1917-01-25

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 5, respecting The Guardian Accident and Guarantee Company, and to change its name to " The Guardian Insurance Company of Canada."-Mt. Achim.
Bill No. 6, respecting The Athabaska Northern Railway Company.-Mr. R. B. Bennett.
Bill No. 7, respecting The Continental Heat and Light Company.-Sir Herbert Ames.
Bill No. 8, to incorporate The Bishpp of Mackenzie River.-Mr. R. B. Bennett.
Bill No. 9, respecting The Lachine, Jacques Cartier and Maisonneuve Railway Company.-Mr. Bickerdike.
Bill No. 10, to incorporate The Grand Lodge f>i the Canadian Association of Stationary Engineers of the Dominion of Canada.-Mr. Fripp. 1
Bill No. 11, respecting The Canadian Order of the Woodmen of the World.-Mr. Glass.

[Stage Direction]
List of Shareholders, Chartered Banks of Canada, as of date December 31, 1915.- Sir Thomas White.
Report on certified cheques, drafts or bills of exchange, dividends remaining unpaid and unclaimed balances in chartered banks of Canada for five years and upwards prior to December 31, 1915.-Sir Thomas White.

V

Governor General's Warrants issued since last session.-Sir Thomas White.
Expenditure on account of unforeseen expenses from 1st April, 1916, to 18th January, 1917.-Sir Thomas White.
Statement of temporary loans, Dominion of Canada, from 1st April, 1916, to 18th January, 1917.-Sir Thomas White.
Report of the Ottawa Improvement Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1916.-Sir Thomas White.
Report of the Royal Society of Canada for the year ended 30th April, 1916.-Sir Thomas White.
Statement of the National Battlefields Commission for the year ended March 31, 1916.-Sir Thomas White.
Statement of superannuations in the Civil Service during the year ended 31st December, 1916.-Sir Thomas White.
Report of the Superintendent of Insurance, under section 17 of the Civil Service Insurance Act.-Sir Thomas White.
Part II, of the Report of the Department of Trade and Commerce for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1916.-Hon. Mr. Hazen.
Copy of the amendments to the RadioTelegraph Regulations since 1st August, 1914.-Hon. Mr. Hazen.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Right Hon. Sir ROBERT BORDEN, (Prime Minister):	My right hon. friend,
the leader of the Opposition, in his speech in the debate on the Speech from the Throne, referred to the course which might be taken with regard to the business of parliament in view of the invitation which has been extended to the First Ministers of the overseas Dominions to participate in a conference which will begin in London in the early future and in which, for the purpose of that conference, the ministers alluded to will be regarded for the time being as members of the War Cabinet. Before the debate on the speech from the Throne had been initiated, the subject, of course, had received some consideration from my colleagues and myself, and I am disposed to think that the course which my right hon. friend suggests is the course which it would be proper to adopt under the circumstances, subject to one or two considerations which I shall mention. I should think that it would be proper to vote the Supplementary Estimates as they would be required before the probable date at which Parliament could resume. I think that there should be a vote on account, such as is ordinarily given, say to the 30th of June. It would seem to me appropriate, and indeed my right hon. friend suggested it, that the vote for war purpos'es should be passed in its entirety in order that we might ensure absolutely the participation of Canada in the war if it should continue for the full period of the next fiscal year. In addition to that, I understand from my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) that a Borrowing Bill, which I think will not be controversial, ought to be passed in order that adequate financial provision for certain necessary purposes may be made.
That is all the programme that we would propose before adjournment, with one exception which was suggested to me some time ago from different parts of the country, and as to which I wrote to the right, hon. gentleman about five or six weeks; ago. He will remember that in 1914 the Railway Act with its amendments was consolidated; a Bill was introduced by the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Cochrane), and was referred to a Committee of this House, and a Committee of the Senate was also appointed which, under arrangement, met with the Committee of this House in order that consideration might be given to that Bill by a Committee of the Senate and by a Committee of the House of Commons at the same time, acting indeed as one committee, although not formally or technically one committee. It has been suggested to the Government and especially to myself during the past autumn that, although the war is in progress and there are very important matters connected with its prosecution which continually engage the attention of the Government and of Parliament, nevertheless this Bill is of so important a character that its consideration ought not longer to be delayed, and I would therefore propose, so far as this Bill is concerned, to have it introduced, to have it read the second time without discussion, and then to have it referred to a committee constituted in the same way as the committee of three years ago. That would comprise all the programme which the Government would propose beforp the adjournment.
[Stage Direction]
I have a further telegram with regard to the presence in London of representatives of the overseas dominions, in which some urgency is expressed as to an early [DOT]date. I have not brought it down because it is otherwise not a very important communication and I am expecting another. During the course of the afternoon I will submit it to my right hon. friend and he will ;see precisely what the purport is. I will . also take the occasion to discuss with him the probable length of adjournment, as to which perhaps I may be able to speak with more definiteness and more certainty after receiving the further communication which I am expecting.
Eight Hon.   S@: I acquiesce entirely with the suggestions which have been made by my right hon. friend. There is nothing new in them except the subject of railway legislation. My right hon. friend has alluded to the fact that he wrote me some few weeks ago in regard to that subject, and I think I replied to his letter.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: Yes, my right
hon. friend expressed his entire acquiescence.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: The House
will readily understand that the subject of railway legislation is one which is liable to open the door to many amendments and suggestions, but in these war times I suppose that everybody would agree to pass what is, as I understand it, simply a consolidation of the different Railway Acts. That would be very convenient and useful and I see no objection to introducing the Bill and disposing of it as my right hon. friend suggests.
The only other thing of importance is the passing of a vote on account for supplies, which I understood my right hon. friend to say he desires until the 30th of June.


Mr. GRAHAM:: That will be 25 per cent.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is a
little more than we are used to, granting, but in war times we are disposed to be generous, and we will agree to it.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know
whether I make myself perfectly plain. I thought we might introduce the Railway Bill, pass it through the second reading without discussion, and then possibly it might be arranged between a committee of this House and a committee of the Senate that some work be done upon that during adjournment.

Whether or not that would be possible, I do not know; members are not, perhaps, very anxious to work during the period of adjournment. At all events, this House and the Senate could give to the members of the committee, whoever they may be, an opportunity to do some work in the interim. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries reminds me that it may be necessary to introduce a Bill, which, I think, will not be controversial, with regard to the Harbour Commission works that are proceeding at Quebec. If my right hon. friend should find that the proposal is controversial we shall not press it before adjournment, but if he is disposed to accept it we would have that also put through before adjournment.


Mr. MURPHY:: The right hon. gentleman intimated that a borrowing Bill would be introduced. Will the provision of that Bill relate solely to borrowing for war purposes?


Robert Laird Borden: General borrowing, I think.


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: The Bill will be similar to the Bill covering $75,000,000 which was passed at the last session. It will be borrowing for the general purposes of the Dominion. I will explain the reasons for it when the Bill is under consideration.



ESTABLISHMENT OF LABOUR BUREAUS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. LEMIEUX:: May I renew the question which I have put to the right hon. leader of the Government concerning the date upon which he will receive a certain delegation in reference to the establishment of labour bureaus?


Robert Laird Borden: I believe that Miss Wileman communicated with .me on the subject, as well as with the Minister of Labour .and with some of my colleagues. I greatly regret that it will be impossible for me to arrange my personal attendance at the proposed meeting. The great demands upon my time in view of my approaching departure prevent me from having that privilege.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Am I to understand that one of the right hon. gentleman's colleagues may receive the delegation?


Robert Laird Borden: I did suggest that if application were made to the Minister of Labour a date would be arranged.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The reason why I appear to be a little insistent is not that I have

been asked to accompany the delegation, but because it is stated in the letter which is addressed to me that some gentlemen from the western provinces have been telegraphed to and are on their way.


Robert Laird Borden: I cannot add anything to what I have said. An opportunity will be given for making such representations as may be desired, and no doubt they will be communicated to me, but personally I cannot be present.



WESTERN COAL MINING.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. BUCHANAN:: Has the Minister of
Labour any further information about the coal mining situation in southern Alberta? I have a telegram stating that the miners at Lethbridge, Coalhurst, and Chinook went out last night and that they are taking a referendum next Tuesday as to whether or not they will accept the Harrison finding. It is also said that the cause'of their going out was their annoyance at the Government's failure to enforce the finding of Commissioner Harrison. I would like a statement from the Minister of Labour with regard to this matter.


Mr. CROTHERS:: All that I can say is that negotiations are progressing, and I confidently expect that within a few days they will reach a satisfactory conclusion.



THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of Mr. G. C. Wilson (Wentworth) for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, resumed from Wednesday, January 24.
Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure) (Resuming):: Mr. Speaker, when you left the Ghair at six o'clock last night I had attempted to answer what I considered to be a reflection, unintentional, perhaps, which had been made during the afternoon by the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Boys) and the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) regarding the situation in the province of Quebec.
I am glad to congratulate the Prime Minister on the stand that he is now taking in announcing his acceptance of the proposal made by the right hon. leader of the Opposition. We are passing through difficult times, and there must be some give and take on both sides. The Liberal party gave
a splendid example of that principle at the very outbreak of hostilities- In the early days of August, 1914, when most of us were basking down on the seashore at the summer resorts, taking our usual holidays, we suddenly learned with dismay that war had broken out in Europe. We were summoned to an extraordinary -session. The Parliament o'f Canada was called upon to ratify the action which had been taken by the Prime Minister and his colleagues to throw Canada into a European war. The step was a most extraordinary one, having no precedent in our history. The Prime Minister declared in his speech that he had taken upon ihimself the responsibility of that action without having consulted his own colleagues, and we have it now that he did not consult the Liberal party or its leader. The representatives of the people came here in large numbers and in four or five days they passed all the necessary legislation, voted all the necessary money and gave Canada an example of union, harmony and concord which will stand to their credit in the annals of this Parliament. Since then we have tried to carry out that line of policy to- the best of our ability. How easy it would have been for the- distinguished leader of the Opposition to have merely laid down the constitutional rule that any important departure like this should first -be submitted to the referendum of the people; that th-eir consent should first be asked. But he overlooked that, and took the stand that ihe -had always taken in -his public life; that England's difficulty was Canada's difficulty, that England's case was our case. And we took it for granted that the people- of Canada would ratify our action- I am glad to say that the people whom I represent, a mingled community, not -all of the same origin or of the -same stock, -have all gladly ratified my action and by the-ir enlistments in the English and Scotch as well as- in the Acadian French settlements have made a record which will forever stand to their honour.
I know that the member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) is an imperialist, and I will not take very seriously a passing allusion he made in his speech, because towards the end of his address he apologized to some extent for what he had said. But he made a passing allusion, which, though not offensive, is not altogether to the credit of the Empire of which he is an apostle. The member for Brantford is an ardent imperialist, and in speaking of this war in which Canadians have taken part in such large numbers, he referred to the fact that

there were so many people in this country of British stock and so many others-fifty-seven other classes. He did not refer to any other particular class at great length, but he made particular allusion to the Brantford Indians. I think that the member for Brantford makes a very grievous mistake if he considers that the glory, the strength, the power, the very foundation of the British Empire, rests merely upon the subjects of the King who are of British stock. It is the pride of England, and it is the pride especially of the British Empire, that the greatness of the Empire is to be found in its 450,000,000 subjects, of whom . but
45,000,000 or less are of British stock, the remaining 400,000,000 being composed of all nationalities, of all creeds, of all languages. To say that in Canada a man must be of British stock to be a loyal supporter of the Government, to be a loyal supporter of the institutions of Canada, to he a loyal supporter of the Crown and of the flag, is to exhibit a most deplorable ignorance of our history. Canada would never have existed as it exists ito-day but for the subjects of the King who speak the French language. The hon. member for Brantford knows full well that when rebellion did break out on this continent it broke out among the English-speaking subjects of His Majesty the King. The temptation for the French subjects of His Majesty the King on the banks of the St. Lawrence to have followed the new star spangled banner was great; but it stands to-day to their credit that although the English-speaking subjects of the King, of British stock, rose in rebellion against Great Britain, it was his French subjects of the province of Quebec who in 1774 saved Canada to the British Crown. The hon. member made a reflection upon the people ,of Quebec which I am. quite sure he did not intend; and if he had intended it, I would refer him to our friend from Peterborough (Mr. Burnham), the most outspoken member on the Government side, the man who says what he thinks, who wired, the day after Courcelette, to the hon. member fpr Rouville, that London *was ringing with the praises of the French-Canadians. That testimonial, unsolicited, came frqm the hon. member for Peterborough, and it was quite true.
Leaving these things aside, I was dealing yesterday with the difficulties that we had to contend with in recruiting in Quebec, and endeavoured to show that there had been conditions in the province pf Quebec which made it difficult to secure recruits in as large numbers as we should have liked. And with your permission, without  '
showing any ill-feeling, with all due respect to the feelings of everyone here, with all due admiration for the manhood of Ontario an the West and of the maritime provinces who have gone to the front, as well as for those of the province of Quebec who have enlisted, I think it is only fair, in justice to the province of Quebec and to its citizens, that the facts should be set before this country, that they should be embalmed in the records of Hansard, so that hereafter no unfair aspersions may he cast upon the province of Quebec on the score of recruiting. I hope to be able to prove this afternoon by acknowledged facts that the wrong crew were in charge of recruiting in the province of Quebec; that those who are now the ministers of the King from the province of Quebec do not possess the confidence pf the people of that province, and that they were either sincere in 1911 when they spoke-against Canadian participation in the wars of the Empire, or else they are sincere now, when they aTe speaking in favour of such participation. Were they sincere in 1911 when they were speaking against participation in all wars of the Empire, or are they sincere now? The people of the province of Quebec were put in that dilemma. But the responsibility, if it had rested there, would have been of secondary account; we of Quebec who are familiar with the facts would have passed lightly over this thing.
But there is another responsibility that has been assumed by one of the great political parties of this country; that responsibility has been assumed by the right hon. gentleman who is'now the King's chief adviser in this great Dominion, and in the interests of fair play and justice to the province, in the interests of that British justice to which we are always so proud to refer, I think the facts should be made known and should he stated, without any doubt whatever. Yesterday, in my address, I called your attention to the most extraordinary fact that the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Descarries)-and I regret that at the present moment there is not a single member from the province of Quebec on the Conservative side of this House and has not been for the last three or four days, the bulk of them being down in Dorchester leading a forlorn hope-the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, who seconded the motion now in your hands, was the gentleman who, in 1910, in the town of Lachine, presided over the birth, of the National party. I had known the hon. member for Jacques Cartier for many years prev-

ions to that. I had known him in the provincial life of Quebec; I had known him when he was an ultramontane supporter of the Mousseau Cabinet; I also knew him when he was a supporter of the Quebec Government in the days of the Riel troubles in the west. I knew him later on when he was a strong Conservative, when the Con-iservatives were again in power. I knew him as a Nationalist, and I know him today as a True Bleu, expressing from his place in this House astonishment at the fact that the electors of Dorchester do not allow Mr. Sevigny to be elected by acclamation, and hoping that this Slight insurrection, ms he calls it, will blow away. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier was the man who presided at the birth of the Nationalist party. The sponsors for that party were, among others, the present organizer of the Dorchester election, the hon. the Secretary of State (Mr. Patenaude), who first distinguished himself as organizer in the election in Drummond-Arthabaska, who repeated his work in the Chateauguay election and is now on trial in the Dorchester election. Along with these two sponsors was Mr. Cousineau, an unfortunate leader, who can say, as Francis the First said, all is lost save honour. Mr. Cousineau lost all he could lose in the province of Quebec. He was the leader of the Conservative party in that province in May last. He is the man who went forward with eighty-one candidates in the province of Quebec. Six of these were returned-no, five, because one was at the front and was allowed to be elected by acclamation in Westmounit. Five of has candidates out of eighty-one were elected. The present ministers of the Crown representing the province of Quebec have constituencies there. Part of the constituency represented by ithe Secretary of State (Mr. Patenaude) returned by acclamation, the Liberal organizer for the district of Montreal. The constituency of the present Post Master General (Mr. Blonddn) went back on him to the tune of sixteen hundred votes; and the county of Dorchester which Mr. Sdvigny carried by three hundred lin 1911 ias a Nationalist elected Mr. Cannon in the last local contest by over five hundred majority. Why did the province of Quebec turn so strongly to the support of the local Liberal Government? It wias because the local Government was a good Government to begin with, but above all because the immense majority of the people of Quebec were tired and sick of Tory rule at Ottawa and at Quebec. Mr. Cousineau was one of the sponsors at the birth
of the Nationalist party. This National party caone into existence at, Lachine; it took its first flight into history at 'St. Eustache, where the resolutions that I read yesterday were passed. Mr. Monk subrnit-ted these resolutions, but one paragraph was inserted' at the request of Mr. Bourassa, who refused to take the leadership of the new alliance unless it was stated that the Borden policy was condemned as well as that of the right honourable leader of the then Government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), These people began to preach this gospel. What was that gospel? It was: that the policy of Sir Wilfrid Laurier was nefarious -that the policy of the Hon. Mr. Borden was equally nefarious. And what was meant by this wbrd nefarious. It meant going to the support of England when England was .at war; it meant that we should exercise our rights as free and loyal subjects of the King; it meant that Canada should not vote one dollar, or send one man to the defence of the Empire in any of its wars. That was the nefarious policy which Sir Wilfrid Laurier had preached in the province of Quebec, and which Henri Bourassa condemned, which the Conservatives of the province of Quebec condemned, and which every French-Conservative elected in the province of Quebec condemned. These gentlemen were elected upon this platform. But here I put a query. There are two facts in this case which have not yet been brought to light. The members of this House who knew the late Mr. Monk had for him nothing but respect. The honourable Mr. Monk was a man who gave a sincere proof of his convictions when he resigned his portfolio and practically retired from public life because he did not seek to impose a new naval policy upon Canada without consulting the people. The honourable Mr. Monk had given his promise to the electors of Jacques Cartier that he would not vote any money for the creation of a Canadian navy, that he would not vote for a contribution to the navy unless the people of Canada were consulted upon the subject. He moved such a motion in this House, and he declared so openly throughout the whole campaign. After the election, when, to the great surprise of the whole Dominion, and, I might even say, to the surprise of the whole English-speaking world, it was learned that Sir Wilfrid Laurier had been defeated by a combination of Nationalists and Conservatives, what happened? The present Prime Minister of Canada

handed over to Mr. Monk the choice of his colleagues for the province of Quebec. The first man who was called upon by Mr. Monk to enter the cabinet, was Mr. Armand Lavergne, the man who refused to answer the call of the late Minister of Militia to muster his regiment in the county of Mont-magny, and enlist for overseas duty. Our friends from Ontario escaped the fate of having Mr. Armand Lavergne as one of their leaders, as one of the members of this Cabinet. Mr. Armand Lavergne is just as good as the three gentlemen who are in the Cabinet now. They all preached the same policy. I think Armand Lavergne i3 better.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Charles Marcil: Armand Lavergne stood
true to his policy, and if the Liberals of Dorchester, or of Champlain, or of Montmagny, had been willing to support Mr. Lavergne, in doing' what his Conservative friends in the province of Quebec did, enter into an alliance with the Nationalists, he would have run there. The very reason that Mr. Cannon is opposing Mr. Sevigny to-day is because the Liberals in the county of Dorchester insisted upon having a Liberal candidate in the person of Mr. Cannon, who is a loyal member of the party.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh. oh.


Charles Marcil: 
An hon. MEMBER:: Twenty-three.


Charles Marcil: But he mistook his- men. They abandoned the idea, which was to go to the fountain head, we might say, of constitutional principles, and they went into trough politics. They went in the wrong direction. The present Prime Minister of Canada has been kept busy appointing these Nationalists to office. Practically, the only changes in his Cabinet have taken place in the Nationalist ranks and in relation to Quebec matters are going from bad to worse. The old-time Conservatives in Quebec, Conservatives of the'eminence of Sir Alexander Lacoste, Sir Auguste Real Angers, 'and Hon. Louis Beaubien, men who for forty years upheld the traditions of the Conservative party in the province of Quebec, are no longer represented on the Treasury benches. The old Conservatives in the province of Quebec have been wiped out. It is Nationalism that is triumphant; the Nationalists are there, they are in office and they intend to stay.
There was another point that I wanted to have cleared up. Our friends in the province of Ontario think that the people of Quebec are very bad. I am amazed sometimes to think that men of the intelligence of John Ross Robertson and Sir John Willi-son can publish in their newspapers, the Toronto, Telegram and the Toronto News, so much rubbish in reference to the province of Quebec. You will not find in the British Empire a more contented, a more peaceable, a more law-abiding citizen than the average farmer in the province of Quebec. If you wish to know what genuine hospitality is, if you wish to see what genuine politeness is-the politeness which existed in the old days-go into one of the parishes of Quebec. Every man you meet will bow to you, whether you are a perfect stranger or not. If there is anything he can do in the way of giving you information, or inviting you to his house, or extending to you hospitality, he will do it and you will find in him the true, ideal citizen. Do these people in the province of Quebec bother their heads about what is going on in Ontario or in the other provinces? Not at all. They are peaceful, law-abiding citizens; they never see the Toronto News or the Toronto Telegram; they never will, and they do not care whether these papers exist or not. Some of them have noticed the name of Sir John Willison 'as the former biographer of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. None of these people have ever seen or read the Orange Sentinel and never will. I want to say a word to our Orange friends from the province of Ontario who may be in this House. I do not agree with Orangeism, but this is a free country and a man has a right to think as he pleases in politics as well as in religion. But, if our friends from the province of Ontario want to know the true political history of Canada as Orangeism knew it in the old days, if they -want to know what true, political liberty has been in Canada, they will find it in the province of Quebec. They will find it in the life of the late Julius Scriver, one of the "noble thirteen" from the province of Quebec who represented the county of Huntingdon-which rdnks as the banner Orange constituency in that province-for twenty-five years on the floor of this House and who was not found in the ranks of the Conservative party. When my hon. friends utter such nonsense as that a vote for Laurier is ^ vote for Bourassa they must be very childish if they expect any one to accept 'an assertion of that kind. The people of the province of Quebec are prepared to extend to all the greatest cordiality, the greatest friendship and the greatest freedom of thought in religious as well as - in civil and political matters.
In the past history of Quebec there are instances of this which are worth citing. The English element in the province of Quebec has sent to this House some distinguished men such, for instance, as the late Hon. Luther Hamilton Holton and the late Hon. Lucius Seth Huntingdon, the man who brought about the change of 1873 in connection with the Pacific scandal, and

these great men were to be found in the ranks of the Liberal party. These men represented constituencies which were largely peopled by French-Canadians. In that province the Irish element, which is not as numerous, probably, as it might have been if circumstances had favoured a larger immigration from Ireland, has been represented in this House by distinguished men. I might mention the late Hon. Mr. Curran from Montreal Centre, the late Hon. Thomas D'Arcy McGee-the greatest of all-the present Chief Justice of Canada and the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty). Two of them have gone but I appeal to the other two who remain to say if I am not giving a true statement of conditions which to-day exist in the province of Quebec. These gentlemen sat in this House largely as the representatives of French-Canadian electors, especially the present Chief Justice of Canada, who was the spokesman of the Irishmen of Canada, and who represented a constituency which was 99i per cent French-Canadian. He was here as the representative of French-Cama-dian electors, hut he spoke for the Irish people throughout Canada. The Minister of Justice knows well that one-half, if not more, of his constituents are French-Canadian. The people of Quebec are broadminded in these matters; they elect English Protestants to this House and these are things that our Orange friends should remember.
There is an incident that I wish to recall. One day, when I was campaigning in Sim-coe, near Penetanguishene, against the present representative of that riding, I was invited by the then Liberal candidate, a former member of this House, to enter an Orange lodge after the usual evening's business had been disposed of. My friend said: They will look upon you as a curiosity coming from the province of Quebec. I did not find any objection to entering this Orange hall. I entered and received a hearty welcome. Naturally, I was invited to speak; I did speak, and I gave these people a brief review of some of the conditions that had prevailed in the past political history of the province of Quebec; I showed the broadmindedness of the French-Canadian people, and I cited the fact that the only instance in which the Protestant minority in that province had been honoured by having one of their own number elevated to the premiership of that province was when Sir Henri Joly de Lotbiniere, a knight of the old school of chivalry and one of the greatest and 
noblest in Canada, was placed by the Liberal party at the head of public affairs in the province of Quebec.
I mention these facts because, incidentally, upon reading the morning papers, I saw that the present Minister of Inland Revenue is going to some trouble to explain that the present candidate in the county of Dorchester is an Irishman, that he has Irish blood in his veins and that he has no authority to ispeak for the French Canadian people. There are Englishmen, there are Scotchmen and there are Irishmen who have undertaken to speak foT the province of Quebec as their representatives in this Hpuse and I hope this will always happen because the people of Quebec look more to the man than they do to his creed.
I noticed that the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Boys) went to some trouble to give a French pronunciation to the name of Mr. Cannon. Mr. Cannon is a good Irishman, he is the great grandson of an Irishman and the " Lucien " very probably came to him from his French mother. Yet, the Minister of Inland Revenue makes it an offence for him to undertake to speak for the French Canadian people in the county of Dorchester. But this is nothing new for the Minister of Inland Revenue. The first time he appeared upon a public platform in the province of Quebec was as a candidate for the local House in the county of Nicolet. Then he ran against a gentleman who was well known to many hon. members of this House, a broad-minded, great Canadian who, unfortunately was cut down in his full man-hpod. I refer to the late Hon. Charles Devlin, a man who had the distinction not only of being a member of the Canadian House but also of being a member of the Imperial Parliament and who died while a Minister of the Government of the province of Quebec. When Mr. Devlin went into the cpunty of Nicolet, he was the hearer of ah Irish name, but he appealed to the French Canadians and he was elected by them. The Minister of Inland Revenue at that time raised against the Hon. Charles Devlin the cry that he was " un Irlandais," an Irishman, and said that he should run in one of the Irish constituencies of the province of Quebec. So the present Minister of Inland Revenue is now reaping what he has sown.
There is one other point that I should like to clear up for our Ontario friends, as they may not know it, and that is with reference to the understanding that was arrived at in the province of Quebec in the reciprocity campaign of the summer and

fall of 1911- Hon. gentlemen who were members of the House know what took place. I had the honour of being Speaker of the House at that time, and I know full well what happened. Speech after speech came from the Conservative benches urging Sir Wilfrid Laurier to go over to England and attend the Coronation. The idea of having the late King Edward VII, the great peacemaker, the creator of the bonne entente, the real entente -cordia-le, crowned in the absence of the great French Canadian Premier of Canada, was a thing not to be thought of. Hon. gentlemen opposite insisted day after day that the Premier must go over to the other side. Well, he did go over, and during his absence what did the [DOT]present member for St. Antoine (Sir Herbert-Ames) do? I have great respect for the hon. member personally. He has done remarkably good work in connection with the Patriotic Fund, and I believe he is sincere in bis political views; but he is very devoted to his party- He undertook the organization of the district of Montreal in the reciprocity campaign. Charles Chaput, a good old-line- Conservative, v'as made chairman of the Anti-Reciprocity -League, but the hon. member for St. Antoine was its chief organizer. He undertook to look after what we consider the English constituencies in the province of Quebec, and he agreed with Mr. Monk and Mr. Bourassa that they -should look -after the French cone-tituanciee of that province. While the hon. member for St. Antoine and his English friends were thundering against reciprocity, it was understood that -Mr. Bourassa and Mr. Monk were to thunder against the navy. Mr. Bourassa has declared repeatedly that it afforded him considerable enjoyment to receive money from the Conservative election fund to enable him to carry on the campaign against a Canadian navy. It has been stated over and over again that the hen. member for St. Antoine, who at that time was representing the Conservative party in the district of M mtieal and the Eastern Townships of Quebec, -contributed personally in some form or another to the campaign fund, either in the shape of subscriptions to Le Devoir, or for the support of candidates in doubtful constituencies. I understand, however, that he contributed in the form of subscriptions to Le Devoir, to have it circulated in the province, because Le Devoir was against Laurier at the time, and they acted on the bid principle, " anything to beat Laurier." So there we have the explanation of that fight. The manufacturers of Montreal,
apd in fact throughout Canada, opposed reciprocity; and the consumers of Canada all know now why the manufacturers were so stubborn against it at that time. But the Nationalists said, we cannot very well oppose reciprocity in the province of Quebec, because the people here think it a reasonable thing; they live alongside the American border, and do not see any difficulty in dealing with our American neighbors. So Bourassa and his allies, with Le Devoir, gave up the campaign against reciprocity and -confined themselves to -the navy; -and Bourassa enjoyed it immensely, because his paper was being circulated at the expense of the Imperial-Conservative funds in the province of Quebec. These, Mr. Speaker, are the gentlemen who have been put in power and trusted by the Canadian Parliament and the Canadian people with the organization and maintenance of Canada's participation in the war.
The people of the province of Quebec now find themselves in this quandary; Were the Nationalists sincere in 1911 when they told us that under the Militia Act of Canada, framed 60 years ago by the. representatives of both elements in this country, the duties of Canadians should be confined solely to the defence of Canada, or are they now sincere when they come with their new Imperial ideas and tell u-s we must go beyond the seas to fight? In Drummond and Arthabaska they won a victory, and contributed to the , downfall of the great man who leads the Liberal party. But now they are reaping the whirlwind; they sowed then, and now they must reap.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier has been genefous ever since war was declared. He allowed the late Postmaster General to be elected by acclamation in the county of Quebec, where at the last election the local Liberal member was given a majority of 1,600. Sir Wilfrid Laurier had to go and plead with the Liberals of the city and county of Quebec to allow the late Postmaster General to be elected by acclamation. The present Postmaster General (Mr. Blondin) passed through the same door that was opened for the late Mr. Casgrain. When the ex-Secretary of State, Mr. Coderre, was elected as the successor of the late Mr. Monk, Sir Wilfrid Laurier again appealed to his people to elect him by acclamation. What was the reason for all this? The reason was that Sir Wilfrid Laurier wanted Canada to be united, that we might take our full part in

the great war that is now in progress. The people of the province of Quebec, every man, woman and child of them, are heart and soul with the noble cause of the Allies, and we are so for two reasons. First, because the blood of France flows in our veins, and secondly, because of England, to whom we owe our liberty and our present status as free citizens on the North American continent. We are with the Allies for those two potent reasons, and there is not a man, woman or child in the province of Quebec who is not in some way or other helping the cause of the Allies. Away down in the Gaspe Peninsula, in the county of Bonaventure, in the whole south region, and in the north region, the people of the province of Quebec are contributing to the Bed Cross fund, the Belgium Relief and other funds. Tag days are so numerous down there that there seem to be two or three of them every day. Then there is the work of the women, sewing and knitting, and the work of the school children, the work of the clergy under the appeal of the Venerable Archbishop Cardinal of Quebec, and of the whole episcopate of the province.
' All that could possibly be done in Quebec has been done to give the ranks of the Allies a fair representation of the people of the province of Quebec. If there has been failure, the failure is to be charged against the Government and its representatives in that province. It is to be charged against the men who represent the King in that province, and in whom the people have no confidence, and it is to be charged against their faulty organization.
I do not intend to speak at any greater length, but I wish to add this with regard to the National Service. The National Service cards have been circulated through the province of Quebec, but the questions are so vague and indefinite that it is difficult to obtain satisfactory answers, particularly in the more remote districts-. When you ask a fisherman or a farmer living on the outskirts of the province of Quebec, and having a large family-and families in the county of Bonaventure and Gaspe are generally large-whether he is willing to give up his present work to do similar work in another part of Canada, he is in -this position. Is he going to give up his farm and undertake munition work in other parts of Canada? And if he is free to leave the constituency where he may be earning $1.50 or $1.75 or even $2 a day, which is the highest rate of wages, is that man going to un-
dertake to work in Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa or Winnipeg at those rates? He naturally cannot undertake it and at the same time look after his wife and family who are left at home. The appeal in this respect is ineffective, and the returns would not be satisfactory. But what is troubling the people of the province of Quebec more than anything else is this-. What impelled the Prime Minister of Canada to establish the fixed number oJ 500,000 men when an authority like Baron Shaughnessy, who in these matters I should consider is the equal of the Prime Minister, declared that 500,000 men could not be sent out of Canada without crippling i-te economic and industrial resources? Now, what is the Government after? Is the Government after men to go to the front? The speech from the Throne does not say so. The paragraph dealing with the National Service is very mild and is worth reading:
-Steps have been taken by my advisers for better organization of National Service, and attention has been given to the more thorough utilization of our natural resources.
But the questions are so vague and indefinite that people do not know what they mean. If the Government would send a circular throughout my constituency saying: We need 500 shantymen at $40 a month for a period of six months, they would get -them in a week. If they would send another circular saying: We need so many deep-sea fishermen and we are going to pay them so much a day and employ them for so long, they would have an immediate response. But the Government cannot expect a deep-sea fisherman or a planter of potatoes to undertake to go to work in a munitions factory in London, or Winnipeg or Montreal, leaving his wife and family behind. The whole organization is faulty.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: If the Government sent out a request for 200 volunteers, would they get them in your constituency?


An hon. MEMBER:: That is a different proposition.
Mr. MARCIL; I am proud to say that the county of Bonaventure has sent nearly 300 volunteers.


William Sora Middlebro: I am just asking what would happen if the Government sent out a request for another 200. Many counties have given three or four thousand.


Charles Marcil: 

Sir George Perley and General Turner, as the men from Quebec who are reall} running this war.
If we had had in Quebec the skeleton of -a military organization and had twenty or thirty regiments with which to start the work of recruiting, the result would have been different. But the recruiting was altogether mismanaged from the start. The hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) came down several times, but he did not seem to be able to get in touch with the proper parties to undertake the work, and those who succeeded him seem to have thrown up the job altogether, because I see in the Gazette that for a week there has not been a single recruit in Montreal. The Government itself is to blame, and until they adopt better methods it is no use trying to place the blame on the shoulders of the people of Quebec. The people will not accept that responsibility, and will protest against it on the first opportunity that comes. The people of Quebec have as much interest in this war as any one, because they would be the first victims if the Huns ever got across. It would be up the St. Lawrence that the invaders would come, and none of their boats could ever reach Ontario. But we in Quebec would get it full. So the province of Quebec is willing to do its share, and if there has been any apparent shortage in recruiting, if all the circumstances are taken into consideration, it is wholly due to the faulty methods which have been followed.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York):: Mr. Speaker, I should not want a better setting for the few remarks I* have to address to the House to-day than the incidents that have taken place. We have heard in the opening proceedings here to-day the announcement of the Prime Minister of Canada (Sir Robert Borden) to the House and country that he is prepared to accept the offer of the right hon. the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) for joint action for regulation of the conduct and business of this House. When he said that, I think he went a long way to prove what I intend to argue here to-day, that if it is good for both parties in this House to join together for the conduct of the business of the House, then the time has come for both parties and all parties and all citizens of this country to join hand to hand for the successful accomplishment of this war. Then if I wanted another setting for what I have to say to-day, would it not be found in the speech of the hon. member for Bona-fMr. March.]
venture (Mr. Marcil) just delivered to the House? I do not agree with all he says. I regret much of what he has said here to-day, because it went to show that there was a most regrettable divergence of opinion between the two great provinces of Ontario and Quebec in regard to the conduct of the war, and also to show that in connection with the election now under way in the county of Dorchester there is a great divergence of feeling, that there is almost, I shall not say hostility of race, but a strong feeling based more ^ or less on race in connection with this war ; and that should not be. Something ought to be done to bring about absolute unity in this country for the winning of this war. The little that I have to say will be in this direction. I am not going to appeal to provincial views or to race views; or to dwell on divisions that may exist between our people; but I am trying to find out if there is' not at this stage of the war-and now it is more serious than ever-an opportunity of in some way uniting the country and doing away with all this discussion about differences between provinces and between races. Why should we not unite as they have united in every other country in the world for the successful accomplishment of the war? They have absolute unity to-day in France for the conduct of the war. There is no party . spirit there. They have got together in England. They have got together in Russia. They have got together in the other countries, and they are all united for the war. Yet here we have to-day in Canada to listen to the speech-and I am not condemning the speech, bear in mind-made by the hon. member for Bonaventure. We have listened to this discussion to-day and have read of the other discussion that is going on in the county of Dorchester, and, in view of these discussions and of utterances of the press of the country to-day, I cannot see how we can have a successful participation by Canada in this war while these dissensions, or what appear to be dissensions, exist.


Mr. W. H. BENNETT:: There are none
on this side of the House.	,


William Findlay Maclean: I do not think I said there were any on 'this side of the House; there are dissensions in the country.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: My hon. friends do not represent the whole country.


William Findlay Maclean: I think I will be able to give some reasons why there should be

co-operation, but first I want to point out that the war situation to-day is more serious than it has ever been. Within a few weeks, there will probably be the greatest active line of battle ever known in history. All the battles of the past, all other struggles, will be mere ant-hill contests compared with what is now impending in Europe. The liberties of the world, of Canada, and the safety of our homes and families are all concerned in this enormous struggle, and if the issue is so stupendous, and if Canada is to do her part, as I believe she will do her part, we have to find a way, we ought to find a way, of uniting the country on the conduct of this war. We ought to have an absolutely united Government, a united nation, with a united people be' hind them for the accomplishment of the war. We should not be a divided people. We should not have the discussions we have had, and are having now. These discussions divert and use up the energy of the people that should be directed to winning the war. Mistakes have been made. I could pass reflections on the province of Quebec; I could pass reflections on other provinces, upon my own province. There may have bean derelictions iin certain directions, but these are not things to' talk about in the face of this great 'Struggle and in the face of the Canadian people who -are anxious to see this war brought to a successful conclusion. I thiink this House will learn when we go to the 'Country, and the country has an opportunity to express its opinion, that the people of Canada, irrespective of party, want to see national unity in the shape of a national Government for the successsful prosecution of the war. It is not a difficult thing to bring about. They have accomplished it in England where they had two or three adjustments. Call it a coalition Government if you will. The word " Coalition " may be objectionable; I am willing to take the responlhibility of saying that-call it a coalition government, or a national government or a new party, if you will


An hon. MEMBER:: A third party.


William Findlay Maclean: I expected that the hon. gentleman would say that. I do not feel ashamed of saying that if it is necessary, if we cannot unite, we may have to fall back on a new party. Not the hon. gentleman, but the people, will be the judges as to that.


William Pugsley: We want a change of some kind anyway.


William Findlay Maclean: How can this be done? If we can unite for the conduct of the busi-9i
ness of this House, as has been shown here on many occasions, does not the safety of the nation and the welfare of the Empire demand a similar unity? When the conduct of business calls for union, both parties seem willing to unite. Every one of us are doing our utmost for the war, and by union you will force Liberals and Conservatives to do all they can for the attainment of the great end we have in view. Instead of making charges against each other, you will get them to work for the successful prosecution of the war. That means something. There would be no dissensions in this country over recruiting. There would be no dissensions as to the enforcement of the Militia Act. I believe that the day has come when about the first thing to do is to enforce the Militia Act. It may be that we shall have to come to conscription in this country, and I am not afraid to say that if the situation becomes any more critical and the liberties of the world become more endangered, I am ready for conscription. If we are to have conscription we ought to have behind us, supporting it, a united people, a united Parliament and a united Government. To my mind the situation is even more serious than I have indicated. The war has been going on now for over two and a half years, and victory is not yet in sight. The struggle may be extended, and may run into another year. We all hope that it will end this year, hut if so, and if the end is to. be successful, every effort will need to he consecrated to that end. There should not be a single voice raised from a partisan point of view.
Party politics are all right; they have been at the bottom of our constitutional system for many and many a year. But when a supreme struggle comes there has to be a different attitude in the matter, and instead of looking to the advantage of a party we should only take into consideration the success of the war, the greatest war the world ever saw. I am not going to criticise the Government in power to-day, but we have in office a Government that is a peacetime Government and the result of a peace election, and I am not quite prepared to say that because a Government is the outcome of a peace election that Government is the best possible Government for the conduct of a war. A war Cabinet has to be forged out of different material from that out of which a peace Government is formed. I do not say that there is better material in the other party; not for a moment do I

say that the material is better in the one party or the other. I believe that the best material for winning the war is to be found in both parties, and that a union of both parties in order to get a really strong war Cabinet is the only way in which Canada oan successfully play her part in the conduct of this war-
I come to another phase of the matter. I cannot come to this House and say that the House can advise or tell the Government what to do. The only thing that I can suggest, or that anybody in the country can suggest, is that the Prime Minister might see his way to approach the Opposition to the end that there may be union of the two parties and of all classes in this country for the successful prosecution of the war. It is the Prime Minister's absolute right to do this. We in this House cannot tell him what to do; nobody oan tell him. The initiative rests absolutely with him. He may think, as he has a right to think, that he should riot intervene in this matter. Then there is left the only other thing, the indirect drive of public opinion. And he does not need to respect that or obey it, but it might have some influence upon him. All that I am trying to urge upon him, or rather upon the House and the country, is that instead of following the course we have followed, resulting more or less in dissension and disagreement, and also in a manifestation of disloyalty, we ought to try at this stage of the proceedings to follow the example of other countries and have a united party, a united people, and a united Parliament to prosecute the war and to stop the bickering that we have seen in the press and that, I fear, we shall see hereafter to a greater extent-
The Prime Minister does not need to listen to any suggestion of this kind, but if he will listen he will hear something in the country in the direction of what I am stating here to-day. First of all, I want to . speak for my own city of Toronto; I want to speak for the province of Ontario, and I believe I am voicing the views of the people of Toronto and of Ontario, when I say that they are in favour of uniting and solidifying the country for the winning of this war, irrespective of party views or party fortunes. They want to see the people of Canada united. In this connection I want to call the attention of the House to the bon entente banquet given in the city of Toronto and attended by representative citizens of Quebec and Ontario. The big business men and the bankers were there, and 
I never saw such a representative meeting in Toronto. If I gathered anything from that meeting it was that the people of Toronto, as represented by their leading citizens, were in favour of joining together the people of Ontario and the people of Quebec, French-speaking and English-speaking, in order to win the war. That is the sentiment of the people of Ontario, and I believe it is the sentiment of the people everywhere. I think it is the sentiment of the great West, and I have had opportunities, directly and indirectly, of ascertaining what the people of the West are thinking upon this question. My summing up of it is that the people of the West are among the most loyal in all Canada and are prepared to make the greatest sacrifices in order to bring about the successful conclusion of this war. They have sent to the front their full quota of soldiers and are prepared to send others. I met farmers in the West within the last two or three weeks who, speaking on behalf of themselves and of their fellow-farmers, said: The Government can have every bushel of wheat that is left in our barns-and they have immense stores yet-if they say they want it for the winning of the war, they can have it, take it at their own price and we will never object. That is the feeling of the West. I ' believe that the same feeling animates the whole of the people of Canada. There was a meeting held here the other night, a meeting of the Canadian Club of Ottawa. I was not able to attend, but from what I gathered of that meeting I believe that the members of that club are in favour of a Canadian policy and a united Canada in regard to this war. I know that is the feeling wihioh has been expressed by some of the Canadian Clubs in the West, and that is the feeling which is being expressed all over. It was expressed yesterday, I believe, by the Canadian Club of Winnipeg. We may have to wait a time until they have had the opportunity of expressing their opinions, but the feeling of the people of Canada is for union and the discouragement of any kind of dissension until the war is . won.	-
If the Prime Minister saw fit to make a bid in the direction which I have suggested-and it is only a suggestion-what should we get? First of all we should get a war cabinet, and that is the essential thing in this matter. You want a war cabinet and you want men in that cabinet who will best represent the sentiment of the people. I do not think that a cabinet, selected in time of peace, is the best

possible cabinet for the conduct of a war. If you had a war cabinet you would get a good start. The cabinet to-day may represent the people of the country, but it is to be remembered that it is six years since we had an election and the greatest political force that Canada ever saw has been developed and developed in the Canadian West within the last five years. I have paid some attention in my own way to what has been going on in the West and I have found out what that force is, The greatest democratic force in Canada today is located in the Canadian West. They are men of progressive ideas, they have new ideas in regard to economic questions, they have strong ideas in regard to this war, and they constitute a powerful political element in this country which is bound to dominate the country in the next election and say how it is to be governed. That element should have a voice in the national Government which, I hope, will be created forthwith. The support of that great and new democratic and modern element which has developed in the West would be the greatest backing that the Prime Minister could have in the successful carrying on of the war. The new war cabinet, which I hope we will have, will also find a place for a representative of labour in this country. What is the strength of the new war cabinet in Britain to-day? It is that it is headed by Lloyd George, who has the confidence of the labour men of the Mother Country and who has in his war cabinet the Right Hon. Arthur Henderson, one of the ablest representatives of labour in the British Islands. The British Parliament to-day has in it not two or three labour representatives, but it has a great number-I forget whether it is forty or fifty. For the first time labpur there has a strong and absolute fores in the conduct of the war; and labour in Canada, under the proposal I suggest, would be represented in this new cabinet, and the working men, who are at times questioning what has been suggested to them in connection with the conduct of the war, would come in and would be a strong influence in aiding the Government. Would it not be a good thing if in some way we could find a way of uniting our people in accomplishing the object for which we are striving in this war? If we could have labour represented in the war cabinet, if we could have the farming element represented -Hand the great producing element to-day is the farming element, and they are all loyal
and devoted to the cause-it would be a good thing because such a readjustment would bring about that union Which is so necessary to success.
The farmers and working men of this country want to know something about two things. A good mission has been undertaken by the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Bennett) with a view of bringing about the mobilization of the man power of the country. 1 am glad to know that satisfactory	progress has been made
in that direction. But not only have we to mobilize the man power, we have to mobilize the industrial power and the accumulated profits if we are to	succeed	in	this	war;
and the only proper way to mobilize the man power of this country and its resources, for the successful prosecution of the war, is to reconstruct the Cabinet in such a way that it will be representative of the farmers of this country and of labour. If we had a National Government such as I have described, we should have all the support for the war that we now have, and we should have a more definite declaration from the farmers and from organized labour as to where they stand with regard to the war. The whole resources of our country would be mobilized.
You cannot mobilize labour only. You have also to mobilize the profits that have been made in this country and devote them to the war. So far the talk has been largely of the mobilization of men, but I want to see a mobilization of all the resources of the country, as well as of our man power, in order that they may be devoted to success in this .struggle.
Not only have we before us his great task of winning the war, and it is still ahead of us, but there is another very serious task to be accomplished, and that is the regeneration and reconstruction of our country after the war. How can we build up this country and find employment for all our people after the war unless we have some kind of co-operation between the two parties to that end? I say that neither the Conservative party nor the Liberal party in this country, as we know them to-day, is in a position to reconstruct this country after the war unless the two parties co-operate. That may be a rather strong statement to make, but when you see how stupendous the task is, and what are the things that have to be done, and how easy it is to create dissension over these things if dissensions

are encouraged by party appeals, you can also see how easy it would be to reconstruct the country if there was unity between all parties, and a united Parliament, as we ought to have. And the first thing in the work oi reconstruction in this country is what? Great reforms in regard to the finances of our country. As I have said before in this House-and the war has fully justified what I have said-we have got to have in this country a national currency instead of a banking currency, and we have to have a great system of re-discounting in connection with our finances.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.
W. F. MACLEAN: We have got to have farm loans, based on the credit of the country, in order that our farmers may get cheap money, on good security, for the development of our country and for the raising of live stock and the grain crops of the West. To-day the farmers are paying .too high a rate of interest, and they are living alongside of a people who have all the advantages of which I have spoken in regard to financial reforms. We have even got to have, in addition to our larger banks with their branches-and I had the pleasure of speaking on this subject to a western audience the other day-a system of small banks, based largely on the same principles as those of the United States. When the American farmer comes to Canada, with all his experience of what they are doing for the farmers there in the way of small banks as well as large, cheap farm loans, which they have there, and a system of rediscounting which can be carried right to the farmer, and which gives him a low interest on mortgages and banking accommodation on live stock for long periods at low interest, that American farmer is going to draw a line of discrimination as between the United States and Canada. We must have progressive legislation in connection with the regeneration of this country after the war.' They already have it in the United States, where it was worked out by that same progressive democratic element that we have in Canada to-day. The victory of President Wilson was not the result of the votes of the people in the East; they voted against him. But for the first time in the history of America-and I want to tell the House of Commons what they are up against-the majority of the voters in the United States happened to be located in the West, and it is from the West that all the progressive legislation came that they now have in the United States. To-day there is an equally
LMr. Maclean.]
strong demand from Western Canada for the isiame kind of legislation here, and that will form part of the work of regeneration of Canada after the war. I can see no way of doing this unless we get both parties together and have a real national policy for the successful accomplishment of the war, and for the regeneration of the country when peace is re-established. If anybody thinks that one party can administer the country and carry on the work of regeneration and do it successfully without asking the assistance of the other party, in my opinion he will be disappointed. But if in some way the two parties can get together and get the movement started, it would quickly gather impetus and would he carried forward successfully, and the war would be, won in a way that none of us could expect.
While I am speaking only for myself, somehow I think I am reflecting the opinion of the great bulk of the people of this country, and if the people of this country cannot be heard in Parliament through the action of the parties in Parliament, and especially through the action of the Government, the people may take the matter in their own hands, as was suggested by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) the other day. Perhaps the best thing would be to have the free wind of a general election blow over the country and the people find out just where they are in regard to the war. But to my mind there is no necessity for that. This is not the time for an election appeal; this is not the time for party discussions; this is not the time for such a contest -as is now going on in Dorchester, though I blame neither party for that contest. This is a time when all * parties should get together and form a war administration, so that we may have unity, and get the best ability in the country devoted to the war.
What would be the result? Is there any better news that we could send forth to the world to-morrow, in view of the present severity of the war and its uncertainty, than this: that all Canada was united; that both political parties were united for the successful accomplishment of this war. That would have a disciplinary effect on Germany which would be surprising. It would cheer the people in the old land, and put heart and hope, though they are full of heart and hope yet,'"into our boys- in the trenches, and aid them in doing their best to win. Would not that be a 5 p.m. great thing for Canada to give to the world to-morrow? Would it not be a clear intimation to our neigh-

hours to the south of us of what Canada really thinks of this war and of the issues [DOT] at stake?
And the issues at stake, are they not the liberties and the freedom of the world? Would not Canada disappear from the map if Germany should succeed in her attack now on the liberties of the world, and would there not be a great German influx from the United States? But the thing to let the Huns know, and to let the Mother Country know, and our boys at the front, is that all Canada is united now, irrespective of party, for the successful accomplishment of the war.
I have to repeat it, come back to it, and yet it is what is forced on me to say to-day. and I have said it in as plain a way as I can say it, thinking that 'in some way I am reflecting the views of .my fellow-countrymen from one ocean to the cither. They want to win this war; they want the strongest and best .meal in the Cabinet for the conduct of the war, and they want all the energies we have to be dewoted to the wax. We have not yet begun to give what we ought to give, 'and we must give more. Is it not a fact that .at this moment we are hardly keeping up the strength of our fighting force? I have met officer after officer who is practically stalled in his efforts to enlist the full strength for his regiment, and regiment 'after regiment throughout the country is stalled because it cannot recruit up to full Strength. The progress is slow; il is hard to get the men, and there are not enough of us out preaching to the men of this country that they must go to the front. I do not agree with the horn, member for . Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) that the man who produces on the farm or the man who works in the munition factory is the equal of the man who is in the firing line. The man in the firing line is the man of all men in this country, 'and we have to go* out and get fighting men, because the regiments are not filled up, and their officers are discouraged on that laocoumt. I trace the cause of that largely to the political dissension in this country and to the fact that even yet, in the third year of the war, we have not begun to realize what war means. How many of us know what the English prayer book means until we read it now in the light of this war? The prayer book of the Church of England from tone end to the other is a repetition of thanks to God, and also of prayers to God to save the nation from its enemies, and one understands what that means in the British Navy and in the British Army. We have
been a peace-loving people, knowing little about war; but now we are 'beginning to see what war is and wlbait it means for us and for our country, and if we are to' keep a hundred thousand men in the fighting line and provide for the wastages and the reserves, we must change our system or we are not going to accomplish what we set out to accomplish in taking our proper share in this war. When I have said that I have said practically all that I have to say to the House; but in saying it, I think I speak for the people of Canada, and although no duty can be forced upon anyone in regard to the matter, it is incumbent upon this Government and upon the members of this Parliament not to think about party dissensions, but to thank bow they can get together and strengthen their resources for the winning of the war. The mO'St discreditable thing that could happen to this country or to the Empire or to civilization would be that this war should not prove to be a success in putting down for all time the abominable doctrine that the Huns are preaching to-day, that they are the elect of God to rule and govern mankind, and that a military system made up of land-holders and men devoted to the business of soldiering must rule and govern the world. Germany has that in view to-day, as well as the destruction of the liberty, not only of the British and of all the other European peoples, but of America and especially of Canada, and our Canadian people would suffer terribly for the next twenty or thirty years if in any way Germany succeeded in carrying out her nefarious designs. If any one tells me that we are on the eve of a great victory, I say that I hope that is the case, but the evidence is not in sight. There is more fighting to be done, more enlisting required; more money must be spent, more munitions must be made, and, most of all, immense sacrifices must be made. There is no happy day for any of us in this House or in this country for the rest of our -lives. The losses are so extensive up to the present time, and so many more have to come, that we are now a sobered people by reason of this war, and we are all, men, women and children, beginning to realize what sacrifices have to be made. Even our youngest children will grow up in the atmosphere of this great war, and will understand what it means for families, for homes, for the nation, for liberty and for the right to live. We are all in that sober attitude now; we know what war means in the prayer book and we know what we ought to do. There

is only one thing to do, and that is to cease this partisan struggle in connection with the war, and to hold out the hand of fellowship of one iparty to the other and join together, consecrating our lives and energies to winning the war. We are not doing that, and we shall not 'be able to do it as we are trying to do it now. When the members go back to their constituencies at the adjournment of Parliament, I want them to visit the homes of the men who are making the sacrifices. In my constituency in one church a list was read out of over a hundred men who had been killed in the war, and I can go from church to church and find lists of a hundred or a hundred and twenty or a hundred and fifty men who have gone to the front, and many of them killed. Crippled men are beginning to appear in the streets of Canada, and if you go into a street car, you will meet men who have lost a leg or an arm; you will see everywhere the evidences of the atrocity of this war in its inception and what it is going to be hereafter, and the settlement is not in sight. If that is the case, I appeal to the members of this House to forget party, to unite irrespective of party.
As this is a constitutional machine and works as a machine, a union of parties can be made only along political lines; it cannot be done by sentiment. Would the Conservative party or the liberal party be disgraced if they joined together on the conduct of this war? If they unite to work it out, they will be doing only their duty, and they will be voicing the views of their constituents and of the nation.
I could go into details concerning the records of the different parties and of the two races, but I do not wish to widen the breach; I rather prefer to try to heal it in some way. I wish to impress upon the House how necessary it is to consider the political union that can be accomplished here and that will assist in winning the war. Unless we get that union the war will last longer and cost more. Canada's record in this war will be judged largely by what our boys have done, but it will be judged also by what we have done here in this House. We have started well at this session, and since it is demonstrated that there can be a joining of hands in regard to the conduct of the business ,of this House in order to assist in the effective prosecution of the war, surely there can be a joining of hands and a union of hearts with regard to the main object-that of
fMr. Maclean.!
winning the war-of all the parties, peoples and races who call themselves Canadians.


Rodolphe Lemieux: pious Tory editors are anxious to 'have a national government. Mr. Speaker, a national government is overdue. It is not a revolution that will take place, but a revulsion of feeling, when the Liberal party will again he placed at the head of affairs. The right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) will be able ito form, not a Nationalist Government, but a truly national government.
I agree that during war time the discussions in Parliament should be as harmonious as p'ossible, that there should be no party wrangling and that the Government measures should he given a fair hearing and generally the Cabinet should be given fair play. But, Sir, you are too good a parliamentarian not to admit that if during ordinary times, in peace times, criticism is healthy and necessary in order to secure a proper administration of the affairs of the country, in war time, when there is a huge expenditure going on, criticism is even more needed in the interests of the country and of the Treasury. If it had not been for the healthy criticism of His Majesty's loyal Opposition last year, do you believe that we should have to-day the Imperial Munitions Board? No, we should still be saddled with the old Shell Committee. En passant,' let me say that I congratulate the Imperial authorities upon having confided the war orders of Canada to the present Munitions Board. I believe that with Mr. Flavelle and Mr. Gordon at the head of the Imperial Munitions Board, the country need not be nervous; the affairs entrusted to that Board will be run in a businesslike way, and with honesty of purpose. Again, I say that even during war times a loyal Opposition should not abdicate its duties and functions.
The other day I listened to the right hon. gentleman, the leader of the Government (Sir Robert Borden) when he was speaking about the probability of a general election. He told us that it would be sad indeed if we were to send the ballot boxes into the trenches. Would you believe it? Why his words are still ringing in my ears when, sitting in the old Commons chamber, the right hon. gentleman charged the leader of the Opposition and all those who questioned the propriety of sending the ballot boxes into the trenches, with returning officers passing over the graves and the crosses of our boys who had laid down their lives at the front, charged ns with disloyalty. I remember that his slogan-if it was not his, at least, it was that of the Minister

of Militia at the time-was: for each gun, one ballot. It was refreshing to listen to the Prime Minister the other day. Thanks to our criticism of that objectionable law, the right hon. gentleman realizes to-day that it is improper to give it effect. Sir, the Opposition should never Abdicate its function-in war time less than in any other time. Who did not hear, year after year, the criticisms levelled at the Roes rifle in this House. When war began, during, not the short session of 1914, but the session which followed, at the very opening of the House, I called the attention of the 'hon. Minister of Militia of that day to an item which had appeared in the Canadian Courier, a paper published in Toronto. In that item it was reported that one of the soldiers, a Canadian, writing to his father, had said that when our boys had left Shorncliffe, the first thing they had done was to discard the Ross rifle. I asked the minister whether the statement was true or not. He denied it. Later on, complaints and criticisms were made. Finally, in the month of May last year, if I mistake not, there appeared mysteriously, perhaps, in the Ottawa Citizen, the letter of General Alderson condemning the Ross rifle with which our boys had been equipped. Mr. Speaker, can you say that it was not the duty of the Opposition to find out whether or not the facts mentioned in the letters from our boys at the front concerning the national weapon of Canada were true -or not? When that letter was read in the House, my hon. friend, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) who never goes half way, stated that if the name of the civil servant responsible for the leak of the document became known he would take it upon himself to send the delinquent to the tower. After prorogation, my hon. friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen) made several speeches throughout the country in one of which, speaking of the Ross rifle, he said: Of course we shall be taken to task for having equipped our soldiers with the Ross rifle. Defending the position of the Government in advance, he went on to say that they were bound by the contract entered into between Sir Charles Ross and the Laurier Government. Probably my hon. friend the Solicitor General knew at that time the contents of the report made by Sir Douglas Haig. What are the facts to-day? I do not state that Sir Charles Ross is right or that he is wrong; I say that if the Opposition had not fulfilled its true function of criticising the 'Government,

possibly our soldiers to-day would still be equipped with the old Ross Tide. It is due to our criticism that the hand of the Government was forced, and that we have the report of Sir Douglas Haig condemning the weapon with which our soldiers were equipped. It is all very well to speak of a union of hearts, of a national government; but no national government, no coalition government, would tolerate a defective rifle for our soldiers.
The Government are spending huge sums, of money, and in that respect their acts should be very seriously scrutinized. A speech was delivered not long ago by the Minister of Finance, in which he said:
If every citizen of Canada would save to the utmost of his power in these days of high world prices for our produce and enormous munitions expenditures at home, I believe that notwithstanding the huge increase in our national debt which the war will bring, the people of Canada would be stronger financially when the war is over than before it commenced.
Further on he said:-
I believe the people of Canada will rise to this as to all other occasions, and that the men at the front will not suffer for lack of shells so far as the industrial facilities of Canada are able to provide them. Let us economize. Let us save. Let us make our savings serve the purposes of the war. Let us make our dollars fight the Hun.
I agree with the Minister of Finance, but while he preaches economy I say that he does not practice it, and the example of economy should coime from the gentleman who holds the strings of the purse. I was shocked last year, Mr. Speaker, when, during the hours preceding prorogation, the Government brought forward a measure authorizing them to spend something like six million dollars on the purchase of the Quebec-Montmorency, Quebec-Saguenay and Lotbiniere-Megantie railways, and this at a time when two transcontinental railways were declared in so many words to be bankrupt, at a time when a railway commission of experts was being appointed to investigate the whole railway situation of Canada, at a time when every man, woman and child in this country was being urged to save and economize, not only on their own behalf, but to aid the Belgian Fund, the French Fund, the Serbian Fund, the Patriotic Fund and the Red Cross Fund. At that very moment, Sir, the Government were asking Parliament for authority to spend six million dollars in order to disentangle some promoters from mysterious railway difficulties below Quebec. That
policy was nothing less than scandalous, and I hope that the Government will think twice before they pay the amounts that are being asked for the purchase of those railways.
There are many problems apart from the war which are very important and require solution. From every part of Canada reforms are being urged.. I have here, for instance, a copy of the resolutions adopted the other day by the farmers of the West, a body representing sixty thousand affiliated farmers. In spite of the war, they think that some reforms are overdue. For instance, they ask for an amendment of the tariff laws by reducing the duty on goods imported from Great Britain to half the rates charged under the general tariff, and they urge further adjustments in the remaining tariff, such .as will insure complete free trade between Great Britain and Canada within five years. They ask that the tariff he so amended as to give free agricultural implements, free farm machinery, free vehicles, fertilizers, coal, lumber, cement and illuminating, fuel and lubricating oils. They urge all of these reforms, and it is not because w'e are at war that the Liberal party should not voice them. It is our duty to bring these questions to the attention of Parliament and the public.
This much having been said as to the duties of the Opposition during this war, let. me refer to the all-absorbing question -the question of the war-and the firm determination of the Canadian, people to win that war. First of all, let me tell you that I am a British subject and a Liberal. It is because I am a British subject and a Liberal in the British sense that I stand for the Allied cause in the present gigantic conflict. I resent any imputation to the contrary. I do not care-I may just as well say so frankly-to be labelled a loyalist. The. appellation "British" is good enough for me. As my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) stated the other evening, in the very excellent address which he delivered, loyalty is proven by deeds and not by word of mouth. Might I recall to this House the words of a famous woman who played a part during the French Revolution- Madame Roland. As she was brought to the guillotine at the Place Royale, she passed on her way the Statue of Liberty, and as she bowed reverently while passing before that statue, she exclaimed: "Oh liberty, how many crimes are committed in thy name!" I say to these ultra loyalists who are always parading their lip loyalty:

Oh loyalty, many crimes are committed in thy name! I ana a Liberal, and I say that since the beginning of the war the Liberal party has adhered to the pledge which was given by my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Lanrier). Prior to August 4, 1914, that right hon. gentleman said:
I have often declared that if the Mother Country were ever in danger, or if danger even threatened, Canada would render assistance to the full extent of her power. In view of the critical nature of the situation, I have cancelled all my meetings. Pending such great questions there should be a truce to party strife.
There, the word "truce" was first uttered by my right hon. friend. The answer was a statement made at a ward meeting in the city of Toronto by the present hon. Minister of Militia (Mr. Kemp), who said:"Why speak of a truce? There was never any truce and will never be any truce." That was the loyal answer made by a gentleman who has now a seat in the Cabinet. It is true that we have had from an honoured member of the Tory party in Toronto, Mr. McNaught, a declaration to this effect: Oh, during this war some Liberals may be loyal, but their leaders have not been loyal. Mr. McNaught was a member for the city of Toronto of the Ontario Legislature. The Liberals of Eastern Ontario met at Ottawa during the month of November last, and they passed the following resolution in answer to the onslaughts made on the patriotism of the Liberal party by such Tory heelers as Mr. McNaught:
RESOLVED: That this convention of representative Liberals of Eastern Ontario, in session asembled at Ottawa this 16th day of November, takes this earliest opportunity of placing upon record its unswerving loyalty to the King and Empire and pledging ourselves to assist in the ultimate success, and at the same time to record our resentment at the reported remarks of certain Conservative politicians inpugning the loyalty of the Great Liberal party, which remarks we consider as entirely unjustifiable and an insult to the thousands of true Liberals who to-day mourn their sons and brothers who have given their lives at the front as proof of their loyalty and love of the British Empire;
And that this Convention express its condolence and heartfelt sympathy with all Canadians who have lost their sons and relatives at the front.
What has been the official attitude of the leader of the Liberal party since the war began? His attitude has been to educate public opinion in his province, and such education was needed because it had been shamefully poisoned by at least three of the members of the present Government. Mr. 
Speaker, the sentiments of the leader of the Opposition are well known. They were expressed lately in a manifesto which was issued on the first of January, and from which I may read later on.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, when the House took recess I was explaining the attitude taken by the leader of the Liberal party during the wax, and was stating that his whole object, whilst to strictly observe the truce, was to educate public opinion, in his own province and in the Dominion generally. In his own province where it had been poisoned by three members of the present Government, not to speak of those who have been shelved. Perhaps the House will hear with me if, before giving the poison, I serve the antidote. Let me quote the language of the leader of the Liberal party in his speech in the city of Quebec at the last recruiting meeting ne addressed in that old historic city. I do this, Mr. Speaker, because it has been hinted in the course of this debate, and in the Tory press generally, and on public platforms, that he had not kept the promise which he made some years ago as leader of the Liberal party, that if ever the Empire was in danger, or even faced a time of trial, he would appeal to his fellow-citizens in the province of Quebec to answer the call of duty. Speaking at Quebec only a few weeks ago he said:
It is not for Britain that Britain is at war to-day. Was it Britain which was invaded in 1914? Was it on Britain that Germany declared war on August 3, 1914? No, it was Britain which on the next day declared war on Germany, because of the invasion of Belgium, and her atrocious attack through Belgium on the heart of France because she stood true to her ally. Our children are to-day shedding their blood on the fields not of Britain, hut of France, the land of our very own ancestors. Many have been wounded, many have died, but it was not for Britain that they fought. They gave their lives freely and loyally that France, as part of the comity of nations, might live and continue her role at the head of civilization. And it is for that ideal that I am here to ask young Canadians, and especially young French-Canadians, to take their part in a war which is one for civilization.
It is with such appeals as this that we have been able to muster in the province of Quebec the 35,000 young men who are today either at the front or ready to go there.

I was rather surprised the other evening to hear the right hon. the leader of the House (Sir Robert Borden) state that the leader of the Opposition had in one of those speeches mentioned the fact that in 1870 England had not gone to the rescue of France. The right hon. gentleman thought it was very bad form on the part of the leader of the Opposition to speak in that way of the Mother Country's attitude. The right hon. gentleman, if he will pardon my saying so, is rather over sensitive. The attitude of England during the war of 1870, and the consequences of that attitude are well known; it is a matter of history; and the statesmen of England to-day are the first [DOT]to admit England was wrong in 1870 for not interposing herself between Bismark and Thiers, who then pleaded for France. It is simply a matter of history, just as it is a matter of history that England in 1854 to use the language of Lord Salisbury "backed the wrong horse" in siding against the Russians in the Crimean War. Just as it is a matter of history that England through Lord Salisbury made a blunder when she ceded Heligoland to Germany. But if it is a crime for the right hon. gentleman to refer to such an historical fact as he cited what shall we say about the Montreal Gazette, the best informed Conservative paper in our province, and certainly one of the most moderate in the whole Dominion of Canada? Speaking of the defeat, or I should rather say, the retreat of the Asquith Cabinet, the Gazette said editorially:
The spectacle presented hy the Asquith Government in the first days of August, 1914, was unlike anything that could have been imagined. On August 3, Sir Edward Grey, who also has fallen short of what was ^expected, came into the House of Commons and announced that Parliament was free to decide what the British attitude in the conflict then beginning wou'd be. Great Britain, he said, had not committed herself to anything but diplomatic support; but the Government had warned the French and German Ambassadors that if war were forced on France public opinion in the British Isles would rally to France. The Government abdicated its leadership when leadership by men who knew or should have known what conditions were was most needed. Never in England's history was there another such spectacle. When France chose war the noise of the yelling London press was taken for the voice of public opinion, and as if there were no hand on the helm the Empire drifted into war. All know the subsequent story.
That is the language, not of the Globe, not of the leader of His Majesty's loyal Opposition, but that of the leading Tory paper as regards the attitude of England, not in regard to the war of 1870, but in
regard to the present war. England, according to the Montreal Gazette, did not yield to the voice of public opinion; England yielded to the voice of the yelling London press. That is the language of the loyal Tory press of Canada.
Let me once for all state, on behalf of my fellowmen in the province of Quebec, their real attitude in regard to this war. In their judgment there is but one question before us, and that is the paramount question of the great war which, is now raging beyond the seas. It is the question of the participation of Canada in that stupendous struggle. It is, above all, the determination which they share in common with the people of other provinces that the Mother Country and her gallant Allies shall ultimately triumph. That is the opinion of the province of Quebec. The British Empire is made up of various races- We happen to belong to a minority, and we are rather proud to belong to that minority; yes, we are proud of the blood that flows in our veins. Because of that very fact we may perhaps present in a more dispassionate spirit the British point of view, as it appeals to us wfio are members of the minority. Yes, in the midst of this great war, where freedom is assailed, where all laws are trampled upon, where one man, surrounded by a military caste, backed up by formidable hosts, and seized with the lust of domination, has challenged the world, it is the proud privilege of those who were born and have lived under free British institutions in Canada boldly to proclaim what Britain stands for in the present emergency.
In our judgment, Germany stands at the bar of history. She and she alone is responsible for this awful catastrophe. Why did she precipitate the conflict? The answer is obvious: The German Empire had become too small for its population, and for economic reasons it needed expansion. " Expansion " is not the proper word to use; what Germany had been planning and scheming for during the last half century was nothing less than world-domination, and that will be the verdict of history.
To gratify her insensate ambition she determined to dominate Europe by crushing the -small nations, by maiming our old mother country, France, for the second time, and by humbling the British Empire, which has given us and still maintains for us the liberties we enjoy. Her victory, in our judgment, would mean not only the

Garrisoning of Europe, but tbe garrisoning of Canada and possibly of the whole continent of North America. To attain that end she inaugurated a campaign of frightfulness, which, if unchecked, would bring humanity back to the dark ages. What kind of humanity and nationhood has she not violated? She has broken international faith for the sake of getting the first advantage of war-a heinous crime among nations. She has carried on through the war a campaign of frightfulness directed from headquarters, regardless of the virtue of women, the crying appeal of children and the sanctity of the home. She has thus poisoned the wells of her fair fame; she has not fought the fight in broad, square, manly fashion. She has sunken vessels in which thousands of neutrals and non-combatants have been sent to the bottom; she has murdered Captain Fryatt and Edith Caveil. Worst of all is that, by all classes of her people from the bishop of the cathedral to the artisan, every crime, every barbarity her men have committed in the name of the war has been saluted in Germany by the flying of flags and the giving of iron crosses. We know that it is to avenge such appalling crimes tjhat the sons of Britain from every clime, from every Domin-_ ion, like the knight errants of old, have been called upon to buckle on their armour. Their object we know is not to conquer new territory; the aim is to crush militarism . once for all, to restore small nations to their rights, to make civilization, justice and freedom secure forever. That is the vidw of the .situation held by the people of the province of Quebec.
The tide has now turned and the silver lining of the cloud can be detected. For many long weary months the outlook was far from being bright; there were black days, black moods and a swaying indecision; but under the immense crisis Britain and overseas Britain, France and her Allies, have lifted to a clear determination. It has been stated in our province by the friends of the present Government that England had not done her full duty during the present war. That has been stated over and over -again by the Nationalist allies of the hon, gentleman opposite. We know that England has not been deficient. No one I am sure, will say that the British fleet is not -a decisive factor in the present war; and thanks to that fleet, a whole gigantic phase of the enemy's life has been suddenly blotted out. It is not only doing all that was expected of it; it has met with an amazing energy and ingenuity new obstacles. Un-
[Mr. Lemieux.l
der its protection, the best merchant service of England proceeds as usual. Her ships, those of her Allies and of all neutral countries sail the seven seas. The sleepless vigilance of the grand fleet and its silent victories during this war speak volumes for British efficiency.
On land England, at the beginning of the war was not expected to muster more than 200,000 soldiers, and of all the European countries she alone would not accept the principle of compulsory service: but, after Mons and Le Cateau, where the flower of the British aristocracy so gallantly perished, after the splendid example given so spontaneously by the overseas dominions, the British Parliament enacted a law of compulsory service. England, which, as T said, was not expected to give more than 200,000 men, and possibly less, started to raise an army which has reached the five million mark, and this vast army is rapidly being equipped with arms, guns, ammunition, clothing and food, as no army in the world has been in the past. But that is not all. On England, aided chiefly by America, has fallen the task of supplying, in a large measure, the manufactured necessities of war of her Allies and of some of her dominions, and while thus financing her Allies and her overseas dominions England has been exporting goods at the rate of $2,000,000,000 a year, and conducting a larger than ever increasing proportion of the carrying trade of the world. I have no hesitation in saying that in this battle for freedom, the effort of Great Britain constitutes the most staggering exercise of human energy of which history has any record.-
And what of France, the great ally of Britain, in this gigantic struggle? We, in Canada, may speak with pride of the idealism of old France as evidenced by the pioneer days of this continent; but may we not also state that it is the same idealism and the same old spirit which to-day inspires the Frenchmen of the third Republic? The battles of the Marne and of Verdun will ever remain tne most flamboyant names in history. Only once or twice in history has the .world witnessed such a spectacle of greatness at tension. Everything spiritual in a nation touched with genius has been mobilized. Fineness of feeling, the graces of the intellectual life, clarity of thought, all the playful tender elements of worthy living are burning with a steady light. It is the

fashionable cant of the day to say that a new France has arisen out of the ashes and ruins of the old; that warfare and deadliest peril have created in the breasts of Frenchmen another and nobler spirit of steady valour and stubborn endurance. And to us, this cant of admiration seems even more strange than the malignant misrepresentation which during the last half century pictured the men and women of France as a fickle, emotional race, voluble in peace, but weak in the stress of doubtful, stubborn battle. No, the French nation has not changed in these two years of war. The French nation to-day is exactly what the French nation has been for centuries. The French soldiers have had no new creation of valour and hardihood. The voice of Fiance at VeTdun is the voice of France of centuries ago.
Peace proposals, Mr. Speaker, have been mooted. Who believes that peace would be durable if not based upon the success.of the Allied cause? To me, the situation is precisely that which the great Pitt, described in one of his greatest speeches, delivered one hundred and sixteen years ago; and the world echoes his words to-day. He said:
I see no possibility at this moment of concluding such a peace as would Justify that liberal intercourse which is the essence of real amity; no chance of terminating the expense or the anxieties of war, or of restoring to us any of the advantages of established tranquility. .	.	. As a lover of peace, I will not
sacrifice it by grasping at the shadow, when the reality is not substantially within my reach. Why, then, do I refuse peace? Because it is deceptive, because it is perilous, because it cannot exist.
Mr. Speaker, the British Empire simply re-echoes the sentiments expressed by this great statesman. It contains the only answer which can be made to appeals coming from Washington or from elsewhere in favour of peace.
I stated a moment ago that the three Nationalist ministers in the present Government had consistently poisoned public opinion in the province of Quebec during the years which preceded the coming of the present party into office, and I referred to the antidote which was contained in the admirable speeches delivered in that province by the right hon. the leader of the Opposition. Is that or is it not a true statement of the case? Let me marshal here a few facts, dates and names, and then the House will judge whether or not the statement be true. As the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) stated this afternoon and yesterday in the admirable speech which he delivered, we know that the Nationalist League was organized in Quebec in March, 1903, under the leadership of Mr. Bourassa. Among the articles of the programme launched by that League can be found the following-it is important to note them, because they give us the background of the agitation which followed:
1st. No participation of Canada in Imperial wars outside her territory.
2nd. To spurn any attempt at recruiting for British troops.
3rd. To oppose the establishment in Canada of a naval school with the help and for the benefit of Imperial authority.
Please mark the words, Mr. Speaker: " To spurn any attempt at recruiting for British troops." How did this article of the Nationalist programme come to life? You will remember, Mr. Speaker-I think you were a member of the House then-the introduction of a resolution during the session of 1909 for the building of a Canadian navy. A resolution was introduced by my friend the present Minister of Trade and Commerce, (Sir George Foster), accepted by the then leader of the Government, the present leader of His Majesty's Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), and adopted unanimously. During the session of 1910 a Naval Bill based on that resolution, was introduced by the then Prime Minister. Strange to say, it was bitterly opposed by the very man who had introduced the original resolution and who had declared himself in favour of a Canadian navy, manned by Canadian officers and sailors, and flying the Canadian ensign with the British flag. Why was it opposed? Because at that time a tacit alliance had been sealed between the present ministers and their friends who claimed to be the Conservative traditionalists in Canada, and the Nationalist League. The first fruit of that alliance was the victory in Drummond and Arthabaska. It is well that we should remember who were the organizers of that famous election campaign, in which a candidate nominated by the Nationalist party, M. Gilbert, ran against a straight Liberal -candidate, M. J. E. Perrault,' barrister, from Arthabaska, who declared himself in favour of Canada's helping, the Mother Country. Who organized that election for the Nationalists? The late Mr. Monk, the Hon. Mr. Pelletier, exPostmaster General, who has been promoted to the Court of the King's Bench in the province of Quebec; Hon. Mr. Nantel, ex-Minister of Inland Revenue, also pro-

moted to the Railway Commission, and Hon. Mr. Coderre, later on Secretary of State, also promoted to a judgeship in the city of Montreal. Who else took part in that famous election.? Who delivered fiery speeches?- The three present Nationalist ministers in this Government, the Postmaster General (Mr- Blondin), the Secretary of State (Mr. Patenaude), and the probaible-it is not very sure-


An hon. MEMBER:: Improbable.


Rodolphe Lemieux: -the improbable future Minister of Inland Revenue. Do you think, Mr. Speaker, that the appeals they made were justifiable? Would any one .say today that those appeals were such as should earn the .consideration of true and loyal subjects in this country? Let me quote one of the speeches delivered by the present Postmaster General. Speaking at a political meeting at St. Louis de Rlandford, Quebec, on October 25, 1910, the Hon. Postmaster General used the following language :
You are intimidating- the people in waving the British flag and adding that we must contribute always and everywhere to the defence of that protector of our constitutional liberties ; but we will not be made to forget that in 1S37 it was necessary to bore holes in it in order to breathe the atmosphere of liberty.
The English have never done anything for the French-Canadians. We do not owe them anything. The only liberties which we enjoy have been snatched. England has sown the world with hatred, quarrels and wars. We have had enough of England and the English.
I shall be reminded perhaps that the Postmaster General, when he was appointed Deputy Speaker of this House, suddenly denied ever having used that language. I shall observe that when he was receiving the loaves and fishes it was an easy matter for him to deny. What was the language of the present Imperialist candidate in the county of Dorchester, the present defender of the British Constitution and British liberties as against that infamous Lucien Cannon? Speaking on October 21, 1910, M. Sevigny said:
The Laurier Cabinet is a Cabinet of Imperialists who want to sacrifice Canada's interest and plunge us into wars with which we have nothing to do. What has England done tor you? She has no need of your help. You must protest against helping England in her wars.
I wonder if the Ottawa Journal or the Journal-Press will publish that to-morrow morning. Later on he said at Arthabaska, on November 1-All Saints Day-1910, when commenting on that provision of the Naval

Act by which it is enacted that the control of the navy is vested in the King. He said:
The navy belongs to His Majesty. Is that a Canadian navy? Who is His Majesty? Have we any Majesty here?
You are surprised that there are people in the province of Quebec who are not very anxious to enlist to fight the wars of Great Britain and the wars of the Empire when they see the men who preached that doctrine promoted from year to year to what is best in the Government of the day. Mr. Speaker, public opinion was aroused. But that is not all. Mr. Sevigny did not speak in Arthabaska only. Speaking on the 26th of July, 1911, at Ste. Flavie, in the county of Rimouski, he used the following language:
When they talk of war with Germany, Russia, and probably France they would like to force Canada, which has always been happy and peaceful, to give cannon and a navy inj order to make war against such great countries. Well, we do not want our money to be spent, because it belongs to our people and to our country. It is to you electors to obtain from us that this iniquitous naval law be repealed by sending 'to the House of Commons true patriots and not men deprived of honour like Brodeur, Lemieux and others.
Mr. Speaker, the campaign in Drummond and Arthabaska aroused the feelings of the country, and one of the leading English organs of Montreal wired, the day before the election, to the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) quoting the speeches delivered by the Blondins, the Sevignys, the Pelletiers, the Patenaudes and the others, asking his opinion about that campaign. What was the answer of the Minister of Trade and Commerce? "The first duty of Drummond and Arthabaska is to defeat Laurier." That was the typical answer, the loyal answer, of the present Minister of Trade and Commerce. And on the night of the election the whip of the Tory party, Mr. George Taylor, now Senator Taylor, wired his congratulations to Mr. Gilbert who carried the election-and I might remind you that when Mr. Gilbert was introduced in the House of Commons by the late Mr. Monk and perhaps by the present Prime Minister, he took his seat- at your left to-night? No, Mr. Speaker. He went and sat with the faithful at the then left, he sat with the good Tory members of the House of Commons, and he voted with the Tory party as long as that Parliament lasted. He has since been appointed by the Minister of Inland Revenue as revenue collector in the town of Victoriaville.
That election came in 1911, and as was stated this evening by the member for

Bonaventure, it was arranged that a doublebarrelled policy should be preached by the Tory party. In the English-speaking provinces reciprocity was the bugaboo, but in the province of Quebec, it was the Naval Bill. Two committees were formed in Montreal, one presided over by my good friend from S't. Antoine (Sir Herbert Ames), and the other presided over by the late Mr. Monk, one Tory committee and one Nationalist committee. And, as my hon. friend stated this afternoon, Le Devoir was circulated in the English-speaking portions of the country when there was a sprinkling of French votes. Help was given to Be Devoir with genuine Tory funds by my friend the present member for St. Antoine. I remember my colleague the member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) coming to me one day iand say-in, in his mild language: How is it that in and around. Edmonton, where there are many Freneh-Canadian electors, Le Devoir is circulated by the carload? Who pays for this distribution of Le Devoir? I did not know then that Le Devoir was circulated through the good offices of the present knight who represents St. Antoine in this House. Well, Sir, the elections were won by the alliance, a cabinet was formed, and it is well known that Messrs. Bourassa and Lavergne were offered portfolios, which they refused because they were sincere, whilst others, as I said a moment ago, accepted the loaves and fishes. Certainly Mr. Bourassa was not satisfied with pounding his views in Quebec; he was invited to go on the border land. He went into northern Ontario, at the instigation of my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals, and on the request of the hon, member for Algoma (Mr. Smyth). Mr. Speaker, it might be interesting to read some of the telegrams that were exchanged during that election, Mr. Bourassa, as I said a moment ago, was sincere; he meant what he said. But he was not sure that those who were so keen to invite him to speak were as sincere, and, therefore, he exacted pledges from them. So Mr. Charles McCrea, of Sudbury, Ont., was addressed as follows on the 8th of September, 1911, by Mr. George Gordon, now Senator Gordon:-
I certainly am opposed to reciprocity and will support request tor appeal of Naval Policy and a referendum to tlie people, no matter who is Premier.
You remember that Mr. Bourassa and the Nationalists were opposed to the Laurier Naval policy and to the equally nefarious policy of. the then Mr. Borden,' now Sir Robert Borden. Mr. Smyth, the member
for Algoma,- wae forced also to give a pledge. He wired to Mr. McCrea-evidently Mr. McCrea had the confidence of Mr. Bourassa. Mr. Smyth's telegram was dated Providence Bay-quite an ominous name-on September 28, 1911. " I am opposed to the reciprocity pact "-that was for the English-speaking electors of the constituency.
I am opposed to Reciprocity, pact. I am opposed to Naval Policy of Liberal Government. X will support request for repeal of same, and referendum to the people on Naval question, no matter who is Premier.
There were some doubting Thomases in the constituency. There were some good old Tories who were rather nervous at the sight of Mr. Bourassa in the constituency; and they began to howl, and to howl very vehemently. Mr. Gordon had to come to the rescue, and he wired: "The Liberals are blaming us"-of course he had to put it on the Liberals as usual; one would think we were reading the Journal Press-
The Liberals are blaming us for bringing the Nationalist leader here. I am willing to take full responsibility and to express my full admiration for Bourassa. I have no use for the navy and I think Reciprocity is a baneful policy. I give Monsieur Bourassa the keys of the district.
What did Mr. Bpurassa say? In a statement published a year or so ago he said:
Mr. Cochrane, usually very shy of his compliments, has since done me the honour of telling me that my arguments had made a deep impression, deeper still among English-speaking than French-speaking people.


Charles Marcil: Mr. Gordon resigned.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, he resigned, and was promoted to the Senate, if it is promotion-and one would think it was, judging from the anxiety displayed by so many members of the Tory party. Five gentlemen only have been appointed, Mr. Speaker, and I have met in the lobbies of this House some members grinding their teeth and willing to give but one chance to the master of the Administration. If they are not appointed before the adjournment to fill some of the vacancies, I verily think the Government will be defeated.


Mr. ROGERS:: My hon. friend had better give the names.


An hon. MEMBER:: You can give the names.


Robert Rogers: No, I cannot.


George Perry Graham: Do not commit yourselves.


Rodolphe Lemieux: After the elections had been won in that way, the members of the new government, of course, held divergent views on the essential issues which had been fought at the polls; and when they were sworn in, one could not help remembering the incident referred to by my classical friend, the ex-Secretary of State; one could not help remembering what Lord Melbourne once said to his colleagues: "Gentlemen, it does not matter what views we hold in the Cabinet, but, mind, we must hold the same views before the public." In the Borden Government are Royalists and Republicans. There is a combination of the Guelphs and the Ghibellines, of the Lancasters and the Ybrks, the two Roses, the Red and the White; an unholy alliance indeed. It reminded me of the very composite character of Lord Chatham's administration as described by Burke in one of his great speeches. Speaking of that administration, in which there were Whigs and Tories, " the King's Friends," as they were called, because in those days they claimed to be the King's only friends, Burke said:
He made an administration so checkered and speckled; he put together a piece of joinery, so crossly indented and whimsically dovetailed ; a cabinet so variously inlaid; such a piece of diversified mosaic; such a tesselated pavement without cement; here a bit of black stone, and there a bit of white; patriots and courtiers, King's friends and republicans; Whigs and Tories; treacherous fi lends and enemies; that it was indeed a very curious show; but utterly unsafe to touch and insecure to stand.
Mr. Speaker, that is the best description I could give-and I thank the immortal Burke for affording it to me-of the present Tory-Nationalist Government. The Tory party is not unlike the untamed horse immortalized by Byron in "Mazep-pa," the untamed horse which rushed out into the passes of the mountains, through the vales and across the fords, but could not unshackle itself because it boTe the weight of Mazeppa on its back. The present administration is saddled with the Nationalist party, and it will carry it until the day of judgment; and when that day comes, both the horse and Mazeppa will be torn into pieces. The Tory-Nationalist party at present also reminds one of the robe of Nessus. The Tories cannot tear it away without suffering excruciating pain, and the supreme pain of a Tory is the loss of office.
Some people are very much excited over the Dorchester election. I know that there

are a number of Orange representatives in this House. It is their right to belong to Orange lodges,-I myself would like to be invited to speak before an Orange audience at times. Be that as it may, I call their attention to a statement made by the Sentinel, the official organ of Orangeism in Canada. The Sentinel of January 25, 1917, contains the following, which I specially direct to the attention of my hon. friends, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers), the Minister of Customs (Mr. Reid) and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen).


George Perry Graham: The Minister of the
Canadian navy.
Mr. LEMIEUX; Yes, of the Canadian navy, and I promise that I will not speak of the obsolescence of the Canadian navy. I call their attention to this statement published by the Sentinel, and I hope that to-morrow the chain of papers from the Atlantic to the Pacific which seems to receive its inspiration from Ottawa will publish it. Would you believe it, Mr. Speaker, the Sentinel "views with satisfaction the nomination of an opponent to Mr. Sevigny in Dorchester."
Some hon. MEMBERS; Hear, hear.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Sentinel says:
If he is defeated, it will open the way for an English-speaking member of the House to become Postmaster-General. Besides, it is well to have a show-down with the Nationalists without delay. The sooner the country is made aware of the course this type of politi.ian intends to take the better it will be all round.
Let me repeat these words: "The sooner the country is made aware of the course this type of politician intends to take, the better it will be all round."


Robert Rogers: Thait refers to Cannon.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Sentinel of January 25 contains another very interesting statement, and I call upon my hon. friends who belong to Orange lodges to listen to this:
The by-election in Dorchester, Quebec, supplies an informing spectacle for the electors of Canada. The candidates are Albert Sevigny, the new Minister of Inland Revenue, and Lucien Cannon, who sat for that constituency in the Quebec Legislature. Mr. Sevigny won his seat in Dorchester in 1911 by playing the Nationalist game. His appeal to the electors of that county was upon lines dictated by Mr. Bourassa. On the present occasion he fnds it impossible to talk Nationalism because he is a member of the Borden Government, and must defend the policy of that Administration. In 1911, he was the candidate of a party

which was not in power, and played the Nationalist to get votes. The situation is different to-day. He must be more circumspect in his utterances. No doubt that is why he places a greater restraint upon himself than is found necessary by his opponent, Mr. Cannon.
Ah, Mr. Speaker, you have it all in the Orange Sentinel. They played the game in 1911, they played the Nationalist game and to-day they affect to be horrified at the idea that Mr. Albert Sevigny should be opposed by one of those disloyal Liberals in the province of Quebec.
I remember during the naval debate the speech delivered by the hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir G-eorge Poster). He heard all these quotations in the House, he listened to them and he looked somewhat despairing at times. How could he get out of it? As the Sentinel states here, it was only too true that they had played the Nationalist game in order to reach the ministerial benches. But, he took his courage in both hands and bluntly said: Yes, there was an alliance, but who won?- and he concluded by stating that the Tory party had had the better of it. I differ from the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce. Who won? Duplicity won and Canada lost. But what about the poor people of the province of Quebec who were led astray by the colleagues of my hon. friend? Their lot is a sorry one indeed and I pity the electors of Dorchester. They are traduced to-day by those very men who, five years ago, bargained in hard cash for the support of Mr. Bourassa, who, according to the Toronto News, spoke in Nipissdng like a man inspired, whose words and sentences glowed like coals of fire. This is the same Nationalist leader who, according to Sir John Willison to-day, grows contemptible as he grows in experience. Of course, Mr. Bourassa is no more in alliance with the Tory party. He is still a Nationalist, but Sir John Willison, who has been knighted by the Tory party, thinks that Mr. Bourassa grows contemptible as he grows in experience. Yet, the good honest people of Ontario are led to believe that the great realities of the war, its needs and duties, are not grasped as speedily in Quebec as they ought to be. Notwithstand-9 p.m. ing the despicable campaign of 1911, waged by these three Cabinet ministers, Quebec, I am proud to say, is honourably represented in the trenches and at the front. Let us talk sense


Robert Rogers: Hear, hear.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If my hon, friend will
explain why the National Service is oppos-
10i
ed in Winnipeg, Regina and in some other cities in the West, while the labour unionists in Montreal of FrenchJCanadiian origin are standing for it, I am sure it will be very interesting to the House. Recruiting is active in urban centres. It is not in rural centres. Where you have industrial centres you have active recruiting. The French-iCanadian is not militaristic. During the early days of British domination it is known, and you can verify it by reading any elementary history of Canada, the French Canadian farmers were disarmed. They were ordered by the authorities to give up the arms that were in their possession and for a hundred years they have enjoyed uninterrupted peace. It is not surprising that you do not find within the province of Quebec the same military spirit that you find amongst people who have come from Europe, who have been brought up in military environment. The French Canadian is above all a tiller of the soil. Remember also, that there is no immigration coming from the old country to replenish the homes o'f Quebec, whilst during the past twentydive or thirty years there has been in the English speaking provinces, and especially in Ontario and the West, a steady stream of British immigration. Therefore, it is easier, amongst the newcomers, to find recruits than it is in the rural sections of Quebec.
I have not the exact figures but I take the figures which have been given by the press. By the press here in Ottawa it was stated two or three weeks ago that according to our rosters there were something like 35,000 French Canadians at the front or who bad enlisted and were ready to go. This figure includes not only the soldiers who actually bear arms, but also those in the hospital and auxiliary services. Senator Mason last year in the Senate gave figures which established that sixty per cent of the recruits were to be found amongst the British born and that forty per cent must be divided between the foreign bom, the Anglo-Canadian bom and the French-Canadian bom. When you come to analyse these figures and to make up the averages you find, as I stated a moment ago, that the showing of the province of Quebec is quite honourable. * I regret that in the press of this province and elsewhere Quebec is being branded as a province of slackers and shirkers.
I make hold to say that with proper recruiting arrangements, and proper recruiting agents, goodly numbers of men could still be got in the province of Quebec, if the Government wish to carry out their promise

of giving to the Mother Country 500,000 men. But do not send into the province of Quebec as recruiting agents your three Cabinet ministers, who in 1911 preached the very contrary doctrine to the people of that province.


Mr. REID:: Why don't you do it?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Have I ever refused to deliver a recruiting speech in the province of Quebec? From the very day that war was declared I have been at the service of my fellowmen. Who recruited the 22nd Battalion, which fought so nobly at Cour-celette? Sir, I claim some credit for having helped to recruit that battalion. I joined my humble voice with that of the late Postmaster General and the right hon, leader of the Opposition, and in less than three months we had raised a splendid regiment. I was also elected chairman of the civilian committee that helped to raise the Asselin Regiment, and in less than three months we had raised that battalion, which, I regret to say, instead of being sent to the .front was sent to Bermuda to do the work of the negroes there. It should have been despatched at once to England, If that had been done, it would now be in the battle line. I addressed meeting after meeting, appealing for recruits. No less than three weeks ago I addressed the people of Montreal East, and urged them to sign the National Service cards. I explained to them that National Service did not mean conscription, but the mobilization of the economic wealth of the country. Sir, have I done nothing to help in recruiting? My nephew, a youth of 22, was killed at the Battle of Ypres, a cousin is serving at the front at the present time, and I have' given my only boy, 18 years old, to the service of His Majesty. That is my answer to the hon. gentleman. But I have too much respect for the decencies of public life and too much regard for the common sense of my fellow-men in the province of Quebec to parade myself with the three Nationalists who appealed to that province, not with the hope of getting recruits, but with the hope of being interrupted and. mobbed, in order to make votes in Ontario for the Tory party. What happened in Montreal the other day when the right hon, the Prime Minister went to Montreal, accompanied by my hon. friend from Oalgary (Mr. Bennett), and by the present Secretary of State (Mr. Patenaude)? I say without hesitation that the right hon. gentleman was given more than a fair hearing; he was cheered and cheered to the echo, as the leader, not of 
his party, but of the country, by the French-Canadiams who were massed in that laTge hall. The hon. member for Calgary also addressed the meeting and received a very cordial reception. But the moment the Secretary of State appeared on the platform he was hissed into silence. Why? Because the people were disgusted at the idea that a gentleman who had branded the Tory and Liberal parties as traitors in 1911, because, forsooth, they stood for King and Empire, bad the audacity to come before the people and preach the very contrary doctrine to that he preached.in 1911. What happened a few hours afterwards? The Prime Minister went to old city of Quebec accompanied by my hon. friend from Calgary and by the late Postmaster General. The Prime Minister was listened to there with careful attention, and was supported by the Prime Minister of the province of Quebec, Sir Lomer Gouin, whose son is leaving for the front in a few days. The hon. member for Calgary was given a good reception, as was also the late iPostmaster General, who, although not persona grata in the province of Quebec, was none the less respected, because the people knew that his ideas and principles of to-day were the ideas and principles which he had always cherished and expounded before them. They knew he was no traitor. Do not be mistaken; do not be led astray with the false notion that some hon. gentlemen have, that the speeches of the three Nationalist members of the Cabinet will help the cause of recruiting in the province of Quebec. The habitants have common sense and good judgment. But enough of this subject.
Let me say a word or two about the Imperial conference. I am glad that the right hon. the Prime Minister ' should have accepted the suggestion which was made by the right hon. the leader of the Opposition. We know that the right hon. gentleman will nobly represent the greatest of the overseas dominions at that important conference. I notice that his presence at that conference is made necessary, to use the language of the speech from the Throne, "for war purposes only." I am glad that the right hon. gentleman will not commit Canada to anything at the conference except what is regarded as necessary for the winning of the war. But I am rather surprised that in connection with that conference the North-cliffe press has evolved a scheme of reorgan-zing the Empire. I know there are people who are not satisfied with the present condition of the Empire. There are some

ambitious people who are uneasy at the Empire's' present position, and wish to reorganize it. It is easy to reorganize the British Empire, according to them. They take their pen and a few sheets of paper, frame a new constitution, publish books, and believe that with the dissemination of their ideas the Empire will at once be reorganized.
May I give, first of all, the sound of that alarm hell which preceded the invitation to that conference. I notice that in the month of October, Lord Northcliffe, who is so busy defeating Liberal Governments in the old country, sent out a series of cables, which hear a marked resemblance whether they are circulated in South Africa, New Zealand, Newfoundland, Australia, or Canada. One of these cables reads as follows:-
X voice the widespread feelings of the Canadians, South Africans and Australians here that it is for the dominions, with the breath of broader life, to revivify and give fresh boldness to authority. Fresh blood from Greater Britain is urgently needed in the central administration now.
The moment has come for courage, greater campaigns and real initiative. Will the dominions show the way?
About that time appeared the book of Mr. Lionel Curtis, The Problem of the Commonwealth, in which he states bluntly that the overseas dominions-

may manage their own domestic affairs, regulate their commerce, create forces by land and sea, and do anything they please short of attempting to handle for themselves the ultimate issues of national life and death. Those issues, the moment they are raised, must be left to a Government in which they have no more voice than the peoples of India, of Egypt, or of Fiji.' So far as the first, last, and greatest of all national interests are concerned, they are not self-governing dominions. They are simply dependencies, and no thinking man can face this conclusion and yet believe that communities like Canada and Australia cant long continue to accept that position.
It is strange that a very noisy minority on the other side think that we are absolutely dissatisfied in Canada, Australia and elsewhere, and that there is an urgent need of reorganizing the Empire in order to centralize the army and the navy in Downing street, and possibly to enact a hostile tariff against the world.
The Nation, a good radical review published in London, speaking about the purpose of the Imperial Conference, contains the fallowing: Of course, I would not myself offer such comments, because, forsooth, I should be considered as being very disloyal.


Mr. HAZEN:: Is the hon. member reading from the National Review?


Rodolphe Lemieux: No, from the Nation, It says:-
The immediate practical purpose of this Imperial Conference is a little harder to discern than its emotional significance. It may suggest in a subtle, non-committal way to hia new patrons that they need fear from him no inconvenient enthusiasm for any constructive idea of international peace, and it does this without wounding the feelings of the rest of the nation. But what is the immediate purpose? The immediate purpose is apparently to enlarge the war cabinet. We had been led to understand that the Empire would be imperilled, and victory jeopardized, if the War Council were to consist of more than three men -Mr. George and two others. We saw with alarm that it expanded to five. It will presently be swollen by the addition of another six or seven, who are to attend its sessions continuously' and rank with its members, apparently giving a majority to the representatives of the dominions. There will be some able figures among the colonial premiers. But with the exception of General Botha, we should doubt if any of them will bring an appreciable contribution to its military wisdom. It is doubtful whether the Borden Government stands for Canada in any other sense than as a stop-gap to the coming Liberal reaction. Mr. Hughes (if he is still Prime Minister of a Commonwealth which has rejected his policy by a mass vote) may have energy and a certain facile eloquence. But it is a strange Cabinet which admits him as an adviser on European strategy and statecraft and excludes Mr. Balfour.
I myself dare not make such comments. They are made by a good old English radical editor, and there seems to be much common sense in the lines I have just quoted.
Sir, participation in the wars of the Empire overseas must be settled by the Parliament and people of Canada as such wars arise, and not by a war council in Downing street. There are too many men anxious to rebuild the Empire. Lord Derby, possibly the best friend of the present Governor General of Canada, speaking at a farewell banquet given to the Duke of Devonshire in London, used the following language, which I commend to all the busybodies who wish to frame a new constitution for the British Empire:-
New relations may arise after the war between ourselves and the dominions, but none can be as strong as these which are binding us. now. People talk glibly of a new constitution. Well, I am a Conservative, and the old Constitution is good enough for me when it gives such results as during the present war. Anything that can bind us together more closely, let it be done, but do not let us think by making a cast iron Constitution for ourselves or the dominions we are going to increase the affection they have for us.
This is good reasoning, which I commend to the right hon. gentleman who will represent us at the next Imperial Conference.

One other word from a little book which I read a few years ago, which was published by the famous English journalist, Mr. J. A. Spender, under the very captious title, The Foundations of British Policy. He says this, which applies exactly to the present situation:-
The great thing for the moment is that the self-governing states are becoming thoroughly alive to the importance of this question, and our business is to make it easy for them to go forward. That we certainly shall not do, if we present them with the cut-and-dried logical dilemmas which are so much in favour with certain schools of strategists and Imperialists. Either, say these people, you must come under the control of the Admiralty or your navies "will be useless in time of war; either your support must be unconditional or the Imperial *Government must disregard it as a factor in its offensive scheme; either you must do more and come closer, or you may as well do nothing tor the real purposes of war. If these logical martinets had their way, there might be an Imperial fleet directed from Whitehall; but there would not long be a British Empire.
Again I commend those words of wisdom to the re-organizers of the British Empire.
In conclusion, Sir, let me say that I fully agree with the paragraph in the Address having reference to the fiftieth anniversary of our Confederation. Some years ago I moved a resolution in the old House of Commons in anticipation of that event, and I suggested that a fitting commemoration would be the holding of a universal exhibition in Canada. But war has upset, this plan, and to-day we are left with no programme for a fitting and proper commemoration of that great event. May I make the suggestion, Mr. Speaker, that no monument, no spectacular demonstration can make more for the welfare of the Dominion that the healthy movement which I am pleased to state has been inaugurated by the Fourth Estate in this country: I mean the "bonne entente" movement. Much credit is due to the British-Canadian journalist who has started the "bonne entente" movement; I refer to Mr. Arthur Hawkes, one of the editors of the Toronto Star. That movement, which has already budded into life, will, I believe, continue and will grow in proportion as the months and years roll on. There could be no better commemoration of the founding of our Confederation that this " bonne entente " movement. It should be promoted and firmly rooted in Canada. There should also be more intercourse between the east and the west. Mr. Speaker, we need no monument to celebrate this fiftieth anniversary [DOT]of the union of the Canadian provinces it we but live up to the ideals of the Fathers
.
of Confederation, which ideals have 'been revivified by the " bonne entente
Mr. Speaker, when the new Parliament Buildings shall have risen from the ashes of the old, I hope that on its portals there shall be inscribed the watchword of the Scotch Highlanders when they were fighting with the French in France against a common enemy-"bon accord." Let us fervently hope that the star of union, harmony and justice will soon rise over Canada's fair land.
Mr. JOHN H. SINCLAIR (Guysborougli): I wish to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your promotion to the Chair. It is no small honour to be the Speaker of the Canadian House of Commons. If I remember rightly, you are the first Nova Scotian who has had the v,onour of occupying that position, and we on this side of the House who have come from that province feel that we have some share in the honour that has come to you. I feel sure, Sir, that you will prove yourself to be worthy of the long line of distinguished men who have occupied that position in the past. I trust that you will have no occasion, however, during the present session of Parliament to put any of us on this side of the House in the Tower, or to use that weapon of political warfare known as the guillotine which the Government has placed in your hands.
In the Speech from the Throne reference has been made to the celebration of the national jubilee of' this Dominion. We all agree that such an important event as the completion of the first fifty years of our history is one that should not go unnoticed. I trust, however, that no gaudy or expensive display will be thought of, for such a thing would be out of keeping at the present time. All good citizens are thinking these days of how they may best play their part in the great struggle in which the nation is engaged. Permit me to suggest, Sir, that the occasion be used to call for a very large contribution-I do not know how much but would suggest fifty millions of dollars-to equip and endow a home for battered and disabled soldiers, somewhat after the plan of the Chelsea Hospital in London, which is one of the great institutions of that great city. That hospital was built some 240 years ago, and it has been one of the glories of the British Empire that they have always taken good care of the veterans who have risked their lives in the Empire's cause. There is room in that hospital for about

540 pensioners, each one of whom has his own room, which is his home. He has in that room his own furniture, books and pictures. He is at liberty to go and come when he pleases. Attendants bring him his meals, if he would rather have them in his own room than in the general dining-room. He can go away for two or three months, if he wishes, and visit his friends. This room is his home, he is entitled to occupy it for life, and he is among his old comrades. In connection with the Chelsea Hospital is a chapel in which are hung the flags that have been captured by the veterans in the various battles in which they have figured on behalf of the Empire, and trophies of war are hung around the hall. Many of these men are unfit to do any kind of work. This hospital is open only to men who have distinguished themselves in battle and who have lost their sight or limbs in defence of the Empire. One of the most interesting sights that I saw at the Coronation ceremony in 1911 was a group of old soldiers who were standing at the end of the street called Shoe Lane, waiting for the King's procession to go by. These old fellows were battered and broken; some of them had lost arms or legs and some of them were blind. Some fifteen of them were grouped at this point, ready to salute the King as he passed, and the King stopped his carriage to speak to them. I afterwards learned that they were inmates of Chelsea Hospital and that they were the sole survivors of the Light Brigade. I do not suggest that this hospital which I am advocating should be available for all wounded soldiers or that it should in any sense take the place of the pension system. The pension system would suffice for the majority of eases. Among the four hundred thousand men who have enlisted, many of whom will be wounded, there will be broken and battered men, and lonely men, who will not have any families of their own, and they will be more contented amoilg their own comrades at a place like this. Then, too, it seems to me that this would be a fitting memorial for the Canadian people to erect in memory of the war. The greatest achievement that Canada has yet won has been the part that she has taken in this war. It is more important, to my mind, to commemorate this than to commemorate the Jubilee. The very fact that in this country of free institutions we have been able to recruit between three hundred thousand and four hundred thousand men without any compulsion, is to my mind one of the triumphs of democracy; and this would be a fitting way to commemorate it. It would also be an opportunity for some of the older men among us, who are too old to fight, to contribute towards the comfort of those men who have sacrificed so much for us.
Mr. Speaker, this debate would be much more interesting to me if hon. gentlemen opposite would take a more active part in it. What is the reason that there is no response from the other side of the House? Hon. gentlemen on this side have raised some very important questions. My hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) has attacked the military record of this Government; he has raised such important questions as military promotions, whether they are made on merit or by favour. He has also raised the question of the treatment of the sick and wounded as dealt with in Dr. Bruce's report. These vital questions call for some answer from the leaders of the Government, but we have not had that response from them which we are entitled to expect. It looks to me as if when my hon. friend from Pictou spoke, all the big batteries on the other side were silenced. We have1 had some bombardment from the smaller mortars and machine guns, but we should like to hear from the big batteries, we should like to have some answer to these accusations, if there is any answer possible. It is awkward for us on this side of the House, as no man wants to be caught thrashing a dead donkey.
However, in this debate, the one overshadowing question is the war. The Empire is at war, and it is at war with the greatest military power in the world. When the Empire is at war, Canada is at war. This war has already lasted two and a half years, and the end is not yet in sight. We have three thousand miles between ourselves and the seat of the contest; the enemy has not yet knocked at our gates, but why? Because the strong arm of Great Britain and the strong arm of France are keeping him back, and because the British Navy still rules the seas. This war is not Great Britain's war any more than it is our war. This battle line, extending over these vast plains and along the river banks and the foot-hills of the/mountains for thousands of miles on the eastern and western fronts is our battle line; and the result of this conflict is just as important for Canada as it is for Great Britain, or for France, or for Belgium. It is not a question of doing our share. I have seen that suggested in cer-

so far as the large expenditures of the country were concerned.
Take the question of the Ross rifle, and you will find there a glaring case of incompetence and indecision. The * best judges were surely the men on the firing line who were using that rifle. As early as June,
1915,,	Sir John French condemned the Ross rifle for the following reasons:
(1)	That the Ross rifle could not be relied
upon to work smoothly with the ammunition then available, and	'
(2)	The want of confidence in the Ross rifle which a large number of the Canadian infantry felt was evidenced by the fact that 3,000 of them had re-armed themselves with Lee-Enfields taken from casualties.
You see, Mr. Speaker, that Canadian soldier on the battlefield had to hunt round for a dead German, or a dead Englishman, to get a rifle fit to fight with. That is how matters stood when Sir John French wrote that letter in June, 1915, You would suppose that this condition of affairs would have been corrected, that, on receiving that letter from Sir John French, some effort would have been made by the Government to see that a proper rifle was placed in the hands of the Canadian soldiers. That was not done and we have the proof that it was not done. Nearly a year after that, in May, 1916, nothing definite had been done and [DOT]Canadian soldiers were still armed with the Ross rifle. Then we have a report from Sir Douglas Haig to the War Office, in which he says:-
I have satisfied myself, after extensive inquiries carried out throughout the Canadian, corps, that as a service rifle, the Ross is less .trustworthy than the Lee-Enfield, and that the majority of the men armed with the Ross rifle have not the confidence in it that It is so essential they should possess. The inquiry upon which these conclusions are based was the outcome of an urgent application from a battalion of the 3rd Canadian Division for re-armament with the short Lee-Enfield rifle in consequence of a high percentage of jams experienced with their Ross rifles during a hostile attack on the 1st of May, 1916.
You see that nearly a year after Sir John French had laid his complaint before the Canadian Government, the soldiers were still using the Ross rifle, and that, in a hostile attack, in which they were sent into battle in May, 1916, there had been a very large percentage of jams, as reported by Sir Douglas Haig. This is a matter in connection with which delay and indecision was nothing short of a crime. It is plain from the two paragraphs I have read, the one written by Sir John French, and dated June, 1915, and the second by Sir Douglas Haig, dated May, 1916, that nothing definite was

done for nearly a year. In other words, a year after Sir John French had reported that the rifle could not be relied upon, 20,000 Canadian soldiers were sent into action armed with this unreliable rifle, and the soldiers themselves had to petition Sir Douglas Haig to make some change so that they would have a proper arm to go into battle with. This letter of Sir Douglas Haig bears date the 1st of May, 1916, and, if it was a cable message, and no doubt it was, it must have been in the hands of the Government on the 17th May, 1916, when the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) threatened to confine the editor of the Ottawa ..Citizen in the tower because he had published the Alderson letter relating to the same matter.
There is another question in regard to which indecision has been shown and that is the question of patronage which has been referred to in this debate. We do not forget that the leader of this Government pledged the party to the abolition of patronage. If, Mr. Speaker, you read the Halifax platform, as I have no doubt you often do, you will find that what I am stating is true, that we were to have no more patronage after the Conservative party attained power. There are men who occupy seats on the other side of the House who used to make stormy speeches in regard to this question. I am thinking of one especially at this moment, my hon. friend the Minister of Customs (Mr. Reid). I recollect how flushed his face was as he denounced the crime of patronage from the Opposition benches. In those days he set his face against it like flint, but since he has got into power he sets his face not like a flint but like a pudding. Nobody will deny that patronage is rampant so far as this Government is concerned. Officers of the Department of Militia and Defence were examined under oath before the Public Accounts Committee. The purchasing agent of the Depart- * ment of Militia and Defence admitted that he had 8,000 names on his patronage list. We a3ked him to bring the list to the committee room. He told us that it was a card system and that he would have to bring it in a wheelbarrow. It will not be denied by hon. gentlemen opposite that if there was such a large list as that in the War department alone, it must be still more formidable when you take into consideration all the other departments of Government. Our whole war system has developed into a huge system of outdoor

relief for the Conservative party. We have to-day a minister of t'he Crown Tunning an election in the' county of Dorchester, in the province of Quebec, and he appealed to the people there the other day on this question. He said: if you elect
10 p.m. me you will have a friend on the Government benches; if you elect Mr. Cannon, you will have a man sitting in the cold shades of opposition who cannot do anything for you; meaning that the patronage system was the avowed policy of the present administration. Vote for me and we will get something for you; we will get jobs for you; we will get military expenditure for you; whether you fight or not, you will get the money of the Canadian people because we will give it to you, if you elect me. That is the doctrine. Then, the Prime Minister responds by sending this gentleman a telegram congratulating him on the campaign he is conducting. He made no reference to his speech on patronage, but his speech on patronage was a very material part of his campaign and the Prime Minister ought to have made reference to it and condemned it. There is not much leadership about that. You must admit after all is said and done, that this country belongs to the people and not to the Conservative party.
But, this lack of decision on the part of the Prime Minister and the leaders of the Government is not confined to military operations. You can go over the whole history of the present Administration and you will see signs of inaction and half measures. Take the high cost of living; instead of doing something definite about the high cost of living which is oppressing the workingman all over this Dominion the Government adopted the usual subterfuge of appointing a royal commission. This royal commission sat for about a year and then produced a report that did not contain one practical suggestion. There has been nothing done' with it. The evidence upon which the report is based is so voluminous that no man has ever had time to rea,d it, and the commission having got through with it the Government seems to have lost interest in the whole matter. It reminds one of Dickens' story about the celebrated Micawber who, when he was pressed for a debt that he could not pay, and when it came to the point at last that he was about to be sued, gave a promissory note and said: Thank God that is paid:
Take another instance. When the railway situation became acute about four years ago, instead of outlining a vigorous railway policy for Canada, the Government as usual allowed the matter to drift. But in the meantime the Government was pressed by the railways for money. If I remember rightly, in the year 1914, $15,000,000 was paid out, in 1915 $45,000,000, and in 1916 $10,000,000. In those three years $70,000,000 in all went into the sinkhole of the Canadian Northern, and after that money was all gone the Government resorted to its usual method of appointing a royal commission to find out what they should do next. The royal commission has not yet reported, and the Lord knows what kind of -a report they will give and whether the Government will follow their advice when they get the report. Now, every toon- member of the House knows very well that the railway situation is not a question for a Royal Commission to solve- What is wanted is some kind of a railway policy, and the decision and the courage to carry it out.
Then take the question of the commandeering of Canadian ships. Here was another case of indeqjsion. When the war broke out this Government should have acted promptly in regard to that matter. They did nothing. The Imperial Government began to commandeer Canadan ships without reference to the Canadian Government. They did not ask their advice at all. I believe that ,after the ships were all commandeered the Canadian Government did pass some kind of an Order in Council authorizing themselves to commandeer Canadian ships. I do not say that Canadian ships should not be commandeered. I do not say that Canadian ships should not be used by the War Department for any necessary purposes in connection with the war- Canadian ships should be used as well as British ships, ana I am sure every Canadian ship-owner would be willing to give his last ship for the purpose of carrying on the war. But the commandeering of our ships should have been done by the Canadian Government and not by the British Government. Then the ships could be turned over as required. This is a free country; we have a Government of our own, and we manage our own affairs. The Imperial Government has no more right to commandeer ships than they had the right to commandeer Canadian men or Canadian money, and they would not have done it if our Government had looked after Canadian interests as they should have done. That

is another ease in which the Government showed its characteristic indecision.
There are numerous other instances of the same kind. I could name one in connection with the naval controversy. You will recollect, Sir, the indecision that was shown by the Government in that matter. You will remember that the question of the repeal of the Naval Service Act hung fire for a great many months; that certain gentlemen elected on that issue in the province of Quebec insisted on an answer in the House; that day after day the question was read by Mr- Speaker, " Do you intend to repeal the Canadian Naval Service Act?" That question stood on the Order Paper for months. The answer finally was given, " Yes, we intend to repeal the Act." But they never did repeal it. Again the Prime Minister himself, when he returned from England in 1912, at a large public meeting in the city of Montreal, propounded a naval policy for his party. My policy, he says, is to ask Parliament to vote $35,000,000 to build three dreadnoughts for the Admiralty, and if Parliament refuses to vote the money I shall appeal to the people. The Prime Minister carried out the first part of his programme and asked Parliament to vote the money. Parliament refused to vote it, and the Prime Minister could never make up his mind to make his appeal to the people of Canada. It was another case of indecision.
I have given a large number of these cases to show that hon. gentlemen opposite are past masters in the art of marking time. I do not know whether anything can be done to rouse them. If I might be permitted to use the elegant language of my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Militia, I would say: "The time has come when this Government should begin to scratch gravel."
I wish to refer for a few moments to another matter. Since we last met the long-looked-for report of Sir Charles Davidson has been made public. Now, Sir, if royal commissions are to be used for the purpose of delaying exposure, the first prize must certainly be given to Sir Charles Davidson. After two years he has brought down his report, and the report, now that it is brought down, turns out to be chiefly white-wash. Permit me to select one case as a sample. I refer to the case of the sale to Col. J. Wesley Allison of 3,000,000 rounds of small-arms ammunition. It will be remembered that the auditor general brought this scandal to the attention of the

House and the country. When the war broke out, the Government had in the arsenal at Quebec 3,000,000 rounds of small arms ammunition. They kept it there for several months, and then sold it privately to Col. J. Wesley Allison for $20 per 1,000 rounds. The ammunition had cost $34 per
1,000	rounds to make. When this transaction was exposed in the House it was defended by the ex-Minister of Militia, supported by the Prime Minister, on the ground that it was sold to Vickers Limited for the purpose of testing guns. We accepted that explanation at the time, but that explanation had to be abandoned when Vickers Limited denied ever having anything to do with the purchase of the ammunition. After considerable investigation the truth came out that the ammunition was sold, not to Vickers Limited at all, but with the assistance of Sir Trevor Dawson, one of the directors of Vickers Limited, it was sold direct to the British Admiralty for $25 per 1,000 rounds, giving a profit of $15,000 to Col. Allison out of the transaction. Judge Davidson cannot discover anything corrupt or anything wrong in this transaction. There is one phase of it, however, to which he does not refer at all, but which I think is the main question in regard to it, and that is this. In the early period of the war, when, as I have stated, this small arms ammunition was lying idle in the arsenal at Quebec, ammunition was more valuable to the British Government than gold dollars. It was scarce and could not be procured. Hon. gentlemen will remember the battle of Mons, when General French, with his little army of 75,000 men and 250 guns, was forced to retreat until the Germans were almost knocking at the gates of Paris before they were turned back. Machine guns were scarce and ammunition was scarcer; everybody knew that. This was the case, and of course every member of the present Administration knew it. Yet all that time, while British soldiers were being shot in their tracks for lack of ammunition, our Government had 3,000,000 rounds of small-arm am-muniton packed away in the arsenal at Quebec and never offered to make use of it.
What would you expect the Government to do, Mr. Speaker? If you had been Minister of Militia, I know what you would have done. The first thing you would have done would be to send a cable message across the ocean to the Admiralty, saying: We have here in Canada three million rounds of ammunition; can you make use of it? If you can

you are welcome to it for nothing. That would be the kind of message you would send. No such a message was ever sent, but instead of that the ammunition was kept in the arsenal at Quebec for several months, badly as it was wanted on the other side, and then it was sold privately to a friend of the ex-minister for the sum of $20 a thousand rounds. What excuse was given? One was that the ammunition was defective. Was the ammunition defective? I doubt it. There is evidence the other way. It turns out that the ammunition was used by the army, and so far as I can learn, it was good ammunition; but I do not care whether it was defective or not, the skirts of the Government cannot be cleared in that way. If the ammunition was defective, then it should not have been sold at all, because it would be a crime to put defective ammunition into the hands of any one from whom it would find its way into the hands of the British soldiers. If the ammunition was not defective it should have been sent direct to the British Admiralty without the intervention of Allison or any other boodler.
The question of the extension of Parliament has been referred to in the speech from the Throne. It is not necessary for me at this stage to deal with that question at any length, but an extension ought to be preceded by an accounting on the part of the Government. At the last session Parliament voted $270,000,000 of expenditures. Would it not be reasonable that the Government should tell us something o.f what they did with all that money before they ask for a second lease of power? I confess that I do not like the manner in which the application for this extension was announced, by the present Minister of Militia (Mr. Kemp). The decision appears to have been reached at a meeting of the Cabinet some weeks ago, and the present Minister of Militia, when he had the Cabinet committed to apply for another year, immediately gave the announcement to the Toronto newspapers, and in the announcement he said that if the Liberal party did not agree unanimously to the proposal there would be an election. As we have been living under the threat of an election for a good while, of course, that did not affect us very much. The example of Great Britain has been referred to, and it was alleged that extensions of Parliament have been made there, but the example of Great Britain cannot be quoted as justification in this case. If any one will look into what has happened in Great Britain he will see that they have had a coalition Government, all parties being represented in that
Government. If any one political party in Great Britain had attempted to run the Government of that country on party or patronage lines, as the Canadian Government has been doing here, that political party would not have lasted for three months.
Again, the Government say that it is a patriotic duty on our part to agree to this extension. The question is: Are they sincere about this? To me it looks a little like an invitation to walk into their parlour. What is the Minister of Inland Revenue saying about this? He made some reference to it the other day in one of his speeches in Dorchester county. He said that when we agreed to this extension last year, we all stultified ourselves. That is the view he takes of that matter. Let me quote a paragraph from the speech of Mr. Sevigny, delivered at St. Justin:-
Mr. Cannon pretends that the Conservatives are corrupt, Mr. Sevigny went on, but what happened at the last session? The Conservatives asked the Liberals if they would allow them to go on for another year, and the Liberals said 'All right, go ahead, we have no objection,' and that is the corrupt Government of which Mr Cannon speaks.
All I can say is that if by agreeing to this proposed extension I am to become responsible for the Yoakum scandal, the Allison scandal, the motor truck scandal, the Garland scandal and the Foster scandal and all the other numerous scandals, then I shall be compelled to vote against the extension. I do not see why we should ignore the Constitution altogether unless some arrangement is made by which all parties can be represented. The electors of Canada, if permitted, would settle this question in twenty-four hours; an election would clear the atmosphere, and if the Liberals should win, as I think they would, it would bring about certain very important things. This Government had its human weaknesses before the war started at all, and we all know that no saints or archangels have been added to it since that date. Those people who object so strongly to an election ought to be reminded that it is for free institutions that the people of Canada and the people of Great Britain are fighting. A certain Conservative newspaper and two or three windy orators of the baser type have been saying that' it would not be safe to entrust the administration of this country to the Liberal party, but I do not pay much attention to what men of that stamp say. They are the pole-cats of public life,

and I hope that their influence, if they have any, will not be felt outside of a few back concessions in the province of Ontario.
While I believe in a change, I do not say that these gentlemen across the way are all bad. There is a mixture of bad and good, but I am afraid that the bad predominates. The activities of the patronage hunter, the greed of the grafter, the zeal of the political heeler and the hopes of the Godly, are all so inextricably tangled up together, and it is pretty hard to do anything with a combination like that. While these gentlemen retain power they do pretty much as they please, as they are not subject to any law but themselves, but it is our duty on this side of the House to remind them that the ten commandments are still in force in this country.
Now, assuming that an election comes, and the Liberal party wins, it would accomplish several things:
1.	It would give to the country a vigorous government fresh from the people with a mandate to carry on the war, not in a half-hearted way as at present, but with the whole might of the nation enlisted in the task.
2.	It would give us a trade policy that would make for expansion and development and would place the country in a position to grapple with the conditions that are certain to arise after the war.
3.	It would bring the Liberal policy of British Preference again to the front and free Canada from the reproach of having increased the taxation against British goods at a time when the old land was engaged in a life and death struggle with the greatest military power in the world.
4.	It would give Canada a naval policy that would at lea.,t restore her self-respect and place us in the saim class on the sea as the Commonwealth of Australia.
5.	In short, it would give us clean, honest and progressive government, and cut * the claws of the grafter.
Mr. Speaker, when one looks over the political history of 1916 one is not surprised that hon. gentlemen opposite prefer an extension to an election. Look, for example, at the defeats suffered by the Conservative party in the provincial arena during the past year. There have been four provincial general elections. In Nova Scotia 30 Liberals and 13 Conservatives were elected; in Quebec, 73 Liberals and 6 Conservatives; in Manitoba, 44 Liberals and 4 Conservatives, and in British Columbia 32 Liberals and 10 Conservatives. The Conservative

press takes the ground that a general election would be a calamity. Perhaps it would be a calamity to them, but I submit it would be the dawn of a new day to the people of Canada.
I should like to point out that the defeat of the Liberal party in 1911 was brought about by means that cannot be repeated in 1917. What hon. gentleman opposite is shouting to-day: "No truck or trade with the Yankees?" We do not hear a word of that to-day. Who over there is demanding the repeal of the Ne Temere Act? Even the hon. member for West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) is quiet at the present time. Who is claiming to win ten seats, or even one seat, in the province of Ontario on the issue of the Farmers* Bank? You never hear of it. Who is boring holes in the flag or cursing Laurier because he is an English imperialist? Who is pledging himself to-repeal the Naval Service Act, or promising free medicine for the fishermen of the Maritime Provinces? Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of pride to us on this side of the House that while those bogus issues that won seats for the Tory party in 1911 have all gone to the limbo where they belong, the-two .great issues on which the Liberal party stood in 1911 are as good to-day as they were then. I refer, Sir, to the Canadian navy and to reciprocity with the United States. That is the reason why we on this side of the House are willing to carry on and to strive for the ideals of our party. We are proud of the Liberal party, proud of our leader, proud of the past history of that party and of those watchwords of duty, freedom and manly effort that have made it great in the past and will alone keep it great in the future.
Mr. ARHTUR B. COPP (Westmorland): Mr. Speaker, I wish to address myself to the House for a short time, and as it is now late in the evening and it is not my desire to keep the House too late, I move the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Regers, the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.
Friday, January 26, 1917.