1917-06-21

PAPER PRESENTED.

[Stage Direction]
List of points on National Transcontinental Railway, Eastern Division, from which rails were- lifted for shipment overseas to France.-Mr. Cochrane.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. B. NORTHRUP (East Hastings) presented the first report of the Select Committee appointed by this House to act with

a like committee of the Senate to consider the cost of each session of Parliament, as follows:	'
The Select Committee appointed bv the House to act with a like committee of the Senate to consider the cost of each session of Parliament and of reducing the same, beg leave to present the following as their first report:
Your committee recommend that the quorum of the two committees when meeting together shall consist of seven members.
Mr. GRAHAM:: Has any work been done by the committee?


Mr. NORTHRUP:: This report is simply the first report after the two committees had met. We found that, owing to an adjournment of the Senate, it might be impossible to obtain a quorum, and so it was agreed to ask this House to reduce the number of the.quorum to seven.
On motion of Mr. Northrup the report was concurred in.



PROTECTION OF MIGRATORY BIRDS.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. J. ROCHE (Minister of the Interior) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 92, respecting a certain convention between His Majesty and the United States of America for the protection of migratory birds in Canada and the United States.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mt. ROCHE:: This Bill is the result of a treaty that was entered into between His Majesty and the United States Government a few months ago for the better protection of migratory birds. It was found that migratory birds, both game birds and insectivorous birds, that migrate from the United States to Canada and vice versa, have become very much reduced in numbers owing to the laxness and noti-enforcement of game laws, and because some of the states as well as some of the provinces of Canada had not sufficiently effective game laws. It was therefore decided that the only possible way in which these birds could be properly protected was by a treaty between the two countries. Such a treaty was entered into which has been assented to by the various states that have jurisdiction over the game laws in the United States, and by the various provinces that have jurisdiction over the game laws in Canada. There is to-day a Bill before Congress giving effect to the treaty so far as the United States is concerned, and this Bill takes similar action with regard to Canada.


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


Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	How msiny motor cars are used by the Militia Department at Halifax?
2.	For what purpose are the said cars used?


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: 1.	Four.
2.	These cars are used by the General Officer Commanding the District and the staff in connection with military duties.


ST. CHARLES RIVER DAM.
Mr. LACHANCE:: 1.	Since when was the work on the dam in the St. Charles river, Quebec, stopped, and upon whose order or request?
2.	For what reason was it so stopped?
3.	When will the work he again started?
Mr.. REID:
1. Work on the St. Charles river works at Quebec has not been stopped.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN.

Mr. TOBIN:: What are the names, rank, pay, and nature and place of employment of all officers attached to headquarters at Halifax and the various departments of the military service or connected in apy way with Military Division No. 6?



COST OF LIVING IN THE YUKON.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. OLIVER:: If I may be permitted, I would like to give the signature to the telegram which I read yesterday from the Yukon, because I find it does not appear in Hansard. The signature was that of Mrs. Geraldine Sharpe, of the Women's Protective League. I also received, under date of June 20, a confirmatory telegram from Mrs. Marie Fotheringham, of the Women's Progressive League.



LABOUR STRIKE IN WESTERN COAL MINES.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Frank Oliver: Would the Minister of Labour give the House such information as he can in regard to the present situation of the difficulties respecting the coal miners of Alberta?
Mr. -CROTHERS: I do not think I can add anything to the statement I made yesterday,. which was to the effect that the

Government were taking action with the view tp having the mines opened. We expect this will be done in a day or two.


Mr. W. A. BUCHANAN (Medicine Hat):: I have a couple of telegrams to-day from the unions in Alberta stating that the men had agreed to return to work on the terms agreed to by the Policy Committee and Mr. R. P. Green, M.P., and, that their .only objection was to the penalty clause, which the operators insisted upon. Is that the case or not?


Mr. CROTHERS:: I think the information that my hon. friend has received is correct. The representatives of the miners and operators agreed on everything except the penalty clause.


Frank Oliver: Might I further suggest to the Minister of Labour that he take the earliest possible opportunity of placing before the House and the country the conclusions of the Government in regard to the production of coal in the West. The importance of this matter cannot be exaggerated, and I think it would be very, very much in order if the minister would inform the House and the country as tp the situation at the earliest possible moment.


Mr. KNOWLES:: Did the minister state that the Government would be operating the mines in a day pr two, ot simply that they would have an announcement to make then?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: We expect the mines
to be in operation within the next two or three days.



MILITARY SERVICE ACT, 1917.


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden (Prime Minister) for the second reading of Bill No. 75, Military Service Act, 1917, and the amendment of Sir Wilfrid Laurier thereto, and on the amendment to the amendment by Mr. Barrette, resumed from Wednesday, June 20.
Mr. F. F. PARDEE (West Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, to my mind there is one thought, and pne thought only, in the minds of the people of the Dominion of Canada to-day. That one thought possesses our people in their waking, and I had almost said in their sleeping hours; that thought is of the crisis the Empire is struggling through, and of the means by which we may use all our resources to bring the war to a successful conclusion for

the Allied powers. I am speaking here today, Sir, as a Canadian, to Canadians and not as party man to party man, for this is not an hour for partisan speeches.
Democracy has made great strides. Prior to August, 1914, I take it, there was not a man in this House-there was scarcely a man in this Dominion-who would have believed, that in this twentieth century, any nation or any people would attempt to strike a blow at the very foundation of democracy, with all the ambitions it inspires in the human heart and with all the benefits it has conferred on the wprld-and to substitute for it an autocracy, which through the ages has crushed the human race. Such was the wanton design of Germany. Tyrannical to the last degree, cursed with militarism in all its phases, the right of free speech denied, and the peopled own parliament practically elected for them, Germany stands opposed to democracy, and for the maintenance of a nation of men in bondage instead of a free people. It is of Germany that Mr. Balfour has said there could be no greater danger to the world than the menace of a nation which believed itself to be superior to all law, human and divine. By the power of might over right Germany seeks to compel other nations to act according to her tenets. Does Canada want that? If that be a true picture of Germany, and I do not think I have overstated the case, is Canada not prepared to say that with all her resources in men and money and in the pride of her young democratic nationhood she shall stand to protect her free institutions against this Prussian slavery, and to help her sister enlightened nations to repel the onslaughts of Prussian barbarism on civilization? These are the thoughts that appeal to me; these are the thoughts that must come home to every one who ponders on the present day situation in world affairs. I say, Sir, that Canada cannot afford to allow the tenets of Germany to prevail through our lack of effort.
Do the people of Canada realize that today they are enjoying the greatest freedom to be found amongst nations? Do they realize that, if Germany conquers, they will become bondsmen instead of freemen? That they do realize it to the full, I have reaeon to doubt, judging by what has taken place during the last year or year and a half. We entered the war with the greatest enthusiasm; we cheered our men off to the front; we threw our hats in the air; -we pledged ourselves that we would stand for what we thought was right. The war has gone on. The war has lasted longer than most Canadians ever thought it would.

We are now getting on to the end of the third year, and does the thought ever strike us that very possibly the Canadian people are commencing to take this war as a matter of course? Do Canadians, men and women alike, not need an awakening? Heaven knows that our women have done wonderfully as have most of the men, but the fact remains, in my humble judgment, we have got to rise to the stem needs and duties that lie before us. The people of Canada living at home in peace, comfort and happiness, if they desire to hold up their heads amongst the peoples of the world, must show that they have real Cana-dianism enough to make the necessity sacrifice to support the men who to-day are protecting us in the enjoyment of all that life holds dear. We have got to have enough red blood in us to say that if the gallant men fighting in the trenches are willing to make the greatest sacrifice, we shall make some commensurate sacrifice on our part. Does the rich man realize, as he roils down the street in his motor, with his wife and his daughter, that did he live in Germany and walk along the street of a German city, unless his wife or daughter made way for a German officer, she would be spat upon or slapped on the face with a sword? Does he realize in his wealth how small the sacrifice that he and others of his class have made? Does he realize that in neglecting to make that sacrifice, he becomes a unit in the force that is helping Germany?
This ie not the day for soft words and soft actions. The time has long since gone by for that. Now the Canadian people, men and women, need an awakening which can only come through strong individual and concentrated leadership. Failing that, everything is at a standstill; failing that, our last condition may be worse than our first.
We must not think too much of party; we must remember that whatever party be in power, our country remains and her problems remain with her. The fate of parties, to my mind, matters not so long as we do our part for the cause of liberty and right and the preservation of our democratic institutions. Four hundred thousand of our people have gone; they went voluntarily, they went as young, red-blooded Canadians should have gone. Does anybody think for a moment that they went because they loved war and all that it means? No. They went from the highest motives of national and Imperial feeling; they went as young patriots; they went to uphold the liberty that our fathers and forefathers have secured and handed down to us. They are gone-they are yonder- fighting, bleeding, dying, sacrificing themselves in this greatest war for principle, honour, and liberty. Is it not apparent that the duty of the Canadian people, and of this Parliament, to see to it that the men who have gone shall have the backing'of the men who stay at home?
These are the reasons, imperfectly though I may have expressed them, that appeal to me in considering this question. There are thousands of young men scattered all over this country to-day who are not necessary for the purpose of carrying on the business of the state, and if they will not fight they are not fit to be free; and the man who is not fit to be free ought be made to fight. Every citizen has the protection of the state, and when the existence of his protector is imperilled it is his duty to give that protector his support, to the offering up of his life if necessary.
Let me say, in passing, that I am speaking to-day only of the province I know. It would be presumption on my part to speak for any other. But this I do know, that in Ontario, in the towns and villages of this province, th.ere are thousands of young men whose place should be at the front, and I have absolutely no objection to saying to them here, that when the time comes, so far as I am concerned and great although I know the responsibility is, through this vote of mine, to the front they must go.
I come to the amendment that has been moved by my leader (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), and I may say to you, Sir, that I find myself politically in the most painful position of my life. I have been a follower of Sir Wilfrid Laurier since I knew enough to be a Liberal. I have admired him; I recognize the fact that to-day, among the statesmen of Greater Britain, he stands preeminent. I recognize the fact that he guided the destinies of this country for many years, and that no man could possibly have better filled that high office. I recognize further, and I say it with no disparagement whatever, that although to-day he ' is but the leader of the Opposition, he is a predominating figure in the British Empire. You can well understand, therefore, that, in differing from a man of whom I hold that opinion, I feel that my action may be presumptuous. I do it only for the reason that my sincere conviction is that my course is right-I could not do it otherwise. To my other friends in this House, my French-Canadian friends, let me say this, that although I differ from
*2528

them on the matter of a referendum, I fully recognize that they have for years fought a fight that has been as full of patriotism and as full of Canadianisin as has been fought by any group of men in this House. All I can say to them is that, although I disagree from them, I believe their convictions to be as honest and as earnest as my own, and honest and earnest convictions are always worthy of respect.
Of the referendum let me say just a word. It may seem a paradox for me to say what I have to say, yet the -world is to-day full of paradoxes. There is not much logic today. What is stood by to-day is knocked down to-morrow in the way of opinions. The true reason why I am not in favour of a referendum is that I believe that, in the present moment of unrest, it is not desirable. The Government made a*promise that conscription would never come. It has thrown suddenly into the political and national ring the widest and biggest question that' the people of Canada, or their representatives, have ever had to consider, without any preparatory education to bring the people's mind to a state of calm and sober judgment. Under these conditions I believe that the referendum would be defeated, and I fear, with that defeat, the door would be shut absolutely in the face of recruiting and in the face of all other kinds of conscription which ought to be made. You may tell me that the opinion of the people should rule; you may tell me I am going against the will of the people, I say in answer that along these lines and others, the people of the Dominion of Canada are today asking to be led, and not to do the leading. So it is that I must vote against the amendment proposed by my revered leader.
Sir, this is not a time for party recrimination. I have desired and endeavoured to keep absolutely away from the flavour of it. Yet it must be recognized that mistakes have been made. Let us be quite fair, let us be quite frank with 'ourselves. Mistakes have been made; there has been lack of recruiting leadership, there has been lack of organization; there has been lethargy: there have been blunders in administration, and I am sorry to say there has been the strongest sort of partisanship in this crisis. It appears to me that there has been an absolute failure to rise to the possibilities and the necessities of national and patriotic service. We have not done it, we have not got out of the rut. We have not literally raised ourselves by our own boot straps as we ought to have done.
JMr. Pardee.]
What has been done cannot be undone; but the mistakes, the blunders, the lethargy, the failure to give leadership, which, more than anything else, have contributed to the situation which confronts us now, must be atoned for by the most vigorous, honest and consecrated effort on the part of Government and Parliament from this time on. The Canadian people must be assured that henceforth the members of the Government and of Parliament, the men who have assumed the tremendous responsibility of calling citizens to the colours by compulsion, will themselves consecrate all their energies, all their abilities, all their endeavours, to the cause for which they demand that their fellow-citizens shall fight.
I would say to the Government, earnestly and sincerely, that when to-day we are here voting for the conscription of men, we should also conscript other resources of the people of Canada. This Government and this Parliament will be accused, and rightly accused, if we bring not forth further conscription of wealth and of. resources. It must not be said that we, sitting here calmly in our places in this chamber, are willing and content, by a mere yea or nay. to spill the blood of the youth of Canada, but that we are afraid to spill the rich man's money. I may be told that there has been part conscription of wealth to-day, by reason of the business tax, but I do not think the pocket of the rich man in this country has yet been touched.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Go where you will, north, south, east and west, and you find every evidence of a surplus of wealth. The Government is absolutely bound, in duty and in fairness to the men who to-day in the trenches of France are protecting that wealth, to make those rich men give out of their abundance for the sustenance of the soldier. Whether the Conscription Bill will pass or not. I cannot tell. I have concluded to ask this Government a thing that is dear to me, something I cannot disabuse my mind of, even though I vote for the principle of the Bill.
The Prime Minister has asked members of this side of the House for suggestions. May I meet that request by earnestly urging the national advisability of preceding the operation of the Bill by a last big and sincere appeal to the patriotism of young Canadian manhood to voluntarily come forward to back their brothers at the front. Under direct and real Government leadership in this respect-and with the conscien-

ti-ous co-operation of Canadians of all parties, all classes, all provinces- I believe that Canadian patriotism would yet make the actual operation of the compulsory service measure unnecessary. Such an appeal, backed by an earnest educational campaign, and conducted in the true spirit, would, I verily believe, result in the coming forward of the 100,000 men required, and more. If this can thus be done-and I believe it yet can-is it not worth while to save -a situation fraught with serious possibilities of schism and strife, a situation which may all too easily produce a moral effect neither creditable to Canada nor helpful to the cause we aim to serve. I sincerely trust that the Prime Minister will give earnest consideration to this suggestion.
I have to disagree with many of my party, and with my honored and revered chief, but let me assure the House that I have thought long and earnestly over these matters-so long and so earnestly-that my conclusions are no longer opinions; they have become sincere convictions.


Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Solicitor General):: No one could be present during this debate, or, if not present, could look out with intelligent mind on the manifestations of sentiment everywhere appearing without being convinced that this discussion is of greater consequence than any that has ever before taken place in this Parliament. I say that, not because the issue is in doubt. Substantial unanimity, though not entire unanimity, on this side of the House would perhaps carry the Bill. But the courage of certain hon. gentlemen on the other side of the Chamber courage in an hour of trial-has placed the issue beyond all doubt at all. However, it is not the mere passage of the measure that is of final consequence. It is the enforcement of the Bill that we must keep in mind. It is not so much the enactment of law as obedience to law that counts. That is why this Bill should be thoroughly considered, and why' the debate should be conducted in such a spirit, and with such a purpose, as will afford an example to the people' of Canada. The right and honourable thing must be done. The right and honourable thing will be done. The right and honourable thing is embodied in this Bill. But the important duty of members of Parliament is to see to it that we make plain to every reasonable man to the four corners of this Dominion, that we pass this Bill, and enforce it, only because it is the right thing to do-that we do so, far from any spirit of vindictiveness, or for any
unworthy or insufficient reason, but because, in this crisis of the nation, it is the only right thing to do. It will become us, also, to demonstrate in this House to be in this House a reflection of the overwhelming sentiment of this country, that the war in which we are engaged must be pressed on to victory by the only means in which it can be pressed.
I regard the forwarding of troops to the front as a necessity, as an all-essential, as something we cannot shirk. Does anybody dispute that? Whatever means are necessary to procure these men, they must be sent, and whatever action is necessary on our part to support our army at present in France, we must adopt. No one has seriously argued in this House-and I give every hon. gentleman the credit of saying no one seriously believes-that we can dispatch 350,000 men overseas, commissioned by us to stand between our country and destruction, and leave them to ^ De decimated and destroyed. The obligation of honour is upon us, it is the plainest obligation that ever was placed on a nation. The obligation of honour is fortified by the primary obligation of all people to protect the security of the state. There is no other way in which either the honour or the security of the state can be preserved.
In the next place, we are able to send these men; we have the men to send. Does anybody dispute that? It is argued feebly by some that we require all our men for our industrial, commercial and agricultural pursuits. True, we can use them all here; there are opportunities in Canada to occupy them all. But surely a reasonable mind must agree that we need them far more sorely in France. It is true that we cannot send them without some inconvenience. The soldiers who represent France on that 350-mile Ibattle line in Europe are not there without inconvenience to the people at home; neither are the soldiers who represent Great Britain. When the men are sent away, necessarily, more women will be employed in our factories, more old men will be employed on pur street cars, more boys will be employed on farms during the summer instead of passing their.time at lake resorts. There might even be a very small diminution of production in Canada. But all this we can afford infinitely better than we can afford to allow our lines in France to be decimated, weakened or destroyed. We can afford the men; we must send them; what other way is there of sending them?
Some have suggested that if we withdrew this Bill we could sustain- our forces

at the frpnt by a continuation of the voluntary system. The hon. gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Pardee) and who has delivered an address which will long live in the records of this Parliament, has suggested that, at all events under the shadow of this Bill, more men may be secured. I do not doubt that that is true; possibly under the shadow of this Bill more men will enlist, under a sort of voluntary system. But that emphasizes, does not destroy, the necessity for the Bill. Who can contend, with justification, that the voluntary system has not been adequately tried in Canada, both as to vigour of effort and as to length of time? The member for St. John (Mr. Ptugsley), if I understood correctly an interruption that he made yesterday, feels that the voluntary system is now doing enough. Well, for twelve months it has produced an average of 6,000, or 7,000 men a month, while the wastage in Canada and in England amounts to a very substantial portion of that figure. In the two months through which we have just passed, the voluntary system yielded us not one man for four of those who were casualties among our armies in France. Add the casualties in France and the wastage in England to the wastage in Canada, and it is as plain as any rule of arithmetic that further reliance on the voluntary system will in time-perhaps in a very short time -so reduce our forces that we shall have no substantial representation in the war.
It has been suggested that everything has not been done that might have been done. Perhaps that is so, all I know is that we have done everything that we were able to devise, that the resources of the Administration were able to evolve, to make the voluntary system successful. Has there been during the whole course of this debate a suggestion of any practical step that might, have been taken and which was not taken to make the voluntary system successful? I have not heard one. Was there not
4 p.m. a sufficient number of recruiting officers? Were the recruiting officers not the proper men? In some cases, perhaps, they were not; no Government that ever existed could select in every particular case the proper man. There may have been an English recruiting officer in Montreal, but there were French recruiting ofldcers as well in Montreal. One would think, listening to the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) that the only man commissioned to recruit in Montreal was the Methodist minister of whom he
[Mr. Meifihen.l
complained. I obtained to-day from the Militia Department a list of recruiting officers in the province of Quebec and in the city of Montreal. When I got that list I thought they bad sent me a list of French-Canadian recruits; the number was almost legion. I will not weary the House by reading the list; it is sufficient to say that there was no discrimination whatsoever. I am sure that hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House know that to be the fact.
Was there not sufficient earnestness in the carrying on of the voluntary system? I do n.ot think that the earnestness displayed by the adherents of this party excelled in any degree the earnestness of many adherents of the party represented by hon. gentlemen opposite. And I believe each was as generously manifested in every part of Canada as it was in Manitoba or Ontario.
I know of no resource that was not .adopted; the system became at last one which was a system of voluntary enlistment only in a very modified and attenuated sense. It became a system rather of conscription by cajolery-and not altogether too creditable to Canada. Consequently, speaking from -the viewpoint, not only of the Government, but of the Dominion, there is no other way of getting men than by adopting this measure. The men must be ha^l; we have them to send, and there is no other way of procuring them and sending them. The business of the country, therefore, is, by this system, to get the men and to send them overseas.
, In objection to this course it is urged that, however essential it may be or whatever may be our physical power to accomplish it, we are restrained by constitutional limitations from performing this duty. I will not burden the discussion with a long, wire-drawn argument as to our powers. Every one who wants to face this issue rather than evade it will admit that if we have not the constitutional power, we had better get it; and there is nowhere to get it except in this House. Who, except ourselves, can legislate constitutional validity into what we desire to do? The Parliament of Great Britain is as powerless to do so as is the Parliament of France. The Parliament of Canada has full constitutional power. If the law is not right, surely it is our duty to put the law right with the least possible delay. But the law in principle is right. The law, as it stands at present is quite sufficient to enable us to act, except from this point of view: the Militia Act enables us to get men compulsorily by a system of hit and miss, of selection by lot. It does

not provide the machinery for the allocation or selection of men after they are got together by lot. It simply reaches the point of the enlistment, or, rather, the point of the reporting of the men; after that it is chaos. But the essential feature of compulsion, liability to service, is embedded in the Militia Act, even in more naked and pronounced form than it is in The Military Service Act.	'
Strenuous effort is being exerted to show that the intention of the Militia Act was to limit compulsion to defence within this country, or, at all events, within this continent. I -listened with great interest to the argument of the member for Kamouraska (Mr. E. Lapointe) and I address these words in particular to my French Canadian friends. The Militia Act provides that all males between 18 and 60 shall be liable to service, and that liability may be exercised for the purpose of securing the defence of Canada within or beyond Canada.
I have not given the precise words, but that is a clear interpretation of them. The militia, after it has been compulsorily recruited, may be sent anywhere "within or beyond Canada for the defence thereof." Those are the exact words. Consequently, it is essential that at the point to which and in the purpose for which the militia is sent, the defence of Canada must be involved. The hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. E. Lapointe), who is an able gentleman, presents a concise, succinct argument, at all events, the best, I think, that could be presented from his point of view. But let us analyse it. He argues that because Sir Frederick Borden, in 1904, at one point of the debate-and remember that Sir Frederick Borden said something of an opposite nature at another point-stated that where the defence of the Empire wae involved, soldiers compulsorily recruited could not be sent overseas on behalf of Canada, and he mentioned at that time the South African war. I do not know that very serious argument could be urged against Sir Frederick Borden's contention as so applied. It could be argued with great force that the security and defence even of Great Britain were not involved in the South African war. I do not know that the contrary could be argued. Certainly the defence of Canada was not involved directly in the South African war, if indeed it was involved indirectly. 'Sir Frederick Borden was not so far out in his answer to the question of Mr. Maclean in that regard.
But the hon. member goes on to make this most astonishing statement:
Until a few days ago, I do not think that anybody who has studied the constitutional history of Canada ever expressed the opinion that her militia could be sent overseas by virtue of that Act.
The speech of the hon. member is made for the purpose of distribution throughout the province of Quebec, and for the purpose of urging his compatriots in that province against the adoption of the Military Service Act. Is the statement I have quotsd a fair one? I would feel justified in going further. Is that a true statement to send out to the people of Quebec-that until a few days ago no one who had ever studied the constitutional history of Canada ever expressed the opinion that the militia could be sent overseas by virtue of that Act? T.Jie hon. member repeats that statement in two other places. Now I affirm' this, and I challenge contradiction right now or later. No hon. member can point me to a statement made by any constituted legal authority in Canada, at any time since the first Militia Act was passed in 1868 up to the present hour, who ever said anything else than that under the Militia Act our troops can be sent overseas. I go further. I am convinced it is safe to assert that until the outbreak of this war no lawyer in this country, whether a responsible official or not except a political agitator, ever ventured the opinion that we could not under the Militia Act send our troops overseas.
Will hon. gentlemen believe this? Even the arch-agitator on this issue himself (Mr. Bourassa) when the present Militia Act was passed, used language which clearly showed and admitted that soldiers enlisted under that Act could be sent overseas. Why does the hon. member for Kamouraska make the statements that he does? I repeat once more, and I challenge contradiction here and now, that from the date this law was enacted, until this hour, no constituted legal authority either provincial or Dominion, in this country, ever questioned our power under the Militia Act to send our troops overseas. Does the hon. member quote any one in opposition to that statement? Does he quote any legal [DOT] authority at all? He quotes a physician on the one hand and an editor on the other. Then he makes bold to say that no one who has studied constitutional history has ever doubted that we could not under the Militia Act send our troops overseas. Is the speech of the hon. member for Kamouraska a right or proper speech in this

our country to send to the people of Quebec or of any province? He quotes Sir Frederick Borden as a constitutional authority, but Sir Frederick Borden expressed opinions consistent with both positions. Sir Frederick Borden, however, was a physician. The hon. member quoted the hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes), but the hon. member for Victoria on a further study of the Act has stated in the plainest language that under the Militia Act our troops can certainly be sent overseas. Why does the ' hon. member for Kamouraska make such statements in the presence of the language of the Minister of Justice in the late Government-and the hon. member in his speech referred to the language of that gentleman-who, in words the plainest that man could possibly utter .told the House when the Act was adopted that under that Act the troops of this country compulsorily enlisted could be sent overseas, even to India, if in the judgment of the Governor General in Council the defence of Canada was being fought overseas. Sir Charles Fitzpatrick stated at that time that the discretion belonged solely to the Governor General in Council until Parliament later on passed upon his decision. Yet, in the face of that assertion by the constituted legal authority of Canada when the Act was passed in 1904 and almost in the hearing of that distinguished man, the hon. member stated to this House that no one ever asserted such a thing until a few days ago.


Mr. CARROLL:: Does the Solicitor General make a distinction between the power of the Government to send conscripted troops overseas and the power of the Government to send voluntarily enlisted troops overseas?


Arthur Meighen: I make no distinction
whatever. The Act makes no distinction; it says that you may enlist troops voluntarily or by conscription, and that after you have enlisted Them, you can send them beyond Canada for the defence of Canada. Sir Charles Fitzpatrick said, as any one would have said, that it was a matter for the Government, in the exercise of its discretion, to decide, whether it believed that the war being fought overseas was a war involving the defence of Canada. Consequently, so far as compulsory law goes now, the power exists. It has indeed already passed through eleven general elections in this country and has been approved by the people of Canada.

We are told however, that, although we have power as a Government and certainly power as a Parliament to declare that our troops in this war shall go overseas 'beyond Canada for the defence of Canada, we should not exercise that power. Why? The leader of the Opposition tells us that he is not afraid of an invasion of Canada. The hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) is also brave; he is not afraid of an invasion of Canada either. These hon. gentlemen in their predictions-because at best they are. only prophecies-are either right or wrong. If they are wrong, and if there is danger of an invasion of Canada, then we had better get ready as .soon as we can and fortify ourselves at the vital point in Europe, against that invasion. They will admit that themselves. If on the contrary they are justified in expecting that there will not be an invasion of this country-that we as Canada are not in danger-I ask why are we not in danger? Why are they so brave? Why do they rest so comfortably? It is because the defence of Canada is being fought over there in France, If the defence of Canada is not made secure by success in France, then Canada is in danger of invasion. And if our defence is bound up with our success in France then it is our bounden duty under the Militia Act to send our troops there for our defence. Let us come to grips on this question. If there is any weakness in that argument I would like to know what it is. One or the other is true: Either we are in danger of invasion right now or later on, as the result of this war, or we are not in danger. If the first is true, then we should certainly send our troops to repel the invader, imminent or apprehended. If the second is true, then our defence is being fought out over there, and it is only by our success over there that we can possibly avoid invasion. It is because the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) believes that the troops of this Empire and of France and Italy will succeed on the western front and the troops of Russia succeed on the eastern front that he sits comfortably in his seat and feels that this country is not in danger of invasion. That means they are fighting out there the defence of Canada. If that is the case, how can he decline the duty that he must surely feel upon his heart of sending the troops of Canada to sustain the defence of Canada, overseas?
The hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Lapointe) reads some ancient legislation of 1808 and 1839 to show that under that

legislation we might possibly send troops to a country conterminous with this country. But the phrases of those old acts are left out of the legislation of 1868 and they are left out of the legislation of 1904, showing that times had changed since 1808 and 1839, and that Parliament realized in 1868 that the defence of Canada might be fought out elsewhere than on this continent, and that they should take power to defend this country overseas. I put this to hon. gentlemen opposite: Is it not possible, is it not reasonable, that our ancestors in 1839 might have felt themselves in a very different position from what we feel ourselves in today? Those were the days of bows and arrows, of little ships and little armies. Is it not possible that the men of that day might have felt that only in this continent could we be assailed as Canada, while we to-day might .see clearly that only overseas can we be effectually protected now?
I pass from that and proceed to take up certain of the contentions that have been advanced in support of the amendment moved by the leader of the Opposition. It had been a matter of great interest, and indeed of curiosity, to observe the wonderful collection of opinions that are massed behind this referendum amendment. The referendum amendment is really not an amendment at all. At all events it is not a policy: it is the negation of a policy. Why is it adopted? Merely as an expedient to avoid facing the issue, and to collect behind the Opposition leader all the support he can get. What are the opinions behind the amendment? It is seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), who complains that we have already waited too long on this matter: that we should have taken this course and had a referendum started a year ago. It is moved by the leader of the Opposition, who complains that we have dashed the Bill upon them too suddenly and too soon. What is the ground of the leader of the Opposition? He argues that the Bill, is going to bring about disunion in this country, and will be met with opposition, if not with resistance, on the part of French Canada. His amendment is seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton who wants a bill that will take all of these 100,000 men out of French Canada alone.


Frank Oliver: 1 would like my hon. friend to keep closer to the facts than that. Hansard is my record.


Arthur Meighen: 1 would not have said so if it had not been on Hansard. The hon.
gentleman's words are capable of that interpretation, and ot no other interpretation. I know he did not use those words with the intention that that interpretation should be applied.


Frank Oliver: Thank you.


Arthur Meighen: He took the ground that this Bill would take men out of Alberta or of Edmonton constituency, from which enough men had already gone, his idea being to make the Bill unpopular in the constituency of Edmonton. What is the inevitable conclusion from his words? This is what he said, as reported in Unrevised Hansard, page 2520:
We have been led to believe that a conscription measure would be fair to the country, and as we have done our duty, in a measure, so it would compel the people in other parts of the country to do their duty. Now, that is the kind of conscription measure X want to see, but that is not the kind of conscription measure my hon. friend has brought down.


Frank Oliver: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: He wants to compel those who have not done their duty to do it.


Frank Oliver: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: What does he say on the previous page?
Given a proper measure of universal military service, and there is equality in the distribution of the burden, an equality that does not exist in the case of voluntary service.
.	.	.	. If there is not equality of service
under the compulsory principle, then, instead of it being a democratic method of meeting a great emergency, it becomes an instrument of tyranny and unfairness in every particular.
Those -are his words: I want a conscription measure that provides for equality of service. And how? By taking those who have not enlisted voluntarily until you bring about an equality.


Frank Oliver: Hear, hear,


Arthur Meighen: How are you going to get an equality in this country unless in addition to the 8,000 of French-Canadian extraction already enlisted in the province of Quebec we take 100,000 more?


Frank Oliver: If it requires 100,000 men from the province of Quebec for the province of Quebec to do its share, then certainly take the 100,000, but my hon. friend does not suggest that it does require that.


Arthur Meighen: Would 108,000 from
French Canada be any more proportionately than equal to the present contribution from Alberta, man for man, and how can you

get an equality unless the contributions are proportionately equal?


Frank Oliver: I could not say without a pencil and paper. When my hon. friend attempts to make it appear to this House that I said anything that could be construed as stating that all the further military requirements of Canada should be supplied (from the province of Quebec he is using language which has absolutely no foundation, and which is absurd on the face of it.


Arthur Meighen: I will leave the House and the country to figure out for itself how an equality is going to be reached unless the contributions are proportionately equal.


Frank Oliver: Equality is what we want.


Arthur Meighen: That is the inevitable conclusion from his words, and I do not intend that he shall escape that conclusion. He used the words only for the purpose of currying favour in his own province.


Frank Oliver: Will the hon. member be good enough not to impute motives to other hon. members of this House?


Arthur Meighen: I will not impute dishonourable motives but I have a right to impute honourable motives. There is nothing dishonourable about that.


Frank Oliver: I rise to a point of order. My point of order is that the Solicitor General, or any other hon. member of this House, must take the statements of other hon. members as they are uttered and he has no right to impute any motives.


Arthur Meighen: I took the statement as it was uttered. I do not want to change the statement but surely I have a right to argue from that statement what I believe to be its inevitable conclusion.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: The Solicitor General entirely ignores what my hon. friend from Edmonton says he said and alleges that my hon. friend from Edmonton made a statement in order to curry favour with the district of Edmonton. I understand that is what my hon. friend complains of?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


William Pugsley: Is that in order, Mr. Speaker?


The DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I do not think that the hon. the Solicitor General has imputed motives or has said anything to which the attention of the Speaker should be called.


Arthur Meighen: Now, that is the character and the variety of the opinion that is behind this amendment. These are the conflicting views that are expressed for the purpose of urging the adoption of this amendment. What is the meaning of it? Here is an amendment moved by the leader of the Opposition who moved it because he himself is against conscription. It is seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton who seconds it because he is in favour of conscription. And its first sponsor is the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) who does not know whether he is in favour of conscription or against it. It will be clear to every one that the purpose of this amendment is to evade rather than to face a very great issue at this time. It is to avoid rather than to enforce the performance of a duty. It is a refuge of discord,- a haven of the disunited. It is not a declaration of faith, it is a declaration of scepticism.
We cannot win this war by referendums. Do the soldiers in France want a referendum?


William Pugsley: That is the object of the amendment.


Arthur Meighen: But the hon. member knows very well that the soldiers in France cannot vote on a referendum and where did he or any one else ever express the purpose of asking the soldiers if they wanted a referendum? Will he be willing to leave that question to the soldiers in France? to say whether they want a referendum or not? Would anybody suppose, that those who have taken upon themselves this burden those who are war-weary and worn, whose strength is wasted, whose nerves and vitality are a thousand times exhausted, will say to the people of Canada: Do not send us help unless you ask the slackers at home whether they want to be forced to come? Does anybody suggest such a preposterous thing? A referendum is moved for these conflicting reasons by hon. gentlemen opposite, and it is supported by still more conflicting influences all over this country and all ever the world. Do hon. gentlemen realize where they are when they support this proposal? Do they realize the company they are in? I make an appeal to hon. gentlemen opposite who, at other times, and under brighter skies, might have felt that there was a sound principle behind the referendum, to argue out for themselves whether that principle has any application at a time like this. Is the referendum peculiarly suited

suited to a / that he ie' right that we have exhausted all our efforts in that direction. The results of the past twelve months have shown that
for war? Is the referendum time when the best of our electorate, thirty-three per cent of the whole, are overseas and when only a mere fraction of their number, might possibly be counted in the vote? Could you apply the principles that might ordinarily be argued with reference to the referendum system to the conditions at this hour? None of those principles apply at all.
The first function of the Government and the first duty of the nation is to secure the safety of the state. The Government or Parliament that fails in that duty commits the cardinal, the unpardonable sin. Surely we have the courage to give a lead to the people of this country. Surely we have the courage to take the step which the hon. member, for Edmonton himself admits is the only effective step that can be taken. No man wants to see assistance given to our soldiers in France more than he does. Nq man has more reason to want to than he has. Why then delay or imperil for an hour the passage of a Bill which is the only means by which assistance can be given? He admits that we cannot get men under the voluntary system. It has been at a standstill for twelve months, he says.


Frank Oliver: If the hon. gentleman
is alluding to me, would he be good enough to keep within the range of what I hare said? I have not said that it would not be possible to get enough men by the voluntary system.


Arthur Meighen: If the hon. gentleman
supports conscription, is not that the best reason-


Frank Oliver: Not at all. I believe that the conscription system is the proper system of recruiting, whether we can get men by the voluntary system or not, if it is administered fairly.	-


Arthur Meighen: Then we should have
had conscription at first?


Frank Oliver: I have always said that
I believed the conscription system; was the fairer system, but I recognized the difficulties of putting it into force and I did not press- it upon the Government, recognizing those difficulties.


Arthur Meighen: What I said was that
' the hon. gentleman stated that we could not get them by the voluntary system, and if he referred to the way in which the Gor-ernment exercising its best judgment was endeavouring to get them, perhaps he will admit that I was correct. I at least admit
recruits cannot be got by our methods at all events, which we believed to be the best at our command. Why, then, imperil the success of the only measure that will get them for the sake of any expediency whatsoever? Time will not wait; why then delay the only system that can be adopted by any evasion at all? What has the Toronto Globe said? ' I wish to say in all sincerity that I recognize the contribution that the Liberal press of this country has made towards enabling the Government under this Act to do something real and substantial to carry on the war. The Toronto Globe has said that the voluntary system is as dead as Julius Ceasar. Months ago the Liberal press of this country proclaimed that we could not get these troops under the voluntary system. Personally, I have been of that opinion for many a month gone by. We have waited only until we thought the public of Canada generally had realized that fact with such' overmastering corvic-tion as to mean the general consent of this country to the putting through of this Bill. Why imperil it? Do hon. gentlemen realize that the passing of this referendum amendment will bring joy to the friends of Germany in every part of the world? It will be welcomed at Potsdam. It would be supported, were he here, by the head of the German. nation itself. It will be welcomed oy every German newspaper on this and every other continent. It will 'be welcomed by every slacker all over Canada. That is the company that hon. gentleman are in who support this referendum. The passing of this amendment would be a subject of rejoicing to every pool-room loafer, to every movie veteran, to every sporting fan, to all who have shrunk from duty. But it would be a subject of resentment, regret and pain to the men who have nobly done their part to preserve the liberty, and uphold the honour of Canada.
What does this amendment really mean? What do its consequences entail? A referendum on the principle of the Bill!- what does that mean? Does it mean that " conscription " shall go to the country by way of referendum, that we shall put a question on the voting paper: "Are you in favour of conscription or not?" Why the [DOT]whole country has passed on conscription as a principle at eleven general elections. There has never been a voice raised against the Militia Act as it stood, that I have heard, on this score, through all these

will divide witih you, man for man, political power in this country. Not only that, but, in order that we may do our part in this war in this the only way it can be done, we are ready to discuss with you other matters, ready to meet you and adopt a course that is fair as between the ideals of both parties." The Prime Minister has repeated that assurance in this debate. The spirit that animated those negotiations still exists, and has not been exchanged for another. What more can we do? While we would do almost anything to avoid the disaster of disunion, we cannot purchase union at the price of national disgrace.
My only effort has been to lay before hon. gentlemen in this Chamber a statement of the spirit in which the Government has approached this matter, to lay before them our policy and, if I could to establish that policy as right and just, and to express our overpowering determination to do our duty, as we see it, in this grave and terrible crisis. Speaking on behalf of hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, I pay my tribute to the clear vision and courage of the hon. mepber for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), and the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee). I say to them that they have, in a manner that we will long remember, discharged to their utmost their obligation to prevent discord and strife. The speeches they have made will place their names high in the roll of honour in Canada, to foe seen and remembered for generations to come. I appeal to hon. gentlemen opposite, and to hon. gentlemen around me, for party divisions as we once had them are not just the same to-day-I appeal to all hon. members to take the course which, in my belief, alone can command the respect of this House, of Canada, and of the world.


Hon. CHARLES MURPHY (Russell):: Mr. Speaker, the slogan in the country to-day is, "win the war." That slogan will be the key-note of my criticism of the measure under consideration by the House. It has been made all the easier for me to adopt that slogan as the. key-note of my criticism by reason of the fact that the first citizen from the county which I have the honour to represent in this House who offered up his young life in the great struggle which is convulsing the world was a young French Canadian, a boy named Hector Filion. Other citizens of that county representing divers races and creeds have since followed that French hoy's example, until to-day the casualty honour roll of the county of Russell, like

that of so many other counties in this Dominion, is distressingly large.
At the outset, may I be permitted to say -not in a boastful spirit; not as asserting any claim that may not with equal truth be asserted by every hon. gentleman in this House-that in a desire to help win this war, I yield to no man in Canada. For that reason, Sir, if I object to the Bill brought down by the Government, it is because I am profoundly convinced that in its principle as well as in its application that measure will hinder rather than help in winning the war. My reasons for that conviction, Sir, I will place before you and before my colleagues in this House as briefly as possible.
It will not detract in the slightest degree from the gravity of the matter that we have in hand if I .say that it w.as in accordance with the traditions of the day that the Prime Minister, without consultation and without deliberation, on New Year's Day, 1916, took the resolution, and then publicly announced, that Canada would contribute 500,000 men to the Army of the Allies. Like other resolutions formed by other people on a like occasion, the Prime Minister 'has found it impossible to carry out this. Because of that failure he now asks Parliament to help him out of his difficulty by enacting this Bill.
The Prime Minister's difficulty does not appear now for the first time, nor is the Bill before the House the first attempt to relieve him of it. That difficulty presented itself very shortly after the Prime Minister's promise was made. In an endeavour to extricate himself, the right hon. gentleman last summer created the National Service Board, but it was speedily found that the cure was no better than the disease. Now, rather than admit his double failure, the Prime Minister proposes another remedy no more efficacious than the former one. That, <[DOT] Sir, is the condition with which we have to deal.
For the purpose of the argument that I wish to develop, let me point out that in making a promise not based on data of any kind the Prime Minister might have undertaken to send 606,000 or 700,000 men with just as much reason as he had for promising to send 500,000 men. Had he chanced to promise either of
5 p.m. tho-se larger numbers, could it be contended, as it is contended in the case of the 500,000, that Canada had failed to fulfil her pledge? Canada made no pledge; that the Prime Minister frankly admits. Canada was not consulted; there-

fore Canada must not, least of all by Canadians themselves, be held up to the other nations as a slacker nation. Canada has done voluntarily, without pledge or compulsion of any kind, that which stands to her credit in this wair; and I submit that it is derogating from the high reputation Canada has won in the estimation of the world through voluntary service to attempt now to substitute compulsion of any kind for the free-will offering she has already made and which she is prepared to continue to make if equality of sacrifice be established and if heir people be consulted as to the leadership they desire to enforce that equality.
At this stage of the Bill it is not customary, nor is it my intention, to discuss details which can be fully dealt with in committee. I therefore propose to confine my criticism to certain outstanding objections that cannot be too strongly emphasized.
In the first place, I submit that Parliament has m>
mandate to pass this Bill. Elected in peace times, its constitutional term extended by itself, this Parliament exists only on sufferance and has no authority to impose harsh legislation of this kind without first consulting the electors. It is of equal importance to point out to the House and to the country that the Government has no request, no warrant from the men at the front, to introduce legislation of this character. On this point the words of the Prime Minister may profitably be recalled. He said:
I bring- from that splendid manhood of Canada at the front an earnest and thrilling message that we shall stand beside them in the stress and welter of this struggle and bring them such support that the effort and sacrifice which have been consecrated to this supreme task shall not be in vain.
Stripped of its rhetoric, this pronouncement makes it quite plain that the men at the front made no request for conscription. In fact, it is not pretended that they have made a collective request of any kind. But, Mr. Speaker, whether these men asked or did not ask for support, it is our duty to see that they lack nothing which Canada can send them. That, however, as I propose to show later, does not imply that it is only by conscription that we can perform our whole duty towards those brave men who have first .claim upon the physical, the moral and the material support of their grateful fellow-countrymen.
Whether the reason for introducing this Bill be advanced in precise terms or be left
to the public to infer, the impression made is the same, namely, that it has been brought down because voluntary enlistment has failed. That I deny absolutely. Voluntary enlistment did net fail, for the excellent reason that voluntary enlistment was never given a fair trial. The proof of this we have in the way things were conducted. Who can forget the rip and tear and smash-the special trains-the parades 

the reviews!-the crop of honorary colonels-and the noisy press agencies, of the first two- years of the war? We all remember those things, and we know that while they prevailed voluntary enlistment was not and could not have been properly attended to. But apart from this, we have from the ex-Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes) himself a most important statement with regard to the failure of voluntary enlistment. Speaking at Lindsay on the 28th of April last, the ex-Minister of Militia sail:
More than one year ago an agitation was begun on the question of labour. We were recruiting "too many regiments" ; we were "taking too many men away from work"; "munitions manufacturers and others would be at a standstill"; "farmers could not put in their crops"; and "Canada has already done her full duty," were daily recited. They unfortunately had an effect upon the Prime Minister. The result was that I was asked in March, 1916, not to press recruiting, and recruiting to-day is, and has been dead in Canada for fighting purposes. "Safety First," or the useful and well paid, but not dangerous jobs, are readily filled; but for the gallant hoys in the trenches there is little or no hacking.
That is a most damaging statement made by a former member of the Government, made, he alleges, because of things that happened while he was a member of that Government, and that statement reflects not only upon the Government methods and action, but upon, the Prime Minister himself. Up to the present time, that statement has not been disputed. Such being the case, how can Parliament or the country be expected to accept the statement now advanced, that voluntary enlistment has failed? Equally, may I ask: How can Parliament or the country be asked to accept this Bill as a substitute tor that which was not given a fair trial?
In considering this Bill we have also naturally to consider whether the Government, in the first instance, went ahead on the basis of any survey or calculation of the man-power Canada could supply in a war such as this. Evidently they did not, and it is equally evident that they have not done so even now. We are told that there are five divisions in the Canadian Army,



REVISED EDITION '2540 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
and that this Bill is intended to fill the gaps in those five divisions. It has .been stated-and I have seen no contradiction- that there is on file in the Militia Department in Ottawa a report made toy Imperial officers sent over here for the purpose stating that, having Tegard to Canada's population and to all the data that must be taken into account in estimating the numerical basis of an army for this country, Canada should confine her fighting forces to three divisions, so as to be able to meet all possible demands from wastage in the ranks, when on active service. That report, I understand, was made before the war. The events of the war have proved its correctness. What explanation has the Government to give for ignoring that report; and when they chose to do so, how can they expect us to approve this Bill as a cloak for their inattention to the most elementary detail of military organization?
This brings me to the consideration of another practical matter which I have not heard mentioned in this debate thus far. It is said that the men required are to fill the gaps in the ranks at the front. But how many are required? Who knows? Surely we ought to have answers to these questions before we are asked to proceed. Who can answer them? Frankly, I do not know. It would, however, seem to me that the man most likely to be able to answer would be the Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian forces. If that be correct, then what does he say as to the number of thousands of men required to fill the gaps in the Canadian ranks? Does he say that the number already enlisted are not sufficient to furnish these thousands? If he does not, should not that fact be made clear? Otherwise, how are we ' to know just what we should do? It is true that statistics have been brought down, but they do not reach the crux of the situation. At best, these statistics are only careful estimates; they are not and cannot be complete or conclusive from the standpoint of military requirements. Therefore, I suggest to the Government that every effort he made to get the information I refer to before this Bill is advanced another stage. If, moreover, it be established on reliable military advice, that we have tpo many divisions, does it not seem to be common sense, based on what I understand to be sound military practice, to readjust the organization and tp consolidate the men that are available in the way best adapted to make their number most effective?

The discussion thus far upon the Bill and the amendment introduced by the leader of the Opposition has elicited facts and views that are helpful as disclosing the real position of the Government, and as an aid in determining (the real value of the Bill. By reference to the Orders in Council and the official despatches of the (Government, the leader of the Opposition, in refutation of the Prime Minister's argument that the Bill contains no new principle, was able to show that a new principle is involved, and that at the outbreak of the war the Government was not of opinion that the principle embodied in the Militia Act was the same as the principle set forth in this Bill. My right hon. leader's argument and reasoning were so cogent, and it is so important that the public be seized of his viewpoint, that I ask the indulgence of the House while I restate his views on this subject in his own words: This is what he said:
Now, the Prime Minister says that he is introducing no new principle, that he could have sent abroad the 400,000 men who have been sent, under the authority of the existing Act.. Sir, I take issue with my right hon. friend on that. I say he had not any such power.
Then later on he said:
In support of this contention of mine that this Government could not, under the Militia Act, send the forces that they did, I will contrast with the Government of to-day the Gov ernment of 1914.
The Government then did not pretend that they were using the Militia Act in sending Canadian forces across the sea; they did not send them under that Act at all. Here is a despatch of His Royal Highness the Governor General, sent hy the Prime Minister which is an absolute refutation of the doctrine which has just been asserted hy him. This was sent by the Governor General to the Secretary of State for the colonies, and dated August 1, 1914 :
Ottawa, August 1, 1914.
"In view of the impending danger of war involving the Empire my Advisers are anxiously considering the most effective means of rendering every possible aid and they welcome any suggestions and advice which Imperial naval and military authorities may deem it expedient to offer. They are confident that a considerable force would be available for service abroad. A question has been mooted respecting the status of any Canadian force serving abroad as under section 69 of Canadian Militia Act the active militia can only be placed on actual service beyond Canada for the defence thereof."
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier: If it was "for the defence thereof" what was the necessity of stating that there was doubt as to the status of these troops?
"It has been suggested that regiments might enlist as Imperial troops for stated periods, Canadian Government undertaking to make all necessary financial provision for their equipment, pay and maintenance."

Thus, at the very beginning of the war, it was recognized that the words "for the defence thereof" could not apply to this case ; that the troops could not be sent under the Militia Act, and that they should be sent as Imperial troops and as serving voluntarily in the war. That is conclusive.
Sir Sam Hughes: What is the date of that despatch?
Sir Wilfrid Laurier: First of August, 1914. Then there is an Order in Council, passed on August 6, as follows:
"The Committee of the Privy Council have had before them a report, dated 6th August, 1914, from the Minister of Militia and Defence, representing: in view of the state of war now existing between the United Kingdom, and the Dominions, Colonies, and Dependencies of the British Empire on the one side, and Germany on the other side, creating a menace to the wellbeing and integrity of the Empire, and having regard to the duty of the Dominion of Canada as one of those Dominions to provide for its own defence and to assist in maintaining the integrity and honour of the Empire, that it is desirable to mobilize Militia units of the various arms of the service of such effective strength as may from time to time be determined by Your Royal Highness in Council, such units to be composed of officers and men who are willing to volunteer for Overseas service under the British Crown."
And so this was for voluntary service alone. Nor is that all. There was this despatch sent by the Governor General on 5th of August:	.
"My Government being desirous of putting beyond doubt status of Canadian volunteers requests that His Majesty may be pleased to issue an order bringing these volunteers under sections 175 and 176 of the Army Act."
Thus, being in doubt of the power of the Government to send troops under the Militia Act, they ashed that the Government of Great Britain should issue an order to enlist them for the British Army. And so we have reason to believe that the Militia Act, as we have understood it, never applied to this case.
It is quite true that other hon. gentlemen have joined issue with my right hon. friend on this point. The subject was debated at some length by my hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) the other day, and by my hon. friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen) this afternoon. But with all respect for these hon. gentlemen, and for any others who may share their view, I prefer the view of my right hon. leader. I rely upon his forty years' experience in this Parliament, and upon his intimate connection with the change that was made in 1904 in the Militia Act which has been under discussion. I have only to add that if this Military Service Bill makes no change in principle, but merely a change in the method of selection, what is the reason for bringing it in at all? Why not merely bring down an amendment to the Militia Act if the difference was so trifling as that? Is not the refutation of that contention contained in the very fact that this Bill has been introduced?
162i
The right hon. leader of the Opposition dealt with the labour situation as affected by this Bill. His argument was challenged by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster). May I digress for a moment to say that in all probability, with the exception of the right hon. leader of the Opposition, no hon. member of this House has had such a long and genuine admiration for the debating power and eloquence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce as myself. I well, remember the first occasion upon which I heard him, now more years ago than I care to recall. From that day to the present I have always acknowledged his great power as a -debater. I do not think that power was ever more eloquently displayed than when he spoke in this Chamber a few days ago. Notwithstanding that, I take the liberty of joining issue with him. In the course of his speech the other day, addressing himself to the argument of my right hon. leader on the labour situation, the Minister of Trade and Commerce instanced the position of labour in Great Britain and the United States under compulsory military service. I submit that the comparison failed to meet the argument of my right hon. leader for two reasons: In the first place, the Derby-registration scheme preceded the introduction of compulsory military service irt Great Britain; and in the second place the United States Government recognized labour as soon as it decided to go into the war, and immediately availed itself of the services of Samuel Gompers, the leader of organized labour in the United States, Even after three years of war this Government has done nothing like that in this country. If my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce and other hon. members of the Government will not heed the advice of the leader of the Opposition, perhaps they will listen to the advice of a friend of their own. Foreseeing the effect of this Bill on labour, Sir Joseph Flavelle addressed a letter to the Canadian manufacturers of war munitions, in which he says:
Dear Sirs.-May I, on behalf of the board solicit your serious co-operation in personal attention and forethought whereby misunderstandings or difficulties with your'work-people may be averted?
I am led to say this because I remember the necessity of securing further support for the men at the front means there will be considerable impairment of the present factory working forces in Canada.
As there is great industrial activity and a general shortage of efficient labour, it is to be expected that restlessness in labour circles will be increased rather than decreased when men
[Stage Direction]
now at work are taken out of employment and used for military service.
That statement should give the Government pause in the course upon which they have embarked, and into which they are trying to rush Parliament and the country. Munitions must be produced and forwarded, or you imperil the lives of the men at the front. Pood must be produced and forwarded or you sap the strength of the men at the front. Is it not better to have one man in the trenches well armed and well fed than two men poorly armed and half fed? That is the practical situation which presents itself to the mind of Sir Joseph Flavelle and of every other practical man in the country. I have no doubt that that was the situation that presented itself to the mind of the new food controller appointed in Great Britain, Lord Rhondda, who within the last forty-eight hours flashed across the ocean a message almost pathetic in its appeal to the United States and Canada to come to the assistance of Great Britain and the soldiers in the matter of the production of food.
Then there were one or two other observations of my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce to which I desire to refer. With fine old Tory contempt for the people, the minister scouted the amendment proposed by the leader of the Opposition. Let the verdict, he said, be passed by the people later on, or by history. In other words, when the Tory party is in power with a safe majority in both Houses why should we ever have an election? As I listened to my hon. friend, the glitter of the new Mace on the Table caught my eye, and recalling that we aie near the. end of the sixth year of this Parliament, I wondered whether my hon. fpiend (had Convinced himself and the other members of the Government that a Cromwell can not appear twice in 'history. If he has not reached that conclusion he might give the matter further attention in the light of this discussion.
My hon. friend who sits beside me (Mr. Oliver) has seconded the amendment proposed by my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition. When speaking in support of the amendment he declared himself to be in favour of conscription. He was questioned by the Solicitor General as to whether he would entrust the administration of a conscription law to the leader of the Opposition, who is opposed to conscription. The hon. member for Edmonton said that he would, and he had ample warrant for that reply. In fact, had the Solicitor General

reflected for a moment he never would have asked the question. How could the hon. member for Edmonton have replied otherwise than he did, when the Solicitor General knows that the Prime Minister asked the leader of the Opposition to join him in. a coalition government to pass - conscription and to assist him in the administration of it? Surely the Solicitor General will not condemn what his own leader thought was so eminently proper.
It is an axiom of general acceptance that a law which is not sustained by the moral sanction of the people cannot be enforced by constitutional means. This afternoon the Solicitor General said that above all it is the enforcement of the Bill that we must keep ih mind. I quite agree with him. We have ample evidence that the Bill we are considering is not sustained by the moral sanction of the Canadian people. Let me cite some of the evidence. Speaking in Toronto in December last, the Director of National Service, the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Bennett), had the courage to say to some interrupters in the audience he was addressing that, as the result of representations made to him in the western provinces, which he had just visited with the Prime Minister, he was convinced there would be civil war if an attempt were made to force conscription on the people of Canada. Mark you, Mr. Speaker, that opinion was formed by reason of conditions in Western Canada, not in Quebec. Since then organized labour has declared against conscription;' so has the largest employer of organized labour in the Dominion, the Canadian Pacific Railway, through its president, Lord Shaugh-nessy. From the rural districts of the country, already depleted of man power, have come strong protests against conscription.
All these represent such a powerful body of public opinion against the measure that more should not be required to prove its unwisdom and untimeliness. But, there is more. The Bill itself specifically recognizes that the Mennonites and other sects are opposed to it and the people of these denominations are exempted from its operations. Without taking into account any other classes of the population than those I have mentioned, those alone make it plain that such a measure cannot be generally administered. The Solicitor General this afternoon said that it is the enforcement of .the Bill above all that we must keep in mind and again I say, I quite agree with him. While this is the fact you would at times be led to think by the writings of certain journalists and the speeches of

certain individuals that the only people opposed to conscription are the French Canadians. As I have just shown, there is no justification for any such idea but the campaign by which it is sought to give currency to this idea in the English parts of Canada is fraught with such possibilities of grave danger to the State that I know of no better public service that can be rendered at this juncture than to place before Parliament and the country the resulting situation as it affects the whole people and to suggest how best, in my judgment, to deal with the situation.
We have heard a great deal about recruiting not being satisfactory in the province of Quebec. Indeed, the Minister of Trade and Commerce addressed himself to the leader of the Opposition as if that hon. gentleman alone, although in Opposition, were responsible for the poor recruiting in Quebec. In effect, the Minister of Trade and Commerce said to the leader of the Opposition: "Look here, Sir Wilfrid; we want to govern the rest of this country but you must govern Quebec and we will hold you responsible for everything that happens in Quebec." That from an hon. gentleman who, on the night of the Drum-mo nd-Arthabaska election in 1910, joined with the Nationalists in intoning the Te Deiim over their victory by sending a telegram couched in the words: "Anything to beat Laurier."
Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: I have heard of that telegram so often that I would be infinitely obliged to my hon. friend if he would give me a copy of it.


Charles Murphy: I will try to oblige my hon. friend. I think this is the first time he has ever asked to be furnished with a facsimile of his own writing.


George Eulas Foster: I do want it now badly. I would like to put it in my scrap book.


Charles Murphy: If it be the case that recruiting is not satisfactory in Quebec the Government cannot shift the responsibility from its own shoulders. What did the Government do to encourage recruiting in Quebec? Nothing. It did even worse than that, if I may be pardoned a Hibernianism, it placed in charge of recruiting in Quebec an English-speaking clergyman, of estimable character and highly respected, it is true, but not a soldier, and differing in race, language, and religion from the overwhelming French-Catholic majority of that province.
Mr. Speaker, that was not giving the -French people leadership-that was denying them leadership. And, all the time, ^be Government had at its disposal the. services of General Lessard, a brave and accomplished French-Canadian soldier, with a magnificent record in South Africa, a man whose appointment at the head of recruiting in iiis native province at the outbreak of the war would have appealed to the imagination and the enthusiasm of his fellow-countrymen and would have stimulated enlistment as nothing else would have done. But General Lessard was kept away from Quebec; he was assigned inferior duties in other parts of the country, and Canada and the Empire were the loseTs. The Government's initial blunder in Quebec was followed by others just as inexcusable. These I need not enumerate, but I may point out that a belated recruiting campaign was started by the Postmaster General (Hon. Mr. Blondin) a short time ago and was then abruptly called off. But it lasted long enough to enable the Postmaster General to publicly declare that recruiting in Quebec had been bungled from the start, and that if. proper methods had been adopted in the beginning the response of the French Canadians would have been satisfactory in every respect. There is 'the testimony of a member of the Government, responsible for recruiting. How can the Government escape the condemnation of one of its own members, and how can the Government justify a Bill which one of its own members makes it manifest is introduced for the purpose of covering up its own blunders?
There is another state of affairs of which notice must be taken if we are honestly desirous of understanding the attitude of French Canada towards recruiting. One phase of that situation is created by the open and covert attacks made upon the French people. Let me cite a few instances, beginning with one mentioned the other evening by the hon. member for Rou-ville (Mr. Lemieux). Not many weeks ago, as hon. gentlemen will recall, it was publicly charged that a troop train was stoned while passing through the province of Quebec. The charge was widely circulated, and some credence was given to it even in this House. Much indignation was aroused, and, as usual in these cases, there was some senseless talk about reprisals. To the credit of the Government, I must say that, when my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) asked that the charge be investigated, the Government promptly appointed a commission for that purpose. And woat was the result? The inquiry completely

exonerated the French residents of the place where the stoning of the train was said to have occurred. It did more; it placed the blame on some of the soldiers themselves. Incidentally it revealed that if the disturbers had had a knowledge of the French language, in all probability there would have been no trouble at all.
Let me refer to another incident in another part of the country. At a conscription meeting held in Queen's Park, Toronto, a returned soldier, who is not, I am convinced, a fair representative of his comrades, is reported to have evoked the loudest cheers of the afternoon by saying that the Government should conscript the foreigners, and'that the returned soldiers would fight the French. I am within the judgment of every fair-minded man in Canada when I say that such language as that is deplorable, deplorable in the highest degree. And yet, Sir, in the newspapers of the city where Lount and Matthews gave up their lives that the principles of liberty and justice might survive; in the newspapers of the city where George Brown and Edward Blake lived and preached the gospel of democracy and freedom, I have failed to notice one word of regret or reproof for the language that was used at that meeting. Worse, than that, Sir, we have heard an echo of that very language in this very Chamber. In moving the introduction of this Bill, the Prime Minister, speaking of the Canadians who had enlisted, said:
If what are left of 400,000 such men come back to Canada with fierce resentment, and even rage in their hearts,' conscious that they have been deserted and betrayed, how shall we meet them when they ask the reason? I am not so much concerned for the day when this - Bill becomes law, as for the day when these men return if it is rejected.
Mr. Speaker, I ask if it would be possible to use language more unfair to the soldiers who have fought for the principle that public opinion must be respected; that there must not he government without the consent of the governed; the soldiers who have fought for the very principle embodied in the amendment of the right hon. leader of the Opposition (sir Wilfrid Laurier)? I ask, would it be possible to use language more unjust to those who oppose this Bill on principle, but who are ready and willing to obey its provisions when approved by a majority of the people? I ask, Sir, would it be possible to use language more provoca-tive^ more destructive of that very spirit of fairness and moderation for which the Prime Minister himself appealed in the dis-
IMr. Murphy.]
cussion of this Bill? The words of a mob orator, unskilled in public speaking, without responsibility and carried away by the excitement of the moment, may at times and on public grounds be excused; but no such excuse can be advanced for the words of a Prime Minister, speaking in a deliberative assembly such as this. Much as I regret the Prime Minister's words, it is not my intention to retort in kind. Bather, Sir, would I appeal from Philip drunk to Philip sober; rather would I ask the Prime Minister to bear in mind his own dictum that it is easy to sow the wind of clamour, and to apply, in quarters where it is most needed-and they are not far distant from his own political household-his own conclusion that those who make that sowing may reap such a whirlwind as they do not dream of to-day; If my Tight hon. friend will do that, I am confident he will decide that the first application of the lesson should be made elsewhere than in the province of Quebec.
But, Sir, it is not merely to such attacks as those I have alluded that we are to attribute the lack of that united effort which it is pretended this Bill will supply. These attacks are bad enough, but there is a more deep-rooted cause of discontent, which this Bill will undoubtedly not remove, but which I am profoundly convinced this Bill will make much worse. It is evident to every Canadian who is concerned about his country's welfare and the unity of its people, that neither can be secured while our French fellow-citizens are disturbed by the belief that there is a disposition on the part of the English majority to deprive them of- the use of their language. At such a critical time as this, it is useless to argue whether that belief is well or ill founded. Argument of that kind will accomplish nothing. The sensible, the courageous, and the patriotic thing to do is to frankly recognize that the belief exists, and to seek to dispel it at the earliest possible moment. The statesman or the Government that will adopt that course will do more to stimulate recruiting, will do more for the boys in the trenches, and will render better and more effective service to Canada and the Empire than all the Bills this Parliament can pass.
In this same connection, I would offer a friendly suggestion to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty). He is designated in the Bill as the minister by whom its provisions are to be carried out. For reasons that will readily occur to my hon.

friend, without my stating them, it would, in my judgment, be better to designate some other minister for that work; in fact, as this is a war measure, its proper administrator would seem to be the Minister of Militia, and should that hon. gentleman require any legal assistance, it can he provided in the Act that such should be furnished him by the Solicitor General.


Mr. BURNHAM:: Will the hon. gentleman state why he objects to the Minister of Justice administering the Act?


Charles Murphy: I do not object, if the minister wishes to act. I am merely making a suggestion. Referring to the speech of the hon. gentleman from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), I may observe that in form and in tone that speech was as unexceptionable as any I have heard delivered in Parliament. I may say. the same about that of the hon. gentleman from Lambton (Mr. Pardee); and, as I am in a generous mood, I think I would extend that compliment to the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen). I desire'to say further, with reference to the speech of my hon. friend from South Wellington, that I do not agree with his arguments and conclusions, save in one instance, namely, when he said that he did not believe that this Bill would be successfully enforced by a single political party. I share that belief in its entirety. The Government wrould do well to hearken to th.e warning contained in the speech of the hon. gentleman from South Wellington, because it is manifest that the Government alone cannot put this Bill in force. Mr. Speaker, let us rid ourselves of cant. This Bill attempts the impossible. That the Government knows this to be the case was hinted by the hon. Minister of Labour yesterday when he intimated that the operation of the Bill might be postponed. Is that not why it contains the provision that it is not to come into force until a proclamation is issued? It is not yet too late for the Government to be frank and courageous. Let them acknowledge that their action was hasty, and that it is better to yield before than after they have caused a disastrous cleavage in our national life.
More than once during this debate we .have heard it stated that criticism that is not constructive is not helpful. Mindful of that, and responding to the Prime Minister's request for suggestions, I desire on my own account, and speaking for myself, to submit a constructive war-time policy to the Government. In the order in which
its features occurred to me, and from the point of view of necessity and the public good, I suggest that, instead of enacting this Bill, the Government should adopt the motion of which notice was given by my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) on the 13th of the present month, and pass the necessary legislation to give it immediate efiect, so that every moral and material force available in the Dominion and not yet reached would make its contribution as man power as done. Stop horse-racing, stop the publication and sale of racing forms, stop all games and sports conducted merely for raising gate money, close all bar rooms, pool rooms, billiard rooms and moving picture shows. Under the existing law make a national survey, showing	who	are engaged at productive	or	other necessary work,
and those who are not. Give those who are not so engaged, who are of military age, and who cannot satisfactorily account for not being at such work, 'the option of enlisting voluntarily, or of doing necessary work for which they are suited, and if all the men .and means required are not procured in this way then take counsel with the leader of the Opposition, and with the Premiers of all the Provinces, as to what further should be done. This course will involve no delay or avoidable hardship. It will impress the whole country with the seriousness and the good faith of the Government, as well as the gravity of the work ' the Government has in hand. It will be a guarantee against unfair discrimination of any kind. It will appeal to the people's sense of fair play and equal sacrifice. It will evoke the spirit of nation-wide patriotism. It will stimulate generous rivalry instead of prejudice and passion. It will stop national waste of man power and resources. And, in my belief, the response will exceed that which the most sanguine can expect. In any event, Sir, I make the suggestion in all sincerity, and in order to avoid the dangers to which I believe the Government's present course is leading.
In conclusion, I have a last appealto make. On Parliament Hill there is a monument composed of two figures, those of Baldwin an Lafontaine. United in life, this Parliament wisely decided that in the nation's memory they would not be separated in death. There they stand, and for all time there they will stand, gazing into the distance across the Ottawa river and beyond the sky line of the Laurentian hills-two figures, the embodiment in bronze of a noble ideal, typifying the union of the two great forces in our

national life, 'both consecrated to the attainment of a lofty and a sacred purpose. As we pass by that monument should we not, particularly in these days of our country's stress and trial, take vision md inspiration from the history of the two great Canadians whom it commemorates? And what more inspiring chapiter of that history can we recall for the benefit of our fellow citizens and to point their way to present duty than that which tells us that when Baldwin was defeated in the province of Ontario he was promptly elected for the county of Rimoueki in the province of Quebec, and that, when later on, Lafon-taine met defeat iii his native province, he was just as promptly elected for one of the divisions of the county of York, in the province of Ontario? That is the spirit that we should strive to have prevail in every province in this Dominion. That is the example we should follow, and we will follow it only if our minds be illumined by the constitutional light that guided the steps of Baldwin and Lafomtaine, only if our hearts be attuned as theirs were, to constant forbearance and mutual good will. What was possible in Canada three-quarters of a century ago should be possible today. Nay, more; what was possible in . Canada three-quarters of a century ago should much more easily be possible today. Believing that, I urge the Government to withdraw this Bill or to suspend its consideration until the people shall have been consulted. If neither of these courses be adopted, it is my conviction that the best service that can be rendered in behalf of national unity is to vote against this Bill, and if the Government persists in its announced intention ,of forcing a division upon the amendment placed in .,your hands by the right hon. leader of the Opposition, I will vote' for that amendment as an earnest of my desire to promote peace and unity at hpme and content and effectiveness among our soldiers overseas.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight .o'clock.
Mr. J. A. lM. ARMSTRONG (North York): Mr. Speaker, in rising to make a few observations on the Bill now before the House,
I am prompted, not by any desire to impede in any way the progress of the Bill, but by a desire to exercise my prerogative in order to place myself on record with regard to the principle of compulsory ser-fMr. Murphy.l
vice, because many months ago, before conscription became a live issue around the corridors of this House, I advocated it publicly in the riding that I have the honour to represent. Those who know the political history of the part of the province from which I come, know that the riding of North York has long claimed to (be the birthplace and cradle of reform; that it has given to the public life of Canada men like George Brown, William Lyon Mackenzie, Sir William Mulock, and Sir Allen Aylesworth, names that are closely interwoven with the history and principle of old-time Liberalism. The hpn. member for Russell (Mr. Murphy) mentioned, during the course of his remarks this afternoon the names of Lount and Matthews as two martyrs to the cause of liberty. I would like to supplement his remarks by informing the House that the chief lieutenants of William Lyon Mackenzie lived practically *all their lives in the vicinity where I live to-day, and where my father and grandfather lived before me, and that there are living there to-day the descendants of those .lieutenants of Mackenzie, the descendants of the men who, according to the hon. member for Russell, fought for liberty in the days gone by. I stand in this House, to a certain extent at least, by virtue of the *support of those 'men. I am proud to say that those families are to-day well represented on the fields of France, and I think, therefore, I can claim, as much as any [DOT]man in this House, tp represent the two great political lines of thought in Ontario.
I stated a moment ago that I advocated conscription a year ago. I did so for these reasons: I knew that the people I represent were British tp the core; I knew that, under the voluntary system that was then in *force, we could not hope to secure the men that were required; I knew that we dare not longer turn a deaf ear to the cry from our brothers overseas.	I, therefore
advocated conscription,	based upon
a plan that would take every available fit man in his proper turn, having regard to industrial conditions and the need at home. For the same reasons, I stand ready to support the Military Service Bill now before the House. Subsequent events have tended only to strengthen my conviction that the course which the Government purpose taking under this Bill is the only course possible if Canada is to maintain her proper part in this great world-struggle. When the great republic to the south of us became involved in this war, notwithstanding the fact that she had not previously been

affected by the war, but rather had fattened and grown rich by reason of her commercial dealings with the then Allied nations-and one might have thought that under such conditions she would have hesitated before plunging the whole resources of the nation in men and money into the war-she did not hesitate nor equivocate, but she put through a Conscription Bill and called out her efficient man-power to the colours, thereby laying down the principle that every citizen of the State is a servant of the State, and that he who accepts and enjoys the benefits of citizenship must be prepared and willing to accept the responsibilities which that citizenship entails, the proof of which willingness is to stand for and fight for the welfare of the State. This cannot be done by agitating any narrow or provincial policy; it cannot be done by pandering to -any local class or race, in particular in this country of ours. I have ever claimed that selfishness is and always has been the curse of humanity. I do not say this with any acrimony or -any desire to be unduly offensive in this House; I give it aa my candid opinion that selfishness is the main-spring behind the opposition to conscription, not only in this House but throughout this country.
At the outbreak of war nearly three years ago, the whole of Canada was pledged by her representatives -assembled in Parliament, to the full extent of her resources in men and money. We heard no word at that time of a referendum. Was the voice of the leader of the Opposition heard at that time asking that the people's voice should be heard with regard to our participation in the war? If was not, and I am glad, and I am ready and willing to say that every true Canadian was proud to see the leader of the Opposition stand shoulder to shoulder with the Prime Minister, pledging himself and his followers to stand behind the Government to the full extent of Canada's resources in men and money until victory was achieved. I leave it to the judgment of the House and of the. people of Canada how the leader of the Opposition has fulfilled that pledge.
Some men have had the temerity to say-that Canada has done enough in this war. The hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lem-ieux) implied that in his speech yesterday, and the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Murphy) indirectly implied it in his speech this afternoon. Canada has not done enough until this war is won, and it cannot be won without men. Canada has not done enough until that great military machine, conceived and perfected by Germany during the last fifty years, that- machine which since the outbreak of hostilities has violated every law of God and man, is smashed beyond repair, and it cannot be smashed without men. Canada has not done enough until the power of the houses of the Hapsburgs and the Hohenzollerns is a thing of the past, and that cannot be achieved without men. Until we are assured beyond the peradventure of a doubt that liberty, justice, truth and national honour shall not perish from the earth, Canada has not done enough; -and we cannot achieve that end until victory is won on the field of battle, and we cannot achieve that victory without men. Four hundred thousand of Canada's sons have, up to to-day answered the call of the motherland. Thousands and thousands of our homes are to-day under the shadow of death and bereavement. Thousands of Canada's mothers, wives, sisters and sweethearts will go down to their graves with their heads bowed in sorrow and their hearts torn with anguish, mourning "for the touch of a vanished hand and the -sound of a voice that is still." With thousands of our homes thrown into mourning, with the cry of our boys ringing across the waters calling for help, with the very life of the nation hanging in the balance, shall we stop in our fight for liberty, justice and humanity because, forsooth, certain elements in this country say: We do not like the idea of being forced to do our duty?
Why is conscription necessary at this time? I do not wish to be offensive,"and as far as possible I shall -avoid any acrimonious remarks, but I believe in calling a spade a spade, and in justice to the rest of Canada, I must say that the reason why conscription faces us to-day is because French Canada has failed to do its duty. I am not going into all the reasons why enlistment has been apparently so dilatory in that province, but in my humble judgment if the province of Quebec had come up to the same standard set by the other parts of Canada, conscription would not have been heard of about the corridors of this House for many months to come.
A great deal has been said by speakers who have preceded me as to whether or not Canada had the right to send her troops beyond her borders under the old Militia Act. I have listened to both sides of that argument, and while I am forced to say in all honesty that I am convinced the leader of the Government has made his case clear,

and doubly so since I have listened to the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen) this afternoon, I personally do not care two' straws whether it is constitutional or not. Personally I would puncture the constitution a dozen times, if it was necessary, in order to stand by the boys at the front and to uphold Canada's honour in this struggle. The Prime Minister has presented to Parliament a Bilb the object of which is to implement Canada's pledge to the boys who have gone overseas. The leader of the Opposition offers a referendum. The call is for men, and he offers a vote. The Minister of Labour yesterday made the statement that the referendum was an insult to the people of Canada, and I believe he was not far wrong, and I will give my reasons. No fair-minded man will deny that we need men at the front, and no fair-minded man will deny that the voluntary system has fallen down. Therefore it follows as the night follows day that the only way to get men is by compulsory service. As we have promised to support the men at the front, the duty therefore devolves upon the Canadian people of getting the men by enforcing conscription. The right hon. leader of the Opposition proposes that we should say to the people of Canada: We want you to answer Yea or Nay to this question, "Are you ready to do your duty?" Personally I entirely agree with the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) as to the whole policy of the referendum; I do not believe in a referendum. If I were to vote for a referendum pn such a question as this I should feel that I was evaCting my personal responsibilities in this House in a very cowardly way; however, that is only the personal opinion of a very humble and obscure back-bencher, and I utter it solely for the purpose of putting it on Hansard, and not in the expectation that it will carry any weight in this House.
The hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) said this afternoon that this was the saddest day of his life, when he was breaking away from the leader he had followed for years. I can thoroughly enter into his feelings, although I have never been, and hope I never shall be, in that unfortunate position. But I can tell him that that is not the only sad thing about the condition that exists in this House to-day. One of the saddest sights this country ever saw or ever will see was when the leader of the Opposition stood up in his place in this House and opposed this Bill. He, the acknowledged leader of French Canada and the chief of a great party in this country, fMr. Armstrong.]
should have been reminded by that flag beneath whose broad folds he stood of all the privileges and liberties which his French compatriots enjoy, and which have been guaranteed by the nation for which that flag .stands. It should have reminded him of the great men in days gone by who have lived and died for the nation it represents, and of the boys who at that very hour were fighting and bleeding and dying on the fields and in the trenches of France and Flanders for the liberties of which we boast so' proudly in this House.
I throw aside the constitutional arguments in discussing this question, as they do not affect me one way or the other. There is too much at stake and the people of this country have not the time to discuss the constitution at this hour. I say it is time the boys at the front had a rest, and it is up to us to see that they get a rest. I claim that every boy who left this country for overseas held a moral mortgage on the available manhood of Canada who remained at home, and I claim that we have heard their call from three thousand miles away to those in authority in Canada that that mortgage be foreclosed and the debt paid. I claim it is high time we got busy and paid that debt, high time to implement the pledge given long before the first man left our shores.
What are the arguments against this Bill? Or rather against the principle of this Bill, because if there is any argument at all it is against the principle of conscription. Almost every hon. member who has spoken has" attacked the volunteer system as it was in operation under the Conservative party. I do not wish to be unfair to any hon. member, and I would not refer to these things at all if they had not been hurled at us across the floor of the House by the hon. member for Rouvi'lle (Mr. Lemieux) the other night. He prefaced his remarks by saying that he would be very moderate though firm, but before he got through he indulged in some of the most extreme and violent language heard in this House since the debate started. He claimed that the reason why recruiting had fallen down in the province of Quebec was that it had never been given a fair trial. The hon. member for Bussell ('Mr. Murphy) also claimed the same thing, as did the hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie), who says he has followed his right hon. leader for thirty years, and we must take his word for anything he says. Let me read what the hon. member for Bouville says. He was replying

to a question by the .hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy):
If the hon. gentleman thinks that there can he a wave of enthusiasm in the province of Quebec in favour of recruiting with the means that have been employed, he is sadly mistaken. I will give my hon. friend the reason why at once. A few days ago my hon. friend from Duiferin (Mr. Best) rose from his seat in this House and read a statement which had been published by the Orange Sentinel to the effect that the soldiers passing through the province of Quebec had been insulted, and that some of them had even been stoned at Riviere du Loup.
This has also been referred to by my hon. friend from Russell. In fairness to ray hon. friend from Dufferin (Mr. Best)
I should like to point out that he did not read that statement from the Orange Sentinel at all, but from a Toronto daily newspaper. I should also like to point out the fact that the hon. member for Rouville seems to have entirely overlooked the fact that we have been at war for nearly three years. This incident took place this session, and yet he points to it as a reason why recruiting has fallen down in the province of Quebec during the two' and a half years previous. ,1 .might go further. The hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Lapointe) has the same peculiar ideas about recruiting in his native province. He said:
Only a few days ago two great Toronto newspapers were engaged in an acrimonious controversy as to which of the two had written the more violent, bitter articles against Quebec and her inhabitants.
But the hon. member for Kamouraska has -apparently overlooked the fact that we have *been at war for nearly three years. The *hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) has another very unique argument. He *says that the people of Montreal would not enlist because a Methodist minister was *put in charge of recruiting. That opens up *the whole question of the volunteer system. I do not take any stock in any of these excuses. I believe in rendering unto Caesar the things which are Caesars, and I believe in giving credit where credit is due. I will give credit to the late Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Sam Hughes) for the energy and spirit that he put into the work when he was at it. I will give credit to every member of this Government and to every member of this House for the -magnificent effort they have made to stimulate recruiting throughout Canada, but after all the credit is due to- the boys themselves who came forward voluntarily-I speak for the Anglo-Saxon parts of Canada-to the recruiting stations early in the game by hundreds
of thousands, from the east, west, north *and south, and who did not care two cents whether the man they found behind- the recruiting desk was black or white, Jew or *Gentile, an evangelist or a Jesuit priest. *The credit is entirely due to these boys. *Yet, the hon. member for Rouville says that the reason they did not enlist in Montreal was because a Methodist minister was placed in charge of recruiting.
Just one word in passing, about my own opinion of the volunteer system. This war *has changed many ideas; it has changed *nearly all our ideas. At the outbreak of the war I thought the volunteer system was the only thing, but my mind has *changed and I am convinced that while it is a beautiful thing, while it is a grand thing while it calls out all that is best in a man, yet, if you are engaged in a war of the magnitude of this war, it is the most unfair, unjust, unbusinesslike way of waging warfare that was ever conceived by the mind of man.
The hon. member for Kamouraska spoke last night about the equality of sacrifice. I challenge any one in this House or in the Dominion to show me a greater example *of inequality of sacrifice than that which *obtains to-day in Canada under the volunteer system. Hon. gentlemen opposite, including the leader of .the Opposition, have referred more or less to what has been termed the Nationalist-Conservative alliance. I am not going to say here whether that alliance ever existed or whether it did not. Personally, I do not believe, at this serious time in the nation's history in digging into old recoids in order to throw a slur across the floor of this House. If I did I might point out to my hon. friends that they should go back to the day when the seed was sown and follow it up to the day when it brought forth fruit in the shape of the Nationalist party. They will find that some hon. gentlemen on their .own side of the House were responsible for the sowing of that seed. But this is not the time to refer to that. I want to- ibe fair to the leader of the Opposition, but I want t.o point out to him that when he raised his voice in opposition to this Bill, he,- unwittingly no doubt, formed an alliance that he cannot separate himself from in all the years that are to come. He formed an alliance with Tancrede Marsil for one, and he I\ad long ago formed an alliance with Lucien Cannon in Dorchester. He has formed an alliance with Tancrede Marsil, the reactionary, who has been shouting from the plat-

form in the large centres of Queibec that we owe nothing to England, that we will meet force with force, and I think the other day he even threatened to march on Otta/wa if this Bill should become law. I repeat I do not want to be unfair to the leader of the Opposition, but he knows as well as I do that in the next campaign in this country, when the Government goes to the people, as it must in the course of time, he will at least receive the benefit of the efforts of these men during that campaign and he cannot break away from the result. I also want to give the leader of the Opposition an opportunity of correcting an impression that might be left by the perusal of an article that I happened to read in one of the Montreal papers the other day. I think I am not misstating the position of the hon. gentleman when I say that his reason for refusing coalition was the fact that conscription had been decided upon by the leader of the Government. In reading the issue of the Montreal Gazette, dated June 19, I find the following statement:
Sir Wilfrid Laurier's statement in Parliament that Canada was not in danger was the dominant note. Tancrede Marsil used the Liberal chieftain's argument, and also quoted other sections of Sir Wilfrid's speech in support of the campaign which he and his friends have been waging, taking great comfort from the speech, but saying that it did not mean that the battle against conscription was definitely gained, and also pointing out that the aim of the agitation had still another end, that of forcing general elections. The fact that there is no coalition nor unionist government was due to the agitation that had been raised, and this same agitation he believed had given Sir Wilfrid the necessary backing to fight the battle in Parliament against conscription.
I simply place that on record to show that the leader of the Opposition, in taking the stand that he has taken, has placed himself in a very peculiar- position.
I appeal to my compatriots from the province of Quebec: Is it right, is it just, is it human, that our boys who are now in the trenches should fight on, fight on by themselves without any help, when their cries are ringing in our ears continuously? Very often these cries escape from their dying lips. Is that fair? Some hon. gentlemen say that if you force this Bill through the House you will have civil war. I listened to the eloquent speech of the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil), and the burden of it from beginning to end was that the French people were a peace-loving, law-abiding people. I much prefer to think that than to think that the French Canadian

people would raise any trouble in this country, or that we should be led to believe that they contemplate civil war. I think too much of the French Canadian people, and I believe that they think too much of themselves, to entertain any such idea, and I believe that when this Bill goes on the statute book, it will be accepted by the people of French Canada in the same spirit as it will be accepted by the people of Anglo-Saxon Canada.
Has the position that this country would be in if this Bill did not go through ever occurred to the members of this House? In such a case, look ahead into the years that are to come, when you and I and all the rest have passed away; I can see our children and our children's children turning the pages of history and reading the record of the nation's shame. After all the sacrifices we have made, after all the blood that has been shed, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, I ask every member of this House and I ask the people of Canada: Do we want to hand down to our children this record of shame and humiliation? Shall we ask posterity-shall we force posterity-to wear that crown of thorns? Would it not be immeasurably preferable, no matter what the sacrifice may be, no matter how much our ideas may differ, that we should have the satisfaction of knowing that those who come after us can turn to the pages of history, can read of battles fought, of battles won, of a nation saved by brave deeds, and know that the Canadians of this day measured up to the standard of their forefathers, and that from the beginning to the end of this war, they kept ever before them as their watchword the immortal words of Nelson: "England expects every man this day will do his duty."
It is said that this is too great a sacrifice to ask. They tell us that it is not fair to ask the mothers of Canada to give up their boys. Let me point out to this House that the boys who have gone were just as dear to their mothers as the boys who remain at home, that the sacrifice that the mothers of those boys who have gone made is just as great as that which the mothers of those who remain at home will be asked to make. We all know that the sacrifice will be great. We know it must be great, unfortunately so. But we also know that no great good ever came to anybody or to any nation without sacrifice. We know that the greatest boon to humanity was bought and paid for by blood on the hill of Calvary. We are aware that the human mind cannot conceive, nor the human

tongue frame, words that will take the tear from the eye or the ache from the heart of the mother whose boy is gone. But we do know that, while she may go down through life with her heart torn with sorrow and anguish, she has the satisfaction of knowing that when she passes to the great beyond, she can stand before the God that gave her life and say: I gave part of myself, my own flesh and blood, in order that the principles that Thou has laid down for the guidance of humanity, principles that were engraven upon the tablets of stone in the days of Moses, may continue to prevail through all the ages amongst the children of men, and in order that liberty arid justice and the principles of Christianity may be the heritage of all men to all generations.


Mr. L. J. GAUTHIER (St. Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, although we have been told from the other side of the House that members on this side when they were making speeches were losing time, that time was not for speeches, but for deeds, I think it is my duty, in a debate of this kind, to go on record, because I want to discuss this situation as it is, and I want to appeal to the good sense of my fellow members, expecting that at least there may be some to-day in this House who may listen to the language of reason. We all agree that war is a necessity, we all agree that to fight war you must have men; but we all agree, too, that the sacrifices of every country must be made, not according to the principles of hysteria, but in accordance with the principles of sound judgment and good administration.
I have made a synopsis of the remarks I wish to place on Hansard. There are six questions that I wish to discuss, but I wish to tell you immediately that the number of questions will not give you an indication of the length of my address, because I do not want to detain the House too long. I want to discuss: first, what are the propositions before the House, second, what is the actual available man-power in Canada; third, what is the man-power necessary for our economic life; fourth, what motive has actuated the amendment to the amendment; fifth, what is the purport of the Bill; and sixth, why I favour the amendment of my leader (Sir Wilfrid Laurier).
The right hon. the Rrime Minister claims that, according to the Militia Act, the Government is empowered to levy the militia of this country, and Canada, on account of the war, having to face an emergency,-this Government is entitled and empowered
to send militia beyond the borders of Canada, and that our first line of defence is in France. The right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) asks of the House that the Bill be submitted to the people, and that it shall not become law unless it has been endorsed by the majority of our population. The amendment to the amendment, moved by the hon. member for Berthier (Mr. Barrette), seconded by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Achim), pro- " poses the six months' hoist. What, accord- -ing to the census figures, is the available man-power of Canada? At page 42 of the Canada Year Book of 1914, we find that in 1911 the whole population of Canada was ^ 7,206,643, divided, as stated at page 43 of the same book, into, male population, 3,821,995, and, female population, 3,384,648.
At page 70 of the same book, we find that , out of this male population of 3,821,995, you must take the following who are unfit or exempted on account of age. (I must say, before giving these figures to the House, that I have calculated the number of men over fourteen years of age, because, the census having taken place in 1911, the=e boys are now- twenty years of age, and so fall under the proposed law. And I have figured down to the male population aged forty years, because, with the same calculation, these men have now attained the age of forty-six years and they are exempted.) Under one year, there were 93,513; from one to four years, 354,106; from five to nine years, 395,045; from ten to fourteen years, 354,911; from forty to forty-four, 213,018; from forty-five to forty-nine, 178,715; from fifty to fifty-four, 152,718; from fifty-five to fifty-nine, 112,952; from sixty to sixty-four, 94,318; sixty-five and over, 159,-605;-making a grand total unfit or exempted on account of age of 2,119,501 men. Thus our available man-power at that time, deducting those that were unfit or exempted according to the census figures given us, was 1,702,494. At page 15 of volume 2 of the census of 1911 we find that the number of defectives in the male population was 15,530, leaving a balance of 1,686,964.
We have enlisted, some say 400,000, others says 411,000, others say 430,000 men.	Let	us figure it at 405,000.
So that we have, in this country, an available actual man power of 1,281,964. I must admit that to this amount should be added' the male immigrants of military age who have come to Canada since 1911. We have no official figures as to the number. It is true, the ex-Minister of Militia and Defence

(Sir Sam Hughes) has given us 500,000 as the approximate number. But coming from that source I should figure that the real number of male immigrants since 1911 is about half, because in every statement by the ex-Minister of Militia and Defence you must figure on at least 50 per cent of bombast. So that you would have an actual available man power of 1,331,964.
The next question, Sir, is, what is, according to the 1911 census, the man-power required to secure the expansion and the development of our economic life in this country. It is all right enough to say: "We hear the clamour of the boys at the front, they cry for help and want us to send more men." This afternoon I heard the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen) state that we had signed the bond and we had to pay it. That would be all -right if we had the means to do it. I contend, Sir, taking the figures of the census and the available man;power necessary for our economic life, that we are unaible to supply the number of men that are asked for without paralyzing our economic life. In the sixth volume of the census of 1911 we find figures giving the male population interested in the development of trade, transportation and economic life. The numbers are as follows:-
Agriculture	 917,848
Building trades	 245,990
Domestic ancT personal service	 75,134
Civil and municipal government	 72,531
Fishing and hunting	 34,547
Forestry	 42,901
Manufacture	 392,781
Mining	 62,707
Commerce	 240,903
Transportation	210,602
Making a grand total of	2,296,022
Out of this, we have supplied more than 400,000 men. Is it possible that a Government situated as this Government is, with the responsibility which I am pointing out, will not listen to argument, and that the language of reason will not appeal to them? Hon. gentlemen speaking in this House in favour of the Bill are making comparisons between European countries and Canada. I believe, Sir, that the comparison cannot stand. The European countries are thickly settled, having every year an overflow of population, and they must seek an outlet for that overflow. Canada is a new country, thinly settled, having immense resources, requiring, outside .of our available supply of man-power, the constant overflow of population from the European countries. We are unable to develop the resources of this country, as they should be developed, with our own supply of men, and it is un-
fair to make a comparison -between Canada and the European countries. Canada need's more man-power, and that is the reason we have spent millions of dollars to bring immigrants to this country to assist development. Since the beginning of the war, we have made sacrifices, we have appealed to young people, to women and to old men, to assist in our trade, our agriculture, .our factories and in all the branches of our economical development to take the place of the boys who have gone to the front. There is a shortage of man-power. My hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) proved that the -Government had appealed to the United States for 50,000 farm labourers. Is it not a fact that the Imperial Munitions Board is complaining constantly of the scarcity of wage earners and man-power, and that half of the big corporations in this country have asked the Government to stop enlistments because there is a scarcity of man-power? The ex-Minister of Militia and Defence, told the House and the country that the Government, at the request of the munition workers, had retarded enlistment. Yet, in the face of all this, the Government asks us to pass a Bill which will send 100,000 more -men to the front. I know the responsibility that rests on my shoulders. I have listened to the address of the hon. gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. J. A. M. Armstrong). I am not afraid of threats, and I am not going to be stampeded or forced to support a measure which I do not wish to support.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Louis Joseph Gauthier: The fact that I belong to the minority, and that I come from the province of Quebec, will not prevent me from uttering. sentences I think I should utter in the defence of the cause for which I stand here. I do not say that the 100,000 should not be sent. I do not say we have done too much. I do not say we should do no more. But, before sending 100,000 of our young men to the front, causing us to run the risk of endangering our economic life, it is the duty of the Government to go to the people and ask them if they are ready to make the sacrifice of paralyzing the development of this country for all years to come. If the people are satisfied to make the sacrifice, we pledge ourselves that we will bow to the will of the majority of the population. What more can you ask?
We claim that the Government has no mandate from the people in respect to this measure. We may be wrong, but we may be right, I do not wish t-o discuss the legal aspect of the question; I want to discuss

it simply from a business standpoint and with due regard to the feelings of the people whom I represent. The legal aspects of this question are numerous. Some say that the Government is empowered to take this course; others say that it is not.
I shall not discuss that; it is sufficient for me to say that the Government have enough responsibilities; that they should not shoulder any additional responsibilities that they are not compelled to assume.
I was amazed at the amendment to the amendment introduced by the member for Berthier (Mr. Barrette) and seconded by the member for Labelle (Mr. Acbim). These two gentlemen belonged to the 54th battalion of Sherbrooke; they were appoint-ted lieutenants on March 6, 1915. This can be proved by referring to page 362 of the quarterly Militia List, edition of May 30, 1917. But after having enlisted they decided, one to propose and the other to second the motion that this Bill be given the six months' hoist. I suppose, although they had enlisted, they decided that they did not want to fight.
We are engaged in a very serious debate, 'but permit me to say that I consider this amendment to the amendment to be a farce. It has been engineered not by the mover and the seconder of the motion, but by the Government itself. It is all very well to ask that opinions be sacrificed; it is all very well to plead the magnitude of the task which confronts us; when the Government appeal to the good-will of the Opposition, they should, in my humble judgment, play the game fairly. They have played the game; they have laid on the table of the House their trump card -the little joker from Berthier.
It was very interesting indeed to listen to the speech of the bon. member for Berthier. He spoke of his conscience, of his profound love for his race and for his province, and of the disinterestedness of the sentiments which he entertained for the welfare of the whole community. But he intermingled	his references
to the future of Canada and the aspirations of the different races in this country with remarks concerning public works in his riding. He told us that since he had been elected, more public works had been carried on in the county that- he represented than had been the case since Confederation. He seeks to have us believe that in taking the courageous stand that he has taken, he is liable to be deprived of patronage. Let the hon. gentleman be at peace. I ask him, for the sake
of our individual peace on this side of the House, not to trouble us with such laments, because we know that in this matter he is hand in hand with the Government. His amendment, being a negative one, would have been ruled out of order if it had not been introduced with the consent of the Government.
9 p.m. As it stands in order, the hon, member need not feel uneasy; he is all right. - My opinion is that after this debate is over the hon. member will keep on going to the shrine of the golden calf, under the benevolent eye of his master. He deserves a reward from his master, but he deserves also a punishment from his electors. I hope that he will get his reward, because I am sure that he will get his punishment. On the altar of partisanship he has sacrificed more than his life; he has slaughtered without mercy the shattered remnant of his honour. He is entitled to the reward, and I hope he will get it.
I come now to an examination of the Bill itself. It is a wonderful Bill. One of the peculiar aspects of it is that everybody wants to conscript the other fellow. -Hon. gentlemen from the West who favour the Bill do so on the condition that the measure will conscript Ontario; those members from Ontario who favour the Bill do so upon the understanding that Quebec will be conscripted. In order that everybody should be satisfied, the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen) this afternoon, in his most suave manner, assured the people of Quebec not to worry, because the Bill would bear more lightly upon Quebec than upon the other provinces. The Government wants to raise 100,000 men-but imagine, Sir, somebody in each province explaining that the operations of the proposed Act will not reach that province! Where are they going to get the men, if nobody is conscripted?
The Bill is drafted in such a way, however, that it appeals to every part ,of the country except Quebec. Although I am only a back bencher, I am going to have the audacity-not in the name of my province, from which I hold no mandate, but on my own behalf-to answer some of the remarks of the Solicitor General.
He says that the Bill will bear more lightly on Quebec than on the other provinces. I protest against that sentiment. We resent the insult whether direct or indirect. Thank Heaven we do not belong to a race of cowards. We are willing to do our share to the bitter end, and no man in this House nor

in this country can tell us that if we vote for the Bill we shall be exempted. We do not want to be put in reserve. Our forefathers discovered this country; we have no other country in the world. This country is ours; we want to fight to the limit for it, because we-have the protection of the state I will not allow any hon. gentleman to cast a slur upon us. I am not a minister of the *Crown in this Government, thank Heaven !
I would like, en passant, to say a fjw words in answer to one of our former friends, the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie). Let me prove how profound our distrust is of this Bill. Here is a gentleman who has seen fit to leave his party and his chief. His argument is this: He wants to secure farm labour for his riding, contending that in supporting this' Bil), he will get the farm help he requires. Here is a Bill drafted to enlist 100,000 men and send them overseas. There is a scarcity of labour, and when the 100,000 men will have gone away, the hon. member will get his farm help. That is why he supports the Bill. I am not surprised because I have heard the hon. member stating recently that the war has compelled us to act illogically, and he is living up to his statement. To convince his colleagues and the other members that he was in the right upon this question, he was obliged to Tesort to a new mandate. He is called in this House as a representative of South Wellington. Does he represent his constituents on this question? I say: no, because, if he did, he would not refuse to submit the question to them. Does he represent labour? No, organized labour in 'this country is against the Bill. Does he represent . the Britishdborn who have come to this country since the beginning of the war? No, they are against the Bill; they left their country so as not to, be called upon to perform military service. Does he represent the country? No, he tells us that if the Bill is submitted to the people, it will be defeated. What then does he represent? He represents the honour of Canada. I will not make any comment. Here is an hon. gentleman, who stated in his address the * other day that nine out of ten of the voters of this country would poll their votes against this measure, pretending to impose upon the people a measure that thsy would not stand for. If that is not Toryism of the best brand, I do not know what Toryism is.
The supporters of the Bill claim that the Canadian Expeditionary Force requires

100,000 men, and that this Bill is designed to supply that number. The Prime Minister has pledged the word of Canada, and, to use the very language of the Solicitor General this afternoon, the Government have signed the bond and we have to pay it. Was the pledge made for the assistance of the Empire or for the asistance of Canada? I would like to answer these questions. The Empire requires good-will and unity from the Dominions overseas. This Bill means animosity between the races and the cessation of a united and combined effort. Is that going to help the Empire? Not at all. The Empire requires food and ammunition. This Bill will deprive the Mother Country of the necessary flow of our productions, both agricultural and mechanical. Is the pledge going to help Canada? No. Canada cannot progress without peace, harmony and mutual understanding. Under this Bill, we shall get just the contrary. More than that, the splendid contributions of Canada, already freely given to Great Britain will be in vain. Unless you supply everything you have promised, unless you redeem in their entirety the pledges and the promises, your effort will be in vain. _
For the proof that the pledge was made without consulting any one and without regard to the capacity or the resources of the country, we have only to look at the Bill. To supplement the promise and to redeem the pledge, the Government is compelled to have recourse to compulsion, and with compulsion you are going to have disruption. Will that save or help the Empire? I say: no. Why then was the pledge made? If it was not for the aid of the Empire nor for the aid of Canada, was it made to win the war and save the Empire? I know that the British authorities have sent here an officer who, after taking into consideration our resources in man-power and the necessity for Canada to supply food and ammunition, has made a report to the Government asking Canada to supply fifty per cent of the number of men we have so far furnished. The Government must be aware of this report, because I have been told by a gentleman who has seen and read that report, that such a report exists. Why make such a pledge? My belief is that the pledge was made to secure a new lease of power for the Administration. I have no hesitation in stating that the purport of the Bill is iniquitous and nefarious.
I come now to the amendment. We have a democratic Government and the people

should rule. Why should the Government refuse to appeal to the people? They want a united effort on the part of all our citizens. Let them appeal to the people then, and get rid of all disunion. I say that the Government has set a bad example. Distrust breeds distrust, and confidence engenders confidence. We have been told in the House that one member of the cabinet exchanged letters not so long ago with the Prime Minister, making certain charges against the conduct of a certain department by one of his colleagues, and the colleague concerned was not cognizant of this charge. If ministers cannot agree amongst themselves, if they distrust each other, it is not to be wondered at if they distrust the people. Why should not the Government appeal to the people? Let them state their case before the country, and if the people are made aware of the pledge that has been given and of the necessity as it exists in the mind of the Government, I am confident that we can trust them. Do you think, Sir, that for political purposes one part of the country would refuse to acknowledge the signature, the bond, the promise, the pledge which had been given in good faith by the Government of this country? No, Sir.
Before resuming my seat I shall be very frank with the House. I want to make a few remarks in the name of my people. This is one of the most solemn hours of my life. It may be the last opportunity I shall have of addressing the House of Commons and my country. I say to the Government: If you press this measure through, my people, declaring that this Government has no mandate, will use the very Bill itself to fight the matter out. We acknowledge that in this fight there will be pain and suffering. We may have to go to the direst consequences. My people are willing to go to the limit if you impose upon them such a piece- of legislation; I believe they are right, and I will do as they intend to do.
Mr. JOHN H. BURNHAM (West Peterborough) : Mr. Speaker, I followed the speaker who has just sat down (Mr. Gauthier) with considerable interest until he reached his climax, his threat, which has so frightened me that I hardly think I shall be able to continue. I will do my best, however, and I promise not to detain the House very long. This amendment refers in a few words to a referendum, for which it calls. If there is to be an appeal to the people both the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) and the right hon. the Minister of Trade and
Commerce (Sir George Foster) have made it quite clear that they prefer an election. In his negotiations with the right hon. the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier), the Prime Minister, in answer to the request of the leader of the Opposition, freely offered to hold a general election if a coalition government were formed and the Conscription Bill put through. There has, therefore, been a declaration by this Government, bearing in mind what the Prime Minister and the Minister of Trade and Commerce have said, that they are willing to consult the people by general election, but not by referendum. The wisdom of that course I do not presume for one moment to question. Rightly or wrongly, our Government have given the Opposition the idea that with a very little urging they, can get this Government to consult the country by means of a general election at least. The right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce said
I would not be willing to go to the people with a referendum under these conditions, without giving first my lead in the representative position I have.
. That is, he would be willing to go if he had first given the people a lead. He also said:-
What we propose is to do, in the light of the experience and knowledge that we have, our plain duty, and let the people pass their verdict as they choose later, or by history.
The Government therefore have clearly offered to procure a mandate from the people. The question then resolves itself into a general election or a referendum. A six months' hoist is before the House, but it is beneath my contempt; I decline to discuss it. The referendum I will discuss, 'because it purports to refer to the will of the people. But that other abortion proposes to deny the propriety of goipg to the people, and is more Germanesque than the Germans ever were. It denies the right of the people to pronounce upon this policy, and sweeps that right aside whilst proclaiming its passion for liberty in this House. What we have got tied up to in this House God only knows, and it is time there was some sort of demonstration in the country to wipe it out of existence. Where it came from I do not understand, but where it is going I have a pretty good idea.
If a general election were held the leaders of the various parties would be required to announce their policy. It does not follow that there would be only two leaders and only two policies; there might be a dozen. When the election was over the Governor



General would have the right and the discretion to call upon the man whom he thought most likely to form a stable government, and he would do so. In the event of a referendum being taken if the people said yea we should be in the same position we are in now. But if the people said nay, where would we be? We would be nowhere. The Governor General could not appeal to the present leader of the Opposition, for he would have expressed no opinion. The only people who would have expressed an opinion would be the Nationalists. Would he send for them?
The referendum would lead us into a technical and political calamity. It would be an absolute impossibility. There can be no excuse for it m the face of this great conflict or for debate upcn the form of going to the people. It is too absurd. If we go to the people and get the people's verdict let it be, as my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) said, in a manly, responsible way. Let us stand sponsor for our opinions, let us go and tell the people what we think, and abide by the consequences and not on Dick Swiveller or Artful Dodger principles. Let us not reduce ourselves to the vulgarity of being mere politicians; let us at least rise to the height of those splendid men who have given us such a glorious lead in France and Flanders, let us show that we are worthy of being related to them by taking the action which must be taken, without delay.
There can be no question but that the justification for the Government's course in going to the people is plain. The people are the basis of democratic Government. We are here as the representatives of the people and only as representatives of the people. The people indeed are doing the fighting, they supply the sinews of war, they pay the taxes, they furnish by their franchise, the moral and political power; the people are all in all. We are but a few trustees who have been entrusted with the task of carrying out their mighty wishes. As Mr. Balfour has so well said:	"If
democracy fails us now we are indeed undone."	_
It must be expected that we will have some weaklings amongst us, that some- perhaps many-will fail to rise to the height of this great conflict. That is but natural. But if we are to fight as a united, powerful people, worthy of our place amongst the nations it must be as a fairly, fully and justly organized people. Every man must do his duty and we must remember that just as there may be the shirker or slacker

amongst us, so there will be the financial slacker, the man who declines to come forward^ and place his resources at the disposal of the country. I myself know men whose resources consist of money. The cost of their living is but little more than that of the humblest amongst us. They have no children; they have no hostages to fortune. They do not even come within the purview of the Finance Minister's tax on sugar for "they do not take sugar." The fact is that they give to this great conflict just exactly what suits them, which is often not very much. When I am confronted by the statement of a class of people who say: We understand conscription of men but we cannot consent to the conscription of wealth because, while we understand the conscription of men, we cannot comprehend the conscription of wealth. I am at a loss to understand it and I cannot but suspect the motives of the men who make it. Is that right? When they find out what direct taxation in its multitudinous forms means-and how prone some people of all political parties are to side-step direct responsibility-although they do not recognize the positive principle, they are quite able to say promptly what the negative is and they are sure, after looking at it from .all aspects, that they do not understand it. Well, all you have to do to show that you do understand a thing is to show absolutely that you do not understand it, because there is no getting away from a proposition which you are able to deny from all angles and all points. The shirking of such men will soon, I understand and hope, come to an end.
It will not please the people, and they will not stand for it. It must be remembered that there are two sorts of people who do not want a general election. One is the man who is unduly optimistic, and the other is the man who. hopes that.you will not get a mandate and that thus you will break up the whole support of Canada in the war and, that it will end in disaster and confusion. They are the two extremes. These things must be remembered.
Conscription is spoken of as a terrible thing as if it were a form of compulsion that had emanated from the Evil One. Cannot . we realize that consqription, when passed upon by the people becomes not conscription or compulsion but the will of the people? The man who rejects it rejects not compulsion or conscription but the will of the people. He is not a protester; he is a rebel. He belongs then to the minority, and instead of complaining of the tyranny

of the majority he should at least be circumspect enough to view the conduct of the
' minority not only with suspicion but with a just regard to punishment by the country. The minority cannot rule the majority; the people in the majority will not permit it.
^ I was very much pleased to hear the hon.- gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Gauthier) admit, as indeed the leader of the Opposition has admitted, that once the people have given Jheir mandate all Canada must obey. But the question then arises: Can Canada give a mandate? I say most distinctly it can. There is not a man at the front who does not write regularly to his relatives or to some one. Let him indite, not ordinary epistles of affection, but what he thinks on the clear-cut issue of conscription or no conscription. The correspondence system, and the delivery of letters at the front is marvellous, it is up to date and to say that it is impossible to take the votes of the men at the front in face of the fact that they receive and give letters, parcels, all sorts of things, materials of every description, by post, with the exception of a few who may be wounded who are carried to hospitals and who are for a time unable to use their hands, is to take a position that the situation does not warrant. All, with the exception of the badly wounded, could mark their ballots. No man is on the fighting line for more than ten days at a time, many of them much less. I am. within the mark in saying that in the most extreme cases no man is on the fighting line, or the immediate relief line, for longer than fifteen days, and then he goes back to his battalion, which will not be very far away, for rest, recuperation and training.
Thus in the course of fifteen days every man in the army who could make his mark at all could vote, and if to-night .it was decided to have an election, all that would be necessary would be to flash the tidings across the water, hand the ballots to the responsible parties, see that the colonels of the battalions were apprised of the fact. Furnished with the ballots, they, with their magnificent organization, could see to it, by means of a muster parade or any other kind of parade you like, or through their subordinate officers, that every man was furnished with an opportunity for marking his ballot, and you would have a vote from the men at the front far larger in proportion than ever you would have if they were here in Canada, because the average 163J	;	1
vote is never more than sixty per cent, and: you may rest assured that, wounded or not: wounded, you would get ninety-five per cent of the vote at the front. It is easy.
I cannot understand the difficulty of it. I asked time and time again, before I returned from the Old Country, why it was that there was such an objection, and the answer I received was not that there would be difficulty in taking the vote, but that it was not considered wise to inflame the minds of the men with a multitude of issues, Avoid the multitude of issues and you have it. The men are discussing from day to day the question | of conscription and support. Let them say what they think on that one issue, and I will venture the assertion that you will have the vote of the men at the front satisfactorily taken, counted in London, and the tidings here, weeks before you have the vote taken in Canada. * We must be just in regard to this matter, and I must say that to any utterance of Sir Joseph Flavelle, a gentleman whom I know well-I used to sit near him in school; unfortunately I did not acquire his ability,
I just acquired his acquaintance-we must attach great weight. In discussing his caution to Canada about her man-power, he says:
I am led to say this because I remember the necessity of securing further support for the men at the front, means there will be considerable impairment

Not diminution, but impairment.
-of the present factory working forces in Canada.
Quite clearly when the head of the Munitions Board-and he has proven himself to be a faultless, a flawless manager of munition producing in Canada; so much so that he stands extremely high in Imperial confidence-utters this warning at this time, he is wise enough to know what it means, and that is that we must be duly and properly organized. The point I wish to make in connection with this is that this statement of the head of the Munitions Board has given a reasonable cause or subject of protest to those who demand the mandate of an election. When he has thrown doubt upon the ability of Canada to furnish, without great care, more man power for the front, he has handed material for the very protest these gentlemen are making, and, like those other men high in authority who have stated that they have no objection to an election, he has placed us in that very position that we must give due regard to the necessity or



'2558 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
'[DOT]the opportunity of a mandate and to the tact of there being danger of decreasing the man-power in the country. The stability of a nation depends upon the fairness, the force, the vigour and the strength, the convincing manner, in which its affairs are administered. To quote the Munitions Board once again, there is not a murmur except from the politicians who have been unable to exercise any influence with the Munitions Board, and the reason they complain is, not because they wished to do anything improper, but because sundry of their constituents kept shoving them and urging them over and over again, asking them to exercise their influence, and they have found that it could not be done. In that way Sir Joseph Flavelle has established the confidence of the people, and also has shown conclusively that, as an organizer in that most difficult and nebulous part of our industry, namely the making of munitions, a thing we never did before, he is a past-master.
Let some man, then, be put in charge of agriculture; let another man be put in charge of food; let another man be put in charge of man-power; let another man be put in charge of a fair distribution of taxes, throwing all the resources of the country into the general pot, and not asking the working classes to hand over the men and the taxes both and do all the work-which they certainly will not do, and we in fairness should not expect them to do-and when we have organized, and when we have obtained, toy moving rapidly, the mandate of the people, then, when we are com scious of onr strength, the minority must give way. Then the Nationalists and all the other kickers will -have to subside, and we shall hear no more of them. This course will not only have the effect of enabling us to assist in the war, but it will also have a splendid effect upon Canada for all time to come.
Mr. GEORGE MoCRANEY (Saskatoon): Mr. Speaker, after a number of leading members of this House have dealt with this question, we have the experience which always occurs, that those who follow up repeat many of the arguments that have been used, and their contribution very often is only that they have given expression to views which have already been pronounced. I do not know that I can present to the House at this hour anything that is striking, but the fact that I have views on the question that is before us is the apology which I make for taking up the time of the House.

What are the responsibilities which we owe to 300,000 men who are now in England, France and Flanders, in the King's uniform, under authority of this Parliament? We shall answer the question pretty much in the views we hold as to the relation which the citizen hears to the state. Some of us hold the view that the relations are reciprocal, that the citizen who is damaged in his person, in his right, or in his property, has a right to the protection of the state, and also that when the state is in danger, the state lias a right to call upon the citizen for his property and for his person in its defence. There is another point of view which is put forward. It is that the state must protect individuals and minorities, in their persons, their rights and properties, tout that when the state is in jeopardy it is optional on the part of the citizen whether he shall serve it or not.
In this latter view military necessity plays no part. The only contingency under which the state might call upon the citizen is that our country should toe invaded and all the horrors of an alien army be in our midst. To our forces in France and Flanders it denies all help except voluntary aid. If that view -prevails, with the failure of recruiting efforts our men at the front are left to dwindle in numbers, to be discouraged in spirit, with .companies growing smaller, and with final abandonment by our people. There are those who hold against conscription on principle. They have held that view for a number of years. If the last three years, with all its events, and the changes in opinion which the events have brought, have made no change in thejr point of view on such a principle as this, there is no tragedy which can happen between now and the end of the war that would change their minds.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Mr. McCRANEY:: No disaster could disturb principles so firmly set. There are few of us who do not abhor the idea of war at all, and the necessity for any compulsion of the citizens, and it is only under the most urgent necessity that we would consider such a thing. All of us had hoped that the war would have been concluded long before this, and that there would have been no occasion -for legislation of the character that is now before the House. It is because of the question of time involved in the submarine menace, and also because of the practical withdrawal of Russia, that the seriousness of the situation has come

before us, and that we are obliged now to consider methods of reinforcing our men . on the battle line. My hon. friend from St. Hyacinthe (Mr. Gauthier) quoted the census returns to prove that we had not any men to spare to send to the front. I have never gone through the census reports, and T do not propose to. I have passed in front of the entrance to a number of picture shows in our cities, and 1 obtained all the information I wanted. I have no doubt there are other places we could go, to see ydung men in numbers shouting " Down with conscription," and we can easily make up our minds as to whether there is a surplus population that would be better otherwise employed. As to the necessities of the case, we have the assurance of the Prime Minister, who takes the responsibility of saying more men are required. We have figures given to us, showing'that our losses are much in excess of the recruiting that is going on. We have the words of the men who come back to us, who tell us that more are needed. We are under obligations, as a Parliament, to fill up the ranks. We have sent those young men forward with all the assurances that this Parliament can givb, and without any reserve as to whether further reinforcements would be by voluntary system or by conscription. Those of us who have been able to do so have made eloquent speeches bidding them farewell, which speeches become only empty platitudes unless w'e propose to make them good.	We find that the wounded in
battle, are obliged, after recovering, to go back into the trenches. Notwithstanding the testimony which my gallant friend from West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) gives that men are only ten days in the front trenches, I am told that for seven and eight months they are never away from the battlefront, although not exposed to actual danger. Men are being sent home now not wounded, but because they are medically unfit to stay there longer. When these conditions prevail, I say that no man who has been wounded should be obliged to go back into the battleline. No man should be obliged to stay in France, either on the battleline or in the near reserve, without having sufficient rest. There are plenty of young men in our country to take their places, and I think we ought to see to it, so far as we have power, that their places are filled by these young men. It is said we need do nothing, because there are 100,000 ipen in England in reserve. If the Government
meet some of the returned soldiers they will find that one of the sorest points is that there are so many senior officers in England who are unwilling to go over to France as lieutenants. I hope the Government,will institute an inquiry, and have everybody sent home who is not of use there. I am not speaking from the standpoint alone of the military requirements at the front, but I should think an investigation of that character would relieve the sense of injustice that is felt, which we hear of every time we meet returned soldiers. I do not suppose they tell their troubles to members of the Government. I know they tell them to other individuals. I have seen it stated unofficially that the reserves in England are good for only about five months. The months pass quickly, and we have to make our decision and adopt our measures. I would like to believe that further recruiting would make up the reinforcements required. If that were so, I would urge the Government to withdraw the Bill and try recruiting first, but I would say that, if that attempt failed, the men's places must be filled, and, if the recruits cannot be obtained under the voluntary system they must be obtained anyway, and that there must be compulsion. But I know that those who hold against compulsion on principle would not agree to that, even as an ultimate resort, and it is useless to talk to them about it.
The Government has presented the Bill. The Bill is subject to any amendment that will tend to further its objects. It meets the present need, because its purpose is to supply men.
An amendment to the Bill has been moved by the leader of the Opposition. That amendment recognizes no need, suggests no remedy, applies no alternative; it proposes only that there shall be a referendum. The number of votes available from our soldiers in France, Flanders, England and Canada is about 300,000. It has been stated in the House-almost as a matter of generosity-that that vote would be taken. But I do not know why the trenches, hospitals and camps should be invaded with ballot boxes in order that we may find opt whether the soldiers want reinforcements. In Scripture, the example of the unnatural father is the man who, when his son asked for bread, gave him a stone. The object of this amendment is, in answer to the request of the men for reinforcements, to give them a referendum. If the House declares itself in favour of a referendum, we shall go down to history as

being in the position, of the unnatural father who gave his son a stone when he asked for bread. Let us give bread, not a stone; let.us give reinforcements, not a referendum.	,
The male population of military age in Canada may be roughly divided into two -classes: those who can go but will not, and those who would go but cannot. I do not see how any assistance could be given to the men in France by giving ( these people an opportunity of expressing 'their opinion through a referendum. The only thing accomplished by a referendum is the providing of a line of retreat.
We have never appreciated the fact that the sacrifice made by the soldier is for the benefit of the community. We who are at home should bear burdens commensurate with our immunity from the conditions of the battlefield. Perhaps the present apathy towards recruiting and the attitude of a large part of the public in regard to this Bill are due to the fact that many of us have profited rather than .suffered as a result of the war. Manufacturers have flourished; wages have greatly increased; mercantile businesses have multiplied their volume of trade; higher prices have come for agricultural products. In a material sense, only those who receive salaries or large incomes are bearing greater financial burdens than before the war. Our war finance has 'been carried on largely by borrowed money. We have raised comparatively little more than ordinary expenditure; only about $100,000,000 has been applied on a war expenditure of $700,000,000. I should like to see a stronger war policy In financial matters, the taxation of incomes and wealth, and an endeavour to even up the burdens borne by those who suffer and those who are able to save by the sacrifices of the soldiers. I welcome the announcement of the Finance Minister that a measure for the imposing of an income tax will be introduced. I hope that he will not stop there; that he will, by fixed and equitable principles, get larger contributions from those who receive the greatest-


William Pugsley: Did the minister make that announcement?


George Ewan McCraney: The .announcement was made in the public press.


William Pugsley: In the newspapers. That Is a different matter.


George Ewan McCraney: By a unanimous vote we passed a resolution last session asking 
the Imperial authorities to extend the life of this Parliament. Since then we have assumed all the responsibilities and all the duties which pertain to members of this Assembly. One of our duties is public leadership. The public expect that from the members of Parliament, 'but a referendum would at once deny them that leadership. The people are entitled to the judgment of this House in respect to
10 p.m. the desirability of enforcing a measure of compulsory service. Having regard to the feeling which is abroad, I have come to the conclusion, since the bringing down of this measure was announced, that compulsory military service should not be enforced under the authority of this Parliament. This is a moribund Parliament; we would do better to have an election. My suggestion is that before this Bill is passed, the Government amend the section which relates to the coming of the Act into operation so as to provide that the Order in Council making it effective should not he passed until after a general election. Some people, I know, feel that a general election would fan certain smouldering sparks into a great conflagration. I have a more hopeful outlook than that- at least I did have when I came into the Chamber to-night, but it has been somewhat dissipated by the remarks of the member for St. Hyacinthe (Mr. Gauthier). I hope that the hon. gentleman will reconsider his position. He has always had the reputation of being fair and reasonable; and some parts of his speech did bear out that reputation. The character of an election depends upon the members of this House-if they do not abdicate their leadership. Up to this evening the character Df this debate was most moderate. Perhaps the member for St. Hyacinthe was tempted to take the attitude that he did by the remarks of the member for North York (Mr. J. A. Armstrong); those who follow may take warning. I believe that this debate can be conducted reasonably and without passion, just as other debates have been which have dealt with serious and important questions. My hope is that a general election will cause, not a great conflagration, but the dying away of the smoking embers. We have confidence that the leadership of this country, even though it may disagree with the principle of the Bill, will use its best efforts after a general election to secure the obedience of the people to the law.
Those are the assurances of men in this House, and I take them at their word. It

may be said that the holding of a general election would cause a delay in bringing this measure into operation. I can imagine nothing more disastrous than the passage of this Bill and an attempt by this Parliament to apply it to some portions of this country. I do not think there would be any gain of time in that way; I believe time would be lost, and sometimes the longest way round is the shortest way there. My advice to the Government is to let it be known to the public that this Bill will not be enforced until after a general election. The public will understand the matter well; the passage of the Bill will be facilitated; many objections which are now made to the Bill will be removed, and I believe in the end the result will be more satisfactory than if any other course is pursued.
In this House we aTe overwhelmed by suspicion of each other; we suspect each other of playing a political game. I do not want to say that such a thing does not exist in this House, but I believe that if in this Parliament the prospect of a general election were four or five years distant, the temptation of that thing would be far removed, and we would get the best results under new conditions and with new men.
In saying what I have said to-night, I have spoken at variance with the views which have been expressed by my right hon. leader (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). With the Chief Whip of the party (Mr. Pardee). I feel that, having followed our leader for quite a number of years, it is with regret that I take the course I do. But I wish to say of my leader and his course upon this measure, notwithstanding the strictures that have been passed by my hon. friend from North York (Mr. J. A. M. Armstrong), that I believe the attitude of the leader of the Opposition is dictated by considerations which appeal to him as being his highest patriotic duty.
In this year we celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of Confederation. In the years since Confederation we have never previously had before us a question so full of national danger and requiring higher statesmanship. Perhaps I have been too optimise tic in hoping that an election contest would be carried on with moderation and good sense, but I prefer to have that optimism. I hope the events of the next few months will do credit to the members of this Parliament and full justice to the 300,000 men on the other side of the water who are looking to us for reinforcements,
and will justify the Confederation of which our forefathers laid the foundation half a century ago.
Mr. JOS. DEMEKS (St. John and Iberville)1 (Translation): As the debate which is now engrossing the attention of Parliament, and of the country is of greater consequence than any that have ever taken place in this House, it stands to reason that many hon. gentlemen should deem it their duty to give expression to their views and feelings.
I do not rise, Sir to participate at any length in the debate that is now in progress, as I have no idea that I shall be able to add very much, if anything, to the exhaustive statements of those who have spoken before me; for, as my hon. friend (Mr. McCraney) has remarked, at this stage of the debate, those who follow up contribute very few new arguments and their speeches vary only in the shape given to the expression of their views.
Without any further delay, I enter upon the subject.
If the right hon. the Prime Minister is to be believed, no new principle is involved in the Bill which he is now presenting to the consideration of the House, and which it is but an amendment to the existing Militia Acts, with the addition of a few clauses and the elimination of a few others.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if such should be the case, the right hon. leader of the House, with this Bill, could certainly not compass the object he has in view, and he could certainly not provide for the compulsory enlistment of 100,000 men for overseas service; because, if the principle embodied in our existing Militia Act is to be maintained in the Bill under consideration, the Government could not put our militia on active service in Europe, without violating the policy and the letter of our Militia Act.
I submit, Sir, that the words in the Militia Act " beyond Canada for the defence thereof " merely convey the meaning that our militia may be called out beyond our frontiers to repel the invader.
From the day our first Militia Act was passed, in 1868, down to our own times, our lawgivers never contemplated or had anything in view besides the defence of Canada in North America.
Up to 1868, their were to be found in our Statute book formal enactments which never gave rise to ambiguity. In 1868, the Act of 1863 was superseded, and although the framers of the Act did not express any intention of changing the policy of the law, however as some exception was taken to

worse or better than the move made by the Government.
Has the Prime Minister satisfied himself, for a single moment, that his measure would make for union among the citizens of this country? Has the Prime Minister satisfied himself for a single moment, that his measure would promote greater unity of action? I do not grant him such ingenous ness. He must have known that the contrary would happen; he should have known that the first and only sure result, would be to intensify the race conflict going on in Canada, more particularly since the outbreak of the war.
A few moments of reflection should have made -him foresee the national disaster toward'which he is heading us, -and as I cannot suppose that the Prime Minister has not foreseen that fatality I hold him responsible for having deliberately done so. And by creating that condition in the country could the Prime Minister think he would stimulate the Canadian effort in the prosecution of the war? On the contrary, he should have reflected that he would paralyze it, as he does paralyze it, he will cause us to lose abroad the benefit of -all -the sacrifices we have imposed ourselves until now.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, we had drawn, we had provoked rather, the wonder and the admiration of the allied nations by the generosity and the spontaneity of our participation, and now the arbitrary and despotic action of the Government shall give rise to protests and to more than protests, which will certainly have the effect to create in the Allies' minds a confusion as to the appreciation of the sentiments and of the motives which have inspired our former participation.
To desire to establish conscription in our country; to wish to establish conscription here, when we have sff nobly and so generously answered every call, is not only a poor appreciation of the sacrifices made, it is a crime, and the future will say whether I am using too strong an expression to qualify the Government's action.
All these considerations, Mr. Speaker, awaken within me some suspicions as to the motives which have inspired the Government, and I am asking myself whether the " win the war " has had as much a decisive influence as did party considerations, and I would be greatly surprised if the Gov-, emment, after the adoption of their measure, if it be -adopted, ever attempt to apply it.	-
The Prime Minister knows under what conditions the Parliament is called' upon to 
legislate upon a question of this importance. We are no longer the representatives of the people, and we would have the impudence of doing away with the liberty of the people. But is not the absurdity of such a pretension. most evident, and, more especially, the danger of seeing it materialize?
But, it is said, our parliamentary existence has been continued by the Imperial Parliament. That does not make of us representatives of the people, but Imperial deputies, and since when has the Imperial Parliament the right to decide of the life of the citizens of Canada? They will laugh at us, unless the Government's action be considered as a provocation; then, they will revolt. We have no authority in the matter, -and it would be daring the people, should we have the audacity and the insolence to try and dispose of its liberties. The people will have nothing but contempt for an arbitrary measure adopted by an irresponsible body and I say: Woe be to those who would provoke them. We are living in a democratic country and our people will not readily accept the return to autocracy and despotism.
While it is not yet too late, I ask the Prime Minister to reconsider his decision, to withdraw his Bill. I ask it of him on behalf of Canada's future; I ask it on behalf of the necessary union of the races in this country; for the success of the war inasmuch as Canada's participation is concerned.
The Prime Minister stated that we should fear the wrath and indignation of our soldiers on their return, if we did not provide to fill the gaps and to send reinforcements. I think the Prime Minister was very ill-inspired in making such a statement. No one will believe that the heroes wh6 have fought freely and voluntarily for the triumph of civilization, of liberty and of equality, would demand the application to their fellow-citizens of methods different from those that were -applied to them. I have a higher conception of the mentality of the -heroes of Vimy, of Courcelette, of Saint Julien, of Festubert and of Ypres, and I entertain the hope that, fighting over there for universal peace against barbarity and the despotism of the military castes, they would not return here to establish the German methods and the reign of terror. Otherwise, there would be reason to bitterly regret our intervention in this war. And then, have we deserved this threat from the Prime Minister? No, assuredly not.
Let us see. Do they absolutely mean that we have done nothing in- this war or

do they not realize the gigantic effort we have accomplished? According to the Prime Minister, we ought to hide ourselves in shame, for our apathy and our indifference.
Well! this language shocks me and offends me, and faT from being ashamed at our share in this war, as a Canadian I am proud of it, and I concede to no one the right to diminish the glory, the honour and the ci edit which must therefrom reflect upon our country.
We are told: what will they think of us if we do not fill up the gaps? What will be thought is this, that we have done our share and that our resources do not permit us to do any more, inasmuch as our contribution in men is concerned. What did people think of France when she abandoned a part of her front line of defence to entrust it to British soldiers? It is not absolutely necessary that the front, now occupied by the Canadians, be always held by Canadians. The important point is that it be maintained, by allied troops, whether they be English. French, Australian, American or Canadian soldiers. When the French soldier could not hold his entire line, he was replaced by the British soldier and there was no cause for humiliation in that, just as there would be no rfeasou for uneasiness and for shame if a portion of our line were maintained by the Americans who have "just entered the war and who should now contribute a share at least equal to ours.
Let us suppose that we do go to the extreme limit, that we send all our men fit to carry arms, and that the war should last two or three years longer, should we then be obliged to send over our women, our children and our old men, so that we still might pride ourselves in saying that the Canadian lines are entirely held by Canadians? We have at present 420,000 men enlisted, perhaps more, out of a population of 7,000,000 souls, ar.d although. I do not desire to recriminate for, after all, such a levy has been voluntary, and although I have no objection against voluntary enlistment, I may truly say nevertheless that we have exceeded our capacity, and I find myself in excellent company when I make such a claim. The sending over of 200,000 men.would have been more in conformity with our needs, with the needs of the Allies, with our resources and our interest, 200,000 men at the front would have been considered as evidence of a boundless generosity, and devotion. Never had the Allies expected or imagined such a contribution from Canada, because they knew the extent of our territory, our relative population, and because they realized that our degree of interest was not the same as that of the sovereign nations; and they would not entertain any feeling of contempt, did they know that, before imposing upon ourselves the supreme effort, we desire at least to be convinced that we are not doing it in the place of those who are primarily obliged to do so. My intimate conviction is that 100,000 more men, in this mass of 25 or 30 millions of combatants, could have no more influence upon the result of the war than a grain of sand cast in the sea would affect its level, and, therefore, I am the more convinced that it is merely a matter of saving 100,000 men from elsewhere by sacrificing our own. These 100,000 lives, we need them at home; they mean little or nothing as far as the war is concerned, but what a capital for a young and vast country as ours, which, to lay its foundations, has been obliged until quite recently to pay people to cross over and to spend fabulous amounts towards encouraging immigration.
If, after the gigantic effort made by us, the Allies are still in need of soldiers, let us not forget that the United States are at war, that they have a population of 112,000,000 inhabitants, that they have entered this war for questions purely of national interest and that, comparatively, to equal our effort, they must raise an army of six or seven million men. .Let them first draw from this abundant and inexhaustible source before thinking of draining this country of its men before thinking of rooting out the very elements required for the carrying on of its activities.	-
After the splendid but lavish effort we have made, I am shocked at finding that it is proposed to take steps towards forcibly enlisting even the last men, by means of a conscription Bill. And under what circumstances? After the Premier and his colleagues have absolutely pledged themselves not t-o do so; after a minister of the Crown, just a few months ago, had himself elected upon a policy absolutely contrary to that which is born to us to-day; with an incomplete representation hnd when, as a matter of fact, some way or other, some thirty counties are deprived of all representation; when there is no longer in this House any representative of the people and that neither the Government nor this Parliament have the constitutional right of enacting conscription.
Besolutions have been known to spring from measures less arbitrary. What are we in our relations to the people? Plain individuals, without mandate or authority, existing as a body in consequence of an Imperial

Act, but we are no longer the representatives of the people. 1 have no right to speak here in the name of the people, neither upon this question nor upon any other, and I am too proud of my country's autonomy to speak in the name ol the Imperial Government. I am too fond of the democratic liberal ideas to play the dictator; the people of Canada are alone master of their destinies, alone have they the right to decide. They have delegated their powers to no one and, indeed, I cannot believe that, in this land of liberty, we could have the spectacle of a majority in an assembly of two hundred individuals, that would thus enforce its own views upon 7,000,000 free citizens. Let us beware!
The Allies' cause is noble and holy, we have realized that from the start, we made all manner of sacrifice; |we made 'them generously and willingly; we are ready to make more, but to come and attempt to coerce us after the remarkable voluntary effort we have just made, that is an insult which has been spared the people in certain portions of the Empire, such as Australia where though determined to contribute their all thej. nevertheless resolved m affirm their freedom. Let us consult the people. A large section of the country is opposed to conscription, it may or may not form the majority; a plebiscite alone can show. Will the majority declare in favour of it? If so, the minority will submit, for we have a population deeply imbued with sound democratic ideas.
Without a plebiscite, who can tell us that the people shall respect a measure arbitrarily passed by a power without responsibility or authority? Have we the right to create in the^ country such a situation? Have we the right to risk the consequences of an arbitrary and despotic act when, by a referendum, the question would be settled, without friction and without danger, within a few weeks?
Would a negative verdict be feared? Who are those who fear public opinion? Shall public opinion be respected, yes or no? Are we living in a constitutional country? Well, then, what is this public opinion? There is nothing but a popular consultation that can let us know, at this hour, for there are no longer any representatives of the people.
Of course, I am -aware that in certain centres the opinion is current that anti-conseriptionists are to be found in Quebec only; let us have a plebiscite and we will thus obtain two equally important results: first, we shall know the popular will as regards enlistment, and, in the second

place, we may perhaps put an end to the prejudices that are fostered against Quebec in certain outlying and beclouded communities.
The hon. Solicitor General thought fit, the day before yesterday, to put a question, not to me, but to the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil). I would have been glad if someone had put me the same question, and I shall do as if that had actually happened. He asked what was our opinion upon conscription.
Should the Government withdraw its Bill and grant us a plebiscite, I would go before the electors of my county and engage them with all the energy in my power to vote against conscription. As a citizen, I would vote against conscription most decidedly; but if the majority declared in favour of conscription, then I would submit, and I would ask all my electors and all my fellow-citizens to likewise submit. I would go before my electors and I would tell them this in order to induce them to vote against conscription. I would say to them: According to me, -the only way in which we can at present really assist in bringing about the final victory of the Allies is by developing agriculture, it is by doing intensive culture, it is by setting ourselves to the building of ships, it is by turning out more munitions.
I have a long time since been deeply impressed with that idea, and never was I more convinced of it than when I heard, in this House, the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), who spoke as follows-	'


Sir HERBERT AMES (translation) :: #Will the hon. member allow me to put him one question?


Mr. DEMERS (translation):: Certainly.


Herbert Brown Ames: The hon. member stated, if I rightly caught his meaning, that he would do all in his power to induce his electors to vote against conscription?


Marie Joseph Demers: Certainly.


Herbert Brown Ames: But if the vote of the Dominion of Canada be in favour of conscription, that he would do his possible to induce his electors to accept that.measure. If there is a general election, would he be disposed to do anything after?


Marie Joseph Demers: If there is a general election before the passing of this law or-after the passing of this law? If we had a general election immediately?


Herbert Brown Ames: Yes.


Marie Joseph Demers: If we had a general election immediately, I would tell my eleetofs that the question of conscription would be submitted to them by plebiscite unless the Government agreed to have a plebiscite at the time the election was being held.


Herbert Brown Ames: I do not exactly understand; if you will allow me, from your point of view, is there a difference between a referendum pure and simple and a general election?


Marie Joseph Demers: Certainly, if, in a general election, the question were not separately put, the voters' opinion, as to this special question, would perhaps not be known-and I believe the question should be put in a most special manner, so that the voter may give a distinct answer, and I do think the only way out of the difficulty would be to submit the question through a plebiscite, either at the time of the election or subsequently, if the Liberal party came into power and the movement in favour of conscription should be continued.
I was just about to quote the words spoken by the hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce, when I was interrupted- and, indeed, it has afforded me pleasure- by the hon. member for St. Antoine. I shall now quote from the statement made by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce :
The great question in the war at the present time is feeding the Allies, feeding the Allies for the rest of the war, and more especially for the next six months. A submarine can sink a 6,000 ton vessel in two minutes, but it takes months to build one. The critical time is between now and the end of 1917, and whatever goods we can have in that period is our bounden duty to save.
To further confirm my views, I just read this morning, in a Montreal paper, an interview given by Lord Rhondda, food controller in England, an interview which took place on the I9th of the present month. Here is what lie says:
In this war, and especially at this stage, food-power is co-equal with man-power," said Lord Rhondda, the new food controller in an interview to-day. "The problem of Great Britain's food primarily depends upon the supply, and in the main the solution of the problem of supply lies in America. I am sure they will not let us down."
And further:
For this we depend to a vital degree upon the United States and Canada. No one recognizes that more fully than I do.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding I will say that our duty just now in this country, considering the assistance we can give the Allies and the very future of our country, is first, to practice the strictest economy, and then to apply ourselves to promoting the interests of agriculture and production generally, and we must also think of preserving in this country at least the germ of life which shall be necessary to us in order to face and to solve the after-the-war problems of which we have been given so gloomy and dismaying representations.
On motion of Mr. Hazen the House adjourned at 11.05 p.m.
Friday, June 22, 1917.