1917-06-29

LIBEARY OF PARLIAMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that he had directed the Clerk of the House to lay upon the Table the report of the Librarian of Parliament and his recommendation in the matter of the appointment of Joseph Ludger Parr as clerk in the Library of Parliament.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. J. ROCHE (Minister of the Interior) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 107, to amend the Dominion Lands Act.
Mr. GRAHAM:: Explain.


Mr. ROCHE:: This Bill contains several minor amendments the purpose of which is to make our legislation harmonize with practices that have grown up in the department as a result of the war. There are, however, two or three amendments of greater importance. One is to accomplish the object intended to be accomplished by the amendment introduced by the member for Saskatoon (Mr. McCraney), but ruled out by the Speaker. The purpose of that amendment is, in the case of persons who are the owners of purchased homesteads or of pre-emptions, and who have performed all the necessary duties except that of making payment for the land, to enable a certificate of recommendation to issue, which shall be valid for twelve months. During that period the persons who have so purchased homesteads or pre-emptions will have the privilege of raising a loan upon the land in order to pay the Government price of the land.
Another amendment applies to abandoned homesteads upon which liens have been given in respect of seed grain or relief. Ordinarily, those who desire to secure abandoned homesteads may do so under the ordinary homestead conditions, but in order to protect the public from loss of money that had been advanced to the original entrant, whoever secures abandoned lands is required to pay off the seed grain lien. This applies to the securing of lands either by entry or by purchase. There are two or three other amendments of a minor character.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
On the motion being called:
Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: That on and from Tuesday the 3rd of July, and until th$ end of the session, the House shall meet each sitting day at 11 o'clock in the morning, and that in addition to the usual intermission at 6 o'clock, p.m., there shall he an intermission from one to three o'clock, p.m.


Robert Laird Borden: I had a conference with my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) about this motion. He represents to me that it would be better to sit later at night than to have morning sittings, particularly in view of the proba

 bility of their being hot weather during the coming month. He has also informed me that so far as he is aware the debate upon the second reading of the Military Service
Bill will probably be concluded within two days-although, of course, it is difficult to fix an exact limit. In view of these considerations, I am content to let the motion stand. Perhaps I might venture to express the hope that in speaking upon the Bill hon. gentlemen will be as concise as may be consistent with their purpose of making their attitude absolutely plain to the House and to the country. If that can be done, the length of the debate may be curtailed without any disadvantage to the gentlemen who speak upon it, and with some advantage to the public interest by reason . of our being enabled to conclude the business of the session at a somewhat earlier date than would otherwise be possible.
Motion stands.



MARBLE FOR PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. F. KAY (Missisquoi):: I wish to make an inquiry based on an article in the Canadian Mining Journal. I will read it:
It is said that the marble for the new Houses of Parliament at Ottawa is to be purchased in the United States. The estimates call for marble to the value of $200,000. As there are in Ontario and Quebec deposits of suitable stone, it is strange that Canadian quarries are not to supply the marble needed for the Canadian public buildings. Does the fault lie with the Government, or the owners of the quarries?
I should like to ask whether there is any truth in that report.


Hon. ROBERT ROGERS:: I am not aware that there is any truth in it. The committee in charge of the construction of the Parliament building are taking care to have purchased in Canada, as far as it is possible to do so, everything suitable for use in the construction of that building. I have not the exact facts in my mind, but I shall be glad to look them up, because I think that the statement quoted by my hon. friend is entirely incorrect.



MILITARY SERVICE ACT, 1917.


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden (Prime Minister) for the second reading of Bill No. 75, Military Service Act, 1917, and the amendment of Sir Wilfrid Laurier thereto, and on the amendment to the amendment by Mr. Barrette, resumed from Thursday, June 28.
Mr. G. H. BOIVIN (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, since your appointment to the

honourable position which you now hold, I have not taken up too much of the time of this House in discussing the different measures, some very good, others not so good, submitted by this Government for the successful prosecution of the great war in which Canada is engaged as part of the British Empire-a war, Sir, which every member of this House desires to see brought to a speedy and successful conclusion, not only for the honour and glory of our King, our country and our flag, but for the peace, liberty and civilization of the entire world.
The measure which now confronts us is so important, involving as it does the liberty of the subject, that I cannot vote thereon without explaining to this House and to this country, for the benefit at least of the electors whom I once represented here, the reasons why I intend to vote against the sub-amendment of the hon. member for Berthier (Mr. Barrette), if it is declared to be in order, for the amendment submitted by my right hon. leader, and if that amendment is defeated, then against the second and subsequent readings of the Military Service Bill.
Referring to the electors of Shefford county, I used the expression: "The electors whom I once represented here," because, Sir, when a majority of them gave me their votes and their confidence on September 21, 1911, they elected me as their representative for a term of five years-no more-and I feel that since the month bf September, 1916, when another general election should have been held, I have no longer the same right and the same authority to express their views and voice their sentiments and opinions. I may be asked why I tacitly consented to a renewal of my mandate by an amendment to the Canadian constitution made by the Imperial Parliament at the unanimous request of both Houses of the Parliament of Canada. If so, I will promptly answer that when the petition asking for an extension of the present Parliament was unanimously approved by both parties in this House, I, like many other hon. members on this side, was under the impression that the war policy of the Government had been clearly defined and would be faithfully carried out. Its policy, as I then understood it, was to send to the trenches in France and Belgium, every Canadian citizen who had the courage and patriotism to enlist, to see that he was supplied with the best arms, ammunition and clothing that "science could devise or money could buy," to see that his dependents did not suffer at home during his absence, nor after his glorious death

and that in case of his being returned, maimed, wounded and disabled, to surround him with all the care, attention and assistance that he so righteously deserved. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Burrell) had preached production and more production; the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) had counselled economy and more economy, and the Prime Minister had placed the natural resources of Canada at the disposal pi the Mother Country, in order to insure the soldiers of England as well as those of Canada and their dependents, against famine and .starvation, while they were risking their lives for the common cause. It is true that the Prime Minister had, a few days before the opening of the last session, without any authorization from Parliament or the country at large, promised that our contribution would attain the figure of 500,000 men. It was a New Year's gift from the Prime Minister to England, which was later ratified by an Order in Council, and subsequently called a pledge, although the Prime Minister himself admits that it should not be so considered. But pledge or unauthorized gift-call it what you like-that contribution was to be voluntary. This is proven by the statement made by the right hon. gentleman which, although already quoted during the course of this debate, I must repeat. Sir Robert Borden on January 17, 1916, said:
My right hon. friend has alluded to conscription-to the idea in this country or elsewhere-[DOT] that there may fbe conscription in Canada. In speaking in the first two or three months of this war I made it clear to the people of Canada that we did not propose conscription. I repeat that announcement to-day with emphasis.
Later on during the same session, when proposing the adoption of the petition to the Imperial Parliament, asking for an extension of the life of this Parliament, Sir Robert Borden on February 8, 1916, said:
On the outbreak of war, the Government of Canada pledged the assistance of the Dominion to the Empire, and when the subject of war was brought before Parliament in the August session of 1914, the Government presented proposals regarding assistance to the Empire in the war upon a larger scale than had ever before been proposed or undertaken. It might have been urged by persons who are specially influenced by constitutional usage that a mandate from the electorate should have been then sought for that reason.
The Government considered that public opinion was practically unanimous in supporting the course which the Government proposed.
Canada was thereby pledged by the then legally elected representatives of her people, without a dissenting voice, to the voluntary contribution of all that she could give

and all that she cpuld do, to avenge Belgium, punish Germany, for her disregard of treaty rights, and assure the continuance of that democracy, liberty, and freedom of which we always have been, yes, of which I hope we may always be so proud. We were to have no conscription, our contribution was to be voluntary, and our duty as members of Parliament resolved itself into carrying out the pledges made when we had a right to make them. We did not know, we could not believe, in spite of the then current rumours to this effect, that there would be troubles and disagreements in the Cabinet itself, and that politics, patronage and graft would continue to exist in the party opposite as has been clearly proven on many occasions since that date. We consented to an extension of our mandates to save the turmoil of a general election and to demonstrate to the world, what the people of Canada already knew, that unlike its opponents, the Liberal party was more concerned about winning the war than in attaining office and dispensing party favours to party friends. I have been told by speakers who favour this Bill, that, because conscription has been adopted in France, in England and in the United States, conscription must be adopted here. I will refer to England later on in my address and show that conscription has not been so popular nor so successful there as was originally hoped for. I remember the words of the hon. member for Humboldt ('Mr. Neely) yesterday, when he heaped praise upon the United States for their entry .into this world-war, and for the immediate adoption of conscription in that country. With him and with those who applauded those words, I heartily agree.
It was a great date in the history of humanity when the United States entered this war. Despite the Monroe doctrine, despite German immigration, despite the ties of all kinds binding the two countries, the aggressive policy of Germany forced into the war the nation which was most firmly resolved to remain at peace. President Wilson conducted his policy from the first, like the great man of law that he is. His impassibility and his refusal to pass judgment sometimes surprised us, but his attitude from the very first gave his final decision the force of a verdict, the verdict of the conscience of humanity before the tribunal of history. But although the moral influence of the United States will be great, her material assistance counted in men-conscription and all-is	for the present limited to
less than one million-proportionately the same number sent by Canada during the first few months of the war. France has given, and is giving, the last drop of her blood. All honour to her for it.
But, Sir, even if because conscription was adopted in those countries, is that a reason for us to impose it upon the Canadian people? In which of those countries did the leader of the Government tell the people until the very last minute that conscription would not be necessary, and then impose it upon them witnout preparation and without education, like a cloud-burst from a clear blue sky. I blame this Government for having misled the people. If that is too strong a term, then, for having failed to inform them in advance of the gravity and dire necessities of the situation which confronts us. Is it any wonder that this Bill is not accepted with enthusiasm by all the people? Is it any wondeT that hundreds of petitions bearing thousands of signatures from all parts of Canada, have been laid upon the table of this House, protesting against conscription and asking this Government to consult the people by means of a referendum before adopting this measure?
What mandate have I, what mandate have any of us, to do more than carry out the pledges made by this Government when, in the words of the Prime Minister himself, it had the people of Canada solidly behind it? Can it claim that solidarity now? Who can tell me that I would today be the member for Shefford, if an election had been held in 1916? Who can say that the Prime Minister would be the representative of Halifax city, much less, that he would continue to hold his present position, if he had sought re-election as required by the unamended law in 1916? And if we had been so re-elected and returned upon the pledge then given of "No conscription in Canada," what authority would we now have to force our electors to become soldiers against their will? I will not pretend that this is an illegal Parliament. I do not say that our mandate could not legally be extended by the Imperial Parliament, but I do say that we should adopt no new policy and introduce no new measure of such vital importance without consulting the people. Besides, this Parliament is- not complete. There are twenty-three vacant seats to be found here and those twenty-three votes which cannot be given, the eloquence and sound reason of those twenty-three unknown men who cannot be heard upon the merits of this

measure, might possibly make a material and permanent difference in the result of the votes upon the Military Service Act.
Who will speak for the electors of An-tigonish, whose member resigned on the 30th May, 1916? Who will speak for the electors of Bellechasse, whose member resigned on the 12th of May, 1916? For the electors of Brandon, whose member resigned on the 16th of July, 1915? For the electors of Brome, whose member, the late George H. Baker, was killed at Ypres on the 3rd June, 1916? For the electors of Carleton, Ontario, whose member resigned on the 28th June, 1916? For the electors of Grey East, whose member was appointed to the Senate on the 3rd of December last? For the electors of Hamilton East, whose member died on the 20th of June? For the electors of Kings and Albert whose member has recently been appointed to the Senate? For the electors of Kings, Nova Scotia, whose member resigned on the 24th of April, 1915? For the electors of Lincoln, whose member, the late Mr. Lancaster, died on the 4th of January, 1916? For the electors of Lisgar, whose member resigned on the 16th of July, 1915? For the electors of London, whose member died on the 12th December, 1916? For the electors of Mont-magny, whose member resigned on the 6th of June, 1916? For the electors of Montmorency whose member also sits for Charlevoix? For the electors of Nicolet, whose member, Mr. Lamarche, resigned on the 21st of September, 1916? For the electors of Prince, P.E.I., whose member died on the 9th of March, 1915? For the electors of Quebec County, whose member died on the 29th December, 1916? For the electors of Regina, whose member resigned on the 20th of October. 1916? For the electors of Resti-gouche, whose member died on the 17th of November, 1915? For the electors of Sou-langes, whose member also sits for Quebec East? For the electors of Yarmouth, whose member died in the memorable Parliament Buildings fire on the 3rd of February, 1916? For the electors of Stanstead, whose member died on the 17th of October, 1916? And last, but not least, who will speak for the electors of Terrebonne, whose member, Mr. Gedeon Rochon, died on the 11th of February, 1917, and to whom, in the absence of the Prime Minister, not even a passing reference was made in this House by the leaders whom he had served so faithfully and so well.
If I had authority to speak for the electors of Shefford and bind them by my vote in this House; if I was to vote upon this

measure according to the wishes of the majority of those electors I could do nothing else than vote as I have already s'tatedT I do not pretend for a. moment that they are all opposed to conscription; far from it. Three-quarters of the population and two-thirds of the electors are French Canadians. One-quarter of the population and one-third of the voters are English-speaking Canadians. Most all of the former and a large number of the latter are opposed to conscription and have frankly told me so. The majority of the English-speaking electors are in favour of conscription. They favour compulsory military service. Many leading citizens of my county and city, high up in the financial and business life of our Dominion. have not waited for conscription to give their lives, their brothers and their sons to our sacred cause. I cannot believe, Mr. Speaker, that after making such a sacrifice for British freedom and British democracy, they can to-day advocate that popular sovereignty be trampled under foot by a Parliament without a mandate from the people which it pretends to represent. They are in favour of conscription though their neighbours be against it. They believe that the majority of Canadians are in favour of compulsory military service, but whether this be so or not, they are willing that the people of Canada should be consulted, and they are prepared, believing, as they do, in government of the people by the people, to abide by the result of that referendum, whatever it may be. Is that not the spirit which should animate every true Canadian? Is not that the stand which should be taken by ail those who, like my right hon. leader, desire that inter-racial and initer-provincial strife shall forever cease, and that upon the golden wedding anniversary of Confederation, peace, harmony and happiness shall prevail in every corner of our great Dominion? The French-Canadians are a small minority in this country. They are willing that in every matter where their rights and privileges are not concerned the will of the majority should prevail. This measure relates to militia and defence; it is a Federal matter, and all they ask is that the people of Canada be consulted. Not the people of Quebec, but the people of all Canada. They are ready and willing to submit to the will of the majority. Do they ask too much?
The majority of my electors desire a referendum, and if that referendum is refused they ask me to vote against the Bill. On the 2ftth of June I handed to the Clerk of this House a petition which bears 1,439 signatures, among which are to be found

those of several of the aldermen of the city of Granby, the mayor of that city, the pastor and curates of the Catholic parish .of the same name, and hundreds of our leading citizens, including that of a proud father of two sons, one of whom has been wounded and the other killed somewhere in France. The petition is as follows:
To The Honourable The House of Commons,
In Parliament Assembled.
The Petition of the undersigned inhabitants of the City and Township of Granby, in the County of Shefford, in the Province of Quebec Respectfully represents
1.	That on the 17th day of January, 1916, the right Honourable Sir Robert Borden, Prime Minister of Canada, speaking in the House of Commons, said: "I made it clear to the people of Canada that we did not propose any conscription. I repeat that announcement to-day with emphasis
2.	That on the same date, the Right Honourable Sir Wilfrid Laurier, speaking in the House of Commons, said : "There is to be no conscription in Canada
3.	That it was only after these statements had been made that the life of the present Parliament was extended by the Imperial Parliament;
4.	That when the people of Canada through their representatives asked for the extension of the present Parliament, it was with the distinct understanding clearly stated by the leaders of both parties that there would be no conscription in this Dominion;
5.	That on the 18th day of May, 1917, the Right Honourable Sir Robert Borden, Prime Minister, announced that he would introduce a measure into the House of Commons providing for compulsory military service in Canada;
6.	That the present Parliament whose life was extended upon the express understanding that there would be no conscription, has no mandate to enact any law or resolution providing for conscription for overseas service;
Wherefore Your Petitioners pray that Your Honourable Body do not pass any Bill or Act imposing compulsory military service upon the people of Canada until the mandate of Your Honourable House has been renewed by means of a general election and until the people of Canada have been consulted by means of a referendum ;
And, Your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
Granby, Que., June 3, 1917.
Copies of resolutions from four municipal councils in my county contain the same request. I am sure that the House will bear with me, while I read them in the exact words in which they were received:
Province of Quebec,
Municipality of Roxton Township.
At a special meeting of the municipal council of Roxton Township, in the county of Shefford, held in the Secretary Treasurer's office, in the village of Roxton Falls, Saturday, the 26th day of May, one thousand nine hundred and seventeen, at the ordinary hour of the sitting of said council, at which meeting were present councillors Hyacinthe Dupuy, Wilfrid Boileau, Alfred Brisebois, Edward CotS and Didace Bedard, all the councillors forming a quorum of the members of said council, with Mr. Damase Briu, the mayor, as chairman.
The Secretary-Treasurer was also present.
Councillor Charles Brisebois is absent, but he was duly notified.
""Whereas it is understood that the Prime Minister of Canada, the Hon. R. L. Borden, is introducing a Bill, with a view to provide for conscription in the Dominion of Canada.
Moved by Councillor Hyacinthe Dupuy, seconded by Councillor Wilfrid Boileau,
That Mr. Georges Boivin, member for the county of Shefford in the House of Commons, be asked to give his vote against this law and that he demand by speech in Parliament that, before such measure be adopted, the people of the Dominion of Canada be called upon to express their views concerning it by means of general elections and that copy of the present resolution be addressed to the said Georges Boivin and to La Presse.
Unanimously adopted.
('Signed) Damase Briu, Mayor.
E. Dalp6, Sec.-Treas.
True copy.
(Signed) E. DalpS, Sec.-Treas. Province of Quebec,
Municipality of Roxton Falls Township.
At a monthly and regular meeting of the council of Roxton Falls Village, held Monday, the 7th day of May, one thousand nine hundred and seventeen, at the ordinary place and hour of the sittings of the council, in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code of the Province of Quebec; at which meeting thus adjourned were present:	Mr. F. X. Racine,
Mayor; Councillors J. B. LavallSe, P. D. Mc-Grail, L. Beauregard, A. Racine, W. Despart, J. Bouchard, forming a quorum, with His Honour the Mayor as Chairman.
It is enacted by resolution of the council as follows:
Whereas the Prime Minister of Canada, the Hon. R. L. Borden, is introducing a bill which provides for conscription in the Dominion of Canada, it is moved by Councillor W. Despart, seconded by Councillor J. B. Lavall6e, that Mr. Geo. H. Boivin, member for the county of Shefford in the House of Commons, be asked to vote against this law and that he demand by speech in Parliament that, before such measure be adopted, the people of the Dominion of Canada be called upon to express their views upon this question by means of a plebiscite, and that copies of the present resolution be addressed to the said Geo. H. Boivin and to the press.
Unanimously adopted.
True copy.
(Signed) L. Tranchemontagne,
Sec.-Treas.
Province of Quebec,
Municipality of the Parish of Ste. Anne de Stukely.
At a regular meeting of the council of the parish of Ste. Anne de Stukely, held Monday, the 7th day of May, one thousand nine hundred and seventeen and adjourned until the 4th day of June, at the ordinary place and hour of the sittings of the council, at which session, so adjourned, were present: Mr. Achille Lagrandeur, Mayor, Councillors UldSric Brien, F61ix Ther-

that Canada requires her men for her farms and factories. They are opposed to conscription because of the almost frantic appeals made by, the Department of Agriculture for more production and greater production. They are opposed to conscription because they are aware of the fact that farm labourers for western Canada are advertised for in the American press and that they are promised immunity from compulsory service.
They are opposed to conscription because they have been told that there will be less wheat harvested in Canada this year than last year, and that there are this year less acres of wheat land under cultivation.
They are opposed to conscription because they consider it will be a great deterrent to European immigration after the war has been concluded and peace restored.
They are opposed to conscription because they are convinced that, with national service properly organized, the few thousand young men now found idle upon the streets of our cities could do better work and more effective work upon the farm than in the trenches.
They are opposed to conscription because they consider that Great Britain, with her small territory and large population, needs food supplies worse than men.
They are opposed to conscription because they have read of the German submarine campaign and the ravages it has caused in the merchant shipping of the Empire. They believe that more boats, both large and small, should be speedily built, and that our surplus men should be employed in building them.
They are opposed to conscription because it will, by placing conscripts and volunteers together, diminish the glory of our gallant boys now at the front.
They are opposed to conscription because they consider that Canada's contribution of 420,000 men should be proportionately equalled by the other allied nations and sister dominions before Canada is asked to do more.
They are opposed to conscription because they lack confidence in the present Government, and have their doubts about the fair and impartial operation of the selective system.
They are opposed to this measure because the age limit is even greater than the age limit in the conscription law of England, because married men with large families of children are placed in the same class and will be called at the same time as
[Mr. Boivin.l
married men without children, and because the system of appeals for the privilege of exemption, from one tribunal to another, no matter how fair these tribunals may be, will favour the rich and prove a hardship to the poor.
They are opposed to conscription because they consider this war to be a war of attrition and their own country in no immediate danger of attack.
They are opposed to conscription as it is now proposed, because the present Bill conscripts man-power alone and leaves wealth and riches untouched.
They are opposed to conscription because Nationalist eloquence, paid for by Conservative gold, has argued that Canada owed nothing to England.
They are opposed to conscription because their boys who volunteered were not left under the command of the officers in whom they had confidence and to whom they had been confided by their fathers and mothers, but were sent to other regiments and their officers returned home.
They are opposed to conscription because the only member from my province who holds a mandate direct from the people, the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue, obtained that mandate under false pretences by assuring the electors of Dorchester that there would be no compulsory military service in Canada.
They are opposed to conscription because they love their province and their homes, and do not care to follow the advice of the Postmaster General and avoid service by crossing an unguarded boundary line of 4,000 miles between Canada and the United States.
They are opposed to conscription because selective conscription has not been a success in England, as evidenced by the following article entitled "The Great War," by Brigadier-General F. Z. Stone, in the Saturday Review, May 12, 1917 :
"What are we doing- to give them the men? Some of the tribunals have gone on strike, because th<y object to the revision of their findings by the appeal courts; friction is in many cases becoming increasingly evident between the military representation and the civil members of the local tribunals, Brig. Gen. E. A. Grove stated in a letter read at the sitting of the Chesham (Bucks) tribunal that there were 50,000 exemptions current in his district, most of which were unconditional without any time limit. He also stated that since January 1st 40,831 applications had been made for exemption, and three out of four men had been exempted. If this is representative of the average state of affairs throughout the country, we may, at all events, congratulate ourselves on the vastness of our untapped re-

sources, whatever we may think of the spirit in which the call for men has been met hitherto.
They are opposed to conscription because, as pointed out so ably by the hon. member for Kamouraska, it is opposed to the spirit of the Canadian constitution.
They are opposed to conscription because they consider that the law was introduced more for the purpose of winning the next general election and causing people to overlook the scandals of this war Administration, than to assist in winning the war.
They are opposed to conscription because they fear that Canada, in spite of her vast natural resources, cannot do more than provide adequately for her volunteers and the pension fund required to do justice to the iboys already at the front.
They are opposed to conscription because of the campaign of slander carried on against Quebec in the other provinces, and the statements made even by a minister of the Crown in this House, that the Bill was introduced because Quebec had not done its duty.
The Honourable the Minister of Labour, speaking in this House on June 20, 1917, said, as reported at page 2592 of the unrevised Hansard:
''If they (recruits) were to come as numerously from that province (Quebec) as they have from some of the other provinces, neither the Militia Act nor the Military Service Act would be necessary at all."
At page 2595, in the same speech, he throws out these remarks:
The question is not whether our sons fought valiantly at Queenston Heights or Chateau-guay-some people think we should live on that as long as possible-but whether the sons of those sires have inherited the heroism and the valour that enabled their fathers to do credit to themselves and to their country on the field of battle. The spirits of our sires who fought at Queenston Heights and Cha-teauguay hover over us to-day; God grant that they do not look down upon any degenerate or recreant sons.
My answer to those remarks is not that Quebec has done as much as any other province, but that it has done more than it has received credit for, and more than any other province would have done under similar circumstances. There are men in our province, many of them, both Conservatives and Liberals, both English and French, who have sought for and found the reasons for the lack of enthusiasm -among our people, so far as recruiting is concerned.
The hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) referred to the defects in the recruiting system. I need not repeat, but let me add that patronage and partisanship resulted in the dismissal, or placing upon the reserve list, of several men who were willing to sacrifice home, business, family and fortune, for the privilege of leading a battery or a battalion to meet the Germans.
I will cite just one example. It is the case of Col. J. Bruce Payne, of Granby. I cannot, without infringing upon the rules of debate, give all the details, 'but I propose to do so when the Militia Estimates are again considered in Committee of Supply. Col. J. Bruce Payne, who is a well known cigar manufacturer, had for years been in command of the 15th Shefford Field Battery, and had been for some time officer commanding the 7th Brigade. The fact that he was a Liberal in politics drew upon him the ire of Col. Morrison, Director of Artillery at Ottawa, and during the first days of the war Col. Payne was placed upon the reserve list of officers, without excuse other than a pretended offence, which was later brought home to another officer. The former Minister of Militia and Defence, to whose attention the matter was brought by myself, took the required steps to replace Col. Payne upon the active list, and soon after authorized him to recruit the 27th Battery for overseas service. He gladly accepted, left his large cigar business and other interests in the hands of his employees, and, having the confidence of his fellow-citizens, he found no difficulty in securing the consent of their parents to bring with him to England and France a large number of the young men who were members of his local battery. He successfully passed his medical examinations, and, after training at Val-car-tier and replacing several drafts made upon his battery, proceeded with it overseas. Some time after the arrival of the Battery at Westenhanger hutments in England, General Morrison, who had also gone overseas, was given command of the Artillery Division. Without reason or justification, so far as Col. Payne knows to this day, he was removed from his command and sent to Ross Barracks, where he remained for almost two months, and from where 'he sailed for home, to report for instructional duty, and later, secured his discharge. London Truth of November 3, 1915, has the following to say about General Morrison:-
"If there is any truth in statements current at Folkestone, the military authority in Canada will do well to keep an eye on Brigadier-General E. W. B. Morrison. This officer having gained the D.S.O. at the front, returned to take

oyer, at the beginning of October, the command of the Canadian artillery training in that part of Kent. After about three weeks he summarily removed the officers commanding five batteries and an ammunition column commander. This was apparently done without warning or reason given. All these officers, some of whom, if not all. have come out in command of their batteries from Canada, are transferred to the Reserve Brigade which means that their prospects of going to the front are closed for an indefinite time in favour of the new selections of the brigadier. Such a wholesale shunting of men at such short notice will require a good deal of justification. The brigadier seems to have had in Canada the reputation of being rather "a harbitrary gent" and arbitrariness on the above scale may have its disadvantages in a voluntary army."
In the meantime, .the fathers and mothers who confided their sons to Col. Payne have worried over the welfare of their children, and, in many cases, young boys have been kept from enlisting in other regiments owing to the incident just referred to. Col. Payne was removed from his command 'to please General Morrison, who wanted to even up old political scores in Canada and give the best positions to his own favourites.
The General remains in command of an Artillery Division and no redress is possible under this Government. Proper admonition to the political general, and, better still, his return to Canada, where he could be kept under the eyes of the Headquarter's Staff, would have assisted recruiting, but it would have spoiled the political game which must be played, even at the price of conscription.


Mr. W. H. BENNETT (Simcoe):: Is the hon. gentleman not aware that Colonel Morrison is under the immediate control of the British General in charge over there?


Georges Henri Boivin: Precisely; I have no doubt about that whatever.


William Humphrey Bennett: Then how did political pull keep him there?


Georges Henri Boivin: I did not say that political pull kept him there, but I said that political pull sent Colonel Payne home.


William Humphrey Bennett: It is a good job that. Colonel Morrison was kept there.


Georges Henri Boivin: In February, 1916, I had the honour of addressing two large recruiting meetings at Massey Hall in Toronto. I am not pretentious enough to believe that my voice was required to urge the people of Ontario to enlist, but I took advantage of the invitation to thank them for what they had done and were doing for Belgium and Prance, as well as for democracy and civilization.
I had my own province in mind when I went to Toronto to address those meetings.

I was anxious that Quebec should do its duty and I was already aware of a few of the reasons which rendered some, if not all of my compatriots, less enthusiastic about recruiting than they would otherwise have been. At that meeting I deprecated the speeches made by Bourassa and Lavergne in the province of Quebec, but in doing so I warned my audience that the school laws of Ontario were being used by many as an argument against recruiting in my province. Striking Regulation 17 from the school laws of Ontario would have sent more French Canadians to the front than this Military Service Bill. Remember, Sir, that I did not then discuss, and I do not propose to discuss now, the merits or the demerits of Ontario school legislation; that is a matter for Ontario to decide. But I say once more to the people of Ontario: even if you are justified in making the law you have made; even if the law is not as unfair to the French Canadians as they believe it to be; even if their refusal to obey the law is deserving of censure-would not the sending of 25,000 more men from Quebec to fight Germany have been worth the price of meeting the French Canadians half way and of giving to their children the right to study their geography and history and arithmetic in French? What reply can the recruiting officer or the public man who is appealing for recruits in Quebec, give to the man who says: You ask me to go and fight for liberty and democracy under the British flag. You want me to fight for the rights of small nations and minorities to govern themselves and enjoy their own religion, language and laws. You compare my liberties with those of German subjects. But what about Ontario and Manitoba? Are they not British provinces? My brother, my uncle, or my cousin, who lives there, tells me that he is deprived of the right to have his children taught their own language.


Mr. BLAIN:: My hon. friend must know, if he knows anything about it, that that is absolutely incorrect.


Georges Henri Boivin: I am willing to admit that the statement of the Quebec peasant that his relatives are deprived of the right of having their children taught in their own language, may be incorrect. But when we endeavour to explain we have to produce Regulation 17, and admit that he is wrong for the first two years only and that after that he is absolutely Tight.


Richard Blain: If the inspector makes the statement that the child shall be taught

longer than two years the child is taught longer than two years. My hon. friend must remember that Regulation 17 was put upon the statute-book not as against the French-speaking minority, but as in their favour.


Georges Henri Boivin: All I can say is that it was a very queer way of favouring the French Canadian minority.
The hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Ernest Lapointe) seeing the condition of affairs, moved the following resolution in this House on May 9, 1916:
That it has long been the settled policy of Great Britain whenever a country passed under the sovereignty of the Crown by treaty or otherwise, to respect the religion, usages and language of the inhabitants who thus become British subjects :
That His Majesty's subjects of French origin in the province of Ontario complain that by recent legislation they have been to a large extent deprived of the privilege which they and their fathers have always enjoyed since Canada passed under the sovereignty of the British Crown, of having their children taught in French.
That this House especially at this time of universal sacrifice and anxiety, when all energies should be concentrated on the winning of the war, would, while fully recognizing the principle of provincial rights and the necessity of every child being given a thorough English education, respectfully suggest to the Legislative Assembly the wisdom of making it clear that the privilege of the children of French parentage of being taught in their mother tongue be not interfered with.
This was not a want of confidence motion. It had nothing to do with the policy of this Government. Still it was bitterly opposed by those same members who to-day claim that the province of Quebec is not doing its duty. It was voted upon on May 11, 1916, and defeated by a vote of 107 to 60. Do you not think, Mr. Speaker, that a united appeal from the Parliament to the legislature of Ontario would have had some weight with the Government of that province? If every one had said: this request is consistent with British liberty and British democracy; do you not think that such an appeal would have had its effect upon recruiting in Quebec? Instead, however, we were told by members on the otner side of this House that the French Canadians had no rights outside the province of Quebec. The member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy) said:
It is absolutely admitted by the speakers on both sides of the House that there can be no just claim by the French Canadian people of Ontario to any legal right to the use of their language in the school system of that province.
The member for Bonaventure (Mr. Mar-cil) put the following question to the member for South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell):
Is the descendant of a Frenchman whose family has lived in the Detroit river settlement for a hundred and fifty years a newcomer to Ontario?
To which the member for South Toronto replied:
He is entitled to only such rights and privileges as the constitution as the province of Ontario allows him.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Mr. MACDONELL:: Does the hon. gentleman want to break the constitution of any province?


Georges Henri Boivin: Not at all. But in the course of a speech in which the hon. gentleman endeavours to point out that the French Canadians are asking too much, he answers the question whether French Canadians have any rights in Ontario by saying: they are entitled to only such rights and privileges as the constitution of Ontario allows them. The people of Quebec, who regard their language as the most sacred right next to their life and their religion, and who were told that their rights were limited to their own province, took it for granted, Sir, that their rights and their obligations were co-existent, and that, as their rights and privileges were limited to Quebec, there also was to be found the limit of their obligations. I do not advance that theory, but I say that it is one of the things which retard recruiting in Quebec. Can they be blamed for this belief when the New Witness, a publication of London, England, the heart of the Empire, completing an article which was Tead by the member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) the other evening, which he found in its issue of May 24, adds the following in its issue of May 31, 1917:
By the help of a printer's error in last week's comment, we are now able to state very clearly the gravity of the French Canadian grievance. We said that Frenchspeaking masters of Ontario were forbidden to teach French in their schools. Now, that obviously would not matter much, for all their scholars speak French-it is their mother tongue. What we meant to say was that the French-speaking masters are forbidden to teach their French-speaking scholars in French. A devlish trick! We published our comment on Empire Day, and that day was marked in Montreal by demonstrations against conscription, accompanied by the breaking of a few windows and the blacking of a few eyes. And now the English press invites you to consider the disloyalty of these French Canadians of Montreal. Luckily, in the province of Quebec there is a French-speaking majority,



and the Legislature is unlikely to imitate the monstrous example of Ontario and Manitoba. But is it reasonable to expect that conscription will be welcomed by men of a race which is suffering elsewhere such tyranny from English-speaking majorities without hindrance from the Imperial Government? That they should have volunteered so freely was more than we had the right to expect. It was far more than Prussia expected of the Poles. That we shall get many more volunteers is doubtful. Apparently Ireland has taught us nothing. Once again, we are doing our best to estrange the people from our cause. But, say some, have we the right to say to Ontario that she shall not forbid the use of French in French Canadian schools? Certainly, we have that right. We ought not to allow her to do anything which offends against the principle of equal rights for all the peoples of the Empire, which is supposed to be the basis of our Imperial rule.
That is not a comment of mine. It is a comment made under date of May 31, 1917, by the New Witness, a paper published in, the English language in London, England, the very heart of the British Empire.


Richard Blain: How does my bon. friend
account for the fact that in the French population of Ontario the percentage of enlistments was larger than it was in Quebec, if the grievance on the part of the French Canadian people was so great against the Ontario Government?


Georges Henri Boivin: I can give a very good
answer to my hon. friend. From all along the Ottawa Valley in the province of Quebec, hundreds of French Canadian soldiers came to the city of Ottawa to enlist, and Ontario got the credit for their enlistment.
I desire to pay to the sub-amendment moved by the hon. member for Berthier (Mr. Barrette) a little mome attention than it really deserves. The hon. member for North York (Mr. J. A. M. Armstrong) has said in this House that Sir Wilfrid Laurier personified French Canada. Does not that explain the telegram sent by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) previous to the 1911 elections approving all the methods employed in Quebec, and containing the now hlstorio words " Anything to beat Laurier?" Does not that message agree with the prediction then made by the Prime Minister:	" The voice of Toronto
will be the voice of Canada?" The prediction has come true. To-day we see the result; but elections are coming, and something must be arranged to heat Laurier, to destroy the influence of a united Quebec, after the next election. The hon. member for Berthier (Mr. Barrette), and a cleverly engineered sub-amendment, will fill the Bill. A six months' hoist as a sub-amendment!
[Mr. Boivin.l
I have been told by many old and able parliamentarians that a point of order concerning any motion, amendment or subamendment, can be raised and discussed at ,any time before it has been voited upon by the House, or until the point has been considered and decided by the Speaker. I purpose this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, submitting an argument to the effect that this subamendment is out of order. I will ask you kindly to consider my remarks after they have been inscribed upon Hansard and you have had time to verify the authorities I may quote, and to give, on Tuesday or Wednesday next, a ruling upon the matter. Let me first say that I accept, fully and unreservedly, the statement made by the Prime Minister, that he had no knowledge of this sub-*amendment, and the declaration of the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe (Mr. L. J. Gauthier) that by ihiis remarks he meant no reflection upon the fairness and integrity of the officer presiding over this Chamber. I take it for granted that the question of the sub-amendment being in order has never been seriously considered. I* take the liberty of adding that the point of order raised is not for the purpose of avoiding a vote upon the sub-amendment, and I declare here and now, with the expressed approval of the members on this side who favour a referendum upon the matter, that they will vote against the subamendment if it remains before the House. I will vote against it, first, because, according to the admissions made in his speech by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Boulay) it enables the Tory-National-ists to assist the Government, by voting for it, then against the amendment of my right hon. leader, and later pretending in Quebec that Laurier was too much of an Imperialist in agreeing to accept the will of the majority, while their friends are pretending in Ontario that he is top much of a Nationalist in proposing a referendum. I will vote against it because my people are democrats and believe that the majority of the Canadian people should be consulted upon such an important question, and they do not want the matter shelved by a six months' hoist unless the referendum is first refused by this Parliament. I will vote against it because I do not consider it to be in order.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let us consider whether this sub-amendment is in order or not. I find in the Votes and Proceedings of June 18 the following:
Sir Robert Borden moved. That the Bill No. 75, An Act respecting Military Service, be now read a second time.

Sir Wilfrid Laurier moved in amendment thereto,-That all the words after the word "That" in the said motion be struck out and the following substituted therefor:-
"the further consideration of this Bill be deferred until the principle thereof has, by means of a Referendum, been submitted to and approved of by the electors of Canada."
And a Debate arising thereon, tihe said Debate was, on motion of Mr. Morrison, adjourned.
In the Votes and Proceedings of June 20, I find this:
The House resumed the adjourned Debate on the proposed motion of Sir Robert Borden for the second reading of Bill No. 75, An Act respecting Military Service and the proposed motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier in amendment thereto:-"That all the words after the word "That" in the said motion be struck out and the following substituted therefor:-
"the further consideration of this Bill be deferred until the principle thereof has, by means of a Referendum, been submitted to and approved of by the electors of Canada."
And the question being proposed on the amendment:
Mr. Barrette moved in amendment to the said amendment,-that all the words after the word "That" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:-"this Bill be not now read a second time, but that it be read a second time this day six months."
And the Debate still continuing, the said Debate was, on motion of Mr. Pardee, adjourned.
I have read this, Sir, to point out to you the fact that when my right hon. leader moved his amendment, there was only one word left of the original motion. That was the word " that ". His amendment'begins with the words " the further consideration." The hon. member for Berthier ('Mr. Barrette) comes along with a sub-amendment asking that all the words after "that" in the amendment be struck out, but there is no word " that " in the amendment.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Georges Henri Boivin: Hon. members should not laugh too soon. They will perhaps find some authorities that will make them cease smiling. This word " that " was what remained of the original motion. Sir Wilfrid Laurier's motion is struck out entirely, and the amendment of the hon. member for Berthier is inserted. I find in BourinoUs Parliamentary Procedure, edition of 1906, page 318, this statement:
When an amendment has been proposed, it is competent for any member to move an amendment to the same. In this case the original question is laid aside practically for the time being, and the first amendment becomes as it were, a substantive question. The Speaker will then submit the three motions in the order in which they are made, and first take the sense of the House on the last: "Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the amendment? If the amendment is rejected, it is regular to move another, provided of course, it is different in purport from that 181J
already negatived, as soon as the Speaker has again proposed the question: "Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the main motion?"
If the amendment be resolved in the affirmative, it will not be competent to move that it be struck out in whole or in part.
How could the amendment of Sir Wilfrid Laurier be amended by the sub-amendment of the hon. member for Berthier which strikes out every word of that amendment and makes it absolutely another amendment?
I quite agree that the six months' hoist is in order on the motion for the second reading of the Bill, providing it is proposed as an amendment to the main motion; but not otherwise. Hon. gentlemen opposite smiled a few moments ago; some of them even laughed outright. Do they know more about parliamentary procedure than Bourinot, who in his Parliamentary Procedure, 1906 edition, says at page 320:
Only two amendments can be proposed at the same time to a question. Some limit is necessary, and the usage has grown into law, that an amendment to an amendment is allowable, but that no motion to amend further can be entertained until one of the two amendments is disposed of.
A few lines below on the same page we find:
It has also been frequently ruled that an amendment which was merely an expanded negative cannot be proposed from the chair.
There may be a difference of opinion as to whether this ' is an expanded negative or not. But that is not all. Sir Erskine May, in his excellent work on Parliamentary Practice (Edition of 1906) at page 299, says:
Every amendment proposed to be made, either to a question or to a proposed amendment, should be so framed that, If agreed to by the House, the question or amendment, as amended, would be intelligible and consistent with itself.
I will now read the sub-amendment proposed by the hon. member for Berthier (Mr. Barrette):
That all the words after the word "That" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:-"this Bill be not now read a second time, but that it be read a second time this day six months."	.
If this sub-amendment is adopted, Sir, how are you going to put from the Chair the amendment of Sir Wilfrid Laurier as amended? Can you do so? Is the sub-amendment in order? Perhaps the authorities cited are not sufficient to satisfy hon. gentlemen opposite.' May, at page 293 of his Parliamentary Practice says:

It is an imperative rule that every amendment must foe relevant to "the question on which the amendment is proposed.
And at page 298, I find:
When the original amendment is to leave out certain words, in order to insert or add other words-
That is absolutely the case here.
-no amendment can be moved to the words proposed to be substituted, until the House have resolved that the words proposed to foe left out shall not stand part of the question.
And at page 299, I find this:
An amendment to a proposed amendment cannot be moved, if it proposes to leave out all the words of such proposed amendment; but in such a case the first amendment must foe negatived before the second can foe offered.
That, I maintain, is the position here. The sub-amendment of the hon. member for Berthier may be quite in order after the House has voted on the amendment proposed by my right hon. leader. I am not bringing this point up because I have any fear about the vote which will be given on this sub-amendment. I have already stated, with the authority of every honourable member on this side of the House who will vote for the referendum, that they will vote against the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Berthier. I shall do so myself. But I want to avoid establishing a precedent in this House, at a time of great excitement in this country, which perhaps will be invoked against us upon other Bills in days to come. My point of order has been submitted. I do not ask for a ruling, Sir, at the present time, but I ask you to give the point of order your attention, and to give your ruling before the vote is taken on the amendment.
I will not refer to the speech of the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Girard) who preceded me. I moved the adjournment of the debate last night in an earnest endeavour to ascertain whether - he was opposed to or in sympathy with the Government upon this question of conscription. I have read Hansard this morning, but I am no more enlightened concerning his intentions. I will not, after speaking so long, refer to the previous speeches. Allow me, however, to congratulate the hon. member for St. Antoine (Sir Herbert Ames) upon his faith and confidence in the valour of our Canadian soldiers, 100,000 of whom, according to his statement, are required to stop the onward march of 750,000 Germans released from the Russian front.
Let me address a word to the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) who thought the best kind of a speech to make

would be another attack upon Laurier and Quebec. Quebec according to his figures had up to May 15 of the present year sent 45,277 men to the front. French Canadians with a population of 1,605,339 had only sent 6,917. This is the kind of argument often used by the detractors of our province, but they overlook the fact that tnere is another side to the argument. If 1,605,339 French Canadians sent 6,917 men to the front, then 316,103 English-speaking Canadians in that province sent the balance of 38,360-more than 10 per cent of their population, and they are therefore almost twice as loyal to the Empire as the constituents of my hon. friend from Frontenac or those of any other portion of Canada. The figures may be wrong, and the French Canadians may have done a little better than the hon. member would have us believe. If not, I can only account for the loyalty of my Englishspeaking friends from Quebec by saying that they reside in a province where they are in a minority, and where, owing to the just and fair treatment which they receive from their French Canadian fellow-citizens who form the majority, they are in a better position than any other to appreciate the true significance of British freedom and British fair play.
Just one word of reference to the address of the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue in connection with this debate. His reason for remaining in the Government ..with., the Postmaster General is an excellent one. It is not conviction, it is not principle. I must quote his own words or I will not be believed. He said:
If my colleague Blondin and I would abandon the Government, what other French Canadians would consent to succeed us?
What a calamity it would be, Mr. Speaker, for his race and his country if the hon. minister resigned his portfolio! Especially in view of the fact that he is a good French Canadian, proud of the great men of his race and willing to do them justice!
Not long ago, speaking at a political gathering in Montreal he tried to secure a front page editorial in the Orange Sentinel by accusing Sir Wilfrid Laurier of having sown discord and hatred between the two races who inhabit this country, and in his recent speech he refers to my honoured leader as follows:
I have before me a man of 76 years of age who is ending his career by seeing the two races more divided than ever. History will tell what he could have done hut did not try to do.
I listened with amazement to these words falling from the lips of the young minister,

who has made several blunders in his comparatively short career. He has even confessed publicly that his blunders were due to his youth, and to the fact that he did not then know the right hon. the Prime Minister. He has told us he was only 29 or 30 years of age when he preached treason to his compatriots-


Mr. R. B. BENNETT:: I rise to a point of order. Is it within the rules of the House for an hon. gentleman to say that an hon. member of this House has preached treason in the province of Quebec or anywhere else? That is what the hon. member has charged against the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I did not understand the hon. gentleman to say that the Minister of Inland Revenue had preached treason.


William Humphrey Bennett: Those were his exact words; that is why I rose to the point of order. Perhaps the hon. gentleman would not mind repeating what he said.


Georges Henri Boivin: If I could, in repeating
the language of the Minister of Inland Revenue, use any other words than his own words, I would not use the word "treason," but what I said was this:	That he had
already excused himself for having preached treason when he was young in the province of Quebec. I made use of no other expression. I did not attribute treason to the minister.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: I do not think the hon. member should use such language.


Georges Henri Boivin: I am not addressing that
remark to the minister. I do not wish to insinuate that he is a traitor in any way. I am repeating the words which he used himself. If you rule that I have no right to repeat the words which he used himself, I bow to your ruling.


Mr. WRIGHT:: Might not the hon. gentleman read the words from Hansard?


Georges Henri Boivin: have gone on record as opposed to a referendum. That is a very general statement, hut I think that, with certain local exceptions, it is a correct statement to make. What would the referendum mean. What would the referendum. be? Tt is a taking term, a pleasant idea. A referendum to whom? The right hon. leader of the Opposition knows that, under the statute that gives to the soldiers the right to vote at elections, which is known as Chapter 11 of the Statutes of 1915, assented to on the 15th day of April, 1915, no right is given to the soldiers to vote on a referendum. The Act pre-supposes candidates and the volunteer, that is, the soldier at the front must mark his 'ballot as a vote for the Government, or the Opposition, or the independent candidate, as the case may be, for whom he desires to vote. What provision is there for soldiers voting on a referendum? My right hon. friend has not proposed to amend this Act so that soldiers might have a right to vote on a referendum. Moreover, how could the soldiers' vote be taken? Do not misunderstand me; I am not arguing in favour of a vote by the soldiers at the present time. We all know, those of us who have friends at the front- and I do not intend to speak of my own people who are at the front-whalt is going on at the front? We can almost hear the heart beats of the soldiers, almost hear the familiar voices of the absent. How can they, in the discharge of their duty, loving and serving their country in this noble manner how can they pass around a ballot box? What do they care about elections? They are fighting for their lives, for the life of their country, for the^life of their Empire, side by side with other noble men from the Old Country, from home, and the other Allies. What facilities have they for taking a vote, even if there was a provision in the present Act giving votes to soldiers, to vote in the case of a referendum of this kind?
Then, too, what proportion of the voting population of Canada do the soldiers represent? We have some 425,000 soldiers overseas. The total vote in Canada at the bust election was about 1,200,000, and statisticians have esimated that, having regard to the increase of population on the one hand, and having regard to the sending away of soldiers on the other, there are probably as many voters to-day in Canada as there were at the time of the last election. So that we have more than 25 per cent of the total vote of Canada overseas, as sodliers serving their country.

Referendum is .suggested. Referendum to whom? To slackers-those who have not faced their duty, who have not realized their duty? and to the foreign bom. As I have said, most of the provinces have passed a law since the last general election giving women votes. How should they be provided for? What provision is there? Wfho should vote? If there were a referendum and a vote, there would have to be a Franchise Act passed, before the vote could be taken. What does that mean? That means delay, and delay would mean the very destruction of all we have in view. The prime necessity of the moment is expedition. The last thing we want, and the last thing we can afford to have, is delay. I notice my right lion, friend the leader of the Opposition, in speaking in the House the other day, prefaced his remarks with .some very unhappy words-" Hear me for my cause." We know where those words came from. It was from the play of " Julius CaesaT," and the words were used by Marcus Brutus, as he came fresh from Caesar's assassination, to explain to the citizens of Rome the death of Caesar. I am not draw ing a parallel, but it is a very significant thing. .The words are unhappy. They were taken from the unhappy reference that I have referred to, and there is a strange parallel between them.-" Hear me for my cause "-my cause, the bleeding soldiers at the front, their wounds un-staunohed, the .soldiers appealing for reinforcements, help and succour. What does that all mean? It simply means the. abandonment of the men who have gone, and the breaking of the pledges we made to them. My right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition is well aware-no man is better aware of what will happen in -the event of Germany winning this war. It is not a probable thing, but it is certainly not impossible for her to win the war. .My hon. friend, when speaking on this very Bill said: " I believe that the victory of Germany would mean for Canada, as for the rest of the world, envelopment in the 'black shroud of German insolence, cruelties and barbarities."
W'hat does the right hon. gentleman propose in order to avoid this? This may come. It reminds me of the old legal plea of " Confession and avoidance ". All lawyers are familiar with it. My right hon. friend confesses the danger and the urgency, he confesses what would happen to us if Germany should win the war, and, forsooth, he avoids it by some reference to a referen-

dam or something of that kind the old plea of " confession and avoidance," and that is all there is in it.
What is the conscription provided for by this Bill? Is it a fair measure? Every hon. gentleman in this House will agree with me, I think, in saying that voluntary enlistment has outlived its day and done its work. Early in this year the last voluntary enlistment effort was made on the Home Defence plan. It was hoped that men would enlist for home defence, that they would catch the infection of the soldiers' life, and that a martial feeling would come over them, that they would go overseas and join the Canadian Expeditionary Force, and serve their country in that capacity. The home defence effort was enforced vigorously. It was tried and failed, and it is the last voluntary effort possible. I know of no other voluntary effort that is possible now. If there be any, let some person suggest. What is the situation? There being no further voluntary enlistment, we are compelled to adopt conscription, or to abandon our honour and our soldiers at the front. That seems to me the only way. The reasons that are given for opposing selective conscription and for supporting a referendum are various, but it is said by many hon. gentlemen in this House that we should have had conscription from the starts If we had adopted that policy at the commencement of the war, we would certainly have retained in this country many splendid men, and a great many other men, who could easily be spared I will not call them undesirables because they are Canadian citizens-could have gone and served their country overseas, but the Government desired to bear with the people, to make their burden as light as possible. They hoped the war would be won and they resorted to every expedient before resorting to selective conscription. But now, there being no.thing left hut selective compulsion, it is obvious that it must foe adopted. It has been said that by sending more men overseas many of our industries, possibly agriculture, will be more or less interfered with. We cannot have our cake and eat it, but we must win this war. We cannot send our men over there and have them here. No man can be in two places at the same time. But there are still a great number of young men in this country, who can very well be spared. Every hon. gentleman in this House knows, in his own daily life, that thousands of men are going about the cities, to places of entertainment and amusement who could be spared, and there is no reason why a sufficient number of
these men should not be sent. The provisions of this Bill are just and humane. Compare them to the lottery system, or the ballot system of the Militia Act, and they are vastly superior to it. As the Prime Minister has said and elaborated over and over again, the Government is only too willing to receive, and fully consider any and all amendments suggested, the idea being to make the burden of selective conscription as unoppressive as it is possible to make it, having regard to the object to be accomplished.
Perhaps it would foe labouring an argument if I should refer to the power of Par-ment either to pass this Act and to put it into operation or to send men overseas under the present Militia Act. But what could be more plain and explicit than the statement made by the leader of the Government in this connection, and the section of the Act which he quoted to the House? Section 69 of the Militia Act, chapter 41 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, provides:-
The Governor In Council may place the Militia, or any part thereof, on active service anywhere in Canada, and also beyond Canada for the defence thereof at any time when It appears advisable so to do by reason of emergency.
No doubt the leader of the Opposition recollects what took place when that section was enacted. The then Minister of Justice, as reported on page 8083 of Hansard of 1904, made it abundantly clear that under that section the Governor General in Council might send the Canadian militia overseas- say, to India-if in his opinion such a course was necessary. Let me, for the benefit of my friends from Quebec, whom my right hon. friend leads and represents, be reminiscent for a moment. My right hon. friend recollects the condition and history of the old militia of Canada. In 1649 a body of militia, consisting of about 50 men, existed for the protection of the settlers of t'he colony which is now Canada against the attacks of the Iroquois Indians. The population of the colony at that time was only 1,000. From that day to this we have had a constantly expanding militia, always 'available for service. In no place was that militia stronger or more willing to be called out than in Quebec; nor in any place did it give better service. The right hon. gentleman knows that at the time of the siege of Quebec, in 1775, the day was largely saved by his own compatriots, the French Canadian militia. In the war of 1812-14 we had an army of 41,000 or 42,000 troops, including about 13,000 British soldiers. I have no desire, especially in view


Mr. W. F. CARROLL (South Cape Breton):: Mr. Speaker, a great many speeches have [DOT]been made on the subject which is now before the House, and much information has been given to hon. gentlemen and to the country on the question which we hjive been deliberating for the last fortnight or so. I shall detain the House only a very few moments with what I have to say, and I do not expect to add very much that is new to the debate.
Since August 1914. Canada has been participating in the greatest war with which this earth has been stricken. Personally,
I do not care whether Canada's participation in this war has been for England or with England, whether our participation has been as one of the Allies or as part of one of the Allies. As a matter of fact, Canada has been fighting for human Justice, human liberty, and for democracy and the free peoples of the world. In the session of August, 1914, no voice was raised against Canada's participation in this war. We met

in the House of Commons a united Parliament, and we voted all the money that was required for Canada's participation in this war. Throughout the length and breadth of this land we were a united people. From north to south and east to west not a voice was raised against Canada's participation in the war, with perhaps the exception of a small section of the people of the province of Quebec, and I dp not wish to say anything about the Nationalists, .because they are entitled to their opinion, and must answer to their own conscience.
It is for that reason that, since the war began, I have done my humble bit to assist Canada in her participation in this struggle. Canada has done nobly under the voluntary system of recruiting and Canada's public men have done nobly in voting supplies to carry these men along. The time has now come when the people are told that voluntary enlistment has proved a failure. I do not think that is a fair way of putting it. When Canada, with a population of a little over 7,000,000 has contributed over 425,000 of her best to the cause of war I do not think that it can be truly said that voluntary enlistment has been a failure. I am not arguing for voluntary enlistment. It is true that voluntary enlistment at the present time is not as great as it was at the beginning of the war. It is but natural that having contributed over 425,000 men to this war, voluntary enlistment should be a little on the wane. It is not quite fair to the people of Canada to say that this sort of enlistment has proved a failure.
The question however, is as to whether we shall have to resort to conscription of the man power of Canada or whether we shall confine our efforts to the system which we have followed during the past two and a half years. Is it possible for the Government, the Parliament and people of Canada to so utilize the voluntary system of enlistment as to provide for the reinforcement of our boys at the front? Thus wre are at the parting of the ways. The Prime Minister when he brought down his Bill, told us that in his opinion, and in the opinion of the Government, we must resort to conscription. To the people of Canada, as to all British peoples, the word " conscription " has in the past had rather a bad odour. A lot of objections that are raised to the Bill before the House are due to that fact. If it is proven to the people that in order to provide proper reinforcements and reserves for the Canadians in the trenches we must resort to
conscription, I believe that people will forget the meaning which the word " conscription " has had for them in the past and will support the Bill.
But the question further arises as to whether or not there is sufficient before the House to inform us as to whether we must resort to conscription or not. I am not speaking for Canada; I do not know what has transpired in any of the other provinces, in the West, Ontario, or Quebec, beyond the fact that we have a general knowledge as to the number of men who have been enlisted in those provinces. But I have a fairly accurate idea of what did transpire in the province of Nova Scotia in regard to enlistment. We have raised a considerable- number of men in Nova Scotia, and every regiment, battalion and draft authorized by this Government to be raised in Nova Scotia was raised and its ranks filled to overflowing by voluntary enlistment. We have raised the 64th, 25th, 107th, 112th, 85th, 185th, 193rd and 219th battalions, and we have also provided the 17th and 36th Field batteries. We have also contributed battalions which were raised in other paTts of the province and with which I am not so familiar. We have also contributed, perhaps more than any other province, corps of tunnellers because in Nova Scotia we had an immense number of miners who were anxious to enlist and they enlisted as tunnellers. We have also recruited a forestry battalion. I am not saying that Nova Scotia has done its full share but the point I am making with respect to Nova Scotia is that no battalion, battery or draft was authorized but whose ranks were filled to overflowing under voluntary enlistment. I do not know what has happened in the other provinces.
It is true that Quebec has not done her share. There is no need of mincing matters; I say that Quebec has not done her share. I am not going to give any reasons and I am not going to talk about the reasons that were given in this House for her not doing her share. The fact stands out boldly and prominently that she has not contributed to the overseas forces of Canada what she should have. But, as I have already said, there are no facts which can be stated in this House to show that the voluntary system has been a failure in Nova Scotia. Within the year drafts were asked for to reinforce the Highland brigade, the 146th Battalion and the 36th Battery, the last of whicn went from the constituency which I represent. Drafts were asked for the 17th Battery, whose

headquarters is also in the constituency which I represent. These drafts that were asked were not only supplied but the ranks were filled to overflowing and hundreds of young men were sent away. You may ask me for some testimony along that line. I picked up a paper from my riding a few days ago, the Sydney Post of June 26, and this is what it says regarding one of these artillery drafts:
The dratt depot at Sydney now has about forty men and about ten more are wanted to make up the complement. Lieut. Yetman told the reporter this morning that he was turning men down practically every day who were approaching him with a view to enlistment. Twelve young men from Glace Bay offered themselves for the battery yesterday, but owing to the fact that recruiting for the battery has been officially stopped they were not accepted.
I am not finding fault with the Government for having stopped recruiting for siege batteries or artillery because I understand there are sufficient recruits. But I do not think that these young men who came forward to enlist in the artillery would not enlist in any other branch of the service if there was an opportunity of doing so. There is a question too as to whether or not recruiting has been called off. I really think it is due to the people of Canada that the Prime Minister, for whom I have every regard as a Nova Scotian and as a big man, should in some way counteract the effect which the speech of the late Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Sam Hughes) had when he spoke of the stoppage of recruiting in this country.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: My hon. friend may not have been here, but even if he was not it remains the fact that, when that question was raised a day or two ago, the right hon. leader of the Government (Sir Robert Borden) gave an unqualified denial to the statement or implication that he had ever called down recruiting or had in any way tried to retard it. That is on Hansard.


William F. Carroll: I was in the House when that statement was made. I would, of course, accept the word of the Prime Minister as readily as I would that of the ex-Minister of Militia and Defence. But the fact that the ex-Minister of Militia produced in this House a private and confidential letter by which he said he could prove his contention in the matter, has been a factor in making the people of this country believe that there was something in the statement that recruiting had been stopped. As a matter of fact, recruiting was stopped

in some portions of this country-and I am not finding fault with the Government for having taken that course. Public recruiting meetings were forbidden in my native town and in the mining districts over a year ago. When recruiting for the 185th Battalion, we were never allowed to hold recruiting meetings in the mining districts; I daresay for good and sufficient reasons.


George Eulas Foster: Hear, hear.


William F. Carroll: But, nevertheless, we had no difficulty in filling up the ranks, and when we hear hon. gentlemen speaking about slackers walking our streets, let me say that the recruiting for the 185th Battalion was done principally by personal canvass, and I had something to do with it; and I never approached a man with the object of having him enlist in that battalion or any other battalion being formed down there, who I thought should go, who refused to go. That is, I have never met a slacker in the county of Cape Breton. I have no doubt in the world that there are people in that county and in the Island who should be at the front and who are not there; but, so far as my personal experience is concerned, I have not met a slacker, because I have asked no man to go who refused to go. Of course, I was very careful to ask only men who I thought could go, and would go if the case was properly presented to them.
How am I to come to the conclusion that voluntary enlistment has been a failure in this country? I do not know. It has not been a failure in Nova Scotia, and I am willing to say that that province will supply by voluntary enlistment every man necessary for reinforcements for the battalions which it now has at the front. I have no doubt about that in the world. Many of these battalions went to reinforce battalions from other provinces. About that I have nothing to say; it was necessary and proper, and had to be done. 'So far as Nova Scotia is concerned, I do not think we shall have the least trouble in replenishing the broken ranks of our battalions at the front by voluntary enlistment. We have proved that in the past. The conditions may be different in other parts of Canada, but I have no doubt in the woTld of the truth of my statement. If I have a suggestion to make it is that I believe that if the proposition is placed before the provinces today to supply reinforcements by voluntary enlistment, it will be done without the assistance of this Bill. My friends will say: well, Quebec will not do her share. Well,

leave Quebec out in the cold. I understand that she only has two battalions at the front. Surely the people of Quebec are proud enough and noble enough and true enough to their traditions and to the traditions of the British people to replenish the two battalions which they have at the front. I am sure that the people of the other provinces are. I think that this suggestion, even coming from a humble member of this House, is worthy of consideration, whether this Bill goes through or not. The fact is that we are only looking for reinforcements; we are, I understand, going to place no further divisions in the field. We have four divisions there now. As a matter of fact, we have four and practically one-half of another division, the fifth division. There has been no intimation from the Government whether that division is going to be authorized. But there was ait least the basis of a division, and those men went to France before Vimy Ridge and fought there as a unit. That is a proposal which I think is worthy of some consideration, that whether this Bill goes through or not, each of the provinces be asked to supply by voluntary recruiting the reinforcements which are necessary to keep up its battalions at the front.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE- THIRD READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 76, for the relief of George Walter Sherald Garrett.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 77, fo-r the relief of Gertrude Ellen Beal.-Mr. Northrup.
Bill No. 78, for the relief of Donald George Whibley.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 79, respecting a patent of Ernest Mead Baker.-Mr. Robb.
Bill No. 81, respecting a patent of James B. Ring and others.-Mr. Mocdonell.
Bill No. 88, for the relief of George Maisey. 

Mr. Wilcox
Bill No-. 89, for the relief of Herbert Featherstone Conover.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 87, respecting the Empire Life Insurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Mac-don ell.
Bill No. 90, respecting The Security Life Insurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Mac-donell.
Bill No. 60, respecting The Essex Terminal Railway Company.-Mr. Wilcox.
Bill No. 32, to incorporate The Cascade Scenic Railway Company-Mr. Morphy.
Bill No. 93, to incorporate The Kenora and English River Railway Company.-Mr. Carrick.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 96, to incorporate Dominion Good Roads Association.-Mr. Achim.
Bill No. 105, to incorporate the English Valley and Hudson Bay Railway Company. -Mr. Webster.
Bill No. 106, for the relief of Rozilla Lamb.-Mr. Douglas.
Bill No. 104, respecting the Vancouver Life Insurance Company.-Mr. Stevens.


William F. Carroll: Mr. Speaker, before the House rose at six o'clock, I was endeavouring to point out that in at least some portions of the country the voluntary system had not proved a failure. The Prime Minister, in introducing this Bill, said that for the year ending May, 1917, the number of enlistments in this country was 85,306 and the number of casualties, 75,000, so that in the past year "there were over 10,000 more enlistments than there were casualties, and this is not taking into consideration the fact that a large proportion of those who come under the head of casualties would return to the front as effective soldiers. If the statement of the Prime Minister that during the next seven months we require 70,000 men to reinforce the four divisions at the front is correct, we have not lately been securing a suffiici-ent number of men to fill the bill. Every hon. member who cites figures as to the number of men we have in England and in Canada, I am sure, desires to give correct information to the House. This afternoon, the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell) said that out of the 126,241 men in England at the present time, only 28,000 were effectives. I know that the hon. member did not wish to mislead the House in that regard. What the Minister of Militia did say was that out of the 126,241 men in England, there were only 28,000 who were at the present time in a condition to go to the front. That does not mean that the balance of the men are not effectives. Reading over the list as presented to the House, I find that only 150 of the 126,241 men in England are termed as non-effectives; that is, that they are good for no branch of the

well to explain my position more fully. I was very proud the other day as 9 p.m. a representative of the county of Wellington, to hear the splendid speech of my respected friend the member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), and I have received a great many letters from impartial persons complimenting my hon. friend on his patriotic stand on this measure. Much as I have always respected him, I felt, at the conclusion of his address, like rising and giving him the most hearty applause I was capable of giving.
No man can find fault with the results that have been obtained under the system of voluntary enlistment. I remember quite well in the spring of 1914, before the war broke out, attending a large gathering in the city of Toronto under the auspices of the 48th Highlanders, a battalion now nearly altogether extinct, and I heard the exMinister of Militia deliver an address in which he stated that it would he possible for him to secure, equip and land in England, in case of war, a force of 20,000 soldiers. A ripple of laughter passed among his officers, and I think that very few believed that this was a possibility. But when the war broke out, we know what was accomplished under the guidance of that same gentleman, in six weeks. Since that time, under the voluntary system, throughout all Canada-and I am not here to criticise any one but to help in every way possible the winning of the war-the voluntary system of enlistment has produced the huge number of 425,000 soldiers. That is the kind of enlistment we like, that is what we were all so proud of, and that is what has placed this Dominion of Canada and this Parliament in the sun. We should be delighted if we could be sure that it was still possible, under voluntary enlistment, to procure the necessary number of soldiers to provide the required reinforcements to maintain our divisions now fighting in the great allied cause. But we know that that is not a possibility; we know from the figures that have been presented to us from time to time, from the figures read here this afternoon by the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell), that this condition no longer prevails.
The people throughout the Dominion of Canada are very anxious to>
be assured that some arrangement will be made, so that sufficient reinforcements will be sent over to supply the deficiency in the ranks of our *men at the front. Referring to this Military Service Bill, I may say that they have Tiad for many long years a compulsory ser-tW. A. Clarke. 1
vice law in France. The great statesmen of England found it necessary to enact a similar law, and the great statesmen of the United States, profiting by our experience, or inexperience as the case may he, the moment war was declared enacted a law similar to the measure now before the House. That ought to he sufficient to justify our passing this measure. And if it be not sufficient, I would go still further and say that, after having listened to this debate for the last two weeks, having heard the leading statesmen on both sides declaring themselves in favour of this measure, and opposed to anything in the shape of a referendum, or anything else that would prevent us taking immediate action, 1 am convinced that we are adopting the right course.
I suppose it would be right for me to state my views in reference to a referendum.
I think it is an utter impossibility to have a referendum which would satisfy the people of this country.. Our men who have gone to the front-at least the remnants of them-at the present time are in such a position that they are not thinking of refer-endums, elections, or anything of that kind, and are not in a position to cast their votes. In my opinion, a referendum at the present time would be the most unfair and unjust thing that could possibly be presented to the people. Some have taken exception to this Bill because of the exemptions. As I understand it, certain classes, by reason of former legislation, are supposed, or considered, to be exempt from military service. I refer to the1 Doukhobors, Mennonites and others. Many people residing in Canada, and exercising the franchise at the present time, are possibly more objectionable than either of these classes. I know nothing about the DoukhoborS', but I know something about the Mennonites. In Wellington and Waterloo counties we have a great number of these people. As the hon. member from Waterloo statqd last night, they are a quiet, inoffensive, and ' prosperous people. They do not molest anybody, but simply attend to their duties as farmers. They entered this country under an agreement that they would not be called upon to fight the battles of the country. If that agreement holds good now I would have no objection to their still retaining the franchise. On the other hand, throughout the whole Dominion, we have very many foreigners of all kinds, and if we are to pass a measure excluding such foreigners from the right of franchise I would like to make the measure a sweeping cne, and ex-

elude every one except real British subjects, and including, of course, in the franchise these Mennonites and some others who came to Canada under a guarantee that they should not be called on to bear arms. After all, it appears to me that the House of Commons is a kind of select conscription itself. We are all elected as members of the House of Commons to represent different constituencies from all over the Dominion. We come here individually, if I understand aright, and take our oath that we will be loyal to our King and country. We have certain responsibilities, and I think it is up to each of us to ask himself whether he has done what he considers right, in the interest of the Empire to which we are so proud to belong. I should like to have all the members of the House come together, and conclude that they have a common cause. Let them get behind our chief, Sir Robert Borden, and show their sympathy, cease indulging in so much unnecessary and unwarranted criticism and pass this Bill. The hon. gentleman from Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll) said he did not think there would be any difficulty in securing men from any part of Nova Scotia, and that we should be able to -secure sufficient recruits from the different provinces to make up the 500,000 men, the quota justly due from Canada. In my opinion that would be the correct thing to do. We could raise them hurriedly and get them in the fighting line, to relieve those who are new in the trenches. I think, by action of that kind, we will be maintaining the glory of the fair Dominion, and as a Parliament doing all that- is expected from us.


Mr. J. A. C. ETHIER (Two Mountains) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, it has been said, in the course of this debate, that members of Parliament often have two different conceptions of the part they must act in the performance of their mandate; some are guided or influenced solely by their constituents, restricted outlook, the others by larger principles based upon the people's expression of opinion concerning the measures submitted to Parliament.
In the case now before us, I am sure that I represent the idea and the wishes of the county of Two Mountains, in particular and of the majority of the voters of the province of Quebec, but also, and I do believe it and sincere!v assert it, the sentiments of the Canadian people of the whole Dominion. All of us, we have a common goal, the Allies' success and the crushing of the Huns; w.e only differ as to the
means Canada should adopj; in order to secure final victory.
The moment is too solemn to let it pass unperceived; that is why I believe it my duty to participate in this debate and to

expose to my electors and to my country the attitude I propose taking. I have not the pretension, Mr. Speaker, to furnish any new argument after the long and judicious list of those already set forth against the conscription Bill and in favour of the referendum now under consideration. I simply desire to protest as strongly as I can and with the utmost energy against the adoption and the enforcement of this ill-boding, autocratic anld antidemocratic bill; I do not want to lay the blame upon any of the provinces of the Dominion, or upon the result of voluntary recruitment, but I shall say, in spite of all that has been stated, the province of Quebec has done her duty. Neither am I of those who claim that we owe nothing to England or that we have -done too much, but I do believe that we have done enough and that conscriptioln destroys o(ur autonomy, !re-moves our liberty and leads us to ruin. I will not undertake to discuss the legal and constitutional principle of the proposed law.
The hon. leader c-f the Opposition, and after him, the hon. members for Rouville and for Kamouraska, among others, have demonstrated, without ambiguity and without sophistry, that our Militia Act, since its origin in 1808 up to that of Sir George Etienne Cartier in 1868, completed by that of -Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1904, has never contained any provision authorizing and permitting the sending of our militiamen beyond the ocean and beyond the frontier for other motives than the defence in case of invasion.
And, should the terms of the Cartier Act have given rise to any false interpretation in the sense of permitting the sending of our troops beyond the sea, the Laurier law of 1904 put an end to it by explicitly decreeing that' the Canadian troops cannot be sent outside of Canada except for the defence thereof.
Mr. Speaker, under such an important circumstance for the future of Canada, it has again been attempted, as in 1896 and in 1911, to play a double game and to misrepresent the facts and actions, the conduct and the sincere and honest statements of the venerable and venerated leader of the Opposition, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, as published by the Daily Telegraph of Quebec, on June 12 instant, in an article entitled:

tion: (1) the organization of local tribunals; (2) appeal tribunals, and (3) a central appeal judge, as section 11 prescribes and gives the grounds of exemption from compulsory military service and reads as follows: Section 11 of the Bill:
Exemptions.
11. (1) At any time before a date to be fixed in the proclamation mentioned in section four, an application may be made, by or in respect of any man in the class or subclass called out by such proclamation to a local tribunal established in the province in which such man ordinarily resides, for a certificate of exemption on any of the following grounds:
(a)	That it is expedient in the national interest that the man should, instead of being employed in military service, be engaged in other work in which he is habitually engaged;
(b)	That it is expedient in the national interest that the man should, instead of being employed in military service, be engaged in other work in which he wishes to be engaged and for which he has special qualifications ;
(c)	That it is expedient in the national interest that, instead of being employed in military service, he should continue to be educated or trained for any work for which he is then being educated or trained;
(d)	That serious hardship would ensue, if the man were placed on active service, owing to his exceptional financial or business obligations or domestic position;
(e)	111 health or infirmity;
(f)	That he conscientiously objects to the undertaking of combatant service and is prohibited from so doing by the tenets and articles of faith, in effect at the date of the passing of this Act, of any organized religious denomination existing and well recognized in Canada at such date, and to which he in good faith belongs ;
and if any of the grounds of such application be established, a certificate of exemption shall be granted to such man.
The hon. Minister of Labour, the other day took to task the hon. member for Edmonton, as well as the hon. members opposed to this Bill, for being content with criticising its principle without suggesting any remedy to improve the situation. I have not the required authority to give advice to the right hon. Prime Minister, in so serious a matter; but I will take the liberty of giving my personal opinion. In the first place, I am against any compulsory military service under whatever shape or manner it may be presented, against any coalition movement at the present time, and against the extension of Parliament; and if military conscription must be imposed, it should be general and be applied to all men having the required age and fitness for service, without any exception or exemption. It should be proportioned to the population of each province, divided into districts.
Every citizen called into military service should be so conscripted by drawing lots; and, in this manner, the rich
as well as the poor man, 'millionaire and Labourer, professional land workingman, Catholic priest and Protestant minister; in a word, .all the naturalized or British-horn subjects would contribute in a just and fair measure to fill the raster of the Canadian army.
Why have selective conscription? Would the object be to protect a certain class of society to the other's prejudice, and
these local .and appeal tribunals which the law requires, will they not be in the hands ia.nd at the discretion of Government dependents and ia source of injustice and of favouritism for the benefit of a few .and to the detriment of the .great majority of the people? If only the Act provided under what delay the appeal should be made and decided, but no, the term is indefinite, and provided one has the cash and is in a position to retain the services of an able and cunning lawyer, of the Conservative party, 'to suspend the local tribunal's decision and maintain the appeal in abeyance until the war is over, and the trick will be played.
Here is wherein I find that, in its very application, .this Act is unjust, besides being unconstitutional. And even admitting for the sake of that conscription had become necessary, wlhy ito-diay rather than wlhen war was declared? Would it foe because the Prime Minister had, on January 1, 1915, in a moment of imperialistic enthusiasm or .aberration, on his own responsibility, sent the Canadian people fois New Year's best wishes and as a gift, the promise made to England of sending her 500,000 men?
The Parliament land the Canadian people .are nowise bound by this inconsiderate and irrational declaration. And have not the Prime Minister himself and fois ministers, from August 4, until May 18,	1917,
stated that conscription would never be decreed? Has he not openly asserted, to obtain, 'in 1916, the extension of Parliament, and to induce 'the Canadian people ito 'answer the insidious and deceitful list of question's of the National Service caTds, that the present Act would never be introduced into Parliament?
The soldiers at the front, says the Prime Minister, ask for reinforcements, the (Canadian 'army's rosters must be filled. I have promised 500,000 men, I need 100,000 more, says he, to make good our aid to England and the promise I made to her, I must have conscription, compulsory military service.
Would it not be on the part of the Government a simple political manoeuvre? I .am prone to believe it in view of the state-

ment made by (the Colonial Secretary, Mr. Long, published by the Associated Press of June 21 inst., and which reads as follows:
London, June 21.-The Canadian Associated Press is authorized to say that the attention of Honourable Walter Long, Colonial Secretary, having been called to a suggestion in newspaper despatches that Sir Robert Borden had proposed conscription in Canada because he was urged to do so in the Imperial War Cabinet, he states there is not the smallest foundation for the suggestion that Premier Borden was urged to introduce conscription either in the Imperial War Cabinet or the conference. The matter was never even mentioned and the last thing the members of the home government would do is to interfere in the matter which is entirely one for Canada. Mr. Long further adds he saw Sir Robert Borden frequently up to the last day he was here and had no idea when he left he was going to propose the introduction of conscription on his return to Canada.
What happened then to the Prime Minister on returning to Canada? Did the spectre of general elections so distract him as to imagine the conscription of blood for the elections, as stated by the hon. member for Rouville?
Mr. Speaker, the reason of that promise of 500,000 men is nothing but a pretext.
But, from all that has been said and written upon the subject, one might conclude that conscription had become necessary to punish the province of Quebec, by pretending she has not done her duty through voluntary recruitment, and I would call this conscription, the conscription of racial and religious prejudices exacted by some Ontario jingoes who, to serve their hatred for everything that is French Canadian and Catholic, do not even hesitate to endanger the fabric of Confedertion and the national unity.
I find evidence of this in the statement of the hon. member for North York, who had the audacity to proclaim from the floor of this House, and before the whole country, that he would be ready to break the Confederation compact and to tear its pages, in order to attain his own ends; such language is worthy of the Huns who have mutilated, plundered and devastated heroic Belgium, in spite of international treaties and agreements and the law of nations. I also find the same evidence in the abusive, insulting and -scurrilous speech of the member for Parry Sound against the French Canadians.
And it is after such indulging in such outrageous references, not to say more, that they join in saying that the province of Quebec has not done her full duty.
It is also with sentences like the following that they believe the province of Que-
bee is going to submit without protest and to uselessly sacrifice herself. The French Canadian paember-s must have received under envelope, post-paid and through His Majesty's postal service, the gratuitious and anonymous insult upon card-board, to wit:
"War Cry:	No priest of the Church of
Rome shall levy any tax, tithe or toll in any of His Britannic Majesty's Dominions."
Can there be anything baser, more vile and a more outrageous affront cast in the face of the whole Catholic population of the Dominion? And that is the war cry of these people who are crying everywhere "Win the war." If it is with that infamous motto they believe in promoting recruitment in the province of Quebec, they are greatly mistaken.
I will cite another example on the same lines, published in La Patrie of June 20 instant. The Anglican Synod of Huron, after an address by Bishop Williams, has immediately adopted, yesterday, a resolution endorsing any selective conscription measure and demanding that it be put into operation as soon as possible. In his speech, Bishop Williams proposed that the Government undertake, if necessary, the task of enforcing compulsory service among the French Canadians.
"Should the rest of Canada, in their policy, submit to the domination of the faltering province of Quebec"? asked the bishop.
And to go still further, when- every one in this House is striving-and I believe they are all honest about it-when every one is striving, do I say, to try and draw closer the ties that should unite us, on the eve of Confederation's fiftieth anniversary, whilst large preparations are being made throughout the country to duly celebrate that compact of 1867; here in the city of Ottawa, in the capital of the Dominion, we have a new-spaper, taking advantage of the position it occupies in- the press gallery, through its representative, to publish this evening, in the Journal, two pictures, illustrative of yesterday's debate: The picture of Mr. Alphonse Verville, M.P., and that of Mr. W. Weichel, M.P., with the following headline: "A French Canadian and a German Canadian."
On one side, below the picture of the hon. member for Maissoneuve (Mr. Verville) as a heading: "The Threat; I say that organized labour will do all it can against conscription. I want this House and the people of this country to know what that means; it means a general strike." On the other side, under the picture of the

hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Weichel), as a heading: "The reply; suppose the boys in the trenches organized a strike, and refused to fight because we refused to send them help? They want their representatives to stand up in a manly way and not support-shall I call it sedition"? No comments. On the one hand, the threat, do they insinuate.
The hon. member for Maisonneuve makes no threat in the remarks he makes as labour representative. He simply states, he simply gives an advice and a notice to the Prime Minister and to his Government; he notifies them that a strike may perhaps ensue, and in so doing, the member for Maisonneuve is faithful to his traditions, to the traditions of his family, of his race and of his origin.
'The German Canadian on the other side of the House, who has just been commenting upon the remarks of the hon. member for Maisonneuve as bordering upon sedition, has, by that very statement, foresworn his ancestry.
To the man who betrays his origin and his ancestry I prefer the man who loves the land of his forefathers and its traditions.
Happily, Sir, among Anglo-Saxons there are to be found fair, impartial, broadminded1 men who have vindicated the honour and loyalty of the French Canadians. And to tlhe demagogues whose dangerous-outbursts I have just referred to, let me quote the suggestion and sound advice given by the Reverend Johnson, who has protested, in a sermon delivered in the American Presbyterian Church at Montreal, against the campaign of vituperation and abuse carried on by our fellow-citizens of Ontario against the .province of Quebec:
Invectives and insults do not make for the maintenance of peace between the two races which compose the large majority of the people of Canada; on the contrary, an honest and sympathetic endeavour on the part of every member of the community to understand the feelings and ideals of his fellow-citizen is much more conducive to peace. For us now is the opportune time of recalling to mind the splendid history of Quebec, the bravery of her pioneers, the self-sacrifice of her first missionaries. Let the press and the clergy of Ontario put forth a serious effort to understand their Frenchspeaking fellow-countrymen and they will thereby do more good than by exhibiting such a spirit as they are now displaying.
I should like to put on Hansard .an expression of opinion from Mr. A. P. Willi-s, president of the large piano manufacturing concern. On the 27-th instant (he said:
As most of our employees are French Canadians, I happen to know better than any one else the good feelings and the loyalty of the
French Canadians. To those feelings of loyalty Sir Wilfrid Laurier himself gave expression the other day, at Ottawa, before Mr. Balfour, when he said:	-
"The hearty welcome extended to Mr. Balfour, especially in this country, is not due alone to his great name and personality, but is associated with an even greater name, the name of England, the champion of liberty, the mother of living nations. All misunderstandings will disappear and Canadians, irrespective of their origin, English, French, Irish or Scotch, all Canadians, I say, will forget that they did not' entertain the same opinion during the war. I know well the French Canadians.
I know that they belong to a noble and proud race, and it would be an egregious mistake to believe that the war is going to set them at variance with their English-speaking fellow-countrymen.
I should not even be surprised if, during the present war, we were to witness the alliance, the entente cordiale of the two great races which live in this country. For that purpose what is wanted is a great man who would spring up from the crowd and who would give it to understand to all Canadians that they are all equal, that they are here to stay and therefore they have to understand one another.
And should we fail to find that man who will unite us during the war, we shall find, when peace is concluded, a common ground of understanding. Our French Canadian soldiers as well as our English Canadian soldiers, when they return from the battlefields, covered with glory, will co-operate with us and have us understand that those who did not go to war ought to be as united as those who have fought the battles of their country.
This frank and sincere statement formally gives -the lie to the threats uttered by the Prime Minister, to the effect that, after the war, when the soldiers return to Canada, with fierce resentment and even rage in their hearts, they would resort to reprisals, if the required reinforcements for filling the gaps in their ranks be not forthcoming; in short, if the Conscription Bill were not passed.
Yes, Sir, we are loyal to the British Crown; we are just as loyal as are the Australian people who, for all that, rejected conscription; we are just as loyal, as those colonels and lieutenant-colonels who were created and ushered into the military world under the regime of the former Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes), and who are now strutting about in the King's uniform, and parading through the streets of Ottawa, Montreal and London, and drawing, without fighting, or working, a pay which might best toe devoted to the pay of our brave soldiers who are fighting at the front and in the trenches.
Was the province of Quebec disloyal when she raised 20,000 recruits and sent her -most gallant son-s to the firing line, as a contribution to the war which the Mother Country and the Allies are waging?

Did the province of Quebec prove disloyal when, at the inception of the war, she sent to the Allies, through the medium of her Prime Minister, Sir Lomer Gouin, $1,000,000 worth of cheese; when her towns and cities provided for and defrayed the cost of 1,300 beds for the wounded soldiers in the hospital at St. Cloud; when she sent cargoes of linen and clothes for the relief of our soldiers and for the martyrs of Belgium, through the medium of the committee "Prance-Amerique"; when she subscribed millions of dollars to the Patriotic Fund; when she procured for the Red Cross her best doctors, field hospital orderlies and her generous and heroic nurses? No, Sir, the French Canadian's heart is in the right place; and to him the motto of former days, "I remember," is no empty word, no mere catchword.
We have been branded as slackers by Ontario newspapers. Happily, that cowardly cry has been re-echoed nowhere else than in the mind of that pack of snarlers, and here again we have found' a champion in the person of an eminent newspaper man of Toronto, who, by the way, is recognized as a warm consoriptionist, and who could not forbear from protesting against the unwarranted campaign of vituperation and abuse carried on against the province of Quebec. On June 20, he expressed himself at Niagara Falls as follows;
Above all considerations which demand that ignoble partisanship should be checked, bayoneted and buried stands the necessity of keeping the door open to harmony when the war is over. To make of the war in the Flanders a prelude to the war in Canada would be the most disastrous issue in Canadian history. It were folly to smile when one hears of civil war from the very people who were living in discord before the war started and fostering a race antagonism which is contrary to the larger development of the British ideal.- Unfortunately, sooner or later war brings to the surface difficulties which heretofore had given rise to irritation and friction.
True, the change of heart of the Prime Minister in favour of conscription did precipitate a crisis which is more widespread and more intense in Quebec than in the other provinces and the utmost anxiety as to the complete mobilization of man-power is felt on account of Quebec.
With regard to that state of things, it is necessary to keep in sight certain considerations appealing to our dignity and patriotism.
1.	The Prime Minister himself has proposed conscription only after having paid a visit to the scene of war and having received such information as are wanting to his fellow-countrymen.
2.	The knowing ones who have endorsed the views of the cpnscriptionists ought to he wise enough not to denounce as disloyal the man who takes an attitude adopted by themselves, not so very long ago.

3.	The Government has carried on no education campaign in Quebec, altbcugh it had become evident, from the very outset, that matters were decidedly taking an undesirable turn.
4.	At the last general elections in Quebec,
the leaders of the present Administration encouraged a campaign in that province which gave the Prime Minister now in power twenty followers, and in which the people were warned that a day should come when they would be conscripted to go and light the battles of England. The Government now want to conscript those citizens for a war in which the Canadian army has been placed under the command of English generals whose nomination is in no way under the control of Canada and about whom we know very little, as shown by the facts in connection with the resignation of air Julian Byng. In Quebec they say:	"We are
only colonials fighting for England, our men being in the British army without Canada having its say in the matter and without being able to reach the men who may culpably sacrifice Canadian lives."
6. The assurance given by the Prime Minister to the hierarchy and to the labour leaders that the National Service cards were not meant to lead to conscription nor to the introduction of a conscription measure without the people being consulted.
The failure in certain English-speaking districts to have an enlistment in proportion to the number of available men makes it desirable that Ontario should deal with Ontario before devoting her attentions to a neighbouring province. When the Ontario-born shall have supplied as many men for the defence of Ontario as the British-born have supplied to Ontario and when the thousands of Ontario slackers who, according to the statements made by the Government have gone over to the United States, shall have been brought back to Canada, it may then perhaps be more reasonable to throw out insinuations against Quebec.
The fact which Ontario should consider is that for a whole year voluntary recruiting has been a failure, and that the Government is responsible for it.
No, Sir, the French Canadians are no slackers; and a proof conclusive, if proof were needed, is their attitude in December and January last, when the National Service was created. Neither did the clergy of the province of Quebec prove recreant to their duty, for they have taken the lead in that connection, as witness the following letter sent out 'by His Grace the Archbishop of Montreal, which I wish to put on Hansard :
Archbishop's Palace,
January 3, 1917.
Dearly beloved Brethren:
The newspapers have already informed you of the direction which we felt we should give to the clergy and members of the various religious institutes of our diocese, in regard to the question styled " The National Service."
We wish to give you the same direction, convinced that, in taking this line of conduct, we are acting in the best interests of our entire population. " This is not a question of politics." Nor is it either a question of conscription. For weighty and very wise reasons,

which have been approved by eminent men, independent of all parties, the Government wishes to make, as is were, an inventory of all the forces, of all- the resources which our country can command, from a commercial, agricultural and industrial standpoint.
The information which the Government solicits will be of great service during the war; it will be available after the war is over. For this reason a certain number of questions are put to citizens between the ages of sixteen and sixty-five. It is highly fitting that we should answer them. The answers from the country and cities will give an idea of family and social conditions in our province of Quebec which will redound to our credit. You will write these answers, very dear brethren, in all liberty, sincerely and loyally.
It is not necessary to ask yourselves what will be done in other parts of the country.
Let us set an example. Let us prove that we are actuated by an enlightened patriotism, and conformably to the teaching and traditions of the Catholic Church. Let us show respectful deference towards the civil authority within its rights.
Confident, my dear brethren, that you will fully follow our counsel, we reiterate the assurance of our affection and devotion.
(Signed) Paul, Archbishop of Montreal.
Archbishop's Palace, January 3, 1917.
Is that the language of a slacker, of a disloyal man? The slackers, the impostors are those members of the Administration who did not scruple to deceive the Canadian hierarchy by inducing them, under false representations, to issue such a letter.
Now, what we have done in this war, to quote the words uttered by Sir Wilfrid Laurier on May 12, as recorded in Hansard:
What we have done, we have done for the cause of freedom, that cause for which France has already borne such a heavy burden and made such heavy sacrifices. I am proud to say to Mr. Viviani that what we have done we have done willingly, freely, voluntarily, and through no sense of compulsion. It was, indeed, the belief in many parts of the old world where the virtue of British institutions was not understood, that as soon as England became engaged in a war the result would be very different from what actually happened when this war broke out. It was the calculation of the German Emperor, of the German militarists, and of the German people, that if England became engaged in a war there would forthwith be civil war in Ireland, insurrection in India, and the British colonies would seize the opportunity to sever their connection with the Mother Country. Sir, we are not surprised that those views were entertained in Germany, because the German people have never understood the spirit of liberty. Contrary to all their calculations this paradox of an empire of free peoples has become a living thing under British institutions.
Mr. Viviani has also expressed to us the thanks and gratitude of the French people for the part borne by our soldiers on the battlefield.
That testimony of gratitude we accept; we accept it for our noble boys who have done their part in a manner to do credit to themselves and bring glory to their country. When we faced the thought of war, there may have been those amongst us who were apprehensive
as to what might be the conduct of our young soldiers, soldiers not enured to war, not previously trained for military life, and for whom the first shock of battle might be a severe ordeal. Thank the Lord, we know to-day, and it is our pride to know, that they have borne themselves in a manner which proves that the blood in their veins has not degenerated.
Let us, therefore, begin by sending back to England all the blokes, all the slackers who have come over here to escape conscription in the Homeland, and who are now falling over each other and overcrowding the departments in Ottawa, more particularly the Militia Department, and who are depriving of employment our workingmen in the manufactories and in munitions factories.
Let me ask you, Sir, when the National Service was created, where the slackers and the cowards were to be found? At Detroit, to mention only one point at the frontier, English-speaking young men, for fear lest the National Service should lead t,o compulsory service, crossed the United States border to escape conscription. And did not the loyal Minister of Inland Revenue and his colleague the hon. Secretary of State encourage their fellow-countrymen in Dorchester county to step across the 45th line, to escape military service?
For what purpose does the Act provide for the compulsory selective service of manhood? It merely tends to discriminate in favour of the privileged class.
What is needed above all is conscription in intensive farming, in production, and in munitions, such as advocated by Lord Shaughnessy, and lastly, conscription of wealth.
Our soldiers protest against the disbanding of their regiments; they want their units to retain their identity overseas; they want good equipment, good rifles, good food, and protection at the hands of their officers. What the Allies want is not so much manpower as food to win the war, and in confirmation of my statement, I could quote no better authority than that of Mr. Hanna, who has just been appointed food controller by the Government:
The outstanding fact of the food situation, which it is imperative that every citizen of Canada should realize at once is that Great Britain, France, Italy, Belgium and their European allies are wholly unable to supply the allied armies at the front and on the way. For nearly three years their man power has been engaged in the direct work of war and in some cases large areas of their most productive lands have been overrun by the enemy. Their food shortage and the food to supply the armies of Canada and the United States must be wholly provided from this side of the Atlantic. The supply must also be sufficient to cover losses

We are positively of the opinion that this situation has not arrived.
The necessities for the effective conduct of the war are: Food, munitions, shipping:, and military man power, and Canada is geographically well situated to supply the first named three essentials, and can do much to assist in winning the war by developing her production in these essentials to her fullest extent.
We are strongly of the opinion that this is the best service that Canada, with her small population, can render.
We declare ourselves as most emphatically opposed to the proposed conscription measure, and we urge the workers of Canada to oppose by every means in their power the enactment of such legislation.
This resolution was adopted as submitted by the entire delegation, with the exception of five votes in favour of conscription of men, but on condition that conscription of wealth would be included in the provisions of the same Act.
The Labour Federation of British Columbia have also entered their protest against conscription; they have addressed to the right hon. Prime Minister, to the leader of the Opposition and to the members of both sides of the House a copy of their resolution, dated June 8 inst., and which reads as follows:
1.	That military or industrial conscription' is the imposition of a form of servitude which
[DOT] is obnoxious to a so-called free people.
2.	That militarism is the curse of present civilization, and a result of trade jeaousies 'between nations.
1 3. That military autocracy, in Germany or any other country cannot be defeated by the establishment of the same form of autocracy in countries which have been free from them.
4.	That the only people that can defeat so-called Prussianism is the people of Germany, and the adoption of a like system in this country only extends the evils of a Prussian military system to a people who have been free from such servitude, and who resent the attempt, " under any pretext," to foist upon 'them conscriptive measures, military or industrial, which would inevitably briny about a *similar situation in this country, to that which obtains in countries cursed by compulsory military service.
5.	Measures of this nature imposed upon a fieople under the guise of temporary necessity, have invariably become permanent, institutions.
' We ask that due consideration be given to 'our opposition, and would conclude by stating that it is the intention to use all the force at our command to resist conscription in any form.
On behalf of the Executive,
A. s. Wells, Secretary-Treasurer.
J. Naylor, President.
Attention should also be paid to the stand taken hy the Trades and Labour Council of Calgary. On the 27th instant, it was decided to ask all the unions to take part on the scheme of a general strike which

would be called as a means of protesting against conscription.
Will ifihe Governimien.t, in, the face of all these protests from all the pants of the Dom in'ion, and from all classes of society, persist in imposing their military service law? I am 'confident of the contrary. Will the Prime Minister assume the risk and the responsibility of tall the consequences that may follow, if those I have mentioned and of others even more serious which threaten us, especially that strike considered by organized labour? Will he provoke such a strike 'that 'Will bring us dearth land famine and even, perhaps, revolution? I do not wish it, Mr. Speaker, far from me such a thought!
The only way ito prevent the .misfortunes which threaten us is, as hae been pointed out by the hon. leader of the Opposition: a referendum or else an appeal to the people by means of a general election.
I beg the hon. Prime Minister to reconsider his decision of May 18, as he has already done so more than once since August 4, 1914, upon this same question Of conscription. I am satisfied that, after 'having duly considered and accepted the suggestion of Dr. L. G. Bland, of the Winnipeg Methodist Church, who wants the Prime Minister to convene in Ottawa -representatives oif .all the public and religious bodies, of all the legal and medical associations, of the boards of trade all over the country, and of the labour organizations, ito discuss [DOT]the conscription issue, he will .acknowledge his error, 'the fairness and 'appropriateness of 'the 'Stand taken by the right hon. leader of the Opposition.
Before concluding, Mr. Speaker, I cannot .pass over in silence the additional amendment of the hon. member for Berthier (Mr. Barrette) without giving tmy reason for opposing it. In my humble opinion it is a snare very badly set, a shift very poorly conceived, 'a commonplace trick inspired and prompted, lif mot by the Government, undoubtedly by one of its ministers, artist, musician and gentleman farmer. Like his leader, the member for Berthier can alter his opinion. On this June 6, 1916, he wrote to his electors the following:
Allow me, Mr. Secretary to repeat to you the statement I made last fall in Berthierville, in the presence of 6,000 electors of my county and of the surrounding- country, when I stated that I was completely opposed to conscription. This year, on the very Sunday following the declaration made by the Prime Minister of Canada, I. again stated before my fellow parishioners that I was entirely opposed to this measure of the Government. I was then doing a

free act of my own, knowing that I was doing it for the best interest of my constituents.
I do hope that this statement will cheer the hearts of all the good French Canadians of my county and of my province.
Please accept, my dear friend, the expression of my most distinguished sentiments and believe me.
Yours most truly,
J. A. Barrette.
In the meantime he has found out that he requires six months ito meditate and change his stand of June, 1917.
O tempora, o mores !
To sum up, I shall vote against the Barrette amendment to the amendment, for the Laurier amendment and against the second reading of tlh^ Bill imposing conscription; and, in so doing, I 'am following the dictates of my conscience, without any mental reservation, frankly and honest'y>
and I believe I am in agreement with the views of the 'Canadian people, who wish to be consulted, either through ia referendum or, better 'still, through a general election.


Mr. H. ACHIM (Labelle) (translation):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of attention to the hon. member for Two Mountains (Mr. Ethier) and I am happy to state that, beside all the qualities I know him to possess, he showed he was endowed with still another one, when he made a confession. It is a confession which the province of Quebec has been awaiting for almost six years. Of course, the hon. member for Two Mountains took occasion to state that all the members of this House are without a mandate. We, of the province of Quebec, have been satisfied for six years that the hon. member for Two Mountains was sitting here without a mandate. As a matter of fact, considering that the little incident I refer to is about six years old and that the member for Two Mountains has been occupying his seat in this House close on to six years without interruption, it may be assumed that he sits here by prescription, but I will not press the matter any further just now.
Being radically opposed to the principle of conscription, to the principle of the Bill now before this House, I shall not follow the hon. member for Two Mountains through the deep and detailed study he has made of it, section by section.
However, as the hon. member for Two Mountains has spoken at a certain length, what happens to long-winded orators was his lot: he has not remained throughout consistent with himself, as I shall show presently. But before so doing, let me state, Mr. Speaker, that I hold no mandate to defend the Bill, nor the Government, as
the rest of my speech will prove later on. Speaking upon the Bill, the hon. member for Two Mountains exclaims that he is completely opposed to this selective conscription measure and he asks himself what selective conscription means and, in an outburst of eloquence of no uncertain breadth, he exclaims:	"I will not have selective
conscription, I want every one to go to the front, since conscription is needed."
He enumerates the different kinds of people who should go to the front and he ends by saying, with much generosity, that he wants to send overseas the "cures" as well as the Protestant ministers; but, a little further in his speech, he cries out: "What the Allies need is production and still more production."
Well, I repeat it, I have no mandate to defend the Bill, but I will .say this: That selective conscription means that there are persons whose presence in this country is more essential than that of others. For instance, the presence of a farmer is of more consequence to the country than that of a bar-tender or of a store-clerk.
That is exactly the view of my hon. friend, the member for Two Mountains, and I will not offend his legal sense or his sense of the present responsibilities by believing that he is actually ignorant of what selective conscription means. Besides this, the hon. member for Two Mountains having taken the liberty of making an assertion which, to my mind, reflects on the Bench of this country, I think it is my duty, as a member of this House, to look up the matter. It is when he says that there is some distrust against that section of the Bill which provides for the appointment of two persons in order to choose among those who will be sent to the front and those who shall remain at home.
It is most evident that one of these two appointees, if I understand the Bill, should be designated by the Parliament of Canada or by the Minister of Justice and the other one-and that is where I find a guarantee of impartiality-by one of the district judges.
The hon. member for Two Mountains is, like myself, a country lawyer and he knows that we can most assuredly rely upon the impartiality of our magistrates who preside over the administration of justice in our districts.
There is another reference, made by the hon. member for Two Mountains, which concerns me in a particular way. Not that I hold a brief to defend the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. P. E. Blondin) who is now in active service, or the hon. minister of In-

land Revenue (Mr. Sevigny), because they are members of a Conservative Cabihet, but simply because they are both personal friends of mine. It is when he says that the hon. Postmaster Genei-al and the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue, during the Dorchester election, last winter, would have advised the electors of, Dorchester, were conscription voted, to run aiway, to cross over the lines and go to the United States.
The hon. Secretary of State has made in this Houise a declaration to that effect, a declaration which, if I rightly understand Parliamentary procedure, must be accepted, which I have myself accepted, which the hon. members on the other side of this House have accepted, and which the hon. member for Two Mountains has no right to call in question.
In the absence of the bon. Secretary of State, I think 1 should defend him against such attacks, and as for the Minister of Inland Revenue, I do not believe he has ever mentioned isuch a thing itn his speeches and he has not been accused, as far as I know, rf having .given any such advice to the eiectors of Dorchester.
I would be assuming too much, at this advanced stage of the debate, if I flattered myself with the thought of adding any new fact, to the mass of information already supplied by the best speakers representing the three main conflicting views. Far from being able to aduce new facts, I believe is most difficult even to evolve from a further consideration of them arguments and conclusions different from those already stated in this House. But, coming from a province where the Bill we are now discussing has created, I shall not say more anxiety than elsewhere, but. a commotion which has expressed itself more violently on the surface and made it the object of aspersions on the part of some hon. members, I believe it is my duty to say a few words which may help t/o dispel, if possible, the prejudices of those honourable gentlemen. My name having been mentioned as a seconder of the motion for the six months'hoist, I think I should claim the attention of this House for a few minutes.
I have listened closely to all the speeches made heretofore, from the most important down, considering that no opinion is unimportant under such exceptional, circumstances-I have even read them carefully over and yon will perhaps allow me to interest myself more particularly to one of these which is not the less remarkable, both

in its substance and in its form, that of my hen. friend the minister of Inland Revenue-
My congratulations to him in the first place for having remembered that the two party leaders have pledged themselves from the very start, in their own name and that of their followers, according to the very words of the'leader of the Opposition: "That the discussion of this measure would bear the stamp of impartiality and moderation, that is would be free from all acrimony and bitterness."
While I think of it, Mr. Speaker, I may improve the opportunity to say a few words about the charges which have been made against me by the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe (Mr. Gauthier) and by the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards). These honourable gentlemen have thought fit to have this House amuse itself at my expense; the latter upbraids me for still being in this country, though an officer of the Canadian voluntary militia, I mean the 54th of Sherbrooke, an honour which I share with the hon. member for Berthier. There is a great difference between a volunteer officer and a conscript. It is true the hon. member for Frontenac is not an officer, but nothing prevents him from enlisting if he feels like it. The difierence there is between him and me is this he remains very quietly with his family and would compel all others to enlist, while I am also quietly at home, but without trying to force any one into active service.
I also wish to refer to some remarks emanating from the hon. member for Frontenac, *concerning the honour I have had, some years ago, of seconding the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
The hon. member for Frontenac has no right to represent my conduct on that occasion as being inconsistent with the one I take to-day. When I accepted that honour, I did not suspect that the military craze which has taken hold of our country would impose upon us an effort out of proportion with our strength and our resources. I also said that I was in; favour of Canada's participation in the war, on the condition that the 'Constitution be respected and that the constitutional status which binds us to Great Britain would not be violated. I was justified in taking such a stand at the time, but at the present moment, as the Bill introduced into this House tears into shreds the. Canadian constitution, I propose to oppose it, and to do so as strenuously as I possibly can. If as a member I cannot approve of the views of the hon. minister, I am proud, as a friend, to acknowledge that he has succeeded in replaeing the debate on a level where both leaders wished

it to remain, above the range of political meanness to which certain members had lowered it.
If elevation of thought and beauty of expression were the equivalent of correctness of views, my hon. friend would have made the speech of his life.
Far from me the idea of crossing swords with_the hon. minister-I have neither the inclination nor the capacity-but his stand upon this Bill being directly contrary to mine, one of us two must be wrong, and I will surprise no one by admitting that I do not believe it is your humble servant.
Were I as eloquent as my hon. friend, I would try to persuade him that the fault is on his side.
His whole speech leaves the impression that his attitude is inspired by the most disinterested sentiments, and I hasten to say that I believe him entirely sincere, although I attribute such sentiments to false ideas.
Here is what the minister says at page 2747 of Hansard, unrevised edition.
Why should our minority be isolated on this continent of America, where we are surrounded by English provinces and by the American nation with her hundred million inhabitants?
This is a sincere feeling of concern; I admit that I have myself been a prey to it and that it has caused me long hesitation in deciding what policy I shall follow.
But considering the facts, was this disquiet justifiable? in fact, is our province isolated, when the whole Liberal party has the same ideas and is ready to give the same vote as the representatives of the province of Quebec?
I do not see that the Quebec delegation is in such bad company, when it follows the leader of the Opposition, a man in whom English Canada as well as French Canada, from coast to coast, have had entire confidence during fifteen years.
Is the province of Quebec isolated when it is in such company as that of the hon. member for St. John; the hon. member for Edmonton, and the hon. member for Pic-tou?
Is the province of Quebec isolated when it seems admitted that it is of one mind with the Maritime Provinces?
If such be isolation, allow me to say, Sir, that it is a splendid isolation.
No doubt the leader of the Opposition has seen leaving him talented men whom he held dear and who could render invaluable service for the defence of his ideas. But there is still around him a solid following of English members, and after hearing the speeches of both sides, I think that the ' 183
first have sacrificed reason to sentiment, while the others have held to principles and sound doctrine.
With this theory of isolation, is it not1 to be assumed, after all, that outside of this House the majority of the electorate is in favour of conscription?
That is a gratuitous assumption, which the facts do not justify and which the hon. member for South Wellington admits to be false. Could I not answer it by the no less gratuitous but more probable statement that the great majority of the electors of the other provinces, including those of the ultra-loyal Ontario are opposed to conscription or at least in favour of a referendum?
As my opinion is well worth that of anyone else, whence he may come, I shall hold to it till the Government has had the courage to consult the people, the only one interested-the people who labour, who weep and who die in this war. No; T repeat again that the French Canadians are not alone in favour of a referendum.
Everyone outside of this House is loudly calling forjt, and the voice of a whole people, whatever is done to smother it, will at last be heard.


Hon. Mr. SEVIGNY:: Will my hon. friend allow me a question?


Honoré Achim: Certainly.


Albert Sévigny: Concerning the isolation of which my hon. friend has just spoken does he think that it would be a boon for the French Canadians to have no more representation in the Government?


Honoré Achim: My hon. friend puts an exceedingly delicate question to which I could with difficulty reply without hurting his present feelings and without taking explicit exception to the course he has chosen to adopt. Much would have I preferred it had my hon. friend not raised the issue, but since he has, I have no option but to tell him that in my opinion it would be better.
Should ever a disruption occur in this country, Mr. Speaker, I say that it will not take place between the province of Quebec and the remainder of Canada, but between the province of Ontario and the rest of the Dominion. Yes Ontario, where the capitalists are attempting to crush the freedom of labour, Ontario whose manufacturers are attempting to restrain the freedom of trade, Ontario whose jingoes are trying to strangle freedom of conscience. I do say that if ever there is a disruption, that will be it, and the sooner the better perhaps.



Mr. Speaker, I am grieved beyond expression to have to utter such words and I pray you to believe that before bringing myself to utter them, many doleful hours have I gone through; I feel that old bonds are being severed which I had hoped would be permanent. In brief, Mr. Speaker, I must declare that in this House I shall vote on this question with the Liberal party; that at the next elections I shall vote for the anti-conscriptionist candidate, that I resign as conservative candidate in the county of La-belle and that in the province of Quebec I shall speak in favour of the Liberal party.
The Minister of Inland Revenue labours under another delusion which I should like to dispel. He gives the result of the Dorchester election as a verdict in favour of compulsory service. And such is my hon. friend's appreciation of his constituents that he argues-I epitomize-" What is the good of a referendum? We held one in Dorchester and Dorchester has spoken the verdict of all the electors of Canada. When Augustus had imbibed, Poland was full " " Quand Auguste avait bu, la Pologne etait ivre ". The argument is more creditable to the electors of Dorchester than to the Minister's powers of interpretation. The part of his speech to which I refer is to be found at page 2497 of unrevised Hansard and reads as follows:
What does the vote given at this election mean from a constitutional point of view? Does it not mean that the war policy of the Government was approved, as it has been approved by the members for the past three years, and has not this policy of the Government been to make every sacrifice to oarry the war to a successful end, as far as conscription if necessary.
I agree with the whole paragraph save the following words: "As far as conscription if necessary ", To that statement I take the most strenuous objection, because those who did oast their votes for my hon. friend had in their minds not the statement made by the Prime Minister in his letter to workmen dated December 27, 1916, but the one he made long ago on the floor of this House, which was quoted by the right hon. leader of the Opposition and which may be found at page 2497 of unrevised Hansard:
My right hon. friend has alluded to conscription-to the idea in this country or elsewhere that there may be conscription in Canada. In speaking in the first two or three months of this war I made it clear to the people of Canada that we did not propose any conscription. I repeat that announcement to-day with emphasis.
If my hon. friend insinuates that the electors of Dorchester, by their vote, wished [DOT]to approve of conscription, I must tell him

that he would not le sitting on the treasury benches if at the election he had so declared himself.
In all justice however I must say that in the whole splendid campaign wherein I had the honour and pleasure of accompanying him, I never heard the minister, Publicly or privately, oppose conscription. That is a tribute I owe to his sincerity. But my mandate is much less recent than that of the minister. I cannot oppose the principle of the referendum. My election, as that of most of the other members of this House, dates so far back that its mandate might after all be forgotten; but electors sometimes have a clearer memory that their representatives and my electors seem to stick to the motto of their province: " Ils se sou-viennent ", " They remember ".
I do not claim as many do that I know why I have been elected; I am no partisan of the doctrine that a member must in all things and ever do the will of his constituents, even if he realizes that it is founded on unjustifiable motives. My idea is that in 1911 my electors did not place in my hands a blank which I could fill as I cared.
What I do know is that, had I in 1911 stated I was in favour of conscription without the people being consulted, I should not have the privilege of a seat in this House. Now that the people's verdict has sent me here, I will not take advantage of it to rivet irons around the ankles of those who have elected me as the champion of their constitutional liberties.
For freedom, for democracy, for their brothers left behind, Canadians have equalled the very bravest at Givenchy, Langemarck, Courcelette and Vimy. They form a bulwark to our institutions those heroes of ours who live the cruel life of the trenches, writhe on a sick bed, or sleep the last sleep in the knolls of Flanders. The happy vision of a nation whose freedom and self-respect they have helped to maintain is to some a balm to their wounds and was to the others a solace at their last hour.
And that valued freedom, the freedom that inspires heroes, you now want to kill, while those young lives are sacrificing themselves for its sake; it is unreasonable and I will not be a party to it.
Mr. Speaker, I stated at the beginning of my remarks that I would take advantage of my seconding the amendment to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Berthier in order to say a few words on the subject. Allow me, Sir, first to express my surprise at the meaning which my hon. friends of the Opposition seem to give to this

second amendment, taking it for granted that the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe has been a true interpreter of their common opinion. Howsoever it be, the mouthpiece of the Liberal party in Montreal does not hesitate to state that obviously a trap is being set for the Liberals which they are not such fools as to step into.
The best-intentioned give credit to the hon. member for Berthier and myself for a cleverness in tactics which neither of us ever dreamt we possessed. But others there are, whose opinion it would be safer to take, who do think that we are not men who would steer between two courses, but that we are perfectly sincere, honestly believing that we express the opinion of the people of this country in this matter. Every one is free to choose whichever of those two opinions he cares, but I side with frankness leaving to my hon. friends of the Opposition any pretense at astuteness. I wish to add, as the hon. member for Berthier has done, that in seconding this amendment I have not yielded to any outside influence either from the 'Government or otherwise. After hearing the statements made by the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe I did long waver as to making my mind to follow him in the mud into which he floundered; but I deemed the present crisis too acute, the present contest to bloody to ridicule a man whose shoulders are weighted under so many burdens. In any case has he not taken upon himself the task of our vengeance by branding himself with the words everybody knows and which put him in the rank of the very lowest demagogues. But let him beware, the crisis will pass and people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
Our amendment is put forward in such a spirit of loyalty, and is so devoid of partisanship that it should, meseems, rally all members who are good-intentioned and sincere and I must say that whatever be the position taken by the right hon. leader of the Opposition towards our motion, I shall nevertheless vote in favor of the amendment he has moved and so will do the hon. member for Berthier. Although the amendment to the amendment has a much greater bearing on the bill than the Laurier amendment and practically means its doom, I must state that not a member of this House is prouder than I am of being a British subject and appreciates more than I do the blessing of living under the British flag and that I am not yet forgetful that the English colonial system tolerates every freedom and fosters all ideals. My present
position, whatever may be thought of it elsewhere, is that of a true Canadian.
Mr. HERME-NEGILDE BOULAY (Ri-mouski) (translation) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. It being so late it seems to me that we ought to be at least twenty to listen to such a good speaker as the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Lanctot).
Mr. ROCH LANCTOT (Laprairie) having risen to speak:


Mr. HERMENEGILDE BOULAY (Ri-mouski) (translation):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. At this late hour the hon. member for Laprairie rises to speak, and he is such a fine orator it seems to me there should be at least a quorum of twenty members to listen to him- I call your attention to the fact that there is not a quorum present.
Mr. 'SPEAKER: I find that the point'of order is well taken.
And a count having been taken, it was -found that a quorum was not in the 'Chamber.


Mr. SPEAKER:: There is not a quorum present. This House stands adjourned until Tuesday afternoon at three o'clock.
Accordingly, the House adjourned at 10.55 p.m. until Tuesday, July 3, at 3 o'clock.
Tuesday, July 3, 1917.