and maintenance of their families, as a result 6f their inability to secure remunerative work. At

the outbreak of the war large industries were established which relieved to a very great extent the situation. Recently notice has been given by certain manufacturers of munitions, in eastern Canada particularly, that the contracts are to be discontinued hereafter, and a great deal of unemployment has resulted. In the town of New Glasgow, for instance, two thousand men were thrown out of employment without a moment's notice. Naturally they are concerned in knowing what is to be provided as a substitute for the employment which had heretofore given them a livelihood and which is no longer available. The Minister of Finance referred to the unfavourable condition of exchange, which he said made it impossible for the British Government to place any further contracts with the manufacturers of munitions in Canada. We know that some months ago the Right Hon. A. J. Balfour and others associated with him came to the United States as a commission, to go into the question of the placing of contracts with the United States Government in respect of war munitions. We are also aware of the fact that the hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) visited Washington at that time, and it was presumed he was more especially the representative of 'the Canadian Government.


George Green Foster: Will my hon. friend allow me? Did I understand him to say that Mr. Balfour came to the United States for the purpose of making contracts w:th the United States for war munitions?


George William Kyte: No, he came for the purpose of discussing with the United States certain matters of interest on behalf of the Imperial Government, which had relation to financial questions in regard to the carrying out of war contracts.


George Green Foster: That is a very different thing.


George William Kyte: The Minister of Trade and Commerce visited Washington at that time, and while we have had no official information on the subject so far as I am aware, I presume his object is to associate himself, as the special representative of the Government of Canada, with the Right Hon. Mr. Balfour. With regard to the question of finances, I have only to say this: For the last four or five days we have been engaged in discussing certain estimates which have been submitted to Parliament. It was pointed out on several occasions by hon.
members on this side of the House, that at this particular time when the question of finances so largely entered into the carrying on of our obligations in respect of munitions as well , as other contributions to the British Government, it would be well for the Finance Minister to pare down these estimates and reduce the expenditures as much as possible. We have had estimates totalling $254,000,000, of which some $50,000,000 odd were supplementary estimates, placed before Parliament at this session. If there is any question as regards the subject of exchange or the difficulty of supplying money for the purpose of carrying out these contracts, I really think the Finance Minister would have acted very much more wisely if he had provided against that emergency and stricken from those estimates a very large amount which could very properly be classed as unnecessary expenditure. For instance, there was an item of some $269,000 for telephones in British Columbia, as well as many other items to which reference might be made. The fact is the Government appears to be as helpless in respect of meeting this situation as they are in every other situation which has been presented to them. I think it is the duty of the .Government to make some effort to provide employment for the working people of Canada to replace the employment which has ceased in respect of the manufacture of munitions. There is great necessity for shipbuilding in Canada, particularly in eastern Canada. This industry would provide employment for a great number of men. It is impossible for the Government under present conditions to continue the manufacture of munitions, I feel it would be desirable for them to open up some other means of employment, so as to relieve the very serious condition which is likely to result during the coming months.


William Pugsley: I
wish to say a few words upon this subject, because it is one which is not only of very general interest but is of especial interest to the constituency I represent, as we have two large munition factories in St. John. I am sure that any sudden stoppage of the manufacture of munitions would result in very great hardship in a large number of cases, not only from a financial standpoint but to many workpeople who would be thrown out of employment. I have in mind one factory which was recently erected more especially for the manufacture of shells in which, I



believe, about $750,000 to $1,000,000 is invested. I am sure that factory was erected with the confident expectation that the manufacture of shells in Canada would be continued upon the same scale as previously until thev close of the war, or until some decisive victory at all events, had been won. I would not for a moment attempt to disparage what this Government has done towards assisting Great Britain in connection with the purchase of war supplies. I think the Government has done well. At the same time it must not be forgotten that were it not for the wonderful response the people of Canada made to the requirements of the Government nothing could have been accomplished. While my hon. friend takes great credit to the Government and to the Minister of Finance


William Thomas White: I give all the
credit to the people.
Mr. PUGSLEY-he must not forget that Canada has willingly and cheerfully responded to the demands made since the opening of the war. I hope my hon. friend will give all the credit to the people, because it is the people who have been paying out these enormous sums of money which have enabled the Government to give such assistance to the Empire. But, Mr. Speaker, would it not occur to you that the very fact that Qanada has done so well and that she has been able to finance so largely for Great Britain is the very best possible reason why the Government should insist upon the manufacture of shells being continued in Canada? My hon. friend has given the very best of reasons why the manufacture of shells should not cease. I think the minister ought to have informed the House-because I think the country has a right to know-what report has been made to the British Government as a result of the notices which have gone out that the production of shells is to be lessened if not discontinued, in Canada. Indeed, we know that the manufacture of some descriptions of shells is to be entirely discontinued. Let me refer for a moment to the letter from the chairman of the Imperial Munitions Board, which my hon. friend read to the House. It will bear reading again, because it shows a state of affairs which, I think, is deserving of the most earnest consideration of the Government. The letter reads:
Ottawa, 21st August, 1917.
Towards the close of 1916 the capacity for. producing munitions in Great Britain had so increased that the Minister of Munitions ad-

vised that it was not necessary to continue the production of munitions in the United States for British account, except for a few special lines. The production in Canada, however, was continued as before.
The minister has now advised that It is unnecessary to continue production in Canada on the present scale. He has directed that certain lines shall be discontinued; that other lines shall be produced in lessened quantities ; while some lines are to be continued as at present.
If language means what it says, the people of Canada must clearly understand that the manufacture of certain lines of shells is to be discontinued. If the intention of the British Government is as expressed in the letter of the chairman of the Munitions Board, it must mean, a very great decrease in production, and must mean turning thousands of people in Canada, men and women, out of employment, which will produce a condition of distress in this country during the coming winter. Is no.t that a subject which ought to engage the attention of this Government? Is not that a matter on which representations should have been made by this Government to the British Government? There is no statement-and it is inconceivable that there would be a statement-that the British Government do not want munitions. The explanation is, either that Great Britain intends to continue upon the same extensive scale, or to engage upon a larger scale than heretofore, the manufacture of munitions in England, or that she. is going to obtain munitions upon a larger scale from the United States. The time has not arrived when the demand for munitions at the front is any less than it has been in the past. Surely the Minister of Finance should give the House some explanation in regard to the matter, some reason why the British Government is determined to reduce the manufacture of munitions in this country. The question surely is of sufficient importance to warrant correspondence between the Canadian and Imperial Governments. And yet upon that question the minister gives us no explanation. He apparently is content to allow the closing of the factories in Canada, and the throwing of thousands of people out of employment, without endeavouring to ascertain the cause, and without endeavouring to give any information to- the people of Canada on this important subject. The minister says that Canada has financed Great Britain to such a degree that Great Britain is owing to this country at least one hundred millions more than Canada owes the Mother Country in connection with the prosecution of the war. If that is

the ease, does it not show what a splendid part Canada has taken in this war of the Empire, and that our people are entitled to the utmost consideration? Does it not show the strongest possible reason why, so far as possible, the manufacture of munitions should be continued in Canada? I think that this House and the people should be informed as to what effort the Dominion Government has made to induce the British Government adequately, so far as the manufacture of munitions and purchase of supplies is concerned, to recognize the splendid efforts which Canada has put forward, not only in finance but in sending troops to the front. Canada has done her part, and, so far as financing is concerned, has done more than her part; and I repeat that instead of there being any reason why this extraordinary order should have been given out by the chairman of the Munitions Board, there are the strongest possible reasons why the manufacture of munitions should continue on as large, if not larger, scale than in the past. I wish to emphasize the position taken by myself and other members of this House since the manufacture of shells in Canada began, that, the work should have been undertaken by the Government as a government work. Shells should have been manufactured under the direction of the Government, and should have been supplied at actual cost. Reasonable wages should have been paid to the workmen engaged in the manufacture, but no such large profits should have been given as have been given to the manufacturers of munitions. We know-because the facts cannot be controverted-that early in this war, and in the early stages of the manufacture of shells, upwards of one hundred million dollars was wasted by the Shell Committee appointed by this Government under the direction of the late Minister of Militia. If good fair business methods had been adopted that amount of money could have been saved to the country and the Empire, and it would have represented, and represents to-day, all the surplus which the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) boastingly says this Government has provided for the Imperial Government. Up to that period this enormous sum of money was wasted, and we have every reason to believe that, even since the Imperial Munitions Board has taken charge, very large profits have gone to manufacturers which might have been saved if the Government had undertaken the production of shells as a Government work, and with a determination to supply the shells 350}
and other munitions of war to tlhe Allies at actual cost, instead of having the work carried on by private parties, in many cases at enormous profit.
In conclusion, I desire to ask the Government to inform the House whether or not they have, as a Government, taken up this communication from the Chairman of the Imperial Munitions Board; whether they have communicated with the British Government and endeavoured to ascertain, the reason why this notice has been sent out, and why it is proposed to discontinue, or greatly reduce, the manufacture of shells in Canada? If the Government has any information on the subject; if any correspondence has taken place between the two Governments, that information should be placed before the House in order that Parliament and the country may be fully .informed in the matter.


George Green Foster: I do not wish to prolong the debate, but it seems to me to be necessary to make a few comments upon the discussion which has taken place. I wish to point out the peculiarity of the position that some hon. gentlemen on the other side have taken and the inconsistency of that position as compared with that heretofore taken by them. I shall refer only to the chief of these inconsistencies; my remarks will be brief.
The member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) suddenly becomes a champion of the munition industry in this country. He asks questions as to what has taken place, what will take place, and why. He says: why should the shell industry be stopped; should we not assist in the war by going on with the shell industry to the same extent that it has hitherto been proceeded with in Canada? He was brim full of enthusiasm, energy, vigour, insistence, when he urged that we must do our part in assisting in the war by making shells. I thought to myself that if he had only shown the same insistency, the same vigour, the same strength in an effort to assist in some other way in the prosecution of the war, he would be further ahead and this country would be further ahead than at present. Does my hon. friend not see that in this new bom zeal for the munition industry he and his friends are becoming the champions of what they have hitherto denounced as a profiteering industry? [DOT] He made a most plaintive appeal to the Minister of Finance to keep up the munitions business in order that profits might be obtained therefrom and in order that the minister might get from

that source a portion of the necessary revenue. If ever there was an example of a man straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel, the member for Pictou was such an example this afternoon-and I never knew him to strain more strenuously or swallow more successfully.
Is the munitions industry, my hon. friend says, to become extinct in this country? If he wants a straight answer to that question, I say, yes: I hope it is to become extinct; I hope that it will become extinct very quickly by the conclusion of this monstrous war which has made the manufacture of munitions in Canada necessary for so long a period. Can we contemplate the end of the war and yet malfe the demand that the same explosives shall be' manufactured, the same munitions ordered, the same tremendous expense incurred as hitherto? These are the engines of war; they are destructive from A to Z, and when they cease because war ceases, a feeling of relief will be experienced in all parts of the world. The argument of the member for Pictou was that you must keep the war going for the sake of keeping up the manufacture of munitions in Canada, and of employing labour and capital and securing profits. Is Canada, the member for Pictou says, to have her hands tied in the manufacture of munitions? Why, he asks, should capital invested1 in the manufacture of munitions be struck down? Again I press my point against my hon. friend's argument. It is a vicious argument which, pressed to its logical conclusion, is nothing more or less than this: Do not restrict the output of munitions; do not strike down *capital; do not restrain wages; keep up the war in order to keep all those things going. No other logical conclusion can be drawn from his argument.
I now come to the argument of the member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley). He, too, is deeply interested in the keeping up of the manufacture of munitions at the old rate in Canada. He, however, falls foul of the chief reasons given by the member for Pictou for his contentions. He (Mr. Pugsley) says that if he had his way be would have these manufactures of munitions so carried out by the Government that there would be no profits. Therefore the argument of the member for Pictou, as to keeping up the manufacture of munitions so that revenue may be obtained from the profits, falls to the ground. The two hon. gentlemen are not in agreement.
In all frankness and candour, what does the member for St. John mean? What does he argue for? What does he insist upon?

He says that Great Britain should continue to buy munitions in Canada and we to manufacture them. Let me once mo*e revert to his intimation that while the manufacture of munitions is being restricted to a certain extent in Canada, shells are being purchased by Great Britain in the United States. This is absolutely not the fact. I have stated that before, there is no need of my reiterating it; I gave the information to thfe member for Welland (Mr. German). But here is the important thing: Why, the hon. gentleman asks, does Great Britain restrict or discontinue the manufacture of munitions in Canada? A straight answer to that is this: Because she is now able to supply in her own country all that she needs. Does my hon. friend argue that if Great Britain needs numberless and tremendously expensive supplies, she shall continue to obtain outside of her own territory what she can make to excess within her own borders? That is exactly what my hon. friend's argument amounts to. To demand that is to make a vicious demand, one not in the interests of Canada or of the Empire; one not in the interests of the war or of the conclusion of peace.
Does my hon. friend seriously argue that, because we in Canada would get wages and find employment 'by Great Britain coming here for munitions in excess of what she can make in her own country, therefore we ought selfishly to ask her to make that sacrifice and she ought to make that sacrifice in order that we might have that employment and those wages? Canada does not take that position. I am willing to leave that position to my hon. friend from St. John. There are things that Great Britain cannot produce in her own country and that we can produce in Canada, and there is peril to-day that Great Britain, owing to her financial position, will not be able to purchase from Canada what she absolutely needs of the beneficent production, of this country. Yet my hon. friend from St. John would have this Government insist upon the British Government spending hundreds of millions of dollars in this country for munitions which can be made in Britain, tc the detriment of the purchase in this country of the agricultural products which we can raise and which Great Britain cannot raise. There is no ground for such an argument as that or for insisting upon it. So far as this Government is concerned, we do not intend to insist upon that thing being done. We do not intend to take the vicious ground of demanding that Great

Britain, shall spend her millions in Canada getting made here what she can better and more cheaply make in Great Britain for the prosecution of the war, and thereby leave herself without .funds to buy what is absolutely necessary, food for the British people, from Canada, which can and does raise that food and wishes to supply it. If this Government is going to urge the British Government to purchase anything in this country, it will be not munitions, but the fruits of the earth, the products of the soil, the farmer's increment, which Great Britain cannot supply and which we can supply in abundance. I leave my hon. fnend from St. John to his argument that this Government shall make a plea to the Government of Great Britain that Great Britain, shall continue to make her expenditures in this country in such a way that we may carry on the manufacture of munitions to the same extent as before. Great Britain has bought munitions in Canada to a tremendous extent. During the last two years and a half she has expended nearly $400,000,000 on munitions in this country, perhaps more than that, I have not the exact figures. She has done that because she has needed those things, because she was not then fully equipped for making them, and also because we financed the puichases for her. But as soon as she became thoroughly equipped to- make all those munitions that she needed and has a surplus from which to supply her Allies, was it not wise and right that she should give that work to her own people, keep that money in her own country, and thereby more economically and cheaply throw her resources into the field for the successful prosecution of the war?
My colleague the Minister of Finance has very frankly laid before this House some phases of the financial question, about which we probably do not think as much as we might and which it is verj difficult for us adequately to sense. It may very well be thought that Great Britain is the richest country in the world; that she has interminable resources. To a certain extent it is true that she is rich and has great resources; but the financial burdens imposed upon Great Britain from the beginning of the war are also beyond the power of the human mind to grasp. She has upon her shoulders the financial burden of maintaining the greatest fleet in the world, a fleet now almost double what it was at the beginning of the war. Instead of an army of 150,000 men which she had trained when the war began, she is maintaining
an army of well up to four or five millions of men which she is maintaining. She carries on. operations in every continent and in almost every quarter of the globe. She has her military expeditions in South Africa, Asia, Italy, the Balkans, Mesopotamia and at the front in France. She has contingents of her forces everywhere. She shoulders that whole work. Her Allies, France, Italy, Russia, Belgium and the Balkan States have depended upon Great Britain, and generously she has given them the support without which they could not have done what they have done. All that comes upon Great Britain and any one who will carefully think that over and try to realize what it means will come to the conclusion that there are not immeasurable depths of resources in Great Britain. To make a long story short, Great Britain to-day finds the very greatest difficulty in financing her needs and the needs of the war. Canada has stood behind her as no other outside-dominions has done or has been able to do, not that others have not had as good a will, * but they have not had the resources and! therefore, they have not been able to do as much as Canada has done. But Canada has tried to do her share in .that respect. Why do hon. gentlemen opposite continually minimize and scout at what Canada has done in this war? I am willing to make tills proposition. If you will put before a committee of the first men of the world, versed in these affairs, Canada's effort and what she has done in these three years of war, their verdict would be that it was simply astounding that a country, with a population of 7,000,000, had done what Canada has done during this great and terrible struggle. But to hear some bon. gentlemen speak, one would think that Canada had done nothing; that she was absolutely useless in this whole war, wholly without effort, vigour, capacity or efficiency. Do not let us, for the sake of a personal or party advantage, disparage altogether the work, worth and effort-of the Government, do you say?-no, but of the people of Canada who alone have enabled the Government to do what they have done.
So the matter of financing for the future is a very difficult problem. Here was your -*heese industry in Canada running up to $40,000,000, or $50,000,000, or $60,000,000. Britain was not able to finance for that cheese. So Canada came in and financed for it, and is doing it to this day. There is also your bacon and hog industry,, and the live stock industry. Great Britain needed that ehesse, but Great.

Britain is not able to-day to finance for what she absolutely needs from this country in the way of these products, and if it is to be done Canada must do it. Canada is prepared to do it to the utmost of her power-is doing it to-day and is organizing to do it in the future. Yonder in the West is a possible wheat crop with a surplus of anywhere between 100,000,000 and -'200,000,000 bushels. If Great Britain does mot buy that wheat, who will? If Great Britain does buy that wheat Great Britain must finance, and perhaps very largely through Canada herself. And yet here are gentlemen who plead with tears in their voices that we should keep up the munitions factories, and let our wheat lie in the ele\ators or on the prairies of the West. My right hen. friend the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) smiles. Well, a smile often betokens-but I will not characterize it. I say that no man who knows the facts of the whole financial situation so far as Canada is concerned, and its bearing upon this war, will smile when a minister makes the statements I have made here to-day. They are statements of the utmost gravity, which must sink into the hearts of the Canadian people, and which one day will make them feel very differently towards this matter than they do even at the present time. I am sorry I have been led into making these extended remarks. I do not pretend to convince these gentlemen.


William Pugsley: You omitted the Canadian Northern obligations.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: And the Quebec and Saguenay rail-way.


George Green Foster: I did that very largely out of sympathy-


William Pugsley: Not forgetfulness.


George Green Foster: -with my hon. friends opposite. Yet they occupy the fortunate position of having led this country into a cul de sac, and then sit back and laugh at those who must make their way out.


Frank Oliver: Whatever question there
might have been in the mind of any one in the House as to the importance of the discussion precipitated by the hon. member for Pietou, there can be no question whatever as to its importance now; after the speech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The question of the ability of the British Empire to finance this war is surely big enough to engross the attention

of the Canadian Parliament for an hour or two, and if that is properly a part of this discussion, then surely this discussion is more than justified. Even the Canadian Parliament can afford to take a little time in discussing a matter of such stupendous importance and interest. But, as a matter of fact, what the Canadian Parliament is here for is to take care of the 5 p.m. finances of Canada, and of the business and industry of Canada; to take care that Canada does not lose her place in the race of progress, whether there is war or whether there is peace. And if the burden is all the greater when war is on, that only means that the Government and Parliament of Canada are charged with greater responsibility now than when peace prevails. Their business 'is to see that the best is done that can be done on behalf of Canada in her war operations, and in those peace operations which must necessarily succeed, if war is to be successfully maintained. Our efforts in active warfare are absolutely dependent upon our conditions of industry and production and taxpaying power at home, and the member of the Government who presumes to lead the consideration of Parliament away from that patent fact in describing the glories and the responsibilities of the British Empire is simply trying to avoid the question at issue.
The question at issue is a very simple one.
A great industry in Canada is being shut down in part. The hon. member for Pietou has stated that several hundreds, if not thousands, of his constituents have been [DOT] thrown out of employment in the last few weeks, as a result of authority issued by the Imperial Munitions Board. That, I submit, is a matter of most supreme importance to the hon. member for Pietou, and if it is an indication of what is to take place throughout the Dominion, it.is a matter of supreme importance to this Parliament and- is entitled to the very best consideration that Parliament can give it. The country, I submit, is entitled to the very fullest information that can be given on this question-entitled to something entirely different from the broad generalizations, the glittering generalities that have been handed out to the House and the country by the two ministers who have already spoken.
It is a fact that several munitions plants in Canada have been shut down, and it is a fact that the announcement from the Imperial Munitions Board is to the effect that

we must expect further shutting down of munitions plants in Canada. Now, whether or not we on this side of the House have spoken disparagingly of the men who have been carrying on these munitions enterprises because of the vast and unreasonable profit they have been permitted to make, has nothing whatever to do with the question of the investment of legitimate capital or the employment of legitimate industry in the conduct of those enterprises. We are entitled to pay heed to the question whether the enormous flow of money that has kept these industries in Canada going during the past year or two is to be stopped or whether it is to continue. If I gathered correctly what my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) said, that flow of money is going to stop.


William Thomas White: What made my hon. friend think that?


Frank Oliver: I beg my hon. friend's pardon, I meant the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster).


William Thomas White: F made the express statement that we were paying now more per month than we had ever done in the past, and that we had arranged to pay $25,000,000 a month to the Imperial treasury for munitions during October, November and December, and hoped to continue during the war.


Frank Oliver: That being the case, the question of financing does not enter into the matter of the withdrawal of the orders for munitions. '


William Thomas White: It does enter into it.


Frank Oliver: I gather from the remarks of the Minister of Trade and Commerce that the withdrawal of munitions orders from Canada had much to do with the question of finance-British finance and Canadian finance.


William Thomas White: For larger
amount, yes.


Frank Oliver: I am unable to correlate
the arguments of my two hon. friends. I am to understand that we have the statement of the Minister of Finance that the orders are not being withdrawn because of any failure to finance on the part of Canada?


William Thomas White: The statement
I made was that we are continuing the payments which we have made monthly and that they have even been increased
during July, August and September. But the point I was making when I interrupted my hon. friend was that if you had a fifty-million-a-month situation and Great Britain had to consider the purchase not only of munitions but of cheese, hogs and wheat, of course, there would be financial considerations entering into it.


Frank Oliver: As Great Britain has to
purchase wheat, cheese and bacon as well as munitions-


William Thomas White: Where would she get the money?


Frank Oliver: I say that as she has to purchase wheat, cheese and bacon as well the question of finance does enter into it.


William Thomas White: It does enter into it in regard to all her purchases, of course.


Frank Oliver: I gathered from what
the Minister of Trade and Commerce said that owing to the tremendous burden carried by the British Empire because of the war her financial resources were becoming diminished to such an extent that her purchases in Canada depended upon the ability of the Canadian (Government to finance these purchases.


William Thomas White: To a certain
extent.


Frank Oliver: I understood the Minister of Trade and Commerce to make that statement. If I am not right in that I wish to be corrected because all I want to get out of this discussion is the facts of the case. These facts are pressing; they are important. I desire in a moment to say something on another matter which comes very much more closely home to my part of the country. But as far as munitions are concerned it all rests upon the point that the business done by the British Government in Canada depends on the ability of Canada to finance that business.


William Thomas White: Partly.


Frank Oliver: If it does, and if this business is being withdrawn from Canada, it is not because the munitions are not needed. Munitions are needed as much as they ever were and as far as I can see there is no reasonable prospect that they will not be needed for an indefinite period. The British Government must get munitions from somewhere and they must get food from somewhere. The financial condition being as it is, if Canada cannot finance the British Government for the food and munitions required from Canada, then Canada cannot

supply that food and those munitions. I understood the Minister of Trade and Commerce to intimate that the British Government was now able to produce all the munitions it required within its own territory. I am afraid my right hon. friend will have to admit that that is not correct. The British Government is purchasing munitions very largely fn the United States at the present time.


George Green Foster: It will depend, as my hon. friend knows, on the definition of " munitions." We are discussing the munitions supplied in Canada for the British Government. There are types and varieties. Of those types and varieties Great Britain is not purchasing in other countries but there are other munitions of war which Canada cannot supply, which Great Britain cannot supply to the extent needed, and which she does get from other countries, notably from the United States. But our argument here is in reference to munitions of the types and varieties that have been made in this country. That is plain ground upon which we can approach the discussion of the question.


Frank Oliver: Precisely. We want to
know what the facts are. It narrows down to this: Given Canadian ability to finance the purchase of munitions in Canada and given adaptability on the part of the Canadian manufacturers to produce the kind of munitions the British Government requires and to adapt their present plants and facilities to the production of these munitions, there is no necessity for the shutting down of these munition factories in Canada. If that is the fact, I submit it is up to the Government to see that Canada does finance the British Government to the extent of the purchases of these munitions, and it is up to the manufacturers of Canada to make such alterations in their plants as would enable them to supply the kinds of munitions that the British Government want.


George Green Foster: I want to put this consideration to my honourable friend.
If Great Britain is so situated that by keeping her own capital within her own borders and by employing her own people in her own industries, she can make all that is necessary, and more, of these munitions for the conduct of the war, is it economically a good thing to come to Canada, have these made here and distribute the money from her own country for that purpose in the present condition of the world's finances? 
Or is it better that as she is in a position to make more than is necessary of those kinds of munitions required for the war, she should conserve her financial resources, and ours in co-operation with her, for the supply to her of what is absolutely necessary but what she cannot supply and of which Canada produces a surplus? I think there is an argument that my hon. friend will be inclined to take up.


Frank Oliver: I would be quite willing to accept it if that were the position, but it does not happen to be the position. The British Government, as I understand it, is buying a large quantity of munitions from the United States. My right hon. friend has admitted that, but he says they are of a different class from those manufactured by Canada. Well, then it is up to us to manufacture in Canada what the British Government wants.


George Green Foster: If my hon. friend takes that position, will he go to the practical men in steel, in iron and other industries and ask them whether they are prepared to put capital into their establishments and machinery necessary to equip these establishments to make the kind of munitions of war which are being made in the United States and which Great Britain gets there-great guns and that kind of machinery? My hon. friend would find that there is no shadow of a chance of initiating such industries as these in Canada at this time.


Frank Oliver: I think there is every
chance, if we have an enterprising and capable lot of people engaged in the manufacture of munitions. They were able, in the earlier stages of the war, to change from the manufacture of one kind of shell to another, which they did, and if they made that change I do not see why they could not make still another if it were necessary to keep the business in this country so that we would get the benefit of it. My right hon. friend must know from the reports in the press that many of the men who have been discharged from the closed-down munition factories in Canada have gone across the line and are making munitions in the munition plants in the United States, and, I presume, making the same identical class of munitions.


George Green Foster: If my hon. friend will allow me to get at the facts of the case. He knows, too, that within six months the United States has embarked in the great war, and she is equipping two

million men to go to the front, and is spending billions of dollars to fit out those men with just this kind of material, and there never was, and probably never will be, such a scene of activity as is in the United States now-which will probably continue for the next two years'-in the manufacture of equipment of war. If men do not find employment here they can go over there and find employment in the very same kind of work where they are multiplying their establishments by millions and billions of dollars for these purposes.


Frank Oliver: That explains how the men are able to get work on the other side, but it does not fill the vacuum in our business enterprises in this country.


William Thomas White: Will my lion. Mend allow me to ask him a question? Does he suggest that the Dominion Government could raise more money than it has raised for Imperial purposes, on the figures I gave? And, another question: if Canada is raising the money it can raise for Imperial purposes-, and the Imperial Government requires munitions and foodstuffs, are foodstuffs to be put altogether to- one side and munitions only regarded?


Frank Oliver: No. I do not know whether Canada has been raising to the limit of what she could raise.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend knows the figures well.


Frank Oliver: I do not know whether she has been raising up to the limit of her possibilities in support of -the carrying on of this war. Let me suggest this. My hon. friend speaks of Canada financing the British Government in the purchase of munitions and foodstuffs in the past. Canada has not been doing anything of the kind.


William Thomas White: She has been raising the money here.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend spoke of a balance of -about $100,000,000-


William Thomas White: We raised the money here.


Frank Oliver: But we would -have had to raise the money to maintain our troops in the Old Country, if we had not had that arrangement with the British Government. It was just as much to our advantage as it was to the advantage of the British Government.


William Thomas White: But, the money has been raised.
' Mr. OLIVER: That is true. Let us take credit for doing what we have done in the financing of our part in the war, but let us -not take credit for financing the Government of Great Britain, when we are not doing it.


William Thomas White: Let me ask my hon. friend another question-. No matter for what purpose it is, -could mo-re money have properly been raised than has been raised according to- my statement, having regard to the conditions in this country?


Frank Oliver: I am not able to answer that. I am not in touch with the finances or Canada, as. my hon. friend is. If he says we have raised up to the limit of what was possible, I am quite willing to take his word for it, and- I am compelled then to accept the situation as it is, namely, that instead of our Canadian Government being able to finance the British Government in its purchases in Canada, we have only been able to maintain our forces in the field, -plus $100,000,000 which we have advanced to Britain. That is the statement of the case. All I ask is- that we should know where we stand; and- that we should not claim credit for doing so-teething that we are not doing. We are not financing the British Empire any -more than we -are winning this war. We are doing our part, I hope,- loyally and truly. If we are doing the best we possibly can do, that is all we ask of the Government. But, we contend, when they a.re merely paying on this side of the water money -they owe on the other side, they have no right to say they are financing the Government of 'Great Britain in carrying on -the war. Our munitions plants are -being s-hut down because of -the financial exigencies of the British Government, which exigencies we in this Dominion are not now able to meet. That is as I gather the situation from what has been said.


William Thomas White: I do not agree with that at all.	.


Frank Oliver: I cannot -make anything
' else out of it. If that is the case in regard to munitions, I wish to draw attention to the fact tha-t the same condition exists in regard to the supplying of bacon. So far as I have been able to gather from the press, -the price of hogs fell two cents a pound on the announcement that the British Government would no-t buy any more

bacon in Canada. Two cents a pound is a very serious matter to the producers of hogs in Canada, and it is a matter of sufficient importance to claim the consider. ation of this Parliament and of this Government. If it is a fact that the price of hogs has fallen two cents a pound because of the inability of this Government to finance the purchases by Great Britain in Canada, it is a serious situation, and the people of Canada should understand it. They should know why it is so. If it can be avoided, it should be avoided. If it cannot be avoided the public should understand it thoroughly. Let us know exactly where we are.


William Thomas White: Let me interrupt my hon. friend. The regulation in Great Britain 'to which he refers has not yet become effectual against Canadian bacon, which is still going forward. The drop in the price of hogs had no relation to immediate financing. The question may arise in the future, but it does not arise immediately.


Frank Oliver: There is no doubt of the fact that the announcement and the drop in price absolutely synchronized, my hon. friend will admit that; and I am prepared to believe there was an absolute and direct connection between the two events.


William Thomas White: What about the Chicago price and the Buffalo price?


Frank Oliver: I am not able to answer that question. I am not familiar with those prices. I am prepared also to believe that,, although my hon. friend is able at the moment and for several months to come to finance in regard to munitions, it is understood that he will not be able to continue to do so, and therefore munitions plants are going out of business in expectation of the time when that condition will arise. As I understand it, the position in regard to bacon is. that from this time forward the demands of Great Britain for bacon will be filled by the United States, and our Canadian hogs will find their market in the United States instead of going directly to .Great Britain, and the profit in the handling win go to the United States instead of remaining in Canada.


William Thomas White: Not if we can finance it, and we shall certainly endeavour to do so.


Frank Oliver: If we can finance it, that Kill not occur; but if wre -cannot, it is bound to happen. This is a serious matter

to -the people of Canada, and it is something they should not be deceived about. They should not have any misunderstanding about it. They should know what their position is in regard to these questions. The conclusion of what I desire to say is, that since the war began we have not been in an absolutely sane condition in regard to matters of finance in the Dominion of Canada. It has been necessary to incur obligations, as the members of the Government have said, undreamed of at any previous time, obligations never -contemplated and which possibly would never have been undertaken under any other -circumstances. We have become -accustomed in this House to voting money not by the millions, or tens of millions, but by the hundreds of millions, and all under the inspiration of the needs of the war.
As long as it only meant the voting of the money, and as long as it meant the expenditure of the money in Canada, with high prices for munitions, munitions plants running night and day, enormous wages to employees, high prices- for farm produce, and everything going splendidly, it was only a matter of voting more and more millions. But it is perfectly clear, from what has been said here to-day, that a condition has been reached when this performance cannot go on. We have come to a crisis in our national affairs. My hon. friend said that the British Empire had come to a crisis in its Imperial affairs connected with this war. We, in Canada, have come to a crisis in our national affairs, and we cannot continue the expenditures that we have hitherto been making. It is not possible. Our credit, so far as I can see, is becoming exhausted, and we have the evidence of that in the shutting do vn of -the munitions plant, and the purchase of bacon through the United States. We have changed our financial position within the last few months, and the people of Canada should know it. The Government should take the people into -their confidence in regard to thi-s matter, so that we would know exactly where we were. At this time, and under these circumstances, I want to hold the Government of Canada, the gentlemen who sit on the treasury benches, and above every one else the Minister of Finance responsible for the fact that we are in this position at the present time. Since my hon. friend took office, and since -this war broke out, there has been no brake placed upon the expenditure of the Dominion of Canada. The same idea of extravagance that prevailed in the purchase of war

supplies has prevailed in the conduct of all government affairs from the day our friends opposite took office. The civil government of Canada costs millions and tens of millions more to-day than it did before they took office, and they have less business to transact in every line relating to civil government.


William Thomas White: That is not correct.


Frank Oliver: The books will show.


William Thomas White: Yes, they will
show.


Frank Oliver: The Government failed to recognize those tremendous obligations that we were assuming on our entry into the war, that we must assume when we enter the war if we are going to do ourselves credit. If we are going to [support the Allies with the sacrifice of men, we are surely going to support them with the sacrifice of money, and it was our business to see that every resource of the Dominion of Canada was husbanded to the last cent in order that Canada might play her part in the war, in finance, as well as in men. But it has been as though no such thing occurred. It has been as though a river of wealth were running by, and it was just a matter of how much we could dip out and scatter. The financing of Canada has been conducted on these principles, and, instead of the condition changing for the better from day to day or from year to year, never before in the history of Canada has Parliament witnessed such tremendous extravagance and such unreasonable action as have occurred during the present session. We are going to win the war by burdening our credit with a possible award of 360,000,000 for absolutely nothing; by taking over obligations running up in the neighbourhood of 3600,000,000, interest charges that we will never get out of the earnings of the railroad, that will have to come out of the Canadian treasury, at a time when every atom in us should have been concentrated on the idea of saving money, so that we could bear our proper part in the war. We have thrown our money away, wasted it, and depleted our credit, and to-day we must see our industries shut down, and, the profits of our farmers cut off, because of the extravagance with which our affairs have been conducted and the disregard which has been paid to the maintenance of our credit.


Mr. McKENZIE:: The motion which was made by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) this afternoon deals with a matter of the greatest possible importance,
or, at least, of great importance to some parts of Canada. It is important for myself and for the people whom I represent in this House because, directly .and indirectly, they are concerned in the employment which the manufacture of shells and .the production of .steel for the shells afforded to ithe people. It was important because thousands of men were employed in the production of coal, which is the great power which puts the machinery in motion for the making of steel and whatever enters into the production of shells in this country. I think that if the Government were in possession of the facts which led to the lessening of the production of shells they should have given it to this House long before now. If they could have prevented the condition of things in this country which has thrown thousands of men out of employment, we have a right to ask that they should do so, and that they should endeavour to create a condition that would ensure employment for our men. With winter not very far off, the Government should strive to improve conditions which, from the present outlook, promise to be very distressing. I imagine the Minister of Trade and Commerce, by reason of the department which he represents, would be deeply interested in this question. I admit at once that the manufacture of shells was not, before the war, one of the industries of this country, and not an industry which had much to do with the prosperity of Canada, or one which would naturally call for the ingenuity and wisdom of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It is, perhaps a phrase of the trade and business in this country upon which he had no training and for which, perhaps, he has no predilections or liking. But it so happens that, in the last three years, it has been a trade in this country, providing a livelihood for thousands of people and has created a condition with which we have to cope.
The cutting off of that industry seriously affects the whole community; it affects those directly as well as those indirectly interested. The Department of Trade and Commerce is particularly concerned with this kind of business, and I was surprised that the Minister of Trade and Commerce, of all members of the Government, should obstruct the giving of information asked for by the member for Pictou and desired so urgently by the whole people. I am, surprised that the minister should take such a narrow view of this question. He spoke with a view to shutting us off from the discussion and of denying to the people

an opportunity of hearing what should be said on the subject by the Minister 'of Finance, who is particularly concerned in supplying one of the sinews of war. The reason given by the minister for his attitude is not a sufficient one for the Government to give to the thousands of workmen who are affected by the conditions referred to by the member for Pictou; it is not a sufficient reason to give to thousands of families, the heads of which are unable to find the money to buy coal and food and protect their children from the chill of winter. We were told, forsooth, that we should not discuss this question in the House because the Minister of Trade and Commerce had under his hand a Bill for the decapitating and disfranchisement of 50,000 of the Canadian people. That is not a sufficient reason for the Government's attitude; yet that is the only answer that was given from the other side of the House, In the forthcoming election I need no better argument than this to submit to the thousands of people in my constituency who depend for their livelihood upon their daily or weekly wage; when a question of vital importance to them was brought up in this House, the Government, led by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, put every obstacle in the way of the discussion of the matter. The minister says: to the dogs with food for the children; to the winds with the discussion of these matters; we have a decapitating axe to grind; we must cut off every power in this country that will criticise our misdoings; we cannot give you time to discuss this matter, because fifty thousand people have to be disfranchised, gagged, muzzled, we must have the time of the House for the discussion of that matter, not for the discussion of the matter brought up by the member for Pictou. Although I am accused of speaking frequently in this House, it is not often that I am thoroughly roused and stirred in expressing the views of the people. But when an old and respected parliamentarian like the Minister of Trade and Commerce says that we should not have an hour or two of the time of the House to discuss a matter of vital importance to the people, I feel that it is time the common people asserted themselves and contended that they should be heard in this House as well as the millionaires, the knights, the lords. Hon. gentlemen opposite talk in millions; they have more regard for the large amounts made by the lords and dukes who support the Government than they have for the needs 
of the workingman. But the time is not far off when the people will have an opportunity of passing judgment upon the conduct of this Government. No disfranchising Act that can be passed through this House will save the Government and the Minister of Trade and Commerce from the Bay-of-Fundy avalanche and tide that is approaching too rapidly for their own safety.


George Green Foster: What kind of an avalanche is that?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It will come from both sides-there will be an avalanche from the land and a tidal bore from the sea.


George Green Foster: The bore is already here.


Mr. DAVIDSON:: Will it be a smoothbore?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I hear the piping voice of the sworn statesman. If he. is looking for smooth tilings he had better consult his constituents on the question whether he will secure the nomination in Annapolis.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The Minister of Trade and Commerce said that we should be very careful not to encroach upon the rights of Great Britain in a matter of this kind. When the question of spending money over here is raised, regard must be had to Great Britain, but Great Britain is the whole Empire and the whole universe when we have to send men over there. We do not draw any line in this war; we are under the fold of the grand old flag-in Scotland, Ireland, England, Australia, New Zealand; it is all one Empire, one people. We have contributed, to the best of our ability, of the blood and wealth of this country, and we are still doing so. The Minister of Trade and Commerce says, with a flourish of trumpets and with that rhetoric which has made him famous: do you dare to suggest that Great Britain, although thousands of our men are fighting for her protection, should continue spending money in Canada in order to keep going the industries which the necessities of the war have produced and still call for? If that is the argument, then we must not ask any consideration at all from the authorities in Great Britain.' All the sacrifices must come from our side; we must expect nothing in return.
The Minister of Finance has told us that what was to be cut off in the way of the

manufacture of munitions was a mere trifle; that we had plenty of money to keep these industries going.,
He had hardly sat down when the Minister of Trade and Commerce took the floor and told us that the money we had to spend had better be spent in another way, namely, in purchasing food that was to be sent over to the other side, and that the cutting down of the production of munitions was not because they were not required, but because we did not have the money with which to buy them. We have reached a point at which the people of this country who have been engaged in the production of shells, which are so much needed for the Empire, must stop that work because the moneys of this country have been so squandered in other directions that we have not the capacity to come to the assistance of Great Britain in this connection. That is the conclusion and the argument made-by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) and not contradicted by hon. gentlemen opposite. Let me Temind the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Trade and Commerce that if we are hard up for money, or if we need to economize in the expenditure of money, there is nothing which would give such a black eye to this country as to fall short in anything that is necessary for the carrying on of the war. We are told that we must purchase the Canadian Northern railway because to do otherwise might destroy the credit of this country. Anything that might happen to the Canadian Northern in the way of financing is a mere drop in the bucket, as compared with the great disaster to the reputation of this country that would follow our not doing everything we can in the prosecution of the war. If the choice is between putting $600,000,000 into buying munitions of war, bacon, cheese, wheat and everything else necessary to carry on the war properly and support our men at the front and supply our Allies with food and other things they want, and putting $600,000,000 into the Canadian Northern, I say: let us drop the Canadian Northern; let it get along the best way it can, and if it must go into the hands of a receiver, it is not the first enterprise of that kind that has found its way there; and let us pledge the country to that extent towards the carrying on of the war and furnishing the munitions and other supplies necessary to support the Mother Country in this desperate struggle.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce said that we on this side of the House belittled! the efforts of Canada. I have not heard anybody on this side of the House belittling those efforts. I do not remember any one doing so. The financial effort of Canada has been magnificent. We are proud of the financial position we have taken and sustained. We hope we shall be able to continue to finaned for the war and for the necessities of the Mother Country as we have done in the past. There is no man on this 6ide of the House who has raised a finger against small effort; or great effort or any effort, put forward by the Minister of Finance to secure the requisite moneys for the part that we have taken in this war. Where is the truth in the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce that we belittled those efforts or that we obstructed -and impeded the measures taken to sustain this great country of ours in the war? Nothing could be further from' the facts than the statement made by the minister. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has to-day made statements which are quite capable of giving comfort to the enemy in regard to the financial condition of this country. He told the world-and I do not think there was any necessity for it-that Great Britain was at the breaking point and strained to the last inch in connection with the financing of the war. I do not believe that. I do not believe that Canada is .at or near the breaking .point. There are in the banks of this country hundreds of millions of dollars owned by the people of this country, and if the requirements call for taking it out of the banks and giving it to the Minister of Finance in order to put it into the war, the people of Canada will rise in their might and hand over the money rather than that the status of this country should suffer for one moment on account of the need for money. We in Canada have scarcely been touched in regard to our true capacity in connection with the war, and it is not necessary for the Minister of Trade and Commerce to give comfort to our enemies today. It will be stated, I suppose, in Germany to-morrow that the Minister of Trade and Commerce of Canada, a knight, the Right Hon. Sir George Foster, said in the Canadian House of Commons that England was strained to the last inch and casting about perplexed as to how she could finance the war. That will 'be the encouraging news our enemies will receive tojmorrow from a speech made in this House of Commons by a member of this Government. If anybody on this side of the House were

to make such a statement there would he loud cries of "Shame" from the other side. The Minister of Trade and Commerce says-and I agree with him.-that the people of Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific have behaved nobly. The person bom in Canada, the person who came to Canada as an infant-the people of Canada generally of all classes and creeds-have done everything for the successful prosecution of the war that a true, loyal, capable people could do. If that be so

and it is so-there is not one instance of a disloyal act in this country on record to-day against .anybody. And what is the reward that the Government gives to this, loyal people who have stood to their guns, who have given of their money, of their children, of their blood, of their very life, for the maintenance of the flag under which they live? Their reward is to be cut off as. aliens and strangers and traitors.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. member is speakjng beside the question.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am simply following the trail blazed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce.-


George Green Foster: The hon. member is following it very badly.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have pointed out that he has stated that the people have been doing very well. If the people are doing well, he is not rewarding them properly; that is., every one of the people of this country has stood by us loyally, there is no justification at all for cutting them off as is intended to be done.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member is
strictly out of order in discussing the Franchise Act.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If I am out of order in discussing it, of course, I shall not disr cuss it. I simply wish to say to the minister-and that is not discussing the Franchise Act-that if three years ago his Government had .told .the people of this country what was going to bappm/and the different Acts that were to be enacted by this Parliament and the course that was to be taken in respect to the rights of the people-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. I must ask the hon. gentleman to confine his remarks approximately to the subject before the House. He is going very far afield.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Thank you. Your
Honour will not .permit me to finish my sentence, but there may be other oppor-

tunities for pointing out what I was about to say. As far as the real question before the House is concerned, I do trust the Government will take the matter seriously in hand, and if those industries can be kept going by proper management, and the people of this country who are engaged in the production of shells can be kept at that production; and the finances of this country can be so husbanded and so marshalled that, while we may be obliged to drop other enterprises; while we may be obliged to drop the expenditure of some $20,000,000 or sc on public works which I think can stand over; while we may be obliged to give up an expenditure of $4,000,000 or $6,000,000 on this old railroad in Quebec which I think we can dispense with; while we may be obliged to let the Canadian Northern, with the expenditure of $600,000,000 that it involves look .after itself;-I do trust that .the Government will finance every line of supplies that is required to keep up our present standing in support of this war, and that we shall have money for the wheat, and the cheese, and the hogs, and the munitons, that will be necessary in order to keep everything going at full blast as at present. We did something this afternoon to stir up the Government on these things, and if the motion of the hon. member from Pictou has resulted in stirring up the Government and giving to the world an idea of how we stand and what can be done in order to carry forward the affairs of this country and our share in the war in a way that will be satisfactory to the Canadian people, the afternoon will have been well spent.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
On the order for resuming the debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Edwards "that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of the Whole House on Bill No. 126 (Letter T of the Senate) intituled: 'An Act for the relief of Albert Edwin Gordon' " and the proposed motion of Mr. Steele in amendment thereto:
George William Kyte: Mr. Speaker, I think the understanding last evening was that this Bill would not be gone on with until Monday. My hon. friend from Moosejaw (Mr. SEPTEMBER 8, 1917
Knowles) had intended to speak on it, and being compelled to leave last evening, he did so with the understanding [DOT] that the Bill was not to go>
on until Monday. The printed evidence has only been distributed and members have not had an opportunity of reading it, as it is somewhat voluminous.
I think, in view of the suggestion last evening, that it should go over until Monday, it would be rather unfair to hon. members who are interested in this Bill if it should be taken up to-night.-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If there is no objection, the order can stand.
Order stands.



SECOND READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 131, to incorporate the Army and Navy Veterans in Canada.-Mr. Bradbury.


[Stage Direction]
House resumed the debate on the motion of Mr. Macdonald for the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance.
Mr. D[. A. LAFORTUNE (Montcalm) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of attention to the arguments advanced by both sides upon the motion submitted to the House by the learned member from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald). This motion is certainly a most important one, if we may judge by the opposition offered by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) to this motion being discussed, you have examined this motion, Mr. Speaker; you have paid a religions attention to the arguments brought forward by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, and, in full justice, Your Honour has 'approved of the proposition submitted by the hon. member for Pictou and allowed the debate upon that question.
I fully concur in the remarks made by the hon. members on this side of the House. My hon. colleagues who have spoken upon this motion have perfectly satisfied me that they were absolutely right in presenting and in supporting this motion, I have likewise attentively listened to the arguments offered by the hon. members opposite; but 'however, they have not succeeded to change, in my mind, the opinion I have entertained on that question, from the very outset. The learned
member for Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) has brought forward in support of his thesis the most cogent and the most serious arguments and he has surely succeeded in convincing his friends of the propriety of discussing this question. In my view, the hon. members sitting on this side and who, naturally, do not share the views held by the hon. members opposite, have successfully .confuted the objections raised by these gentlemen.
From the very inception of this war which broke out in August, 1914, our whole population felt plunged in the greatest anxiety; consternation because general and all were wondering if this war would not be of long duration; opinions were divided then as they still are to-day. Some were asking themselves, from the very start, whether we, the native born Canadians, should participate in this war and if it was Canada's duty to take part in it. A great number were of the opinion that it was her duty to assist in this war, and others held a contrary view. Opinions are not yet agreed on this point, Mr. Speaker. Even at the present 'moment, a discussion is going on in the press as to the wisdom of the present Government's decision to the effect that it was Canada's duty to participate in this war. That decision was censured by serious and distinguished men, by great speakers who cut a figure in the political spheres and by-the-way, with a decided advantage, who have held contrary views. The view which I held and still entertain to-day, is that Canada had done her duty and that we were not obliged, in any way, to participate in this war; that under the constitution which governs us, we are not bound to take up the Empire's quarrels, in the wars it may have to stand. We have done it; so much the better. I still contend to-day that it was not Canada's duty to do what has been done, hut since it was thought proper, I shall not discuss the wisdom of that measure, and everywhere I have had the opportunity to give my opinion, here as elsewhere, I have made no secret of saying what I say to-night. *
It was then contended that Canada should, as a colony, put forth a war effort. If that so, it brings me to another consideration. Has Canada done her duty? Upon this point, Mr. Speaker, I have no better evidence to produce than to use the expression fallen from the very lips of the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, who has emphatically declared in
[Stage Direction]
this House, to-day, that Canada had nobly done her duty and, for the first time, I agree with him:	In making .such a statement, he certainly did justice to the situation, to the sacrifices of every kind made by our country and I may immediately add that we have done enough. Everywhere I have been, I did declare and repeat that Canada had done her full duty and made ample sacrifices in men and in money, and I may repeat here to-night that, in my view,, we have done all and more than we should have done.
Prom the very inception of this war, Mr. Speaker, a large number of munition shops and mills sprang up through the country, even factories which were previously running along different industrial lines were converted into munition workshops. We have made heavy sacrifices in order to provide as properly as possible for the operating of these manufactories so that they' might supply, as much as possible, the ammunition required by our Allies.
In the comity where I have the honour to reside, Mr. Speaker, there are several manufactories, several workshops, where munitions are produced. In St. Laurent, especially, we have an important factory, which employs a large number of hands.
In Lachine, the residential city of the member for Jacques-Cartier-I regret he is not in his seat to-night, for he anight perhaps have given us more details and more information-in the city of Lachine, there are several .munition factories. Considerable capital has been invested in the construction and operation of these factories. From personal knowledge, I may state that hundreds of thousands of dollars have been invested in the installation of such shops in the county of Jacques-Cartier and elsewhere.
There are hundreds of 'thousands of people employed in those mills. Young men and others of mature age, women and girls have been employed in large numbers, by thousands, in the manufacture of these munitions.
In several towns, even, the trade, occupation or work which these persons habitually followed were put aside so that they might dievote themselves exclusively to the making of munitions. Workmen,, painters, carpenters, blacksmiths, shoemakers, bakers, in a word every kind of working men gave up their ordinary labour, their habitual trade, to go and 
work in those shops. In the first place through devotion, then by patriotism and, thirdly, because the .wages were larger. They found a more- ample return for such a labour in those workshops. I have ascertained that a very large number of men employed in every line of trades and labour undertook this new occupation.
We were told, Mr. Speaker, that it was necessary, in the Empire's interest as well as for Canada's own interest, to perform that labour, to do what has been done. That's my opinion. There is no doubt that those who have taken up that work gave evidence of real devotion and of true patriotism, and it was necessary for them to do so in order to meet the requirements of the painful situation in which we found ourselves, and we can only praise and congratulate the people who so willingly undertook that kind of work, which was necessary and of interest to Canada,
I say, Mr: Speaker, that the population have made enormous sacrifices, both in men and in money. In the first place, it has been established that the number of those who have voluntarily enlisted exceeds 450,000.
France alone excepted, Canada has furnished more men than all the other countries of the world, in proportion to population. Canada occupies the second place on the list, coming immediately after France, Now, for a country that was not obliged to participate in the war; for a country whose constitution protected to the extent of allowing her to refuse even enlistment, it seems to me that a tribute of praise is due to the population who have been so anxious to efficiently enlist; in fact, as I have said, it is proven that 450,000 men have rushed to the colours voluntarily.
We have, moreover, subscribed millions and millions, Canada has miade all kinds of sacrifices.
When I consider the sacrifices of all kinds, the sacrifices of every nature, the sacrifices of all sorts made by our people,
I am asking myself whether the remarks made by the party in power, or by the papers supporting it, are really justified.
When some have stated that the province of Quebec was not generous, that the province of Quebec was not patriotic, when the people of Quebec have been blamed, censured, condemned and told most regrettable things, I reply to such gentlemen; you are wrong, you know

nothing of the sacrifices which have been made by the population of Quebec in. particular and of Canada in general.
We have given millions and millions, over and above what the country could well afford. We do mot regret it, for a good deed should never cause regret-that may perhaps bring us good luck later on; but I must say that the millions which have been given were paid generously, and no one could demand any more. . *
All the provinces of the country, from North to South, from East to West, all the provinces have been anxious to subscribe most generously, very willingly, millions and millions which have been sent oversea. The province of Quebec, Mr. Speaker, has not been the last one. From the very outset, our province has generously done it seems to me, her full duty, be it said to the praise of the Prime Minister of the province of Quebec who has been in power for many years past. We surely have nothing to find fault with him; to the contrary, we should congratulate him for his generous acts towards the Allies.
Many associations have been organized. In every corner of the country, societies have been formed, all collecting and working night and day in order to increase the subcriptions solicited, and they have certainly succeeded.
A large number of nurses, most generous women, most distinguished ladies, entered the fray and led the movement; we have seen nurses leave our country to go to the front; they left their families, their homes, their relatives; they left their country and crossed the seas to go and care for the soldiers on the battle fields. Those women deserve our sincere gratitude and our heartiest thanks for the devotion and the patriotism they displayed in the Allies' interests.
There have been organized in Montreal, among other cities, and throughout the country, concerts, theatrical representations, meetings of all kinds, shows, tombolas, receptions, afternoon teas, soirees matinees, levees, excursions, picnics, races, public and political gatherings. In fine, Mr. Speaker, every kind of things was done, all sorts of means were taken in order to relieve the soldiers at the front, thus it was that large sums of money were collected by all sorts of legitimate means; thus it was, I say, that they succeeded in raising very large amounts.
351	'~!
Work competitions were also organized. In my village, in my town and in the neighbouring parishes, they held sewing competitions to fit and clothe the soldiers on the battlefields. Bundles of clothing were sent overseas by the thousands. It was a consolation to see those devoted women, working day in and day out for the brave soldiers whose comfort was their sole inspiration.
I must say, in praise of all those ladies I know in my own town of Saint-Laurent, that their zeal was indefatigable. They worked in the evening, whole nights at a time, to sew and make all sorts of goods which could be useful to the boys at the front. Collections were made in the streets, from door to door, and even in the churches.
I must add here, Mr. Speaker, that our clergy answered the call most eagerly, When I see a certain press print and publish unpleasant articles against these gentlemen of the clergy, I have no hesitation in saying that those who so speak or write do not know our clergy, that they do not know the mentality of the province of Quebec. To say such things is evidence of tho most complete ignorance of our clergy, for if there ever were people devoted to charitable works, to deeds of relief and protection, these are certainly the members of the clergy of Quebec. Yes, we have done all that was possible in the Allies' interest and, more especially for the Canadians fighting in France.
And if we consider the sacrifices made by Canada, is it necessary to add, Mr. Speaker, that the labour done in the munition shops, although the workmen were paid good wages for it, occupies a high standing on this list of honour? I have just said it the working men quickly left their regular occupations to devote themselves to the making of munitions and I do not hesitate to say, Mr. Speaker, that in so doing, they were moved by patriotism, by the hope of aiding the Allied armies and very few of them by the fact that their new wages were a little higher than those they were previously receiving.
As early as 1912, scarcely a year after the advent of the present Government into power, a serious crisis began to prevail; the working men complained of lack of work rand I understand there was some reason for alarm. Every one wondered what was going to happen. Would these unemployed have to go to the United States for the bread and protection Canada was denying -them?
[Stage Direction]
\
[Stage Direction]
As everybody knows, many of them did cross the forty-fifth boundary line and still a larger number were preparing to follow suit. In 1913, 1914, and up to the declaration of war, things were far from being bright. A large portion of our people were complaining and justly so. The war changed this condition of affairs. Labour has greatly increased and wages have been more remunerative. The working men's conditions have improved; they have been able to support their families properly, to meet their obligations and, moreover, to lay a little in store for the future. The workmen therefore have until now improved their position. It has just been learnt, as shown by the motion of the hon. member for Pictou, and with much apprehension, that this munition labour is on the point of ceasing. For some time I have had a personal knowledge of the fact, for in the country-place where I live, which is close to the town of Saint-Laurent, the Canada Store Co., which have, since 1914, been producing munitions and employing quite a number of hands, have begun discharging them. It is the same with the Dominion Bridge Co., in Lachine, and it is generally rumoured that this war industry may fully cease ere long. If that be so, it is a most regrettable affair. It is said that necessity knows no law, and the axiom is well known; but it seems to me that this work should not be discontinued, seeing that the war is still on and that it must unfortunately last too long, and seeing also that the munitions are absolutely indispensable for the war. I am asking myself Mr. (Speaker, whether it is fair that Canada pay millions and rail-lions to assist the .Empire, the mother-country; whether it is fair to take our own country's money and send it over to London for the making of munitions to be used by those who are fighting for our country. Humbly I say: no. If it is necessary that we still contribute to help England financially, it seems to me that, at least, the millions we are to subscribe should be spent here, if possible. Is it right to take our money and send it oversea to manufacture the necessary fighting weapons which will be put into the hands of our boys from Canada? No, Mr. Speaker, justice demands that the money we advance, the money we subscribe for the manufacture of munitions, be spent in Canatda; if we do not do that, we are recreant to duty of justice. What will those workmen employed in munition 
shops say when they see themselves thrown on the streets, just before the bad weather, Autumn is close upon us and winter will soon follow. Where will these workmen find any work? In summer time, one can find something to do almost anywhere, as in navigation, in construction, for instance, and in a lot of other occupations, but such is not the case in winter, and hundreds and thousands of men, women and children will be given up to the greStest want, if we discharge them from the munition factories. I repeat it, if it is necessary to continue suberibing and advancing millions to the mother-country, let us see to it that, at least, the money we so advance remains in Canada, that the materials needed for the making of those munitions, such as iron, steel, copper, wood, etc., be materials taken from Canada. It seems to me only fair and just.
I was glad, Mr. Speaker, to hear the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce state that Canada had done her duty. Very well! I agree with him, but he has been saying this only recently. The hon. minister and his friends have always declared, always maintained that Canada had not done her duty, and that it was therefore, necessary to impose- compulsory military service-to force those who had not contributed adequately, to discharge the duty they had neglected.
When I hear the Minister of Trade and Commerce reproaching the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) with being inconsistent, because he asked that the shell manufacture be continued in the country; when I hear the learned .minister say: Don't you see how illogical and inconsistent, you are now, in asking that munitions continue to be manufactured in Canada, you who did not want to have anything to do with the war, who did not want to consent to the imposition of compulsory military service. And be tried to prove the inconsistency of the hon. member for Pictou.
I may say to the hon. minister that he is not more logical, and in my humble opinion, he is less consistent because the hon. member for Pictou did not contradict himself, did not show any lack of logic in asking that, inasmuch as it was necessary, if any munutions were to be made for the war, such munitions, at least, should be made in Canada. There is no oontraedietion in that.
I, myself, have voted and I shall again vote most heartily against compulsory

military service; but I believe that, inasmuch as it is necessary to help, we should do so; but that the work to be done should be performed in our country, in our own people's interest.
The learned minister also said: England would not consent to have the - work done -anywhere but at home, to have her children deprived of it.
Well, I may reply to the learned minister; If England will not consent to have the work done outside her own territory, what about the children of the land?
England may do what she pleases at home, as long as she does it with her own money, her own resources, her own funds, very well; but -when -she -takes Canada's money and resources, when she accepts the -millions we are -sending her, have we not the right -to impose our -conditions? When one gives, has he not the right to say: "Very wel-l, I shall give yo-u one hundred millions, two or three hundred millions, if necessary, -but to my donations I put one condition: that that money be spent in- my -country, that the work be done by my children; if you think the donation is to-o onerous, don't -accept it."
When in a don-atkm a condition too onerous for the donee i:s put, the donee has only to answer your donation does-not please me, it is not remunerative enough, it is not gratuitous enough, I will not -accept it.
If England finds that the obligation we mean to impose, that of sipending in onr country the money we -are giving her, does not suit -her, -she has only to say; I don't want it. There is no -question but that the donor has the right to impose whatever conditions he please, when he makes a donation.
-Let England accept the donations, -the loans, the -advances-call them -as you please -under -any form whatsoever, let her -accept the money she receives from Canada, -but, in return, let her show her generosity, let her -be -charitable enough-yes, I say -charitable enough to aid the children of the land, who -are crying for bread and whom they axe about to turn into the streets, just before winter.
The hon. Minister has m-ade a remark which I have not quite understood. The learned member for -Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) has told him so. I wish to offer a remark on the same point. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce hak -stated that the Opposition members were trying to belittle, to minimize what Canada has done for the Empire.
I beg the, learned minister's pardon, he must have said that himself, in -another
351 i	:
flight of imagination. Without wishing to say anything disagreeable, or improper, let him allow me to tell him that when he stated that the Opp-o-sition members were trying -and had tried to minimize, to lessen -Canada's effort, attempting thereby to show that we have been recreant to our duty, 1 beg leave to tell him that he has made a blunder. Nothing^ of the sort has taken place, absolutely nothing.
I have followed the debates of this House, I have -carefully listened to -all that has been said-; I have, -as representative of my -county, attended regul-a-rly enough the sittings of the House, and nothing has ever been said, nothing has ever been written in the Liberal papers, not even in the Conservative press which i-s opposing us, nothing has ever been said upon the-subject; it has never been pretended that the m-embers -sitting on this side ot this House had tried- to minimize the efforts put forth by Canada, but it is the contrary that is tru-e, and the truth -of it is thi-s: w-e have never tried to -belittle the merit of the war efforts of Canada, but it has always been sa-id, as I now declare it, as all my friends on this side have declared, that C-anada had nobly done her duty, -but we pretended that w-e had done enough, -and never has it entered the mi-nd of any one to criticize the common efforts put forth by the country, and especially by that p-art of the country where I live in. Nothing of the sort has been said.
Mr- .-Speaker, I -cannot insist too much upon thi-s fact; that if England has the munitions she needs m-ade -at home with the -moneys we are giving her, in -my humble opinion, she will commit towards us a serious injustice; the expression may be severe, I should like to find a more acceptable one, but I say so without any animus, without -any mental reservation, or out of -any feeling of disrespect for the Empire in which I live, but I do declare it would be committing a -serious- injustice to our -country, if England took our funds and had the shells, the war ammunition, made over there, by her -sons. Ours, first!
A country as powerful as England, the Queen of the world, cannot maintain itself without having to resort -to Canada's -money, so the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce has stated. I regret he has made such a statement; yes, Mr. Speaker, I do regret that the hon. minister has gone so far as pretend that England is passing through a most difficult financial -crisis -and I particularly regret that he -should have -stated that England might perhaps be on the brink cl
[Stage Direction]
a precipice. Is it not an insult to the British Crown to so speak of a crisis which might menace England, the Queen of the world? I beg my learned friend's pardon,but I think he has committed; a serious error and that never, either as a member or as a minister, should he put on record here such a statement. I ask the newspaper [DOT]representatives here present not to make any mention in their columns of that statement from the hon. minister. That England is embarrassed by the war, I quite ander&tand; but that she is passing through a crisis which threatens her existence, I think that such a statement is not warranted under the *circumstances nor borne out by the facts, and that it should not have been made.
Mr. Speaker, there i3 a reason why I so earnestly ask that the greatest intelligence should preside over the use of the funds we are contributing. When the breaking up comes, when the partition is done, England as a belligerent on the first part, will preside over the division; the Other great Allied Powers, who are now fighting with England, such as France, Russia, Italy, etc., will also come in for their shares. For them there will come a day for the rendering of accounts; they will perhaps be indemnified in a proportion more or less generous for the sacrifices they have made and for the losses of all kinds they have suffered. Will such be the case for Canada, a simple colony?
Is there a man in this House or throughout the country who would dare contend that, when the division ol the spoils takes place, Canada will he called upon to take her share in proportion to the sacrifices we have imposed upon ourselves? I say, no. We shall stay bowed down under the weight of the enormous debts we are piling np and under the burden of the taxes we shall have to pay for centuries to come; ,it will be utter ruin. You Mr. Speaker, myself and a great number of others around us, we shall see those things. But those who will come after us, who will have to pay those taxes, from generation to generation they will feel the weight of the burden we shall have imposed upon them. They will have to work like mercenaries;	our children, our grand-children	and	our
great grandchildren will have to bleed themselves, so to speak, to reimburse the millions we are spending in this nefarious war. Now, Mr. Speaker, does not that give us the right to say to our rulers today, who have in their hands our lives,
IMr. D. A. Lafortune.]
all we hold most precious, have we not the right to say to these gentlemen that they must, in all fairness, give us the greatest sum of protection of sunshine and of liberty we are entitled to expect under the circumstances?
I cannot bear to hear the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce lecturing those who, more or less, do not share his views. I may reply to this hon. gentleman that we also have a bit of land as big as his own, that we love our wives and our children as much as he can love his own, that our interests are just as precious to ub as his own can be to him. Why suspect our disinterestedness and our patriotism? Why does he turn to his colleagues and to his friends, saying: See, the hon, leader of the Opposition has a smile on his face! Why should a man of the learned minister's standing, a man of mature age, a contemporary of the hon. leader of the Opposition, why should he utter such words? Why ask his friends to look at the leader of the Opposition because the latter smiles? I might ask the hon. minister if he ever saw on Sir Wilfrid Eaurier's face anything but that air of simplicity, of justice, of broadmindedness which is a distinctive characteristic of great men? I wish my learned friend's face as well as mine could have that good smile which brightens the face of the leader of the Opposition, both he and myself would only be better looking fellows.
Mr. Speaker, I say that we cannot demand too much, from those who rule us, under the circumstances, for every dollar we are giving, every dollar we are contributing, costs much to those who labour, to those who toil from morn till night time, to meet their obligating.
The learned minister, as I have just said, has reputation, capacity, knowledge, probity, but does not the hon. member for Pictou have as much? Is not the reputation of the learned member for Pictou widely known? Is he not a distinguished orator, a most able man, an upright man who does honour to the mandate he fills in this House? Is he not an honour to his country? Does the learned minister doubt his sincerity? I should like to see in this House, several men as valuable as the member for Pictou. There is a large number of distinguished men on either side of this House, and it ill becomes the Minister of Trade and Commerce to try and belittle the reputation of those who

554T
are here with him and who make a figure quite to their advantage.
The learned minister grows indignant and gets somewhat 'out of temper when he cannot subscribe to the conclusions arrived at by his opponents or accede to their views. It seems to me that the members on this side of the House have the same power, the same right as himself, as long as they act properly;^ it seems to me, I say, that the hon. mini-ister does not need to become indignant, if our views do not coincide with his own, for his opinions have not always been in accord with our own. We have the same power be has, the same right, and if we do not subscribe to his opinion, he should not get out of temper.
We do not want, as stated by the learned minister, that this war keeps on, we desire, all and every one of us, that it end as early as possible, but as long as it does last, as the member for Pictou has so well expressed it, let us protect ourselves the best we can. No, we do not want this war to last. We are all anxious to see it over, but as long as it does last, it seems to me that we should do the best we can to improve as much as possible the situation. That is what the hon. member for Pictou asks, and the hon. minister says: You are lacking in logic, you want to prolong the war.
No, I beg the hon. minister's pardon. Neither the member for Pictou nor the other members on this side of the House want this war to last; on the contrary, our wish is that it may end as soon as possible; but as long as it lasts, let us protect ourselves, let us try and take advantage of the situation, the best we can, by demanding that the money we subscribe be spent in our own country.
Mr. Speaker, should the hon. members on this side of the House attempt to make a reflection such as that cast upon us by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the hon. gentlemen opposite would be the first to say: You are fomenting sedition, you are preaching treason, you are making a conspiration. Should we take the liberty to pass a remark such as the learned minister has himself made from his own seat, this afternoon, I can -assure you, Mr. Speaker, we should have a bad time of it. The hon. minister has made a reflection which we shall not make. We enter our protest and we say to the contrary; England is most powerful, she occupies a formidable position; England
does not need C-anada to save herself* she readily accepts whatever we are willing to offer her, but she is certainly not in such a financial state as represented by the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
I have said and I repeat that we have done our duty nobly. The reason why (anada has not done more has already been explained in tnis House. We have done more than we should have done; we have done, as far as possible, what had to be done, and I do not fear to assert that this is the general consensus of opinion.
Mr. Speaker, I resume my seat, in asking and asserting that the motion offered by the hon. member for Pictou is justifiable and that it should be favourably accepted by this honourable House.
Hon. J. D. HAZE5N, (Minister of Marine and Fisheries): A definite matter of urgent public importance, for the purpose of discussing which my hon. friend from Pictou moved the adjournment of the House this afternoon, has now been considered and debated for a number of hours. I therefore beg leave to move, seconded by the hon. Mr. Cochrane, that this House now pass to the Orders of the Day-
William Pugsley: I rise to a point of
order, Mr. Speaker, before you put the motion. My point of order is-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I will put the motion,
then the hon. member may raise his point of order- It is moved by Hon. Mr. Hazen, seconded by Hon. Mr. Cochrane, that the House do now proceed to the Orders of the Day. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion? I may say this motion is not debatable, but I will permit the hon-member to rise to a point of order.
Mr- PUGSLEY: The point of order which I desire to take is that the motion for the adjournment of the House cannot be amended. This motion must be disposed of. The motiop is made in virtue of Rule 39 and must be disposed of before the House can' take up any other order of business. Bouri-not says, at page 324, fourth edition:
.	.	.	. and it is the wish of the House to
adjourn, it is necessary to move an adjournment of the debate in the first place, unless indeed it is desired to supersede it. But the adjournment of the debate obviously cannot be moved to the adjournment of the House, when it is a substantive question.
He cites 144 English Hansard 1906, and May, page 281. Then, at page 349 of the same edition, he says:
554$

Motions for adjournment of House: of debate-
A motion to adjourn is not debatable except in the case of a special motion to adjourn, under Rule 39, made fbr the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance. An ordinary motion to adjourn is always in order, but no second motion to adjourn may be made until after some intermediate proceeding has been had. An intermediate proceeding is one that may properly be entered on the Votes.
The special motion to adjourn under the above-mentioned rule is preceded by the member's asking leave to make the motion. This rule has already been fully quoted in Chapter IX. and it is unnecessary to repeat here.
The Speaker first decides as to whether the motion is in order, and the House decides as to whether it desires that the subject be discussed. In Great Britain, where a similar rule is in force, it has been held that the motion must be restricted to a single specific matter of recent occurrence, and if the matter, submitted to the House in pursuance of the rule, fails to obtain the requisite support, it cannot, during the same session, be again brought forward in the same manner.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. I do not wish
to unduly curtail the hon. member in rising to a point of order, but his last citation has absolutely no reference to the subject before us-


William Pugsley: This is a substantive
motion, and I simply quoted from Bouri-not for the purpose of proving the correctness of what I said. I have already stated to your Honour that the adjournment of the debate cannot be moved to a special motion for the adjournment of the House. Would my hon. friend bg good enough to state under what rule he makes the motion?


Mr. HAZEN:: Under Rule 35.


William Pugsley: (Reading):
A motion for reading the Orders of the Day shall have preference to any motion before the House.
Of course it would not have preference over a special motion to adjourn, under the spirit of the rule and under the clear reading of the rule, because that would entirely supersede and defeat the object of Rule 39, which is for the purpose of allowing discussion, and which has been introduced into the rules in face of the closure proceedings and in face of all those restrictive rules which were passed by the House in 1913- The object of this rule is to preserve to Parliament the right of discussion of important public matters. If an hon member ean rise in his place any time during that discussion after one speech has been made, or indeed even before one speech has been made, and avail himself of Rule 35, it is simply shutting off discussion 
and preventing an opportunity for discussion on a matter of grave public importance, which under Rule 39 has been permitted. Therefore, I say that rule is not applicable to a motion to adjourn under Rule 39 and cannot be resorted to; if it could, it would defeat the very purpose which the House of Commons had in view in providing for the discussion of matters of great public importance under Rule 39.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: With reference to the point of order raised by the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley), I would point out to him that his first citation has absolutely no bearing on the case: that is, with respect to the motion for the adjournment of the debate. This is not a question of the adjournment of the debate. It is a question of a superseding motion under rule 35. As I have pointed out, his second citation from page 349 of Bourinot has no reference to the point of order, because, while debate is provided for, it is subject to the rules of the House. Rule 35 is a specific rule, which reads:
A motion for reading the orders of the day shall have preference to any motion before the House.
That rule must be read in connection with rule 36, which I will read, as applying to this ease.
When a question is under debate, no motion is received unless to amend1 it; to postpone it, to a day certain: for the previous question; for reading the orders of the day.
So that it is specifically provided in rule 36 that it is competent to move this motion in the midst of another discussion. The motion before the House is that the House do adjourn, but it is made under a specific rule, namely rule 39, which enables a discussion to take place, so that it is analogous to a substantive motion. I have given mature consideration to the matter, and I have no doubt in my own mind that the motion of the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) is in order, and is not subject to debate, and it is my duty to put it to the House forthwith.


William Pugsley: I desire to appeal to the House from your ruling, Mr. Speaker.
The House divided on the question, "Shall the ruling of Mr. Speaker be sustained"?

Messieurs:
Armstrong (Lambton), Morphy, Ball,	Morris,
Bennett (Calgary),	Nicholson,
Bennett (Simcoe),	Robidoux,

Carrick,
Cochrane,
Cockshutt,
Donaldson,
Foster (Sir George), Glass,
Guthrie,
Hartt,
Hazen,
Henderson,
McCurdy,
McLean
(Queens, P.E.I.), Meighen,
Roche,
Rogers,
Schaffner,
Sevigny,
Sexsmith,
Shepherd,
Smith,
Stevens,
Taylor,
Thompson (Yukon), Tremain,
Walker,
Weichel.-34.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I declare my decision sustained. Mr. Hazen moves, seconded by Mr. Cochrane, that the House do now proceed to the Orders of the Day. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


William Pugsley: The motion is for another order.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have put the motion as I received it. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.
Messieurs:


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Lost.
Boivin,
Brouillard,
Charlton,
Chisholm,
Copp,
Fortier,
Kyte,
Lafortune,
Lemieux,
Doggie,
Maclean
McCraney
Michaud,
Murphy,
Oliver,
Pugsley,
Ross,
Sinclair,
Turgeon.-
(Halifax),
PAIRS. Messieurs:
Ministerial.
Alguire,
Ames Sir Herbert, Arthurs,
Barnard,
Borden Sir Robert, Bowman,
Boyce,
Brabazon,
Bradbury,
Burnham,
Burrell,
Chabot,
Champagne,	-
Clark, Hugh, Clements,
Cromwell,
Crothers,
Davidson,
Doherty,
Edwards,
Elliot,
Forget,
Fripp,
Green,
Jameson,
Kemp, Sir Edward, Lewis,
McLean, A. A., McLeod,
Marshall,
Middlebro,
Morrison,
Munson,
Northrup,
Stanfield,
Steele,
Stewart, Dugald, Sutherland,
Thoburn,
Wallace,
Webster,
White, Sir Thomas, Wilson,
Wright.
Opposition.
McMillan,
Delisle,
Truax,
Achim,
Laurier, Sir Wilfrid, Loggie,
Lapointe, Ernest, Cardin,
Cruise,
Proulx,
Douglas,
Beland,
MacNutt,
German,
Knowles,
Tobin,
McCoig,
Carroll,
Marcil,
Power,
Marcile,
Bickerdike,
Devlin,
Buchanan,
Gauthier, L. J.,
Robb,
Bourassa,
Hughes, J. J.,
Carvell,
Neely,
Pardee,
Molloy,
Boyer,
Martin,
Macdonald,
Bureau,
McKenzie,
Papineau,	&
McCrea,
Lapointe, L. A., Gauvreau,
Graham,
Wilson,
Warnock.



THE WAR-TIME ELECTIONS ACT.

[Stage Direction]
Right H5n. Sir GEORGE FOSTER (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved the second reading of Bill No. 133, the Wartime Elections Act.
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Rouvillel: I rise to a point of order. Rule 73 says:
All Bills shall be printed before the second reading in the English and French languages.
On referring to the Order Paper, I notice that Order No. 21 reads as follows:
September 6-Second reading of Bill No. 133, the War-Time Elections Act.-Sir Robert Borden.-E.
The Bill, therefore, is printed in English onlv
Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Secretary of State):: The Bill is printed in English and j,n French. It was printed in English the night before last and this morning copies of the Bill printed in French were sent to the distribution office at 11 or 11.30 o'clock.


William Pugsley: I understand that the Bill has not been printed and distributed in the French language. It may have been printed, and kept in secret-I do not know about that. All we have to go by is the Order Paper; if the hon. gentleman will look at the Order Paper he will see that the Bill is printed only in the English language.


George Green Foster: The rule that
niy hon. friend has read simply says that the Bill shall be printed before the second reading in the English and French languages. It does not say that that fact shall
[The Speaker.]
be indicated by letters here, there or anywhere else. The fact is that the Bill shall be printed in both languages. As I understand it, that has been done.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I desire to consult the
Clerk of the House as to what has been -the practice in that respect.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I call Your Honour's
attention to page 226 of Bourinot, edition of 1916:
The rule which requires a strict adherence to the order paper is absolutely necessary to prevent surprise.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It would please the
Tories to surprise.


Mr. BOIVIN:: If I may be permitted, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say one word on the point of order. I draw Your Honour's attention to page 508 of the 1916 edition of Bourinot, which contradicts the statement just made by the hon. gentleman who is leading the Government (Sir George Fo-s-tSr) that it is unnecessary that the letters E and F shall appear on the Order Paper. Bourinot says:
The letters E. F. on the order paper will show whether that has been done. If any objection he made on that ground, it will prevent the Bill being taken up for its second reading on that day.
That is very emphatic. As a matter of justice to the French Canadians in this country and to the French Canadians' in this House, I may say that I applied for a copy of the Bill at the Distribution Office to-day at noon, after I had seen the Order Paper, to make sure whether or not it had been printed in French. I was told by Mr. Boivin in the Distribution Office that the Bill had not arrived there at noon to-day. It would be absolutely unfair to go on with the Bill, especially in view of this remark of Bourinot's. I would ask that the matter be left over until Monday. ,


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is not a question of
fairness or unfairness; the Speaker is limited to a direct iitterpretat-ion of the rules and to the past practice of the House. The rule says that all Bills shall be printed before the second readings in the English and French languages. There is no rule anywhere which says that the letters E and F must appear on the Order Paper, which is prerely for the guidance of members of the House. I am- informed by the Clerk that the practice in the past has been to be governed by the question of fact whether or not the Bills are printed in English and French before their second reading.

I hold in my hand Bill No. 133, printed in both French and English. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the requirements of the rule have been complied with, and I so rule.


Georges Henri Boivin: In view of the citation which I have just made to Your Honour, and which, I think, should be taken into consideration, as Bourinot is a recognized authority-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Georges Henri Boivin: -I appeal to the House from your ruling.


William Pugsley: I move that the House
do now adjourn. I make this motion particularly because the Bill has not been distributed in French, and hon. members have a right to see the Bill in French.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Pugsley moves, seconded by Mr. Lemieux, that the House do now adjourn. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion be carried?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Aye.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Nay.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: In my opinion the nays_ have it.
(Some hon. members having risen as signifying their desire for a division):


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Shame.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Pugsley: Do you allow these yellings, Mr. Speaker?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. member is not in order in speaking when a vote is being taken.


William Pugsley: Ah, Mr. Speaker, but-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. Unless the hon. member takes his seat, I will ' certainly name him.


William Pugsley: I will do that immediately.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.
555a


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. If hon. members insist upon speaking while the vote is being taken, I will certainly name them.


William Pugsley: On both sides?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: On both sides.


Rodolphe Lemieux: No yellings.
The motion of Mr. Pugsley was negatived on the following division:
Boivin,
Brouillard,
Charlton,
Chisholm,
Copp,
Douglas,
Fortier,
Kyte,
Lafortune,
Lemieux,
Loggie,

Messieurs:
Maclean (Halifax), McCraney,
McKenzie,
Michaud,
Murphy,
Oliver,
Pugsley,
Ross,
Sinclair,
Turgeon.-21.
Jameson,
Kemp, Sir Edward, Lewis,
McLean, A. A., McLeod,
Marshall,
Middlebro,
Morrison,
Munson,
Northrup,
Stanfield,
Steele,
Sutherland,
Thoburn,
Wallace,
Webster,
White, Sir Thomas, Wilson,
Wright.
Gauthier,
(St. Hyacinthe), Robb,
Bourassa,
Hughes, J. J., Carvell,
Neely,
Pardee,
Molloy,
Boyer,
Martin,
Macdonald,
Bureau,
Papineau,
McCrea,
Lapointe, L. A., Gauvreau,
Graham,
Wilson,
Warnock.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have just received,
thanks to you, Mr. Speaker, a French version of the Bill now under discussion. Under ordinary circumstances, I think that the Governmer.it ought not to proceed with this Bill-

Armstrong Ball,
Bennett (Calgary), Bennett (Simcoe), Burrell,
Carrick,
Cochrane,
Cockshutt,
Donaldson,
Foster (Sir George), Glass,
Guthrie,
Hartt,
Hazen,
Henderson,
McCurdy,
McLean
(Queens, P.E.I.), Meighen,
Morphy,
Morris,
Nicholson,
Robidoux,
Roche,
Rogers,
Schaffner,
Sevigny,
Sexsmith,
Shepherd,
Smith,
Stevens,
Stewart (Lunenburg), Taylor,
Thompson (Yukon), Tremain,
Walker,
Weichel.-36.
Messieurs: (Lamb ton),
PAIRS. Messieurs :
Ministerial. Ames, Sir Herbert, Alguire,
Arthurs,
Barnard,
Borden, Sir Robert, Bowman,
Boyce,
Brabazon,
Bradbury,
Burnham,
Chabot,
Champagne,
Clark, Hugh, Clements,
Cromwell,
Crothers,
Davidson,
Doherty,
Edwards,
Elliot,
Forget,
Fripp,
Green,

Opposition.
Delisle,
McMillan,
TrHax,
Achim,
Laurier, Sir Wilfrid, Loggie,
Lapointe, Ernest, Cardin,
Cruise,
Proulx,
Beland,
MacNutt,
German,
Knowles,
Tobin,
McCoig,
Carroll,
Marcile (Bagot), Power,
Marcile (Bagot), Bickerdike,
Devlin,
Buchanan,


Mr. BRADBURY:: These are extraordinary circumstances'.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I think it is only fair to the French members of the House that they should be given, (time in which to read the Bill at least, which is a very bulky one. If I can. appeal to the chivalry of my hon. friend to yield to my request, I will not make the motion which I am allowed to make under the rules. Otherwise, I shall move that we proceed1 to another order, under rule 36.


Mr. SEVIGNY:: It is likely enough that some people would try to make a race question out of the alleged fact of this Bill not being printed in French. At twelve o'clock to-day I telephoned to the distribution office myself to inquire >about this Bill, and was told that ithe French version had been distributed before twelve o'clock to-day.


Air. GAUVREAU:: Better bring your man and we will tell him that is a lie.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have a file of all the Bills printed in both English and French, and I can assure my hon. friend that this copy of the Bill which I have received from Air. Speaker is the first one I have seen printed in French.


Albert Sévigny: It was from me.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I thank my hon. friend for it. Will not my hon, friend accept the word of the hon, member for Shefford (Air. Boivin), of the hon. member for Gloucester (Air. Turgeon), of the hon. member for

Drummond and Arthabaska (Mr. Brouil-lard), .and of the hon. member for Lotbin-iere (Mr. Fortier), all of whom' say that this is the first time they have seen the Bill printed in French? It seems to me only fair that no surprise should be sprung on the members of the minority, and I would appeal to my hon. friend the Minister of Inland. Revenue (Mr. Sevigny) to yield with good grace to my request. Besides, we are close to Sunday, and surely this is not a time to quarrel. May I expect a favourable answer from the Government?


George Green Foster: I think my hon. friend may proceed with his motion.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I beg to move that the House do proceed to another Order, under Rule 36.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, I submit that this motion is not in order, li is the opposite to the motion which has passed the House, which was that we should proceed to the Orders of the Day. This gives the Government the right to name the orders to which we shall proceed.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not think the hon. member for Rouville is in order in making his motion. Under rule 35 a motion for reading the Orders of the Day shall have preference to any motion before the House. We are now in the Orders of the Day and are considering a subsidiary order.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Read rule 36.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Rule 36 has to be read in conjunction with'rule 35. I still adhere to my decision, that the hon. member's motion is not in order, because we are now considering the Orders of the Day. The motion now before the House is for the second reading of Bill No. 133.


Frank Oliver: If the Bill is not worthy of any further explanation to the House on its second reading, it will be incumbent upon me to give my views in regard to it. I notice that the title of the Bill is the "War Time Election Act." We are reminded of the fact that this country is at war, and it may be >as well at this particular juncture to consider for a moment why this country is at war. If I understand the issues correctly, we are fighting for the maintenance of free institutions and of human liberty, in Europe and throughout the world. It is generally recognized that at the head and in the forefront of that influence, of that power, of that principle against which we are fighting, stands Prussia and the principle of Prussianism. At the head of Prussia, as at the head of Germany, as the head of the Central Powers, as at the head of this world-war, stands the Kaiser, the representative on earth to-day of autocratic authority. But the Kaiser is only a part of the institution of autocracy which we speak of as Prussianism. Behind the Kaiser, supporting the Kaiser, forcing the Kaiser, if you like, is the junker aristocracy of Prussia supported by a military caste which is given an undue proportion of influence by a peculiar franchise Act. It is a notable fact that we who are fighting and giving of our resources to the limit, whose sons are dying to break down that condition as it prevails in Europe and which proposes to dominate the world, are to-day facing the introduction of an identically similar condition in this our own country, the introduction taking place under the name of patriotism, loyalty, and the maintenance of the principles for which we are fighting. The kaiser in our country is our Government, an oligarchy self-elected. It is supported, as it was created, by an aristocracy of wealth, an aristocracy which includes the munitions profiteers, the men who corner the food of the people, the manufacturing monopolists, the railroad exploiters, and the boa-constrictors of high finance. This is the junker aristocracy in our country. This is the organization that our kaisers across the floor represent, and this Bill, as its predecessor, the Military Voters Act, is for the purpose of establishing in this country af military caste with special voting powers and authority, to be depended upon by this junker .aristocracy and this oligarchic kaiserism, who are proposing to give special voting privileges to special classes of people. It has usually been supposed that the institutions of government were for the benefit of the citizens, and that the climax of free government was control by the citizens. But we have it provided in the Military Voters Act, and in the WarTime Elections Act, that citizenship shall not constitute the right to vote, that there shall be a division between ' the right of military service and the right'of citizenship. It is established that because a man is a soldier, though he never was a citizen of Canada, though he never intends to be a citizen of Canada, he still shall be a voter of Canada, and his vote shall be cast wherever it pleases himself, or those from whom he takes his direction, to cast that vcte. In the War-Time Elections Act it is provided that our soldiers shall vote, that

their wives and their relatives shall vote, but that other women of the community shall not be entitled to vote. In order to create that special military class in this country we are to disfranchise the women of five of the great provinces of Canada just as, in order to establish a military class, we give the franchise to men who never saw Canada and probably never will see it. There is no argument, then, as to what the purpose, the intent and the necessary effect, of the legislation of these two Bills is and is to be. Frankly, the Government has proclaimed its policy in other matters along these same lines. We all recall that when the Prime Minister made his announcement of the introduction of the principle of conscription for military service into this country from his place in the House, he threatened with violence at the hands of the soldiery .any man who, in this free Parliament and in this free country, dared to express his opinion against that measure.


George Green Foster: Will my hon. friend say that that is a literal translation of the statement made by the Prime Minister?


Frank Oliver: No, I do not say it is a literal translation, but 1 say it is certainly a correct translation beyond any argument. Further, I will say that the word of the Prime Minister has been taken up, and the right hon. gentleman can read it any day m the columns of the special newspaper organs of the Prime Minister throughout this country-this hitherto free Country of Canada. I do not know how far the Prime Minister and the oligarchy that sits with him are under the impression that they can terrorize the people of Canada. I do not know how many they can terrorize, but there are some whom they cannot terrorize. We still believe in right and liberty, we still believe in a free country. We who have sent our sons to fight for liberty in Europe intend to stand for liberty in Canada.
One of the great features of this Bill is ite measure of disfranchisement of citizens of Canada. Although men shall have been entitled by the law of Canada, and under the authority of Britain, to the rights, privileges, immunities and liabilities of citizenship for a period of fifteen years, it pleases the kaiser, his oligarchy and his junker support, because he hopes thereby to secure the militarist support, to break faith-to break the faith of Canada-with these people and to deprive them of their rights as citizens. What are these men guiltjr of that

they should be deprived of their citizenship? What have they done or what have they left undone that they should be singled out to be deprived of that right of which they became possessed in due and legal form and to which the faith of Canada and of the Empire was pledged at the time that right was granted them? What have they done? Have they committed a breach of the law? Have they in any degree acted against the best interests of this country? Have they refused to take part in this war with Canada on behalf of Britain ana her Allies? Not so Mr. Speaker. We had it on the authority of the Prime Minister that the services of these men had not been accepted as a matter of Government policy since this war began. I ask you, Sir, on what ground have these men been disfranchised, except the ground that they stand accused, in the minds of our Government and its supporters, of the high crime and misdemeanor of being liable to vote Liberal at tlie next election.


Mr. LAFORTUNE:: That is their crime.


Frank Oliver: That, and only that. Who are those people who are to be disfranchised? To be as brief as possible, and to avoid going into too many details, I would say they belong chiefly to two classes, men of German descent, and men of Russian descent.


An hon. MEMBER:: Austrian.


Frank Oliver: If these people of German descent had come from Germany imbued with the ideas that are part of the education of every man in Germany, I could understand that there might be some aues-tion as to their attitude towards this country and our cause in this war. So far as my knowledge goes, and I have considerable knowledge on the subject, the great majority of the people who are spoken of as Germans in the Prairie Provinces, never saw Germany, -their fathers never saw Germany, and their grandfathers never saw Germany, except it might have been in passing through Germany to come to Canada. Speaking of the large majority of those with whom I am familiar, their ancestors were Germans, but more than one hundred years ago they left Germany as colonists under the auspices of the empire of Austria, to occupy lands allotted to them in the Austrian province of Galicia, where they were given. certain privileges and certain opportunities. It seemed good to them to go there, and one of the reasons they went was because they wished to escape from, or because they objected to, the es-

tablishment of German militarism which was then being established in their home country. They removed to Galicia and established themselves there. They grew, and prospered in a moderate degree, from generation to generation. When militarism became established thoroughly in Austria, those people found military service irksome, they found the economic conditions undesirable, and they emigrated to Canada. They came here on the promise by the Canadian Government, held out to every man who came, that if they came with good intent and with honest purpose to help build up our Canadian country, they would be entitled to and would receive all the rights of Canadian citizenship. They have done their part towards building up the country. They have fulfilled in letter and in spirit their part of the bargain; and because, for some reason unknown to me this Government believes that at the coming election they are likely to vote Liberal, these people are disfranchised. I care not on their account that they are disfranchised; it makes little difference to them, or, I may say to the Liberal party of Canada, or the prairie West. But it makes a stupendous difference to Canada that we shall have within our borders men of good faith, who have come in good faith, who have fulfilled every obligation laid upon them by the state in good faith, and with whom we break faith without cause or provocation. How can we expect to build up a sound and solid citizenship in this country under such circumstances? I consider that this so-called War-Time Elections Act will set this country back an untold number of years in the process of building up a united and progressive Canada. It is in the same class as the campaign which has been carried on persistently by those same gentlemen against the French-speaking population of the province of Quebec, a campaign intended to establish, and unfortunately only too successful in establishing, a division between the two great races in this country, a division that tends to weakness, because it tends to disunion at the very time when above everything else we need unity in order that we may have strength. What this Government has done persistently, has done through its organizations, through its orators and through its newspapers for the last eight or ten years, it is proposing to repeat now in the prairie West; attacking a different class of people, but attacking them with as little provocation and as little reason, and I am afraid with as deplorable results.
There is another class of people in the prairie West who will be subject to this disfranchisement. I speak of those who are generally known as Galicians. They, also come in large measure from the province of Galicia, a province which is now Austrian, but which at one time was a province of Poland, and before that was a part of the country which was known as Little Russia.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are also
some from Bukowina.


Frank Oliver: Yes, I know some come from Bukowina. I do not wish to go into all the details. The conditions are somewhat different, the people, however, are identical in race. From the Carpathian mountains eastward, and from the Black sea northward, lies the country of the Little Russian people.
In ancient days there was a kingdom in that country, the capital being the city of Kief, now in Russia. At a certain period in history that part of Little Russia which is now Galicia became part of Poland by conquest, and the native people were made subject to the dominance of Poland. Later on, when Poland was partitioned, this section of Poland became a part of the Empire of Austria. So that in nationality these people are Austrians, but in race they are Russians; and, so far as this war is concerned, their sympathy is not with Austria but with Russia.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is it not the fact
that their sympathy is neither with Austria nor with Russia, but rather towards the establishment of another kingdom of the character of Little Russia, such as they had in days of yore?


Frank Oliver: It was very natural that, from time to time, these people should revert, in their minds, to the condition of their former greatness, and there is a proposition for the establishment of a Ukraine -that is, of a southern Russia kingdom independent of Russia at large. But that only establishes the point I make that their sympathies have not been with Austria or the Central Powers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is it not a fact that during the last six or eight months, a propaganda has been carried on by the Central Powers, on the promise given these people that they would establish them as an independent kingdom, and that their sympathies have found direct expression in favour of Austria and Germany, by reason of the propaganda carried on in Canada

directly from those countries and also from the United States.
Mr. OLIV.EE:	I can quite appreciate
that these people would be very receptive to a propaganda that would look to the reestablishment of their rape and kingdom, but I have yet to learn that the propaganda has been carried on in the name of Germany or Austria. I .have no doubt it was financed by Germany and Austria, but never carried on in their name, so that the people have no reason to look with gratitude to Germany or Austria because of that propaganda- Those who are not entirely pro-Russian are looking to an independent state of Ukraine or Little Russia, and in no case is their sympathy in any degree with the Central Bowers, either Germany or Austria, although they were citizens of Austria.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is it not the fact- and I know it from personal inquiry-that among the Galicians, who are of Austrian descent, settled in Alberta, there is a very considerable number who have relatives, some holding the rank of general, fighting in the Austrian army, and that the ties of blood -are very, very strong with them, and these ties are manifested very frequently?


Frank Oliver: I do not wish to argue the point, but if that is to be a reason for disfranchising these people in Canada, what is to be said of the royal family of England, many of whose close relatives are fighting with the Germans? As .a matter of fact, the people referred to are citizens of Austria, and being in Austria they are subject to the military rules of Austria and must fight, of course, with the Austrian army. But I am speaking of these people as a race, and particularly of those of that race who are in Canada. Their sympathies, beyond any question, are not with Austria; they are either with the prospective Little Russia, or with Russia as she stands today. The loyalty of these people to Canada has never been questioned, except by the Government in so far as it has refused to accept their offers of military service. I want to say -to this House that when the war broke out there were specific offers of military service made by people of the Russian race-Ruthenians, Galicians, or whatever you are pleased to call them, offers to raise military forces to join the Canadian Expeditionary Force. For good or bad reasons, these offers were refused. But I know that in many individual cases members of that race are to-day members of 
the expeditionary force, and are serving overseas. I should think that fully half of the 218th Battalion, with Colonel Cornwall in command, is made up of men of this Little Russian race. I do not know how they got by the policy of the Government which prohibited their enlistment, but, at any rate, it is a fact that the 218th Battalion went away from Canada with fully half of their members of that particular race, and there never has been any reason to question the loyalty of those people to Canada.
There is another class of people mentioned here, people of German speech, who were residents of Russia before they came to Canada. These people were in much the same position as those I have spoken of, residents of Galicia. They were colonists from Germany over a hundred years ago. Many of them colonized under Catherine II. They have lived there for generations, and have maintained their German speech. They enjoy certain special privileges, but not knowing Germany, except as a matter of memory or tradition, and having no part in kaiserism or junkerdom. They came to Canada. They have been good citizens of Canada, and ready and willing to do their part in everything connected with the war, or with the maintenance of the rights of Canada or the citizenship of Canada. I am sorry my hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. White) is not present, but I heard him say that, in all his constituency a certain settlement of German Moravians from Russia-if I do not mix the conditions up too much-were the most liberal contributors to the Patriotic Fund in that district.
Under these circumstances, I consider this Bill is without excuse and without reason. If there were any suggestion of . bad citizenship, of disloyalty under conditions of war, if there were any circumstances that would make an excuse for this enactment, they should he known; but I say there are none, speaking of these people as a whole-and if there are any individual cases, then I say those individual cases are to be dealt with just as others would be. That is what a government is for. There has been a great deal of provocation given those people in the early stages of the war; I am not blaming anybody for it but I merely state the fact that, in- the early stages of the war, the Mounted Police were ordered to collect all firearms from these people.
Suppose a man has been a citizen of Canada for fifteen or twenty years and his stake in the country, as is the case with

some of these people, runs into tens of thousands of dollars. If a mounted policeman goes into his house and demands the shotgun that he uses for shooting Tabbits or partridges, he would not be very favourably impressed with the conditions of the country in which he lives. I have yet to hear of any disturbance or of any objection to this procedure; the people recognized that there was a war on; that difficulties had to be met. So far as I am aware, they submitted to that condition without a murmur, although they did consider that it was an unnecessary hardship-and I consider so, too. In the light of these facts, when the Government oL Canada comes forward with an Act like this-breaking the faith of the Dominion with these people; declaring that their citizenship is no good, telling them in effect that they are not wanted in this country on terms of equality with other citizens-a blow is being struck at the progress and unity of this country that, this Government will be answerable for and that will do this country more harm than the Government can ever do it good.
As I said in the beginning of my remarks: what is the offence of which these people are guilty, or of which they are expected to be guilty? There is- only one thing that they can do in the case of an election; they can vote; that is all. They must vote for the candidates represented at the polls; presumably they must vote either Conservative or Liberal. If they are 'being disfranchised, it must be because it is expected that they will vote Liberal. Because, therefore, a citizen of Canada is suspected of an intention to vote Liberal, he is to be disfranchised by the act of this Government, which holds authority not from the people of Canada, but by the vote of this Parliament. Is it the intention of this Government to attempt to make the world believe that the Liberals of Canada have less heart in the prosecution of this war than the Conservatives have? If that is the intention, it is an attempt to brand within a fraction of half the people of this country as being disloyal. Is that a good way to strengthen Canada as one of the forces of the Empire? Is it true, Mr. Speaker? The place to find out whether or not that is true is in the casualty lists, not in the numbers of the safety-first brigade. If the casualty lists from one end of this country to the other are examined it will be found, if loyalty is measured by service and sacrifice, that the Liberals of Canada have done as much as our friends on the other side. I will go further, and say that the time has gone by when the
putting on of a military uniform is an evidence of service. The men who are fit for service in this war and have not offered themselves for such service are subject to rebuke. But what is to be said of the men and the officers in thousands who are wearing the uniform and drawing the pay without rendering the service? These are. found in the ranks not of the Liberal party, but of the Conservative party.
I do not know upon what information the Government founded their idea that they were going to secure an advantage by passing this legislation. But I say to them that if I know the English-speaking people of the West-and I think I do-this legislation will not appeal to them. They are in that country to build it up, with the assistance of those who are established alongside of them, who have been given the same rights of citizenship; and they realize that the only way in which a united country can be built up is by giving equality of rights. They will realize, when this legislation is introduced, and the rights which they enjoy are withdrawn from their neighbours, that permanent injury is done to them in every capacity as settlers and builders of the country. No party bickering in the election that is to come would ever compensate for that unfortunate condition. While the Government may, as a result of this legislation, disfranchise thousands of the persons whom they are pleased to call enemy aliens, they will establish in the minds of the fair-minded and right-thinking Englishspeaking people of the West an absolute belief in their injustice,, their unfairness, and theiT unfitness to carry on the government of this country.


Mr. ONESIPHORE TURGEON (Gloucester) :: Mr. Speaker, in rising to make a few remarks on the Bill now before the House, I am not actuated by selfish motives. As far as I am concerned, the Bill in question will have no prejudicial effect in the county which I have the honour to represent. In New Brunswick, particularly in the county of Gloucester, the only change affected by this measure will be in respect of the female vote of relatives of soldiers who have gone to- the front. Of course, the greater the number of voters who go to the polls, the larger the majority will be.
I protest most earnestly against some of the principles involved in this Bill, particularly the disfranchisement of so-called alien enemies. We have boasted during the past twenty-five or thirty years of the immigration to Canada from the countries of central Europe. The people who have

come [from those countries have been among our best citizens-; they have shown loyalty and devotion to the institutions of Canada and of the British Empire. Most of them left their native land in order to free themselves from the yoke of European rulers and they admit to the world the advantages they enjoy in this new country. They are amongst our best citizens, in regard to not only loyalty, but work. They have rais-ed the greatest crops and have shown an example to the Canadian farmers who have settled around them. It has been my privilege to meet some of them on different occasions, and to travel amongst them for days and days at a time. I have met them as I have met other Canadians. When they mingled together with the English Canadians and French Canadians, you would not know, were it not for their pronunciation, that they were foreigners. From their views and aspirations, you would consider them, not as strangers, but as brothers living under ithe same flag and the same institutions. It has been my privilege, on a few occasions, to address meetings largely composed of Austrian and German settlers in Saskatchewan and Alberta. On one particular occasion I attended a large convention of farmers in the riding of Red Deer, Alberta. The convention was held in the town of Pr-evost, where farmers of Austrian, German and other European nationalities had gathered together. I was able to judge of their aspirations and of their love for the country in -which they were living, and I remember the hearty applause with which my words were received when I spoke of the liberties which, they, together with other Canadian citizens, were enjoying under the British flag on this side of the Atlantic. That was about eight or ten days before the declaration of war, and their conduct ever since has been worthy of true British citizens. We induced those people to come here under the promises we made to them. We promised them, that when they came to Canada, they would enjoy all he privileges given to British subjects on this side of the Atlantic, and they have come here under those promises. Those promises have been made to the world at large. We expect more immigrants to come to Canada after the war is over. They may not come from Germany or Austria-I presume we shall not receive them for a number of years

but they may come from Russia, France and Belgium. If the people of Canada do not remain faithful to the pledges 'and promises made to the immigrants who came to Canada before the war, how can the world

at large depend upon the promises of Canada in the future? We want immigrants to come to Canada; we shall need them by the thousands, and we must to-d'ay give the same guarantee to the world for the future as we -have given for the last thirty years. It is on account of those promises that those people have come to Canada. Pledges should be maintained, should be respected. We have given guarantees to certain classes of immigrants who have come to Canada. I refer to the Mennon-ites and Doukihobors, who have been guaranteed that they will not be called upon to perform military services, and this Bill respects those guarantees. Why then not respect the guarantee given to those othtr people who have come here and have enjoyed tihe privilege of citizenship and have shown themselves- worthy of it? The statement has been spread broadcast throughout Canada that those people in the western provinces have been most generous to the Patriotic Fund. It has also been stated that some of those men are in the field today risking their lives in defence of Canada. Yet by disfranchising men of German or Austrian birth in this country, we are putting into the minds of the younger men of those nationalities, who in a few years will be of age to exercice their franchise, resentment against Canada on account of the pledges made to them being broken. I trust the Solicitor General or Ministei of Mines-when I look at him I am more apt to call him the Solicitor General, because I believe the duties of that position are more in accord with his natural proclivities-will again consider the matter and exercise his legal acumen as well as his patriotic proclivities in the direction in wihich he should have exercised them when he framed this Bill. This is a question of principle; it is a question of pledges to the world, of pledges to those people who have come here and the prosperity that the West has enjoyed during the past number of years has been, to a certain extent due to the flow of immigration to Canada as a result of those pledges. After the war is over, we shall require perfect accord and harmony amongst all our population, and we shall not have immediate harmony in this country after the war is over if this Bill goes into effect and inspires distrust of the pledges of Canada.
I have always been in favour of giving the vote to our soldiers. It has been my privilege to say in this House before that I am willing to give the vote to soldiers of the age of eighteen years who have en-

listed voluntarily, because in that manner they have testified to the world, and more particularly to Canada that they have studied the questions of the day and have felt it to be their duty to fight in defence of the liberties they enjoy under our constitution. It should, therefore, be the privilege of Canada to endow those soldiers with the franchise. I have no objection to the relatives of soldiers being permitted to vote. But if the Government desire to^extend the franchise to the female relatives of the soldiers, why not extend it to the women of Canada at large? By this Bill, an injustice is done to the women of five provinces of Canada, namely, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia, who have the right to vote under the present law. Those women have acquired that right, and have shown themselves worthy of it, and this Bill limits the women suffrage to the female members of the families of our soldiers. While the wives and sisters of our soldiers deserve the vote, many of the women in those five provinces are just as worthy of having the franchise as members of the families of our soldiers.
How many young men have offered their services and been rejected by the medical officers, and have gone home with tears in their eyes? I have seen them myself in my home town of Bathurst, in (Gloucester county, where .about twenty-five per cent of the men who offered their services were rejected by the medical authorities. Is not the mother or sister of a rejected volunteer just as worthy of a vote as the mother or sister of the young man who has been accepted and gone to the front? There is no difference between the two families at all. Why not extend the vote to all the women of Canada? While the women of the eastern provinces have never agitated very much for the franchise, they are just as capable of exercising it with intelligence and loyalty as the women of the West. I admit that the women of the West, related to the young men who have gone out there, have made a special contribution to the development of the country by helping to colonize and build up new territory. At the same time the women of the East are just as well 'able to exercise the franchise as those of the West. Why should not the franchise be given to the women of all the provinces?
I rose merely for the purpose of offering these few remarks. I trust that the Government will still further cogitate over the
provisions of this Act. I trust that they will not take away the franchise from the people of the West, and that they will expend the franchise to the women of every province in this country.


Albert Sévigny: I should like to say just a few words on a point that was raised a few .minutes ago, when it was contended that the Bill now under discussion was not printed in English and French. As I said before, I made inquiry about twelve o'clock to-day at the distribution office to see if the Bill had been printed in French, and was assured that it had been printed in English and French and had been distributed. Let me read to the House a declaration by Mr. T. W. Alexander, assistant distributor:
Ottawa, September 8, 1917. Bill 133 was received at 12.15 and immediately distributed. Hon. Mr. Sevigny telephoned at 12.30 and 1 assured him that the Bill, French and English, was distributed to all the officials. X have personally investigated and have seen that the Bills were distributed in the boxes of tha French members.
(Sgd.) T. W. Alexander.
I have also the following declaration by Mr. Boulet, Chief of Pages:
Mr. Alexander of the Distribution Office notified me about twelve that the Bill was ready in French, and in accordance I notified the pages to file the same, and the Bill was filed as usual.
(Sgd.) E. Boulet.


William Pugsley: I think the proper
time to discuss this would be before the Orders of the Day are called on Monday, when the hon. member for Shefford, who is now absent, would probably be present. My hon. friend must know that he is out of order. The question is on the second reading of the Bill.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There is no doubt at all that the question before the Chair is the second reading of the Bill. Now that the hon. member for St. John has raised the point of order, I must rule that the hon. member cannot proceed. The reason I did not interpose before was that I thought that the House would like to be seized of the facts on this point.
Mr. GEORGE E. McCRANEY (Saskatoon) : This Bill, which is described as the War-Time Elections Act, has some features about it of special interest to the public. It enfranchises women, with certain restrictions, in the eastern provinces, and with certain exceptions it disfranchises the women of Ontario and the western provinces. We have been led to believe by



discussions in the public press that the Government was going to revert to the old plan of having a Dominion franchise, as apart from a provincial franchise. If that had been done the question would have come to us in this Parliament as a new one altogether, whether or not we should enfranchise women. It was, however, made very clear by the Solicitor General in introducing this Bill that the provincial franchise in the various provinces was to be adopted with certain exceptions. The Solicitor General said:
By this Bill the provincial franchise is adopted in every province of Canada, including Alberta and Saskatchewan. It cannot of course he adopted in the Yukon as there is no Yukon franchise. The provincial franchise, subject to the operation of the two principles I have described in the foregoing part of my address, is adopted in every province, including Alberta and Saskatchewan.
We are now considering whether we shall disfranchise a great many women and leave only a comparatively few with the vote in their possession. This
II	p.m. Bill also disfranchises large classes of male electors especially in western Canada. Of the enfranchisement of women who are the next of kin of soldiers, I heartily approve. It is a measure of enfranchisement; it is class legislation; it is not based on any principle except relationship, although in introducing the Bill the Solicitor General did put forward the proposition that the franchise was being given in virtue of the services and sacrifices of the women on whom it is conferred. As a matter of fact, it falls very far short indeed of conferring upon all those women who have given services and made sacrifices the franchise to which they are entitled.
If we had never before had manhood suffrage and at this time we were considering the question anew, we might make alterations in the manhood suffrage law and might prescribe qualifications, general in their character, which we have not done. But in regard to manhood suffrage, we have laid down certain qualifications, and it becomes most difficult at this time in our political history to restrict those qualifications. In the eastern provinces the Government propose to enfranchise only women who are next of kin of soldiers, and they pass judgment upon the good works of that great body of British and Canadian-born women who have been spending their days,	since the commencement
of this war, in patriotic service, in Red Cross work, and in all those activities
fMr. McCraney.l
in which women can take part and by which they can show their loyalty to the soldiers at the front and the Empire. In regard to the women of the western provinces and Ontario, the ease is stronger, because the franchise is general as to women. In Manitoba a registration has taken place. Women have already taken their share in the provincial elections in Saskatchewan and Alberta, and in British Columbia the vote has been given to them. With discrimination against British-horn and Canadian-born women, this Government declares that all the work they have done day after day is not sufficient to qualify them to vote for members of Parliament, that they shall stand aside from that class in which they have been placed under provincial statutes, and that only those shall vote who vote by virtue of their relationship.
It is said that women hesitate, that they do not register and vote readily. In the city of Saskatoon a year ,ago there was a registration of voters under our provincial Act. At that time we had a visit from the right hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and he was a witness to the efforts we were making to secure a complete registration. He lent us the aid of his eloquence in pointing out the obligations of citizenship, and I am sure that his appeals both to men and women were successful in assisting us in getting the fullest possible registration. The result was that over 6,700 men and women in that one city were registered, and there were 50 more women than men. I understand that in the recent registration in Winnipeg there were more women than men registered. We have found throughout the cities of the West that the women are willing to take their part in public affairs; that they will not only register hut that they will vote as the occasion comes. It will surprise me very much if, in view of the declaration of the Government that this franchise which is now given is based on the provincial franchise, women will without protest be disfranchised and be put alongside of the foreigners of alien enemy birth in their disfranchisement.


Mr. CROTHERS:: My hon. friend speaks about the proposal of the Bill to disfranchise women in the five western provinces of Canada. Will he he kind enough to tell us when and where women in Canada have ever been entitled to vote for members of this House? I may he mistaken, but I have the idea that we are not disfranchising them. To disfranchise women is to take

something from them that they have already. We are not proposing to take anything from, them which they already have, because they have never been entitled to vote so far as I am aware.	-


Mr. McCRANEY:: My hon. friend is telling me and telling the House something that is not new to us.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: You speak of disfranchising them.


George Ewan McCraney: Yes.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: We are not doing that.


George Ewan McCraney: I am speaking of it in reference to the provincial franchise and in reference to the declaration of the Solicitor General that they were adopting the provincial franchise with the exceptions that he mentioned.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: We cannot disfranchise them as far as the province is concerned, if we would.


George Ewan McCraney: My hon. friend will have to follow his own logic.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Prime Minister
promised them the franchise.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: No.


George Ewan McCraney: My hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) reminds me of the pledge the Prime Minister made to them a few days after his return from, England, in which he promised a measure of woman suffrage with some restrictions. It appears that this is the measure, which is given to the women of this country in fulfilment of the pledge of the Prime Minister, and according to the words of the Solicitor General this is the provincial franchise with certain restrictions.


Arthur Meighen: I did not say "restrictions."


George Ewan McCraney: I have already quoted the Solicitor General's language and I shall not- misrepresent him. If the Prime Minister had said nothing about it his position would not have been so difficult, but it is certainly misleading to the women of this country, in view of the fact that five of our provinces had given as wide a measure of franchise to women as to men, to assure them that there would be an enfranchisement of women with restrictions, when the vote is only given to the near relatives of the soldiers who are overseas.
With regard to the disfranchisement of the male population, there is no doubt that, i 352i
while this is described as the War-Time Election Aot, the very evident purpose of it is to Te-elect the Government party.
The two parties must take care of themselves and this Government understands the principle of "safety first." I must say, it seems to me that there will be, in the Western Provinces at any rate, very little result to the Conservative party. If it were only political results that we were dealing with at this time, I would say it matters very little whether one party or another attains a political result. I am speaking now apart from the promotion of the war. Whether the Liberal party or the Conservative party holds power for the next five years and takes a political advantage of an Act, any effect of that kind will soon pass away. But there are facts which will not pass away in the [DOT] years after this Government passes out and another government comes in. Those are the permanent results, especially in western Canada, which arise from the fact that we have invited into our country some hundreds of thousands of immigrants from Europe and from the United States, that we have offered to them a part of our natural heritage, that we have invited them to partake of the civil rights which we possess, and that upon their good citizenship and their residence for a certain length of time among us, they will have all the privileges of electors which we ourselves had. OtH of those hundreds of thousands we now propose to select certain of them and say, "Notwithstanding the fact that you have behaved yourselves, that you have committed no disloyal act, step aside, you shall not come near when we elect a new Parliament." The danger of this is the stigma of disloyalty which is cast upon a comparatively small body of our immigrants, and I think it is much smaller than the Government imagines. We put this before the whole class of people who have come in from all the countries of Europe, and we give them notice that some day it will be their turn, and that some other class rhay be dealt with as we now propose dealing with those of alien enemy origin. We are going to say to those people, now being disfranchised:	"We shall
put you in the same position as are the negroes of the southern portion of the United States." And when our people in western Canada are put by the Conservative party in the position of the negroes in the South, and are disfranchised in this way, I think they will remember it for many years to come.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman say they will be in the same position * as the negroes have been in for the last fifty years and that during all that time the negroes have been denied the franchise?
Mr. McCRAN-EY: I understand the negroes of the South were enfranchised for quite a number of years, but that by laws of the various legislatures the Democrat party has taken away from the negroes the rights they had. If my memory serves me, they have, for instance, made certain provisions in the State of Virginia, under which no negro can vote whose grandfather did not have the right to vote, or something like that-.at any rate, they have got them out of voting. That is what the Government proposes to do with this class of immigrants- The result is the same, and the stigma is the same. In western Canada, we have large numbers of foreigners who will be affected by this Bill. I have before me a phamplet entitled "Immigration Facts and Figures" issued by the direction of Hon. W. J. Roche, Minister of the Interior, 1917, giving the immigration into Canada, and containing a -statement of the total immigration to Canada by -nationalities from July 1st, 1900 to March 31st, 1917. I have selected from this list those who are of alien enemy origin, namely, Austro-Hungarian, Bulgarian, German, and Turkish. I will give the House the result of my investigations- In the period from June 30th, 1900, to March 31st, 1911, there came into this country from Austro-Hun-gary, 200,016 persons; from Bulgaria, 32,267 persons; from Germany, 38,807 persons; from Turkey 4,552 persons, a total of 275,642. In determining the number who came in from Turkey, there are four -classes mentioned, Turkish-Arabian, Armenian, Egyptian, and Syrian. I have only included in these figures of 4,552 the Turkish and the Arabian. Under the Bill which we are considering, the Government gives the franchise to Armenians and Syrians, so I have not included them, neither -have I included Egyptians, because, while nominally Egypt is under Turkey, it is so under British rule that I would not regard any Egyptians as being of alien enemy birth. My recollection is that with regard to the Syrians and Armenians, if they are Christians they -are given the vote. I do not know what standards this Government is going to use, whether they will use the Shorter Catechism and the Westminister Confession, or the Thirty-Nine Articles, or the Canons of Roman Catholicism-and I do not know to 
what tests they would subject themselves if they proposed to -qualify in this way. It is pro-posed By this Bill to disfranchise those who had not taken out their citizenship before 31st December, 1902. I am including now, for the purpose of ascertaining the population against which this disfranchisement would operate, those who came into the country from 1900 to 31-st March, 19.11, and I do that because those who came in after 31st March, 1911, would not be able to take out naturalization papers, because their term would be up during the war, -and my understanding is that no certificates of naturalization have been issued since the war began up to the present time. Consequently I find that the total immigration which has come into Canada from 1900 to 1911 is as follows:	Austria-Hungary,
121,001; Bulgaria, 12,124; Germany, 21,145; Turkey, 2,997-a total of 157,267. I said a moment ago that I -thought the political result would be much less than the Government anticipated. Out of that total of 157,000, nearly one-half would be women. There would be, and still are a large proportion of minors. There would be the removals which have taken place from this country, say to the United States; there would be some who returned to Europe again; and there would be a good many deaths in the population.' I should' be surprised if the number who would be actually disfranchised by this Bill would run over 30,000. If only such a small political result could be got out of it by this Government, with such tremendous consequences in this country, t-h-e result would not appear to justify the measure. This population is scattered chiefly through the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. They are mostly a farming population. I have been in western Canada for over fifteen years. When I first went West-1 went to Rosthern, fifty miles south of Prince Albert, which was almost wholly a foreign population. If I owe my entry into political life to any one thing more than to another, it is to the fact that I had gained the confidence of people of the very class that this Bill proposes to disfranchise. Not one of those who were there at that time would be entitled to the franchise, because they all came in after 1900. But I must say, from my intimacy	with them, having seen
the progress which they -have made in their social	life,	having seen the
success with which they have carried on their business, having observed with a good deal of interest their progress in Canaiianism and their attempts at un-

derstanding the problems which we have, I want to protest as strongly as I can against the treatment which this Conservative Government proposes to give to these Galicians, Bukowinians and various people from Austria. The Mennonites are somewhat like the Quakers, and this Bill disfranchises them. Quakers and others of similar belief in England may hold their objections and vote. These people in the province of Saskatchewan have no representative of their own in our legislature, which is little short of sixty members. In the province of Manitoba they have one representative, Mr. T. D. Ferley representing Gimli. I am not sure whether there is another, but at most there are not more than two. In Alberta they have only one representative. The result is that they trust the Canadians, and that is why I am here, and that is why the other members from Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba, all of British origin, are here. We have their confidence and the confidence is mutual, and if they trust us we trust them, and that is the way to get along. If that population in western Canada were represented, either by their own people, or by a class of representatives which was not endeavouring to lead them into the best lines of Canadian citizenship, I could understand why it might be thought by Parliament that the franchise given to these people was a pernicious influence in public life. The great question which has been before Parliament during this session was the question of conscription. All the members in the province of Saskatchewan were for conscription; in Manitoba all save one, and in Alberta all save one. What does that mean? It means that the Liberals, who are in this House because of the support of the very people whom we propose to disfranchise, have not been influenced, as the Conservative party would suspect, by the alien enemy, but have taken the position which they believed to be right. They have supported conscription. They are willing to go back to their people and make what effort they can to educate them to their duties of citizenship, and whether successful or not, at any rate they will take the consequences of what they have done. I should be surprised if the Galicians and Bukowinians were in favour of conscription. They left the country from which they came in order to get away from war. I do believe, however, that an appeal to them upon grounds of Canadian patriotism and citizenship would be worth while. If
they were not brought to the conscription side, in which the Liberal representatives who are here speaking for them believe, they would at least be brought to a neutral position in the matter.
While speaking of the position of the western Liberal who represents them and of this-willingness to take a chance, to accept responsibility for their political education, I-may point out that there is one party in this House that will not take a chance, and that is the Conservative party. What is the attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite towards those members of the Liberal party who are willing to take that chance? I probably can speak of this as other members from the West cannot, because I do-not expect to be a member of this House-again. I do feel, however, that in placing this measure of disfranchisement before Parliament-a measure against which we protest; a measure in respect of which we must accuse the Government of the most partisan conduct-the Government by their own Act are throwing the gravest doubt upon the judgment that we have exercised in supporting their measure of conscription. I was elected by a considerable number of Mennonites, Galicians, Doukhobors, Ruthenians, Hungarians, Norwegians, Slovaks-possibly as cosmopolitan a rural population as there is in western Canada. Without going back to them for their opinion, I voted for an extension of Parliament. During the six-year term the last year of which was the result of my own vote, am I to disfranchise the very people by whose authority I was sent here, and whose authority I respect? Am I to tell them that although I have overstepped one year of my term, they are not fit to re-elect me as their representative?
It was argued that they will be exempt from military service, and that that is. one reason why they should be disfranchised. I- do not think that is a good reason for disfranchising them. If the reason put forward for their disfranchisement is that, being conscientious objectors, they are not subject to military service, then it would follow that none should have the vote except soldiers and those unable to -serve as soldiers-those over age, for instance. I am sure that the Government does not intend anything of the kind.
The Prime Minister is at the head of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police. He has frequent conferences with its officials; he is more familiar than most of us are with the police records of the country and
1)504

with the conduct of those who live in western Canada and who come under the supervision of the mounted police, including those of enemy alien birth. As one in public life, I hear a good deal that goes on, and 1 have never heard the suggestion thatthere have been any disloyal movements stinong these people of alien enemy birth in western Canada. I have always understood that they were a law-abiding people. The Solicitor General pays a tribute to them. I say that if without discrimination this Government should put them all in the same position, it is wrong; they should not place upon them the stigma of disloyalty to the country to which they have come and in which they are taking a full share of citizenship. To do that is not only unfair, it is cruel; it i3 unjust to many well-meaning people. IE there were some instances in which men of enemy alien birth had disobeyed the law, evidenced unpatriotic tendencies, or proved traitors, that would be no worse than what has happened in Montreal. We have been horrified to find that so near the capital there are persons who dynamite, who commit [DOT]murder, who have assassination on their programme. It is not proposed to disfranchise French Canadians simply because Laluiniere and some of his friends	have got into	trouble. The
fact is that this question, like many others that come before us, is not distinctly a western question. I find that the people of Ontario are more worked up over the disfranchisement of foreigners in the West than the people of the West are. The speeches that have been made in this House demanding the disfranchisement of foreigners have, with the exception of the speech of the member for Calgary (Mr. R. B. Bennett), and of the Secretary of State, who introduced the Bill, been made by Ontario men. I was in the East in 1896 when the Manitoba School question was an issue. We were very much stirred up in Ontario and Quebec over the Manitoba School question, and on election day Manitoba was the only province that gave a majority for the Conservative Government, indicating that they took very little interest in the school question compared with the East. In 1905 I was in the West when the Northwest School question was up, under the terms of the Autonomy Act. We were not very much disturbed about it out there; we knew all about it. But when I came down to Ontario I found that the question was deemed to be a most serious

one. Most of the troubles that we get into in western Canada are fomented in Ontario and Quebec; I am glad that we live 1,500 miles away from both of those provinces. Ontario and Quebec have fattened on their religious differences and racial strifes. A year ago the bilingual question was up in this House. What was the attitude of the , western men? We voted against the provincial resolution. We did not want to express an opinion on the matter; we did not want a racial question entering inte our politics in western Canada. We have troubles enough out there, and we settle them. I venture to say that the matter we are now considering, like the most of the trouble that we now have, has been worked up here amongst the sqldiers. If the Conservative party could only settle with our Ontario friends, they would not have much trouble over this matter.
A word with regard to the machinery of the Bill. In the two provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta we have always been under the law of the Dominion of Canada, whicli has, I think, originated in 1887: Registration by enumeration is familiar to us, and so it will not give us very much trouble. In Saskatchewan we abandoned the system of the tied ballot which is preserved in Alberta and which is adopted in this Bill. We did away with it for the reason that it was very open to fraud. The tied ballot is a temptation to unscrupulous people to open the envelope and substitute another ballot. That was the reason why we did away with that system in Saskatchewan. I do not know what the experience of Alberta has been, but to me it seems that, in this legislation, one of the worst features of that old system which was carried on in the Northwest Territories has been preserved. In Saskatchewan we had enumeration under the Dominion Act, and we used it in our provincial elections of 1905 and also of 1908. Before 1912, the Liberal Government of Saskatchewan thought it would be a good thing to have lists, and we had lists. We found that the temptation was too strong; that the registrars usually wanted to put on their own partisans and leave off the other fellows. We, therefore, did away with lists, and we have no lists in our rural districts. But in our four cities of Regina, Saskatoon, Moosejaw and Prince Albert we have a registration, and a new list is prepared every time. We take no old list as a basis. The registration to which I referred at tEe beginning of my remarks was the registration upon which the election in the city of Saskatoon was conducted recently. I want

to suggest this point to the Government-* that the practice to which people are subject and with which they are familiar is a desirable practice to continue; and I would suggest that, in place of enumeration, in the cities of Saskatchewan at any rate, the Bill should provide fqr a registration in which everybody appears-and in which there is a proper appeal and the whole question of the right of a man to vote is settled before election day. My objection to the tied ballot, apart from the question of fraud, is that the voter has to be kept near the poll until his right to vote is settled. Adjournments may take place from time to time, and it is not often convenient for a voter to have to stay around day after day in order to find out whether the ballot he has cast shall be counted. I believe it will be very much to the satisfaction of the people in our cities that the voters' lists shall be settled before election day. If that is done, people can go about their business, and there is not the uncertainty which there is bound to be if perhaps some hundreds of ballots are tied up and the result is not known, and for days and days people must be kept about the cities until their qualification is settled.
Another suggestion I would like to make to the Government is that they should have a special provision for voting by commercial travellers and railway men. We have that in, Saskatchewan. The voting takes place covering two or three days, if I remember rightly, before the actual polling day. In our last provincial election, the system worked out most satisfactorily. We want to get away from railway influence. It has been customary for railways which take an interest in elections to send out on long runs men who are not of the proper stripe so that they will not get back by election day. All that kind of thing is avoided by the system I have suggested. I hope the Government will take into consideration the suggestions I have made in regard to registration in our cities and also as to the addition of railway men and commercial travellers 'to the voters' list.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: My right hon. friend who leads the House (Sir George Foster) looks tired; it is now within ten minutes of the Sabbath Day, and even with all the bad legislation that we have passed the Fourth Commandment still stands. I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.


George Green Foster: Before the adjournment of debate, I beg leave to give
notice that immediately before the Order of the Day is next called for resuming this debate, I will move that the same be not further adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the debate adjourned.
William Pugsley: You are taking the
closure over Sunday.
On the motion of Sir George Foster, the House adjourned at 11.55 p.m.
Monday, September 10, 1917.