1917-06-27

Mr. KYTE:: 1.	Has Dr. Neilly, of New Glasgow, N.S., been connected with the Overseas Dental Corps?
2.	If so, is he still so connected?
3.	Is he on leave?
4.	If so, when does such leave expire?


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: 1.	Yes.
2 and 3 ansiwered by No. 1.
4. On July 23rd, 1917.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-CLAIM FOR DAMAGES.
Mr. LANCTOT:: 1.	Have Ludovic Poitras and Zephirin Gagnon, who claim to have suffered injury in an accident at OhaudiSre, on the Intercolonial Railway, made a claim from the Department of Justice for a Petition of Right?
2.	If so, at what date?	*
3.	Has such request been acceded to? If not, why not?


Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	May 7, 1917.
3.	No. The Minister of Justice has not yet received the necessary information and papers relating to the claims set forth in the said petitions of right to enable him to decide whether or not he should recommend the granting of fiats upon the petitions.



PRIVILEGE.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Sir THOMAS WHITE:: I rise to a question of privilege. My attention has been
drawn to an editorial in the Toronto Globe which is founded upon wholly erroneous information and which reflects somewhat on me as Minister of Finance. It is headed ''Where the Money Goes." I quote:
Within twelve months the Dominion Gov-ermr^nt has paid to a few favoured industries, chiefly for the production of iron and steel, the sum of $21,669,965.
In his Budget statement on April 24 the Finance Minister reported that the entire yield of the business profits tax in twelve months had been $15,000,000. The revenue from the same source in the current accounting period of twelve months is estimated at $20,000,000.
After dealing with the bounty system, the editorial goes on:
On the eve of a measure to conscript the manhood of the country the case for a more courageous and progressive financial policy at Ottawa is unanswerable.
Similar statements as to the payment out of $20,000,000 in bounties during the past yeaT have been made in the Montreal Journal of Commerce, and in many otheT papers throughout Canada. With reference to this Globe editorial and the other editorials to which I have referred, 1 desire to say that the bounties upon iron and steel expired five years ago, in 1911, and have not been renewed. The result is that no money has been paid out by way of bounty upon iron and steel production in Canada for the past five years. The Montreal Journal of Commerce, in its issue of June 26, made a complete withdrawal of the statement which it had published in an earlier issue respecting the matter. I draw this matter to the attention of the House because the sum is so large and because, as I have stated, it seems to reflect on the administration of the Finance Department.



PRIVILEGE-SIR SAM HUGHES.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Sir SAM HUGHES:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. On June 20, I received the following telegram from Mr. Mark H. Irish:	.
Toronto, Ont., June 20, 1917 Lieut.-General Hon. Sir Sam Hughes, K.C.B., House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ont.
Press reports of your speech in the House yesterday credit you with saying that I urged the Prime Minister some months back to let un on recruiting. I have never spoken to Sir Robert nor any other Minister of the Crown either Federal or Provincial on the subject of recruiting. I do not and never have held the views you attribute to me. In my opinion recruiting properly done is a stimulus not a retardant to the production of munitions. You

should not have made the statement you did regarding me because such statement is not founded on facts.
Mark H. Irish.
Passing over the paternalism and general tone assumed by the outfit to which that gentleman belongs, I shall read my reply, which I sent immediately, without looking up Hansard.
Ottawa, June 20, 1917. Mark H Irish, M.P.P.,
Toronto.
Replying to yours. You spoke to me many times on the question of scarcity of labour for munitions and advocated some plan of control. The assertions made by you then all pointed to a limitation within definite lines of service, something bordering on controlling employment of men thus interfering with the will of men in recruiting. I did not intend to say you spoke to Sir Robert. You spoke with me repeatedly *on the subject.
Sam Hughes.
I have looked up Hansard and I find, on page 2546, that I said:
Mark Irish of the Imperial Munitions Board, Mr. Plavelle of the Imperial Munitions Board and others have been insistent in their demands that these men would not be taken.
This statement follows a sentence to the *effect that the Finance Minister had told the Prime Minister that there was a perfect storm brewing in Toronto:
And that agitation was due to the fact that men could not be obtained as workers.
The two sentences are entirely distinct, and every statement I made is absolutely true. Not only did Mr. Irish speak to me once, but twenty times, till I told him he was becoming a perfect nuisance in his agitation, which was not to stop recruiting, but to prevent men who' were wanted on the Munitions Board recruiting. I assured him then, as I assure the country to-day, that there were tens of thousands of men not working, who were anxious to work, but could not get work.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who sent that telegram?


Samuel Hughes: The telegram I have read was from Mark H. Irish who is connected with the Munitions Board.



MOOSE JAW NEWS-PATRONAGE.

Mr. W. E. KNOWLES (Moosejaw):: On the 20th of April, 1917, I asked a question of the Secretary of State (Mr. Patenaude) and received a promise from the minister. The discussion in Hansard is as follows:
Mr- Knowles:	To what extent does the
Moosejaw News obtain patronage as a result of the minister's discretion?

Mr. Patenaude:	I can bring down the information.
Mr. Knowles:	Will the minister let me
know early next week how much the Moosejaw News has received lately?
Mr; Patenaude:	Yes.
That is over a month ago and I have recently written asking for the information, and have not even had an acknowledgment. I draw the matter to the attention of the Government, and desire to have the information placed in Hansard.



SALARY OF POSTAL CLERKS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Bay:
William Erskine Knowles: On May 31, 1917, I asked the following question :
Mr. W. E. Knowles:	Will the Acting Postmaster General tell us what is to be done with regard to the prospective salary increases for the postal clerks, including carriers? The hon. gentleman is no doubt aware that the different associations have been asking for increases.
The answer given me at that time appears in Hansard as follows:
Hon. Mr. Patenaude:	I shall probably be
able to answer my hon. friend in two or three days.
That occurred in May, and I would ask if some information could not be furnished at the present time. The answer to the former question will require some consideration, perhaps, but the latter question might be answered now.


Hon. Mr. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) :: With regard to the last mentioned question, since it has fallen upon my shoulders to bear the burden of the Postmaster General's Department, I have taken up the matter, and I will have, presently, ready for submission to council, a suggestion looking to an improvement in the smaller salaries of the employees of the post office, which I hope will be dealt with very promptly.



INTERIOR AND INDIAN DEPARTMENTS -ENLISTMENTS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. FRANK OLIVER (Edmonton):: Some weeks ago I asked the question, which was passed as an order for return. The return asked for was in regard to the employees (Si the Interior and Indian Departments who had enlisted for overseas service, and the arrangements made with them by the department.. So far as I am aware, that return has not yet been produced. It is important that it should be forthcoming dur-

mg the course of the present discussion on the Military Service Bill. I ask the minister to liave it brought down without delay.



PRIVILEGE.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. JACQUES BUREAU:: I rise to a
question of privilege. In the Montreal Gazette of to-day I observe a headline which
reads:
Mr. Bureau wants Laurier and Gouin to tour the province.
I never expressed any such desire. On the contrary I appealed to the member for North Grey (Mr. Middlebro) and the Prime Minister to tour the province of Ontario and try to stop the campaign that was waged against Quebec. I make this declaration, so that I will not be told that I never denied it.



MILITARY SERVICE ACT, 1917.


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of the right hon. Sir Robert Borden (Prime Minister) for the second reading of Bill 75, Military Service Act, 1917, and the amendment thereto, and the amendment to the amendment by Mr. Baratte, resumed from Tuesday, June 26th.
Mr. F. B. CARVELL (Carleton, N.B.):: Mr. Speaker, As my position on this very important matter is perhaps not as well known as that of my hon. colleague from Red Deer (Mr. Clark), I feel it is incumbent upon me, in view of the position I intend to take, to state in the simplest and shortest language possible, the views which I entertain, and the vote which I intend to give, on this very important measure which is now before the House of Commons. I find myself, perhaps, in the most peculiar position of any member in this House, from the fact that for the past two years and a half no m.an has criticised the conduct of the Government, in the management of the war, to the extent that I have. I honestly believed in my 'criticism, and I aan convinced that I had good ground for making every statement which I made. I believed that partisanship was running rampant all over the Dominion of Canada in the conduct of this war, and, as a member of Parliament, to whose knowledge these matters had come, I felt it my duty to make them public, and I made them
public in as forcible a manner as I knew how. I have no apology to make, and take back nothing which I have said. I only wish to say that in the future, notwithstanding the attitude I may take to-day, if in my judgment, the conduct of this war by the Government is such as to require criticism, I hope I shall have the courage to perform the duties for which I was sent to this Parliament. I have nothing further to say regarding what has taken place in the past.
I look upon the condition of affairs at present, and on what may take place in the future, as of very much more importance than what has taken place during the past two or three years of war. I have taken a very serious view of this war from the beginning-perhaps too serious-but, Sir, it has been in my thoughts constantly, as I think it will be, until the closing scenes of this great drama. I was attending court in St. John on the 4th August, 1914, and on the morning of that day I read in the newspapers that war had been declared, and I immediately sent a telegram to my chief (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) telling him that in my judgment he should offer the Government his full support in anything that was necessary, in order that Canada should do her duty in the conduct of the war. I have taken that attitude, both privately and publicly, ever since that time, and I still take that attitude. I think there is nothing which Canada is so much interested in at the present time as that we should do our full duty to bring the war to a successful conclusion, in order that liberty, justice and. righteousness may have a chance upon the earth in the future.
The Prime Minister, who is charged with the responsibility of conducting the affairs of this country in this crisis, came back from the seat of the Empire a month or six weeks ago, and he made the statement that /they needed more men at the front, and he also stated, it is said without consultation with his political friends-and I know without consultation with my political friends- that the only way to get those men was to introduce a Bill for compulsory military service. It has been said by many of my friends that in doing so he was actuated by political motives. I know nothing about that, Sir, and for the purposes of my argument I care very little. The Prime Minister of this country declares we need more men. Every responsible official, both civil and military, of the two great nations, France and England, who are really waging

Bangor, Maine. I met bankers, professional men, lawyers, business men and labouring men, and I never heard a man talk about the war who did not stand up and say: "We are in this thing and are going to see it through." I was over there on the last day of their wonderful Liberty Loan, when between two and three billion dollars were raised, and every man who had been able to contribute seemed to he proud that he had done something to put his nation and the Allies in a position to win this great war. Perhaps I would not be considered out of order if I related one little incident 'in connection with some labouring men. I was in a garage, where a man besmeared with grease was on the floor under my car. A fellow workman came along and said: "Did you get your notice last night from the Government?" "Yes," was the reply. "What are you going to do about it?" "I am going to do just what they tell -me to do." That was the spirit I found in every part of the United States that I visited. I only wish I could find the same spirit all over Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I hope that some of my hon. friends who cheer that remark and are so much affected with Quebec-phobia will not think I am referring altogether to Quebec, for there are. slackers all over Canada, and it is because of the condition of affairs not only in the province of Quebec but in Canada as a whole that I am constrained to stand behind the Government on this momentous question.
I sympathize and sympathize heartily, perhaps to a greater extent than any .other man in this House, with the right hon. gentleman who has been my esteemed leader ever since I have known anything about politics in Canada-a man in whose judgment and integrity I have absolute and supreme confidence, a man whose one aim in life has been to weld into one great whole the two great races in this country.
I realize to as great an extent at least as any other man in this House the position which he occupies to-day and has occupied ever since this measure was introduced. Knowing the position which he occupies, and the position which, his friends and my friends occupy, I am better able to sympathize with him than are gentlemen who are not so intimately acquainted with the real condition of affairs. My right hon. leader realizes, as I think every person in Canada must realize, that this Bill is extremely unpopular in his native province
'
of Quebec. I do not think there is any use in dissembling that; there is np question whatever about its being true. I am not going to hark back and say who is responsible for the condition of affairs which unhappily exists at the present time. But we do know that certain English-speaking Canadians in 1910 and 1911 spent their money, ndt by tens of thousands, but by hundreds of thousands of dollars, to sow broadcast throughout Quebec and amongst the French-speaking people of Canada, the doctrine that they owed nothing to England and that the whole policy of Laurier and his party was to introduce conscription in the province of Quebec. For seven long years they have spent their money and assiduously preached that seditious doctrine in that part of the country; and to-day they are reaping the whirlwind. Canada is also reaping the whirlwind, and my right hon. leader finds himself in the position he is in to-day very largely because of the attitude of the gentlemen whose names have heretofore been mentioned in this House, and who are pretty well known in Canada as the men who have been guilty of the conduct to which I have alluded.
But, Sir, that does not change the fact that we are up against a really serious problem; it does not change the fact that Canada must raise mpre men, and, as I said before, the whole question is, how shall Canada get the men? Shall she go on with the voluntary system, or introduce compulsory service?
My right hon. leader proposes a referendum, and pledges that if a referendum is held and the vote is in favour of conscription, he will ask his people to support it and to recognize it as the law of the land.
I think the most depressing day of my life was yesterday when I sat here and listened to three speeches in particular, which in my judgment revealed a condition of affairs in Canada for which every true Canadian should be sorry, and for which he should try to seek a remedy. I have listened to one hon. gentleman who has been a soldier and has returned from the front, practically branding every French Canadian who enlisted in his regiment as a renegade and a deserter.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Shame on him.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I listened to another
hon. gentleman who I believe hopes to be Minister of Agriculture in the near future comparing the French race in Canada with the red man. and the comparison he made

was very much in favour of the red man. Then I heard another hon. gentleman, my good friend from Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau), practically say to the people of Canada that because the people of Ontario were insulting the French Canadians, the French Canadians were not going to enlist and do their duty in this war.


An hon. MEMBER :: Shame again.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: When Great Britain decided to go into the war in August, 1914, they did not first take the opinion of the people by means of a referendum. They hardly even called Parliament together. The heads of the nation got together and had hurried consultations. They decided that their duty was to go ahead, that Britain should stand by her treaties and protect her neighbours. And they did. The Canadian Government did not call for a referendum when the war broke out; they called for volunteers. Then Parliament was assembled, and when we came together, we voted everything that the Government wanted, we passed the War Measures Act, and in effect said to the Government-; Go ahead, do your duty. The United States did not ask for a referendum when they decided to go into the war. There had lwen	an election
only a few months before.	And, as well
as I can judge, having been in New York and other American cities during that campaign-, President Wilson ran more as a pacifist than as an advocate of war, and I believe that more men opposed to war in the United States voted for him than voted for his opponent. Yet when the time came that the United States felt that they ought to engage in the war, there was no referendum. They called together their elected representatives in Congress, and Congress said: Go ahead. An-d they went ahead. In what position are we in Canada different from Britain, France, Italy, or the United States? True, I admit, this is a moribund Parliament. I rather agree that we all made a mistake in voting to extend the life ' of Parliament a year ago. However, we did it unanimously and we believed we were working for the beet. But we are, as things stand to-day, the Parliament of Canada. This country is at war, and the war is the most terrible that the world has ever known. We are called upon to act and to bear our responsibilities as long as vre form the Canadian Parliament, and the man who is not ready to face his duty in this matter is not fit to foe a member of this Parliament.
My logical friend from Welland (Mr. German) the other night said he was in favour of a referendum. Yet he said that we must have men, and more men, and still more men, in order to win the war. And his logical mind told him that he must believe that a referendum would result in favour of the Conscription Bill. Sir, I am not the keeper of my brother's conscience;
I am the last m-an in the world to force any other man to vote with me who does

not wish to vote with me. I hope I am big enough to give any man who differs from me the credit of being just as honest in his convictions as I am honest in mine. And I have, just as much respect for the honesty of the man who declares he will vote for the referendum as I have for my own. But I cannot help asking:	Should
the referendum be defeated, what then? That is a question I cannot get around. I do -not say it will be defeated. I do not say that Parliament ought to pass a law if it is sure that in doing so it is going against. the will of the people. But again I come back to my first proposition: This country is at war and must have men; this country must go on doing its duty. Again I say: Suppose the referendum is defeated-, what then? And,' not being the keeper of any other man's conscience, I have no fault to find with the man who says he is willing to take this chance. But so far as I am concerned, I can only say, it is not good enough for me. Therefore, I am constrained to vote against my leader on this question of referendum, and those of us who feel that way must logically be compelled to go on and vote for the second reading o-f the Bill.
Perhaps the one incident in the whole history of things during the last two or three years which has created the greatest impression on my mind, and which has led me to the conclusion at which I have arrived, is what took place in this Chamber just two or three weeks ago when that great French statesman, Rene Viviani, addressed the House of Commons and Senate. Unfortunately, I was not able to understand every word that that distinguished gentleman said although I could follow him fairly well and could tell what he was talking about. But, I have read and re-read the translated report of his speech in Hansard and I must say that I felt the inspiration of his eloquence and earnestness. It seemed to me as I sat here and listened to him that he closed every period of his speech by the appeal: For God's sake come over and help us. I almost felt the desperation of the man as he seemed to say: We have stood out against this onslaught for the last three years; we cannot hold out much longer; won't you give us material support in men and money? France, the most chivalrous nation in the world has supported the burden for three years; millions of her men have faced the enemy; they have been mown down by thousands and hundreds of thousands; a large portion of the country has been made desolate and this distin-

guished representative of that great nation comes to us and says: Come over and help us. As far as I am concerned, I am not the man who will refuse to respond to the call to action which that man addressed to us.
But, Sir, while my intention is to vote for this Bill, I do not think there is any man in Canada to whom the word "conscription" is as repugnant as it is to me. Many hon. members have said that in their judgment conscription is the proper form of raising an army and from the purely ma-
4 p.m. terial standpoint of getting the men who ought to go and leaving the men who ought to remain, probably that is correct. But had this Bill been proposed a year ago, I would not have voted for it. I do not believe in conscription. I believe in freedom as far as it is possible to have freedom upon the earth. I am glad that up to -the present time it has not been necessary to attempt to take away from any man in Canada the freedom which is bestowed upon him by the constitution. So long as ws were getting all the men we reasonably required by the voluntary system I was opposed to conscription, and if I believed to-day that we could geo all toe men we might require I would still be opposed to conscription. Believing that the voluntary system has not been honestly carried out, I do hope that the Government will delay the practical enforcement of this Act until voluntary enlistment has had a fair chance. I am not going to hark back to past events or to point out to the Government its sins of omission or commission, but I must say that all over the country the Government has not done its duty. The petty, party patronage system has militated against the best interests of recruiting in all parts of Canada. I ,do not know what the condition may be in other parts of Canada, but I know that in eastern Canada party patronage has been the greatest curse that this country has ever known.
I do not know that we have all done our duty, but I do know that by a united, concerted effort, coupled with the abolition of the party system, in the last three years, very much more could have been done throughout eastern Canada than has been done, and I believe that the same is true all over Canada. I hope the Government will give voluntary recruiting one more chance. Let the men of Canada get together. Every man who is a Canadian, every man who wants to see the country prosper, every man who wants to see the
war won, every Liberal, every 'Conservative, every Frenchman, every Englishman, men of every nationality and of every colour and race-let people get together and make one great, mighty attempt to get the number of men required. I do ask that this legislation shall not be put into force until after that is done. But if we fail, then you have my full consent to get the men, to get them by any means possible. I -do hope that be-fore^this is done an honest, united effort will be made and thus avoid the necessity of applying this Act, which most of us, I think, on both sides of the House, hate to support at the present time.
I do not know whether most of the members of this House realize what it means to me to vote against my leader. I believe very few do. I think very few men realize what it means to vote against the man whom you have followed as loyally as I have, and in whose judgment you have had such supreme confidence as I have had in that of my leader since I have -been a member of this House, now some thirteen years. But, Sir, as I view the matter, -and for the reasons which I have given, I feel constrained to take the course which I have indicated. At the same time I want my friends to feel, and I want my opponent to feel, that I still have faith in the honesty, integrity, loyalty and uprightness of the great man who has led the Liberal party foT the last thirty years, and who I hope will lead it on to greater victories in the future than have been achieved ini the past.


Mr. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to preface my remarks this afternoon by again placing on Hansard the touching lines which were quoted by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), in his admirable address:-
In Flanders' Fields.
In Flanders' fields the poppies blow Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place, and in the sky The larks still bravely singing, fly.
Scarce heard amidst the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow, Loved and were loved, and now we lie In Flanders' fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe,
To you from falling hands we throw The torch,-be yours to hold it high;
If ye break faith with us who die.
We shall not sleep though poppies grow In Flanders' fields.
Beneath these crosses erected amongst the poppies of Flanders fields lie some of the men from the county of Frontenac-too many I am sorry to say-and I regard the



lines of this Canadian soldier, written on the field of battle, as a direct appeal to me as the representative of the county of Fro.ntenac, and one which I am expected to pass on to the people of my county, that we may not forget the men who have given their lives in this great cause; that we will not break faith with the men still living, but, that we will give them the -reinforcements which they need in order to carry on this great struggle.
I regard it as a direct appeal to me and I have no hesitation in saying that it is my intention to give this Bill my very hearty and cordial support because I believe it is the only means whereby we can do our duty to the men who have gone to the front and who are at present fighting in this great cause. It is up to us, as the representatives of the Canadian people, to consider the position in which our country is placed and to consider the conditions at the present time. The conditions as they are to-day in Canada, have not been created in the last twenty-four hours, nor in the last two or three years. These conditions are not satisfactory to-day, and I will venture to say that in making that statement every member of this House will agree with me. Conditions, such as there are in this country, are not the result of what has transpired during the last two or three years but as the result of years and years of wrong teaching and wrong directing.
If we, as representatives of the people, are to do our full duty, we must look matters fairly and squarely in the face, state facts as we find them, and draw conclusions from those facts fairly and honestly. It will be necessary for me to place a few figures on Hansard with respect to recruiting in this country. Every preceding speaker has made reference to recruiting and enlistment and has given his opinion, adverse or otherwise, of the means and methods adopted by this Government in securing recruits by the voluntary system. I must place on Hansard some figures in order to make my future remarks intelligible. The enlistments by provinces up to May, 15th of this year, according to a return brought down in this House, were:
Province.	Enlistments.
Ontario	 173,078
Quebec	 to,277
Maritime	Provinces	
38,200Manitoba	and	Saskatchewan .. ..	79,779Alberta	
35,477British Columbia	40,264Yukon	
2,327Total	
414,402

On the 1st of January, 1916, the right hon. the Prime Minister announced the authorizing of the raising of half a million men in Canada. The legitimate or fair share of each province in that half million men asked for, according to population, would be as follows:
Province.	Proportion of
Recruits.
Ontario	 170,213
Quebec	 138,298
Maritime Provinces	   65,957
Manitoba and iSaskatchewan .. ..	70,213
Alberta	 34,517
British Columbia	 29,787
Total	 508,985
If you take those figures in conjunction with those I gave as enlistments, it will be seen that Ontario has contributed 101 per cent of the number which, according to population, that province should contribute to the half million men authorized. Quebec has contributed only 32 per cent; the Maritime Provinces 58 per cent; Manitoba and Saskatchewan 112 per cent; Alberta 102 per cent; and British Columbia 137 per cent. If Quebec had recruited as well as the Maritime Provinces, it would have meant 34,935 more men in uniform to-day, and would bring our total up to 449,367 men. If Quebec had done as vtfell as Ontario, our total enlistment to-day would be 508,805 men.
I want to ask two questions, both of which I think are pertinent: 1, Why should not Quebec do as well as any of the other provinces? and, 2, why has Quebec not done as well as any of the other provinces? I think I may ask these questions of many hon. gentlemen here without being accused of raising race issues. It is a question of fact, it is a matter for us, as members of this House of Parliament, representatives of the people, to task ourselves calmly why this is the case. There must be reasons for it, and it is our duty to try to find out what those reasons are, and to apply a remedy if it is within our power to do so.
I wish to consider this matter from another standpoint. According to the last census, the French population of Canada was 2,054,890. Of these, 1,605,339 were in the province of Quebec, and 449,551 were in the other provinces. A return tabled on June 14, and signed by the Adjutant Genera], says that from the outbreak of the war until April 30, 1911, only 14,100 French Canadians had enlisted from all Canada and proceeded overseas. That is seven-tenths of one per cent of the French population of

Canada. Sir, how many of these were from Quebec? According to the same return, 6,917, exclusive of those who went with the first contingent, were from the province of Quebec. If we add to that 6,917 the 1,217 French Canadians who were with the First Contingent, according to that return, crediting the whole J .217 to the province of Quebec, it will give 8,131 men overseas from the province of Quebec, out of a population of 1,605,339, or about one-half of one per cent. If we credit the half of that 1,217 to Quebec, it would give us about 7,500 French-Canadians from that province overseas, or less than one-half of one per cent.
What of the French Canadians who enlisted outside of Quebec? The returns show that 6,512 French Canadians have answered the call from outside the province of Quebec, out of a population of 449,551, or nearly one and one-half per cent. If the French Canadians of Quebec had responded as well as the French Canadians in the provinces outside of Quebec, they would have had some 17,000 more men overseas than they have at the present time, 17,000 more representatives of their race in France, sharing in and adding to the glories which their compatriots gained at Cour-celette and other places along the western battle front. I may ask, I think, without being accused of any wrong motive, why there is this difference of sentiment amongst the French Canadians outside of Quebec and those within that province, and I say it is our duty to endeavour to find an honest answer to that question and to apply a proper remedy to that condition. Out of a population of 3,564,792 English-speaking Canadians born in Canada, 125,245 have proceeded overseas, or over three and one-half per cent. Out of a population of 813,714 of English-speaking people born outside of Canada, 155,095, or 19 per cent, have answered the call of King and country. And let me say that I endorse most heartily the words of approval and commendation uttered by the hon. member for Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell) of the conduct of British-born Canadians in responding to the call of their King and country. We have been wont in the past to sneer somewhat at some of the oddities of the Englishman who comes to this country, and who perhaps affects an eyeglass. Well, the Englishman in the future can come to this country, and he can wear a ring in his nose if he wants to, and one in each ear.
173*
I will take off my hat to the Englishman, when it comes to a matter of his doing his duty, and responding to the call of his country in the great cause. Up to April, 1917, 44,937 men had enlisted from Quebec. That is 32 per cent of Quebec's allotment or fair share of the half million men authorized. It is certainly most remarkable that the French Canadians, who comprise 78 per cent of the population of Quebec, should supply less than one-fifth of the enlistments of that province, while the English- speaking men of the province of Quebec, who comprise 15 per cent of its population, should supply over four-fifths of the recruits from that province. Again I say this is a matter for us to inquire into, to endeavour to find a remedy for it. In this connection, allow me to add that, of the 316,103 English in Quebec, from whom four-fifths of the recruits of that province have been drawn, 245,212 were born in Canada, and 70,891 in the United Kingdom, or other parts of the British Empire. These are plain, cold, hard facts, and if we find the Quebec recruiting figures unsatisfactory- and I think we do-it is up to us to try and ascertain the cause of this condition of things, and to honestly try to apply a remedy.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw attention to the statements made by the right hon. leader of the Opposition, in the course of his speech in this debate. Referring to a statement of the Prime Minister he said:
I say that he (the Prime Minister) could not under the Act as it is send anybody across the ocean to serve in the war.
I do not read the Militia Act in that way, but I am not a lawyer. However, I want to quote the opinion given by a very eminent lawyer and statesman on this very point. There appeared in the Toronto Globe on October 4, 1899, a statement made by the right hon. leader of the Opposition, in regard to our sending troops to South Africa at the outbreak of the Boer war. The following statement is attributed to the right hon. gentleman:
"There exists a great deal of misconception in the country regarding the powers of the Government in the present crisis. As I understand the Militia Act, and I may say that X have given it some study of late, our volunteers are enrolled to be used in the defence of the Dominion. They are Canadian troops to be used to fight for Canada's defence. Perhaps the most widespread misapprehension is that they cannot be sent out of Canada. To my - mind H is clear that cases might arise when they might be sent to a foreign land to fight. To postulate a case:	Suppose that Spain
should declare war upon Great Britain. Spain

..-;iay, or had, a navy, and that navy might be being got ready to assail Canada as part of the Empire. Sometimes the best method of defending one's self is to attack, and in that case Canadian soldiers might certainly be sent to Spain, and it is quite certain that they legally might be so despatched to the Iberian Peninsula. The case of the South African: Republic is not analagous.
I might say that, in the brief [DOT] session of 1914, when we had under consideration the resolution for the appropriation of $50,000,000 for war purposes, the right hon. gentleman paid particular attention to matters in connection with that vote. He called attention to the fact that the money was voted for the conduct of military or naval operations in or beyond Canada, and for the carrying out of any measures, deemed necessary or advisable by the Governor in Council, in consequence of the existence of a state of war. I maintain this is one of the measures deemed necessary by the Governor in Council to be carried out in consequence of this country being in a state of war, and I think an expression of opinion of that kind by the right hon. leader of the Opposition was, in itself, an endorsation * of the power of the Government to send troops overseas.
It has been said that the Prime Minister, speaking in this House, expressed himself against conscription. No doubt that is true.
I think I am correct in saying that Lloyd George, the present Prime Minister of England, when conscription was first suggested in England, went so far as to threaten to resign from the British Cabinet if that suggestion were carried into effect, and yet the Bight Hon. Lloyd George came to see the necessity of conscription as the only means of providing the men required to maintain the English forces ini France. I might also say that not only is there a strong feeling among the men overseas, the rank and file, that more men are required, but I am sure I am Tight in saying that the men who are at the head of our forces in France to-day, General Turner and General Currie, both bf whom, I am told, are Liberals, are very' emphatic and urgent in their request that more men should be sent overseas, and sent as speedily as it is possible to send them.
I want to draw attention to another statement made by the right hon. leader of the Opposition in discussing this question in the debate. He said:
He <the Prime Minister) said the other day, and he has just repeated it, that the first line of our defence to-day is in Flanders and France. I claim against him that there never was any danger of invasion of Canada on the

part of Germany. If I have taken the position I have hitherto taken it is not because I feared an invasion of Canada by Germany.
These are the words of the right hon. gentleman uttered in this House a short time ago. I want this House to contrast those sentences with the expression of opinion by the same right hon. gentleman, in that brief session of Parliament, held at the outbreak of the war, 19th August, 1914. His words as recorded in Hansard are:
"Our territory is liable to attack and invasion. No one pretends that our maritime cities on the Pacific and Atlantic are free from the possibility of insult by an audacious corsair who descending suddenly upon our shores might subject them to an insolent raid and decamp with his booty before punishment could reach him. This is not an unfounded dread of danger; this Is no mere illusion; it is a real and indeed aproximate danger, since it is a matter of notoriety that both on the Pacific and on the Atlantic there are German cruisers whose mission is to inflict all the injury they can upon our commerce, and even to raid our cities should they find our harbours unguarded."
Those were the words of the right hsn. gentleman who leads the Opposition and who has proposed this referendum, and I say that those words are in direct contrast to his statement of a few days ago, where he said that he did not believe there was ever any danger of invasion of Canada on the part of Germany. Be that as it may, if this country is not to be invaded by Germany, it will be because we make things so hot for the Germans over in Flanders on that western front that they will not have time to come over here and invade us. The first line of Canada's defence is in Flanders, and is it not far better for us that we maintain that line and prevent the Germans from breaking through and subsequently attacking this country? We do not want any atrocities committed in Canada such as the Germans have committed in Belgium and in Northeastern France.
The right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has given certain reasons why conscription should not be enforced in Canada. I want to give a reason which he placed on Hansard on January 17, 1916, when he said:
Apart from any other, one paramount reason, which is on top of ail the others, is that we could not adopt conscription in Canada without giving a severe blow to our policy of immigration.
That was the reason advanced against conscription by the right hon. gentleman on January 17, 1916. Well, if Germany wins the war, neither the right hon. gentleman nor anybody else will need to concern him-

self about an immigration policy for Canada. Germany will look after that part of it; Germany will conduct a vigorous immigration policy if she wins in this war. The right hon. gentleman went on to say:-
But if it were to be known that conscription existed in Canada, it would, I repeat, deal a severe blow to our hopes in that respect. Why, the very thought of conscription has had a detrimental effect on our settlements in the north-west.
He went on to quote a report published in an American newspaper, stating that certain American farmers who had made their way into the Canadian Northwest had, on the outbreak of war, taken fright and gone back across the boundary line into the United States. May 1 ask what people are going to be scared from emigrating to Canada because of conscription? Not the people of the United States, because they have conscription there, and they know what it means. Not the people of the British Isles, for they have conscription there also. Not the people of France, Russia, or Italy, for each of those countries have concription. What peoples, then, are likely to be prevented from coming into Canada after the war is over because of our having adopted a policy of conscription? I maintain that there is absolutely nothing in that argument advanced by the right hon. gentleman.
The right hon. gentleman advanced other reasons, which were not so much against conscription, I take it, as they were reasons why enlistments had failed so lamentably in the province of Quebec. He said that when the war broke out both parties in the House agreed that it was the duty of the Canadian people to participate in the war to the fulness of our resources. " To the fulness of our resources " includes men as well as everything else. He went on to say:-
I must make an exception to that. The ratification was not unanimous. There has been a minority which has always protested against our attitude, and that minority is the Nationalist party in the province of Quebec, who took the position from the start that it was a crime for the Canadian people to participate in this war. Not only did they use that strong language, but again and again in the Nationalist press they have asserted, and still assert, that we have taken our present position simply because we are subject to the imperious dictation of the British authorities.
Further he said that these
same Nationalists would deny us the liberty, when we see Prance threatened with dismantlement, when we see Belgium actually under the foot of the conqueror, of helping in the defence of France and of Belgium.
He said further:-	*
It is not because they hate France, it is not because they hate Belgium, but because we cannot in this war help France or help Belgium without at the same time helping England.
Further on he said that the Nationalists asserted that Canada had no direct or material interest in this war. He continued :-
And, every day we read in their press that if Germany were to triumph it would be of no material injury to Canada, that Canada would remain just in the position that Canada is in to-day.
I think I am right in drawing the conclusion that in these expressions regarding the minority in Quebec we have a reason, in part at least, why men have not enlisted in greater numbers in that province.
The right hon. gentleman also said:-
Should Germany triumph there would be nations that would rue the day of their indifference and eupineness.
May I not also say that should Germany-triumph, Quebec would rue the day of its ~ indifference and supineness in the matter of enlistment? Mr. Speaker, I honestly believe that the worst enemies of Quebec and of the French Canadians are those men in and out of that province who have tried to prevent the French Canadians of Quebec from enlisting as they should enlist, having regard to their numbers. I care not whether they live in Quebec or are members of this House; I say that the men who have by word or deed encouraged men in Quebec not to enlist are the worst enemies of that province. I believe that, in time, the people of Quebec, realizing that, will look upon these men not as their champions and friends, but as their worst enemies.


Mr. MEDERIC MARTIN:: Do you mean by those words that the Nationalists of 1911 who are now sitting on the Treasury benches are responsible for this condition?


John Wesley Edwards: That is a question that ought to be answered, and that I will answer; I have no intention of evading it.
I am going to refer to the Nationalists, and I am going to refer also to some who are not Nationalists, including the hon. gentleman who has just sat down. I do not want to be misunderstood in my references to the Nationalists; I have no use for them-and I have said so in this House before now.


Mr. C. A. WILSON:: But your leader
seems to have had some use for them.


John Wesley Edwards: And your leader seems to have a good deal of use for them now.


Charles Avila Wilson: Oh, no.


John Wesley Edwards: Let us come out into the open, face to face, and find out where we on this side and hon. gentlemen on the other side, including the leader of the Opposition, stand in regard to the matter. I believe it is my duty as a representative of the Canadian people to place these matters squarely before the House and the country as I see them; and if I am wrong, I shall be glad to be corrected and to be shown wherein I am in error. Where does the right hon. gentleman, stand, and where has he stood, in regard to Canada's participation in Britain's wars? Where did he stand in regard to Canada's participation in the South African war? Is it not an historical fact that he held back on that occasion. until public sentiment practically compelled him to send our soldiers overseas- and that he then sent them on the c.o.d. principle? I may be accused of recrimination when I make that assertion, but it is either true or not true. I make it because I believe that it is true, and if hon. gentlemen challenge it, I want them to show me in what respect it is wrong; I want them not to abuse me because I state what I believe to be a fact.
Where did the right hon. gentleman stand in regard to Canada's participation in the wars of the Empire when he attended the Imperial conferences in London? Did he line up with those who want to prosecute the war to a finish, or was not his stand at those conferences more in line with the first plank of the Nationalist platform, which is, " No participation by Canada in the wars of Great Britain? What was his position in regard to the proposal of the Government for contributing three dreadnoughts to the British navy? Was he for participation? Was not his stand exactly in line with the first plank of the Nationalist platform? Accuse the Nationalists, if you like, -and I am with you in regard to the first plank of their platform, which is absolutely indefensible; but do not think that by abusing the Nationalists you can exculpate the right hon. leader of the Opposition in regard to the doctrines which he has repeatedly endorsed in this House and country. How did 'the German press regard the action of the Canadian Senate in voting against the three dreadnoughts? We know what the naval expert of the British Government said in regard to the

battle of Jutland, that great battle of Beattie's:	" If we had had three
or four more dreadnoughts on that occasion we could have wiped out the German navy." Why did not we have three or four dreadnoughts there, and why was not the German navy wiped out? It was because the right hon. leader of the Opposition was opposed (to (Canada giving three dreadnoughts, and because his partisan Senate did his bidding and killed the Bill. What did the German press say about the action of the Canadian Senate? On June 5, 1913, the Hamburger Nachriohten said:
Whatever may be decided upon later, the actual decision of the Canadian Senate means at any rate a heavy moral and material loss for the defence of the Empire, for Mr. Borden's promise had been foolishly enough counted on. His offer made an enormous impression on the whole world. This impression will not only now be destroyed but people will everywhere obtain the conviction that England cannot depend upon such help from her colonies.
The Morning Post, an English newspaper, said:
By rivals and enemies the decision will be eagerly welcomed. By friends it will be regarded as ominous. The impression must inevitably be created that the solidarity of the Empire is a myth and that those powers which would like to see the overthrow of British naval supremacy need not he discouraged with their efforts by the thought that their challenge would be met by the united resources of the mother country and of every one of the daughter States.
Is not Germany to-day getting encouragement from the .referendum proposed by the right bon. leader of the Opposition, and just as much encouragement as she is getting from the dastardly doctrines preached by the Nationalists in the province of Quebec? Axe not the enemies of Great Britain and our Allies taking encouragement from this referendum proposal? Are they not justified in regarding Canadian unity as a myth in the face of that referendum proposal?
But let u.s go a little further. In a former session the present Prime Minister asked Sir Wilfrid Laurier, then Prime Minister, what a Canadian ship would do if she met an .enemy ship on the high seas; would she attack the enemy ship? What did the right hon. gentleman reply?
I do not know that she will fight.
That is what .he is saying by this referendum :	I do not. know .that we will send
the men. He goes on:
I do not know that she should fight, either.

That is just whiat is being said again, today in regard to sending men overseas. Some men say:	I do not know that we
should send any more men overseas. He goes on:
She should not fight until the Goverment by which she is commissioned have determined whether she should go into the war. That is the position we take, my hon. friend takes a different position. He says that without any question, under all circumstances, we are hound to send our ships into the war. We take a different position, and we sayLet the country judge between us
I maintain that the attitude adopted by the right hon. leader of the Opposition was certainly more in line with the first plank of the Nationalist platform than with the Conservative platform. In the same debate Sir Robert Borden said:
I understood the Prime Minister to say that our ships would not fight until they were ordered to do so, and, therefore, they would in effect be neutral until the Governor in Council had made an order that they should participate in the war. Have I mis-stated my hon friend's position?
Sir Wilfrid Laurier-No.
Mr. R. L. Borden-Then, inasmuch as our ships, under the conditions mentioned, will be practically neutral, I would like to know whether our ports and harbours will also be neutral in the same way?
Sir Wilfrid Laurier-I do not understand what my hon. friend means by asking if they would be neutral. If he means after an enemy has come into our harbour, then it will be time to resist them with our fleet.
Hon. gentlemen opposite are to-day preaching the same doctrine, whether it be Nationalist doctrine or anything else. They say: It is time enough to fight the Germans when they invade Canada; it is not up to us to send men overseas to fight them. Sir Robert Borden continued :
Mr. R. L. Borden-But if our ships do not attack the enemy when they meet the enemy on the high seas, on the same principle may not the enemy's fleet come into our harbour without resistance or attack, without fear of aggression? Surely, that can be done, if it is feasible for the country owning those harbours to maintain neutrality on the high seas.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier-That would be a question to determine any time that a warship entered a Canadian port.
That is what the right hon. gentleman said: Wait until the German cruisers put into Halifax or St. John Harbour or arrive ofi the city of Quebec. Then let the Government summon Parliament to decide what is to be done with those enemy cruisers. I say that the position taken then by the present leader of the Opposition is exactly in line with the first plank of the Nationalist platform, No participation by Canada in
the wars of Great Britain. Our position is exactly the opposite. We say: Do not wait until the German cruisers get into our har-' hours, but fight them on the high seas. Do not wait until the German puts his dirty foot on our Canadian soil and butchers our women and children, before taking up arms. Take the war into his own territory and see that there are not enough Huns left to perpetrate the atrocities here that were committed in France and Belgium.
Who first suggested the referendum? Was it the right hon. leader of the Opposition? Every hon. gentleman in this House knows that when this Military Service Act was submitted to the House by the Prime Minister, the leader of the Opposition skated all round it; he took time to consider it. If at that time he had got right up in his place and said: You have been to the front and have consulted with our generals and the men in possession of the facts, and you come back and say that men are urgently needed at the front, therefore, although I am opposed to the principle of conscription, in view of the urgent need, I will favour that method of getting the men-if, I say, he had risen to the occasion in that way as a great statesman would have done, I venture to say that we should have heard very little, if any, of this talk in the province of Quebec. We should never have heard men in that province threatening to turn their guns against their neighbours in Canada rather than against the enemy. The population of the province of Quebec would have suppressed men like Tancrede Marsil, Bourassa and Armand Lavergne, who should have been put in prison long ago.


William Melville Martin: How about
Mr. Blond in?


John Wesley Edwards: He has taken a course in the last few months which my hon. friend might very well emulate. But who was it that suggested the referendum? The first man in the province of Quebec to suggest a referendum was that man, Henri Bourassa, in his paper, Le Devoir. This referendum was suggested by the leader of the Nationalist party; it was proposed in this House by the leader of the Liberal party. And it was seconded here by a man who, if his words mean anything, while opposing conscription in this House-for he seconds the motion for a referendum-is in favour of conscription and would go so far as to take every man from the province pf Quebec to make up the hundred thousand.

What is the second plank in the Nationalist platform?
To spurn attempts at recruiting for British troops.
The hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Le-mieux) rolled that under his tongue and dwelt upon it in his speech. Who is it who for months past has been giving effect to the second plank .of the Nationalist olat-form? Can he say that a sing's man in the Conservative party has given encouragement or effect to that plank? But who has given effect and encouragement to it? The Lemieux Clubs, the Young Liberal Clubs, of Montreal and other places in Quebec. Not for one moment can he deny it. Again and again the young Liberals in the city of Montreal have carried out that second plank. What did they do at the meeting in Montreal addressed by General Lessard and Colonel Blondin? Did not they do their utmost to prevent recruiting? Did not they again carry out to the letter , the admonition given in the second plank of the Nationalist platform? These are the men, these Nationalists of the province of Quebec, who are lined up to give opposition to conscription to-day. Hon. gentlemen opposite cannot truthfully deny that.
The hon. member for South Renfrew (Mt. Graham) says that the French Canadian mind is a logical mind, because it does not change with changed conditions. He says that the French Canadian does not change overnight, and we do; therefore, we are not logical. It seems to me that that is the" reverse of logical. I do not see how one can claim that a man is logical who will stick to the same opinion notwithstanding changed conditions. I should suppose that the man was giving evidence of a logical mind who would change his position as conditions warrant. However that is the position taken by the hon. member for South. Renfrew. He also went on to refer to the Nationalist platform adopted in 1911, as did other hon gentlemen; and, as questions have been asked me, I am justified in going into this matter. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Graham) said:
The doctrine preached previous to 1911 in Quebec that we owed nothing to Great Britain and should not send a man to fight her battles had more to do with the slowness of recruiting in Quebec than any other cause.
I believe that is true. The doctrine preached in the province of Quebec in 1911, and since, and before-


William Melville Martin: Since Confederation.


Mr. SPEAKER:: If an hon. member
wishes to speak he should rise and address the Chair. Interruptions of this kind do not accord with the decorum of debate.


John Wesley Edwards: The hon. member for South Renfrew said, in approaching this particular question:
This is a delicate point. I wish to speak of this without recrimination but merely as a matter of history and of fact.
May I be allowed to preface the remarks I am about to make by taking these words of the hon. gentleman as my own. He went on to say that men told the French Canadians that it was no part of their duty to enlist to fight overseas. I wonder if he thinks that talk of that kind is a greater encouragement'for the French Canadians not to enlist than this referendum amendment by the leader of the Opposition? When did this sort of talk start in Quebec? Who encouraged it? Who was it who planted the seeds of distrust and suspicion of Britain in the French Canadian mindp Who nourished the idea of separation and kept alive in the French Canadian- mind the thought of independence? Who taught the French Canadians to regard their connection with Britain as a yoke of bondage? Who gave encouragement and support to distrust of the Constitution in that province? Did all this start with the Nationalists? Why, Bourassa, La-vergne, and the other Nationalists were in the kindergarten class when the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laur-ier) was a professor in the college of that thought.


Mr. LANCTOT:: That will help recruiting.


John Wesley Edwards: I do not think it wifi have much effect on recruiting, one way or the other, in the part of the country you come from.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is contrary to the rules of order for one -member of the -House to address another in the second person. A member of this House is to be referred to as "the hon. member."


John Wesley Edwards: Then I will call him the hon. member, Mr. Speaker. Let us go back in our history. I wish to quote a few words uttered by one of the greatest statesmen this country ever produced, Sir George Etienne Cartier. Speaking in 18G9 he said:
Canadian people desire to remain faithful to the old monarchial flag of Great Britain, that flag which waves over all seas, that flag which tyranny has never been able to overcome, that flag which symbolizes true liberty.

Canadians know that if they wish to become really great they have only to continue their union with the mother country, so as to share in her power, her prestige and her glory.
I venture to say that if we had a Sir George Etienne Cartier to-day as leader of the French Canadian race in this country, instead of the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition, we should have had from the province of Quebec as many recruits in proportion to its population as we have had from any other province of Canada. Let this House contrast the words of that great statesman which I have just quoted with some remarks which have fallen from the lips of the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition. Then I would ask this House, in all seriousness, if these expressions of opinion are calculated to strengthen Canada's connection with Great Britain, or to increase the love for Britain or for British institutions. Let me quote further from some utterances of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in his past career. He once said:
The only tie that binds Canada to the mother country is a sentiment of affection. But this dependence will not always last. Even now Canada and England have very different interests, and the day will come-necessarily when they will have to part.
Such expressions as that were preparing the French Canadian mind for separation from Britain and the severing of their connection with Britain and British interests. These are the words of the right hon. the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). These are also his words:
I hold out to my fellow-countrymen the idea of independence.
Again.
Is there a Canadian anywhere who would not hail with joy the day when we would be deprived of the services of British diplomacy?
Again.
I am ready any day, whether I am charged with annexation or not to take a yankee dollar in preference to an English shilling.
I have again and again repeated that the goal of my aspiration is the independence of Canada, to see an inlependent nation in due course of time.
It is the duty of every man here to state what he believes to be facts, to give an honest comment on those facts and to try and find out the causes of the attitude of the people of Quebec. I am not blaming the mass of the people of Quebec but I. am blaming the leaders, or the men who call themselves the leaders of the people in Quebec. I am honestly endeavouring to get at the cause of the condition that exists
at the present time. Let me quote from another French Canadian.


Mr. DEVLIN:: Will the hon. gentleman give me the page of Hansard where he will find these words of the leader of the Opposition?


John Wesley Edwards: I regret that I am unable at this moment to give the hon. gentleman the page but I will promise him that I will get for him the page of Hansard where these words are.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Could the hon. gentleman give me the year?


John Wesley Edwards: No, I will not undertake to specify the year nor the date, but I will undertake to make good my assertion that these words were used, by the right hon. gentleman. I think my hon. friend will admit that that is fair.


William Erskine Knowles: Does the hon. gentleman refer to all his extracts when he says that we will find them in Hansard?


John Wesley Edwards: Yes, all of these will
be found in Hansard. Mr. Merrier, who was Premier of the province of Quebec from 1887 to 1891, spoke at Sohmer Park advocating cutting the tie with Britain and the establishment in Quebec of a French Canadian nation. He used these words:
Taking everything Into account French Canadians owe nothing to England. If they had prospered it was not because of England but in spite of her and if England had done them good it had also done them still greater harm. You have colonial dependence. I offer you independence; you have ruin and misery; I offer you fortune and prosperity.
Speaking later at Fall River, Massachusetts, to a meeting composed of French Canadians, he said:
I appeal to you to always be ready to assist your compatriots in Canada who are struggling for liberty and the only thing wanted to release them from their present bondage is independence
I quote these words for the reason that that gentleman occupied a very prominent position in public life in the province of Quebec. He was seeking re-election after he made nee of the words I have quoted. The right hon. the leader of the Opposition went to Quebec and uttered these words':
Mr. Mercier is the greatest Canadian since the time of Papineau. I believe with Mr. Mercier and I am here to make him prevail.
So that, Mr. Speaker, in considering what the Nationalists have done and what the

Nationalists say, and their attitude at the present time, it behooves us to go 5 p.m. back in history and find nut if the Nationalists are entirely to blame for the state of mind which exists in Quebec at the present time. I contend they are not entirely to blame. The right hon. gentleman at various times in lps career has unfortunately given expression to opinions and let words drop from his lips which were calculated to weaken the tie which binds this country, and the French Canadians, to the Mother Country, and which were calculated to lessen their respect for Britain and British interests. I repeat what I said at the outset. These things which have been lying beneath the surface of the political stream for years and years and threatening the very existence of this Confederation, have now come to the surface, and the expressions which have fallen from the lips of the right hon. gentleman are, in my judgment, largely responsible for the condition of affairs existing in Quebec to-day.
But, are the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) and other members of the Liberal party entirely clear with respect to this matter? They have in times past voted for a doctrine designed to separate this country from Britain and the Empire. In proof of that statement I want to refer them to some of their literature which was issued in 1891, and which is entitled "Facts for Farmers." If you will look at page 12 of this interesting pamphlet, you will find that these hon. gentlemen advocated annexation to the United States, and told how it would be brought about, said that God would bless the union, and all the rest of it.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: By whom? Will the hon, gentleman not admit that that movement was started by Sir John Abbott, at one time the Prime Minister of Canada?


John Wesley Edwards: I repeat that the Liberal party in 1891 scattered literature throughout this country advocating the annexation of Canada to the United States. Does the hon. gentleman deny it?


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I never received any and I know of none.


John Wesley Edwards: Probably in your case they did not think it was necessary to send you any. It was sent nevertheless.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I not only ask for a retraction, but I also ask that the hon. gentle-
man in retracting give the reason why he made that statement.


John Wesley Edwards: What is it that you want me to retract?


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I presume the hon. gentleman knows what he says when he makes a statement.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edw'ards) had in his mind a question as to the loyalty of the hon. member for Wright (Mr. Devlin), he should retract.


John Wesley Edwards: Whatever I may have had in my mind, I cannot retract what I did not utter. If you will show me anything I have said which in your opinion I should retract, I shall do so.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: As I understood the point of order raised by the hon. member for Wright, he had the idea that the Temark of the hon. member for Frontenac questioned his loyalty. If the hon. member for Frontenac did so, he would not be in order.


John Wesley Edwards: I have no desire to evade the rule in any particular. I did not impute disloyalty to the hon. member for Wright. If he so understood me I am very sorry. I said that the Liberal party, in 1891, issued literature-which they did issue-advocating the annexation of Canada to the United States. That is what I said. The hon. gentleman said he did not see any of that literature. I am not responsible for that; I did not have charge of sending it out. As a matter of fact, I repeat again that the literature was sent out. Now, since the matter has gone that far, I shall quote from their campaign literature of 1891.


William Erskine Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. We are discussing a certain question and debating it before you. We are debating whether we should approve the principle of this Bill which has been brought down by the Prime Minister. I submit that there must be some relevancy in the remarks of any hon. member. It is ruled in this House by a preponderating majority that it is out of order to read newspapers that are up to date, which are only a few days old, and I submit that it is much more irrelevant to read an alleged and as yet unproved pamphlet which seems to have been resurrected from a period of twenty-five years ago.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Do I understand that the point of order has reference to the reading of selections from newspapers?


William Erskine Knowles: On the ground of irrelevancy.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is quite competent for the hon. member to read extracts from newspapers if they have a hearing on the argument, and, as I understand it, his argument has to do with the matter of recruiting in Quebec, and he is proceeding to give his reasons. It may be that his argument is somewhat remote, but, as I understand it, it is relevant and in order.


John Wesley Edwards: The point I have been endeavouring to make, perhaps not with the astuteness and cleverness with which it would be made by a gentleman of the brilliancy of the hon. gentleman from Moose-jaw (Mr. Knowles), is that it was our duty as representatives of the people to try to ascertain the causes for certain sentiments which exist in this country, and, having ascertained them, to honestly seek to arrive at a remedy. I maintain that I have a perfect right to quote anything which, in any judgment, tends to show those causes.


William Erskine Knowles: I submit that the hon. member is out of order in discussing a point of order already settled. The point of order has been settled in his favour, and now he is proceeding to discuss it.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) has the floor. So long as he does not question the decision of the chair it is quite competent for him to refer to it.


John Wesley Edwards: statement of the hon. gentleman who seconds this motion for a referendum, the proper thing to do is to make each province or each part of the country first of all contribute its share until all are on an equality, and then go ahead with whatever scheme you think fit. The hon. gentleman who seconds this resolution would take every one of the 100,000 men asked for from the province of Quebec before he took a man from any other province. There is no getting away from that, it is absolutely indisputable. The hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) was asked a question by Sir Herbert Ames:
Sir Herbert Ames: What do you propose to do for the men at the front?
And his answer, as it will be found in Hansard, was:
Hon. Mr. Lemieux: To keep the men on the farms of Canada to produce wheat and send them food, for one thing, and to equip them with munitions.
So here we have what the hon. member ter Rouville conceives to be his duty in imis matter, what he conceives to he the duty of the people of Canada. If he is consistent he is telling the people of Quebec: it is not up to you, it is not up to this country, to conscript men to send overseas; but it is our duty to see that the men who are already over there shall get all they want to eat, shall have plenty of guns and plenty of ammunition. And if you follow out his argument to its logical conclusion, he takes the position that the men who are overseas now shall go unsupported except in regard to their food and the provision of arms and ammunition to enable them to carry on the fight.
They may stay there until the last man drops, but. according to the hon. member (Mr. Lemieux) no recruits will he sent over to help them, unless they can 'he obtained by voluntary enlistment. The hon. gentleman from Rouville on the 18th January, 1916, in the House of Commons, made a definite promise to the people of Canada and the men overseas. He said:
In six months, the turn of the tide having taken place, the public of the province of Quebec will have been educated-yes, educated as regards this war, because the population being largely rural, and having enjoyed peace for a hundred years, is not, as many would think, so much affected by events in Europe as other sections of Canada, because it is Canadian born, seven, eight, nine, ten generations back.
I say that the public, having ibeen made acquainted with the facts concerning the war, thanks to the eloquence of the right hon. leader of the Opposition, thanks to the campaign of my hon. friend the Postmaster General, thanks to the articles published by the Quebec press-

within six months we shall have nearer 20,000 that 15,000 new recruits in the province of Quebec.
When the hon. gentleman made that statement and gave that pledge on the floor of this House, it was up to him to try and carry it out, and to see that men were sent overseas. Perhaps he did try to carry it out. If he honestly tried to implement his promise, and failed, it seems to me he should support this Bill and see that the men he promised shall go overseas to the assistance of the men already there. The hon. gentleman from St. John (Mr. Pugs-ley, in his opening remarks, was somewhat facetious. He followed the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Sevigny), and he made the following statement:
I think there is no better food than the food which the hon. gentleman gets at the Government crib, for it seems to have developed his intellect and to have brought him at last to a right way of thinking, and to an appreciation of the duty which every man in this country owes to Canada and to the Empire.
The hon. gentleman spoke feelingly in regard to the hon. minister feeding at the Government crib. The hon. member for St. John fed there many long years, and there was no restriction on the quantity of pap the hon. gentleman took. There must have been something wrong with the quality of it, for it never had the same effect on him as it had on the Minister of Inland Revenue, for it never seemed to inspire him to right methods of thinking, or to awaken him to the needs of Canada or the Empire. The hon. gentleman fram St. John has been suffering from political indigestion ter a period of about eight years, and it is not to be wondered at. He has acute attacks of that malady at different times. He says that we should have adopted compulsory service at the beginning of the vvar, that the Government knew that Germany had been preparing for the war for 50 years, and that it would be a gigantic struggle. What position did the hon. gentleman take in this House just a few months before the war began? Did he not jeer and sneer at this Government when the Prime Minister told this House and the country that danger was imminent? He laughed at the idea of Germany having any sinister motive, and scorned the idea of Germany attacking any other country. The hon. gentleman fiom St. John made another reference in his speech, which I cannot allow to pass. He said:
The voice which he heard in regard to infantry is, I believe, not the voice of the Imperial authorities, but the voice of Toronto; it

is the voice of those who do not want to see voluntary enlistment carried on; it is the voice of those who want a measure of conscription introduced; it is the voice of those who wish to raise racial cries and issues in this country.
That was the statement made by the hon. gentleman from St. John. It was the vioiee of the people of Toronto raising racial dies and issues in this country. A short time ago a large meeting was held in Toronto, called by the Liberals of that city, and the men who addressed that meeting were the member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark), Mr. N.	W. Rowell, leader
of the Liberal	party in	Ontario,
the Rev. Father Minnehan, George Lindsey, and Robert McKay, K.C., and the advertisement calling that meeting was signed by fifty prominent Liberals of Toronto and Ontario. I find there such names as W. I.. Jaffray, Aemilius Jarvis, Dr. G. W. Ross, son of the former Prime Minister of Ontario; A. E. Dyment, S. V. Blake, H. M. Mowat, K.C., George Lindsey, Leighton McCarthy, and others. These are the gentlemen who, according to the hon. gentleman from St. John, wished to raise racial issues in this country. That is his statement. What has been the record of the hon. member from St. John (Mr. Pugsley). Away back in 1896 he was an outstanding Liberal-Conservative, and was chosen by the convention to run as the candidate in Kings county, New Brunswick. The issue in 1896 was the Manitoba School Act, and the Remedial Bill, proposed by the Conservative Government. Owing to some local difficulty, or dissensions in the party, the present member for St. John withdrew his candidature in Kings county, and, in withdrawing, expressed his loyal adhesion to Conservative principles and the Conservative party, and stated it would be better for the party if he withdrew from the contest. A short time later an independent party arose, and asked him to run as their candidate, and he took the platform as an independent. He ran as the candidate of the independent party, and appealed to the people showing his hostility to the Remedial Bill, and appealed to the people on racial and religious grounds for their support. I may say, in passing, that he did not seem to have the confidence of the people, because he was not only defeated, but lost his deposit. At all events, that was the position he took. Then the Liberals were elected in 1896, and within three weeks of the coming into power of that party, the hon. gentleman from St. John was the loudest and staunchest Liberal from the Atlantic to the Pacific. There is the gentleman, who, looking out for himself, undertakes to charge the most representative men we have in Ontario with wishing to raise racial and religious issues in connection with conscription. The hon. 'member for St. John, in his speech, made use of these words:
If we fail to put into force this law of conscription but take steps to stimulate recruiting, and if the war continues for one, two, or even three years, and Canada cannot send quite enough men to fill up the gaps, is it to be said that the Imperial army officers are going to leave the Canadians to be hacked to pieces in the great work they are doing for the Empire? Why, it passes my comprehension how any one can suggest such a thing. Is this the time to take this great departure?
So it passes the comprehension of the hon. gentleman from St. John how the people of England and France would allow our Canadian boys to be hacked to pieces, but it does not pass his comprehension how we, in Canada, can allow them to he cut to pieces. We can stand here with our arms folded, and let the war proceed. I would like the hon. gentleman from St. John, were in. his place, to tell me how many meetings he has addressed in New Brunswick or in this country in favour of recruiting?
I venture to say that he has not addressed one meeting on behalf of recruiting-and I will tell you why: because somebody in the back of the hall might call up to him: why doesn't Lieut. J. A. Pugsley, of St. John, go?
Some hon. gentlemen have seen fit to blame the Government because a sufficient number of men have not enlisted. The reason why enlistment has been successful in Ontario and in the western provinces is because members of Parliament from Ontario and the West, Grits and Tories, have led in the recruiting. The reason why enlistment has not been as successful in Quebec as it might have-been is because gentlemen like the member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) were opposed to it. Can , any one who listened to the member for Three Rivers yesterday imagine his being an influence in favour of recruiting in his part of the country? Is it any wonder that so few have answered the call in the Quebec military district, when persons iu that part of the country take the attitude that the member for Three Rivers took here yesterday? During the course of his remarks the hon. gentleman said:
I say, if you cannot fill the gaps with five divisions, make it four: if you cannot do it

with four, make it three; but do not become guilty of murder, do not leave the man who has gone to the front to famish; do not let the soldiers die of hunger.
The member for Three Rivers says: Do not let the soldiers over there die of starvation. They may die any other way they like-bullets, shrapnel and that sort of thing-but do not let them die of starvation. The shame of it. An hon. gentleman priding himself on his French blood-I have nothing to say against that-with the tri-colour of France hanging in full view before him, gets up and says that if you cannot maintain five Canadian divisions at the front without sending more men, cut the number of divisions down to four, three, or even two, if necessary. But do not, he says, force men to go over to keep up those divisions. What does that mean? If you cut down the number of divisions from five to four, or from four to three, it means that France, who has enlisted the services of eveTy available man, old and young; whose women and children have made sacrifices; whose clergy and priests have gone into the trenches to fight-France, bleeding from every pore, must take up more of that battle line. Either that, or Britain must do it-simply because we do not send more men across to France to back up our soldiers who are fighting. Shame on the man who comes into this House, whether he be French or English, who makes such a suggestion.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I hope the hon. member will refer to members of the House as "hon. members/' not as " men."


John Wesley Edwards: I shall endeavour so to do, Mr. Speaker. The member for Welland (Mr. German) and the member fpr St. John (Mr. Pugsley) reminded the House that Ireland had been exempted from conscription, and said that was a reason why we should exempt Quebec. Will any member of this House suggest that, as an amendment to this Bill, we should exempt Quebec? Would the member for Wright (Mr. Devlin) stand for that for one minute? I do not believe he would; I do not believe that the other members from Quebec would stand for it. To exempt Quebec from the operations of this measure would be to insult that province. But that Quebec should be exempted is the only inference we can gather from the argument adduced by the member for Welland. Canada and Ireland are not in the same position. Divisions of opinion with regard to Home Rule have been causing trouble in Ireland during all these

years. There is no such issue as that in Canada, for we have Home Rule; therefore that argument was ill-advised.
Hon. gentlemen opposite have had some flings at the Minister of Inland Revenue. What crimes has he committed? They allege that in the election of 1911 the Minister of Inland Revenue took the position that the Nationalists take: No participation in Britain's wars. Well, whatever position the Minister of Inland Revenue took or did not take in 1911 or prior to that year, in the election which preceded his occupancy of the position which he now holds he did take a pronounced position against the doctrine of the Nationalists; he did take a pronounced position in favour of Canada's participation in the wars of the Empire. If there is anything in what hon. gentlemen opposite say, they contend that the minister should be punished because he did not stick to the doctrine which they allege, through their leader, to be a wrong doctrine. The member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) said in this House on January 19, last:
If the present Minister of Inland Revenue had preached this week and last week the same gospel to the electors of Dorchester that he preached in 1911, 'he would have been elected by acclamation.
The member for Bonaventure says that if the Minister of Inland Revenue had continued to preach the doctrine which he preached in 1911 he would have been elected by acclamation; but, because he did not continue to preach that doctrine, he should be punished.
The leader of the Opposition has said:-
I blame him-*
That is the Minister of Inland Revenue.
-and his party for proclaiming in the province of Quebec that under no circumstances should Canada ever take part in the wars of Great Britain.
Surely, if the minister, having taken a position which was wrong, receded from that position to a right position, he ought to be commended, not blamed. But the leader of the Opposition blames him for receding from that position, and brings to bear upon him a cannon stuffed to the muzzle with the ammunition o.f anti-British doctrine.
Conscription of wealth has been referred to. Mr. Speaker, many men in this country have made millions by exploiting the resources of Canada, and I am in favour of the Government's taking such action as will get at some of the accumulated wealth of the millionaires. Perhaps it would be a good idea to constitute a joint committee,

consisting of members of both sides of the House, to take the necessary preliminary steps. Many hon. gentlemen in this House would be very valuable on a committee of that kind. If we are going to conscript wealth, a great deal of study will be necessary, and on such a committee we should have men who are well qualified by their experience to give valuable aid and advice. All the resources of the country will have to be considered. In considering the farmers, who would be able to give more admirable advice than the member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) ? He ought to be able to make valuable suggestions to such a committee as to how to get hay and things of that kind which needed to be conscripted or commandeered. In regard to royalties on mines, and that sort of thing, the member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) would be a most valuable addition to such a committee. The member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) could surely give valuable advice and information as to how some people out West get hold of large land and timber tracts, and thereby enable the committee to get after those people and commandeer some of that wealth. Then, the member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) would be able to give general information along all these lines. He would be specially valuable for the purpose of showing how bank overdrafts and things of that sort are handled. I say in all seriousness that such a committee could give very valuable advice, indeed.
I would also suggest as another way of raising money in /this country that the Government should seriously consider imposing a heavy tax upon those who have been made Knights, Barons, Lords and that sort of thing. If we are to have conscription of men by classes, why not have classes in the conscripting of /titles? A man with the title of ' Sir ' could give, say, half a million dollars for the honour, and Barons and Lords could contribute at least a million dollars. It is remarkable that only those who are very wealthy seem to get these honours. If there are men in Canada who have exploited this country and become wealthy and have received knighthoods, let them give of their wealth, and give liberally. I would not suggest imposing a tax upon the honorary colonels, because really so long as the Government permits a man like Armand Lavergne to call himself a colonel, I would consider a dollar apiece too high for the title. I cannot really understand why men allow themselves to be called colonel, so long as Armand Lavergne retains that title.


Mr. RROULX:: There are many honorary .colonels in this House who have rendered little service but have received a large amount of military pay. Armand Lavergne has received no pay at all.


John Wesley Edwards: I do not know whether he has or not, hut if be did not receive pay I presume it was merely because he could not get it.


Mr. PROULX:: He is a real colonel, not an honorary one.


John Wesley Edwards: My hon. friend may
have his opinion of Armand Lavergne and I have mine, and mine is not a very high one.
There is before the House the Bill for selective conscription, an amendment calling for a referendum, and another amendment calling for a six months' hoist. It is worthy of note that the mover and seconder of the amendment for the six months' hoist are alleged to have been made lieutenants in 1915. I wish to place on Han sard the opinion which one of these gentlemen expressed in 1915.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am sorry to interrupt, but I wish the hon. gentleman, in referring to members of this House, would speak of them as hon. gentlemen or hon. members.


John Wesley Edwards: Do I understand that it is not permissible to refer to a member as a member?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is quite proper, but I understood my hon. friend to say "gentleman," instead of "hon. gentleman."


John Wesley Edwards: I will try and remember to use the adjective in future, but I did not think any man would take exception to my calling him a gentleman. I certainly did not use the' word with any intention of being disrespectful. The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Achim), who seconded the motion for the six months' hoist, and who, I believe, also seconded the Address in the session of 1915, spoke as follows on February 8, 1915:
Kot a single one of these men (soldiers) has thought of arguing over his rights or duties not one of them has endeavoured to find out a clause of the Constitution behind which he might find refuge.
Once the enemy is victorious on the continent and is master of the British IsTes, it will he too late to take up arms for the defence of the country.
I suggested a moment ago that defending the Empire under present conditions was equivalent to defending our own country.
I cannot see how the hon. member for Labelle can square his position of to-day

with his utterances in the House which I have just quoted; however, that is up to him.
The case against the referendum could not be better summed up than in the language of the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. McCraney), who said:
The referendum amendment recognizes no need, suggests no remedy, and applies no alternative.
Suppose a referendum is submitted to the people. Who is going to vote on that referendum? All those whose names appear on the voters' lists? If sp, that will include thousands of Austrians and Germans who have been in this country perhaps only four or five years, and who might reasonably be expected to still have a warm regard for Austria and Germany. Would it be fair to all.ow these men to poll their votes on the referendum, when it would .be impracticable to obtain the votes of the soldiers in the trenches? There is also in this country a certain sect called Mennon-ites, who I understand settled here on the distinct pledge of the Government that they would not be called on for military service. Their names, however, appear on the voters' lists. Would it be fair to allow these men who are exempt .from military service to cast their vote in the referendum, when the soldiers at the front would not be allowed to cast theirs? I think it is only necessary to state these obvious objections to convince any person that this referendum should not receive the consideration of any person in this House or in the country. We are told that if the referendum carried it would be put into effect. What warrant have we for thinking that? Some yeats ago the right hon. gentleman who to-day leads the Opposition gave a distinct pledge to the people of 'Canada, when leader of a great party in this country, that if returned to power he would submit the question of prohibition to the people by way of referendum, and if the majority of the people of Canada decided in favour of prohibition, prohibition they should have. As it happened, the majority of the people of Canada did decide in favour of prohibition, but the majority of the people of the province of Quebec voted against prohibition, and the right hon. gentleman did not attempt to carry out his pledge to give the people of Canada a prohibition law.
The hon. member for St. Hyacinthe (Mr. Gauthier) in his address the other evening said that the British-born in this coun-. try are against the Bill, that they had left the country so as not to be called upon for

military service. I take strong exception to that. The manner in which the British-born have answered the call does not warrant the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe in making any such insinuations as that. His remarks were entirely unfair, uncalled for, and quite incorrect. He also took exception to the statement of the Solicitor General that the Bill in its working out would bear more lightly on the province of Quebec than on other provinces for reasons which the Solicitor General gave. Commenting on this, the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe (Air. Gauthier) said:
We resent the insult whether direct or indirect. Thank Heaven we do not belong to a race of cowards. We are willing to do our share to the bitter end, and no man in this House nor in this country can tell us that if we vote for the Bill we shall be exempted. We do not want to be put in reserve.
It is quite proper to mention that supporting this motion for a referendum is doing that very thing. The sentiment of the province of Quebec is undoubtedly against conscription, if we are to 'believe what we read in the press and what is stated in this House by some hon. members. I contend that the course taken by the leader of the Opposition has the effect of placing the province of Quebec in reserve. I also wish to call attention to the closing words of the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe :
I say to the "Government:	If you press
this measure through, my people, declaring that this Government has no mandate, will use the very Bill itself to fight the matter out. We acknowledge that in this fight there will be pain and suffering. We may have to go to the direst consequences. My people are willing to go to the limit if you impose upon them such a piece of legislation; I believe they are right, and I will do as they intend to do.
That language is not calculated to bring recruits from the province of Quebec, nor to bring unity in this country. It is most unfortunate language for any hon. member of this House to use. Are we to believe that if this Bill passes-and becomes law- and it can only pass by obtaining the support of a majority of the representatives of the people gathered here from all parts of Canada-that the people of the province of Quebec will resist it to the point of violence? That is the only inference we can draw from the statement made by the hon. gentleman. If I were to make a statement of that kind in this House hon. gentlemen from Quebec would resent it very strongly, and would say that I had no right to dse such language. I say that we have as much right to resent such a statement coming from one of the members from the

province of Quebec as they would have to resent such a statement if made by myself. If the hon. gentleman's statement is true] we are certainly face to face with a most serious condition. The people of this country, no matter of what nationality, must understand that when the representatives of the people pass a law that law is to be obeyed. We cannot take any other ground. We cannot overlook the fact that we have people here drawn from all parts of the globe, people of all nationalities; and if the people of any one nationality carry resistance against the law to the point of violence, they are simply giving encouragement to those of other nationalities who know less about our laws and institutions, to do likewise. It is a state of affairs that cannot be tolerated for one moment.
The hon. member for Russell (Mr. Murphy) said that there was no call from the men overseas to come to their help. I may again refer him to the words of the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) to which I referred at the beginning of my remarks. We have a call from the men overseas, from the very soldiers who are on the battle line. We have a call from a Canadian leader, General Currie, who is in command of our men overseas. We have a call from the men who have fallen. We have a call from those who have been in the trenches doing their bit for 'months and months.
Some hon. gentlemen have advised the Government to postpone the bringing into effect of this Act. I do not agree with that view, and I will give my reasons. There are hundreds of men overseas to-day who never should have left Canada; there are hundreds and thousands of men in Canada who should be overseas. The voluntary system was all right, up to a time. By that system we were gathering men faster than we could equip them and send them overseas. But every hon. member knows that there came a time when it seemed necessary to send men out on the platform to urge, and, it would seem, to cajole and browbeat men into joining the ranks. There are some men who had courage enough to face the German bullets who had not courage enough to face the reputation of being slackers. As a result, many of these men who had not the courage to face the sneers of their compatriots enlisted and went overseas though they should never have gone. During the last week I received a letter from a lady in my constituency asking me to intercede with the Government to have her son returned. He is her only son. Her
husband is ill and has been sent to a hospital, and will not be able to take up farm work. So that lady and her daughter are left to run a farm of 125 acres with about 25 head of cattle. That young man ought never to have gone overseas. But there are others who could be spared, easily spared, and who should be over there to take his place.
Furthermore, I wish to impress upon the House, in all fairness to the boys at the front, one plain fact. Many of those men have been over there a year and a half or two years, or more. They have been called upon to endure extreme hardship in the trenches. These men have bravely offered themselves and are ready to face all dangers. Under present conditions, they are kept on the firing line week after week and month after month, without any chance to rest and recuperate. These men are not only doing their bit but each of them is doing the bit of two or three others who are staying in Canada and making big money. That is not fair, it is not just, it is not right, it is not reasonable. I appeal to hon. members of this House to give this matter their earnest and careful and favourable consideration. I urge them to support this Bill, for I am firmly convinced that it is the only way in which we can at the present time supply the reinforcements for our men at the front of which they stand so much in need. We are not worthy the sacrifices they have made if we do not give them the reserves they need and the support they expect at our hands.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Mr. Speaker, the subject which is now before the House for discussion is certainly one of the most serious subjects we have had to decide on since Confederation, and no doubt one of the most serious subjects since the time of the cession of this country fr am the French to the English. In the few remarks which I purpose making this evening, I am going, even at the risk of lese majeste, to treat the subject purely and simply from the point of view of a Canadian. I might preface what I intend to say by a word or two in answer to the hon. gentleman who preceded me (Mr. Edwards). He asks the question, why is it * that in the province of Quebec there should not be more enthusiasm in favour of eon-



scription. If I know anything about the province of Quebec, and I think I do, I have no hesitation in telling him that speeches such as be delivered this afternoon, and such as were delivered by the hon, member for Parry Sound (Mr. Arthurs) yesterday, have more to do with inciting the people of Quebec against conscription than anything else I know of. When an hon. member of this House stands up to give his views upon a certain subject, and a subject of the gravity of the present one, and contents himself solely with making an attack upon one province, and then asks that province to be enthusiastic towards the measure which he pretends to advocate, I desire to say that such a position is illogical. I wondered when I heard those attacks whether those hon. gentlemen really wished to win this war or really wished to damn the province of Quebec. The hon. member from Frontenac has asked two questions. One is:	Where was my right hon. friend
the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) in connection with the Boer war? The next question was : What was his position in the Imperial Conference, or Conferences? Whilst I am speaking I propose to say a few words as to the position of the leader of the Opposition both in connection with the Boer War and in connection with the Imperial Conferences. Further than that, the hon. member for Frontenac will pardon me if I pass over his other remarks in silence, as I think this House would have been better off, certainly Canada would have been better off, and certainly national unity would have been better off, if such utterances as he made had never been made in this House or out of it.
Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the measure which is before the House until it is submitted to the people for their opinion. Personally, I stand with the great majority of the people of the province of Quebec upon that ground and, personally again, when I say that I'am opposed in principle to conscription, with the people of Quebec I am ready to forego my personal opinion and submit to the popular will. I am opposed personally to the measure before the House, first, because I do not believe that it is, in its present form, constitutional. Even if it were constitutional, it would so affect the national life of this country as to constitute a radical * change which neither you, Sir, nor myself, nor, I claim, any hon. member of this House with the powers and the mandate which we have held since we were elected,
has a righit to commit the people to without their having first had an opportunity of pronouncing upon it. I say I do not believe that the measure in its present form is constitutional. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) has made the statement in this House that the principle of conscription for overseas service has been in the law since the time of the Act which was passed by Sir George Etienne Cartier and the members of /this House in 1868. I want to deal with that question for a very few minutes. The section referred to is section 69 of the Militia Act, reading as follows:
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.
When Sir GeoTge Etienne Cartier introduced that Act, he spoke as follows in this House on the 17th February, 1868:
I deny that the proposed military system of the late Government would have implied, as Mr. Rankin asserted, the putting in usage of conscription.
" Pour mettire en usage la conscription " are the exact French words. Again, on the 31st March 1868, he said:
The sole essential difference between this Bill and the one we proposed in 1862 is upon the subject of enrolment for which I did not ask consent. Under this new law enrolment by captains will cost $32,000.
Throughout all the speeches, if you read them carefully, you will find the idea of providing for military defence is based upon possible incursions or invasions from the United States. So strong was that idea in the minds of the legislators of that day, and immediately prior to it, that we find that Lord Carnarvon, in introducing the British North America Act in the British House of Commons, after bis conference with the delegates of the Dominion of Canada, used this language:
The question of military defence is a somewhat delicate one on which to touch. Military defence supposes war, and war in that part of the world could only be with that great Republic which lies south of our border.
Not only was that the doctrine followed by the men of 1867 and 1868 but, Sir Adolphe Caron, later on Minister of Militia and Defence, in introducing into Parliament the Act of 1883, which was practically a reproduction of the Act of 1868, spoke as follows in the House as reported in Hansard of April 10, 1883:

In Sir George Cartier's time, as now fortunately, we did not require a force for any aggressive purpose, or any other purpose, save securing ' the safety of the person, protecting property, and defending ourselves against any attack which might, as previously, give us occasion to resist and repel any disorganized, or small organized band crossing the frontier.
That position was thoroughly well recognized by the Prime Minister, because in the message which was sent by His Royal Highness the Governor General on August 1, 1914, we find:-
A question has been mooted respecting the status of any Canadian force serving abroad, as' under section 69 of the Canadian Militia Act, the active militia can only be placed on actual service beyond Canada for the defence thereof.
At that time there was just as much necessity of placing the militia of Canada beyond Canada overseas as there is to-day; but the Prime Minister did not wish to take that attitude in this House and commit himself as a constitutional lawyer without saying that he had very grave doubts in his mind as to whether he could rightly take that attitude, and he sought the advice of the Imperial authorities.
The hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) wished to know what was the attitude of the right hon. leader of the Opposition at the Imperial Conferences. I will tell him that at the Conference of 1902 a memorandum of the War Office contained the .following:-
Prior to the outbreak of the war in South Africa, so far as any general scheme for the defence of the Empire as a whole had been considered, it was assumed that the military responsibilities of our great self-governing colonies were limited to local defence and that the entire burden of furnishing reinforcements to any portion of the Empire against which a hostile attack in force might be directed must fall on the regular army. There may possibly have been some pious hope that in time of need the colonies might rally to the Mother Country, but no definite arrangements were made, nor were inquiries even on foot as to whether such aid might be expected, and if so, in what strength. Indeed, the necessity for it was by no means realized, and its reliability was doubted.
You will remember that at that time Mr. Chamberlain was making a desperate effort to commit Canada to take part in the wars of the Empire. My right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier), then representing Canada, was strong in his stand that the delegates of Canada would not commit Canada to any policy wherein the troops of Canada would be called overseas, until first the people of Canada had pronounced upon it. To such proposals the Canadian delegates answered as follows:-
The Canadian Ministers regret that they have been unable to assent to the suggestion made by Lord Selborne respecting the navy, and by Mr St. John Broderick respecting the army. The Ministers desire to point out that their objections arise, not so much from the expense involved,- as from a belief that the acceptance of the proposals would entail an important departure from the principle of colonial selfgovernment
So strong was that opinion in the mind of my right hon. friend the leader of the Government (Sir Robert Borden) that he made the statement in this House, not that the Militia Act of 1868, or the subsequent Militia Acts, including the most recent amendments, would be put in force, but that no law of conscription would be introduced, thereby acknowledging that conscription was not in force in this country. The right hon. leader of the Government said that the first line of defence is in France and in Flanders. Theoretically and for all intents and purposes he may be right, but will he still contend that the putting of the principle of conscription into force, whether the Act is constitutional, or whether it is not, does not constitute a radical change in the national life of this country? I do not think so. I hardly think that the Prime Minister will go that far. He says that the first line of defence is in France and Flanders. Tqeo-retically, I say again, he may be correct. He says, further, that Canada is defending herself and the Empire. I cannot follow him in that reasoning. Great Britain is defending France and Belgium; Canada and the other Dominions are aiding. So far I cannot admit that the Empire is on the defensive; I believe that we are still attacking. I cannot believe that our soldiers are called out to defend Canada. I take it that they are still voluntarily departing from our shores, imbued by the highest motives which can stir the hem, to defend Belgian neutrality and the rights of smaller nations to live a free life, fighting for the highest ideals of freedom and liberty. Will any man tell me, even my friend the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) who was so stirred after reading in the bulletin the other day that some bombs had fallen over England, will even he tell me that Great Britain is now on the defensive? The right hon. gentleman says so, but I have yet to hear any statesman in the Empire other than he make, the statement that the Empire is now on the defensive. I cannot believe even the Prime Minister, when, standing >alone in this House, he dares to make such a state-

ment. But I can tell you that I do believe that the moment that Canada is ini danger and the moment Canada is on her defence, then it will not be a matter of getting 500,000 men to rush to the colours, but every man, young and old, in this country will take up arms.
I object to conscription, Sir, because I am opposed to the principle of coercion.
I am not a believer in coercive measures. The whole history of our country has been against coercion. Confederation was formed by the free will of the provinces to enter into a union. At the time of Confederation, whilst we had the might we did not consider that we had the right to coerce any other province of this Dominion into the union. Whenever any question arose as to coercing any section of the community or any province of the Dominion, immediately men in this House, upon both sides, stood up and said: hands off that section, or hand's off that province. Coercion has proved a failure wherever it has been adopted, whether in Poland, in Prussia or in Ireland. Prussian militarism is the worst form of coercion. Our men are to-day fighting Prussian militarism-and yet there are hon. gentlemen in this House who are trying to establish it here. If, on the other hand, we are not going out from our shores to prove our attachment to British institutions, then I say that every Dominion sharing equally in Empire benefits must share equally in Empire obligations. Canada must not bear more than Australia, nor Australia more than New Zealand or India, in proportion to population and respective advantages.
My next reason for being opposed to conscription is that there are no military reasons given by the right hon. Prime Minister, nor by any member of this House who advocates the measure, why conscription should be enforced in this country. When the war broke out, all the Government was willing to do was to secure the financial" and the industrial institutions of this country. All the Government seemed to be concerned with was to secure the manufacture of munitions in this country, and divide up the orders among their friends. The enormous war profits were to remain, and have remained, for the privileged few, and the Government, even to this day, has not the courage to say that they will conscript the wealth of this country and the industries of this country, but they are quite ready to say they will conscript the blood of the young men of this country. Patriotic [Mr. Bevlin.l
citizens came forward, and did a great deal at the beginning of the war. They offered large amounts towards defraying the expenses of the young men who were eager to go to the fighting lines. Let me say, also, that I want to give credit to hon. gentlemen upon the opposite side of the, House, as well as to hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, for what they have generously done, in aiding the Allies and aiding this country. I wish to refer, for instance, to the gallant member representing Ste. Antoine Division, Montreal (Sir Herbert Ames). I am witness to the efforts which he has made towards raising money in order to benefit the families of soldiers who have gone to the front. I think, Sir, credit should be given to such men as the hon. member for St. Antoine, for the noble efforts they have inaugurated, to the mothers and fathers of this country, who allowed their sons to go out, in the first place, and to the sons, who nobly went out to fight for what they believed to be the highest principles of freedom and civilization. But I fail to see in what way the Government can claim any benefit for any action they have taken. What have the Government done? They have squandered the people's money. They paid out the money of this country. It was not their money, but the money of the people. It wtas the taxes paid by the people of this country. In regard to that, without wishing to enter into any recriminations whatever, I must say that most extravagant uses were made of that money, and we have had several years of war scandals. What the Government did, however, was this: they fixed the number of those who might go, but they made no provision for the families of the men who went, or for the men who might return. When the storms of indignation arose in certain parts of the country, a half-hearted action was taken, in the way of pensions. So many men agreed to go from every province of Canada, but, according to the Minister of Militia, the Prime Minister instructed him to go slowly in recruiting. The time having come to meet the ultra imperial clamour in the country, the Prime Minister made up his mind, and made the statement upon his own authority, not upon the authority of this House, nor upon the authority of Council, that 500,000 men should go. He did not give any military reason for that. He did not supply this House with any information. He simply said that 500,000 men would go. Now he says that he cannot get this 500,000 men, and the only way to obtain them is to con-

script those who remain, in order to make up the 500,000. I should like to know, Sir, before I cast a vote in favour of conscription, have the Imperial authorities asked us for more men? I see by the papers that General Currie, the general commanding the Canadian forces abroad, has said he requires more officers and more men. A statement was laid on the table of the House a few days ago, by the Government, to the effect that there were thousands of officers in England at the present moment. We know that officers are being returned to Canada, and the reason given is that there is no work for them to do. Does the Government wish to assume that, as General Gurrie said more officers and men are required, and that we must send more men and officers, or that we are simply to send the men. We have not that information, Sir, and in order to make up our minds just how we should vote, it is necessary that we should have it. Does England ask for reinforcements? We are told that there are 2,000,000 men in the way of reinforcements, in England. Further the statement is made that there are some 3,500,000 m England at the present moment of military age, who have escaped conscription. We are told further, since we must rely upon statements for our information in making up our minds upon this question, that there are in England, at the present moment 1,200,000 men who are occupied at works which are entirely useless in connection with the war, engaged in hotels, brokers' offices and theatres. I wonder if the hon. gentleman from Ked Deer thought of those 1,200,000 men when he turned to us upon this side of the House, and said: "Do you know that at this moment, according to the bulletin, bombs are falling over the city of London?" That is information which we should have, and no such information has been given to us. What was the attitude in the British House of Commons when information was asked? It is to be found in the words of Sir Edward Grey, when he was advising the House of Commons what attitude should be taken. Here is what he said:
The most awful responsibility is resting upon the Government in deciding what to advise the House of Commons to do. We have disclosed our mind to the House of Commons. We have disclosed the issue and the information which we have.
I ask hon. gentlemen, in all fairness to the members of this Hou^e, who have given this matter just as serious consideration as they have, in all fairness to the men
throughout the provinces of this Dominion, have they given us reasonable information upon which we can base a judgment, or upon which they may base a judgment? Will the right hon. gentleman tell us that he has not that information? What does he say in this House? On June 15, 1917, in repeating the words of the Prime Minister of England; he said:
The British Cabinet became for the time being an Imperial War Cabinet. While It was in session, its overseas members had access to all the information which was at the disposal of His Majesty's Government, and occupied a status of absolute equality with that of the members of the British War Cabinet. It had prolonged discussions on all the most vital aspects of Imperial policy, and came to important decisions in regard to them-decisions which will enable us to prosecute the war with increased unity and vigour, and which will he of the greatest value when it comes to the nego tiations of peace.
I wanted to find out, before making up my mind on the subject, what information the , Prime Minister had that he might give to this House. I asked him this question:
Mr. Devlin:	Was there any discussion as to
what would be the best form to be adopted in prosecuting the war for a concerted action on the part of the different dominions beyond the seas?
After which the discussion proceeded:
Sir Robert Borden:	The institution of the
Imperial Cabinet itself was entered upon with the view that the consultation thus brought about would result in greater unity of purpose and in more effective co-operation.
Mr. Devlin: .Was any decision reached by the members of that committee or Cabinet as to what concerted action should he taken by the Dominions beyond the seas?
Sir Robert Borden:	No special consideration
was given to any matter of that kind. The deliberations were of a general character with regard to the conduct of the war and the task that had to he accomplished, and the best means of fulfilling that task.
And, Sir, the Prime Minister says that this measure is the result of his own judgment, not of anything that he heard during his attendance at the Imperial War Cabinet or from the Imperial authorities. He did not even question the Imperial authorities; he said that he would resent any questioning of the Imperial authorities on a matter of that kind. But when the naval proposals were before this House the Prime Minister did not hesitate to ask the Im- . perial authorities for advice. He then said that he had sought and obtained information from the Admiralty Department, which information was in the form of a memorandum; and wanted to commit the members of this House and the people of Canada to that memorandum, which was dictated by a gentleman who has since been

people and for the people of Canada. As a Canadian I want to say that the moment you attempt to legislate against the will of a great section of the people without giving them a chance to pronounce upon the measures proposed, you are legislating in spite of the rights of the people, and are infringing upon that constitution which has always been the guarantee of Canadian liberty and Canadian security. You are disrupting the work of Confederation, and that on the eve of the fiftieth anniversary of Confederation. You are throwing our province into the turmoil of strife, thereby defeating the very aim which we all have in view, the aiding of our Allies and standing by the boys in the trenches. No Government in this country, no Parliament, no political party, has a monopoly of patriotism, but all are imbued with the strongest possible love of country. You want to stand by the boys in the trenches? So do we. Those boys are as dear to us as they are to any hon. gentleman seated opposite. We will stand by them, and we will stand by them with hon. gentlemen opposite; but we must at least he allowed to say that in our judgment and in our conscience the measure taken by this Government will not have the effect of standing by the boys in the trenches.
Coercive measures are unnecessary, and they will be resented. Economy in your expenditure; the organization of your efforts to develop trade and industry; the encouragement of agriculture; increased production, are the urgent needs of to-day-to-morrow will bring other and new problems. Mr. Speaker, I have heard since my childhood that "Britons never shall be slaves." I say that Canadians never shall be slaves to an autocratic and irresponsible Government. A*nd any Government which to-day, in view of the opinions openly expressed in this country, and knowing the temper of the Canadian people who may be for, or who may be against, the measure now proposed, attempts to enact it without the free will of the people being heard, is both autocratic and irresponsible.


Sir HERBERT AMES (Montreal, St. Antoine):: Mr. Speaker, when a member
of Parliament is called upon to decide his course of action, there are two conceptions of duty which have to be reckoned with. On the one hand, he may regard himself as the mouthpiece of his constituency; he may consider that he is here to record what he believes to be the will of the majority

of those who sent him. On the other hand, occasions sometimes arise where he is in possession of fuller information, and has greater opportunities for consideration of a question than his constituents, and where the duty rests upon him to follow his conscience and to lead rather than follow those whom he represents. Most of us have been elected in this House as exponents of certain fixed principles. When a question arises that affects those principles, our course is easy, our constituents know what to expect of us, and we do what they ex-unforeeeen and unexpected, we aTe thrown upon our own resources. We then are compelled to take stock of the situation; to arrive at decisions; to take a position; and we must be ready to stand or fall by that decision when the time comes for us to again meet those who sent us. Fortunate indeed is the member of the House whose personal inclinations, the known views of whose constituents, and the tenets of whose party all coincide. He has only to swim down the current; everything is going his way. He has very little occasion for selfglorification, lese occasion for criticism of others whose position is difficult, and no occasion whatever to condemn the conscientious action of his fellow-members.
Since this measure was introduced in the House, I have received a number of communications from my constituents. These have come in the form of petitions, of resolutions, of personal letters. They are on both sides of the question; some are for and some are against the Bill. An organization in Montreal known as "La Ligue Patriotique des interete Canadiens," sent me a number of petitions signed extensively by people I know. Many of these are citizens of standing in my constituency; many of them are the wives and mothers of persons well known in my bity. That is an example of what ie coming on one side. On the other hand, I have received a resolution of the Board of Trade, the President of which is a French-Canadian, in favour of conscription. I have received 9 p.m. resolutions from various church organizations. And I have received two resolutions, one from the English and one from the French branch of the Great War Veterans of the Province of Quebec. Among the petitions I have received the one which in some respects is the most notable is that which comes from the French section of the Great War Veterans of the city of Montreal. I know the men who make up that organization. Many

of them have served at the front with honour to themselves and to their race. The president, the vice-president, the secretary and the treasurer were all members of that famous 22nd Battalion which again and again has had its ranks filled up, and which has covered itself with glory, as we all so well know. These men, I think, can speak with some authority. They have been overseas; their motives cannot be impugned; they have themselves seen conditions at the front; they know the needs and the wastage; they have left their comrades still fighting; they have seen what it means *when the Hun retreats from devastated France; they have every reason to know, to know to the full, what it would mean if we should lose this war. A resolution passed unanimously by a body of that kind is a resolution which I must certainly receive with respect. Let me read it to you. It is in French, but I think we shall all understand it just the same:-
Association Canadienne des Veterans de la Grande Guerre, section frangaise.
Propose par J. C. Poirier, appuyd par E. Frereault.
Consid6rant que 1'enrSlement volontaire non-seulement dans Quebec mais le Dominion en-tier est devenu pratiquement chose du passe. Considdrant que pour seconder les efforts des Allies et mener Cette guerre & bonne fin, de nouvelles troupes sont immddiatement requises. Considerant que le Gouvernement a le pouyoir de mettre en force l'Acte de la milice.
Qu'il soit rdsolu :-
Que la section' frangaise de Montreal, bran-che de l'Association des Veterans de la Grande Guerre demanae au Gouvernement d'imposer le service obligatoire pour tout homme valide de 20 a 45 ans de maniere a ce:-
Riches comme pauvres Professionnels comme ouvriers Patrons comme employes Maries conrme ceiibataires Etrangers comme citoyens puissent faire leur part pour la cause commune des Allies, (Adopte a l'unanimite.)
Mr. O'. A. WILSON: Will the hon. gentleman be good enough to tell us by whom that is signed, or if it is signed at all?^


Herbert Brown Ames: It came to me in the official envelope of
Association Canadienne des veterans de la Grande Guerre, section frangaise; chambre 20, edifice "Da Press :". Comite exdcutif: N. Marion, president, C. Poirier, vice-president, E. Frereault, secretaire, J. Boulay, tresorier, E. Turcot, sergent d'armes. Conseil: P. Vadboncceur, docteur E. Turgeon, H. Portugal.


Charles Avila Wilson: The hon. gentleman has not answered my question. I have received a similar document, hut there are no signatures to it and no certificate with it.


Herbert Brown Ames: Mine came in the official envelope from the Secretary's office.


William Melville Martin: Do you know how long that society has existed?


Herbert Brown Ames: I understand that it has existed ever since these brave men came back from France.


Mr. L. A. LAPOINTE:: Can you find in the resolution anything relating particularly to the Bill that is before the House? You read it in French but I would like you * to translate it into good English to show this House that it does not refer to the Bill before the House.


Herbert Brown Ames: I will be glad to translate it into English or to read the English version as published in the papers. I shall read the whole extract:
At a meeting of the French section of the War Veterans' Association (L'Association Canadienne des Soldats de Retour du Front), held this morning in the rooms of the association, 20 La Presse Building, the following resolution, which will be sent forthwith to the Prime Minister of Canada , was adopted unanimously:
"Proposed by J. C. Poirier, vice-president of the association, seconded by E. Frerault, secretary :
"Considering that voluntary enlistment has practically ceased, not only in the province of Quebec but in the whole Dominion generally;
"Considering that the Government has the power to put the Militia Act into force,, be it resolved:
"That the French Section of the District of the War Veterans' Association request that compulsory service be imposed on all available men in Canada between the ages of 20 and 45.
They go farther than we do.
"*So that rich and poor, professional men and workers, employers and employees, married and single, aliens and citizens may take their share in the sacred cause which the Allies have been defending for the past three years.''


Louis Audet Lapointe: Does not my hon. friend notice that in the resolution they are speaking of the Militia Act and is not that a very different thing?


Herbert Brown Ames: I am quite willing to accept this as proof that they favour conscription. The last words of the resolution are sufficient indication as to what the purpose of the conscription is. Can I be of any further service to my hon. friend?


Louis Audet Lapointe: The hon. gentleman did not answer my question. I happen to have known the hon. gentleman for many years and I know how he can skip around questions.


Herbert Brown Ames: Now, I cannot hope or expect to be able to satisfy all the signers of these petitions because they ask


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Read it.


Herbert Brown Ames: It is as follows:
In my humble opinion the defence of Canada implies not only the power to safeguard the territory itself and the lives and property of Canadians, it further includes the faculty recognized in international law to prevent, by all legitimate means, the invasion, ruin and sacking of the country, in attacking the enemy in his own country, pursuing him everywhere, destroying his resources, giving him no rest until he be reduced to utter powerlessness. The very legitimate necessity of opposing an onslaught quite naturally justifies the attack of the enemy in his own country or wherever he may seek refuge. It often is by taking the offensive, attacking and invading, that the defence of one's own country may be better attended to. It would indeed be imprudent, if not utterly reckless, for a country at war, to be content with a defensive strategy and to refrain from hostilities until the country were invaded and sacked.
I am sure that no one in this House or out of it will venture to suggest that the Chief Justice of Quebec, the Hon. Sir Francois Lemieux, is not an authority on matters of that kind, that he does not speak as a man who knows what he is speaking about. Every one will agree that he speaks as one who has studied deeply constitutional questions and is well qualified to give an opinion thereon. In his opinion, the best war of defence is a war of attack, wherever the enemy may be.
A good deal of time has been spent in this House in explaining the origin of the Militia Act of 1904, and going back and citing many of the opinions held at the time of the enactment of the original Militia Act and its various amendments There seems to me no real ground for contendng that even under the Act of 1904 conscription is not permissible. I think we all admit that the Act of 1904, under certain circumstances, contemplates wholesale conscription. The only difference of opinion is as to whether, under the old Militia Act, that conscription should be for men who could be sent, against their will, overseas. I do not pretend to discuss that point. I understand that Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, who was at the time Minister of Justice and Who is now Chief Justice of Canada, was of opinion, when that Act was passed, that it did permit men to be sent overseas. I understand that that is the opinion of the law officers of the Crown to-day. Not being a lawyer, I am willing to accept that opinion, considering my own in that respect to be of no great value. But I do not think that is the vital question. In any event the principal question with us is, how can we do what we want to do? And if the law already on the statute books is not sufficient, the quickest and simplest course is to pass an Act that will be sufficient, and if I rightly read the Bill that is now before the House, section 2 covers the situation as fully as an Act can.
Every male British subject who comes within one of the classes .... shall be liable to be called out as hereinafter provided on active service in the Canadian Expeditionary Force for the defence of Canada, either in or beyond Canada,-
-unless he falls under certain exemptions. We will all admit, I think, that this Act will meet the circumstances of the case, and if the old Act leaves any doubt, the sooner we can pass an Act in which the purpose, the destination and the method is clear, I think the better it will be for our country and its defence.
I have listened attentively to many of the speeches made in this House since this Bill was introduced. There is very little new that can now be said. We all admit that it only remains for us individually, so to speak, to make our confessions and to endeavour to clarify the situation in our own minds and those of our constituents. But certain objections have been raised, and those objections have been put forth

with logic, with reason and with sincerity-? I for my part feel that some of the objections should be answered, or that at least an attempt should be made to answer them.
The first objection that has been advanced is that the need for men is not so apparent as to justify this measure. The other night the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugs-ley), who sits on the opposite side of the House, attempted to show that there were
126.000	reserves in England and 90,000 here. His figures fell down completely when they were analyzed, but it is "well that the actual figures should be placed on Hansard in concrete form. It is true that there are
126.000	men in England, but only one-half of those are combatants, 30,000 of them are ready for the firing line, 35,000 more will be fit in the course of the next few months;
65.000	all told will be the sum total of combatant reinforcements out of that. 126,000 men. In Canada to-day there are less than
20.000	who may be regarded as in class A, that is men who will eventually be fit for the trenches. But the most significant figures of all are those in respect to infantry recruiting. We are told that the infantry losses are generally the greatest at the front. In April and May our casualties amounted to 23,939. These were largely infantry, and you will see that this involves a wastage of over 10,000 men a month.
How many men have we been recruiting throughout Canada during the last five months to make up the wastage in infantry? In January 5,707, in February there were 2,358; in March, 2,286; in April, 1,794; in May, 1,208 or an average of 2,670 infantrymen recruited in Canada since the year began. It needs no abstruse calculation in arithmetic to demonstrate that, if our casualties are 10,000 a month, and our infantry reinforcements not more than a quarter of that number, the thne is not far distant when the infantry reinforcements on hand will be exhausted, unless some steps are taken to secure more men. It is true there were 34,376 enlistments in the first five months of this year, but a very large proportion of those is composed of non-combatants. They were 13,353 infantry, 4,187 artillerymen, 8,317 forestry and railroad construction battalions, 8,523 miscellaneous arms of the service. Not more than one half of the total number, therefore, may be considered as infantry and artillery, which are the real combatant forces. It takes from eight to twelve months to train men for the firing line, and, even if we should now raise the men authorized under the Bill, if

it- passes, it would be 1918, probably, before the first of them would be used for service in France. It, therefore, does not admit of delay, because the reserve that we have on hand will be exhausted by Christmas, and after Christmas, what are we to do for more men?
There is no man who is to-day better qualified to speak of the military situation than the commander in chief of our forces in France. Even at the risk of repeating what may have been said by others, I want to read the recent messages from General Sir Arthur Currie, who knows more about the military situation overseas than any other living man. When he received a telegram of congratulation upon his recent honour, from the Prime Minister of Canada, his reply contained this significant clause:
It is an imperative and urgent necessity that steps be immediately taken to insure that sufficient drafts of officers and men are sent from Canada to keep the corps at its full strength.
And immediately after being interviewed by Mr. F. A. Mackenzie of the Montreal Star, General Currie said:
"I've no wish to interfere with current political controversies, but my personal conviction is that the only solution to the problem of Canadian recruiting is conscription. I believe that many difficulties which now threaten the adoption of such a policy would disappear before prompt and bold action.
"My experiences in France have shown me, not as a politician, but as a soldier, the necessity of conscription, if we desire to maintain at full strength our fighting divisions to the end."


William Melville Martin: Will the hon. gentleman allow me a question?	.


Herbert Brown Ames: Certainly.


William Melville Martin: Is it not to your knowledge that the French Government has decided to send back home-unhappily I have not here the paper in which the statement is made-all the aged soldiers so they can help on the farms? How does the hon. gentleman explain the fact?


Herbert Brown Ames: I am aware of that and we are doing the safne thing here, for [DOT] Canada.


William Melville Martin: It is better to keep them here, then.


Herbert Brown Ames: In France, the
Government has decided to send back home the aged soldiers, to do farm work. Here in Canada, we do not intend to send overseas old men and farmers; our aim is to draft young men only.


William Melville Martin: How will we then manage to turn out munitions? My hon. friend who represents St. Antoine division, in the City of Montreal knows as well as I do, that -even at this moment it is very hard, if not impossible, to get all the labour required and that some very important work will have to"be discontinued.


Herbert Brown Ames: If my hon. friend will allow me we shall discuss this phase of the question later on.


Herbert Brown Ames: There are none of U3 probably who have not friends overseas, probably none of us who have not relations and intimate friends in the firing line, and I ask those who are in receipt of letters from those boys overseas from week to week, what do the boys ask for? Do they not write and say: " Send us reinforcements; we need them more than anything else?" One of the bravest men I ever knew, and one of my personal friends, Colonel Victor Buchanan, killed not long ago, served in a Montreal Highland regiment. The last letter he wrote me had one note in it from end to end: " We need men; our Highland regiment is being filled up with drafts from every part of Canada; do tell the people of Montreal to send us more Montreal Highlanders, so that our ranks may be filled." Can any man with a sympathetic heart turn a deaf ear to letters from those he has known all his life, when they ask that they be not abandoned on the firing line?
Another objection which is raised is that this Parliament is incompetent to pass such an Act. It is said that Parliament is six years old, that there are twenty vacancies, and that a number of additional constituencies, under the new distribution, are entitled to members. That is an absolutely erroneous idea. No question can be raised, by any one who knows anything about legal or constitutional law, 'as to our right to pass such a measure as this. Our constitution is the British. North America Act and its amendments. The amendments are just as valid as the Act. If the Act tells us that the life of Parliament is five years, and the amendment extends it to six, seven, ten, or twenty, the amendment is just as valid as the original Act, and any Act we may pass in this Parliament, while it is legally constituted, is equally valid, whether it be passed in the first or the last year of our incumbency in office. The question whether we have a moral right is another matter, but the legal right is absolutely in-eontestible. My hon. friend, the member
for St. Mary's, the mayor of Montreal (Mr. Martin) asked me a question a moment ago as to whether we could spare the men. In his judgment, as first magistrate of the city of Montreal, he believed we could not. I would like to discuss that with him for a moment, because we are both interested alike in that great city. I have noticed in this-Parliament that the hon. gentlemen who ask us to give the voluntary system another - trial are the very ones who say we eannot spare the men. If we cannot spare the men raised by conscription, how can we spare them when they are raised by the voluntary system? In fact, the men that might be raised by a continuation of the voluntary system would be far lees easily spared than the men that will be obtained by conscription.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Brown Ames: Another plea that we sometimes hear is that conscription is going to tear the husband from his wife and the father from his little children, and break up the homes of this country by for re. If we had had conscription at the beginning, there would have been no breaking up of homes. There are
75,000	married men that have left their wives and children and gone overseas. If there had been a systematic law upon the statute book at the beginning, it would not have been necessary to send these married men across, and, as I understand, under this Bill we expect to get 100,000 more men, I call the attention of this House to the fact that in all probability the full number would be obtained by calling up classes 1, 2 and 3, and those classes include only single men, or widowers without children, between the ages of 20 and 35.
The entire number of men, that this measure will call for, will be obtained without tearing a single husband from his wife or a single father from his loving children at home. Further, let me point out that there will be exceptions wherever they are expedient in the national interest. Men who are essential to the munition factories in Montreal will not be sent overseas; men who can be spared from the munition factories and whose places may be taken by returned soldiers, women or old men, will probably be sent overseas. But the readjustment will not seriously impair the efficiency of the munition factories.
We are told that it will ruin the country to send overseas another 100,000 men. According to the 1911 census, there were in
274<!

Canada at that time 636,746 unmarried men between the ages of 20 and 35. As nearly as I can calculate the figures of the Patriotic Fund permit me to get fairly near it- about 235,000 unmarried men between the ages of 20 and 35, have gone overseas. Deduct that number from the total and you still have 400,000 unmarried men in Canada between the ages of 20 and 35 from whom the choice can be made to make up the number required by this measure. If one-quarter of the unmarried men now in Canada are selected with care and discretion, I believe they could be sent forward without seriously handicapping our industries. It was said the other night by the Minister of Inland Revenue that the quota for Quebec might be 25,000 men. That would be the one-eightieth part of the total population of Quebec. We have already enlisted nearly twice that number in Quebec; I do not believe that it would stop our industries if one-half as many men as have already gone were further sent from our good province.
The enforcement of tnis Act will be in the hands of the Department of Justice. That is one of the departments which we all admit is likely to be the most impartial, the less liable to be influenced by outside motives. A board of selection will be chosen. I "trust that that board of selection will be composed of men representing every section, nationality and class throughout the whole Dominion. I trust that both sides of the House will co-operate in choosing that board. I would suggest that on that board there be representatives of the French-speaking people of Quebec and representatives of organized labour. Further, we should be willing to go outside the House in making up that board of selection. That board will choose half the members of the local boards and the Superior Court judges or their appointees will choose the remaining half. In any event one-half the membership of every local board will be appointed under judicial authority and the other half by a board of selection which this House and the Senate shall name. If there is any method by which greater impartiality can be shown; if members on the opposite side can make any suggestion with a view of making this Act absolutely fair to all concerned, I am sure the Government will accept their suggestions with great pleasure and work them into the Bill.	.
During the last two or three months I have been very much interested in watch-

ing the wonderful manner in which our American cousins have gone into this war. It so happened that I was in Washington just before war was declared by the United States, speaking on behalf of the Navy League Fund, and I had opportunities of discussing with the leading naval and military authorities what would be done by the United States in case war was declared. Although the army authorities were strongly in favour of a selective draft system, they were not at all certain that they could secure its ratification by the Senate and House of Representatives. I was, therefore, considerably *surprised when I found that the United States had adopted a measure of conscription by selective draft. They established a law which provided that every man between 21 and 30 should register on June 5. Ten million men throughout the United States registered on that day. They then made the allotment of quotas in the several states, and they are now by ballot drafting what men are needed to make up the first 500,000
The United States had apparently less reason for being interested in this war than had Canada. The United States, like ourselves, have no material profit to make out of this war and are less liable to be ravaged than we are if the Germans should win. Yet, profiting by the experience and mistakes of others, they are taking up their war measures with a wisdom and celerity which cannot be too highly commended.
Last week I was in Worcester and Springfield, Massachussetts, speaking to magnificent audiences in connection with Red Cross Funds. They raised, as you know, $110,000,000 in the United States for this purpose during the past week. I was entertained by a member of Congress in the state of Massachussetts, and I asked him about that registration on the 5th of June. I said: Did you have any trouble with your registration? None whatever, he replied. Did you find any unwillingness on the part of your population to register? None whatever, he said. You have a good many of my fellow-countrymen here; were they willing to register? Every man, he said, registered. When I went to the town of Northampton I was told something that made me feel proud of my country and of the province in which I was born. When the day of registration arrived every Canadian in that town went to mass in the morning. They arranged a procession, with their flags and full regalia. The whole Canadian population of that town went to the registration booth, with

the young men between 21 and 30 in a special platoon by themselves, and every man between those ages registered and is ready and willing, if drafted, to fight overseas in this common cause.
The example of Australia has been cited. That is not a very good example for hon. gentlemen on the other side to cite, because Australia, which has a population about two-thirds that of Canada, up to the first of May, had sent 362,000 men, or one man out of every fourteen. If we had done as well as Australia we should have 'sent 540,000 men and conscription would not as yet be necessary in order to keep up our lines. New Zealand has had conscription for softie time, and has found the measure to work admirably.
The criticism that I believe to be of the greatest weight-the one which appeals to me more than any other-is the criticism that this measure finds our people unprepared for its acceptance. I think that is true. We all admit it; some of us admit it with considerable regret. The people of Canada were not prepared for this announcement. They are not prepared to-day for the acceptance of conscription, but I believe that they will be prepared for.it by the time the law is put into force. We do not realize the enormous changes that each year brings in connection with the war. It is only now sinking into us what this war really means.
- Each year our preconceptions are necessarily changed, and we find ourselves face to face with new conditions. It is my belief tnat the Prime Minister of Canada up to the end of 1916 had no indention or expectation of bringing in a measure of conscription. I believe he was sincere when he said he did not anticipate that that would be necessary. Hpwever, he went over to England and spent two months there. He took part in the Imperial War Council; he visited France and met our own boys at the front; he talked with our generals and considered the whole situation; and knowing him as I dp, I believe that he was persuaded against his will. I know that when he came back to Canada he was convinced that conscription alone would keep up our lines, and therefore the announcement was made.
Things have greatly changed in the last few months. It is not fair to .say, because we were unprepared for conscription six months ago and did not believe it would be necessary in this country, that therefore we are bound not to- have conscription. What has happened? In. the first place
Russia has collapsed. Where we had expected to have the Russian steam roller moving this year with its millions on the eastern front, and .bringing out German reserves to stem it, on the contrary we find that three-quarters of a million Germans have been withdrawn from the Russian front and sent over to France to fight against our forces there. Consequently the demand for reinforcements on the western front is far greater than was anticipated. More than that; it means that the war will not end this year, perhaps not next year, and possibly not the year after that.
There is another unexpected featae which has changed the situation, and that is that the United States have agreed to a measure of conscription. Look at the emigration figures for the last four or five years and you will see that there has been considerable egress of Canadians to the other side. It would have been unwise for Canada to endeavour to pass a measure of conscription while the United States did not have a similar law. It would have meant that a considerable number of people would have slipped over the line, and we would have lost just that number. But with conscription on both sides of the line that is avoided. The introduction of a measure of conscription in the United States has changed the situation heTe and makes it not only possible but advisable for us to have conscription here.
Rut .the main reason for its adoption is the falling off in recruiting. When only 1,200 infantrymen can be recruited in Canada in a single month, and when Oiur casualties for the same period .amount to ten times that number, it makes every thoughtful man pause and say that something must be done. So a new policy has become necessary. The opposition to the measure is to my m.ind largely due to lack of appreciation of the conditions, and that imposes upon every true Canadian the necessity of endeavouring to make the actual situation known, and of meeting differences of opinion fairly by argument, and endeavouring to persuade opponents of the measure to adopt the course which he believes should be taken.
We sometimes hear in this House mention of the conscription o.f wealth. It is not unnatural thalt those who are called upon to send their sons to the front should feel that wealthy men should give handsomely of their money to support the Allied cause. I think I know something about how that general demand originated. Ever since the war began I have been travel [DOT]

ling up and down Canada, talking to people in an endeavour to get them to contribute to the Patriotic Fund. The people of this country have given magnificently, more than $25,000,000 having been contributed for the wives and dependent relatives of our soldiers. But again and again, when I have sat down with some of these patriotic committees and talked of raising large sums of money, they have said: "Yes we will raise the money, but there are one or two men here who will not contribute, and their refusal hinders ns more than anything else." Many princely gifts have been made .since this war began. I want to pay tribute to the men of wealth who have given over and over again in lavish measure. I know men of wealth who are living in the simplest possible manner, giving away as much as they are using-half their incomes. I had breakfast with a gentleman the other morning who has voluntarily given $200,000 since the Wiar began to the various war charities, and he is prepared to give more. Now these men are giving today far more than they would contribute under any form of taxation that the Finance Minister would dare impose upon the people of Canada. He would not take by law one tithe of what some of them are giving voluntarily to-day. Yet there are the exceptions of which I spoke, and if the Minister of Finance can concoot any scheme by which these exceptions can be made to contribute in some way to the war, he will have my vote and heartiest sympathy.
I represent a constituency which is Canada in miniature. I have, in about the same proportion that you will find throughout the Dominion, the various elements which make up our total population. I regard that as one of the happiest circumstances in connection with my parliamentary career, as it gives me an opportunity to understand different points of view and to realize that there are many men who are just as conscientious in their views as I am or anyone else can be. In connection with this measure I shall find it necessary to offend some of these people. It will be my duty to endeavour to explain to them why I feel that this Bill must pass. I shall try to secure harmony by getting them to see the matter as I see it. I would not have the members of this House imagine, because, some irresponsible young men break windows occasionally in Montreal, that we have not free speech in my province. I do not think there is a province in the Dominion where the two sides of a

question are discussed more fairly or more fully than they are at the hustings and on the platforms throughout the province of Quebec. Free speech is not dead, and never will be. I expect to have the opportunity of meeting men whose opinions differ from mine, but I am confident that they will give me a fair hearing and extend to me the same courtesy that I should receive if I were speaking for the very cause which they themselves represent. I have represented for the last twenty years men whose views differ from my own, and I have yet to be treated for the first time with discourtesy, or not allowed a fair hearing.
In a newspaper I picked up the other day I saw a recommendation that Quebec should be exempted from this Bill. I venture to say that if any one should have the temerity to introduce into this House a resolution to exempt Quebec from this Bill, every French Canadian in the House would vote against it. Our people are a proudspirited race. They may use every constitutional method of opposing what they do not endorse, but they do not wish to be classed with any specially exempted peoples.
I am opposed to a referendum because I think even after a referendum we should be no further ahead than we were before. I hope the Government will pass this Bill and that the Opposition and every member of this House will assist in every possible way to make it the most workable Bill possible. Personally I should be glad to see an opportunity given for the electorate to speak before the Bill is put into force, but that is my individual opinion. I believe that this Bill will pass this House and that when the need is realized and the conditions are understood, the measure will be accepted by the country. I believe that when it has passed this House and been accepted by a majority in the country, it will he obeyed by every class of our community.
M. C. A. GAUVREAU (Terniscouata) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, it is now twenty years that I have been sitting in this Parliament of Canada, and never before have we been confronted with so important, I should say so poignant, a measure as the bill introduced by the Prime Minister of Canada, to be known aS: The Military Service Act of 1917. He might just as well have entitled it the Conscription law, had he not feared to impress somewhat too vividly the imagination of the people of this country.

For twenty years, with my colleagues in this House, some of them vanished long ago, the others still around me,. I have witnessed the slow but progressive evolution of our country's politics, written every day, politics which our children will study later on, which we ourselves have studied before 1896, some of us to learn the great lessons of the past, the others to find therein inspiration and foresight, whilst arming ourselves for future struggles.
For twenty years I have witnessed in this House some memorable struggles, placing in now and then my humble speech, but always with a sincere desire of aiding to solve the great problems offered by the moral, industrial, religious and social development of a nation in course of formation and which asserts itself as the years pass by.
I have taken part in the debates upon important question, such as: the schools of Manitoba, the National Transcontinental, the Quebec bridge enterprise, Canada's participation in the South African war, Lau-rier's naval bill, reciprocity, the schools of Keewatin and the bilingual question. These questions have been the most important [DOT]raised in this House, but, Mr. Speaker, none of them has ever been as momentous or as grave as the one which we are called upon to discuss to-day.
I understand that the war has given rise to new problems which have not only set athinking the great statesmen of Europe, but have given much concern to the statesmen of both political paities in this country, alike interested.
On August 4, 1914, when war was declared, Canada felt that she was perhaps at the turning point in her history, on a new road, and after three years of conflict, after three years of an atrocious and desolating war which makes Europe bleed, where perhaps, before long, we may see jn France and in-Belgium as many crosses on heroes' graves as we can see soldiers yet standing to defend Liberty's cause, we are asking ourselves what are we to do? That is the very question I am also asking myself.
In the first place, I ask myself : should we have taken part in this war? Without any hesitation, I answer yes. One day, iMr. Speaker, the hon. leader of the Opposition JSir Wilfred Laurier) stated in this House: that when England is at war, Canada is alike at war-which was not understood by a large portion of our population.
A certain school of thought that is well known, has made it its study to -stir up the province of Quebec against the Liberal party
and its leader, with what success everybody knows. But events as they unfolded have nobly vindicated our revered leader, as the very same words that he has uttered have also fallen from the lips of princes of the Church and from the mouth of eminent members of the hierarchy and of political men of both parties in our province.
Was it our duty to participate in this war? I unhesitatingly say yes. How were we to co-operate in this great work? Were we bound to participate in it to the fulness of our resources? Had we to take part in it, even at the risk of bankruptcy for Canada, as was stated at the outbreak of war, by the hon. solicitor general i(Mr. Meighgn)? I have the greatest respect for the opinion of the hon. Solicitor General, but I do not share his views in that regard, nor can I bring myself to believe in and endorse sucn principle, because, as the saying goes, "well ordained charity begins at home." Should we take part in this war to our last man and to our last dollar? This doctrine has been advocated in this House by honest and sincere men. Sir, I respect honest and sincere men who have the courage of their convictions, but I cannot subscribe to such a doctrine and I claim for my convictions the respectful consideration which should always be granted to conscientious opinions.	'
New, Sir, what were we to do? What we had to do, was to help Great Britain and the Allies in winning this war, to render all the assistance in our power, by any reasonable means at our command, in supplying such essentials for the successful pursuit of war operations as military man power, money, munitions and produce of the farm.
As to military man power, I shall deal with it later on.
As to farm produce, the tillers of the soil have resolutely set to work, thus showing that in that way not only could they help the Allies but that they might perhaps, some day, come to the assistance of the country, by preventing the gaunt specter of starvation stalking over Canadian highways.
Now, as to military man-power, Sir, we had to raise, recruits. But under what system? Could recruiting be carried on under any other method than the voluntary sys-. tern? It never occurred to or entered the mind of any man in Canada that troops could be levied in Canada, for the defence of the Empire, under any other system than voluntary enlistment? Such is the policy and the wording of the Act. The fathers of



Confederation never contemplated anything else, as witness this enactment in the Act: " Should ever conscription take place, it will be for the defence of the country, and whenever troops are sent outside of Canada, it will also be for the defence of the country." Should my statement be questioned, I need only cite the very statement made by the former Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes), quoted by my hon. friend from Kamouraska (Mr. Lapointe), when he said that he could not read in the law that he had any authority to ask Parliament to allow troops other than volunteers to leave the country for the defence of England, except under such provisions as were made later on.
Should any doubt?, still be entertained on that score, Sir, I would invoke the despatch sent by the Duke of Connaught to the Secretary of State for the Colonies:
Should we still harbour any doubts, they ought to be dispelled in face of the despatch that was sent which has been read to the House. How did voluntary enlistment work? Some say that it has been successful, while others say that it has been a failure.
- For my part I say this, that in the province of Quebec, the voluntary system has not been given fair play nor such full scope as it should have had.
I was surprised to hear the statement made in this House the other night by the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) in connection with recruiting in the province of Ontario.
I was surprised to hear the hon. gentleman state that but for the patriotic action of the Ontario people, at a time when the Government were doing absolutely nothing, there would have occurred considerable delay in the sending of troops overseas, while they were fighting like blazes around the table of the Privy Council about contracts to be let, the people of the province of Ontario were paying out of their pocket; they were busy organizing regiments and paying for their equipment. Meanwhile, men with a dismal countenance were seen prowling about the Privy Council and the Parliament buildings, awaiting an opportunity for hearing when they could grasp the fat contract which would allow them to pocket enormous sums of money.
This reminds me of a picture of the epic wars of the past, when, in the wake of great armies', vultures and ravens were often to be seen, on the watch for an opportunity to spring upon and lacerate their first victim, a soldier fallen on the battle field. Now, allow me, Sir, to give you an idea of

the kind of voluntary enlistment that has been carried on throughout the province of Quebec. In my opinion, Sir, the voluntary-system could have worked wonders in the province of Quebec, had it been entrusted to men conversant with the mentality of the two great races in our country. Quebec could have supplied Great Britain and the Allies with all the troops such a self-governing colony as Canada could send across the ocean, for the defence of the most sacred rights of the nations trodden under foot by the barbarians of 1870, by the spoliators and assassins of 1914, and the baby-killers of 1917. Our fellow countrymen would have volunteered in larger numbers had the Government taken the necessary means but, as a matter of fact, they were first and last an out and out party Government. They were determined to prosecute the business of 'the war in their own way, so as to get all the credit for the winning of the war. They have made everything subservient to patronage, to political favoritism, by debarring the Liberals from any important post or office. Quebec was slighted and passed over, as if it were a negligible quantity in Confederation. They did not show themselves able to select, for recruiting, men who would have appealed to the heart of the people and won them over to the cause of enlistment by warning them against neglecting to answer the call of duty at this tragic hour for humanity and the liberties of the world.
As a consequence, our people, apparently it may be, did not display as much enthusiasm as the other races in this country, and what with the revival of the ill-feeling of old against the papacy, and with the memories of the frictions of the past between French and English springing up again in the mind of the sons of the former conquerors and the sons of those who were conquered-without having been so conquered, strictly speaking-there arose a premeditated conspiracy, which was even encouraged, as the sequel of a policy which will be termed by the future historian as nefarious to the best interests of Canada, in short, Sir, a policy in pursuance of which, the province of Quebec was branded as guilty of disloyalty. The province of Quebec guilty of disloyalty forsooth! the French Canadians a disloyal people indeed! But, Sir, our history, from the days of the conquest down to Confederation gives the most unqualified lie to such a statement.
They say that our people did not enlist in sufficient numbers. How could you expect recruiting in Quebec to have been as active and as successful as elsewhere, to quote the

eloquent remarks of my hon. friend from Kamouraska (Mr. E. Lapointe), in face of the slanderous campaign carried on against them and in view of the insults heaped upon the province?
Now, allow me, Sir, to give you a sample of the statements and editorials that appear in the press:
Let us have conscription, anyhow, and have civil war if necessary, has been the argument of the extremists. We have got to have war sometime to teach Quebec that Canada is an English speaking protestant country, not to be dominated by a single priest-ridden province. And we may as well have it now when we are armed for the fighting in Europe. We can let our loyal troops of Ontario and the Western provinces stop in Quebec on their way to Europe long enough to practice on the French Canadians as a part of their training for handling Germans.
Mr. Speaker, let me ask the hon gentlemen opposite what would be their feelings if they were in the place of the French Canadians and subjected to such insults as are being launched against them? Would they not boil with anger on being thus insulted and vilified and if they did not carry things to extremes, I confess, I am unable to form a picture of English mentality.
Sir, when the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pusgley) alluded, the other day, to the editorial I have just quoted, hon. gentlemen were heard laughing and jeering.
As I mused on that incident, I though how strange was the mental make-up of some our fellow-countrymen. Better tha'n ever I understood, Sir, what kind of political jetsam is -drifting into this Parliament, on the waves of fanaticism, lashed into fury since 1911 in the English-speaking provinces and particularly in the province of Ontario.
Quebec, they say, did not answer the call of duty; they have not enlisted. Things have gone to such lengths, Sir, that a newspaper which does not sympathize with us, Liberals, La Patrie of Montreal, the organ of the hon. minister of Electioneering, has published the following editorial. Kindly allow me, Sir, to read that editorial which is not lengthy but very interesting. I should like some hon. gentlemen , on the other side of the House to understand it and I hope a translation of it will appear in Hansard:
The French Canadians in the armies.
An official return which has just been brought down in the House of Commons shows that 14,245 French Canadians have enlisted to serve in the British army. Troughout the Dominion, 125,245 English Canadians have enlisted, while 155,095 British born have enlisted in the Canadian expeditionary forces.
These figures do not justify the reproaches, nay, the injuries, which certain newspapers of
175i
Ontario and elsewhere have with so much persistency flung in the face of the French Canadians of the province of Quebec.
The French Canadians' contribution to the defence of Canada and of the Empire should not be regarded as a contemptible one, so much the less that France, England and the Canadian army's chief commanding officers have on more than one occasion declared that no soldiers had shown more dauntless courage, more resourcefulness and more endurance than the French Canadians.
These official figures do not establish the fact that the French Canadians, in proportion to their numbers in the Dominion, have furnished as many recruits as the Canadians of English origin. And we know before hand that it is from that point of view they will be considered by^those organs which are only looking for a new opportunity to slander the province of Quebec and the French Canadian race. Vet, that is a false and unjust way of looking at it. It is no more proper to upbraid the French Canadians for not having enlisted in as large, numbers as their fellow citizens of English descent, than it would be to accuse our English compatriots in this country beoause they did: not enlist in as large numbers as the British born Canadians.
In both cases, one must consider the circumstance, as pointed out by our local contemporary The Gazette.
The presence of fourteen thousand young Frenoh Canadians in the oversea contingents, says our confrere, should make an impression upon those who criticise their race. Our Frenchspeaking fellow citizens in certain parts of the country have received less encouragement to enlist than those who are English-speaking; lately, they received no encouragement at all. Reproaches are no incentive.
Moreover, as enlistment was voluntary, it necessarily follows that no one had the right to blame our jirovince, whatever might be the numbers of our fellow' citizens answering the call.
On the whole, and under the particular circumstances offered here, as well as the irritating pressure made by the other provinces, the province of Quebec is far from having any reason to blush for the share it has taken in national defence.
Unbiassed opinion, when passions will have ceased to affect our English-speaking fellow citizens, will bear evidence to the fact that it has admirably behaved.
I will leave this clipping from La Patrie of Montreal to the meditation of my friends on the other side of the House.
Not only, Mr. Speaker, was it stated that we had not enlisted, but the most odious campaign imaginable was started against the French language in the province of Ontario. I will only refer to it to state that this irritating question has had some importance in Quebec; the rights of the French language have been ostracized to substitute the German in the schools of Ontario.
Now, Mr Speaker, to this iniquitous persecution and to insults of every kind, they have attempted to add the vilest calumnies. I intend to refer to the most deplorable

incidents which, have happened, just whilst the French Canadians of the province of Quebec were doing even more than their best to show their sympathy to the soldiers crossing the province. I will mention the case of Fraserville, which is in the county of Temiscouata. When the trains full of soldiers passed through this locality, the ladies and the citizens of Fraserville would go to the station and give the boys cigarettes and other dainties. What was their reward? The most infamous accusations from the province of Ontario and, sometimes, even insults from the soldiers themselves.
A few days ago, the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. MoCraney) spoke of that bad father who gave his children stones when they were begging for bread. Did not the same thing happen in the province of Quebec, as the soldiers passed through it, when the citizens of Fraserville were insulted for having shown their sympathy? When this question was raised in this House, the right hon. leader of the Opposition was eager to have an investigation and it was granted to him.
The hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) has given, last evening, the findings of that inquiry; that the people of the province of Quebec are exonerated of all offences charged, is the summing up of it all, and I was not surprised to learn that it was the very behaviour of the soldiers themselves that had occasioned those incidents, and that they had been prompted to such excesses, beyond measure, by the perusal of inflammatory editorials, daily published by the Ontario newspapers about the province of Quebec.
I would ask the Prime Minister to be kind enough to have a special copy of this report made and to address it to the member for Dufferin (Mr. Best) for the trouble he went to in laying before the House the charges I have just alluded to.
As he was acting, undoubtedly under the inspiration of a sincere desire to aid the union of races in this country, that copy of the report will be most valuable for him, especially so when a good Liberal will have beaten him, as he deserves it, in his constituency.
There is, in this country, a man who, more than any other one probably, has tried, by his' articles, unjust as well as abusive, against the province of Quebec, to break up the union and the ' bonne entente' between the two races in this Dominion,

and who, more than any other, has sought to abet the English provinces against the French province of Quebec, by his writings, so violent that they exceeded the limits of decency and of honesty.
This man, 'Sir, is called John Willison, of Toronto. Not the John Willison who has written the admirable life of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, but the John Willison whom the Government of this country has had the weakness of recommending to our King to be knighted and who, to-morrow, perhaps, may be raised to the Senate by these gentlemen, for having overtopped by the full height of his narrow head the tallest detractors of the French race in this country. For men of John Willison's caliber, there is only one thing to do: To the wall! after Joffre's laconic but splendid expression!
We were living almost in peace before that. Our race has known the gloomy days of defeat; it has suffered the military yoke after the conquest; it has had the bloody hours of the rebellion of 1837-38, and when the Confederation at last melted into one Dominion the provinces of Canada, Quebec began to breathe more freely, having the idea that the British flag would be her best protection. Reverting with still greater energy to the tilling of her bountiful soil, she witnessed the growth, development and increasing influence of her peaceful population, obedient to the laws, respectful of order, of the civilian and religious authority which had always been her best safeguard. But Mr, Speaker, in the year 1909 at the very announcement of a naval policy, of a new scheme for a Canadian navy for the defence of the coasts of Canada, as well as to go to the assistance of the Empire in times of danger, after the Canadian government had so decreed it, we had seen, in the province of Quebec, men rise and the populous centers through the townships and the remotest concessions, and cry: "That means your own participation in the war. If you vote for Laurier's navy, it will be for England to whom we owe nothing, for England who is obliged to protect us and to defend us." I was then asked that Laurier be put out of power, because that would be so they said, the only way to prevent that nefarious measure becomng the_law of the country.
Everybody knows, Mr. Speaker, -the re' suit of the Drummond-Arthabaska election, and then, September 21, 1911, the Borden party at the helm, with the Nationalists at their side, and since then, it has been Im-

perialism everywhere and before anything else, it has been the dreadnoughts at a cost of $35,000,000 of which the Liberal Senate has fortunately rid us, in the very interest of England and of the present war, as events themselves have demonstrated it to all on both sides of the ocean. War was let loose on the world in August 1914. Canada got into the war from the moment England did, nobly and valiantly, declare war, that, in honour and in justice, she must respect her pledged word and her signature affixed to solemn agreements.
It is here that the history of our participation in the war becomes interesting and discloses novel aspects as to our position in the Empire.
' What should we do for the Empire and
.the Allies and how far were we to go in the sacrifice of men and of money, as our contribution to this grand work for the defeat of German autocracy? England never expected from us more- than 150,000 men; the balance being unattached, were to remain on the land, in order to produce what was needed for the Allies as well as for the people of Canada, and the others should be employed in the making of war ammunition. But, Mr, Speaker, one fine morning as if he had suddenly awakened from a nightmare, the premier of this country, without consulting anybody, without consulting neither his colleagues nor Parliament. said to England: "Canada offers you
500.000	men."
What did we do, Mr. Speaker? We accepted the situation just as it was in the province of Quebec. The leader of the Opposition and his lieutenants, such as the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) and the hon. member for Kamouraska and almost all the Liberal members of the province of Quebec, made it a point to tell their constituents that they should do their utmost for the defence of the Empire; we called public meetings. For my own part, Mr. Speaker, I have held meetings in my county-I have held several-it is true that I spoke against the Government, it is true that I denounced autocracy, it is true that I denounced robberies and plunders, but, Mt. Speaker, I had the courage to tell my electors: "This is a just war, it is almost a holy war, it is almost a crusade, and you must do your duty, ever without restraint, without being compelled by anybody." Mr. Speaker, we did go through our parishes and we told our electors to enlist.	.
Thank God! the Liberals of the province of Quebec are not preachers of disloyalty.
we leave that to the people who, during the Dorchester election, told the voters: "If conscription is adopted, just cross the boundary." We do not belong to that class of people.
To those who could not enlist, we said: "Contribute money to the Patriotic Fund."
I am glad to see here present the hon. member for St.Antoine (Sir Herbert Ames). He knows that at Riviere-du-Loup, we have a branch office of the Patriotic Fund which operates from Montmagny as far as Gaspe.
I have the honour to be its president and the hon. member fo* Kamouraska is one of its members. There, we applied ourselves, from the outbreak of the wax, to provide for the needs and comforts of the wives of the soldiers who had been sent overseas. It will not be a matter for surprise if I say that, at the present moment, we are paying, if I am not mistaken, $1,200 per month to the wives and children of our soldiers who have gone to the front.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, we were urging, all along, our people to enlist and we always understood that there was no necessity for conscription.
The hon. member for Rouville did not need conscription to give his only son to the force which will soon cross overseas. My hon. friend, the member for Bagot (Mr. Marcile), has given his two sons and he did not require conscription and, if I wanted to make a personal reference, I would say, Mr. Speaker, I have not waited for conscription to give my eldest son. He is with the British fleet which perhaps saved the Allies, with that British fleet which may perchance be the one factor to ensure final victory to the forces fighting under the Allies' banners.
If the honourable minister of Marine (Mr. Hazen) were here, I would ask him if, a fortnight ago, the second of the sons whom Providence has given me did-not request from him his entrance in the navy to go on patrol duty along the coasts of Nova Scotia, and the third, the last one, who has just, completed his education, would go and join his brothers, if he was not so weak; and I would be glad of it, Mr. Speaker, and do you know why? Not only to defend Canada and the Empire, not only to do his duty as a citizen, but to show to the people of Ontario that in the province of Quebec we are no cowards and that we know how to perform our duty without any admonition to do so.
Then, why conscription? Is there any necessity for it, Mr. Speaker? I answer straight forward: No. Why? For me, Mr. Speaker, volunteering has demonstrated that, with
oomm6ns
more discrimination, there would have been a superabundance of recruits.
By sending over 400,000 men to the front. Canada has even exceeded the number that England expected from us, and/ it is more than our conditions warranted us to send, if we consider our daily requirements. If, with the sending of troops, conscription of wealth in this country had been immediately decreed, there would have been no occasion for our sending over these 100,000 ox more extra men, whom conscription is intended, to wrest from us to the detriment of Canada's economic organization.
And what, Mr. Speaker, of the disturbance which this measure cannot fail to create in our national life, of the trouble it will stir up, of the bitterness it will cause between the races inhabiting the country, of the misfortunes which will endure for years and years to come? For all these reasons and for many others mentioned by the speakers who have preceded me, I say that conscription has no justification and that is should never have been submitted to this House and to. the country.
If the Prime Minister of Canada had risen above his desire of extricating his country from the difficulties which five years of maladministration have created for himself and for his colleagues; if he had devoted the energies of all those around him as well as of his fellow-workers, to the success of the cause of the Empire and of its allies, instead of trying to secure to his. Government a longer lease of life; had he listened to the suggestions of Canadian patriotism, instead of catering to the wishes of unscrupulous and scheming politicians, Canada would have with her 400,000 men and her immense natural wealth, enormously aided the cause whose final success we all have at heart, and to-day the gaunt spectre of conscription, would not be looming over our national life, at a critical moment, to undo all that we have heretofore accomplished for England and for Canada.
Some statements of the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe (Mr. Gauthier) have shocked hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House. What has he said that was so unusual? He stated to the Prime Minister of this country: If you want to force conscription without the consent of the people, we shall find a means of defending ourselves; we shall fight the Bill with the Bill itself. Has he said that we have done too much for England? Has he said that we ought to cease sending our men to the front? He only stated: We live in a free country; we want to hear the voice of the people and if you

are to force this measure through as autocrats would do, we shall resist. How? We will protect ourselves by means of this very Bill. The hon. member from St. Hyacinthe has warned the Prime Minister against what would happen if this measure was enforced. He told him that there might be tears and wailing. T,he right hon. gentleman has been well cautioned and forewarned means forearmed. The hon. member is certainly a good political opponent, having warned the Prime Minister that should conscription be forced upon the people without their consent, it would create indignation and ill-feeling all over the country. Some people will wash their hands of this whole affair, hut the responsibility will be laid at the door of the Prime Minister.
Has the hon. member from St. Hyacinthe gone any further than Sir Edward Carson who threatened to rise up in arms against his King, [DOT] should an attempt be made to force Home Rule upon Ulster?
Has he gone further than the labour unions who in a solemn convention stated that they opposed conscription by all available means? Is not the resignation of the former Secretary of State another warning to the Prime Minister?
The right hon. gentleman intends to enforce conscription in spite of all. I leave the responsibility with him. But there is this to be said: if the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe is to be blamed for having spoken his mind, for having told the truth, for my part I congratulate him and I shall tell the House that had he not done so, the member from Temiscouata would have said so. Even had I been alone, I would have so stated.
I would not like to be disagreeable to the hon. member from Kent (Mr. Kobidoux), but I deny him the right to cast censure on my hon. friend from St. Hyacinthe. The hon. member from Kent has his hands full justifying his attitude in the House; let him be satisfied with that. My hon. friend from St. Hyacinthe has been brave enough to speak his mind in the House, that is to state the plain truth. Has the hon. member from Kent voiced the opinion of those he is supposed to represent here? I do not think so. A short visit to his constituency might have convinced him that the Acadian people, the major part of them, are not of the same mind as he is. It may be that on the horizon of his brief political life he has gazed upon the big reward which would enable him to live happily during the remainder of his life. I will give him advice by the way. Let him hurry up before the election, because if

he does not get it before, I do not hesitate to say that he will be disappointed. The result of the election in New Brunswick shows which way the wind is beginning to blow, not only here, but in other parts, which have suprises in store'.


An hon. MEMBER:: In the West also.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: Now, Mr. Speaker, I come to another question. I cannot close my remarks without attending to the hon. member from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) who said yesterday in his address exactly what we expected him to say. He has been true to himself. Let me tell him that his remarks and his brutal attack upon Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier have not fallen on stony ground and that they shall bear fruit in the future. There is one sure thing it is that some insults are too vile to reach the serene spheres where the leader of the liberal party holds sway. It is strange how some people have but to go over the interprovincial bridge to become experts in the act of throwing mud upon all those who surpass them by all their glorious past, their honest conscience and their magnificent record as statesmen.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier may well rest in peace. Pigmies have never harmed giants, neither in politics nor even when conscription is spoken of. The hon. member has gone so far as to insult the province of Quebec. He did so, I shall not say, in the German style, but in that Teutonic style which characterizes him. He spoke of the lamb of the province of Quebec, meaning no doubt the emblematic lamb which we have in our national pageants during the St. John the Baptist festivities.
His intention no doubt was to reward those who had welcomed him so enthusiastically and who had feasted him in the old city of Champlain when he had gone to address them.
Mr. Speaker, I shall tell him, hoping that he will read my remarks, that there are lambs that are not easily shorn and that he and his new confederates might learn it at their own expense and sooner than they expect should they try to force conscription upon an unwilling people.
Before concluding, Sir, I would like to say a few words about the amendment to the amendment submitted by the hon. member from Berthier. Really, people should not care much about it for it is a farce, as the hon. member from St. Hyacinthe has so justly termed it. The trick is easily detected so much so that its author is soon found out. The right hon. Prims Minister stated in this Hodse that the Government herd not heard
of it. He would not swear though that some member of his Government had no part in it.
It is held somewhere, Mr. Speaker, that by voting for the amendment to the amendment submitted by the hon. member from Berthier, we are striking at the very root of the Bill. I do not think so. The six months' hoist would leave too many chances of a revival, while by referring the Bill to the people, it would not be heard of in this country, for all ages to come, when the people would have voted upon it and crushed it, as I believe they would do.
The amendment to the amendment is the exact counterpart of the petitions which have been sent to the hon. member and laid upon the Table of the House. What do those petitions say? That this nefarious Bill be not passed by the Parliament until it i3 submitted to the people by means of a referendum or an election. The hon. member from Berthier moves that the Bill be read this day six months. He is not serious; he has played his hand badly. I do not know whether he holds the joker or the blank card, but his hand is no good for the people hold all the trump cards and mind what I say, Sir, they shall win the game.
That is why I will vote against the conscription Bill with the full force of my convictions which I hold to be sincere for they are an heirloom from the past, from our history, from our situation within the Empire and from the requirements of the hour.
I shall vote first against the amendment to the amendment submitted by the hon. member from Berthier because, as I said, it is a farce, a clumsy snare laid for honest Liberals. We will not be entrapped.
I shall vote against the first and second reading of the Bill, because I want the people to have their say first, and should the amendment of our honoured leader be defeated, as it may be, then I shall oppose with the utmost energy the second and thirl readings, knowing beforehand that should this Bill be put upon the statute books of Canada and should it be attempted afterwards to enforce it disorders would ensue the disastrous results of which, not only for Confederation but for peace so desirable at this moment cannot be estimated at present.
I entreat the Prime Minister not to go any further with his conscription Bill, but to pause before plunging this country in the turmoil of conflict denunciations and all accompanying evils, and to accept rather thi amendment submitted by the right hon. leader of the Opposition. While thus entreating him, I will make mine the words spoken by the late Joseph Adolphe Chapleau

during a memorable epoch of his life and say:	Then silence [he sectarians ana the
irreconcilables and let the powerful voice of the people be heard by means of a referendum."


Mr. H. BOULAY (Rimouski) (translation) :: Mr. Speaker, at last we have reached one of the most solemn stages in our colonial history, namely, our formal and forcible participation in the wars of the Empire.
Notwithstanding the outcry of the newspapers and in spite of the solemn promises of many distinguished public men that there would be no conscription in this country, the Prime Minister, after offering 500,000 men, after going to England to be sure that conditions were urgent, comes back with a most outspoken and most foreboding statement, saying that he had made up his mind to enforce conscription. Universal rejoicing among the disabled and the exempted but sneers and gnashings among those who are liable to conscription.
It is not a source of great pleasure to me to have to-day to address the House and the country on a subject such as this; but the hour is a solemn one, and I am bound to make my views.
We are opposing conscription for different reasons which deserve consideration:
1.	Because our traditions, our constitution, our status as a colony are opposed to it;
2.	Because we have already sent overseas to help the Allies a sufficient number of men considering our population and our financial means;
3.	Because the (mandate which we received from the people in 1911 does not enable as to enact such a measure, especially without beforehand consulting the people;
4.	Because we are not as fairly dealt with as we should be by the English speaking majority in this country, and because a feeling has been created by the Liberal party in 1896, and by ourselves in 1911, in opposition to the levying of troops of any kind. I may add that this measure is contrary to our traditions, because we "have a responsible Government in this country. Our representative public men, whenever we were called upon to legislate on questions of war, a militia bill, or amendments thereto, have always expressed the view that Canada could not send her troops outside the country, except, and exclusively, for the purpose of its own defence. I remember distinctly that, in 1885, in connection with the Nile expedition, the British government applied to Sir John A.

Macdonald, then premier of Canada, for troops to help her in that war, and what was his answer? He said: we are ready to send volunteers, on the condition you will pay all the expenses. True, Sir John A. Macdonald did not profess the imperialistic views which are current to-day. He was as broad-minded a statesman as our present politicians, but never did he think of enacting conscription. It was left to this school born of the imperialistic, religious and political fanaticism, to make a display of the principles which have been boomed in this country after the demise of that great statesman, to drive us into the vortex of militarism, to promise every aid possible to England, as Laurier did in 1897 and subsequently at public meetings in England, thus paving the way for the Transvaal expedition, and later on enacting the militia act of 1904, a stepping stone to this measure of compulsion.
I have just mentioned the Militia Act of 1904. I will humbly submit that we do not need ia new compulsory measure to enable us to raise all the troops which we wish to send overseas. Section 69 of that Act clearly says:
The Governor in Council may place the Militia, or any part thereof, on active service, anywhere in Canada, and beyond Canada, for the defence thereof, at any time when it appears advisable so to do by reason of emergency.
On this point I am at one with the hon. ex-minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes), and the hon. Solicitor 'General (Mr. Meighen) and many others. The Act of 1904 provides for the sending of troops outside of Canada, and who among the hon. members of the Opposition .at that time .occupying seats in this House, voiced .a protest. The hon. member from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) was here, and I 'believe also Mr. Henri Bourassa the member for Labelle. Sir Frederick Borden might well have taken another view. Mr. Henri Bourasa writes:
Half a century after confederation, the Prime Minister of Canada, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, accepts the principle: When England is at war, Canada is also at war. His conclusion is that Canada must assume " all the responsibilities of a nation," and, agreeing with his colleague, Mr. Fielding, fastens upon the Parliament of the colony the creation of a fleet, " Canadian in time of peace but Imperial in time of war," in order to support England in all her conflicts " just or injust."	'
The Canadian ministers at the time concluded with the Imperial authorities an agreement which places, in time of war, the naval forces of Canada at the disposal of a Government whose policy and action completely escape the control and the votes of the Canadian people. Their successors, the Conservative ministers, strike more directly and more decisively at the

principles laid down half a century ago: they had adopted by this House a Bill granting a contribution to the Imperial navy, over which the Canadian Government exert no authority - whatever. Later on, when this war broke out, the two parties joined hands in destroying at their very foundation the principles unanimously accepted in 1851, in 1854 and 1862, as the only principles in agreement with the British constitution and the relationship in vogue between the mother country and the colonies. They assert the obligation of Canada to take part in a war absolutely foreign to us; they raise a greater army than Wellington had at Waterloo; they put the whole burden of that army upon Canada, and yet they give to the Imperial authorities its absolute command and use.
We carriej on the electoral campaign of 1911 with the slogan that we should not take any part in the wfars of England, and up to that time we were right. We did not foresee /at that time the present conflict in which we /are fighting more for ourselves than for England or France, notwithstanding all claims to the contrary. We have a direct interest, and even if <we had not sent any troops overseas, if England suffered defeat, the Germans would not give us credit for our good will. Our Dominion would be the first victim of their brutalities, and the people understood it so well, that from the Atlantic to the Pacific, very few protests were sounded against the sending of volunteers.
However, can we ask England to be grateful for all that we are doing? Can we expect to he reimbursed of the millions of dollars we are spending for troops and munitions, in 'any other way that mere thanks from the high politicians and their newspapers? Judging from the experience of the past, we may unhesitatingly answer: no.
We will not even be consulted when the treaty of peace will be made at the end of this terrible war in which we are taking part, and the platonic thanks which we will receive then will be the only compensation we will get for the extraordinary imperialistic wave which is rolling just now over the country, and which brought Sir Robert Borden, without consulting the great bulk of its friends, to involve us in the present war, and finally to force upon ns this extraordinary conscription bill which means the destruction of our (autonomy and the complete overthrow of our political ideas of the past.
I contend that we have enlisted .a sufficient number of men by the voluntary system, and that it would at least be well to continue in the same ways. We have enlisted over
400,000	men, /and considering our population of not much over 7,000,000, it is a fine achievement. We are told that the French
Canadians have not contributed their quota. It is a well known fact that French Canadians, all horn in Canada, have enlisted by hundreds and by thousands in the English regiments in the West, at the very opening of the war. Under our own eyes here, in Ottawa, French Canadians from Hull and the surrounding counties have been enlisted in Ontario battalions. Notwithstanding any ill-feeling entertained towards them, they were sought as recruits, on account of their splendid qualities.
If French Canadians are so guilty, so indifferent and so cowardly, how is it that we cannot get from the department of Militia the exact information we have been seeking for two years past as to the number of French Canadians enlisted to date, and *also the number of American citizens and foreigners which have come from England by hundreds, for the very purpose of enlisting in the Canadian forces right at the beginning of the war, because our pay to the soldiers was/ higher than that in England? That is well known to the officials of Quebec harbour and also to the citizens of that city.
But we have only to read the mournful daily lists of casualties since the beginning. of the war, to see that thousands of soldiers have given the address of their next of kin in the British Islands. Let us deduct these men from, those born in this country and the proportion of our detractors' friends will be considerably reduced. Let us also look over the figures of the census of 1911, and we will see that in each -of the western 'and Ontario provinces, hundreds of thousands of immigrants have enthusiastically enlisted in the first months of the war, glad *as they were, not only to show their loyalty to motherland, bnt also to find ,a good opportunity to return to their country, there being no longer any work for them in Canada on account of the cessation of railway construction. Many of them were without work in the streets /of our cities, in Edmonton and .all over the West. I remember that during the winter of 1914, 'western papers *announced that five thousand men were without work in the streets of Edmonton only. In order to find the number of citizens born in this Country, in each of the provinces of Canada, .and the number of the foreign born, let ns open the census of 1011, which gives the following figures: in the four western provinces, out of a total population of 1,715,189; we find that 870,051, more than half, are born in English countries or elsewhere. Is it not reasonable and logical that those foreigners, most of them

without any ties in Canada should have been the first to enlist for the reasons previously stated.
Ontario boasts of having sent 176.,000 men. Here again, let us refer to the census of 1911, and what do we find? That Ontario had at that time-it is probably much higher now, six years later-708,127 men over twenty-one years of age from a total population of 2,423,274 (pages 457 and 458, vol. 2), whereas' Quebec, with a population of 2,003,232 inhabitants, had only 476,666 men over the age of twenty-one a difference of 226,461 or 50 per cent in the total male population of the two provinces. If the ' same proportion is established for the male population between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one, 15,000 more men are to be added to the male population of Ontario, and that would give that province a male population of at least 241,000 over that of Quebec. If Ontario, according to the reports brought down, has enlisted, to date, 176,000 men, that is not in due proportion to her surplus male population over Quebec.
- Besides, it is not to my knowledge that a single man from Ontario has enlisted in a Quebec regiment, whereas it has been quite different with us, as I have already explained. And again, what are the conditions in Ontario? In 1911, that province had a foreign born population of 407,829, whereas the foreign born population of Quebec was 146,533. Then, as stated by the hon. member for North Grey >(Mr. Middlebro) on the 20th June, (see Hansard, page 2617) the province of Quebec has given 44,000 men. My impression is that this last figure may be accepted as giving a fairly accurate idea of the number of French Canadians that have enlisted. It is quite ridiculous to speak of 7,000 or even 15,000 when we had
2.000	men in the first expeditionary force alone, and when we know that at least
2.000	French Canadians from the three counties of Bimouski, Bonaventure and Gaspe have enlisted. Moreover Quebec is essentially an agricultural country and our large lumber industry is carried on exclusively by male labourers, whereas in a great number of the industries of Ontario woman labour can replace man labour, so here again, the situation is quite different in the two provinces.
To establish the soundness of such statements, we have not only the census to rely upon. As we all know, the French families of Quebec are much larger, and, even with an equal total population, we

could yet have fewer men subject to military service. This difference of 241,000 or 50 per cent in the male population between Ontario and Quebec, in 1911, and a difference of only 25 per cent in the total population, proves beyond the possibility of a doubt the correctness- of our calculations. In the face of the above figures that cannot be disputed, I maintain that those who for the last two years have made themselves the slanderers of the province of Quebec are engaging in an unpatriotic campaign, are fomenting disunion and hate between the two great races of this country and are performing a work well calculated to cool the ardour of the most enthusiastic among us.
It is painful for any man to have to disprove unjust accusations. But what must be painful for the individual is much more so in the case of a whole race.
As long as the attacks and the slanders were confined to that dirty sheet called The Orange Sentinel and the members of the section, we were content with despising our traducers. But during the last few years, the most violent attacks emanating from the inveterate enemies of our creed and our race have been re-echoed by important newspapers in the English provinces. If I had not a clear conscience, I would not utter a single word in defence, but knowing that the French Canadians are wrongly accused, I feel that I cannot stand it any longer. During these critical times, while the French Canadians are being submitted to unremitting abuse, I may well face our accusers and ask them, in the words of Cicero "How long will you try our patience?" How long will you gratuitously impugn our loyalty? I say gratuitously, because no correct figures are available at the department of Militia.
The English Canadians would never have accepted peaceably the moral wrongs we have been subjected to, during those two years, by the fanaties who are heaping their slanders upon our heads'. Finding themselves short of new arguments and having failed to arouse our resentment, they have invented sham insults to the soldiers from the west, on their way through the province of Quebec. That new charge has been shown, after investigation to be absolutely foundationless and the result would have been the same on all the other points, if impartial investigations had been conducted.
By the way I must say a few words about that investigation, and my remarks will be based on the report of the English commis-

sioners that cannot be suspected of having glossed over the facts.
Thursday, May 31, 1917. Sessional Papers No. 172.



FINDING.

[Stage Direction]
The Court of Inquiry appointed by the Adjutant General by orders dated the 1st of May, 1917, for the purpose of collecting and recording evidence in connection with the allegations contained in several newspapers that troop-trains had been stoned passing through Rivi6re du Loup, P.Q., and other places, and for the purpose of collecting and recording any other evidence which, in the opinion of the members of the court, in any way relates to or has a bearing on this matter,
Report as Follows:
1.	The Court assembled at the city of Quebec on May 9, 1917, and took the evidence of one witness, and then proceeded to RiviSre du Loup where twenty-three [DOT] witnesses were examined; after which the court adjourned to sit at St. John, N.B., to. take the evidence of members of the 2l7th Battalion, and finally concluded its sitting at Mont Joli.
2.	The Court could not get any direct evidence that there was stone-throwing at troop-trains by the citizens of RivSre du Loup, but the Court believes that there is some foundation for the rumours circulated amongst the citizens themselves that on one occasion in October, 1916, a few stones were thrown at one train. The circumstances were as follows :-
One Sunday evening towards the beginning of October, a train with two cars attached filled with the men from the 132nd Battalion stopped at RiviSre du Loup. Some of the men detrained and began asking young men why they were not in khaki, and, not receiving a satisfactory reply, used insulting language, and several were assaulted by the soldiers without provocation. This aroused considerable indignation and a group of youths formed apparently with the intention of throwing stones by way of retaliation. The station constable, noticing this, dispersed them, and, although there is no direct evidence, it would appear that at least some of them threw stones from a point beyond the station as the train was pulling out.
3.	There is nothing in the evidence to show that there was any organized intention to do this before the arrival of the train and the incident above referred to.
4.	Referring to the accusation in one of the newspapers that the 204th Battalion had been stoned, the Court obtained the evidence of the train crew of both sections of the train which conveyed the battalion through RiviSre du Loup. None of these witnesses either saw or heard of any such occurrence and the citizens and the railway officials at RiviSre du Loup had never even heard of it.
5.	The Court could obtain no evidence with reference to the alleged stoning of the 176th Battalion.
6.	Dealing with the case of the 217th Battalion, referred to the Court by special message from the Adjutant General, the Court assembled at St. John, N.B., where that battalion was stationed, and examined twelve members of the battalion. From this evidence it was shown that at least four missies, and not more
than six, were thrown at the first and second coaches of the second section of the train as it was leaving the station at Mont Joli. The circumstances werq^ as follows:-
About five o'clock on the evening of April 6, 1917, the second section of the train conveying the 217th Battalion stopped at Mont Joli and remained there for about an hour. During that period some soldiers belonging to the Canadian Army Medical Corps, the Canadian Army Service Corps and the 217th Battalion offered the same insults to the citizens as in the case of the trouble at RiviSre du Loup, and this was resented by a small number of young men, mostly between the ages of sixteen and twenty, who answered 'back in the same vein. To avoid any possihle trouble, the Mayor of Mont Joli, who was present, cleared all citizens from the station, while the soldiers were ordered to remain inside the train. As the train was leaving, a few stones and cinders were thrown at the car

three of which came through the windows. These were evidently thrown by some of the young fellows who had previously been on the platform and who had hidden behind some freight cars lying about 150 yards beyond the station platform.
7.	In addition to these facts, admitted by the soldiers themselves, the citizens gave additional evidence that the soldiers had thrown potatoes and other articles of food, and snow, ice and cinders at the citizens without any provocation whatever. In fact a complaint was made to that effect that very same day by a citizen of Mont Joli to the Adjutant General by - wire.
S.	From all the evidence which the Court could obtain there is nothing to show either hostility or unfriendliness on the part of the citizens of RiviSre du Loup or Mont Joli towards the soldiers.
9.	Any stone-throwing at troop-trains there may have been were the acts of a few individuals angered at the moment by the treatment they had received from the soldiers while passing through.
10.	Owing to the strong feeling of the majority of the soldiers that the province of Quebec has not, as yet, done her full share of sending troops over, they express their opinions to the citizens in strong terms whenever occasion offers, and this has had a deterrent effect on the volunteer service in these localities.
11.	The Court is of the opinion that all necessary steps should be taken to prevent similar occurrences in the future.
(iSgd.) E. S. Wigleth, Col.
J. Ostell, Lt.-Col.
Gregor Barcley, Major.
Dated at Ottawa, this 18th day of May, 1917.
Thursday, May 31, 1917. Sessional Papers -No. 173. FINDING.
The Court of Inquiry appointed by the Adjutant General by Orders dated the 1st May, 1917, for the purpose of collecting and recording evidence in connection with the allegations contained in several newspapers accusing the citizens of Quebec of maltreating, or allowing to be maltreated, soldiers returning from the war and passing through or sojourning in Quebec, and for the purpose- of collecting and recording any other evidence which, in the
[Stage Direction]
opinion of the members of the Court, in any way relates to or has a bearing on the matter, reports as follows :-
1.	The Court assembled in Quebec on Monday, May 27, 1917, and took the evidence of twenty-two witnesses under oath, and then adjourned to Toronto to take the evidence of witnesses whose names had been furnished by the newspapers in which the reports were published.
2.	The evidence taken was received from the Mayor, Chief of Civil Police, Provost-Marshal, the Provincial Police, the Harbour Police, the City Detectives, the Officer Commanding and the Sergeant-Major of the Discharge Depot, the Civil Magistrates, the Revenue Department, the Military Staff of M.D. No. 5, the Great War Veterans' Association, the Khaki Club, the Patriotic Fund, the Convalescent Home, a Minister of the Methodist Church, and several returned soldiers and citizens, in addition to which the Court visited the College Street Hospital in Toronto and made inquiries at the Base Hospital, Toronto, for the purpose of obtaining all evidence that could possibly have any bearing on the subject under investigation.
3.	From the evidence it appears clear to the Court that there is no hostility or ill-feeing on the part of any class of citizens in Quebec towards returned soldiers or any other soldiers, nor does there appear to - have been any maltreatment of returned soldiers by any class of citizens, nor has any such treatment been permitted.
4.	The evidence discloses that some soldiers have obtained liquor without any restriction, some of which appears to have been of a very inferior quality, and, being under its influence, they have caused some minor disturbances, the blame for which cannot be placed under the citizens of Quebec.
5.	Whenever any misconduct on the part of the soldiers has come to the notice of the civil authorities, the offenders in all cases appear to have been handed over to the military authorities to deal with-the greatest harmony existing between the civil and military authorities.
6.	The evidence discloses that latterly there has grown up an indifference on the part of French Canadian citizens towards soldiers in general, largely due, in the belief of the Court, to the continual -accusations that the French Canadians are disloyal and hostile to any participation in the war.
7.	Owing to this indifference and to the belief firiqly fixed in the minds of the great majority of soldiers that the province of Quebec has not done her duty in the war, minor incidents, which would otherwise have passed unnoticed, have been grossly exaggerated and given rise to the accusations published.
The Court is of the opinion:-
1.	That there is no foundation whatever for the articles published in certain newspapers submitted to and investigated by this Court.
2.	That all newspapers should be prohibited from publishing articles of this nature.
3.	That the sale of liquor to soldiers in the city of Quebec should be absolutely prohibited.
-	E. S. Wigleth, Col.,
J. Ostell,
Gregor Barcley, Major.
President.
Members.
Signed at Ottawa, this 18th day of May, 1917. 
This investigation was held in Quebec on the complaint of some officers commanding the troop passing through the province of Quebec, and especially my county of Rimouski.
Certain allegations were made by the member for Dufferin (Mr. Best), who seemed to be glad to make these charges against the citizens of Quebec. I wish that he were here to listen to a denial of those charges, not only on my own part, but on the part of the commissioners who were chosen to make the investigation. I expected that, on the receipt of the report of the commissioners, the member for Dufferin would at least get up and say that he had been deceived and that the report which he had given to the House and to the country was entirely false and unfounded. He did not do this, however, and it is my duty to-night as the representative of one of the counties against which this accusation was directed, to tell the hon. gentleman that he should have retracted what he said on that occasion. The facts may have been misrepresented to him, but having made the charges he should have accepted the verdict of the Commission and have made a statement to the House to that effect.
Now, leaving out of consideration the facts which have been established by the above figures beyond all possibility of disproof, and .admitting for the sake of argument that the province of Quebec did not give to the cause the number of soldiers that was expected of her, I say that the situation in which we are placed in this country by the will of the majority, the numberless persecutions we are made to suffer, against our language, our schools and our religion, would fully justify our standing aloof in the present war, if we had no other motives to fall in line but the gratitude we owe the majority in this country. If we look hack to the past and delve into history, we easily understand why the French Canadian cannot throw all his efforts in this struggle with the samfe spirit and courage that animate his persecutors. Were we not spurred on by the alliance of England, France and Belgium, leagued together for the defence of violated rights and desecrated treaties, no French Canadian, when he sees his race the constant prey of detractors in this country, would be justified in ever pulling a trigger.
I am in duty bound to tell this House and the country the truth, the whole truth.
While admitting that the. French Canadians of the province of Quebec have

not answered the call to arms in very large numbers, one must take into account the various reasons which have helped to withhold them. If we go back to the origins of the French and English nations, we find between them a deep-rooted rivalry from the very first centuries of the Middle Ages; during all that time, until the defeat of Napoleon in 1815, British armies have constantly waged war on French territory. ' And while those two countries were battling in Europe on land and sea, a like struggle was being waged in America, especially in Canada. Immediately after the foundation of Quebec in 1608, the Iroquois Indians, whom the New England settlers supplied with arms, massacred our missionaries and the French pioneers of_ Canada and Acadia. And there is still subsisting the painful emotion caused by the barbarous expulsion of the Acadians in 1755, the wiping out of an entire peaceful people, an act for which its authors are branded in history with a mark of infamy.
Before the English conquest in 1760, the arms of the two nations in Canada were continually pitted against each other; there was between the two races an incessant enmity. After the conquest, the struggle passed from the battlefield to the economic and social arena. Ever unabashed, the English laid hold of everything within their reach; they monopolized trade. Attempts were made to Anglicize the French left in the country and to instil into their minds tenets contrary to their faith. At different periods their language was the object of legislative attacks, until the numberless persecutions became intolerable and resulted in the disastrous troubles of 183738. The conquerors had apparently forgotten the events of 1775, 1812 and 1814, when the French Canadians saved Canada for England. All the sacrifices of our fathers were counted for nought, and before being allowed to breathe the air of liberty *they had to take up arms.
In 1867, the old Canadian provinces got together and secured the enactment of the British North America Act. Confederation, at the time of its passing, was by a large number believed to he a blessing, but now one wonders if it is not the most disastrous compact the province of Quebec ever entered into. I say disastrous, because the Fathers of Confederation who represented the province of Quebec were led into traps from which we cannot extricate ourselves. Thus while our friends from Ontario saw to it that the Act should read in express terms that in the province of Quebec the
English language will enjoy equal rights with French, the same privilege was denied the French language in Ontario. The Quebec legislators would say at the time: "We must trust the English majority and expect generous treatment at their hands; we have their word, what more is needed."
'Such were the arguments used to secure from the .inhabitants of Quebec their acceptance of the most perfidious and nefarious compact that could he devised, and which has proved the source of 'all the language .and racial troubles that exist today between the French Canadians and the province of Ontario. Without 'any guarantee being required, w.e have been surrendered, .and without guarantees we axe, left to-day, left at the tender mercies of a fanaticism which, radiates- from the University of Toronto 'and spreads to the legislature and the press. Our rights in Manitoba had been guaranteed, but the English majority, German-like, tore up its treaties and repudiated its signature.
'Since 1867, in all the provinces Of the Dominion, the English element is attempting to get the upper hand, and denying our rights. The province of Quebec dedply resents those injustices. Take the Civil 'Service; i't is .practically controlled by the English-speaking people. They get the best situations. I could prove my statement by [DOT]quoting from the list I have here before me the nationality Of the higher officials of the service. The figures- are from last year's public accounts. There 'are:
French Canadians	 27
English-speaking	 152
Our population entitles us to 50 of those positions instead of 27. Those conditions- I would not like my hon. friends on the other side to be deceived by the figures just quoted-existed in 1911, when we came into power; the grievance is one of long standing; things even went from bad to worse under the Liberal Tule. In 1896, when we were defeated, there Were four Frenchspeaking deputy ministers in various departments, while in 1911 only one was left. Things have improved since, for to-iday there are three French-speaking deputy ministers.
The same discrimination is to be found in the various classes of the public service. One can go into many of the offices without being able to get any one who1 understands French, and a French Canadian who succeeds to an English official has to perform the same duties for a smaller remuneration. Thiat is the case with the harbourmaster of
[Stage Direction]
Quebec, the captain of the Princess, a boat of the Fisheries Department, etc. If a French Canadian seeks an appointment all
sorts of qualificiaitions are required of him that are not required of an English Canadian, ot an English-born applicant. Oftentimes when an investigation is to be carried out in ithe province of Quebec, Englishspeaking judges or commissioners are appointed, who cannot speak French. Even in the management of the Intercolonial we have to submit to the most crying discrimination. Last year I quoted figures that beaT out my statement. All our applications are thrown out. The reply is always sure to come: " Nio vacancy," or " Too late." On pant of the Matapedia branch English travellers were allowed on certain trains, while a Frenchman was refused the same privilege.
But what is the use of attempting a complete enumeration of all our grievances? The list is too long. They are well known to all the French population of the Dominion; they have existed and continue to exist from generation to generation. People who have, as I have, the privilege of belonging to a family whose ancestors settled on Canadian soil at the beginning of the 17th century, ten generations back, know of all those facts.
iMy object in going into those few details is to have the House and the country understand more clearly the feelings of the French Canadians at the time war was declared. Tell me, Mr. Speaker, what has been done from the very start of the conflict to incite and induce French Canadians to do their bit. The Quebec members have never been consulted either on the appointment of recruiting officers or regimental officers or on war purchases. No horses were bought in my constituency, and of all the millions of dollars spent since the war began, not a cent was spent in the counties around the Gulf. Yet must I say to the credit of my constituents of Rimouski and Matane that' all those insults have been brushed aside and we have nobly done our duty. Scores and scores of brave young soldiers from my constituency have fallen on the battlefields of Flanders and France and our quota of recruits amounts to over eight hundred men. The same credit is due the counties of Bonaventure and Gaspe; their children generously answered the call. More than forty soldiers enlisted in my own parish of Sayabec. Three of my nephews are. at the front, one of whom has only lately made the glorious sacrifice of his life

at Vimy. From the start, our compatriots enlisted in large numbers in English regiments, where they had to submit to ill-treatment and abuse. As soon as French Canadian regiments got across, they were dismembered. Wihy not have allowed them to keep their identity and their officers? Necessities of war? Then why not have warned them? Was it right to enlist them under false pretenses? Why should they all be placed in the infantry and not be allowed to enlist in the artillery?
Those men were led to believe that they were going to the front with officers of their own race, with men they knew and whom they looked up to as to their fathers and protectors. Why, once in England, were they made to undergo tortures that recall the barbarous practices of mediaeval centuries? If I understand the information of a returned soldier, an intelligent man, who was wounded in action, soldiers are compelled for the slightest offence to run for ten hours within a fixed course, with a load of seventy-five pounds, and being allowed only five minutes rest every twenty minutes. Sometimes they are made to keep their arms stretched out for hours at a time. Those atrocities are reported and are not suoh as to help enlistment. I am told from the same source that such gross injustices without proper motive are committed that there have been soldiers who shot at their officers. Thoise reports circulated among a people accustomed to breathe the pure air of American freedom are no inducement for the slackers to join the ranks.
Who can wonder now, after all those insults and with such poor methods of securing recruits, that the French Canadians are not very anxious to accept the sacrifice, when they know beforehand that their merit and their gallantry on the battlefield will not be recognized, and that in many cases they will not even he allowed to wear the stripes of their rank.
I heard the hon. member for Rouville state that a Protestant clergyman by the name of Williams had been appointed head of recruiting in the province of Quebec. Where could be found a more odious and systematic persecution of a race proud of its past, conscious of its dignity and jealous of its destinies?
It must also be taken into account that 75 to 80 per cent of our population consists of farmers, and that to clear and break new land requires more hands than are required by the English farmers of the

western prairies or of the more favoured portions of Canada.
It must besides be considered that in almost all the English provinces the teaching -of French in our own schools is discouraged where not completely proscribed, as in Manitoba and Ontario, although these _ provinces have been fertilized by the blood of French missionaries and settlers, so almost everywhere in the Dominion we have manifest injustices to complain of. Our schools are a standing grievance that rankles deep. When one thinks of the situation in which we are placed in every sphere of life, in the Civil Service, as regards our educational and even religious aspirations; when the methods of recruiting and the treatment meted out to us since the beginning of the war are taken into account, then one cannot blame my compatriots if, under those conditions, they hesitate before making the supreme sacrifice. I for one cannot find it in my heart to censure them, although I have never ceased preaching to them that they must do their duty, enlist in numbers, obliterate the past, ignore the present, turn their eyes away from the vexations to which they are subjected by a certain section of the people of the Dominion, and think only of Great Britain and of the true Britishers, who live across from France, and one of whom told me one day anent the persecutions we have to endure from those of his race in Canada: "Never mind them, they know not what
they do	The true Britisher is on your
side." When Belgium is devastated, laid waste, bleeding, because she would keep her pledge; when France's every soldier is proving himself a hero; when Canada's own welfare depends on the issue, and because Canada's first line of trenches, Canada's frontiers are now in Flanders, our gallant Canadian youth must not hesitate to make every sacrifice. We must prove our loyalty to the British Crown so long as the hour of our independence has not struck. France! Belgium ! England! Long live they !
I have shown, I think, with figures that the province of Quebec has furnished as many Canadian-born soldiers as the other provinces, and that even if we have stood somewhat aloof, our conduct is fully justified by the attitude towards us of a certain bigoted and prejudiced section of the people, by the inefficient methods of recruiting resorted to by the Department of Militia from the start, and by the constant abuse to which we are subjected.
I say further:	Stop these villainous
attacks, call off your persecution of our language and our schools, especially in Manitoba and Ontario, and thousands of my compatriots will readily take up arms and jump into the trenches.
This rancour against the French of Canada is one of long standing. In 1846, when a Militia Bill was under consideration, Sir E. P. Tache addressed himself to his English countrymen in the following words, which I find in Mr. Henri Bourassa's book entitled: "What We Owe England":
Only be fair to the French Canadians, and you will see that their gallant battalions will he the first to rush to the frontier and make of their bodies a rampart against any invasion. The habit has grown too far of calumniating those brave people; too frequently they are described as ungovernable malcontents; the press too often accuses them of disloyalty and sedition, claiming for the other race the exclusive practice of the opposite virtues. To those' detractors I say:	You are deceived; we
appeal to the mother country; treat us as brothers and not as bastards and rest assured that we shall never forget our oath of allegiance to the day when the last shot shall be fired by a French Canadian in the defence of Great Britain.
In the third place, I claim that the mandate we .received from the electorate in 1911 does not empower us to vote for the present Bill. Everywhere I spoke I pledged "myself to oppose any .appropriation to build a navy, or to hand over millions in aid of the British navy, and I have faithfully kept that .pledge. Twice already I have stated in this House that the obligation's we are imposing on Canada in this war are out of all proportion to our resources .and our revenue, and I .stand by that statement. The policy [DOT]adopted in 1911 to oppose strenuously the proposals of the new Prime Minister should still actuate us in considering the Conscription Bill. Notwithstanding the statements to the contrary of our party leaders, I .still 'hold ito the opinion that voluntary enlistment, in the future .as in the past, is the best mode of recruiting in Canada. We are told that men axe needed to reinforce the units now at the front, but surely the entry of the United States into the war will bring to our armies .a sufficient number of men ito compensate to a large extent the help we might give ait .the expen.se of our agriculture and our industries, and lat the risk of starving the Allies .by reducing the production of our fields. National interest is averse to all other but voluntary enlistment. I may even vote .against the amendment of the right hon. leader of the Opposition, because in ia way it is a mitigated scheme of conscription in so far .that .should the referendum carry my right hon. friend
[Stage Direction]
is pledged to compulsory service. In fact, it would. l>e sure to carry, because it would rally .a >soli'd vote from the soldiers ia-s well as their relatives ^and friends, as was pointed out by the hon. member from North Grey (Mr. Middlebro), and tibart vote would be of itself sufficient to carry the referendum by :an immense majority. I have received numerous petitions from the electors of my county, asking me to vote against any form of compulsory service, whether introduced by Sir Robert Borden ot 'Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I have come to ithe conclusion that I should comply with the wishes of my electors. And in any case, what faith can we place in Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his party when we read the declarations made by him in the House 01 Commons at various times since .the 12th of December, 1912? Does he not favour placing at the disposal of Great -Britain all out resources, both in men .and money, and for. the further -information of the hon. members, I shall quote what he stated in this House on December 12, 1912:
This is the Australian policy; this ought to be the Canadian policy. I insist once more upon what is stated in the memorandum: There is no emergency, there is no immediate danger, there is no prospective danger. If there were an emergency, if England were in danger-no, I will not use that expression ; x will not say if England were in danger, but simply if England were on trial with one or two or more of the great powers of Europe, my right hon. friend might come and ask, not $35,000,000, but twice, three times, four times $35,000,000. We would put at the disposal of England all the resources of Canada; there would not be a single dissenti^it voice. Oh, ye Tory jingoes, is that the amount of the sacrifice you are prepared to make? You are ready to furnish admirals, rear-admirals, commodores, captains, officers of all grades, plumes, feathers and gold lace; hut you leave it to England to supply the bone and sinews on board those ships. You say that these ships shall bear Canadian names. That will be the only thing Canadian about them'. You hire somebody to do your work; in other words, you are ready to do anything except the fighting.
And farther on:
Is that the true policy? It is a hybrid policy, it is a cross between jingoism and nationalism. Unless I mistake the spirit of the Canadian people, if they are true to their ideals, if they are true to their own blood, no matter to what province they belong, they will not he satisfied with this hybrid policy, but they will insist that their contribution shall he a contribution of money and of men as well, as was provided in our resolution of 1909.
Mr. Speaker, it is not money that England wants at this, moment. England never was wealthier than she is at the present time; her coffers are overflowing. What she wants are the hearts, the brains and the brawn of her subjects all over the world.
After -such statements can we believe that
[Mr. Boulay.j
the right hon. leader of the Opposition is disposed to refuse his support to every scheme of compulsory service? Can we put stock in his amendment when he is well a-ware that a referendum might result in a majority in favour of conscription? As I am against all form of conscription, I have decided to vote against the -Laurier amendment and the main motion and vote for the Barrette -amendment, which- would mean the death of the Bill.
Mr. M. MAIRTI-N (St. Mary's, Montreal) (Translation):	Will my hon. friend allow
me to put a question?
Mr. BOU'LAY (Translation):	-Certainly.
William Melville Martin: You stated just now that the referendum would likely carry. On what do you base your opinion?


Herménégilde Boulay: I have
stated my reasons. If you take the soldiers' votes, 400,000 of them, together with that of their relatives and friends, say 400,000 more, you -have a total of 800,000, while in 1911 the total vote polled was only 1,300,000. Supposing that the number of electors has increased v-ery little since 1911, then deduct
800,000	from 1,300,000 and we clearly would be -a minority.
Mr. MiARTIN (Translation):	The soldiers overseas, from all reports, are more strongly against conscription than those in this country.


Herménégilde Boulay: I -do not
believe it.
How can we manag-e to obtain immigrants from Europe, who come to America to enjoy liberty and freedom? After putting this Act on our statute-books, how can we hold out to them that in Canada they will, be free from European militarism?
We are told that unless we send reinforcements we must withdraw our troops from the front. My reply is similar to what other hon. members have already said:	If we
cannot maintain four divisions, then let us have only three and if it .is impossible to keep three to full strength; let us have only two, ,provided we istay within the bounds of our meads and resources.
The other day I listened to the strong plea of the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) in favour of an appeal to _the people by way of a referendum, and I was -taken alba-ck at some of his statements. I was wondering whether I was listening to the same member for Rouville, to the same Postmaster General of the Laurier Cabinet, who in 1911, addressing a public meeting at St. Hya-cinthe, denounced Bourassa? *
f
I

Is he' really the same Liberal leader who in the campaign of 1911 went from parish to parish decrying nationalism? Is he really that same Grit orator who since 1911 has constantly inveigled not only against Henri Bourassa but against all the Nationalists, because, forsooth, the latter, and it is their only crime, had advised Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the Liberals to submit a referendum to the people at the time of the general elections in order to feel the pulse of the people on the question of a -Canadian navy and that of free trade with the United States-


William Melville Martin: And of boring holes in the British flag-


Herménégilde Boulay: What sudden happening is responsible -for this sudden turning around of the hon. member for Rouville? Did the Liberal chieftain hold council with Mr. Bourassa and bargain for the support of the Nationalists by adopting their tenets and coming before the House to acknowledge that they were mistaken in 1911 and to repudiate all they said against Nationalism? Have they accepted -all the policies we advocated then and are still ready -to endorse on the same question, in order to take by storm the seats of the mighty?


Mr. DELISLE (Portneuf) (Translation):: So yo-u acknowledge having been elected as a Nationalist? .


Herménégilde Boulay: Certainly.
W,hy then this alliance, this face about? The ho-n. member for Rouville alone can explain the enigma. If Mt. Bourassa and those who followed hi-m in 1911 were traitors in defending their principles, what are we to believe of the hon, member fo-r Rouville and all those who share his views on conscription? To me, their conversion appears somewhat strange and I view it with a certain amount of suspicion.
I wlill conclude my remarks with a few words -in English. There -are but few of our English-speaking friends in their places at -this time, but I desire that these -should understand a summary of what I have already said in French. Besides, it will show that we have the two languages in the province of Quebec including the county of Rimouiskd. In the early days of August, 1914, when Germany -had declafed war on France and Belgium, we French Canadians lived -hours that were lengthened by great anxiety. The eyes of -all our people were turned -towards England, and we expected
fro-m moment to moment the despatch which would make known that she had decided to take her pl-aoe by the side of France and Belgium. I must remind my French-speaking fellow-countrymen- that we should have been the first to charge England with cowardice and treason if she had hesitated fo-r one single day to give the assistance which those countries needed. We expected that England would enter the fight (to -save her honour, to show her reverence for treaties -solemnly entered upon, to crush barbarism, and to defend her trade and her colonies. Every man learned in thes-e matters, every public man, every man of sense, knew what would be the consequence fo-r Canada should England enter the fight. Do not let anybody -believe that the French Canadians are indifferent to this war, or are disregardful of the mother country, for they realize that -in this -time of trial she has done only what they wished -her to do and is fulfilling their desires in carrying on the fight. In this life -and de-ath struggle Britain has always had our full sympathies. In the early days of -the w-ar a large number of French Canadians enlisted, and if the current of that enlistment has grown less since those early days, it is due to the fact with which I have already dealt in my remarks in French, an-d al-so to the fact that a large number of local leaders -among the Liberals in the back parishes' have done their best to stop it altogether. I blame in this connection also -some persons of high standing in public life who have done exactly the contrary of w-hat they should have done, and have created a condition of mind am-ong the public of which, in the future, they may be the first to complain.
Let me quote as an example the case of my own village. I did what'I could to encourage our young men to enlist, and I -must say to the honour of my parish priest that from the very start of the war he acted in a manner befitting a minister of religion and a true and loyal citizen of the country. He used every means to encourage our boys to go to the front. And what was the result? Over forty men of our village have enlisted. Some of them have fallen gloriously on the field of battle, and many are wounded. What has been done in my village could have been done in a great many others, and I am confident that the same results would have followed.


William Melville Martin: With the permission of the hon. gentleman, I would ask if he has any sons?


Herménégilde Boulay: I have no boys that could enlist. But I have just stated to the House that I have three nephews who could leave, and they have left. .


William Melville Martin: But your sons?


Herménégilde Boulay: he complained of the Teuton'sbarbarity that .condemned him to occupy his leisure time in a shell factory. The farce is evident; if ithat man had not been a spy, he would aiot, being a German, have escaped the firing squad where the Germans have always sent any of their own they found fighting against' them. But nothing of this must be reported to our Government who have such overweening regard for the Civil Service officials of German origin.
Let us return to this conscription question. I have said that Canada has done her share. I have said that "considering, on the one hand, our numbers as a people " and, on the other hand, the number of those who enlisted, it may be said that we have made a greater effort than the British people. I do not say that we .should stop recruiting, but I do say that our past record is a guarantee for the future. I submit that a compulsory service Bill will not result in. a marked increase in the num- . her of enlisted soldiers and that it will be a menace to peace at home. I contend that just now, the best means of bringing about final victory is the organisation of our economic resources. The day is not distant when we shall be asked to contribute, not soldiers but food. What is our Government doing to provide for the years of dearth that are forthcoming? Do they indeed beleive that the 400,000 or
500,000	men who have gone have not caused an awful gap in every branch of the trade as well as of commerce. Labour has become so scarce in the country places that our farmers are unable to cultivate all their lands; they are already anxiously asking themselves how they will be able to take in their crops. Have our Government done anything to. prevent the alarming increase in the cost of living? The speculators are keeping on their work at their heart's content; those who govern won't listen and they look in other directions. One thing only concerns them: to send more men to the mother country. The only fixdd idea of our Prime Minister is the fulfilment of the promise which the overseas military authorities have wrung from him; it is his nightmare, his obsession:	one hundred
thousand men!.,, one hundred thousand men!. . . He must find them at any price. The trusts are about to starve our people; no matter-one hundred thousand men !- If the Government does not attend to it immediately, we will have this winter, in spite of the controller, a dreadful dearth of fuel; *io matter, one hundred thousand men! Agriculture and the national trades

are short of hands; no matter, one hundred thousand men! It is useless to try and argue, so long as those hundred thousand men have not come out of Jupiter's thigh. We should not forget that Canada's population is so much the sparser that the country covers an immense territory. But the friends of conscription see men everywhere; they don't see anything else; they forget that the men are indispensable to the good working of our economic machinery in every one of its wheels.
It may be that the moving picture theatres in the large centres, that the pool rooms and the shows are filled with idle youths. Do you think conscription will reach these boys? Seventy-five per cent of these cigarette smokers are not fit to pass the medical test and half of the rest are rich men's sons whom protection will keep away from the rosters.
There is a question which it is my duty to toucfi upon here. I do it with a certain hesitation, for it is an exceedingly delicate one. It is that of the province of Quebec and of her present situation as regards the other provinces. The French Canadians have been upbraided for their indifference in the present conflict and for their reluctance to answer the call of the mother-country. Were we to believe certain -fanatical sheets of the English provinces, and also some members of this House, the province of Quebec, and especially the French Canadians, remained absolutely deaf to that call. Exaggerations were resorted to, in order to make abuses easier. Other English papers and also other English speaking members, more honest, more loyal and more broad-minded, have replied to these calumniators and that is sufficient. If I Tefer to it here, it is only to try and show that the French Canadians' situation at the present hour is an exceptional one. Shall I be rightly understood when I say that the instinct of preservation, the strongest sentiment that exists, is leading the French Canadians in spite of themselves? There are English Canadians-and legions of therm-who are English before being Canadians and who, unsuspectingly, are ready to sacrifice the interests, even the future, of the colony to those of their mother country. I do not wish to blame them, for their blood is up, and blood will tell. But neither can they blame my fellow-people for being Canadians before being British, and even for being French Canadians before being only Canadians. In this case also, blood must tell.
Yes, without suspecting it, the racial instinct is at work among us .French Can-

adians. Instinctively, we feel that it would be dangerous for us to weaken ourselves beyond measure, because we know that for the struggle to come, we can rely only on our own forces. Foreign immigration benefits only the English element in this country: Irishmen, Swedes, Scotchmen, Americans, Germans, Norwegians, Finlanders, Austrians, Greeks, Bulgarians, Turks or Doukhobors, all, in a hundred years hence, will have dissolved themselves in the English element, having its character, its language, its manners and its ideal. No one, except a few Frenchmen or Belgians, will have joined the French Canadian race. We must, I repeat it, depend only on our own resources. Now, instinct does not. reason in face of a danger. The French Canadian is attached to his land, to his soil, to his old province; persuade him, if you can, to go and get killed for the salvation of the Empire, he will go; but do not attempt to send him there by force; he will cling to his green maples, and you will find that his arms are too robust for you to break their grip. For the French Canadian does not see things in the same light as the English Canadian does; and the great pity of it all is that the English Canadian cannot or will not understand that there are always different ways of considering a question. Will you .say that we lack patriotism? Let any foe, whoever he may be, invade the old soil so dear to every Canadian and then you may judge our patriotism. The facts of our past history would be renewed. And if ever Canada were to suffer an invasion, the foe would soon see more Salaberrys arise. But it is useless, absolutely useless to attempt to impose conscription upon a people that does not want it, because it has its own reasons for not wanting it.
If there be so much loyalty in the other provinces, if those provinces are go eager to go and win glory upon the European fields of battle, why don't they impose conscription upon themselves? There is nothing to prevent them from doing so. Must Quebec he at the fore, for others to jump in? My opinion, I will state it .frankly, is that, at the bottom, the/ sister provinces are veTy glad to witness- the opposition made by the province of Quebec and which may perhaps turn to their own benefit. Have a referendum upon this conscription -question, and of the nine provinces, there will be nine to vote against it. This referendum is a necessity; it is for the people to decide this question. Is it because a negative answer is feared that the imposition of -conscription is wanted? It really would be unfortunate, if this fact was lost sight of, that it is not all
to pass this Act, but -that its most important phase would be the carrying out of its provisions. It would also be its most difficult feature. If the people do not want conscription-and you could only know that by consulting them-will the mere fact that you have passed that law make them change their minds and bring them bound hands and feet at your disposal? And if this measure becomes law, and you attempt to enforce it; if, when it has become a law, you should try and impose it and the people should refuse, what will you do? Have you ever considered, you, the friends of conscription, what may be the outcome of it all?
You want to pass this law because the time js short, do you say; that is why you refuse to ask the people their opinion and that, deliberately, you propose to do a monstrous act? Is not that a false (pretence? If, instead of shifting as they have been doing, the Government had honestly understood their duty and -had submitted the question to the people, they would already know where they stand. The people are and must remain the masters of their destinies; the Government forget that the people are the masters and that we, the members, are only their servants. Under .present circumstances, the Government seem to intend making of the people a herd of slaves.
I have refrained from discussing the merits of this Bill; much could be said on that subject; but it would only be a waste tof time and useless trouble, for, even if it were perfect and a model act in its kind, I would still feel obliged to vote against -such a bill, believing that the-people, and the people alone, I repeat it, have the right'of deciding so momentous question.
I could not conclude without saying a word of praise and of admiration toward the Liberal party's revered leader. In refusing, as he has done, to associate with the ministers for the passing of a compulsory enlisting Act, he has set an example of that true democracy that does respect the rights and the obligations of the citizens. He has avoided the -snare laid for him. He has devoted his life to the building up of the Canadian country; his efforts have always had for their object to make of Canada a united nation in- the Empire. To-day, through the Government's action, Canada reverts once more to the status of a mere crown colony, crouching under the imperialist rod. He who had dreamed of a Canada greater, stronger and prouder, will not bear the responsibility for such a downfall -before history. More than ever before, I am happy to follow in the footsteps of a worthy leader and I shall vote with plea-

sure for the amendment of the right hon. leader of the Opposition, who wants the people to be consulted beforS the tax of blood is imposed upon them.


Louis Audet Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, having followed very attentively the different phases of the debate on this important question, and having devoted the best study and reflection possible to me to the issue which the present Bill establishes, I have come to the conclusion that my first impressions were right, and that my determination to oppose conscription, under any form, was well founded. I have the honour of representing a very large and important section of the city of Montreal; thousands of my electors have conveyed to me, in different ways and at' different times, both individually and collectively, their desire that I should voice their views and opinions by opposing any form of coalition government, any further extension of Parliament, and any project of conscription. And I may say, in passing, that the hon. member who represents another very important section of the city of Montreal has himself admitted that from his own division he has received many and many petitions against conscription. Therefore, there is no doubt that I have truly grasped the views of my constituents and represent their opinions when I say I am against conscription. Such being the unanimous will of my electors, and such being my own inclination, I will trespass but briefly on the indulgence of the House, while I set forth some of the many reasons which urge me to adopt the stand I have taken on this occasion.
I need not at this moment refer any further to the coalition question, because that seems now to be a dead issue. As to the prolongation of the parliamentary term beyond the period already accorded, I will reserve for the appearance of such a proposal all argument in opposition to it. However, I cannot refrain from making one statement, which applies to the general trend of the present Government's policy and which concerns the idea of extension of Parliamentary terms. Eighty years ago, in Upper and Lower Cana'da, our fathers fought against the Family Compact and the bureaucracy of that day, and succeeded in securing for their sons the boon of popular representation thirty years later, in 1867. It has flourished and borne fruit for fifty years; and I object to celebrate the halfcentury of our Confederation by either the uprooting of that tree, or the splitting of it into fragments by driving in the wedge,
 .
under blows of an Imperialistic hammer, that is calculated to deprive our children of its protection, its shade and its fruits.
The immediate question under discussion is that of conscription; and on that I desire to register my emphatic opposition to any such scheme. I do so all the more heartily, because I am deeply convinced that it is a menace to the constitutional liberties that we have been taught to expect and that we have ever enjoyed under the protection of the British flag. I do so because, in my mind, it is an insult to the manhood and patriotism of Canadians. I do so because it is the outcome of hysterical sentiments created by the overstrain upon the nerves of public men hy the conditions of unrest in the world to-day. I do so on account of the manner in which it has been sprung upon a people long led to believe that no such scheme was in contemplation. I do so, above all, on account of the autocratic spirit that underlies its conception, its presentation and its prosecution.
Bear with me a moment while I attempt to explain:	There are two great and
antagonistic principles animating the contending Bowers in this terrible war. On the side of the Central Powers, Germany and her allies, we find the standard of autocracy raised and the doctrine of brute force and Kaiserism preached with fire, sword and shell. On the side of Great Britain, France and her allies, we see the standard of democratic freedom lifted aloft and the sublime doctrine of popular liberty and constitutional rights advocated in accents of thunder. It is for the triumph of that democracy over the monster of autocracy that Canada has joined in this struggle, and that she has freely, loyally, unshackled and uncoerced, sent forth to the conflict far more than a fair proportion of her manhood. The methods adopted by the Government of to-day to attempt to implement the unreflecting promise of an over-excited Prime Minister, are in exact accordance with the autocratic spirit - against which the Allies are fighting, and for the destruction of which this very measure is supposed to have, been conceived and introduced. The refusal of the Government, which has long out-lived its constitutional existence, to allow the people of Canada to have a voice in the issue or a word in the deciding of the fate of their dearest and most precious assets, is purely and simply the illustration in this land of the Kaiserism of Europe, and the putting into harsh practice here of the methods that have raised the indignation and the

battle spirit of the civilized world. Elected in times of peace, with a mandate to administer the affairs of a country in a state of tranquility, the Government, having reached the _end of its term, makes use of the war excuse to cling to power and to avoid a verdict from those who gave its members their original mandate.
As far as carrying on the affairs of Canada, with a view to performing a fair and rational duty in this struggle is concerned, the Opposition has never declined to lend every possible assistance to the Government; but, when it comes to a radical change in national conditions, and to the introduction of methods savouring strongly of coercion and compulsion, it is the inalienable right of the people of this Dominion-the people whose lives and blood are given to the cause, and whose money and sacrifices foot the terrible debt of the nation-to be consulted and to have a voice in this sudden dislocation of their destiny. Had the Government consulted the people first, we would know what they had to say regarding this measure; but to promise that conscription would never be resorted to, to then hurl it unexpectedly at the head of the nation, to do so in a most autocratic and Prussian-like manner, and then, to tell us, if not in words at least in actions, that all the magnificent voluntary achievements of Canada must be wiped off the page of our war-history, and that we are to be presented to the world as a nation of cowards, whose participation in the struggle had to be forced by the lash of conscription; to do all this is unspeakably unjust to Canada and can have but two results; that of keeping a dead Government in apparent and deceptive life for a brief time longer, and of placing the stigma of poltroonery on the character of the Canadian people for all time to come. The Government to-day represents- the spirit of German autocracy; the Opposition represents the democratic and liberty loving spirit if the Allies. Listening to the advocates of conscription, one would be glad to believe that the entire fate of the Allied nations in this war depended upon Canada, and the fifty or one hundred thousand men that she could add to her contingents already at the front or on their way there. Is it conceivable to any rational mind that Great Britain entered upon this war with the expectation of having to Tely upon distant and thinly populated Canada to ensure her success? Does any one imagine for a moment that the- fate of the millions in arms on the vast expanses of the battle grounds
of Europe can be affected more or less by the addition of another 100,000 from Canada? The plain fact is that our additional contingent would not be more than a drop of water in the bucket, as far as the ultimate result of the war is concerned. And it is more so on account of the two-fold fact that the fresh contingent would be necessarily undisciplined and unprepared men, and that, being recruited/ by main force, it would naturally consist of real slackers. Slackers are men who- can go, but will not go of their own free will, but who- are none the less cowards when forced into uniform. After the magnificent showing made by Canada, after the four hundred thousand of heroic and voluntarily enlisted brave fellows, we are going to send a division of cowards and slackers to- represent this country in the belligerent camps of the Continent. Is not that a disheartening proposal-one of the most unpatriotic ever conceived by a Government?
I have heard and read the speeches of some of those prominent, and I rtust sincere, Liberals who spoke on this question, and who announced their determination to vote against the amendment presented by the leader of the Opposition. In particular, did I note the remarkable and extraordinary speech of the hon. member for South Renfrew-one of the leading Ontario members of the Opposition party. In all that speech, as well as in the others I refer to, there was not the shadow of a -shade of reason for their opposition to the amendment, while they each and all advanced every legitimate reason why they should not vote as they have announced. The attitude of these gentlemen on this issue has but confirmed more and more my views that our leader was right, as he has always been right and as subsequent circumstan ces have invariably proven him to be Tight. The amendment calls for a pronouncement from the people of Canada upon this the most vital question since that of Confederation, and either a referendum, or a general election can alone clear the atmosphere and make it possible for any Government to proceed in a constitutional manner and with the. sanction of the people of Canada.
I will not be a party to robbing the immense electorate of this Dominion of the right to say who shall administer the -affairs ' of the country, and in what manner the Government is expected to fulfill its mandate. I am against conscription. I demand elections. The spirit of imperialistic autocracy that introduced this measure is the

same that dictated the coercion laws of England against Ireland, and of Russia against Poland. England and Russia both fight against that same spirit to-day; our fathers fought against it in' '37, and Canada is not to he, set hack eighty years in her advancement along the highway of liberty, and of representation by the .people and for the people.
The fault for all lack of recruiting in Ontario, in Quebec, and elsewhere in Canada has been sufficiently and amply laid at the door of the Government by the various speakers who addressed the House, be they for or against conscription, on this side. I need not go over that overwhelming proof of the Government's mismanagement, and its effort to hide its own failures by casting the blame on the people of Canada, and making the world believe that compulsory measures. wTere necessary with our population. But I will strongly insist on the Government's lack of policy in not giving the proper inducements to recruits.
The story is a sad one. No man who has gone to the front has had any assurance that if he were killed, or wounded, his own family at home would be provided for by the country in whose service he sacrificed either his life or his future; no system of pensions, no adequate remuneration, no guarantee that the members of the soldier's family would not be pauperized and left on the charity of the public.
Throughout Canada there are tens of thousands to-day who have not met with even the paltry fair treatment that was expected of the Canadian Government by the men who went freely to the front. What we need more than conscription is some practical and effective method of safeguarding the families of the men who have enlisted. In the trenches to-day there are numbers whose hearts are sore, thinking of the misery they have left behind them for those who depended on them for comfort and livelihood. This has been one huge deception from beginning to end.
I cannot but emphasize the statement that errors have been committed, and are still being committed, in recruiting. I will read a letter to this effect written to the editor of the Citizen, Ottawa, under the heading of "National Service all Round", and signed " Equal Rights."
0 I concur absolutely in what he says in the letter, which reads as follows:-
National Service All Round.
Editor, Citizen.-Of course, if Conscription of manhood is necessary, it should be accompanied by conscription of wealth.

It is comforting for men above military age to talk of sending their younger compatriots to fulfil their duty in the trenches, but do they think that the younger ones alone have a duty to perform? Do they think that the sacrifices should be borne by one class only of men?
On one side, a certain class of the community is asked to renounce all that they have earned by diligent and hard work, and to go to the trenches, where they may have to lay down their lives on the altar of the country.
On the other hand, those who are no more deserving, no more hard working, but who happen to be a few days above the age limit, or who are under some maybe small physical disabilities, will remain very comfortably in their homes, keeping their positions, getting big salaries, and making no sacrifice whatever, just as if they were not the least concerned in the preservation of the country.
Let me mention a few cases that will illustrate the situation.	They are not
special cases; thousands of them will happen.	[DOT]
A young .man, 28 years of age, has by his hard work, assiduity, and good behaviour risen to the position of accountant in a bank or commercial institution, where he gets a salary of $1,500 to $2,000 per year. Satisfied that his future is good, he has got married and is the father of one or two babies. He has taken life insurance to protect his wife and children in case of a sudden or premature death. His future looks bright, his home cheerful, and the world smiles on him. The call comes for his class; he knows that war is a terrible thing and that he must answer, and he goes. What is the result for him? Disaster, absolute and irreparable. He forfeits his position. The paltry $20 or $30 a month that the Government hands to his wife, added to his princely pay of $1.10 a day, are just sufficient to prevent his family from dying of hunger. The home has to be closed, the insurance policy dropped, and if the worst happens and his life is taken, his wife and children, for whom he had created a bright future,^are condemned to misery and drudgery all'^their lives.
The same applies to all other eases of successful young clerks, promising business men, skillful apprentices, steadfast labourers and workers. And at the same time that they put on khaki, their companions, not called by the war, will step into their positions, enjoy all the advantages, get 'the pay, and sacrifice nothing. Whilst those who donned khaki will be shedding their blood, the manufacturers, the rich, the millionaires will be heaping up new millions. Whilst the wives and children of the soldiers will be mourning them and working at starvation wages for a living, the

wives and children of those who have not gone will be displaying expensive dresses, riding in luxurious limousines, holding dogs on their knees, the food for which the soldiers' children would probably not be able to get.
Conscription of manhood means for some sacrifice of all, for the others sacrifice of nothing. What should be done, for sacrifice there must be? If the services of men on the farm, in the munition factories, in the offices, which are rated as indispensable, are worth $4, $5 or $10 a day,- is it not just that the services of men who are indispensable in the trenches should be paid as much? The advantage would still be with the home work, for it entails no danger.
Surely a country which is willing to pay high wages to its mechanics, its business men, etc., should not bargain to pay less than equal wages to those who are giving their blood in its defence!
Of course, all those whose purse would be touched by such a measure will raise their hands to heaven and say that it is impossible, that it would ruin the country. It shows their sincerity, when they talk of sacrificing the last dollar. Their motto is: make the others' sacrifice their last drop of blood, and their last dollar. 1 wonder if the Government would ever attain its object should this Bill tie put into force. I doubt it very much. I presume that the Bill will unfortunately get its second reading and then I will have an opportunity of discussing its clauses in Committee of the Whole. I reserve to myself the right at that stage to express my views on the different clauses of this Bill; but I cannot let this occasion pass without giving it a proper title. Instead of calling it a Bill of lOonscription, I would rather call it a Bill of Exemptions, Exceptions and Patronage. 1 have got only to put before the House section 11 as an example. It is as follows:
II. (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.
Remember this is before the Bill is in force at all. Follow now closely the exemptions, and tell me if there is any rational expectation of securing recruitment by means of this unique, useless and vexatious enactment? Subsection (a) provides:
(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
Practically every man in Canada w.ould come within this exemption.
(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.
Still worse: it is made optional to work at what suits him best.
(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.
Every student and apprentice in Canada could take advantake of this paragraph.
(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;
Where is the man whose financial or domestic relations and conditions might not be invoked as an exemption?
(e)	111 health or infirmity;
This is simply a question of getting a certificate from a doctor. If a man was sick in the morning he could get a certificate from the doctor and be exempted by the tribunal.
(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 faith of almost every Christian claims " Thou shalt not kill." My hon. friend the member for St. Lawrence (Mr. Bickerd-ike) has a strong plea here for his anti-hanging theories.
I go further. When we take these exemptions- as a whole, the judges may, in their discretion go so far as to keep at home men who would have liked to go voluntarily, and I know that some would take advantage of all these general exemptions. I am told that already some members .of this House have written to certain of their electors telling them that they should bring their sons to their farms.
As you see, Mr. Speaker, the Bill does not stipulate in clear and precise terms the exemptions, but formulates a general exemption after the creating of the different

tribunals for registering, appeals, etc., all the people exercising their discretion in virtue of clause 11. I contend that this clause would render the Bill futile and useless, because there will be so much discretion exercised in virtue of it and other clauses that conscjipts will be very few.
Why should the Government create such perturbation and general disturbance in this country by introducing such a Bill, at such a time, for the levy of a few thousand men, when, according to the Government's admission, there are still 126,000 soldiers and officers of all ranks in England who have not yet crossed over to France, and when everybody can see scores of others in khaki parading the streets of our cities, who have perhaps been enlisted for years but have never been instructed to go overseas? In the face of so much duplicity, deception and maladministration I cannot but register with my whole heart and soul a vote against this impracticable, anti-Canadian and unpatriotic measure-against all forms of conscription, of ' tyranny, autocracy

against all attempts to reduce to ashes the liberties of the Canadian people and the constitutional autonomy of Canada.
It is needless for me to repeat what has been clear to this House ever since this debate began, that my province and my people are the objects of unjust and unpatriotic attack. Were I to raise my voice in their defence, it might be claimed that I am speaking for those to whom I belong and in whom I have a special interest. I prefer to- hear the voice .of one not of my race, not of my province, not of Canada; I prefer to leave the floor, so to speak, to one whose place in the ranks of British authorship must command respect, and whose patriotism has won for him a high station amongst the men of thought, of culture and of weight in the British Empire. Instead of my own feeble voice, I will ask you to listen to the powerful and influential expression of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle:
The French Canadians.
I do want to take my hat off once again to the French Canadian. He came of a small people. At the time of the British occupation, I doubt if there were more than a hundred thousand of them, and yet the mark they have left by their bravery and activity upon this continent is an ineffacable one. You pass right through the territory of the United States, down the valleys of the Illinois and of the Mississippi, and everywhere you come across French names: Marquette, Joliet, St. Louis, Mobile, New Orleans. How come these here? It was the French Canadian who, when the English colonies were still clinging to the edge of the ocean, pushed round from the
TMr. L. A. Lapointe.]
north into the heart of the land. French Canadians first traversed the great American rivers and sighted the American Rockies. Keep farther north and still their footsteps are always marked deep in the soil before you. Cross the whole vast plain of Central Canada, and reach the mountains. What is that called, you ask? That is Mount Miette. And that? That is Trfe Jaune. And that lake? It is Lake Bruld. They were more than scouts in front of ari army. They were so far ahead that the army will take a century yet before it reaches their outposts. Brave, enduring, light-hearted, romantic, they were and are a fascinating race. The ideals of the British and of the French stock may not be the same, but while the future of the country must surely be upon British lines, the French will leave their mark deeply upon it. Five hundred years hence their blood will be looked upon as the aristocratic and distinctive blood of Canada, and even as the Englishman is proud of his Norman ancestors, so the most British Canadian will proudly trace back his pedigree ' to the point where some ancestor had married with a Taschereau or a De Lotbinidre. It seems to me that the British cannot be too delicate in their dealings with such a people. They are not a subject people, but partners in empire and should always be treated so.
In taking my seat I may say that I have plways respected the opinions of others. I trust that my opinions will be respected, because I speak sincerely, but I have no respect for fanaticism. I have no prejudices and never'had any regarding race or creed..
On motion of Mr. Neely, the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Sir Thomas White the House adjourned at 1.15 a.m. Thursday.
Thursday, June 28, 1917.