1917-07-03

Right Hon.   S@: In consequence of the House having failed to maintain a quorum on Friday evening, it becomes [DOT] necessary for me to move, seconded by hon. Mr. Cochrane:
That the order of the day for "resuming the adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Sir Robert Borden for the second reading of Bill No. 75, an Act respecting Military Service, the amendment of Sir Wilfrid Laurier thereto, and the amendment to the amendment by Mr. Barrette," having laDsed by reason of the House being declared adjourned for want of a quorum on the 29th ultimo, when the said order was under consideration be revived and placed on the Order Paper for consideration this day.
Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (St. John): No notice of this motion has been made by

word of mouth, nor does it appear upon the Order Paper that this motion would be moved. I would submit, therefore, that it cannot be passed except by the unanimous consent of the House. I feel myself personally constrained to raise an objection to the motion and tc urge that the rules of the House should be adhered to. On Friday last, when the Bill was under consideration, there was not a quorum in the House; there were only some eighteen members present. Perhaps it is not out of place to call attention to the fact that during the last week there was scarcely a day when, if any hon. member on this side of the House had taken the point of order that there was not a quorum, the House would have been counted out. On Friday evening, however, the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Bou-lay), an hon. member ordinarily supporting the Government, raised the objection that there was not a quorum. At that time there were only four members-


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: Is the hon. member speaking to a point of order or on the motion?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: I am stating my objections to the motion.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The motion of itself does not permit of debate, but I would have no objection to a very limited discussion on the point of order. I hope the hon. member for St. John will confine his remarks strictly to the point of order.


William Pugsley: I will confine my remarks to the point of order, but I thought it would not be out of place to state the reason which induced me to insist upon the point of order being ruled upon by Your Honour. The undoubted result of the House being counted out on Friday is that the second reading of the Bill is a dropped order. I call Your Honour's attention to Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure, page 323:
A "count out" will always supersede any question that is 'before the House; and if an order of the day for Supply, or for the reading or committal of a Bill, be under consideration at the time, and there is no quorum present, the House must be asked at a subsequent sitting to revive the question that may have lapsed in this way.
There are a number of authorities cited in the notes:
131 English Com. J. 391, 329 ; Forfeiture Relief Bill, ordered to be considered on a future day. 235 English Hansard, (3), 203 ; 131 English Com. J. 282-3, Committee of Supply. 137 Xb. 18, 297, 306, 483.

I would also call Your Honour's attention to May's Parliamentary Practice, page 263. I need not direct Your Honour's attention to the fact that wherever the Canadian rules do not specially provide, the English procedure, prior to Confederation, is made to apply. On page 263, May says:
When an order of the day has been read, the proceedings thereon may be cut short by the adjournment of the House whilst those proceedings are in course of transaction. Ail order of the day, in such a case, or if, when the order is read, no day is appointed for its future consideration, drops off the notice paper, as the House has made no order thereon ; and in committee the same result may be produced, either by a failure of a quorum of the House, or by resolution direct the Chairman to leave the Chair. To replace a dropped order of the day upon the notice paper, a motion is made before the commencement, or -after the close, of public business, to appoint the order for a subsequent day.
It was quite open for a member of tbe Government on Friday evening to place upon the Order Paper a notice of motion fixing to-day for the revival of the discussion of this Bill. In that case, it would have appeared properly upon the Order Paper to-day, and hon. members intending to take part in the debate, seeing the notice on the Order Paper, would naturally be present to discharge their duty. As a matter of fact, I believe the hon. member who was speaking at the time the House was counted out, is not present because it was assumed that the discussion would not be resumed to-day by reason of the Bill having been dropped. May says:
To replace a dropped order of the day upon the notice paper, a motion is made before the commencement, or after the close, of public . business, to appoint the order for a subsequent day; and these motions are made without notice.
A member of the Government might on Friday night have placed upon the Order Paper a motion for consideration to-day. May goes on:
If on such order of the day procedure had been commenced and interrupted, the proceeding thus revived is set down for resumption at the position indicated by the last decision of the House entered upon the Votes and Proceedings. If, however, it is essential that proceedings on an order of the day, cut short by an unexpected adjournment, should be resumed at the next sitting, to obtain that object a notice of motion is placed for that purpose, in the name of a minister of the Crown, upon the notice paper for the next sitting, at the commencement of public business, and the dropped order is placed, printed in italics, at the head of the list of the orders of the day.
Then there is another authority which is referred to in Bourinot as authority for the statement that such a motion may be made

without notice, but a reference to the authority will show that it is simply a confirmation of the practice as laid down in May's Parliamentary Practice. The authority referred to is Blackmore's Speakers' Decisions, page 69:
"Count out. Effect of." If the House is counted out in any stage of a Bill the Bill becomes a dropped order. Blind and Deaf-Mute Children (Education) Bill. Observations. Vol. 249, pages 987-8. August 14, 1879.
Then further under the heading of "dropped order, revival of consideration," Blackmore says:
In the event of a Bill becoming a dropped order it is competent on a subsequent day, without notice, to move to fix a day for its being again considered.
So that my right hon. friend would be quite in order in moving to-day without notice to fix a subsequent day, sucii as tomorrow or the day after, as he might desire, for the Bill being again considered. Under these authorities, I believe, this motion cannot pass except by unanimous consent of the House; and I deem it my duty to raise the objection I do.


Robert Laird Borden: So far as our
practice is concerned, it is laid down in Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure, page 538:
If a Bill becomes a dropped order by the counting out of the House it is competent for a member to revive it on a subsequent day without notice.


William Pugsley: From which edition is
the Prime Minister quoting?


Robert Laird Borden: The last edition, I think.


William Pugsley: No, I think not.


Robert Laird Borden: Page 538 is the page given me by the Clerk of the House. As a matter of fact it has been the universal practice of our House when an Order of the Day lapses, to revive it at once. On many occasions, I myself have seen this. When Mr. Fielding was Minister of Finance, I have seen an amendment to the motion that the Speaker do now leave the Chair accepted by the Government of the day.. The passing of such an amendment means that the order is superseded and becomes virtually a dropped order. The practice was to move immediately that the House do now resolve itself into Committee of Supply, without notice, and supply was taken up on the same day. A notable instance of the same character is found in the proceedings of the House of Commons of the United
Kingdom of 22nd and 25th June, 1877. There was a motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into Committee of Supply. An hon. member proposed an amendment. At twenty minutes past nine on Friday the House was counted out, and on the following Monday the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved that the House do immediately resolve itself into Committee of Supply. After some debate as to the regularity of the motion, the Speaker declared it in order *and it was .accepted. The motion followed:
" That the Speaker do now leave the Chair." On that motion being proposed, .an hon. member moved an amendment. After considerable debate, the amendment was carried, and for the second time on the same day, the order that the House .should resolve itself into Committee of Supply became a lapsed order. Whereupon the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved, for the second time on the same day, " That the House do immediately resolve itself into Committee of Supply." The motion was carried. It was then moved, " That the Speaker do now leave the Chair. A further amendment was proposed, and a debate took place. The amendment was defeated, and the House resolved itself into Committee of Supply.
I venture to think that the authority of Bourinot and the illustrations I have given from our own practice and from the British parliamentary practice are amply sufficient to sustain the regularity of the motion I have made.


William Pugsley: My reply to my right
hon. friend (Sir Robert Borden) shall be very brief. He referred to the practice in England, having reference to the House being counted out, in the evening. There is I believe a special rule 'that between eight and nine it is not necessary that a quorum should be present. Was the case to which the right hon. gentleman refers between eight and nine?


Robert Laird Borden: It was at
twenty minutes after nine.


William Pugsley: In that ease any remark based upon the rule to which I have referred would not be applicable. It seems to me that where my right hon. friend is in error is in relying upon the text of Bourinot without having regard to the case cited by him. The authority upon which Bourinot relies is Blackmore's Speakers' Decisions, page 69, to which I have called attention already, the question that arose on the di*

cussion of the Sale 6f Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) Bill. The decision in that case was that:
In the event of a Bill becoming a dropped order it is competent on a subsequent day, without notice, to move to fix a day for its being again considered.
That must be a day subsequent.


Robert Laird Borden: It does not say so.


William Pugsley: I think it is undoubtedly so. The alternative method is given by May, as follows:
If, however, it is essential that proceedings on an order of the day, cut short by an unexpected adjournment, should be resumed at the next sitting, to obtain that object a notice of motion is placed for that purpose, in the name of a minister of the Crown, upon the notice paper for the next sitting, at the commencement of public business; and the dropped order is placed, printed in italics, at the head of the list of the orders of the day.
I think it is very clear under these authorities that my right hon. friend has no right to move that the Bill be again placed on the Order Paper without having given notice, which, under the old rule, would be oral notice, but now means notice printed in the Order Paper. This ought to have been done, and the proposed departure from the established practice can only be taken by unanimous concent.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Bourinot, 4th Edition, at page 538, says:
If a Bill becomes a dropped order by the counting out of the House, it is competent for a member to revive it on a subsequent day without notice.
"Subsequent day" is a day after the day on which the order lapses, which lapse is caused by reason of a quorum not being present. That, I think, is the weight to be given to the word "subsequent," the word "subsequent" not having reference to a notice of motion. Also, I direct the attention of the House to May, 12th Edition, page 219:
Certain formal motions which are necessary for the due transaction of business are also made without notice, before the commencement, or after the close of public business, such as motions for the first readings of bills received from the House of Lords ; for the consideration of Lord's amendments forthwith, or upon a future day; for the postponement, the discharge, or the revival of an order of the day.
The question is arguable as to whether it is competent to proceed with this motion. But I point out to the House that we are in this respect breaking new ground, as the question has not before arisen in this
[Mr. Pugsley.j
House. That being so, the consideration that guides me is that there is no prejudice to the public business or to the public interest by reason of this motion being dealt with. On the other hand, if a motion of this character should require even a day's notice, it might so happen that the public interest would be prejudiced. Having anticipated that this discussion might arise, I have considered the question, and I am very clear in my opinion that the motion of the Prime Minister is in order, and that it is competent for the House to proceed with the order if the motion should carry.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: At the last sitting of the House the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Boivin) raised a point of order with respect to a motion in amendment to an amendment submitted by the hon. member for Berthier (Mr. Barrette). In considering the point I discovered on examining the said amendment to the amendment as it appeared in the Votes and Proceedings that the entry is not a correct transcription of the motion placed in my hands by the hon. member for Berthier. If an error, or a wrong entry, is discovered immediately, it would appear to be competent for the Clerk of the House to>
have a correction made by entering an erratum; but where some time elapses before the error is discovered, such a correction could only be made by order of the House.
It is not only important that the records of the House should be exact, but there is the further consideration that a member ought not to be prejudiced by an act of an official of the House. To submit a motion that such correction be made, without proper evidence, might involve a debate without advantage. In m:y judgment, the matter is of sufficient importance to call for an inquiry by a select committee, which could, be appointed forthwith, with permission to sit during the sessions of the House, and to which instructions should be given to report at the next sitting of the House, recommending an alteration in accordance with the facts. I have therefore placed a motion in the hands of the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden).


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of any discrepancy between

the motion as proposed and the record of it in the Votes and Proceedings. When you mentioned the matter to me, I suggested that you should submit the question to my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) as to the best course to be pursued. The motion which has been placed in my hands and which I move, seconded by my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, if he has no objection, is:
That a special committee of five members, to be named by Mr. Speaker, be appointed to inquire into the correctness of the entry of the amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Berthier to the second reading of Bill No. 75, Military Service Act, 1917 as entered in the Votes and Proceedings of June 20 ; that the said special committee have leave to sit during the time the House is in session, with power to send for persons and papers; that it be instructed to recommend such alterations in the Votes and Proceedings as the facts may warrant; and that it be further instructed to report at the next sitting of the House.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: I second the
motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I name Messrs. Northrup, Boys, Barnard., Pugsley and Boivin to constitute this committee, and I would ask Mr. Northrup to convene the committee at the earliest passible moment this afternoon.




[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden (Prime Minister) for the second reading of Bill No. 75, Military Service Act, 1917, and the amendment of Sir Wilfrid Laurier thereto, and on the amendment to the amendment by Mr. Barrette, resumed from Friday, June 29
William Pugsley: I understand that the hon. member for Guysborough will resume the debate. I would like to suggest to my right hon. friend the Prime Minister that the House might fairly consent to the hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville (Mr. Lanc-tot) resuming his speech, which was interrupted by the sudden counting out of the House. He is not here to-day.


Robert Laird Borden: Certainly, that would go without saying. Of course, it would be most unfair to place any obstacle in the way of his speech.


Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR (Guysborough):: It would seem to the onlooker that this conscription proposal is not very popular with the supporters of this Government; otherwise, the House would not have been counted out for want of a quorum at the session on Friday night. Even the ministers themselves appear to have given up all hope of passing this Bill, or, apparently, they have lost interest in it; otherwise they would have prevented that catastrophe happening. We have about fourteen members of the Cabinet, and we have, I do not know how many, under secretaries besides; so that if we had had a full meeting of the Cabinet on Friday night, as we ought to have had when a vital question of this kind is before the country, the disaster would not have happened. But, Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that they have rallied and that there is a better attendance here this afternoon. It looks to me as if, notwithstanding what happened on Friday night, the Government may still be able to carry on.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: It is in compliment to my hon. friend.


John Howard Sinclair: I am glad to hear it. It is quite true that this debate has already occupied a considerable time, but in dealing with a great question such as the one which is now before the House, it is proper and desirable that each member should state the reasons for the vote he intends to give. I may say frankly, to begin with, that I intend to support the amendment moved by my leader. I do not take this course for the purpose of defeating this Bill, but for the purpose of making it more effective. Hon. members will agree with me that an important measure of this kind should not be enacted by a moribund Government without some kind of an appeal to the people. It should not be enacted unless we have behind it a strong body of public opinion. If we do enact it without that it will necessarily be a dead letter. Let us make no mistake; in the present state of public opinion, especially in the province of Quebec, this measure cannot be enforced. Hon. gentlemen opposite, and some of my hon. friends on this side, talk glibly about forcing the people to fight. We have no machinery in this country to force men to fight. We are not equipped, as they are in Germany, for that purpose. The Kaiser can make a law this morning, he can have it printed by the imperial press this afternoon, and to-morrow morning he can place it in the hands of the Prussian Guards and ask them to en-

force it at the point of the bayonet. We have no such system in this country. We have no standing army to perform services of that kind. Macaulay once used the following language:-
I know of only two ways by which society can be governed-by public opinion and by the sword.
My leader is making a sincere attempt by this amendment to reconcile contending interests and parties and to govern this country by public opinion, and so far as this amendment is concerned I intend to stand by him. If the amendment carries, if it should be accepted by the Government, it will become part of the Bill. If on the other hand, the amendment is defeated, I do not intend to offer any opposition to the Bill going to committee. There are some important objections that I have to certain clauses of this Bill, and I hold myself free, when the Bill is in committee and on the third reading, to give such a vote and to take such a course as in my judgment will be in the public interest.
I may say further that, if the sub-amendment moved by the hon. member for Ber-thier (Mr. Barrette) is voted on, I will vote against it. I was somewhat surprised to see the six months' hoist to a Government Bill moved by an 'hon. gentleman who is -such an enthusiastic supporter of this Government as is the hon. member for Berthier. There is an added reason for this surprise when we remember that the mover and the seconder of this motion were both recently honoured with commissions in His Majesty's forces by the present Government. There is reason to belieye, however, that the action of these two h.on. gentlemen will not in the least disturb the entente cordiale which has existed between the two wings of the Conservative party ever since the alliance between the Prime Minister and the leader of the Nationalist party in 1911.
I find it somewhat hard to understand the attitude of this Government in regard to consulting the people. Why should we not consult the people? Surely the people of this country are as loyal and as anxious to win this war as the Government is or as . hon. gentlemen on this side or the other side of the House are. I was brought up under a different school. I learned my lessons from men who had learned their lessons on democracy at the feet of the late Hon-. Joseph Howe. In the province of Nova Scotia, Howe was known as the tribune of the people. In the early days of the past century Howe found the province of Nova Scotia under the control ,of an

oligarchy not unlike the present Administration and he determined that he would free the province from that rule. The fight was long and fierce, but he won out and he gave to the province of Nova Scotia the boon of responsible government. The motto of Howe during that conflict and the motto of the Liberal party in the province of Nova Scotia ever since that day has been: Let the people rule-


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.
Mr. SINCLAIR-and it is their motto to-day. I believe that Nova Scotia was the first province in Canada to gain this boon of responsible government; but the gospel spread to other provinces, the good work was taken up by such men as Baldwin, Lafontaine and Bro-wn, and after a time all the provinces of Canada secured and now enjoy the great boon of responsible government. It looks to me now as if we would have to fight all this battle over again. Will any man say that we are today living under responsible government in this country? We are not, we are living under a government of party bosses that, in secret conclave and behind closed drfors, decide what we shall have or shall not have, and it seems to me that it is our first duty to restore in this country responsible government. Do not imagine that the people of Canada do not prize the privilege of being consulted upon their own affairs. For one hundred years the Canadian people have striven to win the rights of a free democracy, and they have succeeded and what they have they will hold. I say that no far reaching measure like this should be enacted without some kind of an appeal to the people. I find it hard to understand the attitude of some hon. gentlemen on my own side of the House. The hon. member for West Lamb-ton (Mr. Pardee) seems to hold the view that a majority of the people of Canada are opposed to this measure, and that if we submitted it to them they would defeat it. That is what he said. I differ from my hon friend. I believe, Sir, that if this question was submitted to the people of Canada in a right manner, by the leaders of both parties, that it would not be defeated. But, in any case, what right have we to dictate to the people of Canada? Who are we that we should force our opinions and our will upon the people of this country against their will? Have we, Sir, some sort of divine right like that which is claimed by the Kaiser of Germany or by the late King of Greece?

A great deal has been said about the solid vote that would be given in Quebec against the referendum. If the principle of this Bill is defeated on a referendum in this country, it will not be by Quebec, because Quebec has not enough votes to defeat it. The blue-books show that the total registered vote in the Dominion in 1911, in all the provinces, was 1,820,742. The total registered vote in Quebec was only 455,288, or less than one-quarter of the whole registered vote of Canada, so that even if every elector in Quebec voted against conscription, which of course would not occur, you would still have 1,365,454 electors in the other parts of Canada to deal with. The total vote in Quebec, after all, is only about equal to the soldiers' vote, and everybody says that the soldiers are in favour of conscription. Thus the soldiers' vote, if taken, would offset the total vote of Quebec, and if it be true that we could not carry this measure by the majority of the rest of Canada, then, if you did pass it, it would be an absolutely dead letter, and so it should not be passed. It has been said that there would be difficulties about taking the votes of the soldiers, and that argument appeals to me. The soldiers ought to have an opportunity of voting upon this question. There would be no difficulty in taking the -soldiers' vote in Canada or in England; but there are over 100,000 soldiers in France where there might be difficulty in taking their votes.
I would propose, and I think it is a reasonable proposal and one that should be accepted, that it would be fair, if the Government decided to refer this matter to the people, to insert a clause in the Bill providing that the votes of soldiers on active service whose votes could not be conveniently taken at the front, should be counted as in favour of conscription. I make that proposal and I think it a fair one that could not be objected to by members of this House on either side, although I am only speaking for myself.
Then the delay that would be involved in taking a referendum has been dwelt upon. The right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) himself has settled that question because he has made a proposal that we should pass this Bill with a rider saying that it should not come into force until after a general election. If there is time for a general election-the Prime Minister knows more about the- circumstances than anybody else-I submit that there is time for a referendum. The press supporting the Government and some hon. gentlemen also have tried to put forward the idea that our soldiers at the front are crying out for support, that they are in great straits, and that if we do not send them support, they will be overwhelmed at the front. Do you think, Sir, that this is true, or is that cry raised for political effect?
I submit that there is no evidence on which to base such a statement. Do you think that, with a total battle line extending over five hundred miles, defended by six or seven millions of the best fighting men and the biggest guns in the world, our little bunch of four divisions are feeling anxious about their support?
Why, Sir, the statement is not true, and if it were true, it would be a very severe reflection on the British command. Such statements as that should not be made, because they are mischievous and tend to do harm. Surely our case for recruits is strong enough, without indulging in an exaggeration of that kind. Let it not be said that there is danger of Canadian soldiers being left to their fate, and being_ denied the necessary support by the British and French high commands at the front, for such is not the case. There is not the slightest danger, and there never was any danger, of our soldiers being deserted in that way.


Mr. CURRIE:: How is it the Canadians had to hold their lines for nearly twelve days, without support, at the battle of Ypres? I was there and I know.


John Howard Sinclair: It could not have been that there were no reinforcements. If it be true that the hon. member was there he should have stayed there. But that is not the point. There is a reason, however, and a much better reason than that, why we should supply recruits. Every Canadian who has pride in his country, and red blood in his veins, wants to see the gaps filled by Canadians and our four divisions at the front kept up to full fighting strength. I trust we all agree that this must be done, and, if it cannot be done by voluntary enlistment, it must be done by conscription. I quite realize that this is a question on which there may be very strong differences of opinion, even among those who are anxious to arrive at the very best conclusion. I do not say that because a man does not agree with me his views are wrong, or that his conduct is improper. This is a free country. It is freedom we are fighting for, and the best way to deal with this question is to have a free and open dis-

cussion, and each man to say what he thinks. It is results we are after, and we cannot get results by quarrelling among ourselves. The way to get results is to keep cool, and to cultivate a spirit of unity and toleration. My honoured leader has spent the greater part of a long and useful life in a sincere effort to weld together the two great races in this country, and to create a vigorous Canadian sentiment, not only in the province of Quebec, but in the other provinces. Seven or eight years ago we all thought that he had succeeded, but a change came for the worst. An enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat. The enemy that sowed the tares was the Bourassas, Lavergnes, the Blondins and the Sevignys, at the time of the election in Drummond-Arthabaska, and I am sorry to say that the evil seed was blessed by my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce, when he gave voice to the slogan: "Anything to beat Laurier."


George Eulas Foster: I wish my hon. friend would give us the ipsissima verba of that blessing. I have asked for it before, but I could never get it.


John Howard Sinclair: My hon. friend should remember that himself. I do not want to be too hard on my hon. friend. I have a great deal of respect for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He has had a very long, and, in many respects, a worthy career. He has had a varied experience in what Mr. Dooley calls the great university of this wicked world. No doubt, like other great men, the Minister of Trade and Commerce has made mistakes. We, on this side of the House, would not wish to be too hard on him. We would feel like forgiving him for these mistakes if he would show signs of repentance. I do not says that he has made too many mistakes. He once built a Canadian navy on wind. It looked fine. It looked trim and good and apparently fit to sail the seven seas, but within two or three years he blew it on the rocks with more wind, and it is now high and dry, and a total wreck. But the most regrettable incident of a long and distinguished career was his conduct, in a moment of weakness, I suppose, at the time of the election in Drummond-Arthabaska, but it did not end there. The evil seed was watered by the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden), and by my hon. friend the Minister of Railways (Mr. Cochrane). In 1911 the fertilizer was paid for by the member for Ste. Antoine Division, Montreal (Sir Herbert Ames), and we are now

reaping the harvest, and a fine mess it is. I wish to say, Mr. Speaker, that the people of this country will place the responsibility for that mess where it properly belongs, at the door of the present Administration. Sir, we are told by the Prime Minister that voluntary recruiting has failed, and that we must resort to compulsion. That statement has been disputed by many hon. members of this House, especially by my hon. friend from Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll), who told the House that voluntary enlistment had not failed in Nova Scotia. The evidence before the House on this point is not very clear. The statement of the Prime Minister may be true, and I am not going to say it is not true, but if the Prime Minister or the Minister of Militia would state the policy of the Government in Tegard to this matter, we would be better prepared to form an opinion. Is it our policy to send all the men we can to the front, or is it our policy to maintain four divisions at the front? We do not know. From the information we have we cannot tell what the policy of the Government is on that question. The Prime Minister of Australia has stated frankly that the Australian people are attempting to hold five divisions at the front, and to supply the recruits necessary to fill the gaps in those five divisions toy voluntary enlistment, but we have no idea what we are attempting in Canada. I submit, Sir, that the House is entitled to more information on this question than we have yet received. The hon. member for South Ontario (Mr. Smith) a few days ago asked the following question:
1. What has been the total number of casualties in the Canadian Expeditionary Forces since June, 1916, to date?
Here is the answer:
Total number of casualties in Canadian Expeditionary Force from the 30th June, 1916, to June 5, 1917, is as follows:
Officers	 2,957
Other ranks	 62,592
Total	   65,549
The second question is as follows:
2. What has been the total number of recruits enlisted in the Canadian Expeditionary Forces from June, 1916, to date?
The answer to that question is as follows:
The number of recruits enlisted in the Canadian Expeditionary Force from June 30, 1916, to May 31, 1917, was 74,510.
If you subtract one of these from the other, you find the excess of recruits over casualties during the past year is 8,961 i

do not place much dependence upon these figures, because there is the wildest confusion in connection with all the information that we get on this question of recruiting. I could show you returns, Sir, which have been placed on the table of this House by the Government which prove that 70,000 men have disappeared altogether. They have enlisted, but they have not been killed; they are not wounded, they are not in the hospitals.
They are not prisoners; they are not on the other side of the Atlantic, and they are not on this side of the Atlantic. They have disappeared as completely as the army of Sennacherib referred to in Bible story and the Lord knows where they are. That is an illustration of the kind of information that we are getting from the Militia Department.
The whole matter of getting men comes down to a question of method. Speaking for myself, I do not like compulsion. It may be necessary; if it is necessary I am going to support it, but I prefer the voluntary system. A similar preference prevails among the people of Australia-even among the soldiers of Australia, I am told; as was evidenced by their vote some months ago on the question of a referendum. The gaps in the ranks of the immortal Anzacs have so far been filled and will be filled by voluntary recruiting and no one will say they are not doing well. There is not much glory in fighting for King and country when you have to at the point of a bayonet. Napoleon Bonaparte is credited with saying that one volunteer is worth three conscripts, and I believe that he was right. A few days ago I read a report in the press that a Canadian soldier somewhere in France had captured seventeen armed Germans in a trench or dug-out and single-handed drove them into camp as prisoners. I do not know whether or not the story is true, but very likely it is. Does the Minister of Militia suppose that one German could capture seventeen Canadians?


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: No.


John Howard Sinclair: Why? Because the Canadian soldier is a volunteer, while the German is a conscript. A few days ago a friend of mine was good enough to send me a thrilling story of the bravery of a Highland piper from Nova Scotia, who, amid the hail of shot and shell, climbed Vimy Ridge at the head of his company, playing the march of the Cameron men, with the Nova Scotia boys shouting and yelling behind him. Could an incident like this occur in an
army of conscripts? I submit that it could not.
It is not force that we want In Canada. Hon. gentlemen opposite know that force will never succeed in this country. What we want is enthusiasm; what we want more than anything else at the present time is a Peter the Hermit who will travel this country from end to end and fire the blood and arouse the martial spirit of the people. The voluntary system has not had a fair trial. ' Recruiting could not be handled worse than it was handled in the province from which I come. The young men of Nova Scotia did splendidly, but whatever success we had in recruiting in that province was due to private enterprise and not to anything done by this Government. In many cases recruiting officers were selected through political influence, not on account of their merits. They were sent out to hold meetings in places where they had never been before, and to speak to people who had never heard of them, while local men who could have had some influence were totally ignored. Such a campaign as that could not succeed; the wonder is that the results were as good as they were.
But this mismanagement was not confined to Nova Scotia; it seems to have been widespread. The province of Quebec, we are told, fared even worse than Nova Scotia. For two years I have listened to the member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) urging the Government to send Major-General Les-sard, or some shell man, to the province of Quebec to take charge of recruiting. Why was Major-General Lessard not sent? Because he was not acceptable to the Government. It was not until the 29th of March of this year that the Government yielded, and then they 'sent Major-General LessaTd under the wing of the Post-
4 p.m. master-General (Hon. P. E.
Blondin). This was enough to damn the efforts of any man who attempted to perform the duties of a recruiting officer in the province of Quebec. In an interview given to the Montreal Gazette on May 21, the Postmaster-General himself said that if the province of Quebec had been properly organized under the direction of an officer like Major-General Lessard and the recruiting properly handled, the French-Canadians would have enlisted en masse. Why was the province of Quebec not properly organized? Who is to blame? The Postmaster-General himself was a member of the Government that failed to

do its duty; my courageous friend the Minister of Inland Revenue (Hon. Albert Sevigny) was also a member of the Government.


John Allister Currie: The hon. gentleman knows that Major-General Lessard was Inspector-General in Quebec during all that time, and that he had the whole thing in his hands, just as the Inspector-Generals in the West had in their own districts.


John Howard Sinclair: I do not know anything of the kind. He had no authority before March 29. I never heard that excuse given by the Government until this moment.


John Allister Currie: I do not know whether it is an excuse or not. It is a fact, however, that Major-General Lessard was placed in charge of the eastern districts and Major-Genertl (Steele of those in the west. That was immediately after the war broke out. Major-General Lessard is still Inspector-General in the Quebec district.


John Howard Sinclair: Inspector-General without instructions to act. I have no doubt that when my hon. friend speaks he will attempt to justify the placing of a Methodist clergyman at the head of recruiting in the province of Quebec. That is how the Government dealt with this matter. I have no objection to a Methjodist clergyman being put in any responsible position, but my hon. friend will agree that it was an indiscreet appointment, to say the least, to place recruiting in the province of Quebec under the control of a Methodist clergyman. The member for Rouville put the case very well when he asked what would have happened if the Superior of the Jesuit Order had been placed in charge of recruiting in Ontario.


Albert Edward Kemp: I made a very full explanation regarding Rev. Mr. Williams' appointment. He did not direct his efforts amongst the French-Canadian people. His efforts were directed entirely amongst the English-speaking people of the province, among whom there was a tremendous enlistment.


John Howard Sinclair: Still he was the chief recruiting officer for the province. I am not very familiar with these matters. I am quite willing to accept the statement of the minister.
May I suggest that there is no good reason why we should not follow the example of Australia? Australia plans to keep five divisions up to full strength by

raising 7,000 recruits a month under the voluntary system. No later than yesterday I read the following despatch from Sydney, New South Wales. It is dated July 2, and is as follows:
Contrary to general expectations. Premier Hughes has not announced another conscription referendum. He said the Government put forward its proposals last year for compulsory service on the basis that 16,500 troops per month were required to keep five Australian divisions at full fighting strength. Later experience happily proved the British War Office estimate too high. The Government now appealed to Australia to raise at least 7,000 recruits monthly voluntarily. It also desired to secure such an additional number of recruits as would enable leave to be given to the remaining members of the first division so that they may return to Australia for a rest.
Premier Hughes was sure that if all sections worked harmoniously and the voices of the conscriptionists and anti-conscriptionists alike were silent, men would rally to the colours and honor Australia. The Government would apply forthwith to the policy of preference of employment for returned soldiers.
We raised 6,520 recruits in May under the voluntary system, without, so far as I can learn, making any effort at all. It would seem that if Australia can supply the wastage of five divisions with 7,000 recruits a month, we in Canada ought to be able to supply the wastage of four divisions.
Mo\ CURRIE: I suppose the hon. member knows that the Australian militia is in training all the time, and that those recruits are volunteers from that body. The militia are called oiut by the Premier, according to categories, foT training.


John Howard Sinclair: I do not think that affects my argument in any case. Mr. Speaker why do we find ourselves in the confusion in which we are to-day? Why was National Service a failure? Why was home defence a failure? Why was voluntary recruiting a failure, if indeed it has been a failure? I submit that all these failures can be traced to the same cause. These attempts to accomplish something were abortive very largely on account of the patronage system that is being adhered to by the present Administration. Let us look, for example, a,t the case of Sir Thomas Tait. When he was appointed head of the National Service Commission, his appointment was hailed with pleasure by every man in Canada, irrespective of party. What happened? Within three weeks we heard that Sir Thomas Tait had resigned his appointment. Why? Because he was interfered with, because he would not submit to party dictation, why, Sir, be was not permitted even to appoint his own secretary. His

resignation was accepted and an extreme partisan put in 'Ms place.
There is another phase of tihi/s matter that I want to refer to shortly. I wish to lay down the principle that a measure so vital as this, involving the lives and hopes and fortunes of 100,000 young Canadians, should not be administered by a partisan Government. But hon. members opposite will say:	We offered you a coalition. I
do not wish to doiubt the sincerity of the Prime Minister in -regard to that offer, but if he really wanted a coalition, he took an. extraordinary method of bringing it abont. The courtship, to say the least, was a very clumsy affair. The Prime Minister told the publio all about it before he spoke to the leader of the Opposition. Mr. Speaker I understand that you, Sir, have had some experience in these matters, and 1 will put it to you. Would any respectable young lady have anything to do with a fellow who first hired a hall and announced hla intentions at a public meeting and then came to her with his proposal?


Mr. BURNHAM:: Does the leader of the Opposition sustain the argument being indulged in by the hon. member?


John Howard Sinclair: I cannot say. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister must have done better than that in his domestic affairs. Had he not, he would not have succeeded as well as he has done. A coalition can be brought about only by " give and take." In this case it was " all take If the Prime Minister really wanted a coalition, on his return from England, he should have sent for the leader of the Opposition and should have asked him to sit down -at the table and talk the matter over and see if they could arrive at any common ground on which they could come together. But he did not do that. He throws the proposal down on the table of the House with a flourish and his supporters begin to cheer, and the Conservative press begin to wave the flag and to denounce the Grits and the French. The labour conventions protest against the proposal and an indignation meeting is called in the city of Montreal. After all this has happened, my right hon. friend comes to the leader of the Opposition with a cast-iron proposal-take it or leave it. Let us look for a moment at the proposal of the Prime Minister. The first thing is to form a coalition Government, then to pass the Conscription Bill and then to appeal to the country on the Conscription Bill. Under that proposal what opportunity would the country have to express any opinion? It would be the duty of the Prime Minister, if that agreement was carried out, -to notify my opponent, provided I supported the coalition Government, to withdraw, and so with all the others. It would be the duty of the leader of the Opposition to ask all the Liberals throughout the country that are opposing Conservative candidates to withdraw. The result would be that this moribund Parliament would be elected by acclamation, and instead of one year's extension, we would have five years' extension.


John Hampden Burnham: Do you exclude the
people from nominating somebody?


John Howard Sinclair: No, but they would
have to break away and form a new party. Is not that true?


John Hampden Burnham: No.


John Howard Sinclair: It is certainly true because I assume that if the leaders went into a proposal of this kind, they would do so in good faith and would stand by one another. Would it not be better to be frank and above board and to extend Parliament at once for five years than to pretend to consult the people by a pre-arranged scheme that would absolutely prevent the people from expressing any opinion whatever? Is it any wonder that the leader of the Opposition, who believes in responsible government and not in junkerdom, should reject such a proposal as that? Notwithstanding all that my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) said, with a flourish of -his arm, that such a proposal was magnificent.


John Hampden Burnham: He said it was magnanimous.


John Howard Sinclair: According to Hansard he said magnificent. All I have to say about that is ''every man to his taste, as the old woman said when she kissed her cow." Besides the leader of the Government knew that no coalition was possible with the Minister of Public Works as a member of the Government. I think I have a right to assume, that fact from the attitude of hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, and that my leader would not become a member of a government of which the Minister of Public Works was a member. What happened? We find by the correspondence that has been placed upon Hansard that during the very time that the coalition proposal was before the two leaders, the Prime Minister was conducting other correspondence ostensibly for the

purpose of whitewashing the Minister of Public Works and retaining him in the Cabinet. Do you ask me how I know that? I know it by the dates in Hansard. It was announced in the press that the two leaders held their meetings after the 24th of May. The final meeting berween the leaders, according to a letter published in Hansard, took place on the 6th day of June. We also know from the correspondence that has been placed on Hansard that on the 28th of May the Minister of Public Works wrote to the Prime Minister asking for a new trial on the Galt charges, and on the 30th of May, two days later, the Prime Minister gave a favourable reply. Therefore, at the very date that the Prime Minister was pretending to carry on negotiations with the leader of the Opposition for a coalition, he was, behind the back of the leader of the Opposition, carrying on a secret correspondence, ostensibly for the purpose of whitewashing the Minister of Public Works, and retaining him in the Cabinet, knowing all the time that there could be no coalition with the Minister of Public Works a member of the new Government. I am not opposed to coalition. I regret very much the failure of the attempt of the two parties to get together. I am firmly convinced that a national government organized on broad lines representing all parties in this country, including labour, is the best solution of our present difficulties. Let me express the hope that if my leader is returned to power, as I believe he will be in the case of an election coming on, he will adopt this view and give this country a government in which, providing the war is going on, all parties will have confidence.
Hon. gentlemen have been emphasizing the necessity for more recruits. I have no doubt that recruits can be used to advantage. I am of the opinion that if every able-bodied man in Canada was enlisted and sent over to France, there would be plenty of work for them to do and they would be welcome there.
But there is something more important to this country, and that is honest, vigorous and efficient administration of our military affairs. If we are to succeed, if we are to do our part properly to win this war, three things are essential. The first is administration, the second money, and the third men. In my judgment, administration is the vital thing. You may have abundance of money, you may have a large army of courageous and devoted fighting men, but if the money is stolen or squandered, and
rilr. Sinclair.]
the army mismanaged, you will end in failure, and the chances are you will end in disaster.
I trust, Mr. Speaker, you will not think that I am over-critical in my speech, for I do not desire to be. I recognize that this Government have had a gigantic task to perform, and I am quite willing to give them credit where credit is due. But I am not here to indulge in flattery or palaver. I think that in a serious time like this, plainness of speech is a duty, and I regard it as my duty, as a member of this House, to criticise and offer suggestions. That is the custom followed in the British House of Commons. In that House they call a spade a spade, and have done so ever since the war began. They discuss Cabinet changes, and even military mistakes, in the open. The British policy is to let the people know the truth and the whole truth. Only last week the details of the blunders in Mesopotamia were exposed to the public gaze. And I submit the British practice is the right practice. They have not much use over there for rubber-heeled statesmen, who either keep silent altogether or administer praise when they ought to criticise. In my opinion such men are not performing their proper functions as members of Parliament, I do not care on which side of the House they may sit. Therefore, before I sit down, I desire very respectfully to point out to the Prime Minister that there are certain other things besides the conscription of men that this Government can do, and ought to do, in order to help win this war. Two years ago the Prime Minister made an able, eloquent and stirring speech, in which he declared that " We should consecrate the whole wealth and resources of the nation towards the winning of thfs war." The announcement was well received by the people; it was head-lined in the press throughout the country. But the consecration never took place, or, if it did, it was but an empty ceremony. What is the use of " consecrating " our wealth if we still keep our money in our pockets? I propose that even at -this late date we should decide to make a real consecration of our wealth to this purpose, even if in doing so we have to invade this House and extract some shekels from the pockets of the millionaires, who sit on the first and second rows of the Government benches-and, of course, if we have any millionaires on this side they must pay too; but I do not think we have; we are all poof but honest on this side of the House. And I propose that

we should devote a part of the money so obtained to an increase in the soldier's pay. Is it reasonable that the man who cuts the grass in your garden, or digs in the street, should get $2.50 or $3 a day. and that the worker in a munition factory should get from $5 to $8 a day; and that the soldier, who works long hours, endures hardship, and exposes himself and risks his life, should be paid $1.10 a day and found? I know very well the soldiers are not fignting for money. But that is no reason why we should not do them justice.
Then, we should prohibit the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors. There was small reason for the existence of this traffic at the time the war broke out, and there is none at all now.
Again, we should either dispense with or force into some useful or' productive occupation, the thousands of Government favourites who are now strutting about in the King's uniform and drawing the King's pay, but who neither fight nor work. My hon. friend from Parry Sound (Mr. Arthurs), I understand, is a military critic. He is also a supporter of the Administration. He made a statement in the House which, I think, was intended as a reflection on the French Canadians, but which turns out to be an indictment of the Government he is supporting. He said that when he was in England he found a whole battalion composed chiefly of officers and non-commissioned officers, with very few private soldiers. What does that mean? It means that the .Minister of Militia, the department, and the Government, have been so lavish in appointing their friends to positions, that to get rid of them they had to send them out of the country and across the water in whole battalions. I do not know as much about war as does my hon. friend from Parry Sound, but I know this much-you cannot carry on a war without some fighting men; and if you have a battalion that is composed almost altogether of officers and with few fighting men, about the only thing that that battalion can do is to mark time and draw their pay. If the Government wish to continue such a battalion, instead of "win the war" their slogan should be "win the jobs."
We should also open the gates of promo-[DOT] tion equally to men of both political parties. Another suggestion: Let the Government stop indulging in Highway Bills and other election dodges in the most critical period of the great war. Let them punish, and completely suppress, any newspaper, French or English, that devotes its pages
to preventing recruiting, or to kindling the flames of hatred between the two great races oi this country. Let us impartially and honestly enforce the principle of equal service all around. If we do that the young men in Canada will see that we are in earnest and will respond to the call.
And one thing more. We should adopt a more liberal pension scale than we nsw have, and we should do it at once. I am informed that there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of widows and orphans who are depending on the cold charity of this country, who are not as well off to-day as they were when they had their husbands and fathers with them before the war. It is not sentimental speeches about the brave manner in which their husbands and fathers died that is wanted, but something to fill the cupboard.
And now as a last word: Let me appsal to the Prime Minister to throw himself upon the judgment of the people of this country by accepting the proposition of the leader of the Opposition. To my mind it is the only escape; it is the only way open to us to reconcile the province of Quebec. The leader of the Opposition has given his word that if we can secure a popular majority for this proposal the province of Quebec will submit. I have read, and reread, and pondered over his words, and I believe he is absolutely sincere and that he has taken this course because there is no other course open, and because he believes in his heart that it is in the best interests of Canada that he should take this course. Let me quote the pledge which he has made. Referring to the proposed referendum, he says:
What I propose is that we should have a referendum and a consultation of the people upon this question. I have taken the referendum, not that I have been very favourable towards it, but I find that the idea of the referendum has made enormous progress in Canada, and that it has been adopted by the political associations in the western provinces as a method of political action. If we are to have peace, if there is to be unity, we must meet the wishes of the labouring classes, who have asked for this privilege. When the consultation with the people has been had, when the verdict has been pronounced, I pledge my word, my reputation, that to the verdict, such as it is, every man will hftve to submit, and I claim to speak at least so far as is concerned for the province from which I come.
Is that an unfair situation, is that an unfair appeal? Can any one say that it is not in accordance with true democratic principles? This I leave to the consideration of those whom I see before me.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the offer. The issue in this debate is clear. We must choose

between force and conciliation. The Prime Minister in effect says: There are certain people in this country, notably in the province of Quebec, who are not doing their duty; we will compel them to do their duty even if we have to do so at the point of the bayonet. The leader of the Opposition says: No, you have no authority to do that; first get authority; submit this matter to the electors of the country by a referendum; if the electors decide that this should be done, I will submit, and, in so far as I can speak for my province, they will submit, and both races will work together to carry out the will of the people. I wish to say, Mr. Speaker, that the responsibility of the Prime Minister is heavy if he rejects that offer. If he accepts that offer there opens before us a vision of a united Canada, of the people of both great races standing shoulder to shoulder and striking their sturdiest blows in the cause of freedom. If, on the other hand, the proposal is rejected, we see a different picture. We have a vision of a country split in two, torn by internal strife and laying up a legacy of discord and hate for our children's children. Mr. Speaker, we are at the forks of the road, each of us must 'choose his path, and with these two pictures before my mind, I deem it my duty to vote for the amendment.


Hon. F. B. McCURDY (Parliamentary Secretary of the Department of Militia and Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) does not correctly reflect public opinion in the province of Nova Scotia on this occasion. His views are not the views of the people of that province. In fact he does not even speak for the Liberal party in Nova Scotia. The hon. member spoke with pride of the source of his political inspiration; he said that he had sat at-the feet of that great tribune of the people, Joseph Howe. I wish to remind the House that in the years when that distinguished statesman wielded his greatest influence in his native province, he occupied the editor's chair of the Nova Scotian, now the Halifax Morning Chronicle. His precepts and teachings have been consistently followed by that steadfast and doughty Liberal newspaper. No one has ever accused it of being other than true to that party's traditions, and competent to speak with authority for the Liberal party in that province. Well, I notice that in the Chronicle of June 28, in a leading editorial entitled " Steady, Boys, Steady," it says:

The Morning- Chronicle shares Mr. Maclean's beliefs.
And Mr. A. K. Maclean is opposed to a referendum, opposed to the policy supported by my hon. friend from Guysborough. So that my hon. friend (Mr. Sinclair) is quite out of step, even with the recognized exponent of Liberal thought in my native province.
Very rarely since the war broke out has the progress of this Parliament been delayed by remarks from me, and if at this time, when the call of the nation is for action rather than debate, I am impelled to speak, it is only because the information acquired in the prosecution of official duties has so impressed me that I feel it *would be wrong to be silent.
I wish to say in the most positive manner that it is my conviction that the need for reinforcements is so pressing and urgent that the man who stands in the way of such being provided at the earliest possible moment is assuming a responsibility of the gravest possible character.
The importance of the outcome of the present struggle does not need to be emphasized. No one more eloquently than the leader of the Opposition himself has pointed out the extreme gravity of the crisis. Speaking on February 8, 1916, in this House, Hansard page 632, the right hon. gentleman used these words:
''Sir, who talks of Empire to-day? There are other things greater even than the Empire, great as it is. Civilization is greater than the Empire, and civilization is the issue. .	.	.
Who can doubt but that if Germany were to win it would be the end of all we hold sacred. For my own part I re-echo the words lately spoken by that workman of the docks of Liverpool, who discussing compulsion in England put an end to all doubts by exclaiming, "If Germany should win, nothing on God's earth would matter." I speak my whole soul and heart when I say that if Germany were to win I would be thankful that Providence should close my eyes before I saw the sun rising on such a day.
The unanimous applause which greeted these statements when uttered measured the approval of all members of this House in the sentiments expressed.
But within the past few days the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) questioned the expediency of Canada continuing to exert her strongest efforts. I think the hon. gentleman contended that Canada's effort should be modified because of the entrance of the United States into the war. If the words which I have quoted from the speech of the leader of the

Opposition still represent the feeling of this House, as they reflected it when these words were uttered, it would have been more logical, and it would certainly have been more in line with the best opinion of this country if the hon. member for St. John had drawn the analogy between Canada's effort and that of Great Britain, rather than United States.
With every indication of sincerity, the hon. gentleman compared our population with that of United States, and argued that "because this war is as much their struggle as ours'' the contribution of that country to the war should exceed 6,000,000 men. Could not the hon. gentleman quite as aptly have argued that, inasmuch as this struggle is as much ours as it is that of the Mother Country, our contribution of men should be as great relatively as that of Great Britain. Is he aware that more than 17 per cent of the total population of Great Britain, or almost 7,000,000 men, have enlisted for military service, and if Canada were to participate to the same relative extent, the Canadian Expeditionary Force would number not 421,767 as it stood on June 15, but 1,224,820. In suggesting that Canada so limit its efforts the hon. member may be speaking for a section of the population of this country, but if such a section exists in the part of Canada from which he and I come, then all I have to say is that it is a section of the population who keep their views very much to themselves, unless perchance they have communicated them tp the hon. member for St. John. If the fine old loyalist city of St. John is correctly represented in this House by these expressions, then I am sure that my surprise that it be so will be shared by many members of the House.
The great question and the ominous one that faces us is " What is to be the decision in the present struggle of opposing forces on the field of battle.
We can win if all the Allies bring the whole of their strength to bear. There is the possibility that the Allies could win, and lives and property in Canada be kept safe, even without Canada exerting its full strength. But because there is such a possibility does such a prospect appeal to any full-blooded Canadian?
I am sure that the hon. gentleman who advises us to sit down and calculate to a nicety just h.ow many of our liabilities we can shuffle over to our southern neighbours and just how little effort we can get off with does not correctly interpret the real temper of this country. The correct sentiment of the Canadian people was surely understood by the right hon. the Pirime Minister when at the beginning of the war he decided to place Canada with all her resources on the side of right. He appreciated, with the best thought .of Canada, what principles and issues were involved in the struggle. While other and larger nations hesitated and waited to inevitably drift in, Canada under his guidance found her place without a moment's hesitancy or delay.
It is, I am sure, a matter of gratification to every Canadian that the first offer of co-operation to reach the Mother Country from overseas came, as was fitting, from the oldest and, strongest Dominion in the Empire. Before war had been declared and even before it was known to be inevitable, England had received by cable from Premier Borden the assurance of Canadian support. Hostilities had not been in progress -sixty days before the largest fleet of transports and the biggest body of troops ever previously despatched at one time for overseas service in the history of the world had been mobilized, equipped and sent forward for service. Further reinforcements have continued to go forward, and in the words of the Prime Minister, so long as he is entrusted with the control of the destinies of Canada " What remains to be done will be measured only by Britain's need."
With the knowledge that -has -been gained of our great adversary and his methods,; his cruelty, his barbarism, his duplicity, his total disregard of all the rights of any one, friend, or foe, that stands in his way, his slaughter of innocent women and children, his murders on the high seas,-does any true Canadian regret the decision of August, 1914?
And having put our hand to the plough, shall we now turn back? Shall we with an increasing realization of the magnitude of our task now weaken or falter? Shall we fail to give our gallant boys at the front the support and reinforcements they imperiously ask for, and have the right to receive? To all such question the best spirit of Canada gives only one answer.
Canadian troops have been given a position of honour in the field. When I had the opportunity of visiting the armies in France in January last, they were undertaking to hold eleven miles of front along the Vimy Ridge. That name, then little known in this country, has since become a glorious tradition owing to the exploits of our men. They have defended the position at Vimy Ridge successfully and gloriously.



To .hold this front required four divisions containing, among other arms of the service, approximately 52,000 infantry. A chain is as strong only as its weakest link; our attention must be riveted on our supply of infantry; that is the link we must watch. Furthermore, all other branches of our arms are subsidiary or complementary to it. The wastage in this arm of the service is figured at 15 per cent monthly. The actual wastage, of course, varies, but in operations such as are now progressing in France 15 per cent is under rather than over the real losses. We, therefore, at the present time require reinforcements of infantry to the number of 7,800 monthly. On May 14 according to the statement given to the House by the Minister of Militia, we had in England of class "Al" men immediately ready for the trenches, that is physically fit and with their training sufficiently advanced, and including those embodied in the 5th Division, 14,720 men of " A1 " class, or something less than two months reinforcements. There were also at the same time in England, other infantry whose training was not sufficiently far advanced or who were recovering from wounds or sickness, and men over 18 and not yet 19 years of .age to the number of 22,460. There is only one other class of infantry reserves in England and those are part of the men mentioned in category " D " which contains infantry to the number of 9,476, which category is described as " men temporarily unfit for " A" " B " and " C " categories, but likely to be fit within 6 months." So that if all the men in classes 2 and 3 of category "A" and those over 18 but under 19 as well as " those who are temporarily unfit, but who are likely to be fit for service in 6 months" are included, we have as total reserves actual and prospective for the infantry in England 46,656. But these men will not all be fit within that time. Many who have been wounded, and become temporarily unfit for "A" "B" -and "C" categories, will not be ready within that time.


Mr. KNOWLES:: Could the hon. member give us any definite information as to when the 22,460 men will be available?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Supposing, for the sake of argument, that they could all be relied on to be fit within that period, then we have, on June 1, less than six months reinforcements in England for our infantry, and it m-ust be -remembered that in this calculation are linclude-d those who are not at the present moment sufficiently trained, or not in suffi-

ciently -fit physical condition for the trenches.
I have taken no -account of the normal wastage among troops overseas but not actually in the trenches; such wastage, of course, -exists, but, to the extent that it does exist, i-t further emphasizes the necessity for more men. And, as I have pointed out, we had at May 14 in England less than two months reinforcements of infantay ready for the trenches. So that, with less than 6 months -infantry reinforcements of all classes in England on May 14, we turn to Canada to see what reserves are -available here. At the end of May the infantry strength in Canada was, including troops embarked for overseas during May, less tba-n 10,500. Even if all these were category "Al" men, they would represent less than six weeks reinforcements of wast-tage at the fro-nt, -and they are not fit, and will not be for many months to come, owing to their training noit being sufficiently advanced.
Furthermore, voluntary enlistments for infantry since January 1 have been on a meagre scale, so much so that when we deduct wastage in Canada, the number of such recruits enlisted since January 1 gives us no net result at all. For five months past this has been the condition prevailing. Under such circumstances, what course shall we follow? Shall we refuse to support the men who have gone to fight our battles? Shall we abandon them to thei-r fate? Shall we refuse reinforcements to our forces?
Canada's forces must be considered as a unit. It is idle to talk of them being reinforced from or protected -by, as the hon. member for St. John suggests, the armies of Britain, the United States, or any other allied country. To (refill their thinning lines, to replace their fallen comrades, our gallant men turn not to the United States but to us who sent them forth. The proposition is put fairly to us:	Shall we keep
faith with them or desert them? There is no side-stepping the issue and time is swiftly passing. If the Act were to go into forc-e at once, we could barely secure, before the end of the year, the necessary infantry reinforcements. It takes time to mobilize, train, equip and send the troops forward, and it seems to me that this Bill affords the only solution whereby these reinforcements can he provided.
That Can-ada has done admirably under the voluntary system is patent. We hear that expression constantly both at home and abroad. Perhaps its -reiteration in Canada

may have engendered too much complacency, and adversely affected further recruiting. That Canada has under the voluntary system done better than was expected is quite true. I remember distinctly a conversation that, just after the outbreak of war, I had with some of our most active and experienced militia officers. Their unanimous opinion was that Canada's total contribution of men could not exceed 75,000. Yet, already, over five and one-half times that number have joined the Canadian Expeditionary Force, and almost five times that number have already proceeded overseas.
The hon. member for St. John paid a well-deserved tribute to the work done by the Canadian artillery. This branch of the service has established a reputation which is second to none in the armies in the field. Artillery work naturally attracts young men of ambition, ingenuity and force, but our position overseas with regard to artillery is much better than it is for infantry. The overseas authorities advise that they have sufficient artillery reserves for the next twelve months. The conditions in England were such that it became necessary to make transfers from that branch to the infantry. While, of course, recruits signed up are attested for any branch of the service, yet on enlistment they have expected to choose the branch of their own preference, and if they are transferred to another later on, necessarily disappointment is occasioned. For these reasons, recruiting for artillery has temporarily stopped. Not that artillery reinforcements are needed less, but that infantry reinforcements are needed more, explains the temporary discontinuance of artillery recruiting.
In any event what should be the measure of Canada's effort? It seems to me the answer is simple. If we agree with the right hon. leader of the Opposition that we are fighting for all that makes life worth living, our national spirit will be content with nothing less than the utmost we can do. It may suit some nations and peoples to shelter themselves behind the defence and sacrifice of others, but that is not the Canadian spirit.
I am the last to fail to appreciate the greatness of Canada's magnificent effort up to date, but a study of statistics of the combatting armies in this titanic .struggle proves that all ideas of war effort previous to Armageddon are obsolete and have to be discarded.
The liability to military service is as fundamental as the liability to obey any laws of the land. Our system of democracy implies an obligation on the part of the state to protect the citizen, but also implies the obligation on the part of the citizen to protect the state.
It has been stated emphatically by speakers taking part in this debate, both by those in favour of the Bill and those against it, that compulsory service should have been inaugurated at the beginning of the war.	Even the hon. member
for St. John, whose sympathetic nature is so stirred by the prospect of the anguish and bitter tears and broken hearts to be caused by the enforcement of compulsory service at this stage, is nevertheless emphatic in his assertion that a course should have been adopted at the beginning of the war which would have had the effect of inaugurating these miseries three years ago. His feelings are harrowed by the thought that under this measure "men will be taken from their mothers, their fathers, their sisters, their sweethe irts and their wives and sent across the ssa."
Does not my hon. friend appreciate that these same hardships and partings are and have been endured under our voluntary system? Do men who have voluntarily enlisted from a high sense of duty have no regrets over leaving loved ones at home? Would my hon. friend contend that the feelings of the man who is compelled by legislation to enlist are any more susceptible, sensitive, or worthy of consideration than those of the man whose compulsion comes only from his conscience and a sense of honour and duty? And does he contend that those gallant men who have voluntarily gone out are less dear to those they leave behind them than are those who will come under the operation of this Act?
This Act will, of course, entail suffering and heartaches. Since this war began the whole earth has been drenched with tears and rent with anguish, but we believe that the tears that have been shed and the anguish that has been suffered are destined to save from those very horrors the generations who will come after us and for whom we are trustees.
I fully agree with those who say, in the light of the knowledge we have to-day, that it would be better to have had compulsory service from the beginning. But who, I ask, expected at the beginning of tire war that the conflict would be of such long duration,

and that such sacrifices as have been called for would be demanded? In Great Britain, which is much nearer the scene of conflict, and where the contest can be better visualized, it was long after the beginning of the war before any suggestion of compulsory service was considered. The British authorities reckoned, as did many people in this country, that a few months would bring the defeat of the enemy, and, Anglo-Saxon-like, they took what now proves to have been only fehble steps to meet the danger. Finding their plans totally insufficient to insure victory, 'in the more threatening conditions which ensued, they revised them-as we must revise ours. Better, you say, compulsory service -at the beginning; to which my reply is, better late than never.
If *11 the members of the House were to see the need as I see it, and as I believe the large majority do see it, they would not hesitate to take -any action towards increasing the strength of Canadian arms, no matter ho* distasteful such action might be to portions of our population.
If our Allies held back-conforming with the advice of the hon. member for St. John, who suggests that we hold back-the result would certainly be disastrous. We, in common with our Allies, are fighting an enemy organized down to the minute. In this contest we cannot -set the pace; we must give blow for blow. As he fights, as he is organized, so must we fight and organize. There is no other way to win. With the same effort, with the same organization as is used by the enemy, but with our greater numbers, our superior resources, and the justice of our cause, our ultimate triumph is certain.
Nothing, unfortunately, can take the place of man power in the firing line. Our other resources must and will be mobilized in the most effective manner, but the need of the moment is the provision of requisite manpower.
It has been said that volunteers give far better results on the field than an army which goes under some form of compulsion. The hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) this afternoon quoted the century-old opinion of Napoleon Bonaparte that one volunteer was worth three conscripts. Much to the satisfaction of the House, I am sure, he reinforced that opinion with his own. But any one who has followed the operations of the French army in the field and observed their record of achievement in the present war will experience difficulty in subscribing unqualifiedly to that view.

The outcome of this - conflict is, in a material 'sense, the business of the State. .If, with the consent of all parties, the future of the country has been pledged in the sum of upwards of a billion dollars, can it be said with any reason that the issue is a matter of local and individual concern, to be supported on the field only
5 p.m. by those who choose to go out? Rather, it is the concern of the State to decide who can with the least economic loss be spared for military service.
While the voluntary system has been wasteful, and while it has resulted in many going out whose places at the front could have been filled with less economic loss by other-s who have stayed behind, yet no doubt on sentimental grounds many will regret that its abandonment has been rendered necessary. I am convinced, however, that the continuance of this system under the present circumstances is not good business. All belligerent countries have realized this, and nearly all have long since come under a compulsory plan. The whole future of this country is clearly involved, and the time has come, in my opinion, for action in the interest of the State, regardless of personal considerations.
The present is a time of emergency, because of the necessity for obtaining infantry reinforcements. The amendment of the right hon. the leader of the Opposition is calculated, even under the most favourable circumstances, to consume much valuable time. How much time, even under the most favourable circumstances, would be lost?
Let us see what would happen if a majority of the members of this House were to vote for the amendment. Supposing it carried; what would happen? A new government would be formed. The organization of the new Administration would take time. That Government would then be bound to put the referendum to the people. In all decency, arrangements would have to be made to take such votes of soldiers in England and at the front as could be polled. Overseas transport to-day is, at best, slow and uncertain. I venture to say that this operation alone would consume at least three months. Then, supposing that the country, by referendum, approved of compulsory military service. The leader of the new Administration would proceed to enforce conscription. Before reinforcements could be secured to any extent, and while these political moves were being -made, an overburdening load would be placed on our decimated forces at the front. Before effective reinforcements could reach France, the

Canadian force would have disgracefully dwindled and Canada would, after four years of war, find herself where the United States was at the end of the first four weeks of the war.
And what would happen if the referendum showed a majority against compulsory military service? Such a result could only come from lack of information on the part of the people. Under such circumstances, is the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) wrong when he considers it the duty of this Parliament to give the country a lead? With the experience which I have necessarily acquired in the prosecution of official duties, [DOT] I naturally know more about the operations of the military forces of Canada than I did a year ago. For the same reason I should know more about the need than do the majority of the voters in this country, and I will take the responsibility of voting for the measure, and I earnestly pray that it will be put into effect with the least possible delay.
What the occasion demands is not debate, not discussion, but action, decisive, unanimous action on the part of this Parliament. To use a quotation not unfamiliar in this House, " We cannot wait because time will not wait."
In introducing a proposal of a purely domestic and business nature, the right hon. leader of the Opposition, as reported in Hansard, 1903, page 7659, was moved to use these impassioned words:
To those who urge upon us the policy of to-morrow and to-morrow, and to-morrow; to those who tell us, wait, wait, wait; to those who advise us to pause, to consider, to reflect, to calculate and to inquire, our answer is: No, this is not a time for deliberation, this is a time for action. The flood of tide is upon' us that leads on to fortune; if we let it pass it may never recur again. If we let it pass the voyage of our national life, bright as it is to-day, will be bound in shallows. We cannot wait, because time does not wait; we cannot wait because, in these days of wonderful development time lost is doubly lost; we cannot wait because at this moment there is a transformation going on in the conditions of our national life which it would he folly to ignore and a crime to overlook; we cannot wait, because the prairies of the Northwest, which for countless ages have been roamedi over by the wild herds of the bison or by the scarcely less wild tribes of red men, are now invaded from all sides by the white race.
.	.	. Such is our duty; it is immediate and
imperative. It is not of to-morrow, but of this day, of this hour, and of this minute. Heaven grant that it is not already too late!
Mr. Speaker, may I ask in this momentous crisis, whan the destiny not only of Canada but of human liberty itself hangs
trembling in the balance, is haste less imperative, is delay less dangerous?


William Erskine Knowles: Mr. Speaker, a large number of hon. members have already spoken on the subject now before the House, and those of us who are speaking before the close of the debate, are able to congratulate our predecessors, generally speaking, because their words have been moderate and their speeches on the whole have been free from taunt and from objectionable remarks. There is a time for bitter controversy in a party sense, and there is a time when bitter controversy is not the happiest thing, and my view is that in this debate those who have excluded from their remarks taunting observations .and factional, partisan statements, have been the happier fox doing so. While I am not very strong in that regard, I will endeavour to leave out of my remarks wibait is factional and partisan, and when a weaker brother attempts to achieve some of the accomplishments of the stronger brother, I trust he will receive some encouragement. I say this in all seriousness, because I believe that the present juncture is one which every man, in casting his vote, must ask himself whether he is doing so in the best interest of the military operations which are now being carried on. I do not believe any hon. gentleman, seriously .considering the questions now being discussed in this Chamber, would, in the last resort, cast his vote from any other wish than that of the best interest of his country. No man would think seriously of casting a vote that, while it might help his party, might do so at the expen.se of his country.
It is wonderful how all the countries whom we call Allies, and ourselves, are in this war voluntarily because we believe it is right for us to -be in this war. I like to go hack to the day when Serbia refused the arrogant, impudent ultimatum of Austria. Serbia had before her .the opportunity of following a path in which there would he no suffering, no sacrifice, no bloodshed, no death, no devastation. All that Serbia had to do was to accede to that insolent ultimatum, .and .she -might have gone on her way in quietness and peace. Serbia knew what war meant; Serbia had only l-ately been through the Balkan wars; but even Serbia, composed of a people from whom we might not think we could learn much, taught us a lesson that before she would renounce her nationhood, she would pay all the price she might be called upon to

pay and she would stand firm to her ideals ;as. a nation. Serbia chose voluntarily, the way of self-sacrifice.
What shall I say of Belgium? Hon. members will recall the way in which "Belgium voluntarily entered this war. They will remember the request which the Kaiser sent to Belgium, that the people of Belgium might peaceably allow the forces [DOT]of Germany to pass through their country, and his statement that he would pay the Belgians for all the damage done by his soldiers, and that no wanton damage would be done. But what would that have meant to Belgium? It would have meant the giving up of her nationhood, the sacrificing of her ideals. On the other hand, if she refused that offer, it meant the standing by her nationhood and the paying of the terrible price that we have seen Belgium pay. The people of Belgium, through their cabinet, never wavered. They said: Cost what it may, let the devastation be never so great; let the fire and the bloodshed and the sword come, yet we will be true to our national honour, and we will in no way violate our neutrality. Belgium has shown us the way of sacrifice and of honour.
May we not say the same thing of England above all others? We speak, almost ad nauseam, of how well Canada has done in this war. Canada has done nothing compared with what old England has done, neither financially, nor so far as female work is concerned, nor in the sacrifice of men. The Parliamentary Secretary for Military Affairs (Mr. McCurdy) told us a moment ago that in Great Britain they had given 17 per cent of their manhood, whereas we have given only about 3 per cent. What reason have we to pat ourselves on the back as though we had done wonderful things? In this country we have not learned to sacrifice ourselves in the voluntary way that the people of Great Britain have done. This whole war is filled with the lesson of voluntary service. We have voluntary conscription, if you will, each man conscripting himself. This war is to me like a crusade, with all these nations voluntarily marching out to fight for an ideal, for a sentiment, if you like to call it so. Great Britain did not have to go into this war. She might easily have remained outside of that bloody conflict had she wished, and not have paid the terrible price she has had to pay. She might have made millions of dollars out of this war had she so desired. But Great Britain had her traditions, and she knew that if she did not
[Mr. Knowles. 1
enter this war on the side of right, of principle; if she did not voluntarily throw herself into the grea,t conflict, her shame would ring down through the centuries to come. We, in Canada, went into the war in the same way. The Prime Minister very properly at the commencement of this war, as expressing the view of the people of Canada irrespective of party, sent across the water the message that in this conflict that seemed then to be settling down upon Europe, this young nation wished it to be understood that we too were in this conflict for the preservation of civilization, and that we too were behind Great Britain to the last of our resources. Undoubtedly, this war has been full of lessons to us as to the strength of voluntary sacrifice and devotion to duty.
There is no question that the need for men is very great. We know that from what we read in the papers, from what we hear from returned soldiers and from what we gather from the memoranda that has been brought down in this House. We know it from a message which we had from Sir Arthur Currie. There is also no doubt that if the issue of this war should be unfavourable to our side, we would then bid farewell to all that we hold precious. On that subject there can be no debate.
At this juncture it is of the utmost importance that we should not leave undone anything that will increase our military power. Therefore, we come to the question: in handling of the situation now before us, by which means are we going to attain the maximum military power of which we are capable? The Prime Minister said that we should send half a million men. Without meaning the slightest offence, I take little .stock in that statement. It is not a matter of sending half a million men, but of sending as many men as we can. If we can supply 700,000 men, there is no reason why we should send only 500,000; but if we can send only 400,000, then let it be that number-we shall have done our duty. The only rule to be observed is to obtain from the people of Canada the utmost possible military energy and power for the carrying on of the war, and how much that may be we cannot say in advance. Much will depend upon the prolongation of the war. If the hon. member from St. John (Mr. Pugs-ley) did say that we should withhold our contributions and stay our hands because the United States had come into the war,- l am not aware that he did say that-I can only say that I entertain the same view with regard to that utterance as was ex-

pressed by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queens (Mr. McCurdy). In my opinion, the fact that the United States has come mto the contest should stimulate us more than ever to do our utmost for the carrying on of the war. So, the question to be considered, as I have said, is: How are you going to get the maximum fighting force?
The Government's answer to that question is to bring down this Bill. I am not now going into the record of the Government in this war-this is not the time for it; a time will come for us to express our views on that subject. The Prime Minister comes from the Old Country, and tells us that after visiting Great Britain he has decided that he wants conscription. And the only reason that I can gather from his statement on the subject-and I have carefully studied his speech-is that the boys at the front have sent a message that they want reinforcements. That is the argument, and the conclusion arrived at is that conscription is the best way. The boys at the front may have said that they want reinforcements;	and	they	may	needreinforcements;	but it	does	not	necessarily follow	from	this that ifremust have conscription.	I	should
like to have heard some closer reasoning on this subject; I have not noticed that any of those who have spoken on this subject have addressed themselves to this hiatus in the reasoning. There is no argument about the need of reinforcements. It is mere waste of time for us to say that we want to win the war. After we have declared that we want to win the war it does not necessarily follow that we can win it better by means of conscription than by means of toleration and mediation. It is easy to say: " the boys at the front want reinforcements, therefore vote for conscription." That is easy, because it seems most popular; it wins the greatest applause; the man who says that can flatter himself that his name will go thundering down the centuries as that of a great patriot. But, as I have said, there seems to me something absent in the reasoning. I want to be shown why conscription will give us the 'best military results as opposed to every other possible way. If it could be shown that the boys in the trenches will have other Canadians by their side and fighting with them, and will have those men there sooner and in greater numbers by means of conscription than by any other means there would be no hesitation on my part in supporting conscription.
I am going to give the reasons why the policy of the Government does not commend itself to me, w"hy the speeches made in support of that policy have not convinced me that conscription is going to result in giving us the greatest military power that is possible for us. If I am wrong in that let it be shown that I am wrong, and I shall be very glad to -support conscription. Conscription is a beautiful thing when linked up with the idea of helping the boys in the trenches. Nobody questions our duty to those who are fighting for us. I agree that our nation will be judged by the way we have used the boys who have gone to fight our battles; there will be the real test of our manhood. I agree that it is not possible to do too much for our soldiers. It is for that very reason that I do not approve all that has been done with regard to that. I find, for instance, that in Moosejaw, when I got a man to trim my hedge, I pay him $3.50 a day-35 cents an hour. But the man in the trenches who risks his life in our defence is given $1.10 a day. That is not fair. We are told that other nations are not paying their men even as well as we do. I do not care about that; I believe there should be more of the fifty-fifty basis in the compensation for the sacrifices these men 'have made. So, I agree that we can do nothing that is too good for the boys in the trenches. But still I lequire to be shown that conscription is the way by which they can be most benefited.	r
Logically, and in principle, conscription is a method with which I can find no fault. It seems to me the same as with woman suffrage-there is no argument against it. I heard Mrs Pankhurst speak once, and, having heard her, I said, and have said ever since, that the -argument was unanswerable. So, I say that conscription is right. It is equitable, it is just. It seems to me nothing can be truer than this-that, as the state gives the citizen its protection, the citizen in return must give his services in protecting the existence of the state. That being true, the citizen should offer his- services in the hour of emergency for the protection of the state which has protected him. Selective conscription, I have no quarrel with, because I think it is right. Still we come back to the question: Why pass this Bill; why send our soldiers throughout the Dominion armed with warrants to bring in men, living men? For that is what will be the result of this legislation. Will this- proceeding result in increasing our military strength; will it give us our maximum fighting power in men to

send, overseas? I am afraid it will not. And, speaking quite frankly, the trouble is, as we all know, in the province of Quebec. I am not going to eay a word in defence of Quebec, nor a word against Quebec. This is a British country, a country of free men, and each man must use his own judgment in this free country. But that is not the question. The question is, what result will follow the physical enforcement of this law? That is what catches me. You 6end cut your recruiting officers-is that what you are to call them-with warrants to go to Quebec and to bring in men to be trained as soldiers. I have not heard any person in this debate tell us how you are going to compel ihe men to come from the province of Quebec without sending more scl-diers there to fetch them than they will bring with them. It is all very well to talk about getting even with Quebec; about putting Quebec in her place, and letting her know where she stands and all that kind of thing. I have heard both Liberals and Conservatives talk that way. In my opinion, the man who says that to-day is the best day to settle our troubles with Quebec has made up his mind without thinking the matter out; or, if he has thought it out, he wants to press our fighting power not against Germany, but against Quebec.
It will be a very hollow victory if you do'overcome the people of the province of Quebec. It will do you no good if you do put Quebec where she belongs. It will not do one bit of good, even if all the Orangemen in Ontario should have their hearts set on seeing Quebec brought to her knees. We are not after Quebec; we are after Germany. One war is enough at a time, and one enemy is sufficient for ths proper manipulation of the war. Can any person show us-no person has up to the present-how we can force the people of Quebec to accept this measure? What I say not only applies to Quebec but to the labouring organizations throughout the country, because they are against this Bill also. If anybody can show me how you are going to enforce this measure against public opinion in Quebec, and against the will of the labour organizations, I will be very pleased to be so convinced.
The matter will just resolve itself into this: We will take the French-speaking parishes of Quebec, the people having their own view and as individuals not being afraid of anybody. Nobody has ever questioned the honour or bravery of the French

Canadian people. I do not know that I would ever think of suggesting it. The French Canadian will hold his own with the Ontario Orangeman any day as far as bravery goes. It is not that. But, you have men down there-two-legged men-and you want to get at those who are not willing to obey the law.


Mr. FRIPP:: Why do you think they
will not obey the law as well as' anybody
else?


William Erskine Knowles: I think there is grave danger that it will result in an outbreak throughout the country.
Mr, BEST:	The people of Quebec are
not as loyal and as anxious to defend the Empire, as are the Orangemen of Ontario.


William Erskine Knowles: Possibly the hon. gentleman (Mr. Best) is right. I would not care, for the purposes of this argument, if the people of Quebec were the worst traitors in the world; we want to combat Germany and we do not want to have a war with Quebec.


Mr. BEST:: I do not think it is fair to try and stir up racial strife in that way. I think that remarks like those which the hon. gentleman has uttered will raise more strife than anything that the . Orangemen of Ontario could say or do.


William Erskine Knowles: That may be and I
said at the outset that I was not going to raise any contentious matters or questions that were likely to disturb the harmony. Therefore, I will let the hon. member for Dufferin (Mr. Best) have his way and get along with my address. Then, the question I ask is: How are you going to enforce this law, once it is passed, in the province of Quebec? Let my honourable friend answer that when he speaks. Are you going to send soldiers to do it? Are you going to send them into the' parishes of Quebec? You will want to get as many recruits as are necessary to make up the 500,000. The soldiers that you will send into Quebec to do this will be Englishspeaking soldiers because you could not get French-speaking soldiers to do it. If they are sent into the remote parishes they will not know the language of the people or the geography of the country and there will he no registration of the men who should enlist. What results can you expect from sending English-speaking soldiers into a strange country and amongst a strange and hostile people? You Will find that it will take more than one English-speaking soldier

28ya
for every single recruit you will bring out of Quebec. The hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Fripp) asks me how I know that the people of Quebec are not willing to cooperate in the carrying out of this Act. I do not say that they are going to fight the law but I do say that they will not harmoniously co-operate in enforcing the law. I think the hon. member for Dufferin will agree with the opinions expressed by a newspaper called the Sentinel and I think possibly the hon. member for Ottawa will also. I purpose to quote from the Sentinel to show the feeling and opinion, which, according to the Sentinel, exist in Quebec. I am not in all approving of that feeling, but if all the people in Quebec were traitors to-day that would not alter my view one bit. There never could be a more inopportune time to settle our troubles with Quebec than now because we have not sufficient fighting forces at our command to enable us to coerce Quebec. The Sentinel says:	[DOT]
The Sentinel has pointed to the declarations by French leaders of their ambition to erect a French Canadian republic, the pacifist press and party have treated such statements as without foundation, and having their origin in a superheated brain. To-day, we find the outstanding clerical organ in Quebec openly advocating secession. La Croix, which speaks for the clergy of Quebec says : "How sweet it would be, in fact, to live in a Lower Canada separated from Upper Canada, yet subject as at present to the British Crown, administered by a French Canadian majority."
And it goes on to say that the time has come when they should seek to bring about that condition. The same paper, the issue of June 28, goes on as follows with reference to the plan of campaign:
It should show the political social and religious disaster of Confederation on the one part, and on the other part the advantages Great Britain would obtain in according a political constitution which would give us a closer connection with the British Crown.
The Sentinel goes on:
To remain under the authority of the British Crown, as indicated in this outline of the French ambition, is merely a veil drawn over their ultimate purpose of complete separation from Imperial control. The first step is to separate from the Dominion, and having accomplished that, when the disturbance incidental to it had passed, a demand would be made for independence, just as the Sinn Feiners in Ireland are doing to-day.
Then, later on, it says:
Three times in the history of Canada we have had civil war, and on every occasion, 1837, 1870, and in 1885, it was fomented by men of the French race. That they will give effect to these threats made in the face of the Prime Minister upon the floor of Parliament, is possible.
Again:
Like the German Kaiser, they have been preparing for generations to accomplish a purpose which involves the destruction of Confederation.
So, it runs throughout the whole argument. When you have declarations made by gentlemen from the province of Quebec,, that the people will not co-operate in the enforcement of this law, when you have had riots in the province of Quebec already, and when we all have information in a general way that there is an announced intention on the part of the people of Quebec to refuse to accept this measure, I fear .that the passing of this Bill will not result in recruitment in that province. You will not force the people of Quebec to come forward in this way. Some hon, gentlemen say that the people will back down if you pass this Bill and call their bluff. I am afraid that is not true. You must remember that backing down in this case means backing down into the trenches, a more dangerous place than where they are now. Notwithstanding all this talk, I believe you could not call their bluff at this juncture. I fear that this Bill will not bring practical results and before I sit down I shall suggest what I believe to be the proper way of appealing to the law-abiding citizens of the province of Quebec who are all right if they are left alone by the agitators in that province. If the Nationalist agitators do not get hold of them they are as fine citizens as we have anywhere in Canada. The point I am making therefore is that at the present time the proper attitude to take with the province of Quebec is one of reasonable and manly conciliation and not one of bullying compulsion or force of any kind.
There is one thing that we need, I think hon. gentlemen will agree, and that is a united nation. You cannot successfully proceed with the war as a divided nation. If you have people in this country quarrelling amongst themselves, to that extent do you take away from your power to deal with the common enemy. Let us suppose that this Bill goes into force and let us look a year ahead; we will find our neighbour to the south of us, the United States, advancing successfully in the carrying on of the war with money, infantry, cavalry, aeroplanes and every thing else; we will find that others of our Allies have developed their fighting strength, as we trust they will, while we instead of developing our fighting strength and calling out our resources to the last man and the last dollar, within twelve months will find ourselves a quar-

relling and divided country, the people of one province seeking to get even with the people of another province. We will when it is too late see the evils of this Bill.
It is only fear that such a condition may come to pass that makes me support the submission of this measure to the people of Canada in order that we may have their expression upon it. And, after all, do we not all get tired of this eternal wrangling and jangling between Ontario and Quebec? I think you will bear me out, Mr. Speaker, that in your province and in the Maritime Provinces generally-and I can speak for the western provinces-we are strangers to this bitter feeling. It is getting to be a tiresome thing in this House, this bitterness and wrangling and chewing the rag between Ontario and Quebec, each suspicious of the other, each trying to put the other in a false light. When I read an article such as I have read from the Sentinel, and realize that this kind of campaign is being carried on by a great wing of the Conservative party that wants to help the British Empire in its unity, I grow discouraged for the unity of the Dominion of Canada. So, I say, I believe that the best way to promote unity on this matter of conscription is by a referendum. Hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, from Quebec without exception, have pledged themselves that if a referendum is submitted to the people their constituents will abide hy the result. I do not think that a referendum is at all an obnoxious thing. Since when were we afraid to consult the people? Is there any reason why we should believe that we on this side of he House or hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House are possessed of more knowledge than their constituents? Will any one of us go back to his constituency and say: I know more than my electors? I am sure my hon. friend from Dufferin (Mr. Best) would not take that tack with his people, and I am sure that if he did they would not believe him; nor would mine believe me if I said that I had more knowledge than they. We are here and are what we are because we are supposed to represent faithfully the views of our constituents, and, I ask, since when have we possessed greater knowledge than our people, and since when is it against British principles that the will of the people should govern and rule on any great question that may come up for decision?
The labour people have also expressed themselves very strongly against the enact-

ment of this Bill without a referendum. I have here a resolution sent to me in March last by the Trades and Labour Council of Moose jaw, a very important organization, because it has many allied labour activities associated with it. The resolution reads:
That conscription be not put into effect until it has been submitted to a referendum vote of the people of Canada, and that the executive is hereby instructed to utilize ail possible means of publicity and education to this end.
I have stated /that personally I am in favour of conscription in its principle and in favour of referring the matter to the people at this juncture, -thinking that this would conduce to uuity and harmony much more than going ahead with the Bill in a drastio and compulsory way. If this is submitted to the people by a referendum I, as a citizen and not as a member, shall do all I can -to see the principle carried, beca/use I am in favour of conscription in principle.
We have heard hon. gentlemen on this *side give reasons why they oppose a referendum. But it is remarkable, on -reading -the speeches of these hon. gentlemen that, without exception, they seem to come back to something different from the Bill and different -from the 'Government's policy. I take, for example, -the hon. m-ember for Saskatoon (Mr. McCraney) who says distinctly that he supports the Bill, -but he supports it with the thought in his mind that there must be -a general election, evidently to ratify the Bill, but certainly a general election; and- I presume that what he has in minid is that at a general election the Bill will be ratified. The Prime Minister said that, had a coalition Government accepted the Bil-l, he would h-ave-them submitted it to the people by means of a general election. The hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) says that he would ask ithaJt the Bill be no-t put into effect until one great, last, -big appeal had been *made to the people of Ga/nada by way of voluntary enlistment. And, last of -all, the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) distinctly says that this Bill will lead you to nowhere under a party Government. Why should he say that he will support ia Bill that will -lead to nowhere? He says this Bill will lead you nowhere -and that it cannot be successfully administered by one party; -and then he goes on to describe a coalition Government, with which I have no quarrel. But if the hon. member for Wellington is right in his logic and right in his belief that this Bill will not attain any results for you, why, in the name of Heaven, divide the

people of Canada over a thing that is going to do no good whatever? If I thought this *Bill would get for us the soldiers we want, I would not care if it drove Quebec out of Confederation, if it drove the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) out of public life, if it drove the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) out of public life-I would call the breaking up of our Confederation a small thing if this Bill was going to be the means of winning this war for us. I would pay the price; I would say that the quid pro quo was such that it ought to be bought at any price; we ought to pay any price to win the war. But I am not going to throw my whole support behind a measure that I believe will not bring any results, that I believe in the main will tie our hands and handicap our efforts, and, instead of being an aid to us in a military sense, will take away from our real fighting force; and it is because I think this that I cannot see my way clear to support the Bill. The hon. member for South Wellington says that it will lead you nowhere. He says that the Bill cannot be successfully administered by a single party. If that is so, then why should we put such a Bill on the statute-book? Perhaps, as has been suggested, it will never be administered. Then I am against it because I am not in favour of placing measures on the statute-book with some suppressed, secret motive. I do not accuse the Government of anything of that kind, but if it iB their intention never to put the Bill in force, I am against it, because I am opposed to voting for Bills which have any other object than that which appears on their face. I cannot support it without a referendum, because it will bring only schism and division and strife in the Dominion of Canada.
It has been declared in this House time and time again, and in the newspapers, that every man who leaves his party on this matter is a sort of hero and is a great follower of conviction, whose name will go down in history, and all that, because he is so sincere as to leave his party. I am not going to say anything direct or indirect about hon. gentlemen who have left the Liberal party. It is a very small matter to me compared with winning the war, and their grief at leaving the party is of smaller concern still. There is so much to grieve about in connection with the war that it is not a matter of national concern that certain men feel like crying because
they are leaving the Liberal party. Nor is it of great importance what they say about their grief at withdrawing their support from my right hon. friend who leads the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). They talk of how they love him. We all love him, but there is no use talking about it, and I do not think the House is much concerned about these sentimental things anyway. But there may be two ways of looking at this thing. It does not necessarily follow that because a man leaves his party and goes the way he thinks his constituents will go, when there is a general election in sight, is any more a hero than the one who stays with his party. To leave his party when that party may be right is just as wrong as to stay with it when it is wrong.
In this instance, there may be many of us who just as conscientiously believe that the decision arrived at by our right hun. leader on the question of referendum is a correct decision, as others believe it is not the correct decision. Do not let us have any false heroes floating around the country. If they are bona fide heroes, let them be made colonels or knights, and be done with it. If they are all spurious heroes, the sooner we recognize that, the better for us all.
I wish to refer to the question of coalition. The right hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier has been much criticised because he did not accept what one speaker called the magnanimous offer of the Government. People make statements sometimes without thinking them out to their conclusion. The offer was made to the leader of the Opposition that he should go into a Cabinet which already had its policy outlined and its pathway defined. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister is a young and comparatively inexperienced statesman, compared with Sir Wilfrid Laurier, but in saying that I am not reflecting on the Prime Minister. The leader of the Opposition has the advantage in the matter of experience and seniority. As I understand the coalition proposition, it was like a consultation between lawyers or doctors. One doctor says "This case is grave and serious, I am afraid of my patient. I will have a consultation." Did you ever hear of a doctor calling in another physician-unless the other doctor was just a joke-and saying, "This man has a bad sickness, and probably going to die. I haVe diagnosed the case and prescribed for the patient. I have the medicine right here, and I have settled

on what is going to be done, but you can come in and we will consult about it." Would a doctor listen to such a proposition? I suppose the only reason a doctor could be wanted in those circumstances, would be because he had a strong arm and could hold the patient while the medicine was being administered to him. No self-respecting doctor would be a party to such a consultation. Without being disrespectful to the Prime Minister, I may say it would seem to me like a mock proposition to ask Sir Wilfrid Laurier to go into the Cabinet, to hold a consultation on this problem when the Prime Minister had already decided what should be done. If I were to ask a man to come in and consult about some personal or political affair, which I considered a crisis and a grave problem, and said: " I want to talk it over, but I have decided it will be solved this way, and I do not want your opinion on it," who could say there could be any consultation between us in that case? I do not think the leader of the Opposition could give any other answer than the answer he did give to such a request. But there is another reason for his answer. We know the province of Quebec enters into this question. If the right hon. leader of the Opposition had gone into that Cabinet and endorsed conscription he would have done the greatest damage to the British Empire he could have done. I make that statement advisedly. We all know that the result of his acceptance of conscription would be that he would cease to be the leader in the province of Quebec, and to-morrow morning Henri Bourassa would hold the province of Quebec in the hollow of his hand, and suc'h a state of affairs would be a menace to the British Empire. I make that statement without fear of contradiction. No person can seriously say that Sir Wilfrid could have led the people of Quebec to conscription. Anybody who knows public opinion in Quebec knows that no man living could lead them to it, and I say the result would be-and I only ask for fair consideration of this thought-that on the morning of the morrow Mr. Bourassa, the firebrand, the man that has taught these people, nursed them, and educated them in his anti-British school, would be the hero of the province of Quebec, and that would be a bad day for the British Empire. The men who talk so much about the British Empire, little as they may regard Sir Wilfrid Laurier, will have to agree with me that Quebec is safer under his leadership than in the hands of 
Henri Bourassa. I say that those who question the service of the right hon. leader of the Opposition to the Empire, and question his loyalty, as many are doing, have not given the matter much thought. I read in the newspapers that a gentleman stated in Knox Presbyterian church that Sir Wilfrid Laurier lacked patriotism in refusing the offer of coalition. I do not know who the gentleman is, but I say this statement and thousands of other utterances along similar lines are unjust, unfair and unworthy of Canadians, and render difficult the solution of the race problem in Canada. Our object in Canada is to have unity among the different races, and such statements render the accomplishment of that object more difficult. ' In the conduct of the war we require greater unity.
In closing, I want to say that, in my opinion, the Prime Minister's offer of coalition was right, but it should have been made before he announced that he was going to force conscription on the country. And, I would say that, better than referendum, better than compulsory service, the proper way to handle.the subject is to revert to the condition of affairs before conscription was announced as the immediate policy of the Government. When the right hon. the Prime Minister came back from England he had full knowledge of the gravity of affairs. I say then and there he should have called the right hon. leader of the Opposition to assist him with his counsel, his wisdom, experience and undoubted loyalty to the Empire. Even now, there is nothing I wish for so much as this -although I do not suppose it will be done -that the Prime Minister should revert to the condition of affairs when he came from the Old Co untry-let conscription stand in abeyance, not abandon it, not renege upon it, but just say that conscription for the moment stands, and call Sir Wilfrid Laurier into a coalition Government, and if, under these conditions Sir Wilfrid Laurier will not coalesce with him, I for one, as a Liberal, say that I think the Liberal party will soon find a leader who will coalesce. But I believe that Sir Wilfrid Laurier acted rightly in refusing coalition under existing conditions, for the reasons which I have given. Let the Government begin de novo, Mr. Speaker, to discuss this matter, let both parties get together and see if, in real unity, they cannot get recruits. Let the French Canadian members go out among their people and see what they can do. They are not cowards. Nobody thinks that. They have been appealed to in the wrong

way. I am not going into that matter, because I said I would not be critical. Oar object is to avoid schism and disunion in this country, and I believe the Prime Minister has the .power in his hands, even if he passed the Bill, to say:	"It will stand
in abeyance till we have an opportunity to discuss it," and apart from conscription let the two leaders and all the members of the House go out to the different places where they would have influence. I believe if that be done the unity of Canada will be preserved, and that the fighting force of this country will be inestimably greater than it will be if we waste our strength quarrelling among ourselves.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 62, for the relief of Florence Amelia Kennedy.-Mr. Edwards.
Bill No. 94, to authorize the issue of a patent to James Wallace Tygard.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 80, respecting a certain patent of the Sharp Rotary Ash Receiver Company, Incorporated.-Mr. Currie.
Bill-No. 85, to incorporate the Canadian Couneil' of the Girl Guides Association. (Without amendment.)-Mr. Northrup.


John Allister Currie: Mr. Speaker, the debate on the second reading of this Bill has been proceeding for a considerable time, and consequently it is with much diffidence that I rise to address the House on this important measure. Several matters, however, impel me to make some remarks on the measure before the Hduse.
In the first place, I am one of the members of this House who have had the honour of serving at the front and who know something about the conditions there, and one of the reasons why I desire to speak in favour of the Bill is that it was intimated to me that I was opposed to some of its principles. To remain silent would perhaps lead to a wrong construction being placed on my attitude. In the second place, there have been introduced, in connection with this measure some objections which, to my mind, have not yet been satisfactorily answered. Having a little time on my hands I took the trouble to look up the authorities, if possible, to controvert statements made by hon. gentlemen opposite.
This is one of the greatest questions that have occupied the attention of this House since Confederation. We have had many momentous questions under discussion, but we have never before had such a war as this one, and we have never before had to discuss the question of conscripting the manhood of the country for the purposes of the war.
The House must be complimented upon the moderate tone of the principal speeches that have been delivered oji this question, and it is my intention to discuss this subject with similar moderation. After all, nothing is, to be gained by abuse, strong language or threats, because there is a little too much cold spring water running in the veins of the average Canadian for him to allow anybody to bluff or scare him with loud talk. Whatever we are going to do here, we are going to do it, and the laws we shall pass here must be observed.
I wish to point out to the House first some matters in connection with the war. There is no use in feeling any bitterness nor in stirring up any dissension over things that have occurred. Human nature is not infallible; none of us is infallible; the Government is not infallible. Some very grave mistakes have been made by every Government concerned in this war. The British Government has made a number of almost vital mistakes. For instance, the mistake was made of ordering that only 150,000 men should be sent to Europe in this war. Other mistakes of a similar character have been made by almost all the Allies with the exception of the French who seem to have been prepared for every eventuality. The last great mistake was made by Russia, and the one previous to that by Rumania. Therefore, there is no use harping upon what this Government has done in the past, because the Government, according to its own light, has been intent upon bringing this war to a success-full conclusion. We have it on the authority of the greatest orator the world has yet produced that a man is not to be blamed if he should make a mistake in trying to do good, because it is better to make a mistake in trying to do good than to do nothing at all.
We all remember very well when the House met immediately after the opening of the war, how enthusiastically we pledged

our manhood to the service of the cause. The war at the front has continued, and our men have gone over there and have distinguished themselves above, I may say, all other armies to-day in the field. That is something we never expected they would do when they left this country. Our forces have been augmented from time to time as the occasion arose, various methods being adopted by different nations to raise their armies. We have raised our quota of 400,000 odd men so far by the voluntary system. When I returned to Canada, the voluntary system adopted was being used with great enthusiasm to raise a large force to take part in this war, and we were exceedingly successful. The methods of recruiting adopted then were common sense methods, and I am very sorry that they were departed from in any way, but circumstances always bring about changes. Members of Parliament and the business men of the country then joined together and formed recruiting committees and raised this great army which we have to-day at the front. Unfortunately, some people are anxious to get into the public eye, and there came then into the recruiting game certain elements that might very well have been left out. The matter was left in their weak hands, and the business men virtually departed from the scene to take up other lines of effort, and to-day we find that recruiting is not being carried on very successfully. There, is no question, however, that Canada has no reason to be ashamed of the results achieved under the voluntary system. The greatest authorities on war, Clausewitz, Van der Goltz and other writers like Hambly, lay down the principle that if a country raises one in seventeen of its population for the purpose of a war, it is doing very well, and before this war in Europe, they	did not	expect	any
nation would raise any	more than
that proportion. Canada has if any- [DOT] thing, exceeded that ratio. We have every reason to be proud of the efforts that have been put forth. Unfortunately the wastage of mein is very great. Our troops axe so gallant that they are used as shook troops, attacking troops, and they occasionally lose large numbers of men. They axe, however, always successful, and this country has good reason to be proud that our troops have conquered the best troops that Europe has ever produce.
The fact remains that this war is lasting much longer than any of us expected. When I stated in this House about a year ago that this war would last another two years, an incredulous smile, as much as to say: " He

does not know what he is talking about," appeared on the faces of most of the members, and some of them told me that the war would not last so long. We have only reached, in this war, a stage now where our troops are beginning to win. Every one who has been in the field knows exactly what the circumstances were when we went there first. We were too good, too true and too loyal to tell the people the great difficulties they laboured under. The British Government was hesitating wihat to do in the case,'and no action could be got in any manner, shape or form by the late Administration under Mr. Asquith, who has been quoted so glibly by this House and who left his troops in France very much to their own resources. The great leader of the popular cause in. England, Kitchener, whose works have lived after him, and whom history will place in the foremost rank of great Englishmen, stated that the wax would last three yeaxs and the people did not believe him. He also stated that this wax was one of attrition, that means a wax of wearing down. We knew that when we went into the trenches, it did not take long to realize that the British were suffering most of the attrition. That time is now past, and we can now review the early course of the war without being under the ban of the censor. So far as attrition was concerned, we were losing from shell fire every day in the week during all the time we were there, three men to every one lost by the Germans. We felt the lack of guns, machine guns and ammunition. The first time a man went into the trenches and saw the German flares that were being thrown up by the thousands while the British had none, he realized what he was up against. Those days have gone by; we have secured the ascendancy now, but the more men we put into the field, the more men we shall have to fill up the gaps, and the sooner we will win. Even when our troops are not in action, two or three men on an average each day go down under shell fire, so that when a man has been in the trenches for seven months, it is understood that he is living on borrowed time.
We must raise more troops and we cannot wait until next year to raise them. It will take from six to nine months to train them, and they will be urgently needed about the beginning of next year. Are we to withdraw our troops? That would be universally regarded as a disgrace to our people. Consequently, the Government is compelled to adopt other methods than

the voluntary system in order to raise these troops. While the voluntary system had its advantages, any one who has served with men in the front line trenches must Tealize	after a	very	few	days'	experience the unfairness of volunteering. Young	men are	with	you	there,	the
flower of our country. There are married men there, who have left in this country families of small children, men who should never have gone to the war at all. As commanding officer I have received letters- and I am only one of many-letters from children whose fathers were serving with me, asking and praying me to look after their " daddy " that he might be spared to come back home to them. One cannot but be touched by that, and cannot but Tealize the injustice of a system that takes the father of small children out to serve in the trenches for three or four years while leaving young men at home in the billiard and pool rooms of the country, who give no consideration to the war except that war times enables them to earn wages of four or five dollars a day. Take the case of the only son of a widowed mother. The boy feels called upon as a patriot to go and serve in the war. I have known of such young men being killed. To this day there is one mother who calls me up about once a week ,on the telephone to tell me that she thinks her son is still living, that she has seen a picture of prisoners in Germany and thinks her boy is one of them, and will come back home to her-when I know very well that he will never come back. These are things that appeal to our sense of justice, and make us feel that it is unfair that the willing ones should carry all the burden instead of having that burden distributed fairly among all concerned. Any one who has considered the French method of conscription must come to the conclusion that it is the right method.
So, the Government was face to face with the question of raising more men. No more can be got by the voluntary system. Some hon. members have asked that another campaign under the voluntary system should be carried on. The members from the province of Quebec have made that appeal. Will they assure us that inside of sixty days they can raise 25,000 troops by the voluntary system? If they will rise in their places and say that, I will be one to favour suspending the Bill until that. course has been tried. But we have no absolute assurance that they will raise a single man mere by the voluntary system in any part of the country. So the Government has come to
the conclusion that some law must be put into force to bring forward another quota of men.
Face to face with the issue, there were four courses open to the choice of the Government. The first was a cowardly one- to fold theiT hands and do nothing. Thank goodness, the Government saw its duty in this matter. As well as I can see, the Government has been true to its duty from the beginning of the war, and under very difficult circumstances. Nothing has been done, good or bad, that has not been criticised in the most violent manner. Members supporting the Government have been compelled to sit back and take no part in politics. The most trying thing that troops have to undergo is to lie in the open and be subject to shell and rifle fire, and not return the fire. That is the position in which the supporters of the Government have been since the war 'began. We all know the difficulties we have had to contend with, the violence of the attacks made upon us, not only the members of the Government but those on this side of the House especially who have seen it their duty to take part in the war. But that is a matter that we can pass over. The Government has decided not to fold its hands and send no more men to the front. It has come forward determined to pass a measure of conscription. True, this measure has been before the House for some time. And it is a fortunate thing in my opinion that this measure has been before the House for a few weeks. The people have been reading about this Bill and trying to find out what objections there are to the principle of it, and no objections have been raised except imaginary ones. Not one single objection has been raised that could be backed up by authority or precedent, which are the great guides for the work of this House.
The second course open to the Government would be to assume the responsibility of conscription itself-that is, to enforce the Militia Act. There can be no doubt that a construction can be placed upon the Militia Act under which the Government would be authorized to raise the necessary quota without coming to Parliament. There is room under the clauses of that Act for the Government to make regulations and adopt methods of conscription. However, thei Government has seen fit not to take that course, but to adopt the third method, which is to bring the question here and leave to Parliament the responsibility of conscripting the manhood of the country.
The fourth course is that proposed by

hon. gentlemen opposite, to refer the matter to the people in a referendum-some say an election.
The chief objection raised to the present course is one which has been mentioned again and again by speakers ,on the other side of the House, especially by those who speak in French. It is that we are breaking pledges or guarantees made with our compatriots in Quebec at the time of Confederation, to the effect that in case of war we would not have conscription and that they should not be compelled to send their quota to the war. We have been told again and again that we are worse than the Prussians, that we deal with treaties and solemn covenants as " scraps of paper." That point was raised by the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Ernest Lapointe) and also by the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). But not one of these hon. gentlemen has brought forward a single treaty, obligation, or scrap of paper, in the way of any compact before or after Confederation, that we are violating. I challenge them to bring fpr-w,ard a single line, On the other hand, I desire to point out that this very question was up at the time of Confederation. In 1862 a Militia Act was thrown out of the old Parliament of Upper and Lower Canada. The military force of the Crown was as urgent a matter to be dealt with at the time of Confederation as the union of the provinces. For the shadow of a great war was then over the country. We were threatened with invasion by the Fenians. We did not know at what moment fire and sword would be carried all over the provinces.
At that time, when Confederation was under discussion, four of the great men of this country, representing all parties and all races, were appointed by Parliament a delegation to go to England and discuss the terms of the Confederation compact. These men were George Brown, representing the Liberal party, the predecessor of the Tight hon. the Jeader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), Sir John Macdonald, the leader of the Conservative party; Sir George Etienne Cartier, the great French Canadian and Mr. Galt, who was the best financial authority of his time. These four gentlemen went to England and arrived at an agreement with the British Government upon the terms of Confederation. They embodied the agreement they made with the British Government in a report presented to the Parliament, which report may be found in the Confederation Papers. It is extremely

important for us to know if at the time of that conference it was agreed that the people of Quebec were not liable to serve in case of war. Any pledge that was made to the Mother Country at that time we are entitled to carry out to its fullest extent, because this is the time when our obligations to the Mother Country must be carried out to the letter. I have before me a copy of that report. It will be found in the Sessional Papers of 1868, and it is No. 63. It is addressed to His Excellency the Honourable Viscount Monck, Governor General of British North America; it is signed by these four great fathers of Confederation, and it was presented to the Parliament that formed the union. It is signed by John A. Macdonald, George E. Cartier, George Brown and A. T. Galt, and the date of it is July 12, 1865. What have they to say on this particular question that we are discussing now? They say:
The important question of the future military relations between the Mother Country and Canada received earnest and grave consideration. Before entering on the discussion of details, we referred to the recent debates in the Imperial Parliament on the subject of Canadian defences, and especially to the assertions confidently made by certain members of the House of Commons that Canada was incapable of efficient protection against invasion from her inland border.
Those statements were made in the British House of Commons at that time.
We asked that a report on the whole subject of the defence of Canada, with plans and estimates, might be obtained from the highest military and naval authorities of Great Britain. Such a report was obtained and communicated to us confidentially-and we rejoice to say that it was calculated to remove all doubt as to the security of our country, so long as the hearts of our people remain firmly attached to the British flag, and the power of England is wielded in our defence.
On the part of Canada-
Now, this is the pledge they gave on the part of Canada, and I would like hon. gentlemen to pay particular attention to that pledge:
On the part of Canada we expressed the desire that this plan for the defence of all parts of the province should be taken as the basis of arrangement; and that a full and candid discussion should be had as to the share of the cost that ought to be borne respectively by the Imperial and Provincial Exchequers. We expressed the earnest wish of the people of Canada to perpetuate the happy existing connection with Great Britain, and their entire willingness to contribute to the defence of the Empire their full quota, according to their ability, of men and money.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the pledge that was made to the British Government and to

the British Crown. They did not say that we were going to use our quota and our money for the defence of Canada. They said for the defence of the Empire. Canada was to be prepared at all times to send its quota of men and money for the defence of the Empire. They did not say after a referendum was held they were going to decide whether they would send men and provide money for the defence of the Empire or anything of that kind. Therefore, I say that no other pledge was at or before that time made between the British Government and Canada. Everything we have done since Confederation agrees with that pledge. Sir George E. Cartier, representing the people of Quebec, did not say that they would not agree to that. In fact, no sooner had Confederation been accomplished than the Militia Act was passed. Sir George E. Cartier, in bringing in that Act, put in the very clause that provided that the quota should be permitted to serve in any part of the Empire. That is the reason for the clause that is now in the Militia Act. Therefore, I ask: Who is tearing treaties apart; who is tearing up a "scrap of paper"? Great Britain has gone into this war. What for?-for the maintenance of treaties and of scraps of paper. The French nation has gone into this war for the same reason. Belgium, on oeeount of a "scrap of paper," a treaty, denied the Germans the right to march over her soil, which, if she had permitted, she might have escaped war. Thousands of men's lives have been sacrificed for a "scrap of paper." Yet, such treaties are no more sacred nor binding on these nations and peoples than they are on us, who, through our representatives, agreed to give our quota of men or money for the defence of the Empire. It is very late in the day for hon. gentlemen opposite to come into this House and say that this measure involves a breach of a treaty. It does nothing of the kind. It fulfils a treaty. In passing this law we are implementing our solemn obligations. When they can show any authority, treaty, letter, memorandum or statement by any prominent leader of their race that they were not to support the principle that they were not to take part in the defence of the country or the Empire, it will be time for us to give consideration to their remarks.
The next important question that arises in connection with this measure is that of the method by which the men are to be impressed and embodied. It is said by
the leader of the Opposition that conscription is a new word in Britain. At page 2499 of Hansard we find that the right hon. gentleman said:
"Conscription is a new word in Britain."
Again:
But Sir, it is a principle now admitted that if any new question comes up during the regime of a parliament, a question that would vastly change the whole condition of things in the country,-then under such circumstances it is preferable to have a dissolution and to have the people pass upon it.
I must compliment the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Lapointe) on the excellent moderation and tone of his speech, which, I think, had he not argued from false premises, would have been a very sound pronouncement indeed. But he did not know about this convention which was entered into between the representatives of Canada and the British Government, and therefore his reasoning was defective. This is what he said:
I also oppose this Bill because it involves a radical and most serious change in our constitutional relations-
That does not sound very much like the quotation I gave to this House a few minutes ago.
-and constitutes a departure from well-known principles agreed to by all parties aa to the constitution of this Confederation. '
I think I have obliterated that argument. I do not think tha/t the hon. member for Kamouraska can deny the facts contained in the report presented to the Government and Parliament of Canada by Macdonald, Brown, Galt and Cartier as to our pledges to the Mother Country.
Now, Sir, let me enumerate the other points urged against the Bill by the speakers opposed to it.
(1)	That conscription or the impressment of men to serve in the army is a new thing in British law.
(2)	That to compel men so conscripted to serve outside their country is a new principle.
(3)	That selective draft is a new method of taking a quota of men to serve in the army, and that this method might prove unreliable and unjust.
Of course there are a number of other petty arguments which are not aimed at the fundamental principles of this Bill.
This Bill is now at its second reading and there are undoubtedly some clauses in it that may be open for discussion; and I feel satisfied that the Government will be very glad to have it fairly criticised by



members opposite and by all the members of this House, so that the result may be a really good Bill which will be a great credit to Canada. Sir, this country should act in all things in a way worthy of the men who are fighting for it at the front. Let us hope that eventually we shall pass such a Bill that will be regarded by future generations as a credit to the members of this Parliament.
But, Sir, we must meet the arguments which are advanced. The only question we can discuss at this stage is the fundamental principle of the Bill which is the question now before the House. Possibly we may not agree on some of its minor provisions. Whilst some opposition may be raised to some of the clauses of the Bill, what we are now about to vote upon is the principle contained in it, which is that this House should pass a conscription law.
The first objection I have mentioned is that this is a new law in Great Britain. I have taken considerable trouble to look up the law of Britain on the subject. I am not a lawyer, and there are several branches of law about which I do not know much. Legal members of this House have to deal with the civil law, the criminal law, the Code and various other laws; but the majority of the legal members of this House have had no occasion to read up military law or to trouble themselves with it unless they are soldiers, because the military code is very simple and is enforced by officers who in most cases are not lawyers. I have had to read up the military law and to study it because I had to administer it not only in camp and in civilian communities but also in the field. So I have had to study the military code and to know something of its history. The hon. members who have advanced the argument that a conscription law is a new thing in Great Britain, have not quoted one statute, law, treaty or precedent to support their arguments. It has been assumed by the great majority of them that the voluntary system was the primary law of England and had always been the law, from time immemorial. In taking up the question I wish to quote the authorities, even although some of them may be rather dull. The authorities I have selected can be found in almost any public library. They are the following: Stubbs' Constitutional History, a very popular work; Hallam's Constitutional History, also a very well known work. Taswell Langmead's Constitutional History; Clode's Military Forces of the Crown;

Grose's Military Antiquities; Scott's History of the British Army; Lingard's History of England; Prof. Oman's History of the Art of War; Howell's State Trials (Ship Money case); also the ancient and modern statutes and journals of the British House of Commons and documents relating to the early history of the British colonies in North America dealt with by Hertz, ''The Old Colonial System," a Manchester university publication. References to the ancient military laws will also be found in Coke on Littleton, and also in Blackstone. When the hon. member who preceded me argued that the British subject, on account of receiving protection from the State, must also defend the State, he was only quoting principles laid down in Blackstone and all the ancient legal books that he no doubt studied. He did not know that that is today the law of England.
Turning to the history of English military forces, there is one military force that has always existed, and that is the general levy. Before the conquest, every man capable of bearing arms and of military age, when the King summoned him, should go to what was known as the fyrd or the gathering of his county, with his arms, and go out in defence of his country. That is a law dating back beyond any written record. At the time of the Norman kings that law was enforced, and a general levy existed alongside the feudal levy given by men in England that is military service for rent. The general levy was called out in Norman times on several occasions. The first time it was called out by William II at Hastings in 1094. He intended to cross over to France to carry on war, and summoned a general levy of the people to go and serve. They were dismissed, however, without going across. There is no question that the statutes I shall quote, covering the period down to the restoration, all deal with this general levy, and show that the general levy was called out again and again, and that the men served in the general levy to fight for the defence of their country. These are the statutes: 13 Edward I, chapter 6; 34 Edward I, chapter 2; 2 Edward II, chapter 3 and chapter 4; Edward IV, chapter 5, section 13; Edward III, chapter 6;	5 Henry IV, chapter
3;	3 Henry VIII, chapter 3;	4
and 5 Phillip and Mary, chapter 2; and 1 Elizabeth, chapter 16. All of those statutes laid down the rule that male inhabitants of England who are called out by general levy must assemble at a certain point to be mentioned in each county and must bring their arms there and be prepared

to serve thek country under their sheriffs and officers. Not only were they brought together in a general levy again >and again, but a quota was taken from this general levy and sent to serve in a foreign country. That was the law down to the Restoration of Charles II. I might say that the long Parliament dealt with this question, and since the Restoration there have been Acts dealing with this levy. For instance, in 1690, on the occasion of the French invasion, a general levy was called. During the rebellion of 1690 and the rebellion of 1745, in which my unfortunate Highland fellow countrymen took part, there were general levies. In 1757 a reorganization of the general levy was mad|e on the basis of the ballot. That is, the ballot was instituted to make the (selection of the quota from the general levy. In 1773 a motion was made in Parliament to suspend the ballot for the Militia. This was defeated. From 1815 on, the militia was allowed to fall into abeyance. Although the standing army was maintained the annual training of the levy was suspended. However, that old law is still continued in Great Britain annually by what is known as the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. I have here the latest copy of the Manual of the Military law of Britain, dated 1914, which I carried with me in the trenches. On page 164 of that manual there is a clause dealing with the general levy in which it says that:
Although the feudal levy was abolished in 1660, the liability to serve in the general levy has never been extinguished, and remains not only in constitutional theory but also on the statutory, and practical form, of liability to serve both in the general and the local militia."
That is the law in England to-day, that is conscription so that conscription is not " a new word in Britain". The reason that, in England, they had to pass a conscription (measure was that, about 1907, Lord Haldane, then Secretary for War, introduced and had passed through Parliament a law which provided for the reorganization of the army undeT what was known as the Territorial System. The militia battalions were embodied in this/ territorial system, and the Territorial Act, which is the Act now in force in England, contained a clause that the militia battalions of the territorial army should not have to serve abroad. When this war broke out a number of those battalions were called out. Some of the militia, and the yeomanry refused to volunteer to go abroad. The British Government laid down the law to these territorial battalions, and they said, " You will do either .one of two things: you will volunteer for service in France, or you will disband " Those who volunteered to serve in France were accepted and embodied as Imperial battalions, and those who refused to serve abroad were disbanded. I may say, Sir, that, as far as this country is concerned, under the present Militia Act, certain regiments and certain men are sworn in, and if we accept the dictum laid down by hon. gentlemen opposite that men who are serving under the Militia Act are not entitled or cannot be compelled to serve abroad, , then these militiamen will all escape service in France. I understand a number of men joined the Canadian defence force on the understanding that they would not serve abroad, and they can hold the Government to its contract.
The standing army of England was. nearly always secruited by the voluntary system. That army was composed of paid men, and dates back to the time of the-French wars when the Free Companies were recruited in Europe by certain individuals, and .these men signed a contract to fight for certain, individuals or countries. Every soldier that is enlisted to-day in the Canadian Expeditionary Force is a hired soldier. I might say that European conscripts affect to despise hired soldiers. The Germans call them mercenary. They say we are hired to kill. There is no doubt in. the world that every soldier who has been enlisted in this country under the so-called voluntary system is a descendant of the mercenary or free companies. The contract is placed in his hand and it is called an " attestation paper." He swears to that contract, and he signs his name on it, and if he is brought before the court martial at the front, or in this country, if he wishes to deny the right of the commanding officer to try him he can say: " Produce the attestation paper," and they cannot try him by court martial or military law unless a copy of that contract is produced. The men who have enlisted in the standing army were always volunteers. That law only dates back a little over two hundred years. The voluntary system is thus a recent enactment as far as the army is concerned. It is a new system and it is not the fundamental basis of the English army. It was first adopted by the militia in 1758, and in that year a law was passed allowing a certain number of men to volunteer to serve in the militia or general levy. In 1810 volunteering was again allowed in the militia, and the volun-

teer system of 1852 was made the only system permissible under that Act as far as the militia of Great Britain is concerned. But the voluntary system is a new system, and for that reason, as far as we are concerned, we have nothing to do with the voluntary system, because we have never had any standing army based on the voluntary system as they have it in Great Britain. We have only had militia raised by volunteering or the ballot.
Another argument is raised against serving outside of the country. Whether troops are entitled to be impressed and taken out of the country is a question which has arisen, in connection with this bill and it is well for us to deal with that historically. The general levy of all the male population were compelled by law to serve out of the country. A quota fought at Cressy and at Agineourt. Objection was sometimes taken against the feudal levy serving outside the Kingdom, but there is no question that according to English law troops to serve abroad could be taken from the general levy. A quota from the general levy was taken abroad as early as the reign of Edward I. They called a general levy together, and they selected a number of men from the general levy, and sent them over to fight their battles in France. Again and again they were called together. In the reign of Elizabeth and the reign of Henry VIII the general levy had to furnish a quota for foreign wars. In the time of Queen Elizabeth it became an established prerogative of the British Crown that it was entitled to call a general levy and select or press a number of men to serve in the army and navy abroad. In fact, at the time of Charles I. the same question arose, and that was one of the difficulties mentioned in the Petition of Eights.
I come now to the question of the selective draft, and after I have dealt with that and shown you that that is a very old law indeed, you will see how it came about. The selective draft, dates very far back. In Great Britain it was the original system of getting a quota of men for the army from the militia or general levy. The method was this: a certain number of gentlemen were commissioned in each county and each municipality by the Crown, and it was their duty to summon before them all those that should take up arms for the general levy, and they selected a certain number of these men who were supposed to serve in the army, and go and
fM". Currie.]
fight in the defence of their country, or go and fight abroad. This system of taking men became an abuse. These tribunals were called Commissions of a Array, they were subsequently called Commissions of Muster, and succeeding that, instead of having a number of men commissioned in each county, the king appointed one man called the Lord Lieutenant of the county. The Lord's Lieutenant of the county was after the Eestoration appointed by Parliament. Any one who knows England knows who the Lord Lieutenant of the county is.
These Commissioners of Array formed ^ a fruitful source of trouble for the Crown in those days. Shakespeare makes a reference to them, and Falstaff was apparently one of those commissioners. They would pick out a man and say to him: "You have to serve in the general levy." He would say, "I cannot leave my position," and they would say to him, "How much will you pay?" He would pay ten or twenty pounds to escape the levy, and during the reign of Charles I, not only were the men allowed to compound for service, but the counties and boroughs that were supposed to contribute so many men were allowed to compound to the Crown for so much money instead of furnishing the men. That was one of the methods of raising money without the consent of Parliament, and that procedure was petitioned against in the Petition of Right. Falstaff mentions this matter in one of Shakespeare's works, and whilst I am not saying it is the wrong method of raising men, still this House must realize that the selective system must be surrounded by a great many safeguards if we are going to see it carried out successfully, because there is no doubt that if a couple of men on a tribunal wish to be crooked in any part of the country they can release any number of men they wish in the neighbourhood from service in' our army.
Before I proceed further with that, I might say that in choosing the method to select a quota the Government no doubt was influenced by two things. In the first place, they could, as provided in the Militia Act, select these men by a military tribunal. There is no doubt that a military tribunal as described by the hon. gentleman from Moosejaw in his speech today, going into a strange section of the country to pick out men would be a very disagreeable way of making the selection. That would have been the method under the old Militia Act. But the method chosen

here is also the method adopted by the United States, and no doubt adopted for the purpose of leaving the method of selecting the men in the hands of a civilian body, so that it would not be subject to the same objection as if they were selected by military tribunals. My own idea is that the military tribunal and any tribunal appointed for the purpose of selecting the men should only be allowed to recommend the exemption of conscripts. All the exemptions should be passed upon and confirmed by higher authority. This is what Falstaff says; evidently he himself was one of the Commissioners of Array. In those days the tribunals engaged in selecting men for the army were made up of pretty crooked men. In Henry IV, Act II, Falstaff says:
I have misused the King's press damnably.
I have got in exchange of one hundred and fifty soldiers, three hundred and odd pounds.
I press me none hut good householders, yeomans' sons, inquire me out contracted bachelors, such as had been twice asked in banns, such a commodity of warm slaves as had as leave hear the devil as a drum; such as fear the report of a Culverin worse than a struck deer or a hurt wood-fowl .	.	. and theyhave bought out their services, and now my whole charge consists of .	.	. such as indeed were never soldiers, but discarded unjust serving men, younger sons of younger brothers, revolted tapsters, and ostlers trade fallen; cankers of a calm world and a long peace. Ten times more dishonourably ragged than an old faced ancient. And such have I to fill up the room of them that have bought out their services, that you would think I had one hundred and fifty tattered prodigals lately come from swine keeping. Nay, and the villians march wide betwixt the legs as if they had gyves on, for indeed I had most of them out of prison.	,
So you see that there is very little new in the world. The Government will have its hands full when it endeavours to carry out any law in such a way as to meet all the circumstances of the case and at the same time please everybody.
In 1898 the English Militia Act was amended so as to allow the militia to serve outside of Great Britain. For about eighty years previous to that time, it was not allowed to do that. When we raise the point that the militia should not serve outside of this country, we are raising a question which never arose under conditions similar to those which prevail to-day. When England was at war she did not hesitate to levy on the whole male population, to fight in France or in any part of Europe. She has done that now; it is the fundamental law.
The question may now be asked: have we any precedent for sending militia out
of the country? Have we, it may be asked, precedent for sending the Canadian militia out of the country for the defence of the Empire, leaving out altogether the promise made by Sir George E. Cartier, Sir John A. Macdonald and all the great Can adian leaders of that day, that Canada would give her quota of men and money for the defence not of Canada, but of the Empire? " Quota " means the selection of men who are able to serve: it wmuld be applied to the men called out to serve under this Act. Is there anything to show that the Colonial militia was ever employed outside of the colony concerned? Any one who reads the history of the Colonial provinces to the south before the great rebellion against English rule knows that those provinces sent their militia away to fight in Canada and elsewhere. When the British were besieging Carthagena in Central America, the colonial provinces- they were not then known as States-sent
4,000	men to fight under General Vernon to assist in siege and capture of that stronghold. Those who read history know that the Colonial militia was sent to take part in the siege of Louisburg. No one could argue that the militia sent out by the colonies in what is now the United States were only sent to fight in territory which was " contiguous " to the borders of their own country. The Virginia militia fought in Canada; Virginia was a sovereign province in those days, so was Pennsylvania, yet they sent men and spent money to fight not only in Canada but in Cape Breton as well. These are well known facts, so that we are not propounding a new principle or establishing a new law to say that the men of Canada should or could be conscripted to serve outside of Canada. But, Sir, that law was established at the time of Confederation. When the project of Confederation was being brought about, a pledge was given to the British Government by Brown, Macdonald, Cartier and Galt. Let me quote it again:
We express the earnest wish of the people of Canada to perpetuate the happy existing connection with Great Britain and their entire willingness to contribute to the defence of the Empire their full quota, according to their ability of men and money.
Who can deny the right of this Parliament to conscript a quota to "contribute to the defence of the Empire," in view of this most solemn treaty and pledge ever given by any public men in this country? This was the pledge given by a committee representing the Parliament of Canada, a com-

mittee that said to the British Government: we are at all times prepared to give our quota of men and money for the defence of the Empire. Not for the defence of Canada, mark you: for the defence of the Empire. No public man, no state, and no Parliament has since endeavoured to change that pledge. It has never been repudiated. If I represented or spoke for any section of the community that did not desire to be bound by that pledge I would feel heartily ashamed of myself. But every section of the country was bound; Quebec was solemnly bound on that occasion by Sir George E. Cartier. This pledge was implemented by the Militia Act passed by Sir George E. Cartier after Confederation, which provided that Canada's quota should be
50,000	men. Canada was only a small country at that time. Great Britain promised Canada that if Canada were invaded she would come to her assistance. Even at that time Canada was threatened with invasion; a hostile force invaded her territory in the following year. There were some little Englanders in the British House of Commons at that time, who said: what is the use of defending a few acres of snow? What is the use of spending time and wasting money in the defence of Canada? Let it go ! But the British Government gave their pledge that they would defend Canada, just as they had previously pledged themselves to defend Belgium. To-day they are fighting for Belgium in fulfilment of that pledge, and tomorrow they would fight for Canada in fulfilment of the pledge given to us. Should we, therefore, not carry out our pledge?
I have given all the authorities bearing on this phase of the matter. I have quoted the law, although I am not a lawyer, and I do not think any hon. gentleman opposite who oppose the Bill can show that the position they have taken is correct, according to law or precedent.
An hon. gentleman who sits on one of the front benches opposite

he is not here at present-wants to conscript the wealth of the country. Our Minister of Finance has given an example to all countries in the matter of enabling a country to carry lightly the burden of a great war. He has shown that with proper financial management and with proper guidance of the people we can finance our part in the war ourselves, and that our people are ready at all times to produce millions of money for the carrying on of the war.
Every one knows that the reason we succeeded in the war which we waged a hundred years ago against Napoleon was because

Pitt made war pay, and when all other countries of Europe were starving fox want of money and for lack of supplies, the English treasury was full of gold, and her supplies were ample. Her factories were never as busy as they were then, and never in the history of England was her business in such ia fine state as it was at that time. Lloyd George has followed the example of the great Pitt in endeavouring to make this war pay, and since he took charge of the Government of Britain, a great change has taken place there. For about a week after the war started, the only bank in England that paid out gold for its obligations was the Bank of Montreal of Canada. The Bank of England and the other great English bank's suspended gold payments, but neither before nor since the commencement of the war has the Bank of Montreal suspended gold payments, and that is .a great compliment to .the financial strength of this country. The Minister of Finance has carried on. the business affairs of this country with a great deal of wisdom. But there are those who say:	Oh, tax
tax, more tax, let us have some more taxes. The more taxes you raise, the more money you will squander. All that is needed is enough money to pay for the obligations of the Government, and if we have other obligations later on, we shall bring more taxes forward.


John Hampden Burnham: Why do that?


John Allister Currie: Do you want to starve
people by taxing them to the limit?


John Hampden Burnham: Why do you do it?


John Allister Currie: I am going to tell you,
if you will wait a minute. One set of people cry out against the Government because they do not tax land. In the last resort we might have to tax land. At one time England had to tax land two shillings an acre, but how would the farmers throughout this country feel if this Government were to tax their land fifty cents an acre? You would have a rebellion, and not an hon. member here who would advocate that policy at the present time if the money was not wanted, would be re-elected. I am satisfied, however, that if the money was required fox the war, that every farmer in this country would be willing to pay as much as a dollar an acre for the protection of the Empire. What is the need for such a tax? The Minister of Finance has not yet shown that his balance is on the wrong side. His surplus is ample. He has no deficit, nor is the country bankrupt.

On the contrary, he shows a large surplus that is capable of paying both the needed principal and the interest on all the obligations of the country every year, even during the war. Then why do hon. gentlemen want more taxes?
Another set of hon. members want an income tax. Some of us have read Sterne's Sentimental Journey, in which he says every little while: "Oh, they do things better or differently in France." Many hon. members in this country say: Oh, they do it better in England; they do it differently in England. We all acknowledge that an income tax is one method of raising a revenue; the question is whether such a method is expedient at the present time. At this time those who are entirely dependent upon their incomes need all their money because things were never so high in value as they are just now. Then why do hon. members want to impose a tax on those people now? Why not wait and see if this -war lasts another year or another two years? We may have to come to an income tax, but there is time enough for that. Keep cool.
Other hon. members want to conscript wealth. Conscription of wealth is a fine expression. Do they want conscription of wealth to be by a general levy, or do they want a selective process? If they want a general levy, we have that already, because every one, if he wears clothes or buys anything that is brought into the country, is paying his particular tax at the present time; we are all equal before the law. Do they want selective conscription? Yes, they want selective conscription of wealth; they want the monied people to pay. I have been dabbling in history, and I have been looking up to see if conscription of wealth is a new thing. I find it is a very old thing; it dates back to the time of Henry VIII. At that time, they wanted to be select in their conscription of wealth, and. they conscripted the wealth of the churches, and that gave them enough money to go on with; the Crown was satisfied. In France, they were face to face with bankruptcy when they called the Assembly of Louis XIV together. In that assembly there was a party headed by Robespierre, Marat and Danton, who were crying continually for the conscription of wealth. The great Mirabeau stood against that idea. In one of his greatest speeches he said that they had no right to select a rich man and to take everything he had and to cast him out in order that
the State should have money with which to carry on its business to avoid bankruptcy. But he died, and what was the result? The others had their way; they erected a knife, the guillotine, and they took the rich and wealthy and beheaded them and seized their money. They conscripted the money and estates of the church first and in that way the State was able, under those beautiful - Republican gentlemen, to carry on its business for a year or two longer. Is that the kind of conscription of wealth that is necessary here? There are, in this country, many very wealthy, religious institutions which are controlled by lovable religious gentlemen who have never contributed a cent of their own wealth. They have dreamed their lives away, doing good deeds and the very increment of time has made them controllers of the richest corporations in the country.


An hon. MEMBER:: They do not pay taxes.


John Allister Currie: I do not know anything about that, but if hon. members are going to conscript wealth, they would he con. scripted first. That is the cry of the Red Republicans. The Reds in Russia to-day want to conscript wealth, also in Mexico, the authorities aTe conscripting wealth, the wealth of the church, toy the same method. The moment you acknowledge that principle and you do away with the constitutional .safe-guards which Parliament throws around money and wealth and the property of every one in this country, in that moment you are going to have a breakdown of society and a reproduction of what I have described. I3 that the condition of things hon. gentlemen want in the neighbouring province? That is the actual state of affairs that they may have to face when they conscript wealth.
A good deal has been said about conscripts, and one would think that under this measure we are not going to secure any conscripts from Quebec. I have had the pleasure of having a number of French Canadians serve under me in this war. I have seen them in action and in peace, and every one that I have yet had acquaintance with in this war has belied the slurs that have been cast upon French Canadians by hon. gentlemen opposite. Never on any occasion have I seen one of those men falter in the face of the most deadly peril. Never have I seen them anything but happy under the most terrible conditions of mud and climate. They never fail; they are brave 5ghters. Can you tell me that men of that

calibre are cowards and are going to refuse to serve their country if they are conscripted? That is unbelievable to me, and it is an insult to those people. According to Julius Caesar, when the call went forth for the Gaelic race, from which those men have sprung, to gather to the war, the last man who arrived on the scene was killed by his comrades for being late. Do you mean to tell me that people derived from that race are not capable of doing their duty and going to the war just the same as we are? It is an insult to them to say otherwise. I know that a few agitators in Quebec have been constantly grumbling and growling, saying that they should sever the British connection and making other statements of that nature, but they are men . who have no standing in the country. There is a good deal of rich red blood in the veins of the people of Lower Canada. There is in that province a large element of cool-tempered, level-headed men just as there is in the neighbouring province of Ontario. The men from both those provinces have gone over the ridge at Vimy; they have never hesitated to go over the top, and when men of that breed are called upon to be conscripted, well, there may be small riots here and there, but they will serve. Why there was a riot at Camp Borden last year amongst the volunteers from Ontario who wanted to sit around the hotels in the cities instead of drilling and serving at the front. Those things occur, but the great body of the people of the two provinces are determined to carry out the pact which is the keystone of the edifice of Confederation. They occasionally have their quarrels just as a young wife and her husband sometimes have a little spat; sometimes an outcry arises in the house, but they do not want Bourassa as a divorce court lawyer; they are not having a divorce just yet, and this war will be finished and hon. gentlemen who have told us in this House that we are going to have internal strife, will feel heartily ashamed of themselves and of their speeches when they see them in future years in Hansard.
But, Mr. Speaker, we have had the example of men wanting to get the provinces into war before now. In Ontario they raised a row, about 1837. Great leaders went all over the country on horseback to call the people to arms against the 'Family Compact, and all that sort of thing. Very brave men, these politicians. At the same time a 6imilar agitation was going on in Lower Canada. But I want to assure you, fM". Currie.l
Mr. Speaker, that when the first gun wmt, off, you could not see the heels of these politicians for dust. They all fled to the States, and it took about ten or fifteen years to rehabilitate them and attach any semblance of heroism to their deeds. Bus there is no United States to fly to now, gentlemen. There is only Iceland that these people can go to if they start a small war, and that is a great distance off. The common sense of Quebec, the influence of the men of Quebec who are doing their duty in the trenches is against this agitation; the men who represent the solid Quebec, pay nc attention to it all. They have this agitation constantly with them. It is a phase of our era, just as we have it in the province of Ontario. Why, Sir, you would think to hear them, that the Liberal party was going to eat the whole Tory party of Ontario at one gulp-until there is an election, and then they go back and sit down for another six months. And it will :be the same in Quebec.
A referendum is proposed. Once I vo!ed in this House for a referendum. It was on the navy question. After studying the Con federation papers, after considering the terms of the contract between English and French Canada, I made up my mind that this Canadian navy question was a new question introduced into Parliament. Under the bargain made with the British Government the maritime defence of Canada was taken charge of by Great Britain, and we took charge of our own land defence. But if there was to be an independent navy in thi6 country, and not a quota added to the British navy, the proper procedure, to my mind, was a referendum or an election. This question stirred up trouble because we were told even then that if the German navy came up the St. Lawrence it was a question whether the Canadian navy would fire on them or not. However, we let these little jokes pass. The proposal then before us, I thought, should go to a vote. But as to the Bill before this House, I have hunted up the authorities, and I do not find one instance, from the beginning of the British Parliament, in which a question of this kind was submitted to a referendum. Where are you going to find a precedent? In these matters Parliament has always governed, and we are only re-enacting here to-day laws that have been re-enacted again and again on the statute-books of England for over a thousand years. It has been an established principle that every man in England, or in the colonies, capable

of bearing -arms should come to the gathering and be counted one of the men for the defence of his country. That is what we are re-enacting.
I wish t.o again emphasize the pledge that I have already read on the part of Canada's representatives to perpetuate the happy existing connection with Great Britain and our declaring our willingness to contribute to the defence of the Empire-not of Canada only-our full quota of men and money. The men of this country have had a referendum before them, under the voluntary system, for over two years. Every young man of military age who wished to vote and was in favour .of the voluntary system as against conscription was free to volunteer. There is nothing to keep these young fellows from volunteering to-day. Another hon. member has asked: How can you go to the trenches with a referendum? He was quite correct. There are many good Canadians in France to-day with little white crosses over their heads. How are you going to get them to vote on this question. Do you not think they were entitled to have a say? I prefer to speak on behalf of these men from Canada who have died for the Empire, to give my vote on their hehal-f in favour of this Bill now-I will assume that responsibility.
Another says:	Appeal for more volunteers But we have appealed for volunteers, and no person who has had experience with the voluntary system in the front line of trenches would say that it is a just system. I wish to repeat and emphasize that. There are men here at home who should be serving, and there are men in the trenches who get no respite -from their labours. It has been denied that there is any necessity for men. The hon. member who proceded me quoted figures and said: You have to show me that there is this necessity for men. Another hon. gentleman said this afternoon that there is no necessity for more men in the trenches. I have seen Canadian troops holding lines for three days, and every hour they were told -assistance was coming. And, while holding these positions they lost not only ten per cent, of their numbers, but twenty per cent, thirty, forty per cent, and the last men put in were the cooks and the orderlies, and still there were sixty per cent of casualties for our First Division in those first great days of the fight at St. Julien- over 9,000 casualties out of fourteen thousand -bayonets. These casualties rolled up while these men were holding the lines and waiting for succour. At last a British division came up, composed of men who had
never fired a shot in their lives. Tell me that we did not need more men! We need more men at the front to-day, because day after day men are going into the trenches who have gone there day after day since the First Division went over. In my old battalion there is a quartermaster-sergeant, now regimental quartermaster-sergeant, who has never failed since we went to the trenches to go up with food for his men. Men are fighting there who are not allowed to sleep. At night they are not permitted, and there are many men-even strong men -who are so constituted that they cannot sleep in the daytime. Their reason ultimately gives way. Do they need a rest, or reliefs? The other troops get their regular leave. Of the English troops, rvery man is given ' leave once in every so many months, that he may go back home and see his own people. The same is true of the French; the poilu goes home to kiss his mother and meet his loved ones at stated times. But the Canadian does not come back home; there is only one thing that sends him -home and that -is a wound that incapacitates him for further service, or a wooden cross. If the wound is severe enough it means that he stays in France forever. Is it right that this country should leave its men in that position? It is terrible ! You want delay; that is what Germany wants you to do. I do not want conscription. If it comes to a matter of personal desire, there is no man in this House who knows better the horrible conditions to which we are committing men under conscription than I do. I have seen men torn to pieces; I have seen them writhing in their death agony, men with whom I was speaking but a moment before.
I myself would be against conscription but the necessity of the case demands that we must send men. Our first duty is to those who serve. Whatever my personal objections may be, I must oast these aside. I have every pity, every regard for the conscript. -In France a conscript is regarded as a holy person. I consider a conscript a man- who is consecrated for service to his country. He is worthy of all our sympathies. We should be kind to them. No one would think of subjecting men to conscription in this country were it not for the duity that we owe to our troops at the front. Day by day a man has to go into the trenohes with -nobody to relieve him. You heard the figures read here this afternoon by the Parliamentary Secretary of the Department of Militia showing the need of troops at the front.

Somebody .must go over and relieve these poor men who have been there since the beginning of the war. What are you going to do? Can you get men immediately by the voluntary system? No., the necessities of the case demand that we should apply the consoriptive principle. Canadians 'are sent into 'the trenches again and again until their reason often gives way, while the troops of other countries are relieved, Canadian soldiers are too proud to say that they want to come out to be relieved. I have seen a Canadian with his wounds bleeding run away from the hospital at London, go to Folkestone and cross to the assistance of his comrades.
That is .the spirit that Should animate the members of this House at this very minute. Wie should .show that we are capable of some of the sacrifices of these men at the front who are consecrating their lives not only to the service of the Crown but of this country and to the carrying out of these very pledges which were made by the Fathers of Confederation. Let me conjure my friends from Quebec to forget their petty quarrels. There is no one in this country who should have any more personal feeling over the war than I should have about attacks and vile things said about me. Some people have been unkind enough to say something of thia sort about the French Canadians. Let us settle all these petty, little things when the war is over. Let us unite now. Those who have served with the French Canadians know what they are worth and they want more of them. For this reason I say to those men in the province of Quebec: cease this agitation that is going to bring about so much unhappiness in this country. Let us not tear up this " scrap of paper," let us not be Prussians, and violate the pledge that was made at Confederation to the British people. Let me read once more this pledge:
We expressed the earnest wish of the people of Canada to perpetuate the happy existing connection with Great Britain, and their entire willingness to contribute to the defence of the Empire their full quota, according to their ability, of men and money.
That pledge was given on behalf of Canada by Sir John Macdonald, Sir George E. Cartier, George Brown and A. T. Galt and the pledge has never been violated nor has it been rescinded from that day to this. Let this House and the people of this country now cease their quarrelling and fighting for the present and unite in a manly determination to carry out this pledge.

Mr. LUCIEN T. PACAUD (Megantic): Mr. Speaker, I would surely consider myself lacking in a most solemn duty if I did not avail myself of this opportunity of expressing most frankly the views I entertain on what I consider the greatest measure ever presented to this Parliament. I appreciate, Sir, to the fullest the keen sense of responsibility which rests upon every hon. member of this House in dealing with a question which far surpasses in its consequences the course of our ordinary legislation. May this acknowledgment on my part be sufficient to assure the House that however strong may be my objections to this Bill no word of mine will intentionally at least carry with it the sting of bitterness or of passion. The words that the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) uttered a few months ago in this Hoiuse, in .announcing to an unsuspecting people the intention of the Government to enact and enforce the conscription of man power in this country had barely fallen from Ihis lips, when we were all of us witnesses of the intense excitement and deep feelings which these words and this new policy had aroused from one extremity of this country to the other. We heard the rising clamour of those who on the one hand gave expression of their views in favour of this measure. We heard the still more vigorous protests of those who on the other hand were strongly opposed to it. Through this issue, thrown so suddenly into our national arena, we clearly saw emerging from what was up to that time a united nation, the very keynote of our splendid efforts for three years, a national crisis not only acute in its present form but still more dangerous in its possibilities. This is the actual and unfortunate situation in which we find ourselves to-day. I do not wish to exaggerate its seriousness, nor do I wish to minimize its true meaning, but I feel that the hour is sufficiently grave to justify us in scrutinizing these events with an open eye and unprejudiced mind.
Were I to put in simple form what I conscientiously believe is at the very root of the present agitation throughout Canada, I would do so in these words: We are fighting for liberty abroad; we do not wish to surrender it at home. It is from this standpoint that I have endeavoured to form my judgment as to the merits of the Bill now before the House. Let us test it from that point of view. Canada has been at war for nearly three years. 'She entered into the struggle freely and willingly. From the very beginning she had a clear conception of what she was fighting for. A great power

had challenged the democracies of the world. There is considerable difference between the two ideals. The allied nations' believed in the liberty of each individual state to live its own life in its own way without any encroachment or interference from its neighbours. On the other hand, the central powers believed and still believe, in the domination by force of one power over the greater portion of the world. In other words, it was the battle of democracy versus autocracy, liberty versus servitude. That being the issue, the Government of the day found the nation at its back. There was no hesitancy, there was no recrimination. As soon as the word was given Canada was united and determined to share in this war and to win it. We all know what this national unity in so far as our participation in the struggle is concerned has achieved for Canada.
Four hundred thousand men have left our shores. What they have done on the battlefield will remain for ever the brightest page of our history. But in this page also, if I may be permitted to say so, can our lesson of to-day be learned and our real mission be unfolded. Let us not forget-I think it is well to remember it especially at this time-that we have achieved our great task because we adopted, from the very beginning, the system of voluntary service. By this system we got the men; by this system we evaded a dangerous controversy as to which course we were to follow in the long and rugged years that were to come. By this system we succeeded in concentrating the minds of the whole people of Canada on the one great issue. Sir, I ask you, prompted in doing so by the one thought which supersedes all others in my mind, had we at that time adopted conscription, if the events of to-day have any meaning, would we have achieved such a splendid success as we have? Would we not have raised a grave domestic question which would have introduced into this -Parliament the deadly poison of class agitation and national unrest? To put the question is to answer it. We would have defeated the very end we had in view. The policy of this country has been at all times the voluntary system.
Mr. BURNHAM; Does the hon. member .mean to assert that the voluntary system allowed people in this country to dispute any law? Is it not the force of overwhelming public opinion, as promulgated by the majority, that rules in this country in everything? _	-


Mr. PACAUD:: That is why we are for a referendum.


John Hampden Burnham: Then the hon. gentleman would not object to conscription under those circumstances?
Mr. PACAUD; I bow to the will of the majority of the people of Canada. The voluntary system remained the policy of this country from 1914 to 1917. The two leaders of our political parties are on record as having declared in this very House, not longer than a year ago, that there would be no conscription in Canada for overseas service. The feeble rumours which were circulated . at that time throughout the country that conscription was coming had, no doubt, reached their ears. They alike saw the danger. They alike desired to assure the country. They both pledged themselves to a policy of no conscription.
To-day the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) says:	I stand
by my pledge, no conscription until the people have decided upon its principle. The right hon. leader of the Government (Sir Robert Borden) says: Conscription at all costs, conscription right away, conscription behind the people's backs. That is the issue. For myself I, without hesitation, endorse the position taken by my leader, who stands by his pledge, who stands by the people of Canada and who stands by the voluntary system. I stand for the voluntary system. I do not believe it has failed. After listening to the speech of the ex-Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes) I am inclined more than ever to the suggestion that the fault lay with the Government, who lacked the spirit and the power to make it a success. I may be right or I may be wrong in this conclusion, but, whether right or wrong, 1 maintain that the tribunal of last resort to weigh the facts and pass judgment is the people of Canada themselves. Is not our position alike logical and constitutional? I use these words not without a purpose. I heard the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) reproaching the leader of the Opposition for talking about -the constitution and urging his point in a logical way. He tells us this does not satisfy him. Sir, I am afraid that this war has not taught us all the same lesson. For myself, I believe that if before 1914 we had reason to pin our faith to constitutional methods of Government, we have far more reason to-day to steer still more closely within these lines when we have

had before us for three years the example of an autocratic power such as Germany, when we have been able to measure to what depths it could stoop to achieve its ends. But, says the minister, if the necessity is upon us we must act. That is true. The failure of the Government to apply and practise this sound principle during the course of this war has been the cause of our principal complaint on this side of the House, and the reason of the general discontent throughout this country. But, Sir, there is no necessity which justifies this Government to usurp the rights of the people. Their right is to be heard on this momentous question. Our duty is to obey and respect their verdict. We have, Sir, before us a measure which embodies a new principle. True, the Prime Minister tried to impress this House and country with the belief that this Bill was founded on an old principle, which could be found in section 69 of the Canadian Militia Act. Why does he do so? He did so, Sir, because he recognized and appreciated how feeble would be his position if he failed to establish this contention, essential to his case. He felt that, without it, he could not meet the argument of those who based their plea for an appeal to the people on the very fact that a new principle, contrary to all the traditions of the Canadian people, was being enacted by this measure. Did he succeed? Sir, the answer of the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), an answer based on the very despatches sent by the Prime Minister himself, and on an Order in Council passed by the British Government who had been consulted on this very point at the very beginning of the war making our Canadian soldiers Imperial troops, is so complete, so thorough, that there can be no further doubt as to this: It is a new principle. What does this new principle involve? The compulsory military service abroad of the man power of Canada, the very thing the Prime Minister raid us a year ago in this House he would not apply. We placed our faith in this pledge of the Prime Minister. We voted for the extension of this Parliament. We did so at the request of the Government to avoid any domestic controversy during war time, although we on this side of the House had long lost confidence in this Government. To-day, forgetting this pledge, casting aside the very reasons which they gave in asking for an extension, the Government comes forward with the most contentious measure [Mr. Pacaud.l
which has ever been presented to this House, and asks this Parliament, which holds no longer any authority from the people, the power to enact a law. which, for myself at least, I am convinced will do more harm than good to the great cause we have in view. Why should not the people be consulted? Why not a plebiscite? It cannot be a question of delay. It cannot be, as is so often stated, the immediate necessity of filling the gaps at the front. The Prime Minister himself, in his correspondence with the leader of the Opposition, makes it perfectly clear that if there had been a coalition he would not have enforced this Bill before appealing to the country for its endorsation. Surely, Sir, the Prime Minister would not have made this offer had he believed that the delay which might have resulted from such an appeal would have been in any way detrimental to our soldiers at the front. So, Sir, let us be frank. The reason for refusing a plebiscite is the fear of its defeat at the polls. Is that a democratic doctrine? Are we going to be the tools of those who wish to implant in this country the very system to defeat which we have given our very best blood in Europe? For myself, and for those whom I represent in this House, I will not cast my vote for and share in the responsibility for such a course.
Yet, Sir, in the face of this, when consultation with the people is suggested, it is called a miserable dilatory motion. It is brushed aside and scorned, as a trifle which deserves no consideration. No doubt we have in power a true Tory party, and Toryism was once defined by Gladstone as " Distrust of the people, qualified by fear." Never was there a truer application of a sound definition.
Mr. Speaker, special attention has been given in this debate to the province from which I come, and to the race to which I belong. Harsh words have been used, severe attacks have been delivered, unjust statements have been made. Our French Canadian soldiers who had enlisted were not spared the insult of slanderous insinuations. Were 'these words but the passing utterances of men, victims who were carried away by an outburst of passion, suddenly revealing to us the inner soul of the fanatic, I would be inclined, for my part, to brush them aside, knowing full well that they would not carry more weight in the country than the men who uttered them could command the respect of their fellow-countrymen. These words are far more significant.

They remind us that we are face to face with a condition far more serious. For a long time now, but specially since this war began, a systematic campaign has been waged against the French Canadian race. Let us be truthful in this matter. It has become the political weapon for the Tory press of Canada. The motive is clearly revealed to us. The object can 'be clearly traced. Anxious to save the Government from disaster, knowing full well that they could not succeed, basing their sole plea on the administrative record of this Government, they are trying to divert the minds of the people of Canada from the issue which spells sure defeat to this Government, by appealing once more to the prejudices of men, hoping and expecting, in this way, to save the Government. What is, Sir, the pretext of this campaign? It is said to be lack of recruiting in the province from which I come. The hon. leader of the Opposition, and those from my province who spoke after him, have given a clear and frank statement on this subject. They explained the conditions in Quebec. They showed what should have been done, and was not done. They pointed out the lack of system, the lack of good will, of proper education which undermined the feeble efforts that were made in my province to encourage enlistment. We heard a few days ago the remarkable speech of the hon. gentleman from Three Rivers. He placed before the bar of this House, in modest terms, but with a vigour and straightforwardness which, I am sure, will reach the hearts and minds of many people in this country, the case of Quebec, with its just complaints, its true aspirations and hopes. It is needless for me to repeat what was so eloquently and forcibly presented by those who have preceded me. To the fair-minded men in this country, from whatever province they come or to whatever nationality they belong, they are the vast majority, I ask them, read these speeches, ponder over them, and have in view the lesson which it was intended to convey. To those men, my countrymen, of whatever nationality they may be, who understand the paramount necessity of an earnest undertaking, whose vision is clear enough to see the danger arising from further misunderstanding and estrangement, I say: "Hear the case before judging of its merits." I appeal to their sense of justice. I ask them in what other province, outside of Quebec, was the cry of "No participation in the wars of the Empire" raised and spread as the gospel of truth? In no part of the Dominion, except in the province of
Quebec. In what other province in this Dominion outside of Quebec was the issue which we are now discussing ever debated? In none. Will any fair-minded man tell me that, when this war broke out, the conditions in Quebec were similar to those existing in the other English provinces of the Dominion? And who is responsible for this condition of affairs? Who created this-difference of mentality between the provinces of Quebec and the other provinces?
It was the Nationalist party, represented by two members of this Government, the Nationalist party who had the financial backing of the present Government and of the Tory party of Canada, and who, to-day, victims of their own. work, are the first and only ones .to throw us the stone. Is this British fair play?
Mr. Speaker, we are passing through a most critical phase in our national existence. Our destiny is in our own hands. Let us not lose at home the benefits of our great sacrifices abroad. Let us trust the people. Without their verdict we are disunited. With their verdict, we are again one people, united in a common effort, clasping, in lasting comradeship, the hands now withheld in doubt.


Mr. ARTHUR LACHANCE (Quebec *Centre) (translation):: Mr. Speaker, at this stage of a debate which has been going on for more than two weeks, it would be rash on my part to lay claim to new arguments either for or against the Conscription Bill introduced by the Government. On either side, the subject has been threshed out so far as the House of Commons is concerned. All that remains to me, therefore, in order to avoid repetitions, is to briefly state what are my reasons for voting as I intend to do-
What has been the dominant reason for Canada's participation in the war of nations which is laying waste the old continent?
In the month of August 1914, the almost unanimous vote of the House of Commons, expressive of general public opinion, as voiced by the press and public speakers throughout the country, authorized Canada's intervention in the bloody conflict, even then almost world-wide, which had been precipitated during the last days of July.
Was it solely the fact that England was fighting that brought about this decision? No, Mr, Speaker. For the greater part of us, if not for all of us, this was inspired by an even more -generous sentiment.
Germany, in -defiance of her own signature, had brutally pounced upon Belgium, a small, defenceless, neutral nation, with a

that as enough men do not volunteer to complete the quota required, it becomes necessary to resort to conscription, in order to maintain at full strength our expeditionary forces on the firing line. I grant it, as a general proposition; but it should first be shown that those 100,000 men will be of greater use to the Allies overseas than they would be here.' Where is the proof of that fact to be found? When, on the 1st January 1916, the Prime Minister increased the expeditionary forces to 500,000 men, had he first of all ascertained whether such a policy was warranted by the economical conditions of the country? There is absolutely nothing to show that he had done so. Even to-day, what is there before the House to show us that those 100,000 men would better serve the interests of the Allies overseas than they would do here in the industries producing for war purposes and in the establishments dedicated to our national existence?
And should those 100,000 men remaining in the country be of greater practical use to the common cause, who would object to other men in the ranks of the Allied armies filling up the gaps in the Canadian army?
Many authorized voices have declared in the press and before public meetings that under present circumstances, the levy of 100,000 men would' result in creating disturbances in the farming industry, in crippling our finances and throwing out of gear our industrial machinery, which would affect prejudicially Canada and indirectly the cause of the Allies.
What are the Allies clamoring for? Is it not for munitions, for food and ships for transportation? Why do you not open shipyards and encourage as much as possible shipbuilding? Under the circumstances, assisting the Allies in that particular branch is an imperious necessity, while by so doing, you should be encouraging an infant industry of the greatest importance to the country. But will the Government rest satisfied with this appeal to coercion? By no' means, because next year there will be another levy of 100,000 men and as many more within two years. Did not the Minister of Finance state before the House a few days ago, that the war would be of long duration?
As will be seen, this new departure, this breaking away from our traditions, along the line followed by the Administration, may result most disastrously for Canada and for the cause of the Allies. You would be labouring under a delusion, in attempting to maintain in their integrity our Canadian forces, without providing for a cor-
responding efficient maintenance of our economical situation.
Now what was the position a year ago? What is our position to-day? The cost of living is going sky-high, prices are soaring and have reached fantastic figures altogether out of proportion to the revenue of the people. There does not seem to ,be any other remedy but a greater production, but so far (the Government have not suggested any. .But how are we to have more production without securing more labour? Where is labour to be found? Last year in the West of Canada there was an urgent demand sent out for farm help by the farmers, but to no purpose. Last winter agents were sent out by the Government for recruiting
50,000	farm hands in the United States, but they did not get any. And yet, despite this-shortage of labour, the people were amazed on hearing that 50,000 men have been called under the colours for the defence of the country. Against whom was the country to be defended? The question has so far remained unanswered. A most bewildering thing, indeed all the same, that mobilization which resulted in uselessly stationing in various camps, forts and citadels of Canada 50,000 men, at a time when the neighbouring Republic was being explored by Government agents for recruiting .the farm hands, and labourers needed in our cities and on the farms.
But what we are justified in inferring from that policy is this: ithe Government cannot prove that the 100,000 men whom they contemplate despatching to Europe will be of greater use to the Allies, than they would be here. Do not all those facts show that this conscription Bill originates in the temerity of the (Prime Minister apparently enacting on his own responsibility, on the 1st January 1916, that the expeditionary forces should be increased to 500,000 men.
This message seems to have been at first the ipse dixit of a Government leader who, on a New-Year's day woke up in the attitude of .a Oaesiar. But had he well pondered over the still latent possibilities of voluntary enlistment on the abundance or shortage of labour for the production of food and all the essentials and necessities for the effective prosecution o.f the war? That does not seem to have been the case. That there was temerity has been shown by the events, the message did not meet with the anticipated success.
But, because the Prime Minister did not rightly size up the probable results of voluntary enlistment, was he warranted on that ground in resorting to coercion, in

defiance of the most formal pledges given, from the very inception of 'the war?
In addition to the question as to the desirability of conscripting Canadian manhood, there is the legal and constitutional issue. In this connection, I have in mind the axiom so often quoted in debate: "When Great Britain is at war, -Canada is at war." Granted, but this axiom should be thus qualified: a belligerent with Great Britain has the right of attacking our country, even though Canada were standing aloof in the conflict; in case of such an attack, Canada could not invoke the status of neutrality.
But this axiom does not convey the meaning that Canada ought to participate in all the wars of Great Britain or that, even if she took -part in -any w-ar she could not withdraw from it.
Under the Constitution, Canada could recall to the last man all her expeditionary forces, being in no way bound to send overseas men to fighit in this world-shaking wiar.
To the accuracy of that statement an eminent statesman, the right hon. Arthur James Balfour bore witness in this House. From his oration of May 28, delivered before the House of Commons and the members of the Senate in joint session, let me quote what follows:
Moreover, remember that the foreign speculators about the British Empire must have thought before the war began. They said to themselves:	This loosely constructed State
resembles nothing that has ever existed in history before ; it is held together by no coercive power ; the Government of the Mother Country cannot raise a corporal's guard in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, or wherever you will ; she can not raise a shilling of taxation ; she has no power. When, unexpectedly, without giving an opportunity for preparation or discussion, oi propaganda, war burst upon the world, even those animated by such a feeling might well have doubted whether this great Empire-each unit of which had it in its power to hold aloof had it so desired-might act as one organization animated by one soul, moved by one purpose and driving towards one end.
As will be seen from the above quotation, the Government of the Mother Country could not raise a corporal's guard in Canada nor in any other colony, and every colony could have stood aloof, had it so desired. Therefore, granted that if Great Britain has no power to coerce us into participating in her wars, liow can the Government take authority to enact legislation for coercing us? No, the Government have no such power, neither in justice nor in equity.
Among the obligations involved in the status of citizenship is that of military service for the defence of one's country: but you could not quote a single case of legislation imposing military service for the defence of another country.
Now, to put it in a nutshell, what the Government said amounts to this: conscription is a case of emergency or at least it is the unavoidable result of Canada's participation in the conflict, as it is necessary to fill up the gaps and to maintain at full strength our expeditionary forces.
Now, to 'this I reply: You have secured our participation under false representations, because you kept repeating " ad nauseam" that there would be no such emergency and no such conscription as a consequence; and you cannot frame a law for conscripting Canadian manhood grounded on a consent which was not given freely, but erroneously, and that isthe reason why I say that you should appeal to the people, in order to get the power that is lacking and which you cannot bestow on yourselves. Up to a few weeks iagio, did -any one pretend that our Canadian mianihood could be conscripted and sent abroad in order to fight the battles of England and the Allies?
Besides, how could such a departure have been contemplated, in view of the fact that under the Militia Act of Canada no troops could be sent abroad on voluntary service? The leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has made that point very clear; he has grounded his opinion on the views held by the Prime Minister and the Government in the despatches of August 1 and 5, 1914, to the Secretary of State for the Colonies and in the order in council of August 6 authorizing the mobilization -of the first contingent.
This interpretation squares with the policy and the principles embodied in all the legislation relating to the Militia Acts enacted in Canada. This was fully shown by my hon. friend from Kamouraska (Mr. Lapointe) in the exhaustive review which he made of that legislation, going back as far as 1808 and resting his case on the best authorities and the most competent exponents of the policy of that legislation.
It follows, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the Militia Act of Canada has nothing to do with the proposed conscription Bill; that the Government who pretend to graft it on the Militia Act are not acting in good faith; that Great Britain has no right to compel the people of Canada to go and fight her battles, and " a fortiori ", that the Government have no right to enact a law in order to force upon the people compulsory service.
I approved of Canada participating in this world-war, and I do not feel regret for it, as the cause of the Allies deserves the! co-
UF.VTHEn EnTTTON

operation of all those who are far or near connected with it. In the province of Quebec, a certain school of thought has been manifesting, more ostensibly than they have been doing in some of the other provinces, its opposition to the country participating in the war. In the opinion of this group of anti-participationists there is no blinking the fact that our entry in the war results from what they think was the blameworthy stand taken, at the time of the South African war in 1898, and from the legislation enacted in 1909 and 1910 in connection with the Naval service and also from the contribution of $35,000,000 for the construction of these dreadnoughts to be incorporated in the British navy. But there is no similarity. In those three instances the question was as to the desirability of the Government proffering the assistance of Canada to the mother country. Now it is no longer a question of Great Britain prosecuting a redress or a conquest, but it is a case of the most peace-loving nations which, after repeatedly ignoring the most humiliating provocations, are now rising in their might and taking up arms on behalf of international law or the law of nations, and in vindication of the treaties guaranteeing the neutrality of Belgium, which Germany might and autocracy pretend to trample upon with impunity; in short it is the case of a nation, threatening all liberty, despising all the rights bequeathed to the world by the English Revolution and the French Revolution. Thus is spite of the anguish of spirit and the: heart-rending anxiety we *were a prey to, from the inception of this orgy of destruction, I am still of opinion that Canada has done right in helping those of her sons who volunteered to go overseas and whose valour in this world-shaking war has stood equal to the noble cause espoused by them.
Undoubtedly being given that we are at w,ar, we should grieve at having erased from our national records such glorious deeds as those performed by our soldiers who held high the honour of Canada on so many bat-tie fields; those soldiers, I say, who at Ypres and Saint Julian saved Calais, those who died at Festubert and Givenchy and Saint Eloi, those who fell at Neuve Chapelle, those who gave their lives at Courcelette and who offered the supreme sacrifice at Vimy.
In the same order of things, Canada has risen to the height of the cause for which she is fighting, .and the magnitude of the effort exerted by her has been recognized by military leaders and statesmen alike. In proportion, our contribution as .a whole is ahead 
of that of any other colony and it has been estimated that even the United States would stand our equal only when they have put in the field an army of five or six million soldiers.
Now, Mr. Speaker, should we not be disregarding, to a certain extent, that great generosity on the part of the people, were we to introduce coercion for the purpose of increasing .a contribution which, as admitted by competent parties, has already reached the extreme limit of this country's economic power?
Considering the .results already obtained, voluntary enlisment, reinvigonated, skilfully directed, kept .alive, would indeed have brought ito a worthy completion Canada's participation in the war.
In order to justify conscription, Great Britain's example is invoked, but there is no analogy between the two oases. England had signed the treaty Which Germany has tom to pieces ; on pain of everlasting disgrace, she owed it to her honour to see that her signature respected, putting, if necessary, into the effort her last man and her last shilling. Canada on the other hand had signed/ no treaty; legally and constitutionally she was in no wise obliged to intervene in this war; her sacrifices have been inspired by her magnanimity and were made to the full extent of her resources.
Because Canada, heeding her generosity and self sacrifice, has sent over and maintained to this day an army at the front, is it logical to take for granted that she is bound to continue maintaining it in full numbers, notwithstanding any other considerations, when volunteering proves inadequate and when, on the other .hand, volunteering has been the determining, essential, sine qua non reason for our original participation?
Arguing from our colonial status, some people in this country speak and protest as if Canada should be sacrificed to the insatiable Moloch that is, for the past three years, swallowing up the vital forces of the old world; as if Canada should trail along until spiritless, bloodless and emaciated, she drops gasping at the Allies' feet.
No! no!
A colony, be it so; but a free and selfgoverning country whose citizen has the right and alike the duty of speaking his mind. Canada is your country as well as it is ours, but in a different manner. Our ancestors were its discoverers and settlers; they have brought to it civilization; wherefore is it our country not in the sense that it is yours, you, Englishmen, Irishmen, Scotchmen, who may claim also another

country as your own. Our fathers have spread over it the atmosphere of liberty; it needed, it is true, a revolution and bloodshed, but liberty, indeed, never had any other cradle nor any other nursing; besides, there is not a single Canadian, who stops to reflect, that does not applaud to-day that revolution of yesterday. How is it, therefore, that you cannot understand our fear lest a misplaced generosity should throw this country into a deadly state of languor, should paralyze our growth, and that, without improving to a perceptible degree the Allies' general situation.
That is the point upon which we ask the judgment of all Canadians. This country has already given too liberally of its blood and its gold, that the Government should to-day mercilessly treat it as liable to unlimited taxation and hard labour, whether in its individual or in its national life, and pay no heed to the views or the will of the people.
Canada must remain in the struggle, that is the feeling of all of us; but the Government wants to introduce coercion; we answer : You have no right to do it without the consent of the citizens. Let, therefore, the question be submitted to them. What do you fear? If you are convinced that conscription is necessary, you. will have no trouble in satisfying the people of its necessity. Do you mistrust them? And why should you, if you are in good faith, if you have, as you contend, performed your duty. Would it be that you foresee a hostile verdict upon conscription? In my opinion, yes, that is the reason for your refusal. But then, it is the ipse dixit of a government group in defiance of the popular will.
As a parting word, let me say: Trust the people; they will be your supreme support, your only strength in the crisis which Canada, as the rest of the world, is going through; they are broad-minded, generous; sacrifices are easy to them; they will lighten your path. But if you have no confidence in them, in the people who have entrusted you with their destinies, they, your masters and your judges as they are ours, how can you expect us to have faith in you?


Mr. C. A. WILSON (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, the Bill for compulsory military service which the Government has drawn up and presented to this House has been sp thoroughly discussed and so fully examined in all its bearings that very little is left to be said on the subject. However, on such a solemn occasion I deem it my duty to state my views concerning the Bill.
All are of one accord on the main question; the sole thought of every citizen of this Dominion is the success of the Allies in this mighty struggle. Since we have entered upon this war, rightly or wrongly, the fact remains that we are now in it to the finish. It w.ould be useless for me now to enter into any of the questions touching upon the wisdom or otherwise of our present participation in the conflict, or to devote time to the consideration of the necessity of bending all our might to secure ultimate victory.
At the outset of the war the Allies believed in an early triumph. They thought that in a short time-three months or so, at the most-their troops would enter in triumph the city pf Berlin, that the heroic King of the Belgians would be reseated on his throne, and that the people of that noble little country would be given back their rights and privileges and be in a position to enjoy all the blessings of a permanent peace. For three years the Allies have battled. The thunder of war has been ceaseless; the sacrifices endured have been beyond number, yet the dawn of victory does not appear on the horizon. These are not words of despair, nor do they indicate any lessening of faith in the cause. On the contrary, I am absolutely convinced that ultimate victory will crown the efforts pf the Allied armies.
I do not intend to occupy the time of the House in going over the different parts taken by the various Allies in this stupendous struggle. The question that occupies our attention at this moment concerns not only England, Belgium, France, or Italy; it concerns our own selves in Canada.
No one questions whether or not our efforts should be carried on to the end; for my part, I am convinced that that is the paramount duty of the hour. Effort means the use of force or strength, and it behooves us to know what our strength is, its nature, its extent, what the maximum of development necessary in order to secure the best that is in us. It is on this latter point that ideas and opinions differ. The difficulty is not insurmountable, the problem not without a solution; but it is necessary to lay aside all political interests and racial and religious prejudices, and approach the solving of the issue with open minds, generous hearts and clear brains.
The Government, realizing the position that Canada holds in regard to the Empire, thought well to take a share in this great struggle, called Parliament together, and received all the support possible from a united people through their representatives.

First, the necessity was for men at the front, and then for the means of providing for them. The Government employed the voluntary system of enrolment. At that time everyone believed in the effectiveness of that system, provided it was wisely and properly put in movement. What has been the result? In the work of recruiting this Dominion has performed miracles. England herself has declared through her most authoritative voices-even that of Mr. Balfour in this very House some weeks ago- that Canada deserves unlimited thanks for all she has done for the Allies, and that the conduct of her sons on the fields of Europe has surpassed the most sanguine expectations. Even the American people, a people pretty well accustomed to magnify their own achievements, could not refrain from paying homage to the magnificent and gigantic efforts of Canada at the beginning and on through this war of giants. They found that Canada, with an entire voting population of 1,600,000 men, including old men and men of all ages, as well as a vast number of inhabitants from other lands, had, without any coercion or enforcement, freely and voluntarily enrolled over 420,000 volunteers and sent over 330,000 of them beyond the seas to assist France and England on the fields of Flanders and elsewhere. And they marvelled at the achievement.
With these facts and figures before us, we cannot but say that the voluntary system in Canada, with all the difficulties incident to enlistment, has succeeded beyond all expectations. In support of this contention, I would like to quote from the Wall Street Journal of the 18th June instant, which organ, under the heading, "Conscription in Canada," makes the following estimate of this country's doings:
Canada has a vgting population of 1,600,000, including the old and feeble, and a relatively large number of Germans and Austrians of recent citizenship. Volunteer enlistments are over 400,000, and over 300,000 men have gone to England and Prance. Casualties run up to nearly 100.000. It cannot be said, therefore, that the volunteer system, with all of its faults of wastage of men, money and supplies, did not at least enlist popular support.
Some time ago, national service was taken up and the industrial population of the Dominion has been classified, and an effort has been made to enlist men of fighting age who could he most economically dispensed with. Now, to round out the natirual service organization of the Dominion, a bill has been introduced for conscription.
I draw your attention specially to the following paragraph:

When the history of the Dominion in this war shall have been written, it will not be recorded that she voluntarily failed to meet the high expectations of her Premier, for volunteers were in abundance, as they have always been. But it was necessary, even though late, to have due regard to an equitable distribution of the burden by localities and with reference to the state of industry, and in this way make good the pledge of Sir Robert Borden that Canada would stand at least half a million men overseas.
The achievements of the volunteer Canadian contingents will survive in the traditions of the north long after every monument to commemorate them shall have perished.
This appreciation, which I consider as just and fair, brings me to the conclusion that, had it not been for the imprudent promise made by the Prime Minister in a moment of perhaps irreflection, the 500,000 men of whom he spoke would to-day be under the colours through the voluntary system. But that promise created a feeling of astonishment and stampede amongst a people who, considering themselves to be free men, did not wish to cut slices from their own liberty in order to secure the liberties of others. Such an appreciation on the part of the United States is not surprising, coming from a people who have themselves enjoyed the greatest amount of liberty in the world, and who are the personification of democracy in its [DOT] fullest sense. But it is not enough to be a free people, you must practise freedom. I understand there are periods when great evils can be avoided only at the cost of great sacrifices. But efforts made for liberty should not lead to anarchy; it is very good to provide for men, but it is also essential to equip them and provide for them. Listen to a French writer on this subject. In the month of June of this year, Mr. Albert Peyronnet, of France said:
It would appear that the first thing is to drive the enemy off the national soil. Doubtlessly correct. But to drive him, the combatant must be fed, we must plant, and to plant we must sow; seed and plants are required; these must be brought to their destination; transportation facilities are needed; and if we have none we must get them, cost what it, may, and place them at the disposal of those who, while filled with courage and good will, are without the means and the implements to perform their work. While our soldiers are performing their duties for our freedom, they must be supplied.
Many comments have been made as to the reasons why enlistment in Quebec, if it has not failed, has slackened to a certain extent. Let us examine a few cold facts, and then although they may have been viewed from different angles by dif-

ferent observers, it is very easy for us to draw conclusions.
In the first place, Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my opinion on some of those striking movements, those flashes of bright action which, at times, -certain men perform, and which gain for them, if not fame, at least a degree of passing notoriety. Those deeds may be admirable in themselves, as far as they go, but the grave danger lies in the fact that the
11 p.m. performer sometimes fails to gauge the ultimate and far-reaching consequence of that which, for the moment, appears worthy of praise. The lightning stroke is -both brilliant and dazzling, but where it falls, generally ruin and ashes are to be found. We have an example of this in the action of the former member for Nicolet (Mr. Lamarche). With a splendid gesture he declared that he would not sit in Parliament, and that he resigned his seat as a protest against what he considered the unconstitutional and unworthy course taken by this Government in its retention of power without any mandate from the people. But Mr. Lamarche, unsupported by his other political associates, simply isolated himself and wrought an injustice to the very cause which he now eloquently advocates. Would he not be more useful, more effective, more patriotic and far more serviceable were he in this House to-day to register his vote against conscription, than to deliver orations, no matter how eloquent, against that pernicious principle?
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Sevigny) who last week delivered his plea on the floor of Parliament, has been as inconsistent as have been all the other Nationalists in the political arena of the past few years. I listened very attentively to that hon. gentleman's explanations, and I have come to the conclusion that they explain nothing at all. I desire to be perfectly parliamentary in dealing with this phase of the issue before us; but I cannot help being to some extent severe; severe, but just, I hope. The Minister of Inland Revenue declared that French Canadians in various parts of the Dominion did well in recruiting, and that in Quebec they would have done equally well, had it not been for their leaders and the lack of sincerity in those leaders when encouraging enlistment. These are not his exact words, but they are the purport of them. Such is the central idea expressed by the hon. gentleman in his special pleading on Monday last. When I heard such excuses coming from the lips of that hon. gentleman, I sought for some word in the English or the French language to qualify properly the audacity of the statements. In 1910 and 1911 the men who preached a crusade throughout Quebec against all idea of conscription and of military or naval service, or any participation in wars of the Empire were the Postmaster General (Mr. Blondin), the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Sevigny) and their Nationalist brethren. The young lads of fifteen and sixteen years of age whom they taught to resist all thought of helping England, and in whom they implanted the idea that the Laurier Naval Bill was intended to send them as food for cannon on the fields of Europe or on the high seas, are to-day the young men of twenty-one or twenty-two wham these self-same apostles seek to force into the ranks of overseas regiments. Imagine the preacher of such doctrines arising to-day, simply because he is in possession of a portfolio, and blaming the leaders of public thought in Quebec for the lack of recruiting. The ex-Secretary of State (Mr. Patenaude) has been deceived, .as the country has been deceived, but he has resigned his portfolio and has thus entered the strongest and most effective protest possible against the systematic deception perpetrated in Canada. Unlike Mr. Lamarche, the ex-Secretary of State remains in the House to vote against conscription; unlike the Minister of Inland Revenue he gives up his seat in the Cabinet to retain his liberty and to do his duty to his people and his province. But what am I to say of the course taken by the Minister of Inland Revenue? What a great day this Government has afforded him in return for his complete change of front; ne has breakfasted off the shreds of his own principles; he has dined in the Speaker's chair; he now takes his supper at the council table of this conglomerate Cabinet; and he expects perhaps, to be allowed to sleep in the silent comforts of the Senate. What an example of the selling of a birthright for a mess of political pottage. The minister seems to have gone, in his brief career, the entire round of the political zodiac. But where I do not agree with him is when lie pretends that he is retaining his seat in the Cabinet in order that, French Canadians may not be depr;ved cf representation in the Government. He is holding his portfolio under equally false pretences -because he and his associate no more represent the French Canadians than they do Australians or New Zealanders. But this is only one more of the deceptions he has learned in the school of political

deceit wherein he has learned this lessons of late. Do I exaggerate?
Let us turn to that school and to its headmaster. The Prime Minister and his party came into power mainly through the misrepresentations made in Quebec by the Nationalist crowd, who were ready to burn the country provided they could down Laurier. His Navy Act, which the Nationalists opposed tooth, and nadl and which the Borden party promised to efface from the statute-book if returned to power, still stands on the statutes, and this Government, in the face of events, dare not carry out its promise to repeal it. Nor would the Nationalists who then demanded its repeal, attempt to-day to repeat the arguments with which they deceived half of Quebec. Worthy pupils of a very worthy, or unworthy master. Bourassa yesterday; Borden to-day-different teachers, but professing the same principles, and putting those principles into practice each in his own way and according to his opportunities. I accuse this Government and its Prime Minister of repeated and reiterated misrepresentations; at all events they cannot be characterized more mildly than by styling them " dust-throwing into the eyes of the people."
Many times, has this Government, through its Prime Minister or other members of its combination, played a game .of deceit with the people of Canada. On Tuesday night my horn, friend from Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau), in a masterly address, characterized by mildness, heart, fairness, fearlessness and every fine quality that belongs to the well-born French Canadian, exposed the miserable and un-British, narrow and anti-Canadian slanders that seem to have been specially concocted to carry on a campaign of unpatriotio persecution against my province. No need that I should mar that irrefutable oration by any repetitions of its indictments. It has been shown in this House, numberless times, and it has never been refuted, that the Prime Minister and his acolytes, the ministers from the province of Quebec, have constantly assured the country that conscription would never be Tesorted to by this Government. Had the Premier the idea of ultimately springing this issue on the people at that time? I do not know; perhaps not; perhaps his head was turned by some occult imperialistic influence during bis otherwise fruitless trip to Europe last winter and last spring. Be that as it may, ihe and soma of his ministers,
ftfr. C. A. Wilson !
must have assured the Archbishop of Montreal, either in writing or verbally, or both, that the National Service Card-the worst fiasco that the Government has ever perpetrated-was not the forerunner of conscription, On this I would like to hear from some of these gentlemen, in particular the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty). Until refuted, or at least until denied, this self-evident fact must be taken for granted. It was a huge deception, hacked by false representations of the worst kind. In this did the Premier and his Government deceive the people of my province. To-day they are reaping what they sowed in that hour. The eyes of the people are opened to the treachery of which they were the plaything and to the rule of deceit of which they are the victims.
I commend to the attention of the House the answer given by the right hon. the Prime Minister to a question put by the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Murphy) on 18th June:-
Mr. Murphy:	1. Has there been any correspondence between the Government or any member thereof, and any Prelate or Prelates in the province of Quebec on the subject of conscription?
2. If so, will the correspondence he laid on the table of the House, and when?
And this was the answer:-	>
Sir Robert Borden :	There is no official correspondence on the subject-
No " official " correspondence. But was there any?


Mr. LEMIEUX:: Officious.


Charles Avila Wilson: Yes, any officious correspondence, 'as remarked by the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux).
-and the Government has no information in regard to the private correspondence of any member of the Government.
I leave it to the House to judge whether the complaint made by the Archbishop of Montreal on this subject, which complaint has been reported in the papers, was well founded or no-t. I think It was in my own county-


An hon. MEMBER:: No, St. Benoit.


Charles Avila Wilson: Yes, at St. Benoit, in the county of Two Mountains, that the Archbishop stated that he had been deceived by some member of the Government. But, instead of full information being given to the public and to this House, we have the answer which I have just read. Having thus broken their own word and their own promises, I am not surprised that the gentle-

men opposite fear the people and cling to their seats despite the public clamour.
Let me read briefly from an editorial article which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of this morning. It deals with the charge that Bourassa is the associate of the leader of the Opposition, or vice versa. The article is entitled " Playing it Fair." It says:-
To the unbiased observer there is no more pathetic symptom of the weakness of the Administration in the conduct of the war than the tendency of the partisan press to shift responsibility for the situation in Quebec to the shoulders of the leader of the- Opposition. As antagonism to the compulsory military measure becomes more pronounced in the neighbouring province the Administration press all over the country, instead of attempting to find some rational solution for the problem, redoubles its efforts to make it clear that Sir Wilfrid alone is to blame for the difficulties that are being revealed in the attitude of Quebec. Politically, this may be intended to draw attention from the Nationalist alliance with the Conservative party in 1911, an alliance emphasized in a significant manner by the recent retirement of Hon. Mr. Patenaude from the Cabinet, but while this may havej some value in an electioneering sense, it is an affront to the intelligence of the average Canadian to tell him, as does a local contemporary, that the province of. Quebec virtually awaited a lead from Sir Wilfrid Laurier in the matter of conscription, and that the attitude of that statesman in the House determined to large degree the stand of the French Canadian province. It is worse than dishonest to assert that Sir Wilfrid handed Quebec over to Bourassa. The fact is that the influence of Bourassa was strong enough in 1911 to defeat Sir Wilfrid Laurier in the Dominion by almost dividing the number of seats in Quebec province.
The editorial closes with these words:
To blame the situation in Quebec on the leader of the Opposition is a cheap political expedient and lacks the spirit of manliness.
The appreciation which I was quoting from the Wall Street Journal a few minutes ago, you will notice, points out specially that it is as necessary to have due regard to an equitable distribution of the burden by localities and with reference to the state of industry, and in this way to make good the pledge of the Prime Minister that Canada would send at least half a million men overseas.. Equitable distribution and the pledge of the Prime Minister will illustrate la raison de nadssance if not la raison d'etre of this proposed legislation. So much has been said about this pledge that I do not propose to comment at any length in favour of it. Suffice it to say that for my part, I qualify it as imprudent, inconsiderate, presumptious, unauthorized, and tainted with jingoism. He wanted to outdo somebody, to "go one better " as is
said in common parlance. And " the morning after the night before " when this promise had been flashed, he realized, I presume, that he had gone very far-too far -but he made up his mind to live up to his imprudence and make good at any price, even if he had to ruin Canada in men and money, sacrifice its autonomy and treat the British Act of Confederation as a "scrap of paper."
This is one of the considerations we are called upon to weigh, and I do not hesitate a minute to put it aside and consider it absolutely worthless and weightless. But the "equitable distribution" is worth considering.
At first glance it will be seen that the volunteering system adopted by the Government at the start would produce inequality. Inequality is in the very nature of voluntarism, and the Government, unless composed of blind men, could not do otherwise than foresee and expect inequality, discrepancy, difference in number. It was sure in advance that one part of the country would produce more man-power that another part, one province, one city, one town, one village, one hamlet one county, one parish, one township, one village would produce more or less than others. They knew that this system would engender comparison, friction, uneasiness, more especially in a bi-racial bi-ling aal country like Canada and where all creeds are professed. Such a result, such an inevitable accomplishment having been achieved, the Government cannot now recriminate and complain. It is its own offspring, its own child. Though this system had grave disadvantages on the one hand, it had great advantages on the other, the most precious of which was that every man could of his own free will mould his conduct according to the dictation of his conscience.
I mentioned comparison a few moments ago. It happened that every other province, especially Ontario, compared itself with Quebec and found the latter wanting, lacking, "slacking," to use the consecrated terms complained-inde irae et lacrimae. From this day we had all kinds of insinuations and slanders, insults and appeals to religion, Tace and language-insults which have been met and repelled.
But the point I want to make is this. If a slacker is more or less to blame, more or less of a criminal, what difference is there between a slacker in Ontario, or the other English-speaking provinces, and a slacker
COMMON?
in Quebec? None. If any, the slacker of British parentage is more to blame, if blame should be attached, than the slacker of French 'blood, because his ties with the Motherland are linked more closely.
It is all very well to brag about loyalty and patriotism, but the fact remains that according to the figures given as a proposed basis for the conscription of 100,000 men, 75,000 will have to be enrolled in the English provinces and 25,000 in Quebec. Make all kinds of comparisons if you like now. If Quebec is slacking twenty-five per cent, the other provinces are slacking seventy-five per cent. But if it is a crime for a French-Canndian to slack, what would it be for a British Canadian?-a glory, I suppose. And to think that the Imperial Government had to enact conscription in the British Isles to stimulate the Briton's patriotism, while a whole English continent, Australia, with no Quebec within its confines, refused to have recourse to conscription, and nobody to blame them in this House!
I agree with many of the reasons that were enunciated in support of the proposal for a referendum, accepting as I do the principle that the people are the sovereign master of their destinies, and I deny anybody the right to dictate to the people without their consent. If any one doubts the soundness and prudence of this doctrine, let him become a student of the situation in Russia, China, Portugal or Greece.
Let us profit by the examples of others and the lessons they unfold, and apply them to Canada, I say, that neither compulsion nor conscription was ever before applied in this country. The people claim the right to have a say in a question wnich involves their lives, rights, obligations, privileges and property.
As to the insults, insinuations and slanders which have been offered in this House, they are the results of a campaign of fanaticism and ignorance carried on in Ontario and other English provinces and Quebec. Let us be frank about it; we have been abused so much by the Nationalists of Quebec and by their counterparts in Ontario and elsewhere, that we have become accustomed to it. At times, left to ourselves, we might have enjoyed the spectacle of a regular scrap between the two camps of our opponents if it had not been so sad, so unhuman, so depressing.
This measure has created a state of excitement amongst the people, and has

given rise to all kinds of passions, religious, racial and political, which has spread to such an extent that some of the honourable members are asking themselves if we are not on the verge of civil war. We must admit that the people are excited, amazed and indignant over this unconstitutional measure, and want to have their say in the matter. Why not consult the people? The answer of my honourable friends who oppose the referendum is provoking and autocratic, unfair, unjust and insulting to the people of this country, because, they say, we know better than the people do. They say: We do not care for your opinion, we will send you to cTeath without your consent, we are the masters of, your destinies and we will pass this law against your will, or ait all events without your consent. But what is the use of taking up the time of the House any longer. This measure will be enacted by the sheer force of the majority.
Before resuming my seat let me, en passant, take up the remark made by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark), in which he drew the comparison between the lion and the lamb. I wonder whether he intended to present an allegory, as a writer, Colonel Merrit, puts it:
Bolh in war aid in peace, so long as man is man, the weak will go to the wall and just as surely, so long as animal is animal, when the lion lies down with the lamb, it will only be when the lamb is inside the lion.
My hon. friend from Red Deer may feel assured that the lamb of Quebec will not lie down in this way, and it is better not to provoke that lamb too severely nowadays. The offender may find out that he has mixed up his animals, and that what he took for the lamb may prove to be the lion. He may have been a little bit mixed in his vision the other day.


Mr. DOHERTY:: You might have indigestion.


Charles Avila Wilson: The Minister of Justice is very familiar with conditions in Quebec, and I think he is afraid of a bad meal when he goes back home. But what is the good of all that campaign of insult and slander? What benefit can be derived from it? In what way can the cause of the Allies, the cause of Canada, of Confederation, of union between the races in this country, be advanced by this pernicious and contemptible campaign? Has the Confederation of Canada to be cemented by blood, by a civil war? Are we to stain one more page of too many pages of our history already stained

with the blood of our heroes and martyrs? Let us hope that the right hon. leader of the Government will pause, and in order to avoid greater calamities, will drop this Bill, or at least appeal to the people, restore 'peace and harmony, help the cause of the Allies, and avoid the calamities that were pointed out to this House by his former colleague who a few days ago tendered his resignation.


Mr. GUSTAVE BOYER (Vaudreuil. (translation):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly
could not find a better beginning for the protest I desire to register against the coercive measure which the Government wishes to force through the House without consulting the people, than by reading here a resolution adopted by all the mayors of my county, at a meeting held in Vaudreuil, the county town, on June 13 last.
As for me, I find in this resolution the whole subject, matter of my speech.
Here is the resolution:
To the honourable Members of the House of Commons in Parliament assembled.
Extract from the proceedings of the municipal council of the county of Vaudreuil, adopted at its general session of the thirteenth of June, one thousand nine hundred and seventeen, literally takes as follows:
Moved by Counciller D. Bellemare, mayor of the parish of St. Lazare, seconded by Councillor Joseph E. Quesnel, mayor of the parish of Rigaud, and unanimously carried:
"Whereas the present Government no longer Minister of Canada, has just laid before the Canadian Parliament a Bill providing for military conscription for the overseas service;
"Whereas the present Government no longer hold a mandate from the people to pass such a Bill;
"Whereas this Bill is contrary to the Constitution which governs us, and to the country's traditions;
"Whereas we are governed by democratic institutions, and that the people should be consulted upon all important measures, with greater reason upon a measure which demands the blood and the gold of the nation ;
"Be it resolved that this council strongly opposes the enactment of military conscription in this country before the consent of the majority of the people has been obtained by means of a referendum ;
"And that a copy of the present resolution be sent to the House of Commons, to Sir Robert Borden and to Mr. Gustave Boyer, representative of the county in the House of Commons.
"And the petitioners shall always pray."
Given at Vaudreuil, this 16th of June, J.917.
True copy.
(Signed) J. N. Legault,
Asst.-Sec. -Treas.
This resolution was unanimously adopted by all the mayors of the county, not excepting a single one. Besides the two already mentioned in the resolution, were also present: Messrs. J. N. Lefebvre, county registrar and mayor of the village of Vaudreuil; Antoine Lalonde, of the parish of Vaudreuil; Azilda Daoust, of lie Perrot; John Me-Naughton, of Como; Galt Brown, of Pointe Fortune; Ludger Cadieux, of St. Redemp-teur; Emery Quesnel, of Ste. Marthe and James Berry, of Ste. Justine de Netvton.
Two other municipalities have no representatives on the county council, on account of their having a city charter. I am speaking of Dorion and Rigaud, but, nevertheless, I may state that their mayors would have been of the same opinion as their colleagues, at least the first mentioned, in whose name I can officially speak. And what is most noticeable in this resolution, is its moderation. It is all fair play. It simply requests that the people be given an opportunity to be heard on a measure of such importance. Another fact which deserves consideration is that this county council has three English-speaking mayors who join in this petition.
Besides this protest coming from the most authorized body of my county, I laid before this House other petitions signed 'by several thousand people. Most of these petitions had been signed at tibe suggestion of the reeve of the county, ,and they call for either a referendum or a general election, before this measure be adopted. Other petitions, from private parties, have also been sent to me and duly received, I have likewise laid them on the Table.
I may state, Mr. Speaker, that I was most happy to see such a general protest on the part of my constituents, for it encouraged me and confirmed me in the attitude I had decided to take, from the very moment this Bill was introduced.
T.he population of Vaudreuil county, Mr Speaker, is composed of peaceful people, law-abiding, fond of harmony and, above all, anxious to live on good terms with their English compatriots who cut quite a figure in the total population. And I would venture to assert that if all 'the English and French Canadians in the country c. uld agree as they do in my constituency we never would have any knotty problem to solve.
How much, therefore, do I deplore the tone upon which the present debate is proceeding. The conscription issue has been completely set aside by some hon. member's on the other side of the House, who saw fit to base their arguments upon racial grounds Truly, one might be led to believe that conscription is not a military question but rather a racial issue.

Mr. Speaker, this principle at stake does not appeal to me in such a light. To my mind, this measure is before Parliament just as all the other great questions have come before this House, but, because of its vital importance, it awakens a general interest throughout the country. On this question, the province of Quebec, among all the provinces, counts for one, no more no less, and I fail to see why some people are trying to have these proposals pivot solely around that province.
As I have just said, compulsory service is a matter of vital importance and it should not be considered from the several points of view of the two. great races inhabiting this country, but rather from the standpoint of the whole nation from the Atlantic to the Pacific, according to their opinion of its *citizens either for or against conscription. And I understand that the Liberals Who. are fighting this measure are not doing it to the aspirations of one race, hut are voicing the anti-conscriptionist sentiment, as it is to be found in every one of the nine provinces of confederation. If the French Liberal mem-*ers have stood in this House ito defend the .stand taken, by their province, it is in reply to the provocations they have been subjected to by the Conservative members sitting on your right. And I would appeal to the hon. Prime Minister's sense of justice to check the vehement out-pourings of his partisans who, by their senseless .appeals, are actually raising a rancour from which no good results can be expected.
These rumours of revolt which might arise, here .and there, in the province of Quebec should cause no undue alarm, for I am honestly convinced that the only revolt that might likely break out in this country, would be between conseriptionists and anti-conscriptionists, to whatever race they may belong. And the riot which took place in Winnipeg not more than a few days ago, bears ample evidence.
I .shall vote .against the Military Service Bill for three reasons:
Firstly, because I have no confidence in the honesty or in the ability of the present Government ;
Secondly, because this Parliament is presently sitting without any mandate but that of its own members, and therefore, has not, in the meaning of the constitution, any rightful existence ;
Thirdly, because the establishment of compulsory service is an economic error and, adopted without the people's consent, would become an arbitrary act and a menace to confederation.
In order to make good my first argument, to wit.: that I have no confidence in the

present Government, I will not lose any time in citing the long list of scandalous matters which have been charged against them, more particularly since the beginning of the war, although long previous to 1914, the Government had already made several vents in their coat of arms. Never did scandals arouse public opinion to such a degree as those connected with the supply of ammunition, equipment and all other war material. And what a pitiable defence have they not offered for every charge laid against the Government, or against some of its ministers.
The honest and independent public opinion of this country has long ago lost all confidence in the present Government. When I speak of the Government's incapacity, I am perfectly justified by what has unfortunately occurred: its unpardonable errors, its extravagant expenditure in the organization of the contingents, the grotesque and costly performances of its exMinister of Militia-its Napoleon the little, as Victor Hugo liked to nickname the last French emperor, who provoked the disaster of 1870-the exorbitant prices paid right and left for war supplies, the unrestrained squandering at the Valcartier camp; the quarrels of Camp Borden; the painQil and condemnatory report made by Dr Bruce upon the Canadian hospital's service in England, and. many other blunders the enumeration of which would by itself take up my whole time. However, the emergency is too great a one for me to exact today this rendering of accounts in connection with which the people of this country, willing or not must foot the bill. But, a matter about which the Government betrays its utter inefficiency and about which we have the right of demanding a severe and immediate accounting, is its criminal unconcern to protect the people against the vampires of every description, who are taking advantage of them and. subjecting them to the horrors of the high cost of living. Tire poor people cannot maintain that equanimity for the morrow which may keep the millionaires who sit here as ministers or as members of the present Parliament. No. the working man, whether in the mills or on the land, to whom every other day bring? trouble and uneasiness for his family and for himself, has to bear, during the terrible period we are now passing through, the adverse lot of hardships, the constant labour under the yoke, and the privations due to the lack of comfort, to the high cost of foodstuffs, of fuel, of clothing and of all the other necessaries of life.

The people who have been asked their generous and loyal contributions to this great war, the people who have answered so liberally, had at least the right to rely upon the Government's strong co-operation to be protected against the trusts of every description. I am therefore right when I charge the present Government with being unfit for the great task it had assumed, to wit.: to protect the labouring classes of this country. In the face of such facts, I am convinced that it would be unwise to let the Government venture into such a serious policy as that of adopting conscription without consulting the people, the sovereign dispenser.
My second argument is that we hold no lawful mandate and that we are sitting here solely on our own authority. In 1914, we passed an Act, the purport of which was to allow the Government to make a redistribution of the constituencies in the provinc :s, that is to say, to increase or reduce their numbers, according to their respective populations. From this fact, the representation of the House of Commons, from 221 as it is to-day will be increased to 235 at the next general election. That is to say that, since October 1910, these 14 new divisions are entitled to have a representative in this House. Under our Constitution a Parliament must never last more than five years. Now, the one elected in September, 1911, therefore ended in October, 1916.
Again, if things had been thus, that is to say, if the present Government had not believed itself indispensable to the preservation of the Empire in the first place, and to that of its political friends in the second place, we would have had elections in 1915 or 1916, and the population of this country would be now fully represented in this House. At the present date, although this Parliament has exceeded its term, of the 235 constituencies which should be represented, 23 are vacant through death or other causes of absence, and 14 are unrepresented; these being left here, as present members, to decide upon the important matter of conscription, only 198 members, when there should be 235.
In 1914, the war broke out. The Liberal party assented to a truce, in order not to hinder in >any way the work of the Government who had decided to give its full cooperation. Although, at that time, the hon. Prime Minister had before his eyes the example of the British and French Governments, where the cabinets were reorganized by the joining in of the different party
leaders until then opposed to one another, he saw nothing, and he never thought of asking the Liberal leaders to come into his government; a step which would have assured a more effective and a more honest participation.
In 1916, the Government asked for an extension of Parliament and it appears that, lest they should appear as being disloyal to the Empire, the Liberals had to give in. Jingoism had been so' heated' up that they had to consent. But it was clearly understood that the extended term which was to end in October, 1917, the Government should not bring about any coercive measure, such as conscription.
According to that agreement, this extension was unanimously voted by the House and ratified by the Imperial Government. What then has since happened that the Liberals' generosity and good faith should have been so grossly deceived? The hon. Prime Minister has declared on more than one occasion that he would not impose con-sciption. On January 17, 1916, especially, a month before the extension was granted, he spoke as follows in this very House:
In speaking in the first two or three months of this war, I made it clear to the people of Canada that we did not propose any conscription, I repeat that announcement to-day with emphasis.
He also authorized his ministers to give the same promise. The hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) took advantage of it to pay his respects to the Archbishop of Montreal. The hon. Minister of Inland Revenue made all he could of it in^his Dorchester election. The hon. Colonel the Postmaster General went so far as to indulge in puzzles about conscription; in substance, he stated to the timorous voters of that division :
You need not fear conscription; in any case, should it ever be imposed upon you, you have only to cross the line.
Now then, what happened, that conscription should to-day become an ordter of the day and that the Prime Minister should mean to impose it upon the country in such a peremptory fashion, in spite of the agreement made, in spite of his own declarations, of his ministers' declarations, and at the [DOT]cost even of an unlawful act to be committed by a lapsed parliament?
Would it be that, during his last journey to London, it had been demonstrated to the Prime Minister that there was an urgent call for soldiers? Well, not so, if I can judge from the following official statement:

London, June 21.-The Canadian Associated Press is authorized to say that the attention ol Honorable Walter Long, colonial secretry, having been called to a suggestion in newspaper despatches that Sir Robert Borden had proposed conscription in Canada because he was urged to do so in the Imperial War Cabinet, he states there is not the smallest foundation for the suggestion that Premier Borden was urged to introduce conscription either in the Imperial War Cabinet or the conference. The matter was never even mentioned and the last thing the members of the home government would do is to interfere in the matter which is entirely one for Canada. Mr. Long further adds he saw' Sir Robert Borden frequently up to the last day he was here and had no idea w'hen he left he was going to propose the introduction of conscription on his return to Canada.
The hon. member for Wright (Mr. Devlin) stated, the other day, in this House-and he must be well informed- that England had 3,000,000 soldiers on the reserve forces, and that the same country had 1,500,000 young men not yet enlisted. Quite recently, the Prime Minister asked the leader of the Opposition to join him in forming a coalition cabinet. It was somewhat late, indeed, as the war had been declared for over two years and a half. At all events, the first condition laid down by the leader of the Opposition was the withdrawal of the conscription Bill. This condition sine qua non could not satisfy the Prime Minister who, on the contrary, wanted the Opposition leader's co-operation to cloak his act. Now, if the Liberal party can be upbraided for having consented to that extension of Parliament, these facts should exonerate it. As I said a moment ago, Parliament should have been prorogued in October 1916, it has been extended for one year, that is until the month of October, 1917. Therefore, this prolongation term expires four months hence, when we should have general elections. But they are now already speaking of a further extension, for salvation, as far as the Canadian jingoes can see it, depends exclusively on the maintenance of the present Government in permanent power. No, really, did we not know the ravenous appetite of the Tories in this country, we would be led to believe that the present executive has a providential mission. Other British colonies have had their elections, New Zealand and Australia. Each and everyone of the provinces of this country have had their own. The Conservative party have felt their bitter result, and even not later than this very week, the results in Saskatchewan have disagreeably tinkled in their ears. And, nevertheless, the war did not fare any worse. Oh no, there is only Canada, 
wherein all the democratic institutions which govern us must be broken, in order to, and against the will of the people who is the sovereign arbiter, establish stringent law's which are reproved by the very large majority.
I find it strange that it should be contended by some people that the Liberals strongly criticise the Government's conduct for the simple pleasure of worrying them or of running them down and putting them out of power. But, should the Opposition be blamed for having been vigilant? On every occasion, we have denounced the scandals, as it was our duty so to do, and it was only with difficulty that the Prime Minister condescended to give sham investigations, and the guilty parties have never been troubled. All those monopolizers enjoy immunity, always under the pretense of patriotism. But why not put it the other way? That we find it strange that a Government without any mandate from the people should thus cling to power. In our country, it is war that makes the Government to hold fast; in other countries, war causes them to change as often as circumstances warrant it.
If the Liberals exact due respect for the constitution, what is there so strange in that? In all these tactics on the part of the Conservatives, it strikes me that it is not the interest they have for the Empire that inspires their action. That is only the pretext. The reason, the only true one, is that they are afraid of facing public opinion with such a disreputable record.
We are in this country ruled by a democratic government, that is to say that everything in this government is amenable to the people itself, the representatives are directly responsible to the people, and nothing can be done without the latter's approval. And that is why the parliamentary term has been limited to five years, after which the members are obliged to go before their constituents and give an account of their trust to their constituents, who are the supreme arbiters; the latter either approve or disapprove the past conduct or the future plans of their representatives.
'Therefore, every enactment of vital importance to the people should be passed upon by the people itself, just as the Liber als have done it for the Naval Service question and for reciprocity. Neither the Government nor Parliament have the right to adopt a measure setting the country towards an unknown destination, containing in itself extremely serious consequences, not only for the national unity,-I mean

the good understanding between the two great races who live in this country and which was referred to in many a speech- hut especially for the very preservation of the people's welfare. The people, in my opinion, under these circumstances, have more than any one else, the right to say if they will consent to venture into the prosecution of a policy which may lead to bankruptcy, not only the country, generally speaking, but would also infallibly fall upon the property of every inhabitant respectively-
I have heard the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Crothers) also the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen), in their speeches, deny to a certain extent the sovereignty of the people, and insinuate that the latter should be governed, even contrary to its own opinion, according to circumstances, or if the Government should -see fit to do it. It is undoubtedly this same trend of opinion which caused the two hon. members for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) and of West Lambton (Mr. Pardee), who seceded from their party upon the referendum amendment and prefer supporting the conscription Bill, to state that, if the conscription issue was submitted to the people, the latter's verdict would go against its enactment.
Such an admission on the part of several hon. members leaves us in a state of perplexity. They are then disposed to make a most serious infringement to the constitution which governs us, and once entered upon that path, it will not take many years before we have in this country an autocratic government which will care for the people only pro forma. The latter will have no more prerogatives in the affairs of State, except of paying the expenditure and assuming whatever responsibilities may follow, be they good or bad.
Why extol so much the beauties of democracy, that is to say the government of the people by the people, if, upon a question of lift or death as this one, it is even refused the right to give its opinion.
In this very House, I heard not long ago two distinguished men speaking to us. One represented France, the other, Great Britain. Both of them displayed before us, in most eloquent -and wonderful terms the beauty of democracy, symbol of most absolute liberty for every people. Democracy, were we told, is the safest guarantee for the preservation of civilization, it is the doctrine of equality; but what! it is through it that is manifested the people's will which must ever and everywhere be sovereign!
Mr. Vivi-ani lives in a chivalerous country whose history is resplendent with heroic deeds. For many years past, in the statutes of that country there exists the obligation for all, rich .and poor, aristocrats or common labourer, .to rush to arms whenever the country is in danger. In the ranks of their armies, there is no caste, no privileged class, all are equal.
In England, the law did not oblige any one to take up arms, it is true, in case of war, for confident in her fleet which ensured her the supremacy of the seas and having, on the other hand, only a very restricted territory to defend1, that country, as I say, did not foresee so terrific a conflict as the one which stains with the blood o,f millions now the European continent, and which would one day compel her to send to the battle front millions of her soldiers.
Now, in these two countries, France and England, what did happen since the declaration of waT? From the very beginning the different parties hushed their combative spirit in order to have but one thing in view: the -country's preservation. All efforts were directed towards -a common end, that of victory, and for that purpose, the world has seen united in one same government the leaders of all factions who had till then been opposed to -one another. In France, the adversaries of yo-re were now fast friends; all had hereafter one sole -ambition, that of winning, of driving back the Teutonic -invasion, whi-ch forty five years of active preparations had made, not only threatening, but terrific.
And not withstanding this first concentration of the moral forces of the nation's leaders, several ministries have succeeded one another. In France, they have changed their government as often as -circumstances, always rapidly varying in this war, demanded it. And what a fine example of disinterestedness and of patriotism! Those holding power to-day would become on the morrow simple co-operators; leaving to others, without spite or resentment, the authority until then vested in them, knowing that France's destinies demanded those personal sacrifices.
In England al-so, we find similar instances of sublime patriotism on the part of the Liberal government. At the very outset, Mr. Asquith invited Mr. Bonar Law, the leader of the Opposition, and his followers, to form a National government. -Later, Mr. Asquith himself resigned to make room for Mr. Lloyd George.

thirteenth of the amount spent by England for the purchase of ammunition. Therefore, for every thirteen. million which England spends in munitions, we shall be called upon to pay one million. You will agree with me that this item will form an enormous amount, especially when you will consider that the Imperial government for munition purchases is spending by the hundreds of millions.
In 1911, under the late Administration, when Canada was in its period of progress, we expended $87,774,000 and our revenue exceeded that expenditure by several millions, which we employed in meeting the interest charges on our capital debt. Future has therefore in stock for us some hard problems to solve. Our export trade amounts to $2,000,000,000. At first sight, we might be led to believe that such an enormous figure should bring a large revenue to the Government, but that is a mistake. The clearest profit of all that trade and of all that commerce goes directly to the manufacturers and, above all, to the war contract manipulators. The profits accumulated by the munition manufacturers are exorbitant. Fortunes have been created and many an individual, who was a poor man yesterday, is to-day a millionaire. As soon as war is over, this fictitious trade will largely fall. Ask the working men of any description, who have toiled and are still toiling in the factories, how much, at the end of each week with the high cost of living, they can save? After the war, the working men will be out of work, they m.ay probably suffer privation verging on to famine, while their employer of yesterday will strut amid the gold which war industries have brought to his door. What should be done that we might usefully take part in the war? The Allies cry for food and munitions, for munitions and food. That is what we need, do they say. The English and French commissions have come to the United States, arrangements have been made, and that country has advanced them at once several thousand millions of dollars, hut not in currency, only in food and ammunition.
Is it by imposing conscription that we can better fill their wishes?
In Canada, this Government and all the provincial governments have advocated' and commended agricultural overproduction, the country places have been flooded with agricultural bulletins and pamphlets, in short,

a most active campaign was everywhere inaugurated on those lines. The result up to date has not been a marvellous one. Will it be so to-morrow? Some doubt may be entertained when it is known that farmers are everywhere short of hands, for, from the.beginning of the war, the farmers' boys, in large numbers, have gone to the cities where they were attracted by the high wages paid in the munition .shops. Here they took the places of the working men and of the other labourers who had enlisted, in the first days of the war, to escape .starvation which was then threatening the country. Indeed, we recall those armies of unemployed who made public demonstrations and cried for work. During the following year, the old shops, and new shops were opened everywhere to manufacture munitions, and they have all been filled, half, if not three-quarters of them, by men from the country places.	.
The official reports from the various provinces of the Dominion show that the lack of farm labour is already .and everywhere giving rise to serious anxieties.
I now borrow from the Avenir du Nord a compilation of opinions given by the leaders of the agricultural movement.
Mr. Arthur S. Barnstead, secretary of the Industrial and Immigration department of Nova Scotia, writes in the Gazette Agricole du Canada:
The labour problem will evidently be a most difficult one to solve in Nova Scotia, this year. We have until now depended for our labour upon the emigrating: farmers who would come here from Great Britain. Not only is this resource gone, but thousands of our young farmers are to-day overseas on active military service. The situation is far from cheerful.
Mr. W. A. Riddell, superintendent of trade and labour, in the Public Works department, of the province of Ontario, writes as follows:
Scarcity of help in Ontario is being felt just as much as in the other provinces. We have evidence of this in the following statement:
We could employ five hundred farm labourers in our locality, writes a mayor to us. The same mail contained a letter asking for a farm boy and stating: We could employ a whole load of young men in this neighbourhood.
We have five agents at work in the United States, soliciting men to come and work in Canada. The kind of help that can at present be secured in the United States for farm labour, is somewhat poor in quality.
Mr. F. Auld, Deputy Minister of Agriculture in the province of Saskatchewan, writes:
Our agricultural production will be limited, this year, on account of the scarcity of labour, and that is why we have decided to make a

special effort in order to recruit all the old farmers and all the old farm hands, to help to get in the harvest.
Special agricultural agents of this province are Just now In the United States.
Mr. H. A. Craig, Deputy Minister of Agriculture in the province of Alberta, writes in his turn:
Last winter, all those interested in the question of crop production have expressed some anxiety on account of the evident labour scarcity. The number of young men employed on farms is far inferior to what we could employ, for a very large number of young men of Alberta have enlisted for overseas service.
Mr. Wm. E. Scott, Deputy Minister of Agriculture, in British 'Columbia, writes as follows:
But the labour question is the greatest difficulty ; it is the obstacle which for the time being prevents the increase in production. The farmer perfectly Understands that it is his patriotic duty to do all he can in order to increase the food supply; he would do it, if he could get the necessary labour. It is, at this very time, a most distressing question in British Columbia and its solution is very hard to find.
We cannot expect much aid from the United States, because they are suffering from conditions similar to our own, and the farm labour is just as scarce.
It must not be forgotten that nearly 35,000 men have left the province for overseas service, since war began.
Hon. Martin Burrell, Minister of Agriculture, reminds his fellow-citizens of the importance of intensive culture, and then he
adds:
Looking towards the gloomy days which may bring this third year of the war, the hardest one yet, we realize more and more the vital importance of the food factor in the final outcome. The Government urges farmers to hold on, a matter of increasing difficulty; I do so, not in view of the rise in the prices which will undoubtedly affect every commodity, but because of the precious and most special assistance which Canadian agriculture can extend to the Empire at this critical hour.
The hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Bennett), director of the National Service, stated on February 28, that:
In ail probability, the lack of foodstuffs will be felt still more keenly before the next harvest in Great Britain, in Prance and in Italy, and as, of all the Dominions, Canada is the less distant' from those countries, the latter are naturally looking to us; they see in us their first source of supply.
The lack of labourers, did he add, is the main difficulty in the way for realizing these objects and we intend making extraordinary efforts to find the proper remedy.
And this paper most sensibly concludes:
Is that the means to accomplish, this end, by carrying on an exaggerated military mobilization, and by even imposing it though conscription?
Our agricultural start, far from being accelerated, has slackened since the war began. From 1910 to 1911, in one year, the number of sowed acres in the West had increased by 3,500,000; from 1912 to 1916, in four years, the increase has been only of 1,500,000.
And it is in the face of such a, serious declaration, Mr. Speaker, in spite of this general state of uneasiness, stated and proved by all the provinces of the Dominion, that the Government wants to impose compulsory service, that is to say, to further drain our already reduced population, to increase the difficulties created by the lack of manual labour, and to imperil our agricultural production which is of vital importance for us, for the Empire and for the Allies.
Canada's foremost duty, to-day even more than in the past, is ito increase her agricultural production, in order to provide for the victualling of the Empire and of the other allied nations whom the situation created by the war threatens with actual famine.
Let us increase our agricultural production. That is what we are called upon to do from all sides.
More than ever, in the face of present events, of the urgent calls for agricultural overproduction and of the statements of the competent men I have just quoted, I believe that the Government should let the working men remain in the cities and the tillers on their farms.
Canada has made a noble effort up to date, the part she has played is an admirable one, and for the future she should confine herself to produce and still produce.
It must also be considered that, if such a marked depopulating of our rural districts keeps going on, either for the army or for the city munition shops, it will be calculated to wholly upset our economic fabric, and expose us to incurable ills, not for ourselves alone, but also for the Allies who are clamoring for food. Where and how are we going to get it for them, if recruiting be continued with such energy, and especially if it be made compulsory, for there is no middle course possible, if you drain the shops, the labour market, the city stores; the next day, it will be the country places that will be requisitioned for men to fill the gaps.
And I could not conclude this argument in a better way than by quoting the testi-



mony of a man who should be considered as an authority in keeping with the high position he occupies:
Making use of the man power.
The question is rather one of organization than of recruiting without measure.
Under this heading, Mr.'Henry Pate, deputy and secretary of the army commission in the French Parliament, wrote, in January last, in the Paris Journal an article from which we quote the following lines which should be read and pondered over: " There is, in every effort, what one sees, for instance the keys of the Anger board, and there is what one cannot see, the mechanism. What would be, without the mechanism that commands, the war which our foes compel us to wage? Let us make up our minds to grasp the problem. Understanding the war does not consist in considering the war under its simpler aspect, recruiting exceedingly large numbers of men at the risk of imperilling the very bases of any prolonged action. Neither does it consist in adopting measures which are practically fruitless from the military point of view and which are of such a nature as to deeply perturb manufacturing and economic production."
It is intended to impose conscription; why so? It is to overcome a spreading uneasiness, to repair a failure in recruiting, or to show an untimely and inconsiderate zeal.
But before going to such an extremity, would it not be of common discretion to wisely consider if we have not, until now, .participated in this war to a reasonable extent, and in proportion to our popula tion >and to the wealth of our country? _
'There are eyes who will not see and ears who will not hear. Prom their talk, one would take it that the aid given by Canada to England amounts to naught. Let u? review the facts for a moment: the effort made and the aid given by our country during this war is something to be wondered at. Since the declaration of war, Canada has nobly done her duty, as compared to her population and her wealth. An army numbering 420,000 men of all ranks has been enlisted; 125,000 are already at the front, while 126,000 are in reserve in England. According to a report submitted by the Minister of Militia, 100,000 soldiers have already fallen on the field of honour, either killed, wounded or made prisoners. A large number, still in Canada, are only awaiting the order to embark.
All honour to the heroes who face the foe's fire! They have shed their blood upon the plains of Flanders, iat Langemarck, at Saint Julien, at Courcelette, at Vimy. Thousands of them have fallen heroically, engraving, in immortal letters on the

tablets of history, the name of our country. Let us do homage to our braves whose valiance was great, as great as the magnitude of the task they had undertaken, for it was voluntarily that they rallied to the British flag.	.
Besides all this, Canada who, before the war, had a debt of $336,000,000, will soon have one of $1,300,000,000. Add to this also, the high cost of living, in this country, which is putting every family in narrow circumstances.
Well now, in the face of this admirable participation of our country heretofore, who could take us to task for failing to do our duty? Great Britain is certainly not complaining. Then, why should the Prime Minister of this country resort to this extreme and arbitrary measure, when the most interested country, Great Britain, has not even requested him to do. so? Why so much haste in rushing the country into troubles, which can entail nothing but evil, if the country itself do not so decree it after an appeal to the people?
And I do repeat it; if, from the very beginning of the war, the Prime Minister had appealed to the Liberals and formed a national government, our effort would certainly have been more successful and at no greater expense. And we would not to-day have to resort to conscription.
Now, what is really this compulsory service bill? The Government, by this Bill, is cajoling more than one class of society, and one has only to belong to them, as all and everyone of them would be exempted from the draft. The exemption clause is so wide that it may cover all cases; for it does no.t specifically state what classes, what callings shall be exempted; it does not mention the farmer's son any more than the workman employed in the munition shops. It simply states that:	"a tribunal may decide whether it is expedient, in the national interest, that such or such a man, then appealing to it, should instead of being employed in military service, be engaged in other work in which he is habitually engaged." And in section 12 of the present Act, the Government reserves. the right to make regulations to secure the full, effective and expeditious operation and' enforcement of this Act.
We have indeed been told in the House, that the farmer's sons would be exempted, but up to what number, two, three, four, we do not know; that is in the tribunal's discretion. And the munition workers and

others who will be dismissed from the shops just before enlistment opens, will they have ceased to be useful to the national interest, on account of the arbitrary measure taken against them? These are so many open questions. But, at all events, the law shall be the same for all. As soon as the order will have been given to apply it, all those whom it concerns, class after class, according to their age and condition, will be automatically enlisted. If they wish to be exempted, they may afterwards appeal to the said tribunal.
And another point upon which I would like to call the attention of the House, is that the Bill does not specify that the Government may enlist only 100,000 men. As the Bill is framed, the Government may go up to the age limit of enlistable men. If certain fanatics were to be believed, the province of Quebec were the only province opposing compulsory service. Well, that is not proven; only a referendum could bring out the facts. Moreover, the inhabitants of that province are charged with every crime and overloaded with every /hardship; they are called disloyal /and pro-Germans, and some hot-headed people, who have evidently more belly than brains, isudh as the editors of the Orange Sentinel [DOT]and the Toronto News and notable chieftains of the Orange order, threaten us with all kinds of dire punishment. Fortunately, the sound and enlightened majority of our population know how matters stand; they are well aware that this persecution is stirred up by a boisterous minority and do not hold responsible for it the bulk of the English Canadian, And as the latter, indeed, judge the French Canadians in another light than that in which their agitating compatriots hold our race, they likewise understand that the acts of the agitators in our own midst are not chargeable to the mass of the French Canadians. It is a well known fact that opposition to conscription has been manifested from Vancouver to Halifax. Have not the English labour associations declared themselves unanimously against the measure? Upon this question of intensive recruiting, was it not Lord Shaughnessy, president of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, who, on March 12, 1916, made before the Montreal Board of Trade a statement somewhat as follows:	Canada has performed wonders,
but I cannot believe that (the proposal that we raise 500,000 men, is either practical or
187J	I '
possible. We have -so many- things to attend to, munitions to manufacture, lands to till, we are asked to help in feeding the British nation, and lastly, we have our financial problem to solve. By sending over 500,000 men from Canada, we would make among the labouring people of this country a gap which might bring most serious results.
And yet I believe this eminent citizen, is indeed a political friend of the Government The Government intends to enforce com pulsory military service, Mr. Speaker, and seek elsewhere the required labour; it is spending several thousand dollars advertising in the American newspapers for farm hands to fill the places of those who are gone. What said the working men of /Canada at their convention in Ottawa, on June 11, 1917?
For an efficient participation in the war, it is not compulsory service we need, and we are positively of the opinion that:
The necessities for the effective conduct of the war are:	Food, munitions, shipping and
military man power, and Canada is geographically well situated to supply the first named three essentials and can do much to assist in winning the war by developing her production of these essentials to her fullest extent.
We are strongly of the opinion that this is the best service that Canada, with her small population, can render. We declare ourselves as most emphatically opposed to the proposed conscription measure, and we urge the workers of Canada to oppose by every means in their power enactment of such legislation.
When this Bill was announced by the Prime Minister, anti-conscriptionist demonstrations took place in Montreal. Such a course was most likely in a city of 700,000 souls, where the labouring masses are numerous, where meetings of thousands of men can be called like a train of gunpowder. It is easy to understand that, in such populous centres, there should have been scuffles, even disorders, but in the country-places of the province of Quebec, everything ran its usual peaceful course; the farmers have simply voiced their protests, through their municipal 'councils or by petitions.
But what is there so abnormal, so antipatriotic, in these protests against an unpopular measure? Were not similar meetings held even in the city of Toronto, the hotbed of the purest jingoism? It is true that in this luminary-city of Canada, the principle of free speech was scorned and the soldiery did brutally break up the peaceful meeting which the common people intended to hold. In Guelph, the same thing hap-

pened, and the English citizens, who boast of their freedom in this country of Canada, were very roughly handled, by the soldiery again. In Winnipeg -and in Vancouver, likewise, popular -meetings of honest citizens, of the common people, of the men who -sweat and toil to earn their living, h-ave had a similar fate.
Truly, what -a fine civilization is that preached by a Canadian government who, to defend -a -democratic principle in Flanders, or to have the citizens of this country appreciate the full beauty of free opinion, of free conscience -and of civilization, would be ready to have their own fellow-citizens massacred right now. Therefore, it is not only in Montreal that consciences are revolting against the conscription Bill. From every part of Canada protests are coming, from Englishmen, from Scotsmen, from Irishmen, as well as from the French Canadians. But the yellow sheets of Ontario take good care to close their eyes to what is going on everywhere else, to fill their columns with filth only against the province of Quebec. Their object As most apparent, for, to have conscription passed, they think it necessary to overheat their fellowmen's patriotism by giving vent to an unwholesome hatred against the French element of this country. But, fortunately, the fair and honest element of ou-r English compatriots are not disposed that w-ay -and they let every one bear his own duties and responsibilities. In that also do we trust.
But was it not in Calgary that, at a public meeting, they sang " God save the people " instead of " God1 -save the King "?
If all the hon. members whom I have heard speaking 'in favour of compulsory service, since the opening of this debate, should likewise -be within the scope of this Act and wctc, like all those it may reach, obliged to put on the uniform -and go to the front, I am wondering if they would have spoken with the same fervour and enthusiasm. It is all very well for them to allege age, function or any of the causes of exemption included in this Bill; hut it seems to me their loyalty would show itself in -a much better light, if they gave the best proof of its sincerity, by enlisting. They should follow the example of Kerensky who has bravely put himself at the head of the Russian troops, for in the rear of the firinglines there tare positions to be filled by men of forty-five years of -age and over, by mem-

hers of the learned professions as well as by mechanics, by millionaires as well as by paupers.
And -should these hon. gentlemen, who -endeavour to increase by -compulsion the contingents already -sent to Europe give evidence of all the eagerness -and the courage to do the duty they preach to others, I aim satisfied that the example, set from so high, would induce thousands -of other brave men to do the same. And I might addi that such an example of disinterestedness would find an echo even in those who just now deny them the right to impose this coercive measure.
These remarks are addressed not only to the conscriptionist members of this House, but also to the advocates of this compulsory measure outside of these premises, who are preaching the fulfilment of a duty they are beforehand assured of being rid. In other words, they are conscriptionists less for themselves than for others.
I shall vote against the amendment to the amendment proposed By the hon. member for Berthier (Mr. Barrette). A six months hoist would not settle the question; it would only suspend for that space of time the -anguish of the country, that is all, while a referendum or a general election would settle the question once for all. If the majority of the voters of this country declare themselves -against conscription, the over-excited minds will revert to order and the country will resume with more fervor the work of efficiently assisting the Allies. If, on the contrary, the majority of the electors should vote for -conscription, there will be only one course to take, that-of 'bravely submitting.
For us, French Canadians, our sentiments are vastly different from theirs, for we have no particular attachment to France or to England. For France, we still return the remembrance of far away associations; we above all have much admiration for her. It is France herself, with her conception of beauty, with her literature, her arts, her science and her democracy that we love.
To England, we owe loyalty for the granting of the liberties we enjoy, and which permit us to live so peacefully in our homes, -for we cannot hold her responsible for our domestic quarrels embittered through the fanaticism of certain people of this country. But, our English and our Scottish compatriots in the Dominion, have more than a kindly feeling and remembrance for England; she is doubly their mother-country.

The Englishman, the Scotsman, who have emigrated at the time of the conquest have come to settle in a country which had become their own. The British flag which, upon the citadel of Quebec, took the place of the Fleur-de-lis, has never since ceased to shield them.
Our ancestors who took the oath of allegiance, and centuries have caused us to' forget later on, the one who had abandoned us, without ever remembering us. Now, English immigration, begun at the start, has always been continued uninterruptedly since then, and that is why we should not wonder nor blame our English fellow citizens for that loyalty which draws them towards the country of their origin, neither should we hurt their heart feelings. However, while admiring in our neighbours that patriotism which arms them in defence of the land of their origin, and the greatness of the cause which inspires them, I am asking myself how it is that so many of them have not yet understood that we also, the French Canadians, we .likewise feed upon an ideal of patriotism for everything pertaining to our race. The soul of our English fellow-citizen enthuses at the thought of the mother country; no one thinks of denying them that noble feeling; but they should at the same time realize that the preservation of a language by a people is likewise entitled to great respect. The Canadian of French origin has but one country, Canada, while the English, the Scottish; the Irish Canadian have each two countries. That is why, upon a question of such importance as that of compulsory service, the best means to take not to bring these elements to clash, is indeed that of a referendum, and I shall vote for it. The British Crown, in granting to the French Canadians the privileges which duly enjoys every British subject, did consequently guarantee them all the rights which this quality confers in its most absolute meaning. And is that what is happening? I say no, and that, most of the time, they have to be satisfied with what the majority feels like relinquishing to them. Whilst, in the province of Quebec, where the English are the minority, the latter enjoy under the provincial government the greatest liberty in the organization of their educational system, in the other provinces, where the French Canadians are in a minority, they only enjoy a few concessions. If the latter claim what they believe to be fair and just, if their compatriots of the province of Quebec take their part, they are aceu*ed of disloyalty and of rebellion.
Anyone who judges matters dispassionately and impartially must admit that these continuous discussions and this ostracism of the French language, in the schools of certain provinces, have only created bitterness between the two great races who divide the country between themselves.
No one admires more than I do the patriotism of our English compatriots who long for Great Britain's triumph, but how much I do wish also that they too could understand the respect they should likewise profess for a whole people who want to preserve their language.
In 1867, a solemn compact was made by the two nations, English and French. That contract 'stipulated to each its privileges and its obligations. Nothing is more sacred that the pledged word and more official than the magna charta of Confederation. Why does one of the contracting parties to this memorable document now wish, in defiance of honour and of its solemn promise, pass over and consider the Confederation Act, which guarantees the equality of the French race in this country, "as a mere scrap of paper." Is it that we are here living in Germany? Should the sons of those who have signed and approved the Act of 1867 be less honourable and less conciliating than their fathers? The latter have made <a compact, which their .sons .should in honour respect, and in .so doing, peace and harmony would'be restored in this country. And then the two great races inhabiting it, uniting their common efforts, would in mutual love and respect, work out their destinies.
On motion of Mr. Kyte the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Doherty for the adjournment of the House:


Mr. GRAHAM:: I suppose we shall have the report to-morrow of the special committee, with reference to the amendment to the amendment moved by Mr. Barrette.


Mr. BURRELL:: The report has been made to the Speaker.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 11.50 p.m.

Wednesday, July 4, 1917.