1917-06-25

LABOUR STRIKE IN WESTERN MINES.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime Minister):: I desire to lay on the Table two Orders in Council with respect to the difficulties which have occuired in the provinces of British Columbia and Alberta, in the district known as District 18. One of these Orders in Council constitutes a Director of Coal Operations for that District; the other appoints Mr. W. H. Armstrong, of the city of Vancouver to that position.
STATEMENT BY MR. L. J. GAUTHIER. On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. L. J. GAUTHIER (St. Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, on my arrival here this morning, I took cognizance of the remarks made by you on Friday last and reported in Hansard of that day. In deference to your wishes as there expressed, I desire to say that there was no intention in my mind to reflect on you, Sir, wrhen speaking on the amendment of the hon. member for Ber-thier (Mr. Barrette). My statement was directed against the Government. If anything in my remarks can be construed as reflecting on the Chair, I withdraw it.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 101, respecting The Canada Preferred Insurance Company.-Mr. Stevens.
Bill No. 102, respecting The Western Canada Accident and Guarantee Insurance Company.-Mr. Bradbury.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 86, respecting the Western Life Assurance Company.-Mr. Schaffner.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill No. 39, respecting the Toronto', Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company (Mr. Stewart), Mr. Blain in the Chair.
Mr. T. J. STEWART:: I propose that this Bill should be amended b'y striking out sec-

tions 1 and 2, and I think that in that form it might be read the third time. I do not desire to take up the time of the committee in explaining the Bill, because I have done this once or twice already.


Mr. G. C. WILSON (Wentworth):: This
Bill affects onlv the town of Dundas and not anv other part of the country. I am opposed to the withdrawal of sections 1 ahd 2, and I take that position at the request of the Town Council of Dundas whose representatives were present at the meeting of the committee by which this Bill was considered. At the meeting the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company was represented by counsel, and the town of Dundas was represented by the mayor and members of the town council. The provision of the Bill granting an extension of twenty-nine years was opposed, and the committee amended it so as to provide for an extension of five years. If the House approves of that, I have nothing to say against the Bill; but I do object to dropping clauses 1 and 2. The Bill was carefully considered by the committee and there was a large majority in favour of the amendment, and I believe that the Bill should carry as it is.


Thomas Joseph Stewart: Considering the course the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. G. C. Wilson) has taken, it will be necessary for me to explain the Bill. This Bill arises through an agreement made between the town of Dundas and the Hamilton and Dundas Street Railway Company for the removal of freight to and from the town. Dundas is in a valley, and no steam roads go there, and it is necessary that the freight should be removed by electric railway. The agreement was for a period of twenty-one years, which was as long as it could be made, but it was provided in the agreement that the town of Dundas, if it chose, might pass a by-law, and get it approved by the Ontario Legislature, extending the term for twenty-nine years more, making a total of fifty years. This was afterwards done. The Hamilton and Dundas Street Railway Company entered into an agreement with the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company, under which the latter company was to take the freight from the former at the end of their electric track. Practically, the action of the Ontario Legislature ratified the agreement with the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company, but that legislature could not ratify it formally because the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo

Railway has a Dominion charter, while the other road has a local charter. The agreement with the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company could be ratified onl^ by this Parliament. The company has come here to ask this Parliament to confirm the rights given by the town of Dundas, and to make this agreement binding for fifty years. The Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company has come here in good faith expecting that its agreement will be ratified by this Parliament. The committee saw fit to refuse that ratification. But, instead of simply refusing, they did that which, I am advised by the Law Clerk of this House, they had no right to do. The town of Dundas, and the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company were represented before the committee, but the Hamilton and Dundas Railway Company was not represented. The committee amended the Bill so as to provide that the time fixed should be five years instead of twenty-nine years. In my opinion they had the right to confirm or to refuse the agreement for twenty-nine years, but this is the only legal right that the committee had.
The committee did not follow these rules but made a new agreement in the absence of the Hamilton and Dundas Street Railway which could not be legally done under the agreement. For that reason and because of their refusing to allow us to proceed with our Bill, I made the motion today to have it withdrawn. The town of Dundas is objecting to this Bill because they say that the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company have no right to keep their cars in front of the doors of the people in Dundas. The Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company were not responsible for that for the simple reason that they were using the tracks of the Hamilton and Dundas Street Railway Company and therefore they did not have control of the track or the use of the track. But the people of the town of Dundas say it is unfair to keep these freight cars in front of the people's doors and the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway company agreed to an expense of $15,000 for buying the right of way and removing the cars to some switching place in Dundas that would be suitable. That rem'oved' that objection. Then the town of Dundas said there was another objection; they did not want to be bothered by the smoke nuisance. They wanted the Toronto, Hamilton and BuSalo Company to buy two electric motors for removing freight cars that would cost the company $80,000. The interest on that

investment would be $4,800 while the total profit obtained from handling freight in Dundas is only $5,000 and some odd dollars. Therefore the company said that there was not enough in it and said they were quite willing to drop out. The authorities of the town of Dundas said: We would be very glad. The hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Wilson) told me that they would be very glad if we would drop out of the town. The mayor of Dundas said that he . would be very glad if our company would drop out but when we asked for the privilege of having our Bill withdrawn, they said: No, I do not know what answer to make to them. They want to force us to accept a Bill that we will not accept. I do not think it is fair that the company I represent should be forced to accept a Bill they do not want. For that reason I ask this committee to allow the company to withdraw these clauses and give the Bill its third reading.


Mr. NICKLE:: When this Bill was before the Railway Committee it was well discussed. This is not a Bill that in any way touches the riding I represent, but I was in the Railway Committee when the matter was up for discussion. Shortly, the facts are these: Twenty-one years ago the town of Dundas entered into an arrangement with the street railway company. The agreement was made for a term of fifty years.	By	a	provision of the	Ontariostatutes of that time, a municipality was prevented from entering into an agreement	for	a	term exceeding	twentyone years.	The municipality	recognized	that	the agreement was	illegal
beyond the 21 years, and so also did the street railway company, who went to the legislature and had the agreement ratified in so far as it .affected Dundas and the street railway company. I am a bit ahead, however, of my story in this respect. The street railway company subsequently to its entering into the agreement with the town of Dundas, made an arrangement with what I shall call the steam railway company by which the street railway company extended to the steam railway company certain privileges over the street railway company's tracks for a period of fifty years. That agreement was also ratified by the Ontario Legislature. For some reason that was not disclosed to the committee, the steam railway company, which had its incorporation from this Parliament, stood by for twenty years and never came to secure the ratification of the agreement in so far as it was
concerned. At the expiration of twenty years they come before this Parliament, and in the face of the most acute objections from the town of Dundas, who assert that the main street of their town is being destroyed, that their citizens are being annoyed by the smoke and noise incidental to railway traffic, try to force upon Dundas an agreement for twenty-nine years, which the town of Dundas does not want. I cannot understand why the street railway company were not represented before the committee. This Bill was not before the committee once, but, I think possibly twice or thrice, and if the street railway company wishes to ibe heard there is no reason why they should not have been present. The committee felt that they were confronted with this difficulty:	It seemed to be an
obvious hardship to throw the Bill out altogether because that would practically deprive the town of Dundas of steam railway accommodation. It is all very well for the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Stewart) to come here and say that they are quite prepared to drop the Bill and leave the town of Dundas entirely helpless. The committee thought that Dundas was entitled to protection. As the two railway companies and the town had entered into an agreement that was at its inception illegal, it was felt that the town of Dundas should not be compelled to recognize a twenty-nine years' extension or to- submit to an agreement that was working great hardship to its citizens. At the time the agreements were made between the two railways and the town the policy of this Parliament, and the policy of the Legislature of Ontario, was against protracted agreements, because they felt that the rights of the people might not 'be adequately protected. It would be unreasonable that this Parliament should impose on the town of Dundas an agreement fc a further term of twenty-nine years when the railway company most particularly concerned stood by for twenty-one years without seeking parliamentary ratification knowing that at the expiration of twenty-one years if ratification was not obtained from this Parliament neither Dundas nor the street railway company could compel them to carry out that agreement now they have come and asked fpr a further extension of twenty years because they think it an advantageous agreement. If it had been a disadvantageous agreement they could have repudiated responsibility after twenty-one years.


Thomas Joseph Stewart: We do not ask to be relieved of responsibility. We brought this Bill here and we ask to be allowed to withdraw these clauses. We do not create any liability. The lawyer from Kingston, being a lawyer, ought tp know that very well. He is mistaken when he says that the agreement has been in existence for less than twenty-one years. The agreement has been in existence for less than that, for about twenty years and it has another year to run. We are advised by more than half a dozen lawyers that the committee have no right whatever to pass that limitation for five years and they have no right to make a renewal pf the agreement. We ask that we be allowed to withdraw those clauses. We are not treating the town of Dundas unfairly. Furthermore the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Company is under a Dominion charter. They want to have the freight removed by electric power. One of the arguments is that the Dominion Railway Board has no power in this transaction because one portion of the road is under an Ontario charter and the other under a Dominion charter. If that be true, the town of Dundas if they have no other purpose in view, on the face of it, would not insist on what - they are doing to-day because if the Dominion Railway Commission have no authority to order these cars to be removed by electric power they could not so order them. But, we have agreed to allow such legislation to go through this House as would place the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Company entirely under the Dominion Railway Board. We have offered to do everything that was fair but we want the two clauses left out of this Bill. We are not going to accept the Bill as it is and we take the ground that the committee have no right to amend the Bill. Therefore, we should be allowed to amend these clauses.


Gordon Crooks Wilson: The
remarks of the hon. gentleman for West Hamilton (Mr. Stewart) would lead one to think that we were asking that this road be electrified right away. The town of Dundas is not asking any such thing. The railway company is asking for an extension for twenty-nine years. We, in turn, in the town of Dundas, have asked that it be extended for five years only, and then, if the company comply with the regulations and do what is right by the town, there will be nothing to prevent Parliament further extending the time. Our request is a

fair and reasonable one. The matter was well threshed out in the committee. The hon. member for West Hamilton is not interested in this railway, while the town of Dundas is. I have a letter from the mayor of the town, which I shall read. It is as follows:
Dundas, Ont., Canada, June 23, 1917.
Copy of Resolution.
Whereas, Bill No. 39 respecting T. H. & B. Railway was amended by the Railway Committee of the House of Commons to provide for the termination of the agreement between T. H. & B. Ry. and H. & D. Ry. in November, 1922, and
Whereas, the T. H. & B. Ry. have notified our manufacturers that their freight service will probably be withdrawn in November, 1918, and
Whereas, Bill No. 39 has yet to be passed by the House, and the T. H. & B. have threatened to withdraw the clauses therein relating to said agrement.
Be it resolved,
That this council request our local member, G. C. Wilson, Esq., M.P., to use his best endeavours to prevent the withdrawal of the amended clauses referred to and to have the *clauses as amended by the Railway Committee adopted by the House.
And that a copy of this resolution he forwarded to G. C. Wilson, Esq., M.P., and to Richard Blain, Esq., M.P., Chairman of Railway Committee of House of Commons.
Chas. E. Dickson,
.	Mayor.
Let me further say that this is a threat on the part of the railway company that they will withdraw their freight 'service. This whole matter was threshed out in the committee. The Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo railway at its inception, wanted $30,000 from the town. That demand was turned down by the people and .the railway want to get their hands on our throat again, and practically strangle the town if this House gives them permission to do so. I do not think the House will. I think that the House will .agree that it is fair to give a five year extension and if the railway take their cars off the streets and put in their own sidings and so on, appropriate action ean be taken. The company do not own a mile of track or a piece of property in the town. They run over the Hamilton and Dundas railway; they do not own a siding, as all the sidings are private. Therefore it is not taking anything away from the company or interfering with their rights, and I hope the committee will agree to this clause as amended.


Thomas Joseph Stewart: If my contentions are right, the railway committee of this Hojise had no right whatever to pass this

amendment. Then I do not think it would be wise for the House to adopt it. If there is any doubt about the night of the committee to amend the Bill in any way, then I do not suppose the House will want to pass the Bill with that amended clause in. Why should we not allow the Bill to stand over until to-night and have legal opinion on it? I have a legal opinion, and your solicitors tell me that the committee had no right to do this. I did not know that this opposition was coming up to-day. The town of Dundas did not say that they were going to oppose the Bill. Mr. Wilson has said all along that the town would be glad if the company would withdraw it, and now to-day I have no one here except myself. There were lawyers in the committee who took the ground that the committee had no right to make the amendment. Mr. Wilson never gave me any idea he would oppose the withdrawing of this clause, and so I think that, to say the least, it is playing a little sharp.


Gordon Crooks Wilson: If there is sharp practice I am not guilty. The Bill was brought up in my absence on Friday. I have no excuse for not being here, but had I known it was coming up I would have been here. I am following the instructions of the town, the only corporation really interested in this matter. The hon. member for Hamilton (Mr Stewart) is not interested, as the railway does not run through his constituency. Practically the only reason why he should take an interest in the Bill is that he must be interested in the T. H. and B. more than in the town of Dundas, and I would ask to have the Bill put through as it is.


Thomas Joseph Stewart: I can assure you I am not interested in any way in the T. H. and B. railway. I never had any stock in it and never intend to. I am not interested except that I was asked to allow the Bill to go through in my name, and I agreed. After the Bill had been before the House for some time I was informed that the town of Dundas was going to oppose it. My hon. friend from Dundas (Mr. Wilson) and I have always been exceedingly friendly, and I am very sorry that this clash has come up between us. I am interested in this just as any member is interested in a Bill which he undertakes to put through the House; it is his duty to be fair and honest to the persons in whose behalf the Bill is introduced.


Mr. NESBITT:: I suggest that we let the Bill stand and let these gentlemen get together.


Gordon Crooks Wilson: I have tried that three times already.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Blain):: The committee will notice in the first section of the Bill, which I have just read, a change was made in the date; instead of extending it for the full period it has been extended only until 1922, that is an extension of five years.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Is that one of the clauses to which the hon. member for Hamilton objects?


Richard Blain: That is the clause now before the committee. The hon. member for Hamilton moves that this clause be struck out, along with another clause that is to come later, clause 2.


Mr. CARROLL:: Would not that kill the Bill altogether?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: We do not know anything about the agreement. The members of the Railway Committee who were present when it was discussed no doubt know all about it, but unfortunately I had to go to another committee on that day. I think we had better allow the Bill to stand till we see if we cannot get some more information.


Thomas Joseph Stewart: I am a little surprised at the movement to put the Bill through. No one has had the courage to say that my contention that the committee had no right to make, the amendment. Then why should anyone try to shove something through that has no right to go through? Why not allow the Bill to stand over until to-night in order that it may be looked into?


William F. Carroll: If I remember rightly, this Bill has been7 before the committee at five or six sittings, and I do not think our allowing it to stand over until to-night or for two weeks will get us any further, because the parties who could not agree in the committee after five or six sittings are not likely to come together now. As to the legal question which the hon. member for Hamilton brings up, if this Parliament has * the right to extend the agreement for twenty-nine years, as the company are asking, I, as a layman, would say that we certainly had the right to extend it for five years.


Thomas Joseph Stewart: Do you contend that this Government have a right to make an agreement to bind me when I am in British Columbia, or somewhere else, and have had nothing to do with the making of it?


William F. Carroll: That is what my hon. friend was trying to impose on Dundas. The town did not want to accept twenty-nine years, hut the hon. member and his friends were trying to force on the town an agreement which it did not want. My only reason for rising is that as a member of the committee I do not believe that the company should he given any -further extension of time in this matter, or that further consideration would get us any further than we are now.


Mr. KNOWLES:: While the members of the committee may have had opportunity of familiarizing themselves with this somewhat complicated matter-a matter which is evidently of very great importance-I accept in good faith what the member for Hamilton (Mr. T. J. Stewart) an hon. gentleman in good standing in the House- has said, as indicating that certain things connected with this matter should be considered more thoroughly than members of this committee are capable of considering them. I speak now more particularly of members who did not attend the sittings of the Railway Committee; for if the names were polled it would doubtless be found that not more than half the members of the committee were present at the meetings. For my part, I am quite incapable of expressing anything like an intelligent opinion on this controversial matter without having discussed it or having had an opportunity of looking into it more fully. In deference to the member for Hamilton, and with due regard to the merits of the case, I think that we should let this matter stand [DOT] for consideration at a future date. This would be only fair to those who are called upon to express an opinion; to do so now would be merely making a shot in the dark. I move, therefore, that further consideration of the Bill be deferred.


Thomas Joseph Stewart: Some hon. gentlemen have said that the committee held four, five or six meetings. I wish to say- and I am sure that no hon. gentleman can 'successfully contradict me-that the committee really had only one meeting. It is all very fine to say that we had half a dozen meetings, but the rules provide that the quorum of the committee shall consist of a certain number of members, and owing to
fMr. Carroll.]
inability to make a quorum we had only one meeting, and that was the last time the committee was called before the Bill came to the House.


Mr. CARVELL:: I feel like seconding the motion of the member for Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles) for this reason: I dislike registering my vote in respect of a matter about which I know nothing whatever. I thought that when the member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) took part in the discussion this afternoon, he would give us some explanation of the matter, but unfortunately he did not go far enough to convey anything to my mind. I say frankly that if I were called upon to vote on this Bill I should 'not know how to vote; I do not know anything about it. I would like to see gentlemen representing the different aspects of the question take sufficient time to explain their respective contentions, so that those who were not in the Railway Committee would be able to vote intelligently on the subject. Otherwise, I suggest that consideration of the matter be deferred until 'we get the necessary information.


William Folger Nickle: I shall again endeavour to make myself clear, perhaps taking more time than I originally did. My information concerning the matter is, of course, gained from the records and from the information given to the Railway Committee. Some twenty years ago the town of Dundas entered into an agreement with what I shall term the street railway company. By the terms of that agreement they gave certain rights and privileges over the streets of the town of Dundas to the street railway company for the term of fifty years.


Thomas Joseph Stewart: Agreement for twenty-one years.


William Folger Nickle: They gave certain rights and privileges to the street railway company for the term of fifty years, as defined by the agreement. At that time it was against the policy of the provincial legislature to permit municipalities to bind themselves for a longer term than twenty-one years. Possibly the member for Hamilton is right in this: that the agreement was stated to be of legal effect for twenty-one years; and that it would become legally binding for the further term of twenty-nine years if legal ratification was secured from the province and from the Dominion. The street railway company then entered into an arrangement with what I shall term the steam railway company, by which they gave running rights and privileges over the

steam railway company for a period of fifty years.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: When was that agreement entered into?


William Folger Nickle: Very shortly after the
original arrangement was made between the town of Dundas and the street railway company.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Was the town a party
to this transaction?


William Folger Nickle: The town was not a party to that agreepient, but there is no doubt that the town was cognizant .of the fact that the agreement was being made.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That is, the agreement
between the street railway company and the steam railway company?


William Folger Nickle: Yes.


Thomas Joseph Stewart: Did not the town of Dundas make the agreement with the Hamilton and Dundas Street Railway Company first?


William Folger Nickle: Yes.


Thomas Joseph Stewart: You said that the town was not a party to the agreement.


William Folger Nickle: I said that the town of
Dundas was not a party to the agreement made between the steam railway company and the street railway company; but there is no doubt but that the town of Dundas had knowledge that the agreement was being made and approved.


William Erskine Knowles: What ground has the
hon. gentleman for believing that the municipality was cognizant of the making of the agreement?


William Folger Nickle: If I may be permitted tr>
finish what I have to say, I shall endeavour to make the matter abundantly clear; I shall then be glad to answer any questions that may be put.
The town of Dundas and the street railway company then made application to the Ontario Legislature fpr ratification of the agreements between the town of Dundas and the street railway company and between the steam railway company and the street railway company and the provincial legislature ratified the two agreements. The net legal effect of that seems to have been that in so far as the provincial legislature could ratify the agreements they were binding on the steam railway company, the steam Tailway company, the street railway company, and the town of Dundas. The steam railway company, however, was incorporated
by Dominion charter and was therefore amenable to the principles of Dominion law. By the principles of Dominion law at that time, the steam railway company and the street railway company had no right to enter into an agreement for a longer term than twenty-one years. For some reason not explained, neither the town, the steam railway company nor the street railway company ever came to the Dominion Parliament and asked for a ratification of 'the agreement between the steam railway company and the street railway company. Twenty years have' passed; conditions in the town of Dundas have very radically changed. It is admitted by all parties that the agreements were valid as among the three for the term of twenty-one years, but not of legal effect- although not void-for any term beyond the twenty-one years. After the expiration of twenty years the steam railway company comes to this House and asks that the town of Dundas be compelled to recognize the agreement as drawn, twenty years ago for a further term of twenty-nine years after the expiration of about one year. The town of -Dundas says:	no; we were not a
party to that agreement between the steam railway company and the street railway company.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: When the street rail- *
way company and the steam railway company went to the provincial Government to have the agreement ratified, was the town of Dundas willing that that agreement should be ratified for the term of fifty years?


William Folger Nickle: I say it concurred in that; it was agreeable, and the agreement was ratified by the provincial legislature for the term of fifty years. But the town of Dundas now says this: the steam railway company, by virtue of its agreement with the street railway company was bound only for the term of twenty-one years. For twenty years they slept on their rights. They now realize they have a good thing, and, although they could have escaped liability at the expiration of twenty-one years if the agreement had been to their disadvantage

their solicitor admitted this when I questioned him-their agreement not having been ratified by this Parliament, they now ask Parliament to make the agreement binding for a futher period of twenty-nine years. The position the Railway Committee took was this:	if you wanted
that agreement ratified you should have come to Parliament twenty years ago and

obligated yourselves to perform your part of the contract. If through your laches twenty years have passed and you now, because you think it an advantageous privilege, ask Parliament to do what the town does not want you to do, we are not going to impose on the town any limitations or restrictions that are not now acceptable to its people. The steam, railroad does not own the tracks; they have no sidings of their own, the sidings being privately owned by companies or individuals; the main track belongs to the street railway company. The citizens of the town are inconvenienced by smoke and noise .and life is made unbearable on the main street of the town. The committee said we are not going to do now what the policy of the Dominion Parliament was against at the time the agreement was made: that is, bind the generation of to-day by an arrangement illegally entered into by the generation of twenty years ago. Then the committee were confronted with this problem:	The twenty-one-year
agreement expires in about one year, and if it is not extended, at the end of about a year the town of Dundas would be deprived of its steam railway connection.
Since the committee said that the agreement should be extended for five years, the steam railway company have notified the town of Dundas that at the expiration of twenty-one years, the legal term, they are going to discontinue the operation of their road in the town of Dundas and then Dundas will have no steam railway connection. The committee said: That is not a fair thing to do, you will have had twenty-one years' use of this franchise in Dundas, and if the town does not want to extend -the agreement for 29 years, then you should stand by the agreement for a few years so that all the parties may have an opportunity of adjusting their conditions. The hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. T. J. Stewart) raises the point-and I can express no legal opinion on it-that the Railway Committee have no right to make a new agreement for the street railway company and the steam railway company; that they have a right only to ratify the original agreement or throw out the Bill. The hon. member says the committee have no right to extend the agreement for four or five years. The steam railway company asked that the original agreement between them and the street railway company should he ratified. The steam railway company says: If you do not ratify the agreement in toto, we will quit in a year. The Railway Committee says: You should do nothing of the

sort; under all the conditions you should give the town of Dundas a reasonable service, say for four or five years.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What doe3 the town say?


William Folger Nickle: The town says: We want a chance to turn around and make other arrangements; give an extension of the agreement for five years more; then, if the steam railway company are willing to build their own tracks and get off our main street, we are willing to concur in a reasonable arrangement, but the generation of to-day are not willing to be bound for twenty-nine years more owing to the ill-advised arrangement of twenty years ago.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: The town of Dundas and the street railway company are both hound by the agreement for fifty years, that having been ratified by the provincial legislature.	_


William Folger Nickle: That is, the agreement between the town and the street railway company is made applicable for fifty years.


William Pugsley: The Toronto, Hamilton
and Buffalo Railway Company come here and simply ask that, so far as they are concerned, being a Dominion corporation, this agreement already ratified as to the town and as to- the street railway company, shall be ratified by this Parliament as to the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company, and made binding.


William Folger Nickle: That is not the fact. They ask that an agreement between the street railway company and the steam railway company to which the town was not a party by signature, be made binding for the term of fifty years, and by implication then, it would be binding on the town, and the steam Tailway company would have the right to run steam cars over the street railway company's tracks for 29 years from the expiration of the 21 year term.


William Pugsley: Has the Ontario legislature not ratified the agreement between the street railway company and the Toronto Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company?


William Folger Nickle: Yes.


William Pugsley: We have an agreement
between the town and the street railway company ratified by the provincial legislature for fifty years-	.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: And the town was agreeable to that?


William Pugsley: Yes. We have an agreement between the street railwa'y company

and the' Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Bailway Company also ratified by the provincial legislature, and made binding as against the street railway company (for fifty years. Therefore, we have the provincial legislature, by legislation within its jurisdiction, binding both the town of Dun-das and the street Tailway company for fifty years, but it is alleged that the provincial legislature has no jurisdiction over the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company, it having a Dominion charter. As I understand it, the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company is asking that that agreement be ratified by this Parliament, which ratification will have the effect of making the agreement binding on the three corporations. Has this Parliament any right as against the town of Dun-das and as against the street railway company to alter the legislation of the Ontario Legislature? I do not think so, and I would agree at the present time with the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. T. J. Stewart) that this Parliament must reject the Bill altogether or else ratify the agreement, it cannot alter the agreement.


Thomas Joseph Stewart: The hon. member for St. John is correct in his view. The hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) attempted to keep back what was favourable to my side of the question. He wanted to think that the town of Dundas had nothing whatever to do with this agreement. The town entered into this agreement with the Hamilton and Dundas Street Railway Company, knowing perfectly well that they were going to make a bargain with the steam road. It was understood that these three or four parties were going to enter into this agreement. What 'difference does it make to the town of Dundas what railroad takes the freight from the Dundas road? The Hamilton and Dundas Street Railway Company made an agreement with the steam railway company before the town passed the by-law asking the legislature for an extension of twenty-nine years. The town of Dundas was pleased with the agreement, and asked the Ontario Legislature to make it binding. Now they come here to-day and object to our withdrawing the Bill. If the Bill goes through with an extension of five years, we will not accept it, but we are willing to permit such legislation to be put through _ as will place the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company entirely under the control of the Dominion Railway Board, and if they are under that Board, the town of Dundas will
surely have no complaint to make. The railway will have to comply with every order issued by the Railway Board, and there can therefore be no unfair treatment. Hon. members will see that there is something that has not been brought to light, because the town made this agreement in good faith, and now because we want our side ratified, and put in the same position as the town of Dundas, they say: No. They are like the dog in the manger; they do not want to eat and they will not let anybody else eat. I appeal to hon. members to allow this Bill to stand over until we get a legal opinion on the matter. I claim that the committee has no right to alter the agreement. Surely hon. gentlemen are not going to press this Bill through to-day if this Parliament has no right to alter the agreement.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: How long after the
original agreement is drawn up between the three parties, was it confirmed by the Ontario Legislature?


Thomas Joseph Stewart: At the first session of the Ontario Legislature after the agreement was signed.


Robert Laird Borden: The questions that arise in connection with this Bill seem to be of a somewhat complex character, both so far as the facts are concerned and in respect of the legal questions that have arisen. It is alleged, as I understand it, by the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. T. J. Stewart); that the applicant companies have the right either to have the agreement ratified in its entirety or not at all, and that this House has really no jurisdiction to make another agreement between the parties.
That point is emphasized by what was said by the hon. member for St. John. As I understand it, the only change that is made in the agreement by the terms of this Bill is with respect to the time it shall be in force. Under the circumstances it seems to me that the considerations that have been put forward might very 4 p.m. well be referred to the Department of Justice for consideration and report. I would, therefore, move that the committee rise and report progress.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 93, to incorporate The Kenora and English River Railway Company.-Mr. Garrick.
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 94, to authorize the issue of a patent to James Wallaee Tygard.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 95, to incorporate the Imperial Order Daughters of the Empire and the Children of the Empire (Junior Branch.)- Mr. Macdonell.

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

[Stage Direction]
* Mr'. MURPHY:
1.	Has Lieutenant-Colonel McSpadden, of Vancouver, been on the pay-roll of the Government since the outbreak of war?
2.	If not, from what date did he begin to draw pay?
3.	What amount has he received to date, and what have been his duties?
4.	Has the Government hired Lieutenant-Colonel McSpadden's automobile?
5.	If so, from what date, and how much has been paid therefor?
6.	For what purpose was the said automobile used by the Government?
7.	Was the chauffeur of the said automobile a man with military rank?
8.	If so, did he receive double pay?
9.	Did the said Lieutenant-Colonel McSpadden sell to the Government a site for the drill hall in Grandview at the east end of Vancouver?
10.	If so, how much did the Government pay therefor?
11.	What is the description of the lots purchased for the site of the said drill hall?
Sir EDWARD KEMP:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Answered by 1 and 3.
3.	$7,106.35 to 31st May, 1917. Officer commanding 11th Regiment (Home Guard), from 10th August, 1914, to date. Lieutenant-Colonel McSpadden's regiment defended the wireless station at Point Grey. Part of the battalion also defended Prince Rupert in the early days of the war. The force was used for defence on bridges and other public works. He recruited a large portion of the 7th Battalion, 1st Contingent, also 199th Irish Fusiliers, and a large number of drafts of other battalions.
4.	No.
5.	6, 7 and 8 answered by 4.
9, 10, 11 refer to the replies given by the Minister of Public Works on the 5th of February last.


GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS-TRACADIE SIDING.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Is there a siding on the Intercolonial Railway at Tracadie, N.S., for the accommodation of one Abram Myatt?
2.	If so, when was it built?

3.	After being built, was it taken up and the rails removed? .
4.	If so, were they replaced, and on what date?
5.	Why was this siding taken up?
6.	Why was it replaced?
7.	Did Abram Myatt pay anything to the Intercolonial Railway on account of the said siding?
8.	If so, when, and how much?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	No. There is a public siding at Mileage 103.1, Mulgrave subdivision.
2.	Siding was put in during July, 1916.
3.	Rails were not removed, but frog and switch gear was taken up October 10, 1916.
4.	Frog and switch gear was replaced on
October 18, 1916.	.
5.	Frog and switch gear was required for urgent need, equipping Halifax 'terminals for handling war supplies overseas.
6.	To make the siding again available for use.
7.	No.
8.	Answered by No. 7.


MR. JOSEPH MAXIMILIAN DANIS.
Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	Is Mr. Joseph Maximilian Danis an employee in any part of the Government service?
2.	If so, when was he appointed?
3.	Was he appointed a messenger on the House of Commons' staff?
4.	If so, what pay per day did he receive?
5.	Was he ever employed in the Department of Inland Revenue?
6.	If so, for how long?
7.	Is Mr. Danis now Preventive Officer at North Battleford?
8.	If so, what is his rate of pay per annum?
9.	Is Mr. Danis also acting as Food Inspector in the province of Saskatchewan?
10.	If so, what salary is he drawing as Food Inspector?
11.	Is Mr. Danis a returned soldier?


Mr. SEVIGNY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	March 22, 1917.
3.	No.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	Yes.
6.	From January 8 to March 22, 1917.
7.	Yes.
8.	$1,200.
9.	Yes.
10.	$600.
11.	No.


MAJOR ALFRED LEFEBVRE.
Mr. PAPINEAU:: 1.	Has the Government since the 3rd of May last demanded the reimbursement of the separation allowance alleged to have been overpaid to the wife of Major Alfred Lefebvre?
2.	If so, what has been the result of such demand?
3.	Is the Government aware as to whether or not the said Major Alfred Lefebvre, whose

wife may have unduly received the said separation allowance from August, 1916, to April, 1917, is in the service of the Government as Assistant Collector for Inland Revenue at Valleyfield, at the salary of $ 1,2u 0 per annum?


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: 1.	Refund was demanded on May 2.
2.	No result so far, but matter being pressed.
3.	Captain Lefebvre signed an application for separation allowance, in which he stated that he had not been employed by the Dominion Government since 1st June, 1916. On reference to Department of Inland Revenue, it was learned that he drew full pay as deputy collector at Valleyfield, Quebec, during February, March, April and May, 1916, when he appears to have left the Civil Service.


MR. ARMAND LAVERGNE.
Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	Has Armand Lavergne been appointed by this Government to obtain recruits or in any other military capacity?
2.	If so, when and by whose order was he so appointed, what rank does he hold, and what pay does he receive?
3.	How much money, if any, has been paid to the said Armand Lavergne for military services since the war began?


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	None.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS. ' RELEASE OP EDWARD LEVI BAUGH.
Mr. MURPHY moved:: For a copy of the reports made by the Trial Judge and the Penitentiary Surgeons in connection with the release from penitentiary of Edward Levi Baugh.


Mr. DOHERTY:: There is no objection to producing these papers except the judge's report.


Charles Murphy: Very well.
Motion as amended agreed to.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.


Robert Laird Borden: That on and from Tuesday the 26th instant, and until the end of the session, the House shall meet each day at 11 o'clock in the morning, and that in addition to the usual intermission at 6 o'clock, p.m., there shall be an intermission from one to three o'clock, p.m.
He said:	In view of the considerable
amount of business still before the House,
167	:	:
and in view also of the apparently lengthy debate upon the Compulsory Service Bill, as to which of course there is no desire to prevent the fullest possible discussion, perhaps my right hon. friend would have no objection to the passing of this motion.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: My right hon. friend has alluded to the very important debate on the Compulsory Service Bill. "I think nobody will complain of the length of the speeches that have been made or say that the debate has not served a useful purpose. I would ask my right hon. friend to let this motion stand at least until the debate on the Compulsory Service Bill has been concluded. After ample latitude has been given to every hon. member to speak on this Bill I shall have no objection to facilitating the business of the House as much as possible.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not want to be understood as complaining of the debate as it has proceeded; I am not speaking in a critical way at all; I think it has been a useful debate. My object in making this motion was to afford even greater opportunity to hon. members who desire to speak on the Bill. I could hardly undertake to let the motion stand until the debate is concluded because that might be a very large order indeed. I will, however, let it stand for the present and renew it perhaps in a couple of days. In the meantime we may ascertain what are the probabilities of concluding the debate within a reasonable period under present conditions.


Wilfrid Laurier: Very well.
Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (St. John): I desire to interpose a very strong objection to having morning sessions. They are all right in the case of a parliament which rises at six o'clock in. the evening, but this House sits until eleven and twelve, and if necessary, one o'clock in the morning. I think it is unfair to expect members who have attended the evening sessions to be present again in the morning at eleven o'clock. It has an injurious effect upon their health. I know that the attendance at morning sittings after a late night is very wearing upon one's health.
To hold morning sittings now would prevent the committees, including the Committee on Public Accounts, from discharging their duties. It is customary to have morning sittings only when the end of the session is in sight, and when, as my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has suggested, it is the general sense of the House



that it is desirable to get through. Now, we are led to believe, not only by what has been stated by the leader of the House, but also by what we see in the newspapers, that there is a very considerable amount of public business still to be considered, including some which has not yet been brought down. This indicates that it is too early to begin the morning sittings. I voice my own protest against such a proposal; I do not think it wise to begin the morning sittings at this stage of the session, for it will prevent members of the House from fairly and properly discharging their public duties.


Robert Laird Borden: There will be opportunity to take into consideration what has been said when this motion is renewed. But meantime, I would point out that forenoon sittings are by no means a new departure in this Parliament. I have been familiar with them, and have had to endure them for many years in the past. Even since J entered this House twenty-one years ago, there has hardly been a session in which forenoon sittings have not been in vogue at some time, and often they have begun at an earlier stage of the session than this. The reason which the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) has advanced seems to me not against but ratheT in favour of the proposal; for, if there is, as he suggests, a great deal of public business still to be considered, there is a stronger case than there otherwise would be for beginning morning sittings at the earliest day. However, we will let the matter stand for the moment, and of course my hon. friend will have the right to renew his objections when the subject is again before the House.


Mr. MACDONALD:: I would suggest that, especially if we are to have morning sittings, the adjournment at six o'clock should be until nine instead of until eight. That will not interfere with the progress of business. Adjournment only from six to eight means pretty rapid dining and a hurried return to the House. I think it would be better all around to make the hour nine o'clock.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: My suggestion is that,
no matter at what time we meet, we should adjourn not- later than 11 o'clock in the evening. Let us not have any of these sittings until two o'clock in the morning.
Motion etands.



ADJOURNMENT FOR DOMINION DAY.

Robert Laird Borden: That when this House adjourns on Friday, the 29th day of June next, it stand adjourned until Tuesday, the 3rd day of July.
He said:	The second of July has been
set apart for very important ceremonies in commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary of Confederation, and it seems quite appropriate that we should adjourn on that day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden (Prime Minister) for the second reading of Bill No. 75, Military Service Act, 1917, and the amendment of Sir Wilfrid Laurier thereto, and on the amendment to the amendment by Mr. Barrette, resumed from Friday, June 22.
Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, since
this war began the Canadian army in France has taken part in a good many difficult battles and has won for itself great credit and has 'brought great honour, to Canada. The victory which seems to have attracted particular attention of late is Vimy Ridge. I have to-day received from Lord Beaverbrook the following letter:
Historical Section Canadian War Records Office, 14 Clifford Street, Bond Street, W.l, June 8th, 1917.
The Rt. Hon. Sir A. E. Kemp, K.C.M.G., M.P., Minister of Militia and Defence,
Ottawa, Canada.
Dear Sir Edward,-
I am sending you by registered post, under separate cover, to-day, two copies of an "Order of the Day," published by Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig after the battle of Vimy Ridge, You will notice that he placed the capture of Vimy Ridge first in the Order. I have had these prepared on parchment and signed personally by Sir Douglas Haig. 1 suggest that one of them might be made use of in the House of Commons, Ottawa.
Will you kindly let me know if you receive these in due course, and if you approve of their form.
Yours faithfully,
Beaverbrook.
The special Order of the Day referred to is not long, and I am sure hon. members will be glad to heaT it read. After reading it, I will lay it on the Table, and I would suggest that perhaps the Clerk of the House may have it framed that it may be preserved :

262r
Special Order of the Day By
Field-Marshal Sir Douglas Haig,
GC.B., G.C.V.O., K.C.I.E., Coramander-in-Chief, British Armies in France.
The Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief desires to express to all ranks his great satisfaction on the important successes achieved on the 9th instant by the First and Third Armies. The manner in which the operations were prepared and carried out reflects the greatest credit on commanders, staffs and troops.
The capture of the renowned Vimy Ridge is an achievement of the highest order of which Canada may well be proud.
The performance of the VI, VII and VIII Corps of the Third Army in surmounting the difficulties which confronted them is proof of very great skill and gallantry.
The Royal Artillery, Heavy, Siege and Field, by its untiring efforts and accurate fire, prepared the way for and supported the advance of the infantry in the most efficient manner.
The splendid work of the Royal Flying Corps under very adverse weather conditions and in fade of most determined opposition has contributed largely to the success of the operations and calls for the highest pjaise.
The heavy branch of the Machine Gun Corps has been of material assistance and has, under difficult circumstances, played a useful part.
The Cavalry Corps and Corps Mounted Troops have taken the fullest advantage of such openings for cavalry action as the 'course of the operations has so far afforded.
The Royal Engineers, both in the field and in their work behind the line, have carried out their many duties with the thoroughness and efficiency in which they are never found wanting ; while all the various special corps and services which took part in the battle, as well as the administrative services, and departments on which the armies depend for their maintenance, have taken their full share in bringing within reach the great success gainedv
The Second, Fourth and Fifth -Armies have played their part admirably in keeping the enemy employed on their respective fronts, while to the Fourth and Fifth Armies in particular belongs the credit of having opened the way for these fresh successes by their splendid achievements on the Somme and the Ancre.
The Commander-in-Chief desires to convey his warmest congratulations to all ranks of the armies which he has the honour to command on the great success already achieved by their untiring and self-secrificing efforts, and on the prospects of further successes which have been opened.
D. Haig, F.M.
General Headquarters,
12th April, 1917.
In resuming this debate, I think there is more than one reason why we should approach the subject in a serious frame of mind. In the first place, we have sent overseas a tremendous army of over 330,000 troops, and the losses due to the war among these troops have been the cause of great hardship and suffering. Another reason is that there is a great difference of opinion in this House itself with respect to the
167J
course we desire to pursue. In the South' African waT we were very pleased and proud that even a email army volunteered to go-overseas in support of a great principle. We were proud that we had men in this country who were brave, who were venturesome, who were patriotic, who were willing to volunteer for service on that occasion, and who thereby brought credit to their country.
When we look back tp the time previous to August 1914 and consider what was in our minds then, when we consider the peace which prevailed not only in Canada but all over the world and when we remember the blessing of peace, we cannot but feel that if any one had predicted that by this time we would have recruited an army of over 400,000 and sent overseas an army of over 330,000, we would have said that the person responsible for such a prediction was hardly in a sane state of mind. Yet, that has been done by this country. That is one of the reasons why, taken in connection with the incidents to which I have referred, we should now be ' serious in respect to the discussion of this question.
The question before the House is whether there should be a new form of recruiting, whether we should go on in the old way or proceed by the system of the selective draft and it is on this point that there appears to be a wide difference of opinion. For myself I do not see why there should be any great difference of opinion. We are trying to meet existing conditions and I believe that this Bill will meet the conditions and give a fair measure of satisfaction in so far as enlistment is concerned. There has been a very strong feeling existing in many parts of the country in regard to what has taken place in the past and in regard to the method of recruiting which was adopted. -Great pressure has been brought to bear on members of both sides of this House to formulate some system or scheme. Some members of this House during vacation, as well as during the time Parliament has been sitting, have visited the trenches in France and they have come back and told us many things which were interesting and many things upon which we might base our judgment in respect to future operations in regard to the carrying on of the war. I wish that some of my hon. friends in this House who are opposing this Bill could visit certain parts of the country and hear what fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers and orphans have to say and how they feel re-

under a tremendous handicap in respect to a referendum, in the first place in reference to the secrecy of the ballot. Every slacker might vote quietly and secretly, and as the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) has said, vote against the Bill coming into operation.
Another serious handicap would be the alien enemy vote, which no doubt would be of some consequence. We would, therefore, handicap our soldiers at the front by loading this referendum up with, first, a secret ballot, second, the slacker vote, and third, the alien enemy vote.
I have referred to voluntary recruiting. I believe that it has served a most excellent purpose. We have raised a tremendous army under it, but we desire now to improve the conditions under which enlistment takes place, and to adopt the selective -draft system instead. The selective draft is also needed at the present time for the purpose of furnishing more troops to be sent to the front. I believe that such a proposal as this would have been necessary. even if voluntary recruiting had kept pace with what it was in the earlier part of the war, because of the injustices, the inequalities, and the haphazard methods of voluntary enlistment, which have burned themselves into the hearts of the people of this country. I desire to point out some of these injustices. Reference has been made to the coercive tendency of this Bill. Can any one imagine a worse form of coercion than that which has existed in some of the towns and cities of this country under the system which has been in vogue and of which we have all approved in the past? A young man would, perhaps, be buttonholed two or three times a day, perhaps ostracised in some sections of the society in which he moved, because he had not joined the forces. There may have been reasons, there doubtless have been many reasons, why that young man had not been able to go to the front, perhaps some physical infirmity which was not known to his friends. I say that, so far as coercion is concerned, there is no worse form of coercion than that which has dogged many young men in this country, and this is one of the things that has ripened publio opinion for something better.
In all parts of the country those who have taken an active part in recruiting are in favour of some form of a selective draft system.
I should like to mention to the House a few instances that have come to my attention; I have heard of hundreds of similar

cases. About 15 or 20 miles from Ottawa, at Kars, Ontario, live Mr. and Mrs. Cyrus Scobie. Six of their sons have enlisted, and the seventh, who is a doctor, is taking out a commission in the Army Medical Corps. Five of the sons have gone overseas and have seen active service at the front; of these, two have won commissions since their enlistment. I noticed in a local newspaper the record of the family of Mr. and Mrs. Denis Carrigan, of Westville, N.S. Six of their sons have enlisted; all have proceeded overseas; three have been wounded. The seventh son was debarred from service on account of weak eyesight. A friend of mine in Toronto, Mr. Lockhart Gordon, has four sons, who have all enlisted. These young men all had promising careers in civil life. One was killed, one is missing, and one is severely injured and incapacitated for further service. The remaining son is in command of a battalion at the . front. I could cite hundreds of cases of a similar character.


William Pugsley: Suppose four sons had gone and one was left at home, could that son be forcibly taken under this Bill?


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: I suppose he could be; but the tribunal-


William Pugsley: There is no exception for him.


Albert Edward Kemp: The tribunal, which will be free from any political or other influence of an unfair character, will settle that matter.


William Pugsley: It could not, under this Bill.


Albert Edward Kemp: Absolutely.


William Pugsley: Absolutely not. Exemption is to be granted only on account of important financial obligations, family ties or things of that sort.


Albert Edward Kemp: I disagree with my hon. friend, but I shall not now stop to argue the matter with him, and for this reason: the Prime Minister said more than once since this Bill was introduced that he would welcome suggestions, from members on the opposite side or from any one in the House, that are made with a view to improving this Bill. That is what the Prime Minister said, and I stand by what he said.
Compulsory service under the system proposed will do away with unjust and unfair treatment; I believe that enlistment under this law will be more popular than enlist-

V
ment has recently been under the voluntary method.
I wish to point out that in the month of May the total enlistments amounted to 6,407. Of this number enlistments in the railway construction and forestry corps were 1,842; in the artillery, 955; in the infantry, 1,208; miscellaneous, 2,402-" miscellaneous " meaning such corps as cavalry, engineers, Army Medical Corps, Army Dental Corps, Army Service Corps, and various branches of the service, numbering about twenty-three in all.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: When was recruiting for the artillery stopped?


Albert Edward Kemp: I was just coming to that. Recruiting for the artillery was stopped a week or ten days ago, the reason being that there were more recruits for artillery in Canada and in England than were needed. The artillery seems to attract recruits more than some of the other branches of the military service; it is one of the popular branches. Under the voluntary system the man who wishes to join the army selects the corps or unit in which he wants to serve.


William Pugsley: Those who have enlisted for the artillery would hardly go to England until they had a year's drilling. Is the stoppage of recruiting for the artillery only temporary, or is it permanent?


Albert Edward Kemp: The stoppage is temporary, until we get caught up. We have a surplus of artillery.


William Pugsley: In Canada?


Albert Edward Kemp: In Canada, and also in England.


William Pugsley: Does the minister say that when a man voluntarily enlists for service in the Imperial army he cannot be transferred to any other part of the service?


Albert Edward Kemp: They can foe transferred to any part of the service, but when they go voluntarily into a certain branch of the service we have to keep faith with them. We cannot say: although you enlisted in the artillery, we shall use some sort of influence to get you into the infantry -I do not think that is fair. What is needed at the front more than anything else is infantry; that is wha't the authorities overseas are crying out for. Of the 6,407 who enlisted in May, only 1,208 were infantry. I have given a little time and attention to this matter, because it seems to me
that it is a point which has been overlooked in the discussion of this Bill.


William Pugsley: The minister says that the English authorities are crying out for infantry.


Albert Edward Kemp: Our own authorities overseas.


William Pugsley: That would be in writing, would it not? Can the minister submit to the House any communications showing that it is infantry that they are crying out for?


Albert Edward Kemp: I have not any written information here, but I may tell the hon. gentleman that the communications we have had from Great Britain indicate that they need infantry.


William Pugsley: The Prime Minister has informed the House that it is railway construction and forestry corps that they are crying out for.


Albert Edward Kemp: Yes, he told the truth when he said that. They do want [DOT] forestry and railway construction corps. I understand that lately some of our forestry men have been going to France; a great many of them are also employed in England. It is true that they need men for these branches of the service as well.
It is contended by some that we should not now have conscription or selective draft because in the early stages of the war some one said that conscription would not be necessary; that there would be no conscription. A good many things were said and thought in the early stages of the war about matters which have been vastly changed by the war's duration. The whole situation has changed because of the unexpected length of the war.
An authority who recently came over from Great Britain to the United States said that the war is only beginning, and it would be rash for .anyone to predict when it will end. Out of a population of 1,583,000 of military age such as we have in Canada, 100,000 men fit for military service seem to be but a small quota and would, if they were carefully selected cause very little inconvenience to the industries of the country. About a year ago at this time there was a marked decrease in voluntary enlistment. As the figures have already been placed upon Hansard, I will not take up the time of the House in referring to them again. For several months past the number of enlistments has varied from 5,000 to 7,000 a month, there being a spurt every now and

then because of special efforts that were put forth.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: On April 28, the minister stated that the Government had not, up to that time, considered the question either of introducing conscription into Canada or of putting into force the terms of the Militia Act. When did the Government first consider the question of introducing conscription, and when did they first come to a decision?


Albert Edward Kemp: I would refer the hon. member to the statement made in this House by the Prime Minister in the first speech which he made after he returned from England. He is the authority on that noint.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The minister, as Minister of Militia, made a definite statement in the House ?n April 28, that, up to that date, the Government had not considered the question of conscription. When did they first consider it?


Albert Edward Kemp: The Prime Minister first introduced the question of conscription into this House. I must ask my hon. friend to ask the Prime Minister when he first considered that question and when the Government first considered it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: You are the Minister of Militia and you ought to know.


Albert Edward Kemp: The Prime Minister first introduced that question into the House.


William Pugsley: Then I understand the Prime Minister introduced the question into this House, and the Government considered it afterwards. That is the inference.


Albert Edward Kemp: I am quite willing to leave my hon. friends from St. John and Pictou to fight the matter out with the Prime Minister.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. The minister is making a speech and it is only by courtesy that he has been answering questions.


Albert Edward Kemp: Many of my
friends from Quebec have made statements in regard to recruiting in that province, and I think it best to be frank and to make as clear a statement as possible in regard to the matter. I desire to discuss.the matter without giving the slightest offence to my .hon. friends from Quebec, and I am sure they will understand that. Every method of recruiting that was adopted in

other parts of the country was adopted in Quebec. I have a statement here which shows that recruiting reached the highest point in March of last year when the number was 32,819. The reason that recruiting was more successful in other parts of the country than in Quebec was because the whole population, men, women and children, became interested in recruiting; every one, clergyman as well as sportsman, politician and member of Parliament, all put his shoulder to the wheel and recruiting received such an impetus, nothing could stop it. My hon. friends from Quebec will know best whether or not those conditions existed in their province; I am not going to attempt to say what conditions existed in their province, because that would be presumption on my part. If they did not exist in Quebec, the success in recruiting would not be as great as in other parts of the country, and as a matter of fact, it was not.


Mr. MEDERIC MARTIN:: The war commenced on the 4th of August, 1914, and the mayor of Montreal had a resolution passed on the 5th of August stating that all employees of the city of Montreal who enlisted for overseas service would be paid their salaries while they were absent. In other provinces, that was not done. In Quebec we have done many things like that to encourage recruiting. Did the Government take that action in connection with civil servants?


Albert Edward Kemp: So far as the Government is concerned, they do pay the salaries of civil servants who have enlisted.


Médéric Martin: Did they take that action before the 5th of August?


Albert Edward Kemp: I do not know, but I think they did so pretty early in the war


Médéric Martin: I did it before the Government.


Albert Edward Kemp: The hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. E. Lapointe) questioned the correctness of a return which I laid on the table of the House in regard to the number of enlistments of British-born, Canadian-born, speaking the English language, and Canadian-born speaking the French language. He did not think that return could be correct because he had noticed in the casualty lists the names of a great many French Canadians. I do not think my hon. friend, as a lawyer, can claim that that is sufficient evidence to bring forward to show that the return in question is incorrect. During all the time that I have been in this House, I do not

think I have ever before heard of the correctness of a return laid on the Table being questioned. That return, so far as I know, is absolutely correct; that is to say, it is as nearly correct as it is possible to have such a return correct. I shall be very glad to have this matter discussed in committee. The exact figures are these:
Number of soldiers born in Canada and speaking the English language who had gone overseas on the 30th of April last, 125,245; number of British subjects, born outside of Canada, who had gone overseas on the 30th of April last, 155,095; number of French Canadian soldiers commanded by officers speaking the French language, serving with units organized in the province of Quebec, 5,443; number of soldiers speaking the French language, commanded by officers speaking the English language, belonging to units organized in the province of Quebec, 1,536; 1,217 is the number of soldiers speaking the French language said to have been with the first contingent 'at Valcartier. I have allowed three-quarters of those as coming from the province of Quebec. That would make 913, Total number of French Canadians enlisted in Quebec who had gone overseas up to the 30th of April, 1917, 7,892.
The number of French Canadians, including Acadians, enlisted throughout Canada was 5,904. This made a total of 14,100. I can assure my hon. friend from Kam-ouraska (Mr. Lapointe), who raised this question in the House, that the greatest possible care was taken in compiling this return, and the figures are as approximately correct as they can be.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What was the number of French Canadians and Acadians who enlisted in the province of New Brunswick?


Albert Edward Kemp: The return does not show that.


Mr. E. LAPOINTE (Kamouraska):: Upon what information does the department rely in determining the language spoken by the soldiers,5 For instance, I - know -a good many French Canadians by the name of Fraser, Warren, McKenzie, and so on, who "speak the French language only.


Albert Edward Kemp: 
Médéric Martin: The hon. gentleman
mentioned Colonel Labelle. Does he know that this gentleman has three sons, and not one of them has gone to the front?


Albert Edward Kemp: I am not personally acquainted with him.


Médéric Martin: He has not sent one of his three sons to the front.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Albert Edward Kemp: I should like to say a word or two with reference to the .Home Defence scheme which was announced on March 6, 1917. As hon. gentlemen know, there has been talk from time to time in this country of men enlisting for home defence who would not care to go overseas, and it has been suggested more than once that some scheme whereby men could enlist for home defence only would meet with considerable success. The militia force in Canada has become almost less than a skeleton, if that were possible, since the war began. Practically all the officers and men of the militia who were medically fit have gone overseas, and there is now only a very limited force in Canada. The overseas authorities had asked us to send troops over to England while the daylight was short and the submarines had less chance of operating successfully. When that request came we had about 50,000 Canadian Expeditionary Force troops in Canada, and we determined to send them over. It was felt, however, that we should have some defence force in Canada. That has always been the policy in this country, and it has been the policy of this Government ever since the war started, it being impossible to leave a country without troops in time of war. Because of this request for troops from the overseas authorities, and because of the depleted condition of the militia force in Canada, and because of the general idea that there were a great many men in this country who would enlist for home defence but not for overseas service- because we all know that it was largely through the efforts of the militia force that such splendid results in recruiting were secured it was thought desirable to institute this campaign as a last new effort in voluntary recruiting. Side by side with that a campaign was carried on for overseas enlistments. It was thought that enlistments for home defence would stimulate enlistment for overseas, hut it was found that the young men did not enlist in the home defence force except in a very limited 
number indeed. Only city battalions were authorized, and it was thought desirable not to interfere more than was absolutely necessary with the employment of men in agriculture.


Mr. OLIVER:: When was the campaign for home defence begun?


Albert Edward Kemp: It was authorized on the 15th March, 1917. Since that time however, the United States has come into the war, and the necessity for home defence, of course, has lessened.
Now the question of reinforcements is of importance. A statement has been laid on the Table showing the summary strength of all units of the Canadian Expeditionary Force in England, and a sufficient number of copies have been printed for the use of hon. members. This shows the strength of these forces as on 14th May, 1917. A good many members, in looking at that table, have been surprised at the number of our troops in England on that date, the total being 126,241. That seems like a very con' siderable army for this country to have in England. But when we note how the troops are divided into the different categories, and units, we see how it is that there are so feur . men, comparatively, for the infantry and ready for the trenches. The Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden), in introducing the Bill, went into this matter very carefully, and explained the make-up of the different categories, here entitled A, B, C, D and E, and showed how these were subdivided in the different units, 23 in number, and how these were further subdivided. I need not elaborate these figures. No doubt, when the Bill is in committee, hon. members will have further questions to ask-


William Pugsley: As I understood the Prime Minister, he did not explain the matter in the way suggested by the Minister of Militia. He said that there were a large number in, England, but gave as the reason that they still required training before being sent to the trenches.


Albert Edward Kemp: If the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) will refer to the speech of the Prime Minister on introducing the Bill on the 11th June he will see that the right hon. gentleman explained the matter fully, and will get a full understanding of how these units are subdivided.


William Pugsley: When it is said that
a large number of men are not available, that might be explained in different ways. It might be, for instance, that the men had become invalided. I would like to

know how many are supposed lo be fit for military service and how many are delayed owing to the need of further tr.lining.


Albert Edward Kemp: There is delay
for various reasons. There are 28,000 at present in England in a category, who are ready to go to France.


William Pugsley: How many of these
are in the infantry?


Albert Edward Kemp: I have not the
details before me. I wish to refer to something that was said by some hon. gentlemen opposite as to retarding enlistment. Enlistment has not been retarded; enlistment by voluntary methods is going on today, os it has gone on from the beginning of the war. So far as I know, no attempt was ever made to retard it.
My hon. friend from West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) suggested that we might pursue the voluntary system further. But the reason against this course is that which I have suggested to the House-that we cannot select the unit into which we desire to have the men go, and consequently they go into the most popular branches of the service, and the infantry is left without sufficient troops. Besides, the difficulty' arises that men are taken from occupations where they are needed, leaving at home men who could be spared for the front. It seems to me the time has come when all this should be regulated. The hon. member for .Kam-ouraska (Mr. E. Lapointe) is pessimistic. He fears that there will be inequality in the administration of the measure, that there will be " discrimination, favouritism, and patronage." It seems to me that such a thing is imposible, considering the way the tribunals are formed and the safeguards that are thrown around the administration of the measure.
The sorrows and grievances attendant upon our participation in the war, and which are incident thereto, reflect themselves doubtless to a greater extent than in any other place in the department over which I have the honour to preside. From this position one can look out over the whole theatre. One sees the obstacles to be overcome, he sees the heartburnings, and realizes that the greater part of the people of this country harbour deep convictions in their hearts regarding many aspects of the war. A sentiment, I believe, has developed in this 'country which speaks in thunder tones. It asks that the lives of those who have been sacrificed shall not be spent in vain; that the sorrows of the mothers, the
fathers, the brothers and the sisters, the orphans, shall not go . for naught. This sentiment is deeper in. the hearts of the people in those parts of the country which have sent the most soldiers to the front.
The contestants are now engaged in a life and death struggle. Owing to a great extent to the Russian situation, the combat is now more fierce than at any time since 1914, the burden having fallen upon the mother countries of the two great races in Canada.
Those who have been at the front, and who have written both poetry and prose, reflect more keenly the situation than can any words that I might utter. The poem read in the House by the hon. member for South Wellington, " In Flanders Fields " will have more influence upon this country than the writer ever imagined. Several of such poems and writings have come into my possession, and I feel that they convey to the hearts and minds tof the people deeper thoughts than could any words of mine. I desire to read two references to the war. The probability is that hon. members have already read them. They are not poetry like the contribution read by my hon. friend from South Wellington, written by a friend of his own, Jack Me-Crae. Perry Robinson, telegraphing from British headquarters in France, describes at length the horrible desolation of Viimy Ridge. Referring to the Canadian cemetery there, he says:
"In the middle of the waste on the summit of Vimy Ridge there is a little group of white painted wooden crosses marking the graves of the Seaforth Highlanders of Canada, who fell in the capture of the ridge. These Canadian Seaforths were mostly British Columbians. A long, long way they came to die, these long-limbed sons of Victoria, Vancouver, Westminster and Nanaimo. Some came even farther, for they came from the far off slopes and peaks of the mountains or upper waters of the Fraser river, when they heard the call.
*Nothing Finer in the War. *
"Many other feet will tread the same journey after them, the feet of pilgrims, who through generations yet to be horn, will come here as to a shrine. The little graveyard will be as a flame of inspiration to Canada in the ages, for there was nothing finer done in the war than the achievement of those western men on the ridge."
Stewart Lyon, whom most of the members of this House know, only last week sent the following despatch:
Yesterday, while out visiting the front, I saw an incident that proves that the finer feelings of the men are not blunted by daily contact with death. Three bodies of victims of the enemy artillery lay on a mortuary

truck, awaiting removal to the cemetery behind the lines. Each was wrapped up in his blanket, which is the universal substitute at the front for a winding sheet and coffin, a companion of the dead lads, himself a young fellow, barely out of his teens, had risen early and gone out into the wood of "The Swallows" to find some flowers that he might lay upon the breasts of his friends as a last tribute of affection. He returned carrying an armful of roses, wet with the dew of morn and shedding their fragrance widely. It was a touch of poetic sentiment amid the grit and prose of war.
Later in the woods we came upon the place where the roses grew in great abundance. In a small clearing girt about by German wire entanglements lay the ruins of an isolated cottage. A shell had so smashed it that scarcely one brick remained unbroken. Around this heap of "war desolation" bloomed a rose garden that must have been the pride of its owner. A refugee far from the roses she had tended with still evident care, the woman of the rose garden, would find consolation in the thought that her flowers had lain on the breasts of men who came from the surf-beaten shores of Canada to redeem her garden with their life blood.
These things speak louder to the people of this country than any worde I can utter. The sufferings of 68,629 wounded speak to us; 2,460 prisoners of war in Germany send their appeal; 28,550 dead call to us in the words of Jack McCrea.
The Bill which has 'been introduced is not for the purpose of doing an injustice to any one; it is to ameliorate the conditions which now exist, not only looking forward to the filling of the ranks at the front, but to provide equal, right, and just treatment to those in Canada who want to bring about better order in respect to enlistment.
The measure is not a political measure; the Government in framing and introducing it never looked upon it in this way and as one which would bring political kudos. But the Government could not refrain from instituting so fair and just a measure under all the circumstances.
The Government may or may not go down to defeat under this measure; but rather than not to have taken such a step it would be better for the Government to have been defeated a hundred times.
It is our duty to supply men equal to the wastage at the front. How could we ever look these grand men in the face when they return did we not promptly and steadily fill up the gaps. How could we bear to see our splendid battalions dwindle to half or one-third their strength, thereby losing their morale, and fretting their hearts out because we had forgotten and left them to their fate, and we ourselves had become

tired. It is only by reinforcements that we can . maintain our honour in France, in Canada and in the British Empire.


Mr. W. M. GERMAN (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I rise with a good deal of trepidation to address the House, for I realize that the seriousness of the occasion demands not only our intelligent thinking but the courageous action of every man in Canada. I would approach this subject dispassionately and with a desire to arrive at a conclusion which would be not only satisfactory to myself but to those whom I have the honour to represent and to the people of the country generally. We have a duty to perform to our country, to our King and to our Empire, and how best to perform that duty is the question which we are to consider at the present time. While our sons, our relations and our countrymen are fighting and dying that freedom miay live, it is our duty to see to it that we do not deal a greater blow to freedom in this country by our actions in this House. "Win the war," as announced the other day by the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Murphy, was the slogan of the country. Win the war is our wish, our desire. At the beginning of the war the Montreal Star sent throughout the whole country, and to all members of Parliament, a telegram. I had one, asking what, in my view, was Canada's duty in the emergency. My reply was that Canada should spend her last dollar and give her last man to secure success in this conflict. I have not changed my mind, I am of the same opinion, that Canada should give her last dollar and give her last man to win this great war for freedom. The most effectual way to produce the last dollar and the last man to the winning of the war, is the question to be considered.
I have a resolution passed at a meeting in my own town of Welland a few nights ago. It was a public meeting addressed by Mr. Arthur Bawkes and gotten up by the Welland branch of the Organization of Resources Committee at the request of the Win the War Association. A like meeting was addressed by Mr. Hawkes in Niagara Falls the night before. These meetings are part of a province-wide campaign of education on the conscription issue. At the meeting in Welland a resolution was moved by Mr. John H. Crow and seconded by W. J. Hickey and unanimously passed, strongly urging myself as their member to speak and vote for the Military Service Bill and to Use my utmost influence for a coalition

Government. At that meeting, which was held in the course of a win-the-war campaign on the conscription issue, Mr. Hawkes used words that would naturally have a considerable effect on any resolution which might be passed. Mr. Hawkes words were:
I hope I have not given the impression that Quebec will not accept conscription. My fear is that it will not without a referendum. It is only just to Sir Wilfrid Laurier to say that he pledges his support to conscription if the country proves that it wants conscription. If believe, too, that the clergy in Quebec would see that the law is enforced. What I want to emphasize is that I believe Canada can have conscription and national unity too.
And, Sir, I am prepared to subscribe to those words of Mr. Hawkes: If conscription is necessary, I believe that, by adopting a proper method, we can have conscription and national unity also. I have received this resolution, passed unanimously at that meeting in Welland after Mr. Hawkes had made that observation. Undoubtedly the resolution would be influenced to some extent by the remarks of Mr. Hawkes who was the principal speaker.
I have also had resolutions and statements, letters, communications, from many individuals, associations and organizations in that county and other parts of Canada, some in favour of this referendum proposal, some of them opposed absolutely to conscription. Thus we see that there are resolutions and suggestions and propositions not only in favour of conscription but opposed to conscription, and in favour of a referendum and conscription if necessary. It seems to me, in view of that situation, only one course is open to a member of Parliament, and so far as I am concerned I shall follow that course; that is to decide for myself as to what stand I shall take in regard to this matter, and leave my action to the judgment of the people. That; Sir, is the position that I propose to take. I cannot speak for the people of the county of Welland because the people of that county have not, except by letters, resolutions and so on sent to me, expressed their views on that subject. On that subject I do not represent the people of the county of Welland, and no man in this House represents the constituents of any part of Canada. So, Sir, all that I can do, and what I will do as courageously as I can and as intelligently as I may, is to express my own views on this important subject and leave the result to the judgment of the people whom I represent.
The boys of our country have gone to the -war. The son of the very gentleman who moved this resolution, a bright young man who was just finishing his medical course at Toronto University, enlisted and went to the war, and received rewards for distinguished bravery over there. His dead body fills a hero's grave. Other friends of mine in that country, numbers of them, have had their sons go to the war-some of them have been crippled for life, many of them have been killed. A son of mine is in a machine gun section some place there, and while I speak his mangled remains may be lying on the shell-torn plains of Flanders. Around me sit men whose sons have paid the last sacrifice. Shall it be said that we shall stand in the way of winning this war or doing anything that mortal man can do to win this war? I think, Sir, that no one will say that or should say that.
As I have said, my suggestion was, and ' I believe it is right, that the last dollar and the last man should be devoted to the winning of this war. But how,is that to be done? My hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) has given notice of a resolution in regard to the raising of money in advance of anything that the Government has done or suggested. The Minister of Finance last year and this yehr was requested and urged to do something towards, to use the expression which has been employed, the conscription of wealth, the procuring of the last dollar to the winning of this war, but nothing has been done. My hon. friend from South Renfrew has given notice of a resolution for the procuring of money; the Government has given notice of a resolution for the procuring of the men, and it is to that that I shall devote my attention. It is acknowledged that voluntary recruiting has fallen down. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) in his remarks said that, after about three years, voluntary recruiting has fallen down. That is admitted on all sides. Well, is it much wonder that voluntary recruiting has fallen down? I do not wish [DOT] to criticise to too great an extent, but I might be allowed this expression of opinion, that everything the Government has touched in regard to this war so far has fallen down. Their national service scheme fell down, and fell down lamentably; their home defence scheme fell down, and fell down lamentably; their voluntary recruiting has fallen down, and fallen down lamentably. Why? The ex-Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Sam Hughes) gives some reasons-I think that I can give another good reason which has come directly within my own observation. In the begin-

ning of this war, as the Minister of Militia rightly said only a short time ago, every man, woman and child throughout the province of Ontario put his shoulder to the wheel and did everything he could to procure enlistment, and that continued for some little time until the serpent of politics began to raise its slimy head, and then what happened? Patriotic endeavour began to wither and die, and it was politics that caused the death of that effort, and politics only. I am not charging the Prime Minister, perhaps, with knowledge of this- But had politics been kept out of the voluntary recruiting system, we would have had voluntary recruiting to-day as energetically as ever it was carried on. But, Sir, that was one of the reasons why it fell down, and fell down so lamentably.
Undoubtedly this House has the power to pass this Bill, but as was stated by the leader of the Opposition, we have no right to pass this Bill without the approval of the people. I should like to see a Bill passed which would bring about compulsory service, but I want to see a Bill passed that will be effective and that will have the approval of the people behind it. Unless you pass a Bill with the approval of the people behind it, you might as well not pass any Bill.
It is said that the Parliament of Great Britain, which passed a Conscription Bill, has outlived the term for which it was elected. That is quite right; but what a difference there is between the situation in Great Britain and the situation in Canada. In the first place, in Great Britain they have a coalition government. The Minister of Militia said this afternoon that he was sorry that a coalition government had not been formed in Canada. I am sorry also that a coalition government had not been formed in Canada-but when should a coalition government have been formed? Now, or when the war began? Hon. gentlemen talk now about a coalition government after the Government's mismanaging everything as badly as everything could be mismanaged. They produce a policy which they know would not be accepted by the leader of the Opposition, and they say: join us in a coalition government, help us pass this con-pulsion Bill, and then the coalition government will appeal to the people. Sir, had they fairly, honestly, and patriotically desired the formation of a coalition government, or, what might be called a national government-a government behind which the* people could stand-they would have made the proposal not to-day, but a year

or two years ago. That is what they did in England at the beginning of the war.
Further, the British Government, being a coalition Government, has been in touch with the people from the day the war began. They have had by-elections-three, four, and five every year-since the war began. In this Parliament twenty constituencies wThich should be represented under the redistribution measure are not represented. There has been no expression of opinion from the people in any one constituency since the war began as to the conduct of this Government in the management of our part in the war. The only expressions of opinion obtained have come in the way of resolutions adopted by different societies and communications sent to members of Parliament. I say, therefore, that there is absolutely no comparison between the situation in England and the situation in Canada.
I admit that the need for men is imperative. In this terrific struggle in which the Allied nations are engaged, men are being slaughtered by thousands, and their places must be filled if the war is to be won by the Allied nations. Men must be got; that is the need of the hour. The Government says: We will pass this Bill. The right hon. leader of the Opposition proposes what is, in my opinion, a better, safer and surer course: that of asking the people whether -they are in favour of compulsory service for the remainder of the war. The Prime Minister has spoken of a general election. The member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) said the other day that we were to have a general election. But the question of compulsory service cannot be properly settled through the medium of a general election- there are too many side issues to bo considered; too many sins of commission and omission on the part of the Government have to be discussed and criticised. The question of conscription, therefore, could not in a general election be treated as it should be treated or given the consideration that it deserves. To my mind, the only way is to go straight to the people, with candour and with courage. And if we do,
I am sure that we shall not go in vain; I believe that the people will support the measure.
The question is whether this Bill shall be further proceeded with, or whether we shall stop now and submit the matter to the people for their approval or disapproval. That is the issue in this discussion. Whether we do or do not need the men; whether we

are in favour of conscription now or of its adoption later, is not the issue at this moment. The question is:	Shall this
matter be submitted to the people? Some members of this House, and some prominent gentlemen out of the House, have said :We do not favour a referendum, because, we believe that the people are overwhelmingly against . conscription. In the name of high Heaven, what doctrine is that to preach in this country? We will not ask the people for their approval or'disapproval of a proposed measure, because we believe that the people are absolutely opposed to it; therefore we will try to force it upon them! That is the doctrine which these gentlemen advocate. For my part, I will never subscribe to a doctrine of that kind. It is Prussianism; it may be Toryism, but it is not Liberalism and it is not democracy-and to Liberalism and democracy I pin my faith. The leader of the Opposition says: Trust the people, .1 trust the people, and in doing so I follow in the footsteps of such illustrious Liberals as Baldwin, Lafontaine, Brown, Dorion and Mowat.
I am proud to-day to assist our great leader to carry aloft the banner of Liberalism so nobly raised by these eminent gentlemen. Only a few days ago one of England's greatest statesmen, a gentleman born in the purple almost, a Tory of the Tories, uttered from the Speaker's dais in this chamber these words, which should be engraved in- enduring marble:-
Ever more clearly as the months go on, It becomes evident that this is becoming a world war between the powers of democracy on the one side and the powers of autocracy on the other side. We in this room, whatever shades of differences may separate us, oan, in such a contest take only one side. We can only be on the side of democracy
We are convinced that for every human combination who have reached the degree of civilization and development that has been reached by all the great western communities, there is but one form of Government, under whatever name it may be called and that is the Government in which the ultimate control lies with the people. We have staked our last dollar upon democracy, and if democracy fail us we are bankrupt indeed. But X know that democracy will not fail us.
That is the way I feel about that matter, that democracy will not fail us on this occasion and on this question. In my opinion there never was and never will be an occasion so grave or a condition so critical that we can afford to ignore the basic principles of democracy and pass legislation in this House against the expressed wishes of the people.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


William Manley German: At six o'clock I was reading to the House the eloquent words used by the Right Hon. A. J. Balfour when he addressed this House a few weeks ago, and I think one sentence of his is worth repeating:
There is but one form of government, under whatever name it may be called, and that is the government in which the ultimate control lies with the people.
That is the doctrine in which I was brought up and have always lived; it is the principle which I always intend to maintain, in season and out of season, irrespective of what any one else may do, irrespective of what any newspaper may say. I say that we in this House would be better employed if at this hour we were going through the country endeavouring to induce the people to agree to the proposals which have been submitted by the Government, than enacting here a law against the wishes of the people. If by dispassionate appeal, by moral suasion and friendly intercourse, we cannot get the people to.agree to these proposals, we can never get the people to agree to them when they are embodied in enforced legislation. This law cannot be enforced if it is against the wishes of the people, and if some hon. gentlemen who have spoken in this House are correct in their judgment the wishes of the people are absolutely opposed to the principle of conscription. Punitive legislation such as this has never been placed on the statute book and enforced unless there was behind it a predominant public opinion. I have heard that statement made on several occasions by the Hon. Sir Oliver Mowat and by practically every man of thought in Canada; it has been made by the present Prime Minister, it has been made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in this House in regard to temperance legislation.
The experience of the past is a better guide than present theories, and the experience of the past teaches every man who has given any thought at all to this question that punitive legislation cannot be enforced unless public opinion is in its favour.
Let me cite one very pronounced example. In many of the states of the Union [DOT]-states in which there is a law-abiding, honest, chivalrous and intelligent population-positive laws have been enacted against lynching. But of what effect have they been? In many of the states when a
[DOT]2634

diabolical crime has been committed and the people fear that fitting punishment will not be meted out, a lynching takes place, although the laws against it are most stringent. Did any one ever hear of a person in, those states of the Union being even prosecuted, much less convicted, for taking part in a lynching? Np. Why? Simply because public sentiment among the law-abiding citizens in those sections appears to be in favour of lynching under certain circumstances. There are instances of that continually.
Take the case of Ireland. The British Parliament has passed a conscription law, but it was not applied to Ireland.- Why was it not applied to Ireland as well as tp England and Wales and Scotland? Because public sentiment in Ireland was against it. I apprehend that the British Government knew the law could not, be enforced in Ireland, that it would do more harm than good if they attempted to enforce it. What further has happened? For centuries Ireland has been governed by laws made in England against the will of the Irish people. The result has been murder, bloodshed, and anarchy almost. Why? Because public sentiment in Ireland was against the legislation. But now the British people have cpme to their senses. At long last they have decided that the people of Ireland must rule and shall rule themselves. They have said to the people of Ireland: " Go your own way to this extent. Select men from among yourselves and work out a suitable form of government. When you have settled upon that form of government we will embody it in legislation at Westminster, and peace and harmony will then reign instead of anarchy and rebellion." Is not that an object lesson to us in this crisis?
Some people say: Why hesitate? Pass this law. I hesitate because there is a pronounced public sentiment against the law as at present being enacted. I doubt very much whether, if the people were educated on this matter, they would oppose the law so strongly; I dp not believe they would. If we went to the people honestly and fairly and gave them an opportunity to express their opinion in a referendum, without reference to any political conditions, withput any circumstances to detract their mind from the one question of winning the war,
I believe we should get an expression of [DOT] popular opinion in favpur of the Bill. It is because I believe you will get an expression of popular opinion in its favour that I am in favour of the amendment before
[Mr. German. 1
the House. What does pur honoured leader say about this matter? Here are his words:
What I propose is that we should have a referendum and a consultation of the people upon this question. I have taken the referendum, not that I have been very favourable towards it, but I find that the idea of the referendum has made enormous progress in Canada, and that it has been adopted by the political associations in the western provinces as a method of political action. If we are to have peace, if there is to be unity, we must meet the wishes of the labouring classes, who have asked for this privilege. When the consultation with the people has been had, when the verdict has been pronounced, I pledge my word, my reputation, that to the verdict, such as it is, every man will have to submit, and I claim to speak at least so far as is concerned the province from which I come. Is that an unfair situation, is that an unfair appeal? Can anybody say that it is not in accordance with true democratic principles? This I leave to the consideration of those whom I see before me.
I say that it is so fair, so true to democratic principles, that I, for one, support it now and continually. I want a Bill that can be made effective, and it is for that reason that I support this proposition. It is alleged that time will be lost if there is a referendum. How long would it take? The Minister of Militia has told us that we could not get the soldiers' votes. But the Government are the people who have assured us that we could get the , soldiers' votes. They intended to have an election last year.


An hon. MEMBER:: Two years ago.


William Manley German: Yes. And they were going to take the soldiers' votes. Their ballot boxes and ballots are over there in England now. They could cable to the High Commissioner in London the form of ballot: " Are you in favour of compulsory military service in Canada during the progress of this war? Yes or no." That ballot could be printed there and distributed among the soldiers, and they could get the vote of the soldiers as quickly as you can get a vote here. It would take six weeks at the outside. Give the women votes. I will cast my vote with the mothers of this country; I am riot afraid to give the women votes in this referendum. Let every person who has an interest in this war have a vote in this matter. Having taken a referendum, you will have a full expression of the people's will, and we will carry out in legislation the will of the people, no matter what it may be. Time will not be lost-time will be gained.
The hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) says we shall have an election.

The Prime Minister says: pass the Bill and then have an election and coalition government. Did any one ever hear of a contest of physical strength in which one contestant says to the other: "I will shackle your feet and hands, I will tie your elbows, and having shackled you to my satisfaction I will match strength with you?" That is the way it would be if a coalition government passed this Bill and submitted it to the people. With both parties united on this principle, with every organization in their support, and the people without organization and without leadership, what possible chance would they have to express an opinion? They would not submit to that any more than they would submit to this proposition if it is .forced on them now. But give the people a chance to express their opinion freely and frankly at the polls, and I for one believe that the majority of the people would toe in its favour. That is why I say have a referendum.
I trust the proposition we make will be accepted. I believe it is the safest proposition; it is the only democratic proposition. But, if the proposition is refused, what then? The occasion is grave, the possibilities are grave. I would like the Government to adopt the proposition in favour of a referendum, but if they refuse, then, in consequence of the gravity of the situation, I will not by my vote -stand in the way of the Government putting the Bill through and making it a success, if they can, and desire to.
Now, I ask, what is going to happen? It is said that coming events cast their shadows before. The shadows of coming events are hanging over us now, -and beneath those shadows I venture to express an opinion as to what the events themselves will be. I do not wish to impute motives, but you will see that this is what will happen. This eBill will pass this House. - In about six weeks, or, perhaps, more, it will receive the assent of His Excellency the Governor General. The Government will then immediately appoint their officials, who will immediately begin to draw their pay. They will then begin to make regulations, for the making of which they intend to take power. They will, perhaps, issue a proclamation calling up the first section of recruits. And they will stop there. Their courts of appeal, the machinery with which this Bill is weighted, will stop the proceedings from that time on. And they will have an election.
They will dissolve this Parliament, they will go to the country and say: We want
the approval of the people to this Conscription Bill. We will have an election, not on conscription-that will not be the issue-but the issue will be between English and French, between Protestant and Catholic. We will have an election which will not be excelled by the villainous P.P.A. election in this province of Ontario in the campaign against Sir Oliver Mowat in 1894, the enmities from which have not died out yet. I do not want to .see that. I would like to see this matter amicably settled now by sending it to the people for their approval or disapproval. If you do that you will get harmony; if you do not you will have disunion and disruption. I feel strongly on this matter because I have seen in our province of Ontario these same questions raised and I feel in my soul that the question will be raised now. I fear that this is not a Bill to gain recruits; it is more like -a Bill to gain an election. They had a Minister of Militia who was striving to win the war, they have a Minister of Public Works who strives to win elections. They put out the Minister of Militia who was -striving to win the war and they keep the Minister of Public Works who strives to win elections. It1 is more like winning an election than it is like winnng the war.
I do not know that I .should occupy the time of this House any further. I have stated my position with as great fairness as I am capable of. I contend that .the safe way, the sur-e way, the only way to bring about compulsory military -service is to secure the will of the people in favour of that policy and then carry it out. If you have not the will of the people in favour of it, you will have discontent, distrust, disunion and disaster. Get the will of the people and all that discontent is done away with. I would like to adopt the eloquent words of the Prime Minister in closing the speech with which he introduced this Bill. I would in .thought call to our deliberations our brave comrades who have fought, and the spirits of those who will fight no more, and in their presence, and with all the solemnity that presence would command, I would say that I will do everything that in me lies to bring about success and victory for the allied cause in (this great struggle for freedom and to see to it that the sacrifices which have been made shall not have been made in vain. But in doing that I will endeavour to maintain unity in thought and action between all classes of people in this country for whose freedom those brave comrades have made their sacrifice and given their lives.


Hon. ALBERT SEVIGNY (Minister of Inland Revenue) :: to do-and thank God if it may be that in a certain measure we succeed.
Many of my right minded compatriots have advised me to stick to my post, and I thank them for their advice. I know that in the performance of my duty I may end my political career, but such a sacrifice would be still less great than the one which has been made by jrur soldiers who have died on the field of honour, while making for us a bulwark of their breasts. Mr. Speaker, I want to communicate to the House a letter which I have received from a man I do not know, but whose father has played a very important part in the history of our country:-
National Trust Building,
Winnipeg, June 11th, 1917. The Hon. Albert Sfrvigny,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ont.
My dear Mr. Sdvigny,
Although a stranger to you, I cannot refrain from addressing you as I have done and from writing to congratulate you most warmly on your patriotism in deciding to retain your Portfolio. I have always had a deep and warm interest in my French Canadian fellow-citizens, whom I used to know extremely well when I was a boy and a young man, and it would be very strange if this were not the case, as, during my father's long political career, he never had a friend with whom his relations were so intimate, in whom he placed so much confidence and for whom he had such a deep affection, as Sir George E. Cartier, with the possible exception of Sir Charles Tupper. Sir George and he (I mean my father) were, as you, of course, learned from history, generally known#as "The Siamese Twins" and it was to a great extent due to their joint efforts that Confederation was possible. Such being the case, I cannot but regard with horror the prospect of seeing our people divided on racial lines, for I can conceive no greater misfortune that could befall our young Dominion. It is impossible for me, or any one else, to foretell what the consequence might be, but that they would be serious no one can doubt, and I congratulate you on playing the part of a true patriot in doing what in you lies, and that is much to avoid such a catastrophe. It must have required no small amount of moral courage to take the position you are doing, when, by adopting a different course and appealing to the passions and prejudices of your compatriots, you might, and probably would, have greatly increased your popularity with them. This, however, could at best been have temporary, and I am sure you have adopted what in the end will prove to have been the wisest course.
With kindest regards and best wishes for your future success in every way, I remain. Yours very, sincerely,
(Sgd) Hugh J Macdonald
The member for Kamouraska (Mr. E. Lapointe) said in his speech that public opinion in the English provinces, the United States, France and England, had

been poisoned against French Canadians. Will what has 'been going on in this House and in our province since the conscription measure was spoken of restore public opinion in our favour? No; far from it. The people will still more firmly believe that the French Canadians refuse to enlist and to take their part in the present war. How can it be otherwise, surrounded as we are, we French Canadians, with a population which does not understand our language, and consequently does not read our newspapers and our books?
We must regretfully admit that in the English provinces and in the United States those persons are very scarce who take the trouble of defending us or even of trying to understand us. The result is that the public believes what is said about us and renders its judgment accordingly.
Many members have stated that effective measures to stimulate recruiting in the province of Quebec have not been employed since the beginning of the war. I think, however, that the time has come to speak frankly. I do not hesitate to sav that the French Canadians have not used the means they should have employed. In my opinion, a French Canadian organization, independent of politics, and composed of earnest men, should have been formed long ago in the province of Quebec to encourage recruiting. Furthermore, we should have completely put aside our political feuds. If our public men had worked hand in hand and had placed before our people the question of the war as it presented itself, it would have been easier to have the province of Quebec answer the appeal with the other provinces of the Dominion. Various influences have strongly contributed to paralyse recruiting. If we had had an organization composed of earnest men who would have taken upon themselves the responsibility of consulting the Government respecting the measures to be taken in our province, I am convinced that this organization would have triumphed over those which were discouraging recruiting.
To prove to you that French Canadians know how to do their duty when unfavourable influences are not exerted, let us look at what has taken place in the English provinces. We will see that French-Cana-dians have answered the call in great numbers. This fact was brought out by the figures which were submitted to the House a few days ago by the Minister of Militia.
Let us look at what took place in the United States when the American Govern-

ment applied to all men from 21Ao 31 years of age to register for conscription.
I sent the following message to Hon. A. J. Pothier, of Woonsocket, and Mr. L. N. Asselin, of Biddeford, Maine:
Please tell me how French Canadians and Americans^ of French origin have answered to the application of the American Government to establish conscription in the United States.
I received from Mr. L. N. Asselin, of Biddeford, Maine, colonization agent for the Canadian Government, the following
message:
In Maine, I may say generally New England, French Canadians and French Americans have answered call conscription unanimously and heartily. Locally 792 French Canadians registered.
I received the following answer from Hon. A. J. Pothier, of Rhode Island:
Franco-Americans have answered loyally and patriotically to conscription. Fair number of
French American volunteers enlisted.
I received also from the newspaper L'Opinion Publique, of Worcester, Mass., U.S.A., the following message:
Our French compatriots have answered to the call of the country with loyalty and unanimity which deserves the admiration of all. We exceed all other elements of the population for the figures of enlistments.
Many soldiers returned from the front have expressed to me the greatest praise of French Canadians who are in the army. To-day we have but to mention the brave . deeds of the 22nd regiment before an audience in the province of Quebec to see that our population is proud of the conduct of these brave men. -
Unfortunately there are too many narrowminded people who have undertaken the task- of hindering our population from doing as others have done. Since the question of conscription came up, men of talent, in newspapers or in public meetings, denounce our participation in the war, making believe, to succeed better in their denunciation, that the country is ruined, that we have done enough, and that we owe nothing .to England-:	Some others,
more brave, advise people to stay here to defend Canada if ever Germany wants to come here to attack us. To those who tell me the country is ruined, I answer, as far as the province of Quebec is concerned, that that province has never been more prosperous. The farmers have made a fortune since the beginning of .the war; everywhere in the cities there is much work to do.
I know as well as any one that the expenses of the war are heavy, but as we have decided to take part in the conflict, we could not hope to carry on the war with prayers alone. If .the Allies were to begin to consider the great sacrifices of money which they have made for three years, they would certainly feel, if they were like the economists of our country, th-at the time had come to stop the struggle. Those who say that we have done enough are those who would have wanted to do nothing from the beginning and who have done nothing else since that time but arouse passions and prejudices, while receiving their large salaries.
Some people say that we are not concerned in this war. It is certain that we have not wished nor provoked this terrible scourge which is sowing in the world devastation, mourning and ruin. However, in spite of the fact that we have not wished nor provoked the conflict, the fact remains that we are in the war in spite of ourselves, and we must accept the fact, and the terrible consequences.
It is a regrettable situation. It is'a situation extremely critical for us. But it is not a question of knowing if it is in spite of us or with our consent that the European nations launched themselves against each other in the month of August, 1914. We have but one thing to do, and that is to realize the sorrowful state of affairs; to realize that we are at war; that we are living in a troublous period in the history of the world, and that, unfortunately, we must bear the terrible consequences.
We must then accept the brutal fact of the war and that leads me to ask, Mr. Speaker, if it was possible for us to remain out of the conflict. I do not think so. Some people have said: ''If we were in the United States, we would be free from all this trouble." Those people were mistaken. Despite ourselves, we have been drawn into the war, as the United States themselves were a few months ago. But how many insults and indignities was not our neighbour of the South, the great American Republic, subjected to before entering the war. They endured all that was humanely possible to hear before definitely entering into the conflict. The time came, however, when endurance could no longer be tolerated and the greatest and most powerful wf all neutral countries on earth oast its sword into the balance to assure the triumph of democracy and crush forever the Huns who are eager to enslave humanity.

Such has been the fate of the United States, and such would have been our fate if, in the month of August, 1914, we had refrained from entering into the struggle. We would inevitably have been drawn into the battle, as were our powerful neighbours of the South. If one of the most peaceful nations of the globe could not keep away from the horrors of the battlefields, how could we remain indifferent to the great drama which is being enacted to-day on the European continent, and on the great seas of the world?
Others, Mr. Speaker, have said: " We owe nothing to England, so why fight for her?" To those I answer: We are not fighting for England, but we are fighting with England. England is fighting to protect her Empire; we are fighting to protect our territory. In the same wray we are fighting, not for France, but with France. We know fairly well that if France is conquered
9 p.m. England will be conquered also, and that Canada would then suffer the horrors o.f_ defeat. If England were defeated the territory of our Mother Country would be invaded, and then it would require only six more days for the Germans to invade Canada. The time would be passed then to organize armies and issue the call to arms. Our country would be pillaged and plundered, our population slaughtered, and we would witness the horrors and crimes committed in Belgium and in northern France by the barbarians of the twentieth century. When we study the situation we should consider ourselves fortunate, indeed, to defend our country on foreign territory, especially when we know what misery and distress have been inflicted on the inhabitants of northern France and Belgium, whom a cruel invader has robbed of their homes and possessions, .and who today, in order to regain possession of those villages where they were born and grew up, are forced to shell the places they have loved so well. So, we are not fighting for England, but for ourselves, and it is to secure liberty for ourselves and for those who will follow us that we are fighting today. Since I have proved that we are fighting, not for England, but for ourselves, it is needless to ask if we owe anything to England.
But there is one point on which it is not permitted to differ, viz.: since the beginning of the war the British fleet has kept the route from America to Europe open, and we have thus been permitted to export our products at prices so remunerative that our population has never been so prosperous as

since 1914. The British fleet has kept the way free for our commerce, and that fact has been worth millions to us. What would have happened without the British fleet? We would not haVU been able to export to Europe a single bushel of grain or .a single manufactured article. Our harvest of 1914 would have remained on our hands. The United States would have been in the same position. The farmer, with his harvest of 1914 on his hands, would not have sown his land in 1915, and as early as 1915 famine would have prevailed in the great cities of Canada and of the United States. The farmer would have said: Why should I work my land at such a high cost when I cannot market my products? Consequently our cities would have suffered from lack of production. The large cities of Russia are actually suffering from famine. The Russian farmers are producing for themselves only. Blockaded by land and sea, they were unable to export the surplus of their harvest of 1914. They used to export about 300 million bushels of wheat. In 1915, as their harvest of 1914 was still on their hands, farming was considerably decreased. In 1916, they produced enough for themselves only, and as a result, the inhabitants of the large cities are famishing. This economic situation, due to the blockade, is more disastrous to the Russian people than the invasion of their territory by the Germans. Russia is virtually under the ban of an embargo imposed by Germany.
We owe more than that to England, because, without England's powerful fleet, this British colony, Canada, would have been conquered by the Germans as the German colonies were by the Allies. What would have happened to Canada if the British fleet had not cleared the seas of the German fleet? We would have seen our cities, such as Halifax, St. John, and Quebec, bombarded by the German fleet and forced to accept the conditions imposed upon our country. Our people would have been crushed with taxation, and instead of the abundance we have known since 1914, we would have experienced misery and poverty as Belgium did.
The reason why we do not stand humiliated in face of the services rendered us is to be found in the presence of our Canadian boys at Ypres, Festubert, Givenchy, St. Eloi, Neuve Chapelle, Courcelette, Vimy, and those who stand prepared, up to the last, to die in defence of the cause, with the soldiers of England, of France, and soon, of the United States. If valuable services have been rendered us, let us be proud of

those who enable us to say that we also have done our share, and let us not forget that our boys kept the Germans from reaching Calais in 1915. Let those who have sacrificed themselves for us, as we have sacrificed ourselves for them, speak. This is what M. Viviani said to us but a few weeks ago:
Yes, Sir, your Canadian boys have fought along with the English and French troops without paying any heed to racial differences. Under the flags of all the Allies they have all shown a similar courage. It must not he forgotten that in the month of February, near the Belgian frontier, in a country devastated by floods, after the terrific assault of the German soldiers by means of asphyxiating gases -Germany, the country that has caused science to swerve from its true ends, and, instead of pouring its benefits upon mankind, has visited humanity with manifold evils and crimes. -the same Germany has had to meet your Canadian soldiers. On that terrific day, your sons, rising in their might, saved the situation.
And throughout many battles, throughout numerous and recent victories, the soldiers of Canada stood up heroically against the foe. Even at this moment, we have before our eyes your boys, so alert, so athletic, so brave, the first to storm, victoriously carrying their flag to those heights of Vimy which were reputed to be impregnable.
I am proud to see in this chamber one of our heroes of Vimy in the person of our colleague, the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Arthurs).
Let us solemnly register these words of Marshall Joffre:
What the soldiers of Montreal and of Canada have accomplished will always be appreciated in France. The soldiers of Canada are courageous; they despise death, and their bravery equals that of the French troops. 1 thank you for what you have said and hope that your words will bear fruit, but send; along more men, we need them all.
The law authorizes the raising of 100,000 men, .in nine provinces. I do not know what number of men the tribunals of each province will decide to send to the army, but let us suppose it will be as follows: British Columbia, 10,000; Alberta, 10,000; Saskatchewan, 10,00(f; Manitoba, 10,000; Ontario, 25,000; Quebec, 25,COO; New Brunswick, 5,000; Nova Scotia, 5,000; Prince Edward Island, 2,000. We reach 'a total of 102,000 men; the law authorizes but 100,000. The Government thinks they can be found, but once more, I say the tribunals will decide.
The leader of the Opposition stated the other day that he regretted that the French Canadians were not in greater number in our expeditionary forces. I ask him, and I also ask his followers from Quebec who are in favour of our participation, as they
have proved to be since the beginning of the war, if they think that Quebec would be ruined if she had furnished 25,000 more French Canadians. I know that the leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Eouville (Mr. Lemieux), the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. E. Lapointe), and all the other members for the province of Quebec would be as happy as I to say that we have 25,000 more French Canadians in the army. I know that we would reca" this fact with pride, to state that we hav done our share as have all the others. I know that the French Canadians would be proud to have many regiments like the 22nd, which has shed such glory upon the French Canadians' name. If the province of Quebec had furnished 25,000 more men, would she be ruined? Without hesitation,
I say, no. Will she be in a position to furnish them under this Bill? That is for the tribunals to decide, just as in the other provinces. No difference will exist between the French Canadians of Quebec and the English Canadians of the other provinces.
Our public men will be in a position to see that the law is carried out with justice to every one. Furthermore, a French Canadian organization should be formed to take special care of our soldiers and of their families. This organization could ask the Government to place French Canadian officers in charge of the military commands of our province, and I am sure that this request would be favourably received; and the same could be done in regard to promotions. This measure would restore the harmony between the two races and remove certain grievances which actually divide us.
In concluding, I say to my fellow citizens that we are proud of our ancestors of 1775 and of 1812 who saved this country for Great Britain. We are proud of these words so often repeated: "The last shot for the defence of the British flag shall be fired by French Canadians." We are proud of our pontifical Zouaves and we have cause to be proud of them. They have fought for sacred causes. But never a more sacred cause has called men to the flag than that of the present war, and -millions have so far answered the call.
For our glorious ancestors dead on the battlefield; for our brothers who died or are ready to die in the trenches; for the sacred cause of justice, religion, democracy and civilization; so that our children and our grandchildren may be proud of us as we of our ancestors; to have understanding between the two races which God has placed in this young and great country; so that our fellow citizens of other provinces


William Pugsley: Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry indeed that the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue impaired what in most respects was a very admirable speech by the reference he made at the commencement to my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition. Let me say to that hon. gentleman that in future years the historian will say: There is no man occupying a place in Canadian history who has done more to promote harmony between the two races than my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition. His whole life has been devoted to that cause. Others might have won in a larger measure than he did the approval of his compatriots, but he has always sacrificed his personal, ambition to his desire to promote unity and to add to the grandeur of our glorious Dominion. He has known no race and no creed, but has been in all respects and at all times a true Canadian citizen. I am s.orry, as I have said, that my hon. friend made the reference which he did to my right hon. leader.
There is just one other remark which I have to' make in regard to the hon. gentleman. He says there are many people in the province of Quebec to-day who are saying that Canada owes nothing to England. Let me ask my hon. friend if that statement is made by gentlemen who have great respect for my hon. friend. Is it made by those who listened to the hon. gentleman himself years ago when on platform after platform he stated that Canada owed nothing to England and should take no part in the wars of the Empire? True, Sir, down in Valleyfield not long ago the hon. gentleman said that when he made that statement he was young and his mind immature, his intellect had not been fully developed, he was only 30 years of age. Down in our part of the country it is generally supposed that fish is a very good article of diet, which leads to mental de-

velopment, but let me say that I think there is no better food than the food which the hon. gentleman gets at the Government crib, for it seems tp 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 said to-night that a great crisis has arisen. He intimated that the people of the province that he represents in the Government are greatly agitated over this question. If that is so, why does he not unite with my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, who has moved an amendment to the Bill calculated to promote harmony and unity between the different races in this country, and calculated also to serve the best ends of Canada and the Empire in this great world war? Why does he not do that, and show that he is prepared to sacrifice his place in the Government for the good of his country?
With regard to the question before the House, in my opinion the proper time to have introduced a measure of compulsory service was when this war broke out. The public men of this country knew then as well as they know to-day that this would be a conflict of giants. They knew then as well as they know now that Germany had been preparing for this war for 50 years, that she was armed to the teeth with great guns and plenty of ammunition, and that it would be a long and hard struggle. If the Government thought that it would be desirable at any time to introduce compulsory service into this country, the time to introduce it was when the war broke out, just as the United States Government, immediately war was declared, provided means for the enlistment of her soldiers. This Government, however, did not do that. You will remember, Sir, that at the session of August, 1914, my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition was asked by the Government to assist in putting through as speedily as possible the different war measures which the Government desired to pass. My right hon. friend readily acquiesoed. He took part in voting all the money that the Government required and assisted in every way, so far as this Parliament could assist, in the financial operations necessary to send our boys to the front. Not a murmur of dissatisfaction was raised against what the Government proposed to do. This side of the House assured the Government that anything they required for'the carrying on of the war would be cheerfully given;

and from that day to this, that has been the policy pursued 'by this side. There was no suggestion that conscription would be resorted' to; there was no suggestion that the compulsory system then or at any time was likely to be found better than the voluntary. To-day, the Government is trying to take shelter, so far as this Bill is concerned, behind the fact that the Militia Act of 1904 provided for compulsory service. They say they are making no change in principle, but merely an alteration in detail. I do not believe the Government at that time thought that the Militia Act would enable them to do what they are doing, and what this country has supported them in doing, namely, sending hundreds of thousands of our young men across the seas to fight the battles of the Empire, ot freedom and of civilization, and to crush German militarism. To-day they seek an excuse for what they propose that this Parliament-which has extended beyond the term for which it was elected by the people -should do; and they seek alse to afford the enemies in the province of Quebec of the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) an opportunity of saying that this Bill is not more stringent in ite provisions than the Militia Act of 1904, which was passed under the guidance of the Government of which that right hon. gentleman was the head. Other members who have spoken in support of this Bill claim that under the Militia Act the same thing could he done which is proposed to be done under this Act. The leader of the Government (Sir Robert Borden) went so far as to say that the Act of 1904 was the same as the Act that was in force before that statute was passed-similar in its provisions, but with a very slight difference in its terms. In order to show you that that was not the ease, let me call attention to the Act that was in force before 1904, which will be found in the Revised Statutes of 1886. Section 79 of that Act, which is the section corresponding with section 69 in the Act of 1904, provides:
Her Majesty may call out the Militia, or any part thereof, for active service either within or without Canada, at any time when it appears advisable so to do by reason of war, invasion or insurrection, or danger of any of them.
The power to call out the militia was not limited to an occasion which made that calling out necessary "for the defence of Canada." The words " for the defence of Canada " were omitted from the Revised Statutes. When this Parliament, in 1904, reenacted the militia law, it sought to make
it clear that the intent of the Militia Act was that our soldiers should be called out to serve, inside or outside the country, only for the defence of Canada. That is the material point in which the Act of 1904 differs from the Act of 1868 which was re-enacted in the Revised Statutes of 1886. Now, the Prime Minister and the newspaper supporters of the Government in the province of Quebec, such as L'Evenement, claim that the Liberal party is responsible for this conscription law, the law of compulsory service passed in 1904. But the change in that year was made for the purpose of making it clear that the militia could not be sent outside of Canada except for the defence of Canada. When this war broke out-no matter what we may think of it to-day-the people of Canada had no thought for their own safety and their own defence. They recognized that this was a case in which Germany had ruthlessly broken her treaties with Belgium and ruthlessly invaded France; that the British Empire must fill the breach in defence , of liberty and civilization; and Canada determined to throw in her lot with the Empire. We did not think of Canada, but of the Empire, and of the noble ideals for which that Empire and the Allied nations were waging this war. With a unanimity which was wonderful the'people of Canada themselves, and as represented in this Parliament, agreed that our boys who volunteered should be sent to the front to fight for these ideals. Surely it comes with ill grace from the Prime Minister to say that his excuse for the proposed law is that it is not a departure from the Act of 1904, that it does not change the principle of that Act but only some of its details. The Minister of Militia (Sir Edward Kemp) emphasized this phase of the argument. Let me, then, even at the risk of repeating what was put before the House when my hon. friend from Kamouraska (Mr. Ernest Lapointe) and my hon. friend from St. Johns-Iberville (Mr. Demers) spoke, read what took place in the session of 1904. Sir Frederick Borden was then Minister of Militia, and he it was who had charge of the Bill. Speaking under the advice he had, he said that the reason for putting in the Bill the words " for the defence of Canada " was that this had been the spirit in which the Militia Acts had been administered, and that he was only making the matter clear so that it could not be questioned. J find that it was aTgued that as the law then stood troops could be sent under the Militia Act in defence of the Empire; but


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


William Pugsley: Now to come down with this Bill and to refuse the amendment that it shall be left to the people to determine is a breach of faith .of the grossest possible character, not alone with the right hon. leader of the Opposition, hut with the

members of this House and "with the people of this country.
One hon. gentleman opposite has said that in these times of war he would puncture the constitution to pieces. I suppose he would say, too, that in this time of war there is no condemnation to be meted out to public men who break their promises, who disregard their pledges. I suppose he will say that. But, Sir, 1 think upon sober reflection the members of this House and the people of this country will entertain a different view. Further, when that resolution for the extension of Parliament came before this House, the leader of the Government said that he had had discussions with the right hon. leader of the Opposition with regard to the extension and as to what should take place if the extension were granted. There was to be no party warfare; if vacancies occurred by-elections were to be held and in each case the representative of the party which had held the seat before was to be elected by acclamation. But there was to be no party warfare. Yet only one year afterwards we find the right hon. leader of the Government coming down and proposing a measure which must necessarily be regarded as most partisan in its character, inasmuch as a large number of the members of this House are firmly and unalterably opposed to it, and inasmuch as some millions of the people of this country are also determinedly opposed to it. How could you get a measure more partisan in its character? For a measure to be partisan, simply means that upon it Parliament and the people of this country are divided, and, as I say, there never was a measure introduced in any Parliament which from that standpoint is more partisan than the Bill now before this House. At that time the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), in his address in support of the resolution, referred to the fact that all was harmony, that the members of this House were united in the prosecution of the war, and he said:
We are now at the beginning, of the third campaigiT, and at this stage we may well appropriate to ourselves the invocation of the American poet:
Our fathers' God! from out whose hand The centuries fall like grains of sand,
We meet to-day, united, free,
Loyal to our land and Thee.
To thank Thee for the era done And trust Thee for the opening one.
In the words of the poet, we meet to-day, united, free.
But we now have this Bill introduced into this moribund Parliament by a Government

which is not here through the suffrages of the people of this country, but is holding power by the vote of this- House, owing to the fact that we asked the Imperial Parliament to keep us in office beyond our term. This moribund Government is asking this moribund Parliament to pass this law of conscription, which will interfere with the liberties of the young men of this country. Whether, under other circumstances, it would be right or wrong to introduce such a measure, I need not say at the present time, but, by reason of their introducing this measure, Parliament is divided, the people of this country are torn asunder, and no man can tell what will be the outcome if this Bill is passed into law and an attempt is made to enforce it by compulsion. What a different picture is presented to-day from that which was presented to the people of this country a little more than one year ago! Now, Sir, is there any need of this? As I said before, the time to introduce a law of conscription was when the war broke out. At that time a vigorous effort should have been made by a non-party Government to organize for the national service the wealth and all the industries and all the resources of this country for the purpose of winning this war and doing the very best which it was possible for Canada to do in connection with that great purpose. That was the time to act. But this Government has Mone nothing in that direction. As has been said by hon. gentlemen who have spoken, as has even been said by hon. gentlemen on this side who have felt constrained to support this measure, from the beginning of the war until now, partisanship, party spirit, party patronage, have entered into almost every act of this Government in connection with the carrying on of the war. Apart from sending our young men to the front, they have taken no steps to organize the national resources of this country, no steps to make the wealth of this country respond t) its duty in connection with the carrying on of this war. All they have thought of is to get our young men to the front; all they think of to-day is to pass a law of conscription under which they can send their officers throughout this country and take the young men from their homes, take them from their mothers, their fathers, their sisters, their sweethearts, their wives, and send them across the seas-that is all they think of. They have not built a ship. They have not built a ship to carry the products of Canada across the ocean. They have not taken one single step to cheapen transportation in

order that England and our Allies may be supplied with food which may be needed, and needed in the most dreadful way, before the-war is through. They have taken no steps to control food prices in this country. They have allowed the cost of living to go up by leaps and bounds, so that the young man who has gone to the front and who has left his wife or family at home, is to-day in the greatest possible anxiety as to the way in which they are able to live on the small means which they receive. They have done nothing to assist in the production of food.	They have
seen the prftspect of the crops being less and less from year to year owing to the scarcity of farm labour. They have had appeals made to them by members of this House and by the people to assist tlje farmers by putting fertilizers and farm tractors on the free list so that thousands, and tens of thousands, and hundreds of thousands of acres might be put under cultivation, as could have been done if reasonable and progressive methods had been pursued, but they have done absolutely nothing. As I said, all that they think of, the only thing in respect to which apparently they think they have any duty at all, is to send our young men to the front.
I ask you, Sir, is it necessary to introduce this measure at this time? Canada has enlisted over 400,000 men for military service. As the Minister of Finance said the other day, the effort which Canada has put forward can be described as nothing less than a mighty effort, unparalleled in history. If Canada's effort were equalled by the people of the great republic to the south, they would send between six and seven million young men across the ocean to fight the battle of freedom as Canada has been fighting it side by side with the Allies during the past three years. The question is, after the putting forth of this great effort, is this the time to introduce conscription? Is it necessary to do so? We have endeavoured, but in vain, to get accurate figures from the Minister of Militia and from gentlemen who have spoken on behalf of the Government. When I asked the Minister of Labour, who knows about as much concerning Government matters as any other member of the Government-I am not quite sure, Sir, whether you will regard that as high praise-if the report in the newspapers was true that last month voluntary enlistments in Canada had reached about 7,000, what did he say? Bear in mind that before I had asked him the
question he, a responsible minister of the Government, had told the House that voluntary enlistment had absolutely fallen down; that we could not get any more men; that the only thing to do was to resort to conscription. In response to my inquiry whether 7,000 men had actually enlisted in the month of May, the Minister of Labour replied that he did not know anything about it; he could not answer. Yet, he, a member of the Government, who is willing to take upon himself the responsibility of passing a law under which 100,000 young men can be deprived of their liberty, was not able to give the House any figures to show the necessity for such a course of action. Today the Minister of Militia stated that
420.000	men had enlisted and that 330,000 had gone overseas. That would leave
90.000	still in Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.


William Pugsley: Yes, 330,000 had gone across the seas.


Sir HERBERT AMES:: Of that 90,000 fully half did not stay in the service.
Mr. PUGSLEY':	That has not been explained to us. The member for St. Antoine may know about these things, but he is not a member of the Government; he is not the gentleman to whom we have a right to look for information of this kind. These are the figures which were given to us: 420,000 had enlisted, 330,000 had been sent across the ocean; there were 130,000 in France and 126,000 still in England. The casualties have amounted to 87,000 or 90,000. If the Minister of Militia is right, and we are still raising in Canada 70,000 to 80,000 men a year, the figures are these: We have in Canada 90,000 men. If we get in a year
80.000	more, that will be 170,000. Add to that number 126,00CT who are in England, and you will have available within a year about 300,000 men for the service of the Empire, in addition to those now at the front.


Charles Murphy: But you will have no
election cry against Quebec.


Herbert Brown Ames: I understand that there are not over 17,000 men in Canada who are in training for combatant service?


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman
should at. once be favourably considered for .the position of Minister of Militia, or of assistant to the minister.


Herbert Brown Ames: I have quite
enough on my hands at present.


William Pugsley: Well, we will put it at 17,000. Out of 90,000, only 17,000 remain; that means that 73,000 men who enlisted in Canada have disappeared. Of that we have no explanation. The minister did tell us that 126,000 men were in England, ready for service or being prepared for service. There were 90,000 men in Canada, 73,000 of whom, the member for St. Antoine has kindly informed us, have disappeared, so that only 17,000 remain. However, if you add to these 17,000 the 126,000 who are in England and' the 80,000 men that we would raise in a year under voluntary enlistment, you have upwards of 200,000 men available inside of a year for service at the front or for training in England. Mr. Speaker, that is not a had showing, nearly at the end of the third year of the war. I am unable for the life of me to see why the Prime Minister, in the face of the pledges and promises which 'he made to the people, should introduce this measure. I fail to see any justification for such a course at the present time. One ought to take this stand whether he he in favour of conscription or against it:	Having started upon the policy of
carrying on the war by voluntary enlistment-Canada having contributed to the Empire far beyond what anybody dreamed was possible, thereby gaining the admiration of the whole world-we should not resort to compulsory service until every other resource has been exhausted and until absolute necessity arises.
The Prime Minister says that the crying need to-day is for infantry. What did he say when he came from England? He taws about the call from the trenches-a call which I doubt he ever heard. I doubt if the men in the trenches would feel it in accordance with the oath which they took to offer any complaint or make any representations with regard to what should or should not be done for them-. But the Prime Minister made some very interesting remarks as to what he saw at the front. He is reported as follows, on page IfiO of Hansard of this year:
I was particularly proud to have the privilege of seeing Courcelette, because the Canadians distinguished themselves in its capture, and in that attack and on other battlefields, no regiment bore itself more worthily than the 22nd French Canadian regiment, which did splendid work in every engagement in which it participated.
That statement ought to be remembered by those newspaper men who write those savage articles about Quebec and who speak
[Sir Herbert Ames.l
about civil war and about its being a very good thing if our soldiers, while passing through Quebec on their way to fight the Germans, would have a little fight with the French Canadians. It ought to be a rebuke to hon. members like the hon. meriiber for South Perth (Mr. Steele), who, at a meeting of the Liberal-Conservative Convention held the other night at Mitchell, in his constituency, is reported in the Montreal Star to have said that the people of Quebec did not want to engage in this war; that they would sooner fight the people of Ontario than fight the Germans.


Mr. STEELE:: I should have excepted the '8,000 who have enlisted from the province of Quebec.


William Pugsley: The hon. member, I am sorry to say, admits the truth of the report made of the speech delivered by him on that occasion. It is language like that, coming from responsible members of this House; it is writings like that appearing in newspapers in Ontario, which incite racial passions and prejudices in Quebec. That is a course which should be frowned down by every hon. member who loves his country and who wishes to see his fellow countrymen of all races live in peace and unity. The Prime Minister says further:-
The Canadian Railway Construction Corps is performing work of the most vital importance. As far back as 1915 it was, I believe, suggested to the war authorities that railways could be constructed behind the fighting line and utilized to great advantage. The matter was not taken up immediately; but it has been taken up since, and one of the chief requests that we received from the War Office while we were in England was for additional men for the Canadian Railway Construction Corps -and for the Canadian Forestry Corps. What I have said of the Canadian Railway Construction Corps applies with equal force to the Canadian Forestry Corps The work of these units is not so impressive, but is almost equally important as that of the combatant forces. It is absolutely necessary, as things are at present, that Great Britain should cut down to the utmost the tonnage for the conveyance of articles other than food supplies, and timber takes up an enormous quantity of tonnage. Therefore, in Great Britain and France forests are being sacrificed to-day on every hand in order that the necessary timber for the prosecution of the war may be provided. It is universally admitted on the other side of the Atlantic that the Canadian Forestry Corps is most highly efficient, and the request to us is that we shall send men in as large numbers as possible to assist in the work which they are carrying on.
That, he tells us, when making his statement to Parliament, is the request that was made to him upon the other side. A few days afterwards, when he submits the Bill for military service, he says: Oh, it is in-

fantry that is required; the crying need is for infantry. 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. I am sure the people of this country will agree that by a vigorous effort the Government could easily secure in four months 100,000 men to engage in railway construction work and forestry work, and those are the very men that the military authorities on the other side say would be so useful .to the Empire. Yet, when we are asked to pass this Conscription Bill, tfie Government tell us:	We want
young men to go into the trenches; we have more artillery men than we require. We have no word such as that from any military authority in England; the only word we have is to send all the men we can for forestry service and for railway construction work. I have seen a despatch from Mr. Stewart Lyon, special correspondent of the Canadian Press, dated the 21st of June, in which he says:
The drafts from the Canadian depots in England to make good the wastage in the corps are of good quality.
This is sent from the Canadian headquarters in France:
I hear nothing but praise for the new men, especially the artillery drafts.
The Canadian artillery men have covered themselves and their country with glory upon the battlefields. They are the very best men in the service, young men of great intelligence and skill. They have been of enormous benefit, and their ability has been recognized by the highest artillery officers in England. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. 10 p.m. Hazen) knows that one young man, Major Magee, from St. John, has done most magnificent work, which is beyond all praise, and that has been the case with all the artillery men whom Canada has sent to the front. The , artillery requires great ingenuity, originative ability, executive skill and high intelligence, and these qualities are usually possessed by our Canadian boys, perhaps to a greater extent than by the soldiers of any other country. Yet when we have an opportunity to secure such men, when
out boys are crying for an opportunity to enlist, when during the last month son\e 1,400 have enlisted for the artillery service, the order goes out from Ottawa:	We do
not want any more artillery men; stop recruiting for the artillery. Yet next week,
I am sure we shall hear some hon. members saying: This is a battle of big guns and shells; this is a battle of engineers.
Mr. AiRTHURS:	Has the hon. member
read the synopsis of the men now in England wherein it is stated that on the 14th of May there were available for military service, 279 artillery officers and 3,700 artillery men who were apparently not required for the artillery.?


William Pugsley: Yes, but does it follow -that, because an officer or a man is in England available for service, he is not needed in France? Of course, he is not needed until men are killed, until vacancies occur, but those men are waiting in England to take the place of men who are killed or wounded or who become ill.
That is why 126,000 troops remain in England as reserves in training for the battle front till the call comes for them to go. Hon. gentlemen opposite say: Are we to leave our young men, those splendid young men, for whom no word of praise can be too high, without support? Certainly not. The moment they arrive in England they become units of the Imperial army. They go under the command of the Imperial officers, and are sent to the front; their disposition and everything connected with them is under the control of the British army. 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? Is thj-the time to introduce this extraordinary measure which, no matter r how it is en- [DOT] forced, must necessarily be encompassed with great hardships, with much anguish, with bitter tears, and many a broken heart.
Is this the time, when the great fepublic to the South of us has just entered into this momentous struggle; when they are raising money not by the million but by the billion; when 9,500,000 of their young men have registered for military service; is this

the time when, if they do their part as nobly Canada has done her part, they will have between 6,000,000 and 7,000,000 men at the front. And, Sir, are they not bound to take a part equally as noble as that which Canada has taken? Is it not their war as much as ours? For three years the men of Canada have been fighting on the battle line for the freedom of the world, fighting for the safety of America as well as for the safety of Canada, fighting to overthrow Prussian aggression, fighting to prevent Germany obtaining dominant power over the world, which would mean over the United States as well as over Europe. Canada has been fighting the battle of the United States, and we hav& the right now that the United States are in the war to expect the United States boys to take their place on the battle line and fight as the Canadian boys have fought, fight, if need be, side by side with the Canadian boys. We have a right to expect that.
Hon. gentlemen ask: Will you allow the boys to be forsaken? Why, Sir, what will happen if the war goes on for two or three years and the right to levy this 100.006 men has been exhausted? Do you not think that the United States and the Imperial Army will back up our young men? Or- are we to go on year after year draining the life of our country? Is it not only reasonable that we should do all that is humanly possible in order to win this war, by the sending of our men, by the husbanding of our resources, by stimulating food production, by marshalling the industries of the country into the service of our Dominion and the Empire? It is right that we should do all that we can, but there must not be expected of us more than it is humanly possible to do. In view of the entry of the United States into this world war, and in view of the figures I have presented to the House, there seems to be to be no reason for the extraordinary measure which is now being submitted for the consideration of the House. It is a step which, as I said at the outset, if it was to be taken at all, ought to have been taken at the commencement of the war, and which measure ought not to be resorted to now except in case of the direct necessity, and which ought not to be passed except by a parliament having a mandate from the people to pass such a law.
This Parliament was induced by solemn declarations by the leaders of both parties to pass a resolution asking the Imperial Government to extend the life of parlia-

ment-something which this Parliament would never have thought of for a moment if it had been suggested that during this extended life this great departure would have been taken. Why do I say that, Sir? What were we asking for last session.? We were asking the Imperial Parliament to amend the British North America Act, which is the constitution under which our provinces came into this great Confederation. All our people depend upon the constitution, but more especially do the people of the neighboring province of Quebec, because it is the constitution which preserves to- them their laws, their language, their religion, and their customs. They look with jealousy, and properly so, upon any proposal to amend the Constitution. It has been held by the courts of the country that the*Act of Confederation is in the nature of a contract between the different provinces of this Confederation, and you know, Sir, as well as I do that the Imperial Government would not have thought for a single moment of altering that constitution unless it felt it had the consent of the people of every province of this Dominion. If there had been any suggestion last session of this measure being introduced by this moribund Parliament, there would have been intense opposition on .the part of members of this House to extending the term of Parliament, and not even the far-reaching influence of the right hon. leader of the Opposition, if he had taken strong ground in favour of the extension, would have been sufficient to enable the measure to be passed. Some hon. gentlemen are talking of extending the term of Parliament again. I do not know what may be the view of this House, because I have not consulted with any one as to what should be done when the question comes up, but in view of what is taking place now, in view of the unreasonable, the improper and autocratic effort of this Government to pass this measure through Parliament under the circumstances I have mentioned and in spite of the jfledges that have been given, I declare that I will not repeat the blunder of which I was guilty at the last session of Parliament. Never again, if this measure is pressed through, would I feel that it would be safe to have an amendment to our constitution if we had to rely upon the pledges made by the gentlemen at present occupying seats on the treasury benches.
To my mind we are right on the verge of the greatest crisis which ever faced this fair Confederation. It is well to be frank about

it; it is well to look matters right in the face. My hon. friend from Welland (Mr. German) referred to the fact that the British Parliament in its wisdom had declined to apply the conscription law to Ireland because it was contrary to the general sentiment of the people of that country. There was one reference which he might have made as to the undesirability and impossibility of imposing any law upon an unwilling people.
In the case of great communities living together, they judge the law by the common sentiment; and the truth was laid down centuries ago: vox populi, vox Dei. What most of the people believe, they think, is the law that ought to be observed; and any law which gives you the common sentiment of the people, and particularly the common sense of the people, is, they are apt to think, the law which ought to be obeyed. What happened when the British Government proposed to impose the law for Home Rule upon Ireland? The people of Ulster, comprising I think, only about two millions of people *-hon. gentlemen will correct me if I am wrong-no more people than in the province of Quebec, showed signs of resistance. They even formed armies and the leader of the army formed to resist the enforcement of the law for Home Rule, was Sir Edward Carson who is now the First Lord of the Admiralty. Most people would say, who are not familiar with public sentiment, that it was strange that loyal people like the people of Ulster, famed for centuries for their devotion to the British Crown, should propose to resist a law passed by the British Parliament.* And yet these people were determined to fight that law if the attempt was made to impose it upon them. You may say they were wrong; I may say they were wrong. At the same time, the gentleman who led them along these lines was not condemned very much by the Imperial authorities, for as I have said, he is now in charge of one of the most important departments of the Imperial Service. And so, to compare small things with great, in my own province, when I was a comparatively young man, a law was passed with regard to education in the common schools. Those who thought like myself and who are of the same religion with myself, thought it not an unreasonable law which took away certain alleged rights from a portion of the people of the province. The people who framed it never thought that the law would not be
169	-
loyally accepted. It was put in force, and in one section of the country, the very first time an attempt was made to collect taxes by the arrest of one of the ratepayers, three men sacrificed their lives. That shows that when racial passions are aroused there is no saying what the end will be. Hon. gentlemen opposite have lighted a fire that may attain proportions far beyond what they expect. I trust it may not; I pray God it may not. There is a way to stop it, and -that course the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Sevigny) can take if he wants to, in the interests of harmony and good will and the happiness of the people. He can persuade this Government to agree to this referendum. It does not declare for or against conscription; all it says is that the further consideration of the measure shall he postponed until the judgment of the people has been obtained upon it by means of a referendum. It will only mean a delay of three or four weeks at the most. Parliament can go on with its work- there is plenty of work to do-and before the time for prorogation comes around in the ordinary course a return of the vote will 'be made, and Parliament will know whether the people approve of conscription or disapprove of it.
It has been said by some hon. gentlemen opposite that this is contrary to the British constitutional system. That is absurd; it is such a statement as men make who want to becloud the issue, who, though they are carrying through a measure, want to go to the people, and, by means of appeals upon questions of personal popularity, upon all kinds of other questions besides the one at issue, hope to so divert public attention that there will be no decision upon the question. If this question be left to the people on a referendum it will be stripped of all other considerations. The question whether this Government have, during the last three years, been guilty of wrong-doing and blundering, or whether they have been right and are paragons of virtue-it will be deprived of all these considerations, and will be brought down simply to this: Are you in favour of the principle of the Bill establishing conscription for Canada, or are you not?
Something has been said about taking the vote of the soldiers. Of course, take the vote of the soldiers; no vote would be worthy of being considered unless it included the vote of the soldiers. In the case of a general election it was proposed to take the soldiers' vote. I would not surround this referendum vote even with any * vel-y great



safeguards, for it is simply a referendum. The mails could be utilized to send the questions to the soldiers at the front. Let them sign their votes 'before their commanding officers and return by letter to the proper official at Ottawa. In this way you would get the votes returned from the soldiers as soon as you need them. And you will have their vote, recorded, as it ought to be recorded. As to the idea that this is contrary to British principles, how do they happen to have it in Australia? That is one of the great oversea dominions, and the constitution of the commonwealth was the Act of the Imperial Parliament. In the case of many municipal .bodies, even a small proportion of the electorate can demand a referendum on any question. They have a right to do that instead of waiting until the time of election comes around. The referendum has grown in favour among the progressive communities f)f the world. I know no better way to obtain the declaration of the will of the people on this question than by leaving it to them by a referendum.
As has been so well said in this House, the people ought to be regarded as the governing body. They are the court of last resort. The Finance Minister (Sir Thomas White) said that we ought not to leave it to the people, we ought to lead the people. Possibly, the people may not admire the way in which they have been led during the last three years. They have been led through the mire pf scandal, and graft, and bungling, and mistakes of all kinds- bungling in connection with horses; graft in connection with the purchase of drugs; graft in connection with the manufacture of fuses; bungling of the worst kind_ in connection with the production of shells. The people may not want to be led. They may prefer to have this question left to them stripped of all other considerations so that they may decide for themselves, yea or nay according to their own judgment. They are just as capable of forming a judgment as to what will be in the best interests of the country as this Government is of forming it for them.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to have kept the House so long, but entertaining the view which I do that this Parliament has no right, no mandate, to pass this Bill, that the attempt of the Government to do so is simply an autocratic attempt on its part to disregard the wishes of the people, having in view the fact that this Parliament does not represent the people of this

country, that we are not here by the ->rotee of the people but 'by our own vote which extended our life for the period of a year, I am utterly and unalterably opposed to this Bill and opposed to it going to its second reading. I shall vote for the referendum because I want the question to go to the people. If the amendment for the referendum is voted down, there is no other logical course for me to pursue than to vote against the second reading of the Bill. I repeat, there is no other logical course open to me. I feel it is my duty to vote against it and I intend to discharge my duty. If the Bill goes to the third reading, I shall feel that it is only consistent for me, in the performance of my duty, to vote against the third reading.
I say that, coming as I do from the grand, loyal city of St. John, the city to which more than one hundred and twenty-five years ago thousands of people came, although in the midst of great hardships, in order to live under the British flag. If there is any constituency in this country that is loyal to the core, it is the city from which I come, inhabited' as it is by people who -were and are prepared to make every sacrifice for the defence of the flag and the Empire. But I shall take the responsibility of the course that I have decided upon. I shall do my duty as I see it clearly 'before me, and then I shall leave it to the people of my constituency to exercise their judgment as to whether I have done right or wrong. I take the course which I do in the full confidence that I am doing what will be most effective towards producing peace and harmony in this country, towards increasing the happiness and prosperity of the people and which will be to the lasting advantage of the country to which I am so attached, a country which, through these two gieat races, we want to see united forever in peace and harmony, and a country which will become the greatest of the overseas dominions of the Empire and one of the brightest jewels in Britain's Crown.
On motion of Mr. Arthurs, the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Crothers, the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Tuesday, June 26, 1917.