1917-04-26

[Stage Direction]
Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.

Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: 1.	Was an application made by representatives of the United Mines 'Workmen of Nova Scotia asking for a Board under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act?
2.	If so, what was the date of its receipt?
3.	Was a Board granted?
4.	If not, what was the reason of its refusal?


Mr. CROTHERS:: 1.	Yes.
2.	March 10, 1917.
3.	No.
4.	The practice of the department in such cases was followed.
S.	A. ARMSTRONG.


Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	What position does Mr. S. A. Armstrong occupy with the Military Hospitals Commission?
2.	What are his duties and salary?
3.	Is Mr. Armstrong also the Assistant Provincial Secretary of Ontario?
4.	If so, does his salary in the latter capacity continue while he is employed by the Military Hospitals Commission?


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: 1.	Director.
2.	As set forth in the attached copy of Order in Council, P.C. No. 3412, dated 19th December, 1916.
3.	Mr. Armstrong was loaned by the Provincial Government to the Commission.
4.	No.	,


AID TO SHIPBUILDING.
Mr. MACDONALD:: Is it the intention of the Government to propose the granting of any bonus or aid to shipbuilding in Canada?


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: The Government has under consideration the question of the best mode of aiding the extension of shipbuilding in Canada.


REPATRIATION OP CANADIANS.
Mr. PAQUET:: How many Canadians have been repatriated from the United States during the fiscal years 1913-14, 1914-15, 1915-16, 1916-17?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1913-14,	17,638;	1914-15
18,011; 1915-16, 11,084; 1916-17, 10,246.


EXAMINATION OP IMMIGRANTS.
Mr. PAQUET:: 1.	In what seaports are immigrants examined?
2.	How many medical inspectors are there in each port, and what are their names and salaries?
3.	How many medical inspectors are there on the United States border line?
4.	Where do their inspections take place?
5.	How many immigration hospitals are there in Canada, and where are they situated?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	Halifax, North Sydney, Sydney, Louis-burg, St. John, Quebec, Montreal, Victoria, Vancouver, Prince Rupert, New York and Portland, Me.
2.	Halifax, Dr. Edgar Douglas, $1,200, enlisted; Dr. F. A. R. Gow, $1,800, enlisted; Dr. John Rankine, $1,200, enlisted; Dr. A. McD. Morton, $1,200. St. John, N.B., Dr. W. L. Ellis, $1,600. Quebec, Dr. J. D. Page, $3,500; Dr. E. Nadeau, $2,400; Dr. H. Laurin, $2,000. Montreal, Dr. D. Gurd, $1,500; Dr. Geo. E. Beauchamp, $1,500, enlisted. North Sydney, Dr. M. T. Mae-Lean, $1,000. Prince Rupert, Dr. N. M. McNeil, $1,500, enlisted. Victoria, Dr. G. L. Milne, $2,000; Dr. H. B. Rogers, $1,500, enlisted. Vancouver, Dr. A. S. Monro, $1,500. New York, Dr. R. T. Rutherford, $3,000, enlisted. Portland, Me., Dr. Geo. Elliott, $3,000.
3.	None.
4.	Where a border inspector considers medical advice necessary he may engage a local doctor, except in the case of ports contiguous to Montreal, when he accompanies the applicant for admission to Montreal and has applicant examined by departmental medical inspector.
5.	Seven: Victoria, Vancouver, Winnipeg, Montreal, Quebec, St. John and Halifax.


IMMIGRATION IN 1916-17.
Mr. PAQUET:: 1.	How many immigrants were admitted into Canada during the fiscal year 1916-17?
2.	How many immigrants did we get from the United Kingdom in the last fiscal year?
3.	How many came from continental Europe during the last fiscal year?
4.	How many from the United States?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	75,395.
2.	8,282.
3.	2,935.
4.	61,389.


DEPORTATION AND REJECTION OF IMMIGRANTS.
Mr. PAQUET:: 1.	How many immigrants have been deported during the last fiscal year?
2.	How many were refused at the International boundary line?
3.	How many were refused' at seaports?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	605.
2.	17,988.
3.	172.


QUEBEC AND SAGUENAY RAILWAY BONDS
Mr. GRAHAM:: Is the Canadian Bank of Commerce a holder of bonds of the Quebec and Saguenay Railway?


William Thomas White: The Government has no information.


RELEASE OF PRISONERS.
Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	As a result of his western trip, has the Solicitor General recommended the release of prisoners to assist in farm operations in the Prairie Provinces?
2.	If so, how many are to be sent, respectively, into the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta?


Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1.	The trip in question was an inspection trip of western penitentiaries made with a view to acquiring personal knowledge of, and information concerning, applicants for parole, and particularly those seeking parole for the purpose of enlisting for overseas service. Prisoners have been released before and since for reasons, among others, that they expressed desire to assist in farm work, and were known to be capable of so doing. It has not been the practice to compel service of such men in any special province.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


ALLEGED STONING OF TROOPS.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. A. BEST (Dufferin):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of the Government to an article that appeared in the Ottawa Journal of Tuesday the 24th inst., part of which reads as follows:

Warned that the 204th had been stoned at Riviere <Ju Loup, we turned out, officers and N.C.O's at that place and formed a cordon around the train. As it was night there were only a few loafers about, mostly bootleggers, and1 we kept them back from the train. Just as the train started a few stones were thrown,
but did no damage.
The second section of our train was delayed at Chaudifire, earlier in the day, and the men went for a route march. When the train Pulled out again some of the crowd that had gathered started throwing things, and a brick went through a window of the officers car. By good fortune no one was hit.
But I certainly never before appreciated how strongly treasonous is the feeling in some Parts of Quebec. You have the feeling there of going through enemy country-excepting that.in enemy country the populace would be kept better in hand, and confined to their homes after dark.
I think it is the duty of the Government to see whether this report is true or not, and if so, to see that the offenders are punished. If the hon. members of the Government, and also the hon. members of the Opposition were half as anxious to see that our soldiers were protected passing through Quebec, as at least one hon-member of the Government and two hon. members of the Opposition are in advising the Imperial Government on Home Rule-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Is the hon. gentleman reading an extract from a newspaper?


John Best: Yes, I was reading part of this.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is not in order-


John Best: I have read this from an article that appeared in the Ottawa Journal of Tuesday, the 24th, down to "I think it is the duty of the Government to see whether this report is true or not." I think that is quite satisfactory to the House.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: According to the custom which has prevailed in this House for- sometime, it is in order at this stage to ask questions upon important topics of the day, but not to enter into any extended remarks. My object in rising was to ascertain clearly whether the hon. gentleman was making extended remarks or quoting an extract from a newspaper. I understand he has now concluded his question to the Government.


John Best: I wish to obey the rules of the Chair, but I think this is a serious affair; the troops passing through to defend the public-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


John Best: I would like to know what
the Government is going to do in the matter.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: I am ready to answer the hon. gentleman.


William Thomas White: I am sorry that I did not hear distinctly the wording of the report to which my hon. friend draws the attention of the Government. It had not previously come to my attention, but I shall be very glad, as it will appear on Hansard, to have it carefully looked into.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: I hope this
matter will not be allowed to rest where it is. There -should be an investigation of the matter.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: It is an awful lie.


Wilfrid Laurier: The statement either is true or is not true.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: We are getting used
to that.


Wilfrid Laurier: If it is true,
-such conduct ought to be put down at once; if it is not true, it ought to be made known at once that it is not true.


Mr. SEVIGNY:: Mr. Speaker, I myself
saw-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The matter hias been
submitted to the Government for consideration, and it would be unwise to enter into a discussion of it, particularly as there is no question before the Chair. Therefore, I respectfully ask the hon. -minister to refrain from discussing it.



PRIVILEGE.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (South Renfrew):	Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. I -seldom do this, because I know that human nature is weak and that -sometimes in moments of excitements things are said which, perhaps would not be said under -conditions of ordinary calm and ini the presence of the gentleman -at whom they are aimed. But I find in Hansard this morning that the hon. member for Calgary, (Mir. R. B. Bennett) in very characteristic manner, made a statement last night concerning myself and public business which, I think, cannot go unchallenged. I was not in the House at the time. Particularly do I wish to speak of this because the hon. member for Gal-

gary occupies a very prominent position. Ho is siupposed to be at least semi-independent and to be devoting ihis energies to the cause of Empire in the performance of certain work which has been committed to his hands. This 'hon. gentleman, occupying such a position, in which he is appealing to young men and young women, older men and older women of both parties throughout Canada, cannot escape with this statement uncontradicted. I read in Hansard these words uttered by the hon. member for Calgary:
For be It known that the late Minister of Railways and Canals had agreed to hand over the Intercolonial Railway to the Canadian Northern interests if the then Government would be sustained in the coming general election.
Mr. Speaker, this statement from beginning to end is devoid of the least vestige of truth. There w^as no such understanding, verbal or written; no agreement with the Canadian Northern, verbal or written, and no understanding to -make such an agreement, either verbal or written. This morning I wired to the Canadian Northern people, and I received the following reply from Sir Donald Mann:
Hon. George Graham,
Ottawa.
I could not have made the statement that you had agreed to hand over Intercolonial to Canadian Northern for there never was such agreement or understanding.
Donald Mann.
* So far as an agreement or understanding is concerned, I think I have made it clear to the country that absolutely no foundation, near or remote, exists for the krrid utterance of the member for Calgary. Let me read one other sentence from the speech of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett):
I did not get that second-hand from any one; I have it first hand from the people themselves.
' One of the chief people says this statement is untrue. Now, .all that is left of my hon. friend's statement is this: it is possible, though I do not give it credence, that some other member of the Canadian Northern Railway Company may have said something to the member for Calgary. I am not my brother's keeper so far as the language of a railway magnate or of the member for Calgary is concerned, and, ae I stated a moment ago, I do not give that statement of the hon. member for Calgary credence. But if any member of the Canadian Northern Railway Company made that statement to the hon. member for Calgary, he uttered a falsehood and he knew it was a falsehood when he uttered it.
Mr. R. B. BENNETT:: The hon. member-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Does the hon. gentleman rise to a question of privilege?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Purely a question of privilege, as to the observations of the former Minister of Railways and Canals. Language is used for the purpose either of disguising or of expressing thought. The *meaning that it conveys depends upon the sense in which it is used by the person who means it as well as by the person who receives or- understands it. If language is used for the purpose of conveying thought, not only did I correctly state the sense of what I heard and was told, tout if the hon. gentleman will inquire further of the former Minister of Finance he will find that capital value had been fixed upon the Intercolonial, as well as the rate of interest that was to be paid upon the capital by way of rental and the term of years during which the lease was to run.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I merely wish to say that these are the facts upon which I based the statement whddh I made, and which I desire, so far as I am concerned, to repeat.	.



CANADIAN NAVAL AEROPLANE SERVICE.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Some time ago a statement appeared in the public press that young Canadians were to he instructed in the use of aeroplanes or hydroplanes, which were to he utilized in connection with the Canadian Naval Service. I am informed on good authority that several aeroplanes or hydroplanes have been brought into Canada with a view to beginning this service, and that an instructor has been sent from Great Britain. I am informed, also, that for some time the whole matter has been hung up, the idea being that the service should have been entered upon somewhere in .the Maritime Provinces in connection with the Naval Services, where preparations were being made to that end. I would like to ask the leader of the House whether these preparations have been discontinued, .and whether it is intended to go on with the establishment of an aeroplane service in connection with the Canadian navy?


Hon. J. D. REID:: As this matter comes under the jurisdiction of the Naval Service Department, and I am acting for the minis-

ter during his absence, I will draw the attention of the deputy minister to the remarks of the hon. gentleman, and to-morrow I will give him a reply.



SALE OF LIQUOR IN CANADIAN MILITARY CAMPS.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Rouville) asked for leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the evils alleged to exist among our soldiers overseas arising out of the liquor traffic in camps and military centres.
And leave having been granted:
Hon.	RODOLPHE	LEMIEUX:	Mr. Speaker, I hope to detain the House not more than five minutes, because I am told that my hon. friend the Solicitor General	is going	to address	the
House to-day on the Budget, and I do not want to intrude on his time. I think, however, the question I am bringing to the attention of the House deserves some special consideration. As long as the information which I intend to give to the House came only from private sources, I should certainly not have dared to give it any publicity; but now that the press in Canada and the old country has revealed some staggering facts in connection with the use or rather the abuse of liquor, in the camps where our boys are in England, I think it is my duty as a public man to call the attention of the Government and of Parliament to this very serious state of affairs. I am glad to see my good friend the ex-Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Sam Hughes) in his seat, as I wish to pay some tribute to him. Much as I differ from him and much as I disagree with what I would call his failings or shortcomings, I am sure every one will admit that, as regards the discipline of our soldiers when they were under his control, the hon. gentleman followed a stern and unbending rule, and I wish that the same rule were observed by his successors. I must, of course, say at once that I do not charge my hon. friend, the present Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Edward Kemp), nor do I charge the Government with any lax conduct in this matter, because perhaps, so far as the matter stands now, it is beyond their power to intervene.
As I stated a moment ago, Sir, the question is now made public by the reference which has been made to it in the press, and that is the reason why I wish to call the 
attention of the Government and of Parliament to the very serious state of affairs which is alleged to exist in the camps where our soldiers are in England. Mr. Lloyd George, the present Prime Minister of Great Britain, some months ago stated, if I mistake not, that the soldiers of Great Britain or the soldiers of the Allies had two enemies to fight, the Germans and alcohol, and of the two he claimed that alcohol was the worst enemy to fight. I for one regret that when the ex-Minister of Militia and Defence had established the rule of a dry canteen in our military camps, that rule should not have been observed afterwards. I do not know how matters stand at present in our various camps in Ontario and the West, but at Valcartier, so far as I know, many serious blunders have been committed, and I unfortunately happen to know that at Valcartier there were certain very grave abuses arising out of the use of liquor by our soldiers. I am not going to speak about our own country because the remedy lies within our own power; that is to say, the local Governments can intervene, and I suppose the military authorities of the country can intervene, and make a very stringent rule that no wet canteen shall exist in the -camps.
Sir SAM HUGHES:: Did the hon. member say anything about liquor being used to any extent at Valcartier camp?


Mr. LEMIEUX:: I have under my hand
an article referring, to some very disgraceful incidents which took place at yalcartier camp. I was not speaking of the regime of my hon. friend. This happened lately.


Samuel Hughes: D.oes my hon.
friend refer to the first camp or to the last camp?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The last camp. It
would be too long to read the description of what happened there. There may be only a few individual cases, but the gentleman who has written about the matter gives a very ghastly picture of what has occurred. But my object in rising this afternoon is to call attention to what has been disclosed in the press as to what has happened in the various camps in England. First of all, every hon. member is aware of the very sad picture which was drawn a few weeks ago by Dr. Clarke, lately of the Toronto General Hospital, of the conditions in the camps in England; but as I have not under my band Dr. Clarke's report, I shall not refer to it; I know that the revelations made at the time by him startled the coun-

try. What I wish to refer to this afternoon is an article which is published in a very substantial paper having a very wide circulation in Canada. I refer to the Financial Post of Canada, published at Toronto. In its issue of April 21, the Financial Post contains a long article of several pages, under the title " Evils in the army arising out of the liquor traffic; millions lost to Canada." Whilst on the whole the article is a plea for prohibition in Canada, yet there are facts which apply to particular cases in the camps in England. I will not read the whole of the article but just a few passages. For instance, the writer says:
One of the earliest as well as one of the most courageous and efficient of the acts of Sir Sam Hughes was to insist on a dry canteen for the Canadian Expeditionary Forces; and it has -worked untold damage to Canada's soldiers that the Canadian regulation, whether by British military insistence or weak-kneed surrender on the part of some Canadian official overseas, was over-ridden, and a wet canteen started in full swing in every camp.
If there was one consolation for the parents of the soldiers as they marched out from Valcartier camp when it was under the direction of my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Militia, it was the fact that they knew that under his unbending discipline the b.oys would not be faced by the liquor sellers. Unfortunately, as the writer says, the wet canteen has replaced the dry canteen, not only in Canada, but in Great Britain. This article is followed by a long letter written by one of our soldiers, Capt. Paul Goforth. I do not know if this officer is known by -some of my fellow members in the House of Commons or not, but the letter is written very boldly by him in the columns of the Toronto Financial Post.


Samuel Hughes: Did the hon. member say that the wet canteen is restored in Canada?


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is what the writer says.


Samuel Hughes: Does he give the
date of its restoration?


Rodolphe Lemieux: No. I will not read
the whole of the letter; I simply give some outstanding facts.


Mr. MORPHY:: Is the letter signed by
the writer?


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is signed by Capt.
Paul Goforth.


Samuel Hughes: He does not know
what he is speaking about.


Rodolphe Lemieux: This letter is published in the Toronto Financial Post which has a wide circulation and is a highly respectable paper. This is what Captain Goforth says:
Some of the revelations I intend to make may be regarded as breaches of military discipline, bnt it is high time that some one in the army spoke out plainly to the people at home, and I accept the responsibility for what I have to say. I am speaking, not as an officer criticising my superiors in the service, but as a citizen of Canada and a British subject protesting against the continuance, in any form, of an unpatriotic and costly traffic which hampers the work of the army-
Mark those words!
-which hampers the work of the army at every turn and which has ruined and is ruining thousands of our best officers, non-commissioned officers, and men.
I need not dilate on this, for unfortunately it is substantiated in the report made by Dr. Bruce. I shall net refer to what everyone has in mind regarding the very serious condition that has arisen in some o-f the camps through the abuse of liquor. Now, I come to the facts. Captain Goforth states:
By the introduction of the wet canteen-*
There would be seem to he no question at all about the introduction of the wet canteen.


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: Whereabouts?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will read what ihe says:
By the introduction of the wet canteen the liquor traffic was officially recognized as a good thing and many a Canadian hoy was led to take his first glass of beer.


Albert Edward Kemp: Is that in England?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I suppose so. He goes on:
That was one time that we should have stood on our own feet and been true to Canadian sentiment and Canadian ideals instead of pandering to a time-honored custom of the British army-"a custom more honored in the breach than the observance." The wet canteen was introduced primarily "to prevent our men getting harder liquor elsewhere" ; but that excuse is a mockery, as every one knows who has seen the "underground railway" of the liquor traffic at work. This enemy in our midst has made it fearfully easy for men to get more of the poison which is drawing them down to the dust.
My hon. friend asks whether this is taking place in England. Of course it is, and I appeal to my hon. friend as a gentleman with the interest of the boys at heart, and perhaps with some relatives at the front, is there not some way of restricting the use of liquor in our camps in England,

where our Canadian soldiers are being trained to fight for King and country. I may be told that the moment our soldiers enter Britain they come under the control of the-British officers and under British Army regulations; that is quite true. But considering the wonderful effort that Canada has made for the flag, is it not possible for the Canadian Government to assert themselves in eu-dh a righteous cause as I am presenting this afternoon, and say that our boys in England and in France shall not have the use of liquor in England or at the front any more than they had in our camps in Canada? Let me remind the Minister of Militia and Defence of what has been done in Russia. We are all aware that the liquor traffic lhas been abolished in that country; vodka is not distilled in Russia to-day. We all know too that Russian- soldiers have been sent in large numbers to France to fight alongside their French comrades; and although the troops are fighting side by side, and the French soldiers are allowed to use wine, everybody knows that it is forbidden under very severe penalties to serve liquor to the Russian soldiers. Now, if it is possible for France and Russia to arrange for Russia to maintain this control over her troops in France, would it not be a far easier thing to arrange as between France and England.
I now come to the facts in Captain Goforth's letter.
At Bustard Camp one evening: after "lights out," some drunken sergeants were making so much noise that the men in the lines near by could not get to sleep. I was present as orderly officer of the day when Capt. A

, the captain of the week, went to the sergeants' mess to stop the noise. The Regimental Sergeant-Major was befuddled with drink; and one sergeant under the influence of liquor, rushed forward and attempted to assault Capt. A

.
Does it make for discipline, I ask, to see an officer or sergeant befuddled with drink in the presence of the rank and file. Why the very mention of the fact ie sufficient, it sSems to me, to stir the Minister of Militia and Defence to doing his duty in the matter. Captaih Goforth goes on:
Again at Sling Plantation Camp, the muddiest of them all, I was obliged, as orderly officer, to place under arrest a man who was drunk and disorderly and who was resisting arrest with a drawn bayonet. He came at me with blood in his eye; and before his hand was seized from behind by the sergeant of the guard, he had brought his bayonet within a foot of my face. No sober man in the Canadian army would have acted as he did. The tolerance of the liquor traffic is more than a question of discipline; it is a question of our firmness or feebleness of purpose in prosecuting this war.

At Tidworth Barracks, Capt. 

 and another of our officers were broken through drink. The General Officer Commanding having no further use for their services, they were "permitted to resign their commissions in the Canadian Expeditionary Force".
At the Canadian Base Depot, Havre, France, where I spent eight months, the problem was the same. More or less kindly French civilians could not be kept away; and those of our men who wanted more than they could get at the wet canteen had no difficulty in securing cheap whiskey, wine, and brandy.
At Pond Farm Camp on Salisbury Plains, our mess caterer, a civilian, took enough whiskey to send him into delirium tremens, and then became so violent that he had to he tied hand and foot and kept in the guard tent all night, while his screams kept the camp awake.
* Furtiher on he says:
The degrading effect of liquor on character is its crowning infamy. The terrible temptations which are inseparable from the abnormal life of a soldier are but dimly understopd by those who have always had a comfortable home; and, in the hour of temptation, even the strongest man needs all his faculties braced to resist.
I will not say anything further about the consequences to our men in the large camps and in the large cities. On that point we have before us the picture drawn by Dr. Bruce in his report.
I do not ask the Minister of Militia and Defence to dictate to the Imperial authorities. But it seems to me that the Canadian Government should respectfully ask the War Office to prevent liquor being served in the camps in England where Canadian soldiers are being trained. I have given the instance of the Russian ^ soldiers in the trenches and camps in France. The Russian Government was able to prevent the sale of alcohol to the soldiers of that country in France, and surely it should be far more easy for the Canadian Government to insist with the War Office that no liquor shall be sold to our soldiers in the camps in England. In discussing this matter and speaking of it as I do, I do not mean to attack the Government. I simply wish to be the spokesman for the fathers and mothers whose boys are at the front and those whose boys are about to be sent to fight the battles of the Empire.


Samuel Hughes: As the late Minister of Militia, possibly I can throw a little light on this matter. When the boys went to camp in Salisbury Plain, the dry canteen was established so far as they were concerned. Of course, there was nothing to prevent a soldier from going to an outlying town and getting hard liquor.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It was at the intervention of my hon. friend (Sir Sam Hughes) that the dry canteen was established?


Samuel Hughes: They carried the good customs with them from here, and kept the most of them right through. While I waa in England in 1914, I undertook to establish control over the canteens. The plan was to have battalion canteens, just as we have to-day throughout Canada and have had for a long time. The profits from these canteens-dry canteens-go to the battalions concerned. Rut I was politely informed that we had no control. That was the first intimation I had, and this is a matter to which I referred some time ago-*


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Who gave that intimation?


Samuel Hughes: It came from those in charge. General Alderson made some arrangement with the High Commissioner, and the matter was communicated from the High Commissioner to the Prime Minister, stating that it was their intention to establish dry canteens. I cannot agree with the statement of procedure as outlined by the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lem-ieux). My position is that Canada should have full control of her troops in England; we need not doff our hat to anybody to ask what our troops shall have in the way of a canteen. Had my plan been carried out, we should have been in control of our troops in England. But that was not granted. Of course, if we go hat in hand, I suppose we can get what we ask for. General Alderson was notified from here, in response to his intimation that they purposed restoring the wet canteen-I do not know the details of the communication between the Prime Minister and him through Sir George Perley-but, at all events, the wet canteens were established by the authorities in England.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: How long ago?


Samuel Hughes: In the camp at Salisbury Plain. This is a well-known instance. I took this as a personal insult from General Alderson. He made the announcement to the men. The first time he got the troops together-except when he assembled them to read some extracts from a little book he had got up to tell them how to win wars-he announced to them that he had assembled them to give them an important communication, to tell them that he would make them free men, and that they were to have wet canteens. He told
them they were not to be tied to anybody's apron-strings but were to be free men, to drink as they chose. From that hour to this I have never had anything to do with it-never bothered about it at all. When they undertook to establish the canteen system, we were met with the same objection -that the canteens had been let to some corporation or parties and that these had control, and we had nothing to say.


Mr. E. N. LEWIS (West Huron):: Reference has been made to the wet canteen in the camps in Canada. I was foir about four or five months in tlhe largest artillery camp ever held in Canada; and, with one exception-that of a man who had been on leave and who was brought in under guard from North- Bay-there was not one single man in that camp of five thousand men, to my knowledge

and I am around practically all the time-under the influence of liquor. Now, in reference to the camps in England, I am -sorry that the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux)-


Samuel Hughes: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Lewis) says that at Petawawa'he was around' -all the time, under the influence of liquor?


Edward Norman Lewis: No, sir, any one who knows me, knows different. I am sorry the hon. member for Rouville has -seen fit to bring up this matter. I have no objection to his talking prohibition anywhere at the proper time. Temperate living is the right principle, as jevery jrighbthinking man will agree. But, when recruiting is at its present stage in Canada, to make statements in this House to go broadcast through the country, founded on erroneous -statements which the hon. gentleman has received, I think is a -mistake.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If the hon. gentleman
will allow me, my statements were not based on facts received from private sources. I base them o-n an article in the Financial Post which is open to everybody to read. And I may say that I avoided reading the most serious statements contained in that article.


Edward Norman Lewis: I notice that a reverend
gentleman in London, Ontario, Mr. Flanders, made a statement two months ago on the platform, and letters oame in fro-m returned soldiers by the dozens absolutely refuting that -statement. I believe I had exceptional opportunities while I was in England to have knowledge of the facts in reference to this matter. When I first reached there I was informed by the gen-

eral in charge of the division in which, my battery was stationed, that, owing to my success in recruiting, I should get as much knowledge as I could in reference to the camps and the treatment of the Canadians in England and France, and should then return to Canada for the purpose of recruiting more men for the artillery, that more men was the great need. For that purpose I was there. I was at Aldershot and also for months in camp at Witley, Milford and Bramshott, at which are concentrated over 40,000 men. There were 30,000 at Witley, and I say on my honour as a member of this House that with -one exception, and that was the same man that was brought back from North Bay to Petawawa, there was not a man under, the influence of liquor to my knowledge there. I was in every Canadian division in France from Belgium to the Somme. I travelled to every large base hospital and every base of concentration; I was looking out all the time and was taking notes as to what I could say to the young men in Canada and to his father and mother as to the conditions there. With the exception of those poor chaps, and I am glad to say that there are not as many as people think, considering the great number we have there who have been injured at the front, there is not a young man or an older man who will not return to Canada better physically and mentally than when he left these shores. The same matter as that to which my hon. friend has referred, with regard to Russia, was brought up by this gentleman, the Rev. Mr. Flanders, and I am glad to say that the heads of the Methodist church, in selecting the pulpits to be occupied by members of their ministry, have moved Mr. Flanders to a far western situation, because I feel he should not have taken that stand on the information he had. When these letters -appeared I was telegraphed to by the Battery officers, stating that they were going to do harm. I discussed the matter with one young man who had been wounded on the 16th of September on the Somme, and who had been nine months in the Canadian camps. I discussed it with dozens of other young men. They all stated that the assertion was absolutely untrue as to their officers being incapacitated through liquor. There is a point which the hon. gentleman has made which carries that out. He says that men have been broken for drinking. It is an unpardonable sin in the British army, or in the Canadian army in England, or at the front, to be under the influence of liquor. Occasionally you see the announce-
ment that a court martial has been held and that a man has been discharged from the service. In the few cases in which a court martial is held it is to try a case in which a soldier has been charged with drunkenness and never to investigate an accusation of cowardice. I have the firm belief that the hon. gentleman wishes to fairly put the matter before the people, but I walked through the trenches in the Canadian division in Belgium and France and I asked the men who were there in the trenches and dugout3 how they were getting along. That is what I was there for. At the great concentration camp at Havre I went through the whole camp on the parade and I said: Boys, how are you-have you any complaints? I saw them last December in the dugouts -at the front trenches and I am glad to say they were very [DOT]comfortable. It was dry, although cold outside. I would say: How are you boys; are you getting lots to eat? They would say: Lots to eat but nothing to drink. I heard that repeatedly. It may have been a joke, but I believe it was true. They could not possibly get anything to drink there with the exception of the rum issue. I saw a letter the other day from a young man, written on the 31st March, and he said that no matter what clothes 4 p.m. they had, the cold, damp wind bored through them. He was a boy who had never taken a drink in his life, but he said that if it were not for the tot of rum at two in the morning they would not be able to stand it. Does the hon. gentleman think of comparing the action of the Russians with that of the French or the English? Could our young men do what they have done if conditions were just as these letters assert? This whole country will be benefited in the future. The young men who return uninjured will be benefited mentally and physically by what they are experiencing there. As to any change in the camps in England, I believe there will not be any camps there in two or three months. The men will all be at the front, because, from the present state of recruiting, there will be no one to take their places. I am very sorry to differ from my hon. friend, but these are the facts to my own knowledge. There may have been some drinking going on that I did not know about, but I would just like to mention that the batteries of the 14th Brigade topped the score in England for shooting. Could they have done it under the influence of liquor? I submit, Sir, that the evidence that we have before us is absolutely against the

statement that the hon. gentleman has made.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to join with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lewis) who has just sat down in an expression of regret that my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) has brought this question up, especially as he has done so absolutely on the authority of some letters to the newspapers, even if these letters are from officers who have possibly some very strong views upon the liquor question. It would have been very easy for any one who knew that the question was to be up to have brought strong testimony for the other side from officers who were also chaplains in the forces, and who have written to contradict the statements that have been read from by my hon. friend. I do not know whether my hon. friend said it or whether he read it from one of these letters, that men have been known to take their first drink since they went to the front. But, there are an awful lot of men who have taken their first drink who have never gone to the front. I know my hon. friend's biography pretty well, and I do not think that he, any more than myself, has eveT been to war; but I should be surprised to learn that he is a life teetotaller. I do not, however, rise to go into the merits of the question at all; I rise to join with my hon. friend in his expression of regret. I know something about what goes on in the trenches at first hand. I know about the amount of drinking that is done there, and I know something about the amount of fighting that is done there. Personally, the last men I would want to dictate to as to their habits in this world are the officers and soldiers of France, Britain and Canada to-day. My hon. friend says the French soldiers get wine. Is he ashamed of what they did on the wine at Verdun? I know that a certain amount of rum is given to the British soldiers in the trenches. Are they not making a pretty good job of the bujjness they have in hand? I, for one, have nothing but gratitude to these soldiers. I have no criticism to offer to them as to their personal habits, and they are the last men in the world that I would want to put in leading strings. They are going to lead the world to freedom and to victory before this war is over.


Mr. G. H. BRADBURY (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, it seems fitting that at this moment I should rise to say a word on a question about which I ought to know something. I had the honour of taking a battalion from Western Canada to England. I took that battalion across the ocean, and trained it for four and a half months in different camps in England. I took a battalion across who did not all belong to Sunday school classes, who were men organized for the purpose of discharging the great duties they are discharging to-day, not only to their own credit but to the credit of the people of'Canada. I had more trouble in Canada with a dry canteen than I ever had with my men in England with a wet canteen in the camp. The ex-minister (Sir Sam Hughes) asks me how I make that out. When the men got leave to go to the city of Winnipeg or other places in Canada they often came back to the camp under the influence of liquor and would be paraded, as they ought to be, before the commanding officer. I had more men paraded in my orderly room in Canada than I had in any camp in England. I say it is a slander on the men who are performing noble deeds for Canada and for Empire to insinuate that they are drunkards-because that is really what this matter means-on the other side of the water. I am surprised that my hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) has taken his brief from this article without making sure that he was on solid ground. Even if he had been absolutely sure that it was correct I doubt the wisdom at this stage in the affairs of Canada of bringing a matter like this before the country. Is it calculated, I ask the hon. gentleman, to encourage recruiting all over Canada or is it calculated to discourage recruiting? Surely it cannot be the object of the hon. gentleman to discourage recruiting. If it was, he could not do anything better than what he has done to-day in bringing this matter before the House as he has. Let me read an article from a chaplain, Captain Daw. Captain Daw was canon of an ' English church in Hamilton and was a chaplain in England in one of these camps referred to. He knows the writer of the article the hon. gentleman has read and he makes a statement here in the Hamilton Herald of Tuesday, April 24. It is headed "Captain Daw is Champion of the Men Overseas," Should we not all be champions of the men overseas? "He refutes statements about them made by Captain GofortJb." That is the gentleman from whom my hon. friend has his brief. The article is as follows:
In the person of Capt. (Rev.) Canon S. Daw recently returned from England where he served as chaplain af the 120th battalion, the Canadian soldiers in training in the old country

have a champion who will not sit dumbly by and hear evil spoken against their characters without making protest against what he calls the injustice and untruthfulness of such statements. Capt. Daw denies the charges of drunkenness and misconduct against the brave lads overseas.
This morning a Toronto paper published an editorial calling the wet canteens of England a national curse and citing extracts contributed by Capt. Goforth to the Financial Post, in which it is stated that Canadian troops in the old country are being debilitated and ruined for useful citizenship by these canteens and "the birds of prey who hang around the camps and give the soldiers loathsome diseases''.
Speaking from his own experience and observations while in England Capt. Daw denied these charges absolutely when interviewed regarding the matter this morning. He said: "Capt. Goforth is a crank. That article he contributed to the Post was written three years ago when conditions were much different. Then there were some old soldiers in England who did do some things that were wrong, but not nearly as bad as he paints them; but now such conditions are as dead as the dodo in England, and it is not fair to publish that at this date about our Canadian soldiers.
"England believes in temperance and 1 believe that those wet canteens stand for temperance. They are run by the arrfiy and navy department, and controlled by the colonel of the battalion. They don't sell hard liquor. They sell mostly beer.
"The colonel of one battalion told me over and over again that they had less drunkenness in England than in Canada. I have seen in one night' more cases of drunkenness in the streets between the Westinghouse and the central part of the city than I saw all the time X was in England."


Michael Clark: Is that the letter of a reverend gentleman?


George Henry Bradbury: That is the letter of Rev. Captain Daw, chaplain of one of the Canadian battalion-s, who was in England. It is not necessary for me to add much to what I have already said. It is unfortunate that a gentleman occupying the prominent position that the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) occupies, knowing that his statement will go broadcast over Canada in the press of the country, should rise in hie place and read an article such as he read before the House to-day-an article that, as stated here, is three years old, without making any investigation to find out whether or not the matter contained in it is correct. But, as I said, even if the statements were true, it is not in the interests of recruiting at the present moment that these statements should be made. I want to say, as a Colonel who had my own battalion to control and administer, that the statements regarding the conduct of Canadian soldiers in our camps are absolutely untrue. I was located in the Witley camp, where there were forty thousand men for three months.

The conditions are these: A great deal is made about the wet canteen. The wet canteen is under the control of the British Government. It is not the worst institution in the world, regardless of what some hon. gentlemen may think. It is far better, to my mind, to have a wet canteen in a camp in England than no canteen at all, or a dry canteen. I will tell you why. Every one of our camps is adjacent to small towns and every one of these towns has all kinds of public houses, and it is far better that our men should be able to get their beer under proper restrictions within our lines than "that they should go downtown and get it to excess and get drunk in the pubs. Hard liquor is not sold in our canteen; but downtown the men can get all the hard liquor they want. If my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) had taken a battalion over himself, as I think he ought to have done, he would have been able to speak, as I am speaking, from personal touch and personal knowledge, and he would never have made the mistake that he has made to-day of bringing this question before the House. I am sure that no officer who has commanded a battalion in England will corroborate the statements made in the article read by my hon. friend this afternoon. I had very little trouble with my men in England, where there was a wet canteen. Out of 1,100 men I never had more than two or three brought before me in the morning because of their having taken too much beer the night before. Drunkenness on the part of soldiers is a crime that is dealt with severely by the commanding officers. One would almost think, after hearing the hon. member for Rouville, that the Canadian men across the water were a lot pf children who are not able to take care of themselves. The men who have crossed the water, I say, to fight our battles are the flower of the young manhood of Canada, well able to take care of themselves, and of the enemy, top. These men do not need to be taught the lesson of restraint; they were taught that in their own Canadian homes and cities before they left. There never was a better behaved army in the world than the Canadian army and it is a slander on our men to bring matters like this before the House and to have it heralded throughout Canada and throughout the world that the Canadian boys are subject to temptations which they cannot resist. Any one who has visited England, whether as civilian or as soldier, knows the temptations that surround the men. Is a soldier any more likely to sue-

cum-b to these temptations than the average man? Can the Canadian Government check what is going on over there? You might as well ask them to check what is going on in France. When this war is over and our men come back, few or many-God grant that it will be many-those who have taken the position taken to-day by my hon. friend will have to answer to these men. They will not soon forget the insult that has been hurled at them to-day across the floor of this House. I may be pardoned, Mr. Speaker, if I feel keenly on this matter. I had a very deep feeling of regret upon having to part with the men that I took across the water. I would not be here if it were possible for me to be with my men. I am here first on account of my health; next, on account of my age. But the men of my battalion and of hundreds of other battalions who are to-day in the firing line are as well-behaved as any class of citizens in Canada or anywhere else. Instead of casting aspersions on them, we ought to be doing all that we can to make them realize that we appreciate the great sacrifices they are making for their country and for the rest of us who are not performing the duties that we ought to perform.
I regret exceedingly that a gentleman of my hon. friend's parliamentary experience should have been so easily led into the error of bringing a matter like this before the House, upon the authority that he has read to the House. Last December I visited our men who are in the trenches-and a finer body of men I never saw in my life. I was anxious to find out just how the men were .treated and just what the conditions were under which they lived. I questioned hundreds of privates as to how they were getting along, whether they were being well taken care of and well fed. I never heard a grouch from any one all the time I wain France except this: when I was going, out of the Somme I was approached by four officers, and this remark was made: "Colonel, you are a member of the House of Commons. When you go back, tell the Minister of Militia to give us more rum." Why was this said? I walked along the trenches in the middle of December. During the whole of the twelve days that I was at the front ice was hanging from the trees and the whole country was covered with hoar frost. I never saw the sun; everything was frozen and wet. The men stand in the trenches from evening until
almost daylight before they are relieved, sometimes almost perishing with cold, sometimes wet updo the knees. Under these circumstances, I hope that there are no hon. gentlemen in this House who would deny these men the little tot of rum they get to revive them and put life into them. Coming across on the boat I had with me Rev. Mr. Gordon (Ralph Connor), the noted novelist, who is known to every one in Canada. No stronger temperance man has lived in Canada than Ralph Connor; no man has preached the principles of temperance more energetically from pulpit and platform than he. I discussed the liquor question with the reverend gentleman, and he said to me: "Colonel, I would just about as soon take the rifle from a man as take his tot of rum from him in the morning in the trenches." That is a pretty strong assertion to come from a reverend gentleman who is such a stong temperance advocate.
If the hon. gentleman were just as anxious to send recruits across the water to defend the principles that these men are contending for, and for which they are willing to give their lives, as he is to bring forward a matter that reflects upon their honour, stability, and character, it would be a good thing for Canada. I say that it would be better for him to do that than to take the rather unpatriotic stand that he is taking to-day.
With all due respect to my hon. friend, I cannot ihelp tout feel that he has not played a very patriotic part in bringing this resolution before the House and in building up a case on information tihat is absolutely false, and that is nearly three years old according to the Rev. Captain Daw. For what purpose has he done this? For the purpose of trying to make the people of Canada believe that in some way this< Government has neglected the interest of the men it has sent overseas. Surely there is no patriotism in an action of that kind. I regret that I have had to say one word on this question; but as one who has been across the water and has seen the conditions as they exist, I wish to give a most emphatic denial to the statement made toy the gentleman who wrote that article, or to any gentleman in this House or out of it who states that the Canadian soldiers are drinking to excess in their camps, because that statement is absolutely untrue and unfounded.


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Speaker, I certainly had no intention of taking any part in this debate;


Albert Edward Kemp: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take more than a moment of the time of

the House, 'because the ground has been already well covered. We have had cited the evidence of eye-witnesses, and, it seems to me, we have to accept such evidence as final. The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) on Tuesday of this week asked me across the floor of the House if I would secure information regarding wet or dry canteens in England, and I promised him I would do so. In the latter part of March last I cabled to England asking for in-, formation in respect to wet or dry canteens in our camps there, and after my hon. friend spoke	to	me on
Tuesday last I cabled again to England, but I have not yet received a reply. 1 have every reason to believe that when the report reaches us it will be quite satisfactory to every one in the House. I regret, as others have regretted, that my hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) has brought this matter up in the way he has done. If he wished to bring the matter up, it would have been better if he had pursued the course taken by my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) on Tuesday last. My right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), it seemed to me,* was attempting to create the impression that wet canteens had been restored in Canada.


Wilfrid Laurier: No, in England. Am I right or wrong?


Albert Edward Kemp: In England? I am going to say very little on that point now because the repori that is being prepared will show the exact condition of affairs in England.


Wilfrid Laurier: If I did not make myself understood, I repeat that I have no fault to find at all with the judgment of the militia authorities on this point.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: The wet canteen has
been restored in England.


Albert Edward Kemp: My hon. friend from Rouville brought this matter up in the House this afternoon on the evidence of Captain Goforth, and in the first part of his remarks he led the House to believe, as I think my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) did also, that wet canteens had been restored in Canada. As has been stated, the dry canteen was introduced into military camps in this country under the regime of my predecessor. The dry canteen is in existence at our camps in Canada at the present time, and it will continue to exist. There is no intention whatever of making a change. I wish to state
as emphatically as I can, that we have no intention of restoring a wet canteen in the camps in Canada. Such a thing has never been thought of. Indeed, would it not be ridiculous to reintroduce the wet canteen into Canada, if it ever did exist in this country, and I do not know as to that? But as prohibition has been carried in so many provinces of the Dominion, would it not be ridiculous for us to say that liquor shall be sold at the camps where our soldiers are? Such a thing would be intolerable, and public opinion I am sure would denounce it in no uncertain terms. So far as I am concerned, there is no danger whatever of the wet canteen being introduced in Canada. Prohibition has carried in practically every province except Quebec, and I hope Quebec will soon follow the example set by the other provinces. Soldiers, when they are leaving camp sometimes get a little liquor at the places along the road, but once Quebec follows the example of the other provinces, this will be no longer pos- [DOT] sible.
My hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) referred to Valcartier. I know nothing of the circumstances to which he. alluded; I have never heard of any unseemly conduct because of the use of liquor in that camp.
With regard to the Canadian soldier in England, we know that Great Britain is not a prohibition country, and our camps over there are quite close to villages and towns where there are many public houses. With the little information I have on conditions over there, I think I may be permitted to say this: If they have what is called the wet canteen in England, would it not be better so far as our troops are concerned-and I submit this for the earnest consideration of every member of the House-would it not be better to allow light beers to be sold	to our
troops over there under our supervision, rather than have the soldiers go outside the camps to the public houses in the towns and villages nearby, where they can get hard liquor and stronger drink. I do not propose to go into the merits of the question of prohibition, which has been discussed this afternoon. Every one knows that the regulations of the British Army with regard to drunkenness are very severe. I know of some poor fellows who have been tried by court martial and been punished for being slightly intoxicated.

I want to endorse what the members of the House have said with reference to the splendid conduct of our troops in Great Britain and France. I do not think there has been any drinking to speak of amongst them. I was very glad to hear the hon. member from Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury) say that the conduct of our troops in England and France was even better than their conduct here in Canada. I need not take up the time of the House any longer. As soon as I receive the report which I have cabled for I shall be very glad to submit it to the House.
Mr. SAMUEL J. DONALDSON (Prince Albert): Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry to have to rise and address the House for the first time on a matter of this kind, but owing to the position I have occupied in military affairs for the last year I feel compelled to say something in defence of the soldier who has gone to the front to defend the lives of the people of Canada and of the Mother Country. I am very sorry that this matter should have been brought up in the House to-day. Last year I took a battalion of 1,496 to Camp Hughes on the 6th of June, and on the 19th of October I landed in the County of Kent, England, in company with another battalion, .and I can say positively that such a thing as hard liquor was never sold within my lines. If I had the records of my orderly room here I should be only too glad to show them to hon. gentlemen, to prove that I never had a ease of drunkenness before me in practically four months. The fathers and the mothers, and the sisters and the brothers of the boys fighting at the front for the people here at home have enough anxiety reading the casualty lists every morning, without being troubled further by suggestions that our boys in the Old Country are being degraded through the use of liquor. The thing is absolutely ridiculous, and I am surprised that my hon. friend from Rouville should have brought the matter up. This talk about our men being degraded is absolutely false. He talks of more liquor; it is more recruits we want. That would have been a fitting subject for him to speak on, but he should not belittle the men who have gone over to fight for us.
Let me relate a little incident which will show' the character of our men over there. A call was made on me for five hundred men to proceed to France within forty-eight hours. In order to provide for casualties I arranged with headquarters for six hundred

men, and their last leave was cut down to three days. Now, any one who knows the geography of the Old Country knows that it takes more than, three days to get to some parts of Ireland and Scotland. Some of the men, when they got their leave, took a chance and thought they would try to make it and get back. Every one of those men was back on the day their passes were out, except twenty-five. Had these men been addicted to drink, what would have happened? Why, I should have had to use the hundred that I had allowed for casualties, and probably drawn on my battalion for another hundred. There is no use in beating about the bush in this matter, such a thing as strong drink ruining our young men in England is absolutely out of the question. I took over three sons, two sons-in-law and four nephews. And the mother of my boys was over there and saw what was going on, and she has no fear of leaving her boys over there. And those boys have as good a mother as has any man sitting on the other side of the House. I say it is a crime to bring up in the House a matter like this, with our boys probably dying by hundreds this very day. Get out and get some more men. That is what we want.
I do not know what object the hon. member (Mr. Lemieux) has in bringing up this matter in the House. I am sure it is not going to get him very many votes from the temperance people. My experience is that when these people vote they vote party, anyway. But there is one thing sure-the Government should be proud, and the opposition should be proud also, of the class of men Canada has been sending to the front. They cannot be beaten anywhere in the world. If they were addicted to strong drink they would not be playing the part, the important part, that they are playing to-day in this great struggle. I have told you about the men I took over there. Those men went there to fight for their country; they did not go there to drink whiskey. Such a discussion as this is a hardship on the mothers and fathers, the brothers and sisters, of the boys at the front. Reading of it, they will be thinking that their dear ones run the risk not merely of being killed by bullet or shell, but of being ruined by drinking whiskey. I think the hon. gentleman who brought this matter forward will probably make up his mind that it was rather a mistake. My advice to him is, in future when such newspaper articles come to his attention-and this one happens to be

three years old-to make inquiries as to the facts. Had the hon. gentleman asked me about the conditions, I would gladly have told him; for I know what I am talking about, I know exactly the conditions. During the four months I was in the Old Country, I saw only two of our men under the influence of liquor, and that was on Christmas Day. The guard-room happened to be right in front of my hut. I heard somebody call, "Guard, turn out!" I went to the window to see what was going on, and these two chaps were coming down, and called the guard to turn out and salute.


Mr. J. H. BURNHAM (West Peterborough) :: I think that, as one who spent six months in England and a few days in France, I am called upon to say something on behalf of the soldiers. I certainly do not agree with St. Paul and my superior officers, that all things are not expedient. I think that we should discuss things like this in this House as well as elsewhere. I have yet to learn that it is unwise to discuss a matter which so intimately concerns our people. The case of the canteen is a very simple one. You believe in the dry canteen for Canada; those who believe in the wet canteen somewhere else may rise in their places. You cannot believe in both a dry canteen and a wet canteen at one and the same time. But I wish to say this very definitely-the Canadian soldier in England as in Canada is a sober man. Knowing humanity as I do-and I have lived quite a few years now; and I may tell you that I was connected with the 93rd Battalion from its inception and was with it in England until it was dispersed and sent to France -a more sober, orderly, upright, and thoroughly decent lot of men I never saw, even amongst the politicians. We have got to bear in mind that we are not in Heaven. And we have got to bear in mind that God Almighty is not a prohibitionist.^ But I have seen enough of humanity to lead me to believe that our restrictions must be of the strongest. We must put restriction^ upon ourselves. Pray, what man is so confident of himself that he can give rein to himself and go where he likes and do what he likes? And what is true of each of us is true of humanity in the aggregate; we must do everything we can to narrow down and restrict the tendency of humanity to go astray. Therefore, it seems to me, the argument is rather academic than practical. And I cannot repeat too often that having seen a very large number of troops, both Canadians and Imperials, as they call those of Great Brit-52
ain- and having been at the camps at Otterpool, East Sandling and West Sand-ling as well as elsewhere, and having heard the reports of others, the Canadian soldier is an upright, sober, decent man, as men go. When we went to France-and I may say for the benefit of those who take an interest in these things, that we paid our own expenses-we made inquiries there also. And it would be a splendid thing if all the members of this House were sent to England and France to investigate conditions. I was advocating that with the Minister of Finance the other day. They could do no greater service to 'Canada and the Canadian army than to go and look into these matters. It would he a good thing for Canada and a good thing for them.
When we investigated things in France we found that men were being called upon to exert themselves to the utmost not only physically, 'but nervously; that is, they had , to draw upon their nerve power. We found that -men, who, before, perhaps, had not been very great men, after they had gone to France, had become really great. They were able to stand the stress and storm, the horror and danger of war. We were right where it was going on. We were amidst the thunders of it and we saw these men bear themselves casually; they were not afraid. Was there drunkenness there? There w-as not. I have seen no less than one million soldiers since I left this country, and I must confess that I do not think that out of the 500,000 of them whom I saw frequently I beheld five men whom I would call the worse of liquor.
But there are other things that must engage our attention, because much of Canada will be in danger of disease if we do not look to it. There are things that we do not want to talk about, but it is not blinked in Britain, and it will go. through this country as it will through the world generally if we do not take some means to counteract it. There were cases by the thousand in the hospitals. Liquor is not in it for one minute with venereal diseases. Statistics show that they are twenty-five times worse than alcohol ever was. We must look these things in the face, because we must protect our country. Ordinary contact, even indirect, in bad cases anybody who is at all acquainted with these matters knows, is almost as serious as the act itself. To shake hands with a person who has syphilis may give a person who is entirely innocent syphilis. That, as Scripture tells us, will go down to even the third and fourth generation. This country is in some danger. We



must exert ourselves in every way. Now let me say, with reference to a thing that I do know something about, that is, the liquor question, that the Canadian soldiers are not toy any means drunken, tout are, indeed, a most sober lot of men. Canada may well be proud of them and the mothers and fathers of this country need not fear if they send their sons to the front that they will be destroyed by license in drink.


Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker,
I am reluctant to intervene in this debate, but it appears to me that having regard to the conditions at the front to-day, where we are confronted with the greatest events in the history of the world, and having regard to the conditions here when it is desirable that we should rally our man power to the utmost of our ability, it would be unfortunate if the statement brought to the attention of the House by the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) should be not only contradicted, but absolutely refuted. No question arises as to the right of the hon. member to bring forward this matter for discussion. It is clearly within the right of this House to discuss a matter of such great	importance,
but, personally, I would not like to assume the responsibility which he assumes to-day upon the strengt'h pf a letter appearing in a financial paper in the city of Toronto. I say that with all respect to my hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) and believing that he was actuated by the best of intentions. But the effect of the statements which he has brought
5 p.m. to the attention of the House is to create an impression, widespread throughout this country, that the evils in -the army arising out of the liquor traffic are of a general and widespread character, among our troops at the front. The heading pf this article to which my hon. friend has given sanction by bringing it to the attention of the House, and consequently to the attention of the public of Canada, is this:
Wet Canteen is Ruining Countless Canadian Soldiers.
There are fathers and mothers, sisters and wives in this country who, in pursuance of the highest sense of patriotic duty, are sending fprward daily those that are nearest and dearest to them to do battle for their country, for the Empire and for the great cause of humanity for which we are contending. It is desirable that if the statement made in this papeT is not correct, is not accurate, is not well-founded, as I be-

lieve to be the fact, they should be made aware pf it. I feel more inclined to speak because during November last I was in England and visited the front. One can estimate whether a body of men are being injured by drink or any other evil habit by seeing them, by living with them, by talking to them, by witnessing what they do and by knowing what they have done.
I crossed on the Mauritania with 3,500 Canadian troops. One regiment was from British Columbia, one was frpm Glengarry and Stormont, and the third was from Toronto. I desire to say that in all my life -and I have mixed with all classes of people in my life-I have never known a more sobeT, self-respecting, God-fearing lot of men than thpse 3,500 whom I addressed in mid-Atlantic in the great dining room of the ship as she was flying 'before the storm on that trip to England. I can see their faces to-day and I never think of them without being moved by the recollection. When I looked into their faces I saw their mothers' faces. I saw, in their faces, wpmen >
I have known when I was a boy dn the country-for I was raised in the country- and in the villages and towns and cities of Canada-typical Canadians all and, as has been said by a previous speaker, they were absolutely the flower of the youth of Canada. Does any man mean to tell me that these men were addicted to the evils of liquor? Can any man make experienced men m this House believe that? I never saw a cleaner, a more self-respecting, a more Godfearing or a more physically fit lot of men in my life. Let me say another thing. We discuss many matters in this House from day to day, I think without full realization of the time in which we are living. One reason is that we are so far remote from the field of conflict. Three thousand miles of Atlantic separate ns from the United Kingdom, and in addition to that this country is thirty-six hundred miles from Halifax to Vancouver; so that all of us are three thousand miles from the United Kingdom and some are four thousand, some are five thousand, and some are six thousand miles. To-day, when we are debating in this House, men are dying by the thousands and tens of thousands in the greatest battle in the ' history of the world. Do we realize it? I do not mean to say that we should not carry on the business of the country; I am the last man to say that. But do we realize it? None of us can realize it. If we could see what is going on at that front to-day, not in the eye of mind but with our physi-

cal eyes, would we not have a better sense of perspective or proportion than we have to-day as to the matters being discussed in this House? Why do I mention this? Because it is pertinent to the argument which I am making. I say that our soldiers who are going to the front are bound to be a self-respecting lot of men. Does any man suppose that these'men can face death from day to day without becoming, in a sense Mhey never experienced before, religious? Does anybody think that the voyage across the Atlantic can be undertaken lightly, that men are light-hearted even in the Mauritania? When a man steps on one of these transports filled with Canadian troops, fair game at that time because a ship of war, I tell you that every man on that ship, officers and men, feels intensely that he may be face to face with death. They are a serious-minded lot of men, they are not thinking of drink. And on Sunday, you go into their services and see their faces. I tell you that what makes a man religious is to look face to face with death or great danger. Those men are serious-minded men. I say to this House and to the people of Canada that I never saw a cleaner, a more physically fit, a more self-respecting and sober lot of men than these thirty-five hundred men that I accompanied across on the Mauritania. I take off my hat to those men. I say that I felt, Minister of the Crown as I was, a great sense of my own unworthiness when I considered the sacrifice that these men were making. Those men have given up their occupations, their ' callings, their hearths, and their homes. They have left their families, their fathers and their mothers, their wives, their sisters; they have gone forward under the inspiration of a great ideal. When in England I went to Witley Camp. I talked with General Meighen there and with all the other officers. I visited the hospitals. I mingled with the men; I talked to the men. I think I have a fair estimation of the character of men and their quality. From my experience I say the same thing with regard to the men at Witley Camp as I say of the men on the Mauritania-clean men, physically fit men, self-respecting men, officers imbued with the highest sense of their duty to the men-those are the men that I saw there and I came away with precisely the same feeling: all is well at the camps, all is well with our men, all is well with our officers, well fed, well looked after, camp well regulated, discipline good. All 52}
that I saw with my own eyes. I was in England and I saw many officers and men there. I never saw a drunken man from the time I left this country until I returned. I never saw a soldier under the influence of liquor in England or on the Continent.	*
Let me tell this House another thing, and I regard it as absolutely conclusive as to the physical condition of our men at the front. There is no man of higher standing in Montreal in the medical profession than Dr. Elder; the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) will agree to that. He is a surgeon of the highest standing. He was in charge of the McGill Hospital unit at Boulonge. That is one of the best hospital units in the world, a great credit to the great university that established it. Dr. Elder told me that up to that time thirty-five thousand men had passed through that hospital, had been treated in that hospital and sent across to Folkestone and to the other hospitals in England. He said that less than one-half of one per cent had been the rate of mortality among the thirty-five thousand men. I said: how do you account for it? Why, he said, it is very simple: the men are in the pink of condition. In civil life, he said, we operate and the operation is perfectly done, but some other conditions set up due to the age of the man or to disease of the kidneys or of the heart or of the liver; some complications set in and the patient dies notwithstanding that a perfect operation has been performed. That is well known to all medical men. But, he said, these men are precisely as if they were trained for the operating table. He told me some marvellous cases of operations. Why, he said, in civil life we would not think of such a thing, we would amputate the leg or the arm; but these men are in such perfect condition that they recover without amputation, septicemia does not set in. Does any man mean to tell me that of these thirty-five thousand men, the pick, from the physical standpoint, of all the men he had ever seen in his long experience-does any man mean to tell me that those men are suffering from addiction to drink? I went to the front and I saw those men behind the Canadian line at Vimy Ridge. I saw Vimy Ridge. The Canadians were in front of Vimy Ridge. And I want to tell this House that I said to General Byng: I do not see how you are ever going to take that ridge. He said: We will take that Ridge, the Canadians will take that ridge. Before us lay a plain where the year before 180,000 French

and 180,000 Germans had lost their lives or fallen in battle for Vimy Ridge There, before Vimy Ridge, were three brigades of Canadians, the other brigade being on the Somme. I saw the life of these men. When they go into the trendhes they sometimes stand in six inches or a foot of water and frequently they sleep leaning forward against the parapet. When they come back they go into hutments, not the warm camps of the lumber district referred to by my right hon. friend, but hutments, .temporary structures, heated with oil stoves. You would see those men come in cased with mud, standing around, the stoves. Talk about cold weather ! We think this country is cold, hut I give you my word that no one in this country knows what cold is until he has betn in. England or on the continent in November and December. The temperature is not so low; it is the dampness. I motored for three hours from Boulogne to a point behind the Canadian lines. I had on an ordinary heavy winter overcoat and a fur coat over that, and we were covered with rugs, but we were chilled to the hone when we reached our destination. The men were working under these conditions. When they came out of the trenches they changed their clothes and had a bath. They were well fed. I said to General Byng:	" Have you any message for
the people of Canada with regard to the Canadians? He said:	"They are sound
clean through; you may tell that to thq people of Canada." General Byng is one of the best soldiers in the world; he is the man who bad charge of the evacuation of Suvla Ray. He is proud of his Canadians and they are proud of him. Since I was there last, fall these Canadians have achieved one of the most notable victories of the world at that same Vimy Ridge.
Now, let us see what this all amounts to. Here is a letter, written it is said, three years ago-I do not know whether it was or not-appearing in a financial journal in the city of Toronto; and on the strength of that, if the statement of my hon. friend had not been met and, I believe, refuted-


Rodolphe Lemieux: Does my hon. friend
know the editor?


William Thomas White: I do not, but
whether I knew the editor or not I should have hesitated, if I had been in the'position of my hon. friend, to give currency on the wings of the press to a statement as sweeping as that, upon the strength of a letter stated here to be three years old. I believe 
that if this statement had not been met in the way it has been met in this House, it would have done great damage to recruiting and would have been properly and justly resented by all the soldiers across the seas.
I apologize to the House if I appear to have been speaking feelingly. I do not challenge for one moment the right of the hon. member for Rouville to bring this matter up. I am glad, in one way, that it has come $ up, because I believe that the statements made here to-day will go far to reassure the people with regard to the facts. In one way it is unfortunate, regrettable; because even the bringing of it up is bound to do some harm at a time like this, when the minds of men and women are tortured with anxiety as to their loved ones overseas. I say that any statement of a sweeping character with regard to the soldiers overseas being addicted to strong drink is a slander upon them, and I believe that they will resent it, not only on their own accord, but because of the anxiety it will create in the minds of those they have left behind. Their fathers, their mothers and wives here are torn with anxiety about them, and they in turn are torn with anxiety about their wives and mothers and sisters at home. Will it make them any more comfortable at the front; will it make it any easier for them to perform the duties which they are performing there, to know that the impression is being created in this country among those they left behind that they are being demoralized by drink in England and at the front? Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely untrue.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Some days ago I asked the Minister of Militia to give to this House some information with regard to the operation of the canteens in the camps in England. I asked that question for the purpose of getting an authoritative statement as to the conditions that existed there, and I assume that the minister will give me the information when he receives it. I did this in consequence of information that I had received as to the bad effects of the operation in certain camps in England of what is known in Canada as the wet canteen. I had intended, when this information should have been forthcoming, to direct the attention of the House to the subject; I was not aware that the hon. member for Rouville had intended to deal with it. I want to say to the Minister of Finance that the member for Rouville was properly within his rights and

privileges as a member of this House in directing the attention of Parliament to this question, and in what he said he was stating what is manifestly correct. My questioning on the subject and my hon. friend's discussion of it to-day were prompted solely by one desire, and that an honest and true one. Hon. gentlemen opposite, with assumed indignation, undertook to say that this gentleman, whose boy is going to the front, and all the rest of us who have boys at the front, have no right to discuss the manner in which the welfare of the men overseas is being had in regard by those who are responsible. One can make eloquent speeches in eulogy of the splendid deeds of the boys who have gone, but that is not necessary. There are those who hold in their hearts and minds thoughts which are far moie eloquent than any uttered words in regard to the great mission of the men who have gone forth to fight. But it is not correct to say that we who are here at home have no right to assume that any question raised in the public press as to the welfare of those who have gone to the front is not a proper subject for consideration and deliberation by this Parliament.
Only one question is involved in this discussion. The Financial Post, a responsible paper published in the city of Toronto, in its issue of April 21, o&ly five days ago, published the statement to which the mem-' ber for Rouville has directed attention. I assume that every hon. member in this House received that paper. I did so, and I saw that other hon. gentlemen received it. To say that we must not discuss matters which are mentioned in the press for fear of hurting recruiting is to assume that we in this Parliament, the boys who have gone and those who have been left behind are a lot of children who cannot look the facts in the face.
Who firstduringthis session brought before the House the question of a wet canteen? The ex-Minister of Militia and Defence, who discussed freely and frankly here in Parliament, on the 6th of February, the question of the wet canteen, and I hope that no one will feel that my hon. friend from Rouville had in his mind when he brought up this question any desire except the one which I am sure animates him, of endeavouring to obtain that which is best for those who are fighting for us, because no political advantage can be secured from such clap-trap as the statement that such a matter as this cannot be discussed here without slandering
our boys at the. front. Either a wet canteen in England is good for our boys, or it is not. That is the only issue. We are well aware that the ex-Minister of Militia inaugurated the dry canteen in Canada, and that during his regime as Minister of Militia there was a dry canteen in all the camps in Canada, and he himself told us in Parliament on the 6th of February that when he was in control as Minister of Militia he insisted on a dry canteen being in existence in Great Britain. He tells us that the reason that that dry canteen was changed into a wet canteen was because General Alderson, according to the exminister's statement, made a change under these conditions:
General Alderson told the men with a great hurrah and bravado In the only speech he ever made except when he read to them a little book which he once published about -how not to do things. He told them he was going to make them free men, and as a slap at the Minister of Militia in Canada, he said he was going to give them a wet canteen.
That is the way the wet canteen came ' into existence in the Canadian camps in England, and the ex-Minister of Militia said to-day, in dealing with this question, that this canteen was carried on by contractors who had contracts with the British Government and not with the Canadian military authorities, though these camps are under Canadian control. The result is that to-day and for some time past there has been a wet canteen in the Canadian camps in England, and the Financial Post, a responsible newspaper, five days ago asserted that the existence of the wet canteen was a serious menace to our boys overseas. Is that not n subject to be discussed in this House of Commons? Does any hon. gentleman want to take the position that in this free Parliament we cannot consider and deliberate as to whether or not a wet canteen is the proper thing to have on the other side in the interest of the boys who have gone overseas? Some hon. gentlemen seem to think that because you mention this matter you are slandering the boys. My hon. friend from West Huron (Mr. Lewis) and my hon. friend from Selkirk ' (Mr. Bradbury) lamented, almost with tears in their eyes, that this question had been brought up, and that it was a slander on the boys at the front.


George Henry Bradbury: It is a slander.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend who speaks about its being a slander does not know what he is saying. No one wants to

slander any boy who has gone overseas 'to fight. My hon. friend's assumed indignation, his deliberate misunderstanding of this question simply show that he is looking for a little notoriety, desiring to tell a story of his own doings and taking the opportunity of this discussion to do so. When he undertakes to lecture the hon. member for Rouville about his not raising a regiment I may tbll him that my hon. friend's son is going to the front and going to France to fight, which is more than this hon. gentleman has done.


George Henry Bradbury: The hon. gentleman has not much of a story to tell the House about what he has done for his country.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My only son of military age, if he is not in France at this moment, will be there in a week to fight, and he will stay there. Although on this side of this House we are not as strong numerically as hon. members on the other side, we have more sons and brothers and friends at the front than have hon. gentlemen opposite. My hon. friend has been travelling around so long at the country's expense, garbed in an officer's uniform that he does not know certain things that have been going on in Canada. I resent the suggestion that, when any man in this free Parliament brings a question up for discussion, in the fair mood in which my hon. friend from Rouville has brought it up, not with any idea of creating any hostility or of arousing any feelings the hon. member %'who does so is said to be attacking the boys at the front. Every hon. gentleman with cool blood knew that there was no such idea in the mind of the hon. member for Rouville.* My reason for speaking on this subject is because I know that the attempt will be made to circulate throughout this country the impression I have .stated because my hon. friend happens to be a French-Ganadian from the province of Quebec. In this war and in the part that we in this Parliament and the people of Canada are going to play in it, if with our hearts sore on behalf of those who have gone out to fight for us, we cannot here as representatives of the people sit down and consider what is best for the welfare of those boys without being told, when a discussion is commenced, as the hon. member for Rouville has commenced this one to-day, that we .are slandering the boys, I say that such talk is worthy only of children and not of free men in this Parliament. What is the sole and only issue here? It is whether a wet canteen or a dry 
canteen in England is in the interest of the boys.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is the whole question.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The ex-Minister of Militia says that a wet canteen is not in the interest of the boys. He tells us that the wet canteen was established by General Alderson-to use the minister's own words- as a direct insult upon himself personally. Is that true? If that statement of the exminister's is true, what do these other gentlemen who have been discussing this question to-day say? Nobody is attacking the soldiers. The Financial Post does not attack them; it suggests that wet canteens should be done away with because they are an injury to our boys. If they are an injury to the boys, then we want to know it, and I do not care what military exploits hon. gentlemen on the other side may have performed themselves, I want to know, and every father and mother in this country wants to know, whether a wet canteen is likely to contribute to the detriment or to the advancement of the boys who are overseas. For myself I purpose waiting for the information which the Minister of Militia has intimated he will bring down upon this question as to the number of these canteens, as to the regimental reports, and as to the men that have been brought before their commanding officers to be dealt with in regard to offences relating to this matter. The motion of my hon. friend is simply a motion of adjournment in order that the attention of the House may be called to this matter. If hon. members will look at the papers of yesterday they will find ,a despatch telling how Sir Hamar Greenwood deals with this question to which my hon. friend from West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) has referred-incidentally to discussing this question of the canteen. Sir Hamar Greenwood dealt with it in the frankest possible way, pointing out the regrettable number of our Canadian boys who were in the hospitals. If, over in Great Britain, Sir Hamar Greenwood can discuss, in the interest, as he alleges, of the Canadian people, this question and how best to deal with it, can it be said that in this Parliament we cannot discuss this question of a wet canteen or a dry canteen, like gentlemen and like men, knowing the seriousness of the issue at this time, with a full knowledge of the questions that are being fought out across the ocean, with all the

fateful influence that they -will bring to Canada and to those who will come after us? If we in this House cannot discuss this question and find out what is best for our sons who are overseas, then I say that we occupy a very peculiar position. That is what my hon. friend from Rouville, with the best intentions and in a very proper spirit, sought to do, and I submit that he had the right to bring this matter before the attention of Parliament.


Mr. JOHN STANFIELD (Colchester):: I shall occupy the time of thd House for only a few minutes. I want to say this for the boys from Nova Scotia. At Aldershot camp, (Nova |Sootia) they behaved splendidly. On the bout going over, there were 5,988 troops; four battalions from Nova Scotia, one from Toronto, and one from Prince Albert commanded by my hon. friend from Prince Albert (Mr. Donaldson). Captain Hayes toljl me that he had never had better-behaved men on his boat. The officers commanding the battalions had no trouble at all with the men. The four battalions went to Witley damp, where a wet canteen was operated by the Imperial authorities. Personally, I think that whan a man is in training he should do without strong drink, but of course when our soldiers get over to the other side, they come under British .control. To prove how well the boys from Nova Scotia behaved iat Witley Camp, when they were given fifty-fifty leave, that is, half of them going for six days' leave and then the other half, there were only seven *absentees out of 4,000 men when the leave was up. The Provost-Marshal of London complimented the Highland Brigade from Nova Scotia on their splendid conduct while in the city. Owing to a severe operation I had met with, the medical officers considered that it would be unwise for me to go to France, even on a tour to see what was going on. I should have liked to go, but I took their advice -and came home, so I cannot speak of conditions at the front. But I can say this for the boys from Nova Scotia and- other parts of Canada in training at Witley Camp, that I never saw a drunken man the whole time I was there.


Mr. F. F. PARDEE (West La-mbton):: I think one of the most extraordinary propositions that I have ever heard has been laid down by hon. gentlemen opposite this- afternoon. It was very proper that this question, which concerns the welfare of our troops in England, shoul-d be brought up by -my hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux), and he has- brought it before the
House in a very fair and equitable manner. It is to Parliament that these matters must in the last analysis come, and it was only right that my hon. friend should direct the .attention of Parliament to the condition of affairs which the -correspondent of a reputable newspaper describes as existing in Canadian camps in England. No sooner had my hon. friend eat down than one hon. gentleman opposite got up and said- that even if the allegations were true, the subject was oue that ought never to have been discussed on the floor of the House. That was a most remarkable thing to say. When it is alleged that a grievance exists, and that grievance is brought to the attention of Parliament and substantiated ;by an hon. member of this House, all hon. gentlemen opposite can do is to fall back on the old time-worn argument that it will- hurt recruiting. The truth is, recruiting is not hurt by criticism, the -object of which is to secure better health and better conditions for our troops. Recruiting cannot be hurt by criticism of that kind. But this Government, which has been so utterly lacking in giving a lead to recruiting, the moment criticism is made falls back on the old argument: Do not criticise, it will hurt recruiting. The whole question in a nut shell is this-:	Is the dry or the wet canteen the
better for our men?


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is the whole question.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: We had a long peroration from the Minister of Finance describing his trip abroad and his utterances tllere, but what I should have liked to hear from him as leader of the House, is a declaration as to whether the Government is in favour of a dry or a wet canteen. If the wet canteen was not a good thing in Canada, is it any better for being in England? If it is not a good thing, and I am not expressing an opini.cn one way or the other, let the Government consider the representations that have been made here this afternoon, with a view to finding out what will be in the best interests of the troops. But for hon. gentlemen opposite to impute disloyalty to us, and hint -that we are trying tp hurt recruiting, when we are simply making an honest criticism of conditions in England and at the front, is to my -mind carrying an absurdity altogether too far, and hon. gentlemen opposite know it.
In conclusion, I would just like to say this:	I think the people of this country
will think it a very strange thing for the Government, from the Minister of Finance
v

down, to deprecate criticism of conditions which vitally affect the welfare of our troops at the front, saying that even if the allegations are true we have no right to discuss them because, forsooth, the discussion will hurt recruiting. If the time has come when the Government is not prepared to face the facts as they are, and endeavour in their wisdom to right them, then the sooner the Government and this whole House of Commons gets out and lets another set of men in, the better for the whole country. Somebody may say:	"You are
finding fault because the men get a tot of rum." The hon. member for Rouville never hinted at such a thing. He brought the conditions to the attention of Parliament in order that they may be righted. Let the Government drop once for all this silly cry of hurting recruiting, and be men enough to say whether thes* allegations are true or false.


Mr. RICHARD BLAIN (Peel):: I am
sure the people of the country will realize that hon. gentlemen opposite are trying to make political capital out of this discussion. Any man who listened to the speech of my hon. friend from West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) could reach no other conclusion. He was eager to discuss every other branch of military affairs but the matter now before the House. He charges the Government with lack of leadership in recruiting. I should like to know what that has to do with the question before the House, and whether a charge of that kind is not intended to injure the Government. My hon. friend seems to forget that he belongs to a party which promised to give the Government whole hearted support during this war until victory was won. For my part I do not think the Government can be charged with maintaining a wet canteen. I do not wish to discuss this matter politically, but the party of hon. gentlemen opposite was in power for fifteen years, and, as their right hon. leader (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has stated


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Blain) dispute the word of the exMinister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes) when he says that General Alderson, through Sir George Per ley, established the wet canteen?


Richard Blain: I do not propose to discuss that part of it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend is ambitious to make this a broader discussion than

you, Mr. Speaker, I am sure, would allow under this resolution. I was saying: The party of the hon. gentlemen opposite was in power for fifteen years, and this question of the wet or dry canteen was under discussion for all that time. Yet they took no action, and it was left to the Liberal-Conservative party, represented by the Government now in power, to introduce and enforce the dry canteen in Canada.


Wilfrid Laurier: Dry here, wet there.


Richard Blain: This matter was discussed in this House a session or tvfo ago, since the war broke out. It was then stated, without contradiction, that the canteen within the borders of Canada was under the control of the Canadian Government, but that when our troops went overseas they were under the control of the British authorities.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: With the permission of the hon. gentleman, I desire to say that I plainly asked the Prime Minister in February last who was in control of these camps in England, and he stated that the Canadian authorities were in control through the Canadian Overseas Minister of Militia.


Richard Blain: The hon. gentleman must remember that the resolution presented by the hon. member from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) is in favour of the discussion of a definite matter of urgent importance as
Evils alleged to exist among our soldiers overseas arising out of the liquor traffic in camps and military centres.
It does not say anything about either the wet or the dry canteen.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Blain: But the discussion has been broadened-I think with a view to injuring the Government-it involves consideration of the question whether or not the centres of population near the camps in the Old Country should or should not have the open bar. I repeat that the Canadian people will realize that this Government is not open to censure at least from the Opposition on this subject. Except for what we have heard from the hon. member for Rouvittile (Mr. Lemieux) we have not had any expression of opinion on the main point from any hon. gentleman opposite, not even from the leader (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). This subject was discussed for twenty years in this country, including all the time he was in power, and so far as we can judge from any

utterance of his he does not know yet whether he is in favour of the dry or of the wet canteen. We need not look for any guidance in this matter from the right hon. gentleman, I am sure of that. My hon. friend, from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald), now so zealous for the welfare of the soldiers, and my hon. friend from West Lamhton (Mr. Pardee) have spoken, yet neither has ventured to express himself on one side or on the other. Their ambition, I think, is to do injury to the Government. I say that in kindness, hut I have listened to the discussion carefully,'and I cannot see how any good can come out of it. This country, as well as Britain, has been at war for nearly three years. Hundreds of thousands of our soldiers have been sent overseas. Thousands of letters have come to friends in Canada from those men. In the county of Peel, which I have the honour to represent, the number recruited runs into hundreds. Their friends have received many letters from them, and these letters appear week after week in the local newspapers. And the same is true of many other places. But I have yet to read one line from a soldier at the front making any complaint against the regulations in force in Great Britain or France with respect to the liquor traffic. If there was any complaint to be made surely we should have heard about it from some of our own men. I would ask hon. gentlemen opposite, I would ask even the right hon. leader (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) himself, if any of them has in his possession, or has ever seen, a letter from a Canadian soldier across the water making any charge against the Government in relation to this matter.


William Pugsley: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Richard Blain: I myself am asking a question and trying to get an answer from some hon. gentleman on that side. I would put the question to my hon. friend (Mr. Pugs-ley). Has he in his possession, or has he ever seen during the last three years while we have been at war, any letter from a Canadian soldier in England or in France making a charge against the Government with respect to the wet canteen.


William Pugsley: That gives me the opportunity to ask the question I wanted to ask the hon. gentleman. I understand that no soldier at the front is allowed to send any letter making complaint in regard to such a matter. I am told, further, that at the time of the most serious difficulty in regard
to the use of the Ross rifle our Canadian soldiers were informed that any soldier who made a complaint would be court martialed.


Richard Blain: That looks rather political also. But would the hon. gentleman be good enough to answer the question I put? He knows that many questions have been written about by the soldiers, especially while they were in England before going to the front. Does he know of any letter from any of our soldiers making a complaint such as the hon. member for Rou-ville has made in this House to-day?


William Pugsley: Does the hon. gentleman refer to a complaint specifically against the opportunity afforded to obtain strong drink? If so, I have not received any such letter of complaint against that privilege being given.


Richard Blain: Hundreds of our soldiers
have been discharged and have returned to their homes in all parts of Canada. Some of these men have addressed public meetings. But I have yet to hear of one complaint being voiced by these men, either on the public platform or in the press, or in any other way, -such as my hon. friend has made this afternoon. Therefore, I have the right to say that, so far as the Government is concerned they have no complaint. I would venture to remark that if my hon. friend from Ro-uville bad been particularly -anxious about the welfare of the soldiers at the front, my hon. friend could have gone to the Minister of Militia privately and asked him the question. My ho-n. friend from Pi-ctou (Mr. Macdonald) instead of putting his question on the Order Paper could have done that also. As everybody know-s, we are passing through very critical times now and statements of this kind going broadcast through the country, while we are trying to urge our people ,to go to the -front to fight this tremendous battle, may have a most undesirable effect. Therefore, hon. gentlemen on both sides should be careful what matters they bring up f-or discussion. I am sure that my hon. friend from Ro-uville on reflection, wil-l agree after this discussion is over, that he could have obtained that information from * the Minister of Militia without bringing it up on the floor of the House especially w'hen he has so- little to substantiate the statements which he has made.
At -six o'clock the House took recess.

After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.
. Mr. D. D. McKENZIB (Cape Breton North): Mr. 'Speaker, I hold in my hand the newspaper called the Financial Post, which was the subject of a good deal of discussion this afternoon. On the front page of this newspaper I notice a conspicuous headline which says:
"Evils in the army arising out of the liquor traffic. Millions lost to Canada. Wet canteen is ruining countless Canadian soldiers. Vice rampant as result of liquor obtainable in the army. How this affects Canada in dollars and cents, adding to our heavy burden of debt."
No doubt it was the conspicuous, glaring headline that caught the eye of the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) and led him to read the lengthy and striking article of which that is the heading. As an hon. gentleman who is interested in the affairs of this country and of the Canadian army and of the Empire, and anxious for their welfare in every phase and ramification, he was no doubt led to inquire as to the truth or falsity of,this article. It is not long since an article appeared in a newspaper no more conspicuous, and not regarded as any greater authority than the Post, having something to do with a criticism in connection with the Ross rifle. That paper was taken up by one of the ministers of the Crown and made the subject of comment in this House; that minister even -went so far as to intimate that any person who would give publicity to such language should be shot. The article in the Post to which reference has been made appeared on the 21st of the month. To-day is the 26th .so there has been ample opportunity for ministers to notice this article and reply to or refute it; but nothing of the kind was done. The hon. member for Rouville refrained for five days from making any comments on- this article, I suppose expecting a satisfactory reply to it to be made by some one on behalf of the Government, an explanation that would be satisfactory to the people of this country, particularly to those who have sons in the army or expecting to go overseas. Nothing had been said and. so it was quite proper for an hon. gentleman of the prominence and responsibility of the hon. member for Rouville to bring this matter up in the House, and make some inquiries about it. I do not think it was at all necessary for the hon. gentlemen opposite to fly into such a passion as they did on account of this inquiry. All that was necessary was

for the Minister of Militia to say that the article was not true, and to give such explanation as would be fitting from the parliamentary head of the military service of Canada. But I am sorry to say that occasion has been taken by the forelock and by some of our safety-first colonels in this House to spread themselves and to give the country to understand that they had special and first-hand knowledge about this thing. We never heard of them very much before and I do not blame them for taking this opportunity of making it known to the people that they did don the khaki and did go across the Atlantic, otherwise we would perhaps never have heard about them. There was no occasion to fly into a passion as they did in giving this explanation. One hon. gentleman, who sits on that side of the House and who donned the khaki and who went across the ocean just as well as the colonels who have spoken so strongly to-day, gave much more damaging information in respect to what is afflicting our young men on the other side of the water than the mere inquiry which was instituted by the hon. member for Rouville. I am sure that if any one should be subject to criticism, if any one is deserving of condemnation for making statements in connection with the evils into which our young men fall in connection with the army, it is this gentleman on the other side who is just as well informed, I presume, as any of those who have spoken to-day. He has given most startling information. But they say nothing about him, he is all right. But any hon. gentleman from this side of the House who says anything at all about any matter calling for criticism is made the subject of attack. We in this Parliament profess to be proud to follow the practices of the Mother of Parliaments in the great mother country, and if we do so in parliamentary matters I do not think we shall go far astray. What has been the course of criticism in the Mother of Parliaments since war broke out. It will not be denied that at the outbreak of the war they had in England as strong a Government as they ever had in that country. It was led by as able a man as ever occupied the high position of First Minister in Great Britain. What has happened? Criticism has practically driven that Government out of power and has forced that premier to give up the full power which he enjoyed and to enter into an alliance with the Opposition and to form a compromise coalition Government. This great leader in England was obliged to vacate

his high position at the head of the Government and the country and give way to another man. We would he safe in following the high example of the Mother of Parliaments. Therefore I submit that no man has the right to come here and censure us for any action we may take in bringing matters before the House in a public way if it be found necessary to do so. When did the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury) become so opposed to publicity? He used to be a strong man on publicity. He used to be much in favour of seeing things brought to the full blaze of the light of public opinion, so far at least as the public press and Parliament could do so. I remember well, as I was here some years before that hon. member came to this House, when he published in a newspaper of his- own party, possibly his own organ in the province of Manitoba, a full report of a speech that he never .delivered in this House; .and, what is even more extraordinary, he also published in the same newspaper the reply that Mr. Oliver made to it- which was never delivered in the House either. These were the old-time practices of my hon. friend. I am surprised that he should now turn his hose on publicity with such force and disapprove so severely of the course taken by the hon. member for Rou-ville in bringing this matter to the notice of the House. If the speech of the member for Rouville is published in the newspapers it will he very different from the publicity of the hon. member for Selkirk, fOT it will be a speech which was actually delivered in this House. My hon. friend used to be perfectly satisfied with speeches which he himself wrote down and sent to the press. He also took the extraordinary course of making and publishing the other fellow's speech as wall.


George Perry Graham: Bilingualism.


Mr. McKENZIE:: My hon. friend says,
bilingualism. It was duplicity of a kind that I cannot fathom. We were told by hon. gentlemen opposite, particularly by that preacher of righteousness, the Minister of Finance, that it was scandalous, shameful, preposterous, cowardly; it was had in all the .adjectives that Webster, Worcester, or Walker could produce, that this matter should he brought to the attention of the House. This is a new gospel. We are .told that we scandalize people if we. point out their sins; if we indicate the way that they should follow; if we suggest that no .matter
how excellent they may be, they may get into difficulties. If we do these things, we are an anathema in the view of hon. gentlemen supporting the Government. The preacher who stands in the pulpit and advises the ungodly man to forsake hi-s -ways and to return unto the Lord, is, according to hon. gentlemen opposite, insulting and scandalizing his people. He is accusing them of being traitors .and cowards if ha points out to them the way in which they ought to go and urges them to avoid every appearance of evil. According to the doctrine of hon. gentlemen opposite, preachers must now toe informed that they should no longer .advise their people to .seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness and that then all other things shall be added unto them. If they preach any such gospel, our friends on the other side, led by the Minister of Finance, will say that they are cowards and that they are insulting the intelligence of the people. The truth will always bear the light, and we should always bring forward such things as are conducive to enlightenment and to the best interests of the people. In the mother country there was not one iota of restraint upon the members of Parliament; they always pointed out what they thought was wrong and directed the Government into the path of duty. Neither Parliament nor press hesitated to discuss these things. I submit, therefore, that it was altogether unnecessary for hon. gentlemen opposite to fly into a passion because, forsooth, the member for Rouville took notice of this newspaper article and brought it to the attention of hon. gentlemen opposite who have responsibilities in that connection. Hon. gentlemen cannot escape responsibility for the wet canteen, if it is a bad thing. It is of no use to say that the 3,000 miles of the Atlantic deprive us of jurisdiction over those whom we send across the water. We have jurisdiction over there in the person of a minister of the Crown representing this Government, who has full sway over military men while they are in our own camps. If it is a good thing that we should have a dry canteen in Canada-and I am in favour of it-why should we not have a dry canteen on the other side? The Government and the Militia Department who have full control and management of the camps while our units are there cannot take shelter under the fact that some colonel over there took the responsibility of breaking away from the rules and of making a new


Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I regret exceedingly that the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) has introduced here to-day a discussion that can serve no useful purpose, and I feel satisfied, when the news goes abroad throughout Canada to-morrow, as it undoubtedly will, that notwithstanding the time of stress in which we are living, when minutes mean so much, the House of Commons of the Dominion of Canada has devoted a whole day to the discussion of a subject on the strength of an article of doubtful quality that appears in a newspaper, many of the friends of the youths who are to-day fighting the battles of the Empire will suffer untold anxieties and alarm with regard to those who are near and dear to them. We have listened to the speech of the hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie), who has not advanced any arguments to sustain the newspaper article which has been read here this afternoon, but who has endeavoured to justify the attitude of hon. gentlemen on the opposite side of the House who' have spoken on this question. We heard from the lips of the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) the statement that the whole question was whether there should be a dry canteen or a wet canteen, and that we were justified in discussing that question. Yet, the leader of the Opposition, the hon. gentleman who has moved the motion and those who have supported him, have taken no stand in regard to what the hon. member for West Lamb-ton has said, that the question before the House is whether there should be a dry canteen or a wet canteen; they do not commit themselves either one way or the other upon that question. I must, therefore, ask myself what object they have in view in introducing this question into this House at this particular time? We are living in one of the most critical, most strenuous ages that have ever confronted the people of this world, when the people of the British Empire are bending every sinew, exerting every energy to win in the greatest conflict that has ever engaged the attention of man. We have sent overseas many thousands of the flower of the manhood of Canada-we have not sent them;

they have gone voluntarily. Hon. members will remember that a large proportion of the First Contingent consisted of men who were borti and who grew up in the old land, men who had been in this country for only a few years. Yet hon. gentlemen in this House insult the Government of the British Empire, the Government that are endeavouring, aye, that have made good progress, towards winning this war for civilization, for liberty and for mankind. They are the people that you are condemning by your action to-day.
It is not the Government of Canada but the Government of the British Empire that you are condemning, and as I said before this discussion cannot possibly serve any useful purpose; indeed, I believe it will do a great injury to the cause that we all ought to have so much at heart. Some of us know intimately many of the young men who went over with the first contingent, and day after day we have followed their fortunes with the utmost interest, and when we have it from the lips of these men themselves that there is not the danger that has been suggested here today, I would ask the members of this House what can be the object of a man of the prominence of the hon. member from Rouville, a man who occupied a prominent position in the late government, in introducing a question in this House about the authenticity of which he himself is not satisfied, his information being derived from a mere newspaper article. The hon. member from North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) holds the paper up and says it was no douibt the glaring headlines that induced the hon. member to bring this matter before the House. The hon. member for Rouville is not a youth in polities; he understands the meaning of words, and I again say what I have said before, that I believe many of the statements that have been made and published by the leaders of the Liberal party and by the Liberal press have done much to retard recruiting in Canada. I believe that when the discussion that has taken place here to-day is spread broadcast throughout the country, recruiting in Canada will be injured once more. In view of the statements that have been made by hon. gentlemen opposite and by one hon. member on this side of the House, the hon. member from Peterborough (Mr. Burnham), I think we should be doing a good 'act if we agreed to expunge from the records of this House the whole discussion on this miserable question that has taken place this afternoon. We are

living in a strenuous age, an age calling on each of us to do his utmost; and yet, can any man who has listened to this discussion conceal from himself the fact that some members of this House have endeavoured to make political capital out of this miserable question? I am not here to make any apology for the men at the front. They need no apology from anyone in this House; they need no advice from any member of this House. They are able to take care of themselves, and able to advise us. When you think of what they have accomplished, can you have any doubt in your mind as to their being physically fit and able to cope with the pick of the enemy troops? When you think of the battles of Ypres, and of the capture of Vimy Ridge only a few days ago, everyone must realize that there cannot be the danger that has been implied here this afternoon.
Hon. gentlemen opposite have criticised hon. gentlemen on this side of the House who have raised battalions in this country and have taken them overseas. They have sneered at these patriotic men, who had the interests of their country at heart, and who would have liked to go to the front. These are the men who know what conditions are in England. I am not here to deprecate the value of the great work that has been done by the British Government. Our Allies are looking to the British Empire for every possible assistance. The British Government has been the backbone of the Allies, the brawn and sinew throughout the Whole conflict, and do you mean to tell me that we, sitting here thousands of miles from the scene of conflict, are in a position to criticise the British Government for lack of attention to their duties in respect of the fitness of the men they are sending to the front? Are these men crazy, are they fools, to allow men to be sent overseas unfit, when they are trying to raise men by every possible means? I can trust the British Government in this matter, a Government that has raised an army of nearly six million fighting men, and I am not going to sit in my seat and listen to hon. gentlemen opposite censuring the very best men the Empire can produce, men who are devoting every ounce of energy they possess towards winning the war. Nor would I be justified in sitting in my place and listening to hon. gentlemen opposite treating these subjects in a jocular way, and advancing arguments that are not pertinent to the question without raising a protest. Hon. gentlemen opposite know that this Gov-

eminent has absolutely nothing to do with these matters, and in view of the discussion here this afternoon I believe the people of Canada can come to no other conclusion than that the burdens of state rest very lightly upon some hon. members of this House when a whole day can be devoted to an aimless dischssion that can serve no useful purpose, and which I am sure the hon. member from Rouville now regrets that he ever introduced into this House. As I said before, I think we should expunge from the records the statements made not only by the hon. member for Rouville, but by the hon. member from Peterborough. They have made statements that are not justifiable, have slandered the men who are fighting our battles for us, men who realize their responsibilities better than hon. members sitting comfortably in this House. Some of those men have been in the thick of the fray for nearly three years, and thousands and, I am afraid, tens of thousands of them will never return to Canada The blood of those men that have fallen on the fields of France and Flanders is crying out to us to see that this fight is carried to a successful conclusion; and do you mean to tell me that a discussion of this nature is going to assist one iota in winning the war? It is much to our discredit that this question has been brought before the House and our time wasted, when there are so many other questions of importance demanding our attention.


Hon. T. W. CROTHERS (Minister of Labour):: I desire to say a few words before this question is withdrawn, chiefly to endorse the opinion expressed by my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark), that it was extremely unwise to bring this matter before the House. This discussion, which was introduced by the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux), and has taken up the whole day, is based upon evidence so weak that not one of us would throw at it a dead cat with reputable antecedents. What is the basis of it? A letter said to have been written by somebody called Goforth. I understood the hon. member for Rouville to say he did not know anything about this Mr. Goforth, and I have not heard a single gentleman who has spoken in this debate say that he knew anything about him. Even the Financial Post, which publishes his letter does not pretend to say that it knows anything about Mr. Goforth. So, we have had a discussioin here spreading over the whole day based upon the evidence of somebody we know nothing
about. It is said by hon. gentlemen opposite that this is a question between the dry and the wet canteen.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Hear, hear! That is
the whole question.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I submit that this is not the whole question; it is not the question at all as set forth in the letter upon which this discussion is based. Mr. Goforth does not seem to have signed his letter or to have dated it, noT is there any statement as to where it was written or when except that	one	hon, gentleman said it was written three years ago, but nobody has attempted to either substantiate or disprove that. The letter itself, however, does not pretend to be a declaration in favour of the dry canteen against the wet canteen. If hon. gentlemen opposite ever find time to read ithe whole letter-it spreads over five columns- they will find that it is devoted to two things particularly:	First, a general lecture in
favour of the prohibition of the manufacture, importation and sale of intoxicating liquors in Great Britain, France and Canada; and, second, promiscuous charges, with m>
names given, against the officers, non-commissioned officers and men of our overseas forces. lit seems to me that this is a very unfair statement to send out to the country. It is defamatory of every one of the hundreds of thousands belonging to our expeditionary forces. Why? Because it defames them generally, and, as nobody's name is given it is applicable to the whole force. This man Goforth, whoever he is-and nobody seems to know anything about him-


John Dowsley Reid: Except the hon. member for Rouville.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I understand that hon. gentleman to say that even he does not know anything about him.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Crothers) know the standing of the Financial Post?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I heard of it.
. Mr. LEMIEUX:	Does the hon. gentleman think the Financial Post defames our soldiers?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I say that the Post
itself does not pretend to set forth facte as a basis for its criticism-not a fact. And this man Goforth, instead of advocating the dry canteen, rather argues in favour of the wet canteen, as will be seen by those

who read his letter. His contention is that intoxicating liquor will find its way to the military camps until the manufacture, importation and sale of it is prohibited. Speaking of Valcartier Camp, he said:
Every one who ;is in a position to know knew that as long as there was liquor for sale in the City of Quebec, in the Province of Quebec, or the Dominion of Canada, too much of that liquor would find its way into Valcartier Camp. Nearly every night there was drinking in the tents around us-
This was in Valcartier with its dry canteen.
-and the following extracts from my diary speak for themselves.


George Perry Graham: That could not have bee* written three years ago.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: This diary is dated 13th September, 1914, and that is nearly three years ago.


George Perry Graham: But the letter must have been written after that.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: But the subject here
is Valcartier Camp in 1914. Here are some of the extracts from the diary:
Friday, September 13. Our tent pulled down by men returning drunk from Quebec. Lantern smashed; liberal dose of kerosene in the bread bag. R. B. staggering drunk, turned' somersault on the tent when it was down.
This in a dry canteen.
Tuesday, September 22. Tent ahead of us pulled down at midnight in the rain. Drunken brawl. In morning I counted outside the tent, seven empty gin bottles, four brandy flasks, one whiskey bottle and one Jamaica, rum.
All in a dry canteen. The hon. member for Rouville said that the whole question is whether there shall be a wet or a dry canteen, but here is this man's own description of a dry canteen.


Mr. TURRIFF:: What would a wet one
be?
. Mr. CROTHERS: One at a time, please. This writer goes on to show that, notwithstanding the dry canteen, if you allow the manufacture, importation and sale of .liquor anywhere in the Dominion, it will not make much difference, for the men will get it if they want it. In the third column of the letter theTe is something also bearing out what I said as to his argument being in favour of total prohibition and not in favour of a dry canteen, his argument being that if liquor is manufactured nothing will prevent the soldier getting it if he wants it. He says:

Liquor in the army is bound up with the
question of liquor in the nation. "We cannot give up one and keep the other. As long as the manufacture and sale of liquor as a beverage remains unprohibited in Canada, Great Britain or France, so long will our armies be hampered in their struggle.
As in the army so in the nation, all attempts at "control" short of total prohibition are exasperating failures.
Dry canteens and all the rest of them.
The damage to war work caused by drunken civilians-
He does not confine his criticisms to drunken soldiers.
-will never be estimated, and who will say that all the guilt must be borne by the drunkard, not by the brewer and the distiller. The problem of compensation will be ready for discussion when the brewers and distillers come forward with a reasonable proposal of compensation by them for the criminal waste-
Then he goes on to discuss the problem of compensation. The argument of this writer, whoever he is, is not directed especially against the wet canteen, but is directed especially against the manufacture of liquor; and he says in substance and gives as evidence the conditions at Valcartier, that if it is manufactured and sold outside you will have the army drinking whiskey.
Life will not be safe, women and children will not be safe as long as we give the liquor traffic a free hand to turn madmen loose on society.
I might' read a whole column, it is a temperance lecture of the old kind in favour of the prohibition of the manufacture, importation and sale of intoxicating liquors.
The way this matter has been brought before the House, intentionally or otherwise, reflects upon the character of every officer, non-commissioned officer and man who has gone across the ocean to fight for the liberties of this country and is defamatory of every single one of them because the charges are made in a general way and applicable to every one; insulting to our soldiers, insulting to the men who are risking their lives for us, and many have sacri-fieed their lives and others wiHl do so while still others will come back crippled for life. And yet the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux), on the strength of a letter like that, written by a man about whom he knows nothing, for the Financial Post does not pretend to know anything about him.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Are you sure of that?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: It does not say so.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Have you read the editorial comment?	.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Yes, I read the whole thing; I did not stop at part of it as my hon. friend did. As I say, we have no evidence whatever as to who this man is, where he is from or what reliance is to be placed on his statements. I understood it to be said to-day that the hon. member, for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) desired to get some information touching this matter and went to the Minister of Militia quietly to ask him as to conditions across the sea. That, I submit, was a proper course to take.
I understood that the hon. member for Rou-ville (Mr. Lemieux) was requested to allow this motion to stand until the questions-asked the Minister of Militia by my hon. friend from Pictou should be answered. If these questions were answered and answered satisfactorily there would have been no necessity to bring this matter up here or anywhere else. It does not appear why the hon. member for Rouville did not wait instead of exposing every member of our expeditionary force to the insults that have been hurled against every one of them here this afternoon. These are men who are sacrificing their lives for this country. It is not fair treatment of our boys at the front. In addition to what I have already said we have, had the evidence here this afternoon of three or four hon. members of this House who have been on the ground and who know what the conditions are with respect to these particular charges. Not only that, out we have men commanding our men in France; we have men training our men in England, men who are on the ground. Does any one suppose that General Byng has no regard for the character or welfare of our young men over there? He is on the ground. He knows the conditions. I have confidence in General Byng and the Ganadian officers with him. Does any one believe for a moment that if conditions existed such as this man Goforth, wherever he comes from, said existed they would be permitted by these officers to continue? Does anyone for one moment believe that the gentlemen who represent the Government of Canada in England have no regard for the welfare of our young men over there? They have just as much regard for their welfare as any hon. gentleman on the other side of the
9 p.m. House or on this side of the House. I have confidence in those men who are on the ground. I think 53
we can safely leave the matter to them, although there is no objection to inquiring into it quietly. I submit that the hon. member for Rouville would have discharged his duties as an hon. member of this House better in the interests of this country and in fair play to the soldiers of this country if he had gone privately to the Minister of Militia and said: Here is a fellow called Goforth, I do not know where he comes from, who says something here in the shape of a letter which is not signed by him, which has no date, which I find in the Financial Post. There are some grave charges made in this letter. Can you tell me whether these conditions exist in England or not? If you cannot, will you be kind enough to ascertain by cable from somebody in England in whom you have confidence, who can tell you? Then he could wait a day or two until there was an opportunity to receive an answer, and if the answer was satisfactory he would have spared the relatives of these boys who are at the front from feeling that their sons and husbands and brothers have 'been insulted and defamed by several members of the Opposition in this House.
Mr. F. B. MeCURDY (Parliamentary Secretary of the Department of Militia and Defence): Mr. Speaker, I think I am within the judgment of the House when I say that there were two definite statements made by the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux). I was not able to apprehend which of those two statements was put forward by the hon. member himself and which was given currency by him, although originating in the letter of Mr. Goforth, portions of which he read to the House. But the two definite statements which I noticed were, first, that there existed at the present time a wet canteen in Canada, and, second, that a change with regard to the operation of the canteens overseas had been made since the present Minister of Militia assumed the duties of that office. Statements have been made during this debate which have abundantly proven the falsity of both these statements, so I shall not dwell further on those points.
The letter read by the hon. member for Rouville shows distinctly that in Canada, where there is a dry canteen, conditions were totally unsatisfactory. If Mr. Goforth s letter meant anything at all it meant that in Canada, under the operation of the dry canteen, conditions existed which were unsatisfactory. My hon. friend from North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) referred to "


Rodolphe Lemieux: Not I.


George Perry Graham: He edited a letter which he was reading, and if anything could be deduced from his editorial additions, it was that he did not believe in a dry canteen; that men would get liquor any way so long as it was manufactured. No, times have changed in Canada since this war began. The old argument that prohibition did not prohibit has been used all over the country, but the fact remains that nearly all Canada believes that prohibition does greatly
restrict the sale and consumDtion of liquor. I believe that at least 90 per cent of the members of this House hold the same opinion. If that be true, is it wrong for men in this House whose sons are under the colours to say something about this matter? One would think, to hear the Minister of Labour talk, that we were in Russia before the revolution. Does he not know that every government of the Allies except the Canadian; Government has either turned itself inside out or been turned inside out by some other power since the war began, on account of criticism offered by serious men who had the interests of their country at heart just as much as those to whom their criticism was directed? The soldiers at the front are intelligent and are not to be fooled by such talk as the Minister of Labour indulged in to-day. They are sons of men in this House; they are sons of Canadian families, and any discussion regarding them should be entered into from an intelligent standpoint, not by a silly appeal to those who are fighting for us while we are at home. They understand just what a man means, no matter what he says, whether in this House or elsewhere. To bolster up the idea that the men would get whisky whether there was a dry canteen or not, the Minister of Labour related some very peculiar conditions that existed at Valeartier.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: My hon. friend is misrepresenting me entirely; I did not argue for a wet canteen or a dry canteen or prohibition. I was simply setting forth what Goforth argued, and Goforth is at the bottom' of this discussion.


Mr GRAHAM:: As I remarked when the minister was out, he edited the letter as he went through it. I explained that one could make no other deduction from his editorial comment than that he believed that the soldiers would get whisky whether there was a dry canteen or a wet canteen.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: That is what Goforth said.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend edited Goforth.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Oh, no.


Rodolphe Lemieux: You commented on it.


George Perry Graham: All the way through. We will not argue that; Hansard will tell. Canada has moved forward during the last two or three years; where there formerly were public houses all around the camps, there



*COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
are now practically none. We have removed the temptation from the men in the Canadian camps. The ex-Minister of Militia established the principle of dry canteen

and where is he now? He is not in this Government, and I should judge from the remarks of the Minister of Labour that the Government had changed its mind on this dry canteen question. For my part, whether the Canadian Government or any other Government has control, I am absolutely in favour of the principle that there should be no wet canteen in the camps where our boys are located.
Rodolphe Lemieux: That is the whole question.	-


George Perry Graham: I want to differentiate; no one can accuse me of being an extremist. I have no sympathy with the idea entertained by some good-thinking people that we should not give our boys at the front cigarettes and that kind of thing. I am in favour of letting the men have anything that will comfort them without injuring them. But it cannot be for the benefit of our men in the training camps-I am applying my remarks solely to the training camps-that they should have wet canteens. The member for Shelburne and Queens (Mr. McCurdy) pointed out a condition in England that did not exist here. It did exist here, until a few months ago, at Camp Niagara, Borden Camp, Toronto, London, Brockville, Ottawa-the very conditions that he outlined as now existing in England. Nothwithstanding that, the *Government of which he is a near member, established the principle of a dry canteen. If that principle 'be right so far as the training camps in Canada are concerned -and the Government is committed to the principle-surely lit would not be wrong to ask that the same principle be adopted and carried out when our boys go overseas.
As to the men in the firing line, some hon. gentlemen opposite have endeavoured to draw a red herring across the trail. No one is discussing what is done in the trenches. If the experienced officers in charge of the men on the firing line believe that under trying circumstances-the seriousness of which not a man in this House save one, perhaps, thoroughly understands-a certain ration each day or at certain periods should be given to the men, I am not going to say that they are wrong. What I wish to emphasize as my position, however, without desiring to embarrass any one, is this: the Government of Canada, having established the principle of dry 
canteens in this country, ought not tp depart from that principle when our boys go overseas, so long as they are in the training camps. It is idle to say to those of us who live in provinces which have adopted prohibitive legislation that as much liquor is consumed under a dry canteen system as is consumed with the * wet canteen. The greater the number of obstacles thrown in the way of getting liquor, the smaller the consumption will be. I care not whether it is by the authority of the British Government or by the authority of any other Government, this Government is responsible for the welfare of our boys wherever they have control. And in saying this I mean not only the Government, but Parliament. Having made myself clear, let me suggest one other thing.
Tp this Parliament has been entrusted, for five years by the people and for one year by ourselves, the duty of looking after the affairs of Canada whether she be in peace or in war. We cannot escape that responsibility, and we ought to accept the responsibility of discussing these things with each other in a fair way, because it makes no difference whether a man sits on that side or on this side of the House, we are all equally interested, in more ways than one, and we should not fly at each other's heads the minute there is a difference of opinion about these things. I will not quietly allow any member on either side of the House to question my right to discuss the conditions of our Canadian troops either here or in the Motherland. With all due deference to the stirring appeal of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Crothers), I believe our boys at the front look to this Parliament as their guardian (not to any one set of men in it), and any man who hesitates to assume that responsibility, no matter what the criticism, is not performing his full duty. I do not look upon the position of the House of Commons, no matter upon which side we sit, as one that demands silence on these things. If we were all to sit silent, we would soon ascertain that our boys at the front condemned us, believing we were not doing our full duty to them, and no matter what the criticism may be, I believe every member in this House ought to take the situation seriously, and we ought to feel a freedom, particularly in this time of stress through which we are passing, perhaps greater than we ever did before, in pointing out where we can where things may be remedied and efficiency become more efficient. What is Parliament for? Is it for the Government to come in and say: You

must do this and you must do that, and everybody quietly acquiesce? In that case, we might as well all stay at home. Why have a Parliament at all? This is the forum of the people, and if there be any portion of the people of Canada that need protection, need care, need looking after, that portion of the people is to be found in the training camps of the Old Country or fighting for us in France. Surely we are looking at this thing from the wrong angle; we ought to be united as one man in seeing that the very best that can be done for our soldiers at the front is done, and no matter what the views of a man, honestly expressed, may be, the Parliament of Canada is the place in which to express those views.
In conclusion, I want to say again that I am in favour of pursuing this course so long as Canada has control in regard to the canteens, no matter where our boys may be. When they leave the training camps to go into the firing line, I do not intend to set up my opinions against that of those of long experience, but I do say this, that because a man lives in London or elsewhere, he is not a bit better qualified to judge of whether there should be a dry canteen or a wet canteen for the Canadians than we are in this Parliament, and we have said once for all that we are in favour of dry canteens. I am in favour of dry canteens for our boys, no matter whether they be in Canada or in the training camps in the Old Country.


Hon. Mr. ALBERT SE  VIGNY@Translation: I followed with close attention the speeches delivered in the course of the. debate on this resolution. I have come to the conclusion that far too much significance has been given Mr. Goforth's criticism as expressed in his letter published in the Financial Post. I came across many officers and soldiers who had returned from the front and they were unanimous in the statement that discipline in the camps left nothing to be desired and that they had no trouble whatever from intemperance. The officers stated that in England and France, beer could be had at the canteen after' drill hours, and there is not a man in this House who could find fault with the military authorities for allowing our soldiers to partake of such light refreshments after hours of hard training, just as the French soldier is allowed his glass of wine.
I have just said that we are making too much of Mr. Goforth's letter; the same is true of many other documents that find their way in the public press of this country. This
very afternoon we have had another instance. At the opening of the House, our attention was drawn to a newspaper item alleging that soldiers who cross the province of Quebec are subjected to insults as they march through Montreal, Quebec or Riviere-du-Loup. Whoever is in touch with the prevailing sentiment in the province of Quebec cannot but realize how much it is below the dignity of the House of Commons of Canada to take notice of such abuse, which is launched through the medium of the press by irresponsible parties and is a mere concoction of slanderous untruths. I am quite aware, Mr. Speaker, that if any gentleman this afternoon had moved the adjournment of the House in ordeT to call attention to a statement appearing in a newspaper edited in the province of Ontario suggesting that soldiers had been insulted in the province of Quebec, all my colleagues from our province, standing up in their indignation, would have replied before the House and before the country:	" It is injudicious for us to
take so much stock in a letter published in Ontario or elsewhere on happenings in the province of Quebec." I take this opportunity of .asserting that the criticisms appearing in certain newspapers concerning events alleged to have happened in the province of Quebec are absolutely groundless. Canadian soldiers leaving for the front, from whatever part of the country they hail, are cheered and congratulated as they march through our cities along our country roads. Soane are prone to criticise because in the City of Quebec for instance, the people are not continually displaying their feelings in outward manifestations. If to-day we are less demonstrative, the reason comes not from our lack of interest in the war, but from a peculiarity of human nature. Mr. Speaker, the City of Quebec, einee the month of August 1914, has seen thousands and thousands of soldiers marching past; thirty thousand filed through its gates on their way to Valcartier and later other regiments, going to other camps. So, if the people of the City of Quebec are not on every occasion turning out to give public ovations to our boys parading through the street, does it mean that they are insensible to the sacrifices made by our soldiers? No indeed, Mr. Speaker; heretofore the province of Quebec has been all soul in the war like the rest of the country, and no matter to what extent French Canadians may be belittled in other provinces, they understand their duty and will perform it to the end, and never will they be wanting in admiration not only for our boys from

the province of Quebec, but for every Canadian soldier from any part of the Dominion.
Should we have been justified, Mr. Speaker, to take six hours of the time of this House to discuss the accusations contained in the letter read to us early in the day? Certainly not. And I say we are not justified in spending six hours over what Mr. Goforth may have thought fit to say in his letter. I heard the minister of Labor (Mr. Crothers) giving Mr. Goforth's account of what took place at Valcartier. I was in the City of Quebec in 1914 and every day that our boys were in camp, I made it my duty to go to Valcartier, where I had friends to whom I could be of assistance. In three weeks' time thirty-three thousand men were gathered at that one point. Can it be thought possible that such a large body of men as yet unaccustomed to military discipline, may be collected from every corner of the country without some slight disorders taking place before embarking for the front? Why should those slight disagreements be magnified? Why not, instead, point to the splendid discipline of the troops at Valcartier in 1914, so much admired by all visitors to the camp? The same order prevailed last year. Why be shocked if in a very few cases insignificant breaches of discipline were noticed? Mr. Speaker, there are men right here in Ottawa, a prohibition city, as well as in Montreal and elsewhere, who are not enlisting and nevertheless have their little fling. Should we exhibit unflinching severity on account of 'an occasional infringement of the law by some soldier? I know the members of this House are too broad-minded for such petty criticism.
Hon. gentlemen who have been to the front and have spoken on this question, called attention to the admirable behaviour of all our boys. We all agree that they are well disciplined and made heroes of themselves on the battlefield. I ask whether we who stay behind, and who for the most part lack military training, have the right to say to the military authorities, to say to such a distinguished officer as general Turner, for instance,-a Liberal, by the way

who has charge of the Canadian forces in England, that he does not know what he is about and should in future forbid his men to take a glass of beer. . . Should we dictate to the highest military experts commanding our boys in England and on the Continent? I claim not. As for me, Mr. Speaker, so long as our soldiers, whatever be their nationality, fight >as they fought at Ypres, Langemark, Festubert, Givenchy, and especially Vimy, the military heads who train 
men for such struggles will have my most entire confidence.


Mr. W. F. NICKLE (Kingston):: have these statements made on their behalf and that we should take pains to make it plain to the country that the statements made this afternoon were not founded on a careful review of the facts.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I certainly had no intention to delay the business of the House when I brought this question before my fellow-members. I do not regret the course I took, notwithstanding the aspersions and suggestions from the other side, and even from this side. After twenty-one years as a member of this House I know something of my public duty, and, as to loyalty, in that I yield to no one. I did not bring this question forward as suggesting an attack upon the Government, or upon the Minister of Militia and Defence. I made a very mild statement, inspired by a newspaper published in Toronto by a man who is well known to the members of this House and to the community in general, a personal friend of several of the ministers. That newspaper published the letter of Captain Goforth and commented strongly in favour of his attitude. It was my duty as a public man, it was my duty as a friend of the Canadian army in the field, to bring this matter before the House, and I have done it without questioning the bravery, the patriotism, or the fighting qualities of our soldiers. I listened to the speeches that have been delivered in this debate, including that of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Crothers). I can understand a speech of that nature delivered in a back concession by a fifth-grade politician, but when such a speech is delivered in this House by a minister of the Crown it causes me no little surprise. The hon. minister suggested that I should not have spoken at all on this question. Let me tell him that if I had slandered and defamed soldiers I should be in good company, as I will show. But I have not slandered, I have not defamed, I have not libelled our soldiers. Were I to slander and libel them I should slander and libel my own kith and kin. Let me remind my hon. friend, in case he may repeat that address before his electors, that if he ever refers to my statement this afternoon he may tell them that in my family there is one veteran of South Africa, there is one nephew at the front, one nephew killed at Ypres, and my own son is in the army. Therefore, it is as a Canadian, as a loyal subject of His Majesty the King and as the father of a boy Who will soon be at the front that I have spoken this afternoon. I dare say that of these hon. gentlemen 
who have delivered these loyal utterances this afternoon not one of them stated whether he was in favour of a dry or a wet canteen, and not one of them weulu take issue with me if he were standing before his electors. More than that, let me say that I am ready to join issue with any of the hon. gentlemen who have lectured me on loyalty and patriotism not only before this House but in any of their constituencies. I am ready to take the same attitude in front of their own electors-aye, before the Canadian soldiers themselves. I challenge any one to deny me the privilege as a Canadian to speak the language I have spoken this afternoon. The hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Crothers) should know that I brought this matter before the House oecau=e I thought it was in the public interest, but he has approached the question in the way which we might expect from a gentleman of his size. Listening to him, when he was suggesting that I had defamed, slandered and libelled the Canadian soldiers, instincts ively I thought of Johnson's definition of a certain loyalty and a certain patriotism.
This is not a political issue in the narrow sense. I claim that this is a national issue. It affects the welfare of our soldiers and of their families. The duty of a public man who happened to possess the information which I imparted to the House this afternoon was to focus the attention of the public on these facts in order to know whether the alleged evil exists or not. What did I say to arouse the anger of my 'hon. friends? I beg each of my hon. friends to read my remarks in tomorrow's Hansard. They will find that first I made the statement that the ex-Minister of Militia had wisely established a dry canteen for the Canadian soldiers. Does anybody take exception to that ? I stated that having establisned a dry canteen, some one whom I do not know had taken it upon himself to substitute wet canteens. In that statement, happily for me, I was corroborated toy the hon. exMinister of Militia himself (Sir Sam Hughes), who stated that he craved the honour of having established the dry canteen, tout that his ex-colleague the Minister of Militia overseas, in order to insult him, had restored the wet canteen in the camps in England. I did not make the statement; the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton made it this afternoon. What did I say further, Mr. Speaker? I said that disorder was alleged to have taken place as a result of the establishment of wet canteens in the camps, and I brought

specific cases to the attention of hon. gentlemen. The Minister of Labour suggested, a few moments ago, that this letter had never been written, that it was not signed, that, indeed, it may have been a forgery. A forgery? The letter is not signed, but on the first line of the first page what do you read, Mr. Speaker?
What the army loses through drink.
By Capt. Paul Goforth.
And my hon. friend thinks it is an argument to state that the letter is not signed after the last line. Mr. Speaker, I stated the specific cases given in that letter by Capt. Goforth, who gives the dates, the circumstances, and the names of the camps. Are the facts true or not? Did I state that they were true? I stated that evils were alleged to exist, that they ought to be investigated, and that if, on investigation, they aTe found to be true, the plain duty of the Minister of Militia is to humbly request the Imperial authorities or the War Office to restore the dry canteen in the camps where our Canadian soldiers are assembled. That is the gist of the remarks I made this afternoon. Why all this anger, why these lessons in loyalty and patriotism? Is the Canadian Parliament afraid to face the issue? Is an issue or a grievance to be settled by discarding it? Either the facts are true or not. If they are not true, so much the worse for Captain Goforth. He is still at the front, and if he has libelled, slandered and defamed his fellow officers and soldiers under him, well, Mr. Speaker, I leave him to the care of his soldiers and his fellow officers. But if they are true, what of it? If the statements contained in Captain Goforth's letters are true, I ask my hon. friend the Minister of Labour will he stand by the wet canteen or will he not stand by the dry canteen?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: My hon. friend suggests an investigation. It occurs to me that it was his duty to do some investigating before he brought these serious charges before the House and the country. I think it was for him to get some evidence that they were true or untrue.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend ought to read the Lemieux Act enforced by his own department. He will find it on the Statute Book. There is such a thing as compulsory investigation, but I dare say that in the present instance, when statements are made in a respectable and responsible paper like the Financial Post by a friend of the Government, and when the charges of Captain
Goforth are endorsed in a strong editorial, it is the duty of the Government to investigate such charges and find out
10 p.m. if they are true. Every fatheT, every mother, every clergyman, yes, and every respectable citizen in the country will expect that much from the Government.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: Who is the owner of this paper?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I think he is a namesake of yours. It is Mr. Maclean of Toronto, if I mistake not. Perhaps the Minister of Finance could tell us that.


William Thomas White: I am not sure; I do not know.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Who is the proprietor of that paper?


William Thomas White: I am not certain as to that, but I think Colonel Maclean.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Colonel Maclean, a soldier, holding rank in the Canadian militia, would publish in his paper statements of the nature of a forgery, would defame and slander and libel the four hundred thousand Canadians who are serving abroad? What does my hon. frined think of that?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: My hon. friend has stated several times that he does not know whether these are facts or not. He admits now he does not know Mr. Goforth or the editor of the paper.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The House will surely not expect that I shall answer the interjection of my hon. friend. I say that according to Captain Goforth, who is still in the army, who therefore comes under discipline, disorders of a very serious nature have taken place and those disorders are enumerated by the Financial Post published by Colonel Maclean of Toronto, a supporter of the Government, a friend of the Minister of Finance. Mr. Speaker, if the alleged facts which I have mentioned are untrue, we have a board of censors in Canada. Why not suspend the publication of the Financial Post? If the statements by Captain Goforth, which I have quoted, are not facts, why not cashier him at once? But no, the Minister of Labour would like the member for Rouville to investigate the facts beforehand.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: As the minister investigated the cost of living.



Rodolphe Lemieux: The member for Huron (Mr. Lewis) spoke of his experience and stated that drunkenness in the army in England was an unpardonable sin, and that anyone guilty of drunkenness was court martialled. Exactly; and I find that Captain Goforth speaks of such a case. He says:
Soon after our arrival at Shorncliffe there was a special meeting' of the officers' mess to decide whether we would go on with a "wet" mess or follow the example of Lord Kitchener and the King-
A disloyal Kitchener and a disloyal King I suppose.
Broadminded arguments about "liberty" and "moderation'' won the day. Yet, within a month from that time, X had the unwelcome task-	.
Mr. Speaker, mark my words.
Yet, within a month from that time, I had the unwelcome task of prosecuting two of my brother officers for drunkenness before a General Court Martial, and our Regimental Sergeant-Major for Ithe same offence before a District Court Martial. The Sergeant-Major was found guilty of drunkenness at Hythe on the line of march and was dismissed from the service. He appealed to the Privy Council, but the judgment of the court was sustained. There was a man who knew his work to perfection, who had served in the South African war, and who wore on his breast the ribbon of the long service and good conduct medal; and yet he was broken completely, and broken through nothing but drink. Why should' a capable warrant officer be dismissed from the service? Why should an efficient officer be cashiered? Is it not high time that we determined to dismiss the liquor traffic from the service? Is it not the liquor traffic that should be cashiered?
That is the language of an officer in His Majesty's army, a Canadian, and yet, because I report to the House that serious state of things, I am told that I should have kept silent, that I should not have even mooted the subject before the House this afternoon. I repeat that I have done only my duty. Now I am told by the member for Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury), who lost his temper, that this Captain Goforth is nothing else but a crank. Well, if Captain Goforth is a crank, it is a very serious aspersion on the Minister of Militia and the military authorities generally who have sent our boys under fire commanded by a crank. That is not a certificate of very great wisdom on the part of the military authorities.
My hon. friend the Minister of Finance also stated that it was a slander to mention such facts, a slander against our soldiers at the front. I do not know if he listened

to my statements this afternoon, but if his accusation of slander is based on hearsay,
I would tell him that the hearsay comes from warped and twisted interpretations of my statements. I simply enumerated the various statements made by Captain Goforth, and the mere stating of these allegations should not bring on my head the thunder which was brought this afternoon. As I stated a moment ago, if I have slandered the soldiers I am in good company, because in England, in the British Parliament, the mother of all Parliaments, the Prime Minister was not afraid to tackle the problem of liquor in the army. I have his very words here, delivered a few months ago. He said:
We are fighting Germany, Austria, and drink, and so far as I can see the greatest of these deadly foes Is drink.
Is Lloyd -George a libeller? Is he a slanderer? Is he disloyal? Surely not, since he is at the head of the present Government. If he were disloyal he would be in excellent company with Rt. Hon. Walter Long, Lord Milner, Rt. Hon. Bonar Law and all the other leaders of the Tory party in England. . Mr. Speaker, no, it is the duty of a member who has the interest of his fellow citizens at heart, to bring to light facts such as I have revealed to-day. I resent more especially the remarks which were made by my friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark). I regret that he is not in his seat at the present moment. He thinks that because the Empire is at war, and because Canada is at war, we should maintain silence and not divulge abuses and weaknesses such as are set forth in the statement made by Captain Goforth. Of course, if there was no war there would be no soldiers and no camps, and if there were no camps there would be no wet canteens and therefore " there would be no disorders and we would have nothing to say. But unfortunately there is war and, as I said a moment ago, it is not by ignoring a grievance which exists that you settle it. The hon. member for Red Deer claims to he and is an excellent Liberal. As a Liberal of the English school I believe that, after all, the cure for all evils is publicity. My hon. friend lectured me with regard to the -soldiers fighting in the trenches. Did I speak of the trenches? The only reference I made to the trenches was when I said that the Russian Government, having sent soldiers to France, had exacted from the French military authorities an agreement that in the trenches where the

French soldiers were served wine the Russian soldiers should not receive any liquor at the hands of their Allies. My hon. friend hinted that I had spoken with spme disparagement of the work done in the trenches. He spoke of Verdun and of the heroic battles in which the French soldiers were engaged. I did not need that lecture, for I know what the French soldiers have accomplished just as well as I know what the English and the Canadian soldiers have accomplished at the fr.ont. I do not begrudge the small rum ration which is served to our soldiers in the mud of the trenches. I did not speak of that: I spoke of the life of the soldiers at the camps in England. I said that it was alleged that the wet canteens at these camps had been the cause of innumerable disorders and I pleaded that the Government take action to restore the dry canteen and to make representations to the Imperial authorities to that end. If my hon. friend from Red Deer were in his seat, I would remind him that it i.s the essence of Liberalism to expose evils in order to free society from their effects. Describing the aim of Liberalism, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman said:
We would endeavour to secure to every man the best conditions of living-, and so far as can be done by laws and customs, to secure him also an equal chance with others of a useful and happy life.
Lord Willoughby de Broke has said:
The essence of our policy is to give each individual the elements that will afford him an opportunity of at least living a free and a decorous existence, and the opportunity to raise himself or herself to the highest point of moral and material efficiency.
I say that it is the act of a true Liberal to ask for the suppression of intoxicants in the training camps, because liquor does not make for the moral or material efficiency of the soldier. My hon. friend, I know, has three sons at the front. I have only one who will be at the front very soon, and I would rather have my son live in a camp under respectable conditions than have him exposed to the temptations to which our soldiers are constantly subjected because of intoxicants. Mr. Speaker, I beg to withdraw the motion that I made this afternoon.
Motion of Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux for the adjournment of the House negatived.
On motion of Sir Thomas White, the House adjourned at 10.24 p.m.
Friday, April 27, 1917.