1917-01-26

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Minister of Agriculture for the year ending March 31, 1916-Hon. Mr. Burrell.

Report of the Department of Public Works for the year ending March 31, 1916 -Hon. Mr. Rogers.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. George E. McCraney (Saskatoon) moved for leave to introduce Bill, No. 12, to amend the Dominion Lands Act. He said:
The proposed amendment is to insert a new section, 30A, as follows:
30A-Tha Minister may issue letters patent to any entrant for a pre-emption or to any entrant for a purchased homestead who has complied with the requirements of Section 27 or Section 28 of this Act as the case may be, except as to the payment of moneys due in respect of the said pre-emption or purchased homestead. The said letters patent shall be issued pursuant to regulations to be made by the Governor in Council and the lands patented under this section shall remain charged with the moneys due to the Crown until satisfied according to law.
The purpose in view is to enable the Minister of the Interior to issue patent to pre-emptionp and purchased homesteads, subject to the payment of the moneys due to the Government, in cases where all the other requirements of the Act, including residence and cultivation, have been complied with. It frequently happens that a settler has done all his duties except that of paying the' balance of the purchase price of $3 per acre due to the Government. He wishes to borrow money on his land, and the usual advance by mortgagees in such cases is in the neighbourhood of $1,000, but he is unable to give the mortgage because of the balance owing to the Government, which must be paid before patent can issue. He is forbidden by the Dominion Lands Act to pledge his rights in the pre-emption or purchased homestead, and rarely has other security. In the case of moneys owing to the Government for seed grain, patent issues subject to a lien for the amount. It is proposed to permit a similar practice regarding pre-emptions and purchased homesteads.	.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. MACDONALD:: I desire to call the attention of the Minister of Labour to the following telegram which I have received from the miners of 'Coleman, Alberta:
Coleman, Alta., Jan. 25, 1917,
E. M. Macdonald,
Ottawa, Ont.
The following resolution was unanimously passed at a full meeting of Carbondale Miners' Union:
"That in the opinion of the miners of the Carbondale Miners' Union at a meeting held to-night, we consider that the action of the Government relative to the bonus of nine and one-half per cent., according to the finding of the Commission re high cost of living is unwarrantable and unjust, and calculated to be an incentive for the men to strike.
"That a copy of this resolution be forwarded to Premier Borden and E. M. Macdonald."
We earnestly desire your good offices in this matter.
J. A. McDonald,
George E. Hogan, Secretary.
I may explain that this telegram was sent to me by virtue of the fact that a number of miners from my constituency have been working in the vicinity from which this telegram comes. I ask What action the Government has taken in regard to the bonus of nine and a half per cent which is alleged in this telegram to be objectionable. I ask also for information as to the exact situation of matters at Coleman.


Hon. T. W. CROTHERS (Minister of Labour):: I have had no information directly from Coleman, and cannot say anything beyond what I said the day before yesterday. Negotiations are in progress which, I expect, will result in a satisfactory settlement within the next few days- I do not think it would be in the interest of any one concerned to go into the details of those negotiations.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I think the hon.
minister should tell the House what the action was which was taken by the Government and to which the telegram refers.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Several of the officers of the Union at Fernie and other points in that district-District No. 18-came here in November last and submitted their desire either for a second war bonus of twenty-five per cent or an investigation as to what had been the increase in the cost of living between certain dates, and an undertaking that this increase should be paid in addition to the increase of ten per cent that had been given them on the 15th of August. They were quite satisfied with the gentleman who was appointed to investigate the question of the increased cost of living; in fact, I think they themselves suggested his name. This gentleman carried on the inquiry and reported that the increase in the cost of living within the period named had been nine and one-half

per cent- This is the first time that I have heard any objections to that finding. The only question that has come up since the finding was made is as to how it is to be carried out.



THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of Mr. G. C. Wilson (Wentwprth) for an Address to His Excellency the -Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, resumed from Thursday, January 25.
Mr. ARTHUR B. COPP (Westmorland): I should like to say, Sir, if you are not already overburdened with the congratulations that have been showered upon you by hon. gentlemen who have taken part in this debate, that it gives me the greatest possible personal pleasure to congratulate you upon the position that you have attained -as Speaker of this House. Your constituency and mine lie side by side; we are very near neighbours at home, and we were brought up together. Knowing you personally so well and so favourably, I feel that I cannot allow this occasion to pass without expressing my pleasure upon your attaining your present high office. The only regret I have is that, inasmuch as the Speakership is controlled by the party in power, I cannot hope that you will hold that office for any great length of time. In that you will hold it for a time, however, I offer you my most hearty congratulations.
I regret exceedingly, Sir, that during the course of this debate, comparisons and contrasts have 'been made between the two great peoples of this country with regard to recruiting. I do not say how much foundation there is f,or the attacks which have come from the other side of the House as to the slowness of recruiting in the province of Quebec or the reasons therefor, but as a Canadian citizen and as a member of this House I regret that any such acrimonious remarks should be made or that contrasts should be suggested or comparisons instituted between the two great races that go to make up the greatest colony of the Empire. I say that I regret this, and cannot understand why it should be sp. The constituency which I represent in the province of New Brunswick, the county of Westmorland, is composed of people of the two great races, and I want to say that my French Acadian friends in that county have in this crisis stood nobly by Canada -and by the Empire. They have done their full part in the matter of recruiting and of subscribing to the different funds which have

for their object the carrying on of this war. While we have in my county two races, two creeds, two nationalities, we do not look upon each other as different races; we are not pulling apart; on the contrary we are united and are becoming more united day by day and year by year. I want to say to the credit of the Acadian people that they have done their part willingly and in a straightforward manner. The clergy representing the Acadian people have taken the same platform with those of other denominations throughout the county of Westmorland and have done their part in urging, exhorting, almost imploring the people to do their duty. The people have done their full part, and I am glad to pay this tribute to my friends in the county pf Westmorland.
In the Address with which His Excellency has been pleased to open this Parliament, there are not many subjects for consideration. There are three in particular, those referring to the organization of national service, the fiftieth anniversary of Canadian Confederation, and the extension of the term of Parliament. I am sure that every one of us subscribes earnestly and sincerely to the words spoken in regard to the valour of our Canadian troops and the manner in which they have acquitted themselves at the front. No one would question the courage, bravery, and resourcefulness of the Canadian boys who have gone to fight for their country. We knew from the history and traditions of the people of Canada that they would do their full part when the opportunity came, and the whole country must realize that they have done their duty nobly and well; that they are doing it now, and will continue to do it until the termination of this great struggle.
The number of men who have gone to the front is mentioned in the Address as being, roughly, 400,000. We are very glad to know that that number of our Canadian boys have donned khaki and gone to the front to do their bit. On the first of January, 1916, the right hon. Prime Minister stated that
500.000	troops would be raised in Canada. We must realize that that promise meant the enlisting and sending to the front of
500.000	troops, as well as the recruiting of many men in addition to that in order to supply the wastage from the 500,000 and in order to keep the Canadian army up to that strength. I quite agree with the view expressed by a number of hon. gentlemen who have addressed the House, that we require men not only at the front but in the

munition factories, on the' farms, in the forests, and in other lines of work which are being carried on in Canada. But, Sir, like the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) who addressed the House yesterday afternoon, while I realize the importance of carrying on the country's industries, I believe that more honour and more responsibility rest upon the man who leaves his home and family, goes to the front and shoulders a rifle in order that he may do his part in the trenches. It is there that the war is being actually fought, and the quicker the men are in the trenches the quicker the termination of the war will come-and an early termination of the war is the one great desire of the people of Canada.
Another clause in His Excellency's speech draws attention to the fact that we are on the threshold of the fiftieth anniversary of the birth of the Dominion, and suggests that some suitable ceremony should be held to commemorate that event. I quite agree that that would be a most noble and a most proper .thing for Canadians to do. I regret that we cannot hold out the hope that we will be able to commemorate that event by a celebration because of the termination of the war. But while that seems to be beyond the bounds of probability, I sincerely trust that the Government will take into consideration a suitable commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary of the natal day of our Dominion, of which we are all so proud. I associate myself with those who have suggested that we should not hold any celebration that would be attended with any large expenditure of money. The hon. member for Guys-borough (Mr. Sinclair) made what I thought an excellent suggestion; that is, that the event be commemorated by the erection of a memorial hospital to be used by returned disabled soldiers. Some measure of that kind might well be taken into consideration, and I believe it would meet with the full approbation of every person in the Dominion of Canada.
While we realize that Canada will soon pass the fiftieth milestone in her history, we might for a moment refer to the fact that during all that time the Government of this country has been carried on very largely, if not wholly, along party political lines. Today there seems to he a whisper in the atmosphere, murmurs here and there, that the time has arrived when the people of the Dominion could very well lay aside their party differences and work together more 11
harmoniously than under the party system, in the interests of the country. That suggestion has been referred to even on the floor of this House. It has been mentioned by many newspapers throughout Canada. It has been discussed, and resolutions have been passed upon it in Boards of Trades, Trade and Labour Council meetings, municipal council meetings, church organizations and other organizations that have the welfare of the country at heart. But I am forced to stop for a moment and ask myself, as I believe the people of Canada are asking themselves, why is this proposal made? Why is the suggestion now thrown out that we should have a different form of Government from what we have had in the past? It seems to me, speaking from my experience and knowledge of conditions in my own, province, that the men who are asking, yea demanding, that we, should have a different form of Government, that we should have a national Government or a coalition Government, are members of the Conservative party in the different provinces, and that they realize that their own party, which has been in charge of the affairs of this, country for the past five years, has been weighed in the balance and found wanting; that it has made a miserable failure of the management of the affairs of Canada. That is the situation. I am quite willing to give to my hon. friends all the credit due them in regard to what they claim to be the awful burden that has been east upon them by reason of this war. I realize that, Sir. But that is no proper reason to give to the country for their failure to conduct its affairs properly. It simply shows that they have been unable to rise to the occasion and deal with the extra burdens thus thrown upon them. Their friends throughout the different counties and provinces are now asking that we should no longer have paity government; they say that they want men taken into the Government who are able to take over the burden of administration, and give them assistance to carry on the work which they have been unable to perform. I am not at all opposed to what may be called a national Government. I am of the opinion that some change must take place. But what is this national Government that is being talked about in the press of our country? What is the national Government that the Trades and Labour people want? What is the national Government that the Board of Trade of the city of Winnipeg wants? I see in the Citizen of to-day a despatch which reads:
[Stage Direction]


At a regular meeting to-night the Winnipeg Board of Trade passed a resolution favouring a national Government.
Before I would feel like committing myself to a national Government, I should like some information as to what this national Government would be and what class of me would be called to its councils.
An hon. MEMBER:: Tories.


Mr. COPP:: 
Arthur Bliss Copp: Yes, and not only is it true in regard to the colonels in England, but it applies also to majors, captains, and the subordinate officers. This, article goes on to say that to-day in England alone we have at least 4,000 men in the Records Office. What about New Zealand and other dominions which have officers there? It is costing these dominions a mere bagatelle compared with what it is costing the Dominion of Canada for the upkeep of officers. I have no fault to find with a man being a lieutenant-colonel, or drawing the pay which is attached to his office, but if a lieutenant-colonel has nothing to do, and if he is not willing to take the rank of lieutenant, or some other subordinate position, and go to the front, he should resign and the remuneration that is being paid to him should be stopped, and he should come back to this country and assume the role of a private citizen as the rest of us are doing. I could go on and illustrate by a thousand and one instances how money is being wasted in Canada along this very line. The time has arrived when those who are in charge of the affairs of this country should call a halt, should clean house, and take the people of Canada into their confidence and give a strict account of their stewardship. Let me say to the First Minister that that is his first duty. He not only represents the Conservative party, but he, as the Premier of the Dominion, represents the people of Canada, and the people are clamouring, they are demanding, that they should have a full, frank and honest disclosure of what has taken place in the past and what he is going to do in the future in regard to the conduct of this war.
We all remember with what great satisfaction the Conservative newspapers-and I am bound to say a number of the Liberal newspapers and Liberals as well-throughout the Dominion, regarded the fact that when this war broke out it was the good fortune of Canada to have as Minister of Militia a man of the enthusiasm, energy and experience of the ex-Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Sam Hughes). I am

bound to say, Sir, because I want to be honest and frank about it, that I never looked upon the ex-Minister of Militia as being any better than the friends with whom he was associated. I looked upon the Government as a whole, and I felt that the whole Government were responsible for the administration of the affairs of this country, and particularly with regard to the affairs appertaining to this war. Public newspapers, particularly newspapers supporting .the Government, would come out day after day and week after week and tell us what a wonderful man the ex-Minister of Militia was, and what a fortunate thing, what an admirable thing it was, that we had such a man administering the military affairs of the country. Yea, in different places, he was referred to as the Kitchener of Canada. What has taken place? If the ex-Minister of Militia was entitled to the praises which were so lavishly bestowed upon hiip during the past two years and until very recently, what do these same newspapers have to say now? You take up a newspaper since the resignation of our genial friend as Minister of Militia, and what do you find? You may find one line in the whole column referring to the energy he displayed, but the rest of the column will be devoted to the many weaknesses he showed as a member of the Government.
I now propose to take up in some detail the correspondence that has passed between the ex-Minister of Militia and the First Minister. I contend that this correspondence which has passed between two members of the Cabinet requires more than a passing notice. It seems to me that it cannot be answered by the right honourable the First Minister as he attempted to answer it the other day when, following my right honourable friend the leader of the Opposition, he rose in his place and said that he did not propose to discuss the question of the resignation of the Minister of Militia and Defence. I suppose that may be privately his right, but I contend that the Premier of this Dominion owes it to the people of the country to enlighten them as to what has taken place in regard to this matter. The letters that were written by the ex-Minister of Militia to the First Minister contain the most glaring charges that were ever levelled against the Prime Minister or the responsible head of any Government in this Dominion and yet no attempt has been made to answer these charges. Hon. gentlemen on this side of the House have referred to the matter and it has been fMr. Copp.l
passed by; not a word has been uttered to give to the people of Canada any just or cogent reason why the ex-Minister of Militia is to-day out of the Cabinet. No excuse is offered, no defence is made against the awful charges that the ex-minister has made against the First Minister in regard to this matter. I want to refer to this correspondence. I want to read some paragraphs from the letters that, passed between these gentlemen and to comment upon them after I read them. The first I want to read is a paragraph from a letter from the ex-Minister of Militia dated October 23, 1916, in answer to one from the Premier, and it is as follows:
. Regarding your letter and memorandum, permit the following:	From the outset I
strongly objected to the fact that practically the entire management of our force, our supplies, our equipment, our transport, etc., had been taken completely out of our hands, and was controlled by the British authorities, we, notwithstanding, paying the bill.
In October, 1914, In conversation on the subject, with the late Earl Kitchener, he pointed out that the Canadian High Commissioner had intimated to him that it was the desire of the Canadian Government that these, troops should be regarded as purely British, and that Canada should have nothing to say in their management while in England or at the front.
I think that is a most significant sentence. He says that in October, 1914, this trouble had taken place. Back as far as October, 1914, there was dissatisfaction, bickering and cleavage in the minds of the members of the Cabinet. The war broke out in August, 1914, and in October, 1914, the trouble had already commenced in the Cabinet. I have no reason to doubt, Sir, that in any Cabinet there must be differences of opinion. Men do not always see alike on many great public questions, but I contend, and I think I am only contending for what is a sound constitutional doctrine, that when the Cabinet takes up and threshes out the matters that come before them, their decision must be presented to the public as a united and unanimous one and they must work together harmoniously and unanimously in the interests of the whole country.
Further we find this statement:-
I drew his attention to Section 177 of the Army Act, and to the spirit and principles of the Constitution, but he again intimated that he understood it was the desire of the Canadian Government that the troops were to be handed over to them absolutely as British Regulars. To this I objected, and1 pointed out that I fully believed that our force under officers of our own selection should, at the front, be under the command of the British t'oma-ruier in Chief; yet the appointment of officers at the

front and the control of everything in connection with the force while in Britain, should be entirely with Canada; but I further stated that I felt in such a great struggle where each was actuated by proper motives, there should be no need of friction.
Then he says:-
X do not know whether the Canadian High Commissioner had the authority of the Canadian Government or not.
That means that, although he was a member of the Cabinet, he did not know what authority Sir George Perley had as High Commissioner. He goes on to say:-
But a day or two later that gentleman of his own initiative strongly spoke to me and briefly said, "You do not pretend surely to have anything to do with the Canadian soldiers in Britain.'' I suggested that he might be well advised to study not alone the Canadian Military law, but the British Army Act, as well as comprehend the spirit of the constitution. I felt then, as I feel to-day, and as I am pleased to say the entire British Government and the War Office officers also realize to-day that our officers and men being in the pay of Canada, Canada should absolutely control them in Canada and in Britain, excepting in so far as securing camping grounds ip concerned; and at the front for everything excepting the command and general administration under the command. However, for the first ten months our suggestions were practically ignored, our equipment, stores, supplies, armament, . everything provided by us was set aside.
That means that the ex-Minister of Militia attaches his signature to a statement that ten months after the outbreak of the war all the supplies provided by Canada, all the trucks, all the equipment, everything-and we know that it amounted to millions of dollars' worth-were set aside and scrapped in England, and we, the people of Canada, are called upon to pay this enormous wastage and extravagance on the part of the Government because of their bickerings and their incapacity, because they were unable to grapple with the question and make prompt and definite decisions for the benefit of the country. He goes on to say:-
The pay department was found to be absolutely chaotic; the medical service modelled on the British, lacked system, efficiency and comprehensiveness.
There is another charge in regard to which it seems to me the people of Canada, the fathers and mothers of the soldiers who have gone to the front, are perfectly within their right when they not only ask, but demand in a respectful but in a most emphatic manner, that they should be given some explanation. In that sentence the exMinister of Militia implies a great deal more than he says. The phrase about the
medical service lacking efficiency tells the fathers and the mothers of the boys at the front that when their kith and kin and flesh and blood are wounded or taken sick and are brought to the English hospitals, they are not given proper care and attention. Could anything be more detrimental to recruiting in the Dominion of Canada than that very statement. And yet that has been published, not by a Liberal newspaper, not by a Liberal on the hustings, tout by one of the sworn members of the Cabinet, who has since resigned his seat. The time has arrived when we, as independent people of this country, should and do demand some explanations in regard to the matter. I cannot understand so many right-thinking, honest Conservatives throughout the length and breadth of this Dominion sitting quietly by and humbly following their party when we find one of their own Cabinet ministers making such an outrageous charge against the Government in regard to this matter that is uppermost in the minds of our people. The ex-minister says:-
The pay department was found to be absolutely chaotic.
We know that from experience. I doubt if there is an honourable member in this House who has not had letters and telegrams, who has not been personally and privately communicated with in regard to this very subject, in reference not only to the Mother Country, but to Canada. I have here letters and memoranda from scores of women from my own constituency who have been unable to get their separation allowance or their assigned pay from their sons and their husbands properly adjusted. I know one case in my own town where a woman had a son at the front and had been receiving from Ottawa his assigned pay for fifteen months, month by month. All at once this pay stopped. She wrote a letter to the department here, and when she got her reply, she could not understand it and brought it to me. The answer was that they had not this young man's name on their records at all. She thought of course that something had happened to her boy and that his
4 p.m. name had been cut out, that he had been killed and she had not been advised. I wrote to the department pointing out that there was an error somewhere, because I enclosed one of the printed circulars that are sent with the cheques, and that the boy's name must be on the record. They then changed their answer and wrote in reply that the boy's name was there but that they would have to

communicate with the pay office in London before the matter could be rectified. That is an illustration of what is taking place. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Croth-ers) smiles. He takes so little notice of people who are looking to him and the Government to take some interest in their affairs that he sits here and smiles and laughs in the face of members when they bring to the attention ,of this House some of the rights of the common people of this country. It is not becoming to the Minister of Labour to do that. Every one knows that he has never taken an active interest nor spent a serious moment in his life in looking after the interests of the people whom he is supposed to represent.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. The hon. gentleman is going a little too far.


Arthur Bliss Copp: In what way, your honour?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think, when the hon. gentleman sees his language in Hansard to-morrow, he will be the first to admit that he is going entirely too far.


Mt. PUGSLEY:: The language used by my hon. friend is not unparliamentary. Although it may be that he has diverged a little from the subject with which he was dealing, and he has a right to do that.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. gentleman
made the statement that, the Minister ,of Labour was supposed to represent certain people in this House, the imputation being that he did not represent them. I say that the hon. gentleman's statement in that respect is out of -order, and I so rule.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I shall be glad to retract any statement I have made that is unparliamentary because I have no desire to infringe on the rules of the House. If I say " the party that he, because of his office, is entitled to represent," will that be parliamentary? He has made a dismal failure of it.
Further on in this letter, the ex-Minister of Militia writes to the Prime Minister:
I spoke to you at the time about the rejection of all our stores and supplies of every description and proved to you that the excuses of the British office were totally without foundation.
You have my memorandum at the time proving the utter falsity of their bogus excuses regarding our wagons, etc.
Here we have the statement, on the authority of one who was then a minister of the Crown, that our supplies provided by the Government were being thrown aside. Yet those supplies were being manufactured, taken possession of by the Government, paid for by the people, and sent

to England-only to be scrapped. And this went on month after month. He says further:
Your suggestion then was that as the changes had been made we should abide by the decision of the British officers. However, X did not wish to raise any trouble in the matter but I determined that Canada was not to be treated as a Crown colony, and that as we paid the bill and furnished the goods, which in nearly every instance were better than the British, I would act. I ordered muster parade of our men and tried to lay plans to stop the scandalous neglect going on in the pay department.
Here is a charge of " iscandalous neglect"; not the waste of a few wagons, not the throwing aside of a few Oliver equipments, not the loss of a few days' munitions or supplies furnished by the Dominion of Canada, but " 'scandalous neglect " which the ex-minister felt called upon, to take means to bring to an end. And he goes on:
I had to accept under protest for the first year

Why had he to 'accept? There can be no reason except that the other members of the Cabinet forced him to do so.
-I had to accept, under protest, for the first year, this management of the Force in Britain. The anomaly of such a state of things is apparent. The Canadian soldier in the trenches must voice his complaint, if any, through the Parliament of Canada and the Minister of Militia and Defence must accept responsibility.
This is a most cogent and convincing reason wthy the affairs of our soldier boys should be controlled in Canada-that any complaints they had in regard to the administration of affairs must be voiced through the Parliament of Canada and not through the Parliament of Great Britain. But the quotations I have already made show the position of the other members of the Government in regard to these matters. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Orothers) for instance, went quietly on' just as though the boys at the front did not matter. And to-day the Government treat the whole people of Canada with silent contempt when asked what they have done to give the boys at the front a fair and square deal. I will say this for the ex-Minister of Militia, that, though he may have lacked judgment at times, he did show a very strong and earnest interest in the boys who want tot the front. But his colleagues were not willing to give him the same latitude in the matters of his department that they gave to the other ministers ini the affairs committed to their control. He goes on:
How could the Canadian soldier obtain redress ' through the British House of Commons? Kipling's lines hold good:

"Daughter in her Mother's house.
Mistress in her own,"
as well as another standard maxim "Taxation implies representation and brings responsibility."
And in this letter there is itihde further striking passage:
During the last year's management we have introduced a new system of convalescent control upon which the British are now modelling.
In a previous passage of this letter he shows that there was inefficiency in the management of the British convalescent homes and hospitals. Apparently, the need of improvement was established, because the British authorities began to model their convalescent homes and hospitals upon the lines of those carried on by Canada. And the advantage of the Canadian system is shown in this very practical way:
We returned a much higher percentage to their battalions trained and fully fit for service, and saved to Canada the sum of upwards of six millions of dollars.
When hon. gentlemen opposite speak so glibly of the tens and hundreds of millions of dollars that are being expended, a saving of only six millions seems very little. Still, here is the statement of a former minister of the Crown that in this one matter alone he had been successful in saving $6,000,000 of our money. Is it not reasonable to believe that if the Government were wasting $6,000,000 in one year [DOT]on convalescent homes and hospitals, they were wasting ten times that amount in the hundred and one other avenues of expenditure made necessary by the war? These charges are a most serious reflection upon the Government and their management of affairs in this crisis.
I turn now to another letter, that of October 31, in which the ex-Minister of Militia and Defence says:
Dear Sir Robert:	In conformity with the
suggestions made this morning, permit me to briefly summarize the situation. During the first year of the war, the plans adopted for the force in England were modelled on the British War Office, but I had nothing whatever to do with them. The Canadian High Commissioner seemed to be the one dominating as witnessed in the contract made for officers messing, etc., at Salisbury, for the British system in regard to pay department and the British system in regard to the medical department. Prom the outset I objected to these women's organizations in Britain in the shape of V. A. D. hospitals, etc., but the Canadian High Commissioner seemed to favour them. The appointments in the force were also based on two avenues of supply, one was British officers conneoted with society people, and the other Canadian permanent corps officers with their usual pull. In
justice to a limited few of each class who were worthy, the majority of them were not up [DOT] to the average of capability. Since a year ago Canadian control through the Militia Department has been, more or less, with the full consent of the British War Office, gradually recognized to the great advantage of the force. Mr. Speaker, what does that mean? It means that, according to the charge made by the ex-Minister of Militia, these favours were being parcelled out through a man representing this Government, Sir George Perley, the High Commissioner in London, to those of social standing and to those who had the pull. What pull could he refer to but political pull on the part of the Government? That was the condition of affairs affecting our soldier boys at the front during the first year or two of the war.
On November I another letter was written by the hon. ex-Minister of Militia in answer to one written by the First Minister on October 31. After acknowledging receipt of the Premier's letter, the then minister went on to say:
I do recall my visit to Great Britain in the autumn of 1914. I did expect both under the statutory law of Britain, and under the law of common courtesy, that I would have been permitted to exercise some "control and direction" over our gallant Canadian boys in the way of organization.
While he does not expressly say it, the hon. gentleman implies that he was not allowed to exercise any control over the Canadian boys in the way of organization.
I hold no brief for the# ex-Minister of Militia, but irrespective of my opinion of the ex-minister's capabilities, nothing appealed to the fathers and mothers of the boys of my county who were going to the front more than the interest which Sir Sam Hughes was taking in them. I will say at least that much for the ex-minister. The ex-minister, then, was not allowed to have any control in the organization or care of Canadian troops who went to the front. In the same letter he goes on to say:
But there had evidently been some communication to the effect that "control and direction" of this magnificent force should be under the British Government direct. The then Mr. George Perley, acting High Commissioner, implied such in the following words: "You do not pretend, surely, to have anything to do with the Canadian soldiers in Britain?"
I read these extracts from the correspondence to show that the ex-Minister of Militia was shorn of power by another member of the Cabinet, without his receiving any notice from the Prime Minister. In the same letter he makes use of the following language:

Further, had I ventured to conduct this force "on the basis of formal orders in council, the First Division would not have left Valcartier yet and you know yourself by technicalities the Second Division was held up for four months through little petty haggling on the question of
motor trucks, etc., etc.
The second line of your memorandum says: "So far as- I am aware you exercised the same control and direction over the forces in Great Britain during the first year as subsequently."
Sir Robert, no one knows better than you that this statement, is incorrect. This last year, with the full concurrence of the War Office, our management and direction have been given every consideration, and by their request.
In these two paragraphs we find a series of charges-not merely suggestions or faultfinding-against tfie First Minister himself. The ex-minister says that had he waited for the Government to pass orders in council, the first contingent would be at Valcartier yet. I give due consideration to what may possibly be an extravagant statement on his part; yet these words prove beyond peradventure that there was a great holding back; that the troops were delayed in going to the front. And why? According to the statement made by the ex-Minister of Militia, because a few political friends, a few high and holy patriots, were haggling over the prices of trucks and munitions of war so that some of their friends would get a rake-off on the purchase. In respect of this charge made by the ex-Minister of Militia, no denial or defense has been vouchsafed by any member of the Cabinet or by anyone on their behalf. I quote another sentence from this letter:
One other point, and I am through. It might be implied from your memorandum that my failing to secure authority by order in council for this sub-Militia Council impelled you to the course you are now pursuing, regarding Sir George Perley. May I be permitted to say that both you and I know to the contrary. I knew early in Augustthis was in November.
[DOT]-that Sir George Perley had planned something along these very lines. You have, also, admitted that as early as the first week in September you had this matter under consideration. I understood that it was under consideration by you and Perley earlier. You incidentally remarked yesterday that you had not consulted any of your colleagues. Of course, when I drew your attention to the statement, you corrected yourself.
This language, which is now familiar to the people of Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific, indicates what had been taking place in the Cabinet during the first period of the war. At a time when our people were asked to send their sons to the front to fight for the Empire, a' few

gentlemen who should have been bending their energies towards the prosecution of the war were haggling and bickering over small matters connected with the purchase of motor trucks and other war supplies.
On November 11 another letter was written by the ex-Minister of Militia, in which I find the following:
Moreover, it is difficult for me to recall where you have actively supported me in ther passage of any order in council concerning the upbuilding of the Militia, when opposed by two members of the Cabinet, usually antagonistic to anything proposed by me.
Further on he says:
As you, are aware, it took up four months in the first of this great war to fight through the principles of purchasing for the Second Division trucks at the lowest wholesale prices, instead of allowing large commissions to local agents, who would have nothing whatever to do with securing the order.
Again he says:
You will pardon me, but I can recall but one instance, namely Secret Service.
That is in answer to the Premier's statement that he had asked him always to have orders in council passed.
I do remember you asking me, on one occasion, to submit orders in council, where possible before incurring large expenditures, but the reason you assigned was not protests from my colleagues over my action, but that it was to set an example so as to assist you to control others. You instanced the Post Office Department, the Railway Department, and the Public Works Department, where projects had been undertaken without authority by order in council; and I remember distinctly you stated that some boats had been purchased and other large expenditures incurred, without your knowing anything about it, and without any order in council.
In answer to what the Premier writes to him, he replies by saying:	"I remember
you speaking to me and saying that I should have orders in council in regard to expenditures in my department." But it was not because he had any fears of the ex-Ministear of Militia going beyond what he was entitled to do, it was simply because he wanted some excuse and reason for keeping his other ministers in check, namely, the Minister of Railways and the Minister of Public Works. And, Sir, what did the ex-Minister of Militia mean, and to whom does he refer, when he says that two members of the Cabinet were antagonistic to him? I say that members of this House and the people of Canada are entitled to know what members of the Cabinet were antagonistic to assisting the ex-Minister of Militia to carry ont the promises that he made to the people of Canada, when he

asked the mothers and fathers of the boys to allow them, to go to the front to fight the battles of the Empire.


William Pugsley: Perhaps the Minister of Labour will tell u-s when you get through.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Perhaps he will be able to,
but if he is not more interested in this than in matters pertaining to his own department, I have little faith that he will be able to do much more in the interests of our soldier boys.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I think I should give my friend a little light. I want to assure him that I was not smiling at any facts with which he was dealing-because he does not deal with facts-


William Pugsley: Order.
Mr. CRT5THERS: -but I was smiling at his bombastic manner.


William Pugsley: Order, order. The Minister of Labour will have a chance when the hon. member for Westmorland gets through-The minister rose to a point of order.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: No, I did not.


William Pugsley: Then what did he rise
to? My hon. friend is too good a parliamentarian not to know that he could not rise to anything else.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: As I understood, the
Minister of Labour interjected a remark with the assent of the hon. member for Westmorland-	,


William Pugsley: He did not ask the permission of the hon. member for Westmorland.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I understood that he
asked it and secured it, because the non. member for Westmorland resumed his seat and yielded the floor to the hon. minister.


William Pugsley: He proceeded to say
that the hon. member for Westmorland was not stating facts-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order, there is no point of order before the House.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I am very glad to have the Minister of Labour rise, even if it was just to show that he has life enough to stand up.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I cannot make as much noise as you.


Arthur Bliss Copp: He has not made as much- no, he has made top little noise in the interests of the people he represents. Now, Sir, my hon. friend says I do not deal in
facts. I am very glad to have my hon. friend make that statement, because the statements I have been making for 'the last hour are statements made by the hon. the ex-Minister of Militia, Sir Sam Hughes, his own colleague in the Government until recently; I have been reading, letter by letter and word by word, all the charges he has made against his Premier; and when the hon. Minister of Labour says that I am not stating facts, he tells his ex-colleague that he has not stated facts in the Jetters he has written to the -First Minister. I ask him if he still wants to insist that I have not been giving facts when I have been reading the letters of the ex-Minister of Militia.


William Pugsley: Let the hon. member state in what respect you have not been stating facts.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Oh, no, I am not rising to a point of order.


Arthur Bliss Copp: When he says I am not stating facts, I ask him to name a statement I have made this afternoon that is not a fact.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member some time ago referred to a lack of interest in the soldiers on my part and so on, and he was also saying that I was smiling because I had no interest in soldiers. When I spoke about his not dealing in facts, I was referring to what he said at that time.


Arthur Bliss Copp: My hon. friend the Minister of Labour is skating on very thin ice indeed. I can tell him that if it takes him as long to consider any question that is brought before him by the labour men of this country as it has taken him to consider a question that I brought up something over three-quarters of an hour ago, which he has just come to understand, and with reference to which he says I did not state facts, I do not wonder that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction with his administration on the part of labour men.
I want to read one or two other letters written by my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Militia. In his letter of resignation dated November 11, 1916, Sir Sam Hughes
says:
You state "I conveyed to you on the 31st of July a clear intimation that upon so important a proposal involving considerations of the gravest moment, the Cabinet must be consulted before action was taken. All the Members of the Government have full and direct responsibility in respect to the very important matters which the -proposed Council would advice upon

and direct. The intimation which was given to you in my telegram of 31st of July should not have been necessary. As soon as it was received you proceeded to disregard it."
The first sentences of this quotation are absolutely true; and it is my belief that had you been actuated by the best interests of the Force, instead of favouritism, that cablegram would not have been dispatched.
The ex-Minister of Militia says that if they had been actuated by the best interests of the force, this cablegram would never have been dispatched. What does that mean? It certainly is an indication that the attitude of the Government was not in the interest of the forces at the front, in so far as they appealed to the intelligence and understanding of the responsible Minister of Militia at that time. Sir, the different paragraphs in the letters and in the correspondence go to bear out all the facts that I have alleged and have read from the statements made by the ex-Minister of Militia, and if they are not correct, if these statements are not facts, as my hon. friend the Minister of Labour says, let him say they are not facts, and show to the people of this country that they are not true. I say that not only is it his privilege, but it is a duty devolving upon the Government to show to the people that these statements are not true, because if they are not true, and they have gone unchallenged so far in this House and in this country, they should be controverted, and the people should be set right in regard to this very important question. I consider them of the very gravest importance to the people of this country, irrespective of whether they are supporters or opponents of the Government.
While the actual statements made by the ex-Minister of Militia could not possibly be known by the public but for the publication of this correspondence, it has been practically known and understood by the people of this country that there were grave differences in the Cabinet, and that very thing alone has been one of the biggest forces working against recruiting, working against the Empire, that could possibly [DOT]exists. The trouble in the Cabinet, then and since has been very largely responsible for the falling off in recruiting throughout the Dominion during the past year:
That brings me to the clause in the speech from the Throne which refers to National Service. That is a subject of great importance to every Canadian, who, I believe, is interested in the carrying on of this great war. Much has been said in this House during the past week in regard to National 
Service. The first question which arises in one's mind is, why was it necessary to institute this National Service Commission? I presume, Sir-I do not think I am taking too much upon myself to presume-that it was because recruiting had fallen off, and that we were not likely to get the 500,000 men that were promised by the Tight hon. Prime Minister and that we all hope to obtain so that Canada may play its proper part in the war. If that is the purpose of the National Service Commission I agree with it up to the very hilt. I am willing to subscribe to it and to do anything that can be done in the interests of national service. I do not say that I will do nothing, or that I will not give it support until I see what is actually to become of it. I am willing to go into it a little blindly if it is along the line of being of advantage to the country generally, and in the interests of the war. Criticisms may be made in regard to the wording of the National Service cards, and in regard to other details; but whenever I have been consulted as to the filling up of the card I have advised my friends to fill them up, and have done everything possible, as I am prepared to do everything possible to assist the scheme in the hope, though possibly not with a great deal of confidence, that good may come out of it, and that the interests of the country will be better served through having a record of the man power, wealth and resources of the Dominion. I am willing to subscribe to anything that will help the mobilization of our troops and be of service in connection with the war; but we must realize that a number of people who are being blamed for not signing or returning their cards do not understand them. There are others who may not be able to fill up the cards, and therefore I think some latitude should be allowed. I believe that the great majority of the people have done their duty in regard to the National Service scheme, and I sincerely hope and trust that the results will be satisfying to the Government and to the people as a whole.
There is one other matter to which I would like to refer. I have referred before to the attitude of certain organizations throughout Canada towards the present Government, and I desire to bring to the attention of the Government a resolution that was passed a few days ago by the municipal council in my own county. We consider the county council of Westmorland one of the most important, if not the most important, municipal body in the whole

province of New Brunswick. It is a very strong council and conducts its affairs in a manner that would do credit even to the Dominion House of Commons. This council is composed of both Liberals and Conservatives who, however, set aside their political affiliations in the conduct of the business of the county. They are chosen because of their fitness to represent their respective localities. We have in that council a gentleman who politically is a very strong opponent of my own, a gentleman who has stood staunch and true to the good old traditions of the Conservative party. In view of that fact, Mr. Speaker, you will, I am sure, be glad to.hear the statement he made in regard to matters touching the question that I am now submitting to the attention of the Government. I am sure, Sir, that you, if not other members of the House, will know the gentleman when I mention his name-Councillor Fawcett of Sackville, one of the leading farmers in that locality. At a meeting of the council a few days ago he moved the following resolution, and it appeared to me to be of such importance that I take the responsibility of placing it upon Hansard. It reads as follows:
WHEREAS, the Municipality of Westmorland County (including the towns in the County of Westmorland and the City of Moncton) has since the commencement of the war, contributed the sum of $86,000 for patriotic purposes which has been levied by a direct tax upon the rate-payers of the county, and
WHEREAS, it is anticipated that a further and larger amount will be required for like purposes during: the year 1917, and which amount it will be necessary to raise by direct taxation, and
WHEREAS, the Municipal Council of said Municipality have become and are aware that enormous profits have already been made and are still being: made in this county and throughout Canada by certain persons and companies engaged in the manufacture of shells or other munitions and products, by reason of the war, and
WHEREAS, in many cases the plant and equipment of such industries were paid in effect by the people of Canada-that is to say, by the Munition Board of Canada, giving to such persons and companies before they embarked in the business, a sufficiently large order for shells at very large prices, as would enable and which did enable such persons and concerns to pay out of the profits therefrom the whole cost of such plant and equipment, and provide a handsome profit besides, and
WHEREAS, the avowed purpose of the said Munition Board in giving such high prices, was to indemnify those who might engage in the manufacture of munitions against any loss in case of a sudden termination of the war, and
WHEREAS, the war has now continued for about two years and a half, and the persons and companies who went into the business of manufacturing war products have been allowed
to retain substantially the whole of the profits derived from such business, and
WHEREAS, such persons and companies by reason of the action of the said Munition Board in paying such high prices in the first instance, received in' full the whole cost of their plant and equipment from the profits of the first order, and they would therefore, thereafter, actually have no moneys of their own invested in the undertaking, and
WHEREAS such persons and companies have during the last two years accumulated great wealth from said war profits, to which it cannot fairly be said they would be entitled, their plants and equipment having been paid for out of profits, and all operating charges, expenses, and salaries having been also charged up against earnings, and
WHEREAS, the people of Canada will ultimately be called upon to pay the debt that Canada is rapidly accumulating by reason of the war, and such debt would be materially less if the profits now improperly going into the pockets of private individuals, were diverted into the treasury of Canada, and
WHEREAS, the Municipal -Council of the said County of Westmorland feel that a great wrong and injustice will be done to the ratepayers of the County of Westmorland, in requiring them to face direct taxation in connection with the prosecution of the war, while other people are being provided with what in effect are large "gratuities" out of the pockets of the people.
Be it and it is therefore resolved that the Municipal Council of the County of Westmorland do and it hereby does most respectfully and earnestly urge upon the Government of Canada that it insist upon the payment to it. during the remainder of the war, of all net profits hereafter made by all persons and companies engaged in the manufacture of war munitions, and in respect of such persons and companies as have in the past been allowed to retain profits of the cost of their plant and equipment engaged in the business that they may be compelled to account for and hand over to the Government all such surplus profits.
That a copy of this resolution be sent to the Prime Minister of Canada, the Minister of Finance, and the Minister of Militia of Canada.
That is the resolution and the words of the gentlemen who introduced that resolution are iso strong and so much to the point that I propose to read a few paragraphs from the statement which he made. In introducing this resolution Mr. Fawcett said:
Mr. Warden, while it is no doubt desirable to vote money to the Patriotic Fund, it is also desirable that this Council should make some emphatic protest against public moneys in the way of war profits being paid to private individuals instead of being appropriated by the Dominion Government for the purpose of prosecuting the war. That this is being done on a very large scale is now established beyond doubt. Protest should be made and that the facts may be placed clearly before the public. I know that Canada as a part of the British Empire is at war, and I am more proud of that Empire to-day than I have ever been before ; I know that the young manhood of this country unhesitatingly sprang to arms at the bugle call for volunteers, and that they

gloriously fought and died on the plains of France and elsewhere. I know that the women and even children of Great Britain and Canada are performing heroic services for the Empire, either without any or very small reward; I know that the privately-owned railways of Great Britain, the coal fields of that country and most of the munition plants are in the service of the state. I also know that the few remaining private enterprises are being taxed to the hilt in order that no discrimination shall anywhere exist, and X am assured, that the self-sacrifice and patriotism that is now dominating the minds and efforts of ail classes, throughout Great Britain, and which is the marvel of the world, is largely traceable to this fact.
All are sharers in the struggle, all are making sacrifices. But this is not the case in Canada. The munition factories and many other of the business enterprises o'f this country are getting rich and richer as the war progresses, out of and because of the war, while many people are perforce becoming poorer. The people know, as I have said, that nothing like this state of affairs exists in Great Britain, and they also know that it would not be tolerated in France or any other European country engaged in the war, hence it is, that it is beyond their comprehension that it should be allowed to continue in this country. I wish to here say that the public are fast becoming disheartened and embittered over this condition of affairs, and are not in a humour to remain silent. They are not in a mood to stand for partiality towards any class or special interests, and they are not prepared to see these people gobble up money that should properly find its way to the Public Treasury.
These are statements made not by a partisan, and not by a man who is supporting, or whoever supported, the Liberal party. They are made by a gentleman who has consistently and honestly supported hon. gentlemen opposite. But, realizing that the people are becoming disappointed and discouraged because of the condition of affairs he takes this stand. Therefore, it will be seen that I am not reading this from the standpoint of party politics. I would have very grave doubts whether he would change his party allegiance. Possibly he has taken this means of showing his friends the position of affairs as it appears to the people of that portion of Canada. He goes on to say:
"The people of Canada today," said Council-Fawcett, "are interested solely in a body of men who will rule and run the country affairs with fairness and equality."
Councillor Fawcett substantiated his arguments by giving figures purporting to be the cost of construction of a munition .plant, and of the profits made by the company. He gave details of the shell orders filled and of the profits in each shell.
He said that he was prepared to stand behind all his statements, and said further that he had been a strong Conservative all his life, but that he could not conscientiously see his way clear to stand for such conditions as existed in the Government forces today.

That is the evidence of a gentleman who stands high in his community, who gives a great deal of careful study and thought to public questions and who occupies a very prominent place in the minds of the people of that portion ,of the county that I have the honour to represent. I have laid before you the fact that these charges have been made. It is not that I am making them myself but they have been made in other quarters and I am only reiterating what has been said elsewhere. They have been made by public bodies, organizations, and boards of trade independent of party, independent of what has taken place in this House, they must have very great weight with the Government and I trust that the Government will yet take time by the forelock and do something that will be more in the interest of the people generally.
The next matter I want to speak of briefly is the paragraph in the speech from the Throne that refers to the extension of Parliament. That is a matter that will come before this House by resolution. I do not know just what attitude Parliament will take in regard to it. I feel that it is a question that should be given the most serious consideration in the light, of what would be best for the country generally and not for any particular party or body of men. I sincerely trust that when this resolution comes before the House the First Minister will be able to give very much better reasons for extending the present term of Parliament than he gave the other day when he addressed the House in answer to my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition? The only reason that he gave the other day for saying that an extension of Parliament would be a proper thing was that if an election were called during the present year the probabilities would be that a very large portion of our population would be disfranchised because of the number of soldiers at the front. I was surprised to hear him admit the other day that it would be impossible to record the votes of our soldier boys at the front. When, something over a year ago, this matter was before the House and the Bill was passed giving soldiers the right to vote, there was evidence that the Government intended to appeal to the country at an early date. I understand that the ballots were prepared, shipped across to the Old Country and were practically placed in the hands of the gentlemen who were to have control of taking the soldiers' votes at that

time. But, what a change has come over the spirit of the dreams of my hon. friends opposite? The hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) who was in charge of the Bill, pointed out in the most emphatic language at that time that it would be absolutely reasonable and quite easy to take the soldiers' votes at the front. Now, a change has come about and they say it would be almost impossible and impracticable to take the soldiers' votes. They say that the soldiers should not be disfranchised and that is one of the reasons given for an extension of the term of Parliament. I am not here to say whether or not I would support an extension of the term of Parliament. The matter will come before the House in the regular way, and I sincerely trust it will then be given the importance that it deserves.
Another matter that has been brought to my attention very frequently, not only during the progress of this debate but during the past year, is the loyalty cry. I had hoped that this cry of loyalty or disloyalty from any political party was at an end, but still the cry is kept up. Our friends on the Government side take to themselves all the credit for being the loyal party in Canada. While I do not wish to detract anything from them in that regard, as one member of this Parliament who has spent some little time in public life and who has always conscientiously supported the party which I believe to be in the interest of the country, although I am not thin-skinned, I dc not like to have it cast up to me day after day and time after time by my opponents or by the Tory press that I am disloyal to my King and country or to any portion of the Empire. I sincerely trust that this cry that the Liberal people in Canada are disloyal will cease, because the time is past when any party of any standing in the country should stoop to such low tactics. We have heard a good deal of talk in this House in regard to loyalty or disloyalty of utterances by certain persons in different parts of the country.
I wish to refer for a few minutes to the election which is about to take place in the county of Dorchester, P.Q. Much has been said, and much has been published in the daily press in regard to this election, and I have been somewhat impressed with the very active manner in which the campaign has been carried on by both gentlemen who are contesting the constituency. I was more than surprised -I was simply shocked, on picking up this morning's Citizen, to read the following:
Ste. Germaine, Que., Jan. 25.-The Liberal organization here sprung a mine tonight when they announced that Hon. P. E. Blondin, who is working at Ste. Rose in the interests of Hon. Albert Sevigny, minister of inland revenue, had been uttering disloyal, sentiments in meetings at Ste. Rose.
The following affidavit was given out tonight by the Liberal chiefs:
We, the undersigned, ' declare that we heard last night at Ste. Rose, January 24, 1917, the Hon. P. E. Blondin make the following declarations :
'As for the Allison scandal and others of the same nature, let us suppose that if these thefts have taken place it has not importance for the people of Ste. Rose, because it was English money that was stolen.'
Speaking of the danger of conscription, Mr. Blondin declared: 'Even if conscription was put in force that would mean little to the people of Ste-Rose, because they had only to cross the frontier to get away.'	.
"(Signed) Dorille Prevost, Valere Lamon-tagne.
Sworn before me, Justice of the Peace, J. B. Cote, at Ste. Germaine, Dorchester, this 25th day of January, 1917.
(Signed) J. B. Cote, Justice of the Peace.'
There we have a member, not only of this House, but of the Government, going into a constituency in the province of Quebec and making a statement of that nature.


Mr. ROGERS:: I would just like to draw my hon. friend's attention to the fact that a few moments ago I was telephoned to from Quebec by Mr. Patenaude, who had been asked by Mr. Blondin, who had seen this statement to-day, to give it an unequivocal denial as being absolutely untrue, and to say that he will answer it himself when he comes into the House.


William Pugsley: Perhaps my hon. friend has seen the answer which is given by Mr. Blondin and which is published in the Journal of this evening. I hope my hon. friend will read the contradiction.


Robert Rogers: It is not his answer.


William Pugsley: Yes, in the Journal.


Robert Rogers: No, it is not.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I have not seen the reply in the Journal of this evening. I was going on to say that that i3 a statement signed by mo men and sworn to before a Justice of the Peace in the county of Dorchester. The hon. Minister of Public Works says that Mr. Blondin has given it an unequivocal denial. That answer I will read in order to have it placed upon Hansard, because I do not want to say anything unfair about any one. If, however, the statement in that affidavit is correct, that this gentleman (who occupies a position in the Government and who is in the service

of the country and has the secrets of affairs in connection with this matter) has made use of such a statement, it is no wonder that the member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) and the member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) pointed out last night how impossible it would be to expect _ recruiting to go on when one of the ministers of the Crown would go down to the county of Dorchester in the province of Quebec, and for the purpose of a little, cheap party advantage at an election to be held there on Saturday, would put it into the minds of his compatriots that, instead of signing the National Service cards and doing their part in the war, they should step across the border. Mr. Blondin says:
Let us suppose that if these thefts have taken place-
He does not say the money was stolen, but by implication he comes very near to admitting that a great deal of the money was stolen; but he asks what difference does it make as it is the money of England. The matter should be taken up at once and some light thrown on it. I will now read the denial of Mr. Blondin.


Robert Rogers: Denial?


William Pugsley: Alleged denial.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I am reading from the Ottawa Evening Journal of January 26:
Hon. P. E. Blondin, through his lieutenant, Felix Durocher, has issued a reply to an affidavit, which purported to give a report of his remarks at Ste. Rose during a Dorchester county by-election speech on Wednesday night. The affidavit credited Mr. Blondin with contending that the Allison scandal was of no importance to Ste. Rose because it is English money that was stolen, while those who desired to escape conscription could do so by crossing the United States border. Mr. Blondin's explanation follows :
" The statement which has been sworn to by certain Liberals with regard to my utterances are a distortion of my words. I never by any means intented to convey the meaning which they have attached to my speech. Mr. Cannon had been stating in his speeches that the Conservative party had been grafting from the Canadian treasury in connection with munition contracts.
" In my speech at Ste. Rose I explained that, it was not true that the Allison scandal had to do with Canadian money pointing out that the money paid for the shells was the money of the British Government. I did not imply that Allison had done a worthy act, but simply corrected Mr. Cannon's mis-statement. In regard to the conscription matter I told the people of Ste-Rose that I did not believe conscription would be necessary because so many Canadians were eager to go and fight for the cause of liberty and humanity. I added that if any of them were afraid of conscription, if conscription

should be passed and they did not want to go to the war, they had a remedy left. They could go across the United States line which is near Ste. Rose and escape military service."
What an exhibition on the part of a minister of the Crown, that when our friends are asking the people throughout
5 p.m. Canada to assist them in having the National Service cards properly signed and returned, he should go into a county where an election is to be held to-morrow and intimate to these people in that county that if they do not want to go to war, and if they fear that these cards will lead to conscription, they can easily step across the border to the United States and thus escape it.
I can well imagine the headlines that we should see in the Journal to-night if the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) had made a statement like that, or if such a statement had been made by my hon. friend from Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil), or my hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux). Hon. gentlemen opposite would have raised their hands in holy horror, and would have gnashed their teeth in an effort to rouse and inflame race prejudice. But the Postmaster General (Mr. Blondin) is the man who makes these statements in the county of Dorchester. Frankly and honestly, I had hoped that in reading the paper this morning I should find that the hon. gentleman had cleared his skirts by making such a denial as the Minister of Public Works stated he had received by telephone. That denial may appear in this evening's papers; I sincerely trust it may.


William Pugsley: He admits it.


Arthur Bliss Copp: He does practically admit it, from what I have read. Knowing the deep and active interest that the people whom I have the honour to represent have taken in the prosecution of this war, as shown by their self-sacrificing efforts and the utterances of their several organizations and institutions, I have felt it my duty to bring before this House the charges made by the ex-Minister of Militia that there has been bungling by the Government in matters connected with the war, and to demand in their behalf some explanation.
In conclusion, Sir, may I hope that the Government, notwithstanding their many and almost criminal failures in the past, will amend their course for the time they still have the control of Canada's part in the terrible conflict-be it long or short; that they will awake from their lethargy' tear asunder the party shackles that have-

bound them hand and foot to the manufacturing and other monopolistic interests of this country, and sever the ties of that unholy alliance they have made with the Nationalists in their thirst for power, the most dangerous element that has ever been introduced into the political life of Canada, and that, before it is yet too late, they will show to the world at large, show to Canada, show to the thousands of our heroic sons who have gone to the front to do and die in the cause of liberty and civilization and for the memory of those gallant sons who have fought, bled arid died that the flag we love shall still wave; show to the mourning fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, wives and children, who are left, that the Government of Canada, the public men of Canada, are able to rise above small party politics, and thus place our fair Dominion above and beyond further reproach, that she may maintain her position as the greatest of the overseas colonies of the British Empire.


Mr. J. G. TURRIFF (Assiniboia):: Autonomy Bills of 1905 it was provided that a census should be taken in those provinces every five years, so that their representation is based upon the census taken in 1906. Notwithstanding the fact that there are 43 vacant seats in this House, hon. gentlemen oppoisite contend that there should be another extension of the term of [DOT]Parliament. While it may be argued that the life of this Parliament should be further extended, any such extension should he made by the people of Canada. We are sitting in this House not as a result of the votes of the people, but through our own votes. A number of men are sitting in this House by their own vote who could not possibly get back to Parliament. Maybe I am one of those members, but if that is so, it is one reason why there should be an election. If I do not represent the views of the people of my constituency, why should I vote myself into Parliament for a second additional year? I am not prepared to say that there should not be any extension of Parliament; I want to hear the question discussed. I want to hear what additional reasons the Government can put forward why there should be an extension of Parliament. Last year we voted for an extension. After that certain investigations were held which did not redound to the credit of the Government or lend it additional strength. Nor do I think that the result of those investigations led any of the people to have increased faith in the men who are running the affairs of Canada to-day. Moreover, before considering the advisability of extending the parliamentary term, I want the Government to bring down information as to what they have done during the past year and as to what they purpose doing during the next year if an extension is granted. When our friends on the opposite side of the House bring down this information and the matter is discussed, they may be able to offer good reasons for an extension; but they will have to be pretty good to satisfy me that such a course is advisable. I do not believe that the outfit sitting on the treasury benches are fit to govern this country in times of peace, let alone in time of war. If the people of Canada by their votes say that they are, well and -good; we on this side will have no objections to make. I trust that there will be an appeal to the people, so that it may be ascertained whether the majority of them are in favour of a continuation of

what we have had during the past three years.
The Prime Minister gave as one of his reasons why there should not be an election the impossibility of taking the vote of the soldiers at the front. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers), who is now leading the House, practically chloroformed the right hon. leader of the Government two years ago when the Soldiers' Vote Bill was passed. What has caused the change of mind on the part of the Prime Minister? If the vote of the soldiers at the front can not be taken, why was that Bill passed? Why were the ballots printed and sent to England, all ready for the springing of an election at any moment? We on this side of the House felt that you could not fairly get the vote of the soldiers, but I said at the time the Bill was passed that if we could get the ballots properly delivered in the different constituencies, we would have no fear of the result. Judging from all the evidence, and particularly from letters received by parents of the boys who are at the front, if the soldiers' ballots are taken and properly delivered to the various constituencies, there will be a vote of three to one against the Government. That is why hon. gentlemen opposite have changed their minds; that is why they want to back out and avoid getting the votes of the soldiers. My genial friend the Minister of Public Works has told us in the House that if he does not know much else-I am using . his own words-he knows how to win elections. My hon. friend did have that reputation, and for a while he made it good; but that reputation has been shattered since my hon. friend left a small province to assume a federal role.	At that time the
price he was paying to get into the Dominion Cabinet was an undertaking to turn over Saskatchewan and Alberta, bound hand and foot, to the Conservative party. Saskatchewan did not respond to his advances; Alberta did not respond to his advances, and even in the province of Manitoba, that he had trained and that he had controlled by the most diabolical political machine that ever had been in existence in the history of this world, even with that machine my hon. friend was not able to hold his own. My hon. friend took a part in the recent local elections in the province of Quebec. He won five seats out of eighty-one. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is five anyway, so we will leave it at that. -1 am not going to put any blame on my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works for what took

place in British Columbia, except to say that our friends in British Columbia, when everything was fine and the flag was flying and waving all the time in Manitoba, looked on him as a big man and a safe man to follow in order to win electrons, and they duplicated his political machine in British Columbia, with the result that to-day in British Columbia the influence of my hon. friend and of his friends there has been practically wiped out. In all these provinces that I have referred to Liberal 'Governments are in power, and there are mighty small Oppositions of our Conservative friends. And that is what awaits my hon. friend and his followers and his colleagues on the treasury benches whenever the people of this country have an opportunity of passing judgment on the manner in which this Government has conducted the affairs of Canada during the past five years. I do [DOT]wi wonder that my hon. friends are anxious to nave a further extension of time instead of an election. It is the most natural thing for them to do; if I was in their place I would be very glad to have an extension of time, instead of facing an outraged public. It is natural, but the question is, should it be allowed them? We hear a good deal today of a national government. Where is all that talk coming from? Is it coming from the Liberals?


Robert Rogers: Ralph Connor.


John Gillanders Turriff: It is coming from Ralph Connor? All right. Ralph Connor is a very good man.


Robert Rogers: A good Grit.


John Gillanders Turriff: He is a very good man, and a good man has to be a Grit; he cannot be a really good man unless he is. It is a credit to Ralph Connor that he is not able to follow my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works. That redounds to his credit. That is why he stands so high in Manitoba and in the Dominion, that he could not see his way clear to follow the present Dominion Government. But practically all the agitation for a national government is coming from the ranks of my hon. friends opposite. And why should there be an agitation at this time for a national government? For a government of business men? Why, practically all the business men of the country are in either the one party or the other. Does my hon. friend mean to say that in a population of seven million or eight million people, half of them Conservatives, he couI'd not pick out more than twelve or fifteen men in his own party if a
business government were wanted? Or if a national government were wanted, could not my hon. friends opposite pick out from among their own friends enough men to make their Government a good government? But in order to make a business government, or a national government, or a decently good government, it would be necessary to replace fourteen of the fifteen members of the present Government by new men. Is it possible that I have come so near the truth that it pleases even my hon. friend from Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen)? I have left that one so that each member of the Government can take it to himself that he is the man who should remain in the Government, and that fourteen others should be selected. I know that my hon. friend from Portage la Prairie naturally would feel that he was the one, and I will do my hon. friend the credit	of saying that, leaving
out little pecularities such as being a great word-splitting acrobat, he has the brains, and if he would only use them right, as his conscience would direct-that is if he has a conscience, which sometimes I doubt-then I think he might be the man who would select-the fourteen to form a national government. What does this national government mean? I do not know whether my hon. friend who is now leading the House (Mr. Rogers) would be called upon to make the selection, but if he did, what would the national government be like? But taking it at its best, allowing that in the selection of a new Government, a national government, a business government, great care was exercised by my hon. friends opposite, it would be, in my judgment, neither more nor less than a government of the big inter- [DOT] ests of Canada. There is no question about that. We have heard mentioned some names of men likely to be called to a government of that description, and from what I can judge it would be a government whose chief duty would be to so place the taxation of Canada on the poor and the middle classes of Canada that the big business interests and the millionaires would escape. Have you noticed that the direct taxation legislation that was passed last year was so drafted that it hit certain men, hit them pretty hard, but left others scot free? I do not think the legislation that was passed last year providing for direct taxation hit one of the multimillionaires sitting on the treasury benches. If you had a national government selected by some one of the present Government, you would have very much the same



result. Who is to select this national government if one is to be formed? There must be somebody in charge and, unless we have an election, it would have to be the party opposite, so far as I can see, and so you would simply get -another party government. I do not doubt that you would get better men, because 1 think it is a moral impossibility to put in fourteen new men and not have a better government, I care not whether any care was exercised in the selection or not, it would be an improve*-ment; there is absolutely no question about that.
But would it be the class of Government that the people of Canada want at the present time? Have the big interests done so much for the country during the past two or three years? They have been making money by the millions, the tens of millions, and the hundreds of millions out of the people of Canada. Have they been moderate in their demands for profits? Not to any extent. There have been one or two exceptions. We have had a few instances of what these men are making. Take the Montreal Ammunition Company. As stated by my hon. friend from Bona-venture (Mr. Marcil) yesterday, that company paid a dividend of D00 per cent for one year. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, the Government allowing any set of men to put in $100 for a share, and during one year take out $900 in dividends, and leave $600 more as a rest account, thus robbing the people of Canada and of Great Britain. Imagine this Government allowing them to do that, and not even taxing them any more than they tax the ordinary honest business man. Why should not these men who are making millions not be taxed as they are in Great Britain? The Prime Minister on his return from a visit to Great Britain stated that the whole resources of Canada in men and material would be devoted to the winning of the war, and in the face of that statement the Government are allowing a few of their personal friends to rake out money from the pockets of the people of Canada and Great Britain by the tens of millions of dollars, while they treat them exactly the same, so far as taxation is concerned, as they treat the ordinary honest business man who does a legitimate business.
Let us take another instance. A couple of years ago, -a firm in Hamilton got a contract for shells. They filled that contract; they had a year's work at it, and they made 
a lot of money. The owner of the factory went to the Government and said: I have made as much money out of that contract as one man ought to have; I am satisfied, and am willing now to turn the factory over to the Government so that they may run it and supply the shells for the Canadian and British troops at cost. One would think that that was a pretty fair and reasonable offer, but did the Government accept it? No, they refused that offer. Why? Because, the Minister of Labour stated it was not in the interests of the country for the Government to go into competition with private industry. In order to allow their party friends to take millions of dollars from the people of Canada-because in this, as in everything else connected with the war, practically everything had to go to their partisan friends

the Government refused to take over that factory and run it. The result was that the gentleman who made that offer was compelled to continue the work, although he did not want to go on, and during the second year he made a profit of $750,000. As he had stated the year before that he did not want that money, he handed it over to the Government, but why should the Government allow any one to make money to that extent out of the agony of the people of Canada? Why does the Government not come forward now and take over a lot of this work, make the shells, fuses, and other munitions of war at cost price, and supply them to the-soldiers of Canada and Great Britain at the cheapest possible price? That would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, to be the proper and business thing to do; but our hon. friends opposite have absolutely refused to move in any way at all, to do anything to prevent this extravagant waste of money, or to help out the Empire and Canada by supplying the munitions of war at a fair and reasonable price.


Mr. BURNHAM:: Who sets the prices?


John Gillanders Turriff: Perhaps my hon. friend
will tell me.


John Hampden Burnham: I am asking you: You seem to know all about it.


John Gillanders Turriff: If I did not know more about it than my hon. friend I would not interrupt a speaker.


John Hampden Burnham: That may be wit, but there is not much sense in it.


John Gillanders Turriff: Will my hon. friend tell me who sets the prices? He has been parading over at the front-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


John Gillanders Turriff: Well, he paraded in
England, and paid a visit to the front, and he ought to be able to tell me who fixes the prices. .


John Hampden Burnham: You are making the
speech; I am not.


John Gillanders Turriff: Then allow me to make it. I am trying to make the speech, but my hon. friend undertook to help me out.


John Hampden Burnham: You are not succeeding.


John Gillanders Turriff: I think I am as capable of making my speech as my hon. friend is of helping.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


John Gillanders Turriff: Let me remind my hon. friend of what the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) said the other day about metaphysics. I should have thought that that would keep my hon. friend quiet for a little longer than two days.


John Hampden Burnham: My hon. friend does
not know what he is talking about.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


John Gillanders Turriff: With the evidence before us of what these munition manufacturers are making, why does the Government not tax them? They tax the honest business man twenty-five per cent on all he makes over seven per cent or ten per cent, as the case may be; but these munition men who are making money by the millions and tens of millions do not pay any more. Why does the Government not come forward and do as they do in Great Britain, as Lloyd George has done; as the Republic of France has done, and say to these manufacturers: we will allow you a certain percentage and after that we will take fifty or seventy-five per cent. If these munition manufacturers, who are making tens of millions of dollars, had to give up seventy-five per cent of what remained to them over ten per cent, it would amount to a very large sum of money and would help to relieve the ordinary business man who is heavily taxed.
Let us take another concern that is making money hand over fist. The other day the hon. the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White), who is not in his seat just now-I wish he were-made an interesting
12i
statement with reference to one of the big steel companies of Canada. He said that this company, which has tens of millions of dollars' worth of common stock, on account of which not one single cent of money ever was in the treasury of the company, in addition to paying their fixed charges in the shape of interest on their bonds, dividends on their preferred stock, deferred dividends, and dividends on common stock, were to-day piling up at least a million dollars a month as a reserve fund. That is all made by turning out material for the manufacture of munitions of war. Why should not a company like that be taxed. They were given bonuses to the extent of tens of millions of dollars by this country, and now they take advantage of the fact that the people are at war to charge such prices that they can pay all these dividends that I have mentioned and put by on rest account a million dollars a month. That is what my hon. friends opposite are allowing to go on, not only in reference to the Companies that I have mentioned, but in reference to dozens and scores and hundreds of companies who are profiting in the same way. They will not lift a hand to make these men pay more than the ordinary business man is paying. Is it any wonder that the people of the country are tired of that kind of rule? It is to be expected, and in view of this fact I think it would be a mistake if this Government should be given any particular extension of time. What the country wants is a sharp and strict account of how the Government are conducting its affairs. My hon. friend (Mr. Copp), who has just taken his seat, has read some correspondence between the hon. ex-Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Sam Hughes) and this Government, in which the exhninister has made some fifteen or twenty direct charges of malfeasance against his colleagues, and my hon friends on the treasury benches say nothing about it, do not answer the argument, have nothing to say. I think, and I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you will agree with me, being a pretty fair man, that this Parliament should appoint a committee of the House to investigate the charges that their own colleague has made against these hon. gentlemen
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


John Gillanders Turriff: Mr. Speaker, the suflject that I wish to. deal with now for a snort

time is the deliberate attempt that is being made in the Conservative press throughout Canada to connect the Nationalist party and Messrs. Bourassa and Lavergne with my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, and I challenge the Government to bring forward one iota of proof of any occasion before or since the war began that my honoured leader, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, has ever been guilty of favouring any of the policies advocated by Mr. Bourassa and the Nationalists who are to day members of this Government. I defy my 'hon. friends on the Government benches to point out a single instance in which a charge of that kind can be truthfully made. In spite of that fact the Conservative press., throughout Ontario particularly and in some parts of the West, is trying to connect Sir Wilfrid Laurier with the Nationalist party- In order to make my remarks clear, as a large part of them will consist of extracts and editorials from the Nationalist 'and Conservative press, I am going to read1 those extracts and also what I have to say on the matter. Hon. members will remember that the alliance between the Nationalists and the Conservative party started over the naval policy of the Liberal Government, and that in the year 1909 the House of Commons, Conservatives and Liberals alike, agreed on a policy to build a Canadian navy, building the ships in Canada and manning them by Canadians. In the year 1910, the Liberal Government came forward with, a naval policy, and let me remark here that the present Government is to-day advertising for men to man light cruisers. What for? To send over to Britain? No, to defend the Canadian coast. The advertisement is to-day appearing in the Canadian papers, and I 'have a copy of it on my desk. In 1910, however, there was a change, and gentlemen on the other side of the House had adopted a new policy, and in so doing they were brought into alliance with their particular friends, Messrs. Bourassa and Lavergne.
Mr- BURNHAM: They are your friends, then?


John Gillanders Turriff: I think my hon. friend from Peterborough wants another story, but I will noit waste any more time with 'him to-night.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: Send him over to
France.


John Gillanders Turriff: What position did Mr. Bourassa take? This change occurred over -the resolution of 1909 and the Act of 1910, 
and although various excuses have been made, no satisfactory reason founded upon sound public policy has ever been given for it. The actual cause for this change of heart is to be found in the close connection of Borden and Bourassa-
It would be indeed surprising were it not true, that, notwithstanding their professions of loyalty and devotion to the Mother Country, their professed willingness to sacrifice all for the flag, their 'burning zeal to consecrate themselves and everything else for the upbuilding and maintenance of the Empire, the hon. gentlemen who sit upon the Government side would seize the first opportunity to form an alliance with the very men whom now they pretend to repudiate and whose principles they now pretend to oppose in the most violent manner. W'h.at was it that caused this c-hange of heart on the part of the Premier and his followers? There can be but one * answer, namely, their alliance with Bourassa and the adoption- of his views.
What were, and, so far as we know, are Bourassa's views? The following articles were incorporated in the platform, of the Nationalist party, of which Mr. Henri Bourassa was the head and front, and were readopted at a meeting of the National League held at Eustache, Que., in July, 1910:
(a)	No participation by Canada in Imperial wars outside her territory.
(b)	To spurn any attempt at recruiting for British troops.
(c)	To o-ppose the establishment in Canada of a naval school with the help and for the benefit of Imperial authorities.
(d)	Control over our militia and military colleges in time of war as in time of peace and for the defence of our territory exclusively. Refusal to grant leave of absence to any militia officer in order that he may take part in any Imperial war.
Is this not strong and clear enough? Is there any doubt of the attitude of the Nationalist party? Can any one reading the articles of their Nationalist platform come to any other conclusion than that there was to be no mingling and no commingling with Great Britain in wars outside Canadian territory. Such then was the position of the Nationalists. What was and is the position of the party now in power? What does Mr. Bourassa say? Let me refer to his paper, Le Devoir, of May 29, 1913, in which issue Mr- Bourassa writes as follows:
During the session of 1910-1911 two leaders of the Conservative party requested that I meet them at the House of a mutual friend of ours. The envoys opened as follows:

The Nationalists say they are fighting, aa we do, the Liberal Government, but their stand upon reciprocity embarrasses us, the Conservative party, to a great extent. Were we (the Conservatives and Nationalists) to unite our efforts primarily against reciprocity, it is quite possible that an understanding satisfactory to both parties could be arrived at on the naval question since we are one on the point of popular consultation. If you press the naval question in Quebec it may provoke a display of loyalism in the extremist wing of our party. If reciprocity be but a subordinate issue with you, the difference between us might broaden still more, for the sole benefit of the common foe. At the time of a general election candidates will come forward who, while opposing the naval law will support reciprocity; yet others indifferent about reciprocity will come out against the naval policy of both parties.
This would be a puzzling situation for us. If we support the independent candidates, we shall be open to the charge of playing a game. On the other hand if we bring forward a third man-a straight Conservative-the Government candidate will get in between.
Mine was a decisive answer. Mr. Monk and his group have had support because of their pledge to oppose the naval policy of both parties until submitted for the peoples' verdict.
Since Drummond-Arthabaska, Mr. Borden has come nearer Mr. Monk. He has practically endorsed his plan of a plebiscite. This is the only ground upon which we can meet. Not being a party we will not bring forward any candidate, but we will heartily support any man whether Liberal or Conservative, pro-reciprocitist or anti-reciprocitist, provided he pledges himself to resist any plan of direct or indirect participation in Imperial wars outside of Canada, or at least oppose such measure until submitted for popular verdict by way of a plebiscite; the welfare of either party is for us of no moment. It is up to Mr. Borden and his lieutenants to decide whether to secure the seat for a ministerial (Liberal) candidate by entering a three-cornered field, or suffer the election of the candidate whom we shall support.	,
I have no doubt that the High Priest and Sanhedrin accepted the situation, since the fight was carried out according to our terms.
This is the story as told, so far, by Mr. Bourassa, and he is the one to know. He was the leader of the Nationalists, exercising great influence over certain of his fellow-citizens, recognized by the Conservative party as an important factor in a general election, and as one whose support was worth securing. We have had in this Parliamentary term many instances of peculiar deals-horse deals, boot deals, shell deals, etc., etc.-but while these are bad, while they cause us to wonder if this Government has lost all sense of rectitude in administration, is it not, after all, a more serious, a lamentable, state of affairs to see a gang of conspirators bartering away the principles of a party for the sake of power?
But Mr. Bourassa is not through yet. In his paper, Le Devoir, of May 30, 1913, he continues:-
As elections drew nearer we have ample proof that the Conservative leaders were quite satisfied with the situation which the Nationalist campaign had forced upon them. The Monk group came out as the "Autonomist" party with its complete organization, headquarters and oommittees distinct from the Conservative party proper.
The Tory General Committee allotted the Autonomist party most of the ridings in the province of Quebec, saving for themselves the English-speaking counties of the Eastern Townships, besides Pontiac, Argenteuil and three Montreal divisions, St. Antoine, St. Anne and St. Laurent. It was distinctly agreed that with these exceptions, Mr. Monk had exclusive charge of the whole province with the right to accept or refuse prospective candidates ; with the understanding that such candidates as were approved of must fight as best they could the Naval Law and the "No less nefarious policy" of Mr. Borden; that on reciprocity they could take whatever stand they chose, and that they should nevertheless receive from the Conservative party their wholehearted support. The Conservative party made use of its funds, and indirectly fostered the chances of such candidates as had declared themselves opposed to both policies.
On June 2, 1913, Mr. Bourassa, in his paper, stales:-
The most obvious proof that the Conservative party had surrendered to Nationalist sentiment was to be found in the Eastern Townships. Throughout that district, with the exception of Drummond-Arthabaska, no Nationalist or "Autonomist" candidates had been brought out. He took no part in the fight. Local committees and the electors generally took upon themselves to spread our principles. Such favour had Nationalism gained in public opinion, ;that (Conservative Candidates, both. English and French, had seen fit, willingly or not, to grant our doctrine considerable sway.
Such was the bargain. How was it carried out, according to the disclosures of this unholy alliance? According to Mr. Bourassa a manifesto was issued, which was eventually signed by all the Conservative candidates. This peculiar document is as follows:-
I declare that if elected on the 21st of September I shall oppose and vote against any Prime Minister of whatever party who will endeavour to maintain the Naval Law as adopted in 1910, without beforehand giving the people of Canada an opportunity to express their opinion thereon by means of a special referendum. I shall, if elected, see to it that the rights of the French-speaking Catholic minority are recognized and respected everywhere as are the rights of the English-speaking minority in the province of Quebec. I endorse separate schools, recognition of the French language, etc., and etc.
One wonders how such declaration on the part of their fellow-Conservatives will appeal to the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards), the member for West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham), the member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie), and to many others of the same fraternity. But it ap-

pears that the kindly offices of Mr. Bourassa were not to be confined to Quebec. He was invited, so he alleges, to deliver some addresses in Ontario and by no less a person than the Hon. Frank Cochrane, the present Minister of Railways and Canals. In order to make sure that his visit to Ontario would not be unwelcome and that the invitation was made in good faith and endorsed by what he considered to be responsible parties, Mr. Bourassa received exceedingly strong endorsations of his Nationalistic policy. From two Ontario gentlemen who were elected on the 21st of September, 1911, the following messages were received:-
Mattawa, Ont., Sept. 8, 1911.
Chas. McCrea,
Sudbury, Ont.
I certainly am opposed to reciprocity and will support request for repeal of Naval policy *ni a referendum to the people no matter who is Premier.
George Gordon.
Providence Bay, Sept. 8, 1911.
Ciias. MoCrae,
Sudbury, Ont.
I am opposed to Reciprocity pact. I am opposed to Naval policy of Liberal Government. I will support request for repeal of same, and referendum to the people on Naval question no matter who is Premier.
W. R. Smyth.
Fortified by these assurances of the fellow-feeling that existed so far as these two gentlemen were concerned, Mr. Bourassa visited Northern Ontario and when in the * district of Nipissing received from Mr. Gordon the following effusive welcome :

The Liberals are blaming us for bringing the Nationalist leader here. I am willing to take full responsibility and to express my full admiration for Bourassa. I have no use for the Navy and think Reciprocity is a baneful policy. I give Monsieur Bourassa the keys of the district.
So successful had his mission been in Ontario that even Mr. Cochrane, so Mr. Bourassa tells us, " usually very shy of his compliments, has since done me the honour of telling me that my arguments had made a deep impression, deeper still among English-speaking than French-speaking people." It is stated also by Mr. Bourassa that:-
One of the prominent members of the Conservative party came to his office carrying under his arm the voters' lists of all the Eastern Townships. He paid into our hands subscriptions to Le Devoir for thousands and thousands of electors. We asked nothing but the regular subscription price, deducting therefrom the ordinary subscription paid to agents. We thus . enjoyed the satisfaction of using Tory money to circulate the good Nationalist *gospel everywhere.

It will be interesting to know the name of his prominent Conservative, who, out of the intense love for the principles of Mr. Bourassa and the Nationalists, poured out his treasure for the circulation of this so-called valuable Nationalist literature. One wonders whether the member for St. Antoine Division, Montreal (Sir Herbert Ames) has [DOT]any personal or other knowledge of this. He should know. Having established himself as a magic-lantern artist, a dispenser of patriotic funds, and a contributor to the boot and shoe supplies for the Canadian soldiers-surely he can tell us something about the circulation of Bourassa's Nationalist paper.
The campaign-of 1911 resulted in the return of a large number of Nationalists from Quebec, and three from Ontario, namely: W. R. Smyth, the present member for East Algoma; Geo. Gordon, for Nipissing, aijd, following Mr. Gordon, who was transferred to the Senate, Hon. Frank Cochrane, now Minister of Railways and Canals.
In the ordinary course of events the present Prime Minister chose his ministers, and upon the formation of the Cabinet the light is thrown by the Toronto Telegram, certainly not very hostile to the present Government-in the following language:-
The process of Cabinet-making was in the Anal stages of its completion when the Nationalists proceeded to tell Canada's Premier "who's who and what's what."
The Nationalists' demand, with all the weight of Henry Bourassa's authority behind it, was, briefly:
Department of Public Works for F. D. Monk.
Department of Inland Revenue for W. B. Nantel.
Portfolio of Postmaster General for L. P. Pelletier.
No Quebec Protestant to hold a portfolio in the Cabinet.
The ultimatum failed to bend R. L. Borden to the purposes of the Nationalists. The Premier suggested that he would complete the making of his Cabinet in the spirit of justice to everybody. Whereupon the Nationalists departed, supplementing their ultimatum with words to this effect:
"You will either meet the demands of our ultimatum, or you will meet Parliament with a majority of eight to nine, the reduction being due to the nineteen Nationalists voting with Laurier."
The Nationalist gloatingly betrays the truth that the Nationalists were sent for on behalf of R. L. Borden, and they got everything they asked for in the allotment of portfolios, because the Premier of Canada weakened under the pressure of a pale bluff that the Quebec Nationalists would have never dared to make good.
Whatever influences prevailed upon the Prime Minister in the selection of his colleagues may never be fully known, but at any rate very positive statements have been

made by Mr. Lavergne that he was asked to name the French-Canadian representatives in the Cabinet. Suffice it to say that three pronounced Nationalists were chosen, Monk, Pelletier and Nantel, as well as the sub rosa Nationalists, the present Minister of Justice and the overseas Minister of Militia.
As a result of the disagreement with his colleagues on the $35,000,000 ship-building proposition submitted by this Government, Mr. Monk resigned. His place was taken by Mr. Coderre, a pronounced Nationalist. Mr. Pelletier, through ill-health, it is alleged, resigned and went to the Bench. Mr. Nantel departed this life as a public man and became a member of the Railway Commission. Mr. Coderre, evidently tiring of the troubles and manner of departmental life, found a haven of rest in the calm and serene atmosphere of the judiciary. The vacancies so created were filled by the Hon. Mr. Blondin, Hon. Mr. Casgrain and Hon. Mr. Patenaude, two of them pronounced Nationalists. The recent death of the late lamented Mr. Casgrain created another vacancy, and this has been filled by the translation of the Hon.'Mr. Sevigny from the Speakership to the Department of Inland Revenue. Throughout all of these appointments, amid all the Cabinet changes since 1911, the Nationalists have been recognized without fail.
Now then let us deal with the present Nationalist representatives in the Government. What is Mr. Blondin's record? Speaking at St. Louis de Blandford on 25th of October, 1910, he said:
You are intimidating the people in waving the English flag and adding that we must contribute always and everywhere to the defence of that protector of our constitutional liberties; but we will not be made to forget that in 1837 it was necessary to bore holes in it in order to breathe the atmosphere of liberty.
The English have never done anything for the French-Canadians. We do not owe them anything. French-Canadians have nothing to care about the opinion of the other provinces upon this naval question. They can and must settle the questions which concern them without consulting others. Those very ones who disembowelled their forefathers on the Plains of Abraham ask of you to-day to be slaughtered for their sake.
England has gone so far as to grind down the colonies as did Imperial Rome of old.
The only liberties which we enjoy have been snatched. England has not conquered Canada for love or to plant the cross of Christ as did France, but to establish trading posts and make money. She has so wed the world with hatred, quarrels and wars. We have had enough of England and the English.
Those who butchered your forefathers on the Plains of Abraham ask to-day that you sacrifice your lives for their sakes. We have had enough of England and the British.
Our liberties, we have wrested them from England, and we owe her nothing.
Canada owes nothing to England. The British did not conquer us for love, nor to plant the cross of Christ, as did France; and we are kept under her flag for the advantage of the trade. She benefited by her colony of Canada. What do we owe her?
Mr. Patenaude, now Secretary of State, was chairman of the meeting when the Nationalist party was formed, and at St. Remi, in the province of Quebec, he declared:
We (the Nationalist party) hold nothing in common with either of the political parties.
And last, but not least, we have the latest acquisition to the Government, the Hon. Mr. Sevigny, Minister of Inland Revenue, declaring:
The Eaurer Cabinet is a Cabinet of Imperialists who want to sacrifice Canada's interests and plunge us into wars with which we have nothing to do. The Navy Bill is an attempt by Ontario and the provinces of the West to coerce Quebec and enslave our people forever. What has England ever done for you? She has no need of your help. She is strong enough to defend herself. Laurier's ideal is to make you the vassals of the majority in the West. You must protest against helping England in her wars; unless you do, conscription will come next.
This, then, is the record of the connection of the Conservative party of this country with the Nationalist party. Examine it as you may, turn it as you will, you cannot get away from the outstanding fact that throughout the whole chapter there was a pre-arranged plan, that no matter what form the action took these two parties were to coalesce and work together for the one common object of destroying the Liberal party and the Liberal leader. But at the same time the Nationalist party had to save the situation as best they could on the naval question, and, though it was with a great deal of reluctance, as Mr. Sevigny is reported to have said recently, it was decided to drop the Laurier Naval Act of 1910, cease working for a Canadian navy, and in its place adopt the makeshift of a $35,000,000 contribution to Imperial defence.
Something has been said about the lack of recruiting in Quebec. How can you expect recruiting when practically every member of the Quebec representation in the Cabinet is pledged against assistance to the Empire outside of Canada? How can you expect this Government to assist materially in winning this war when from one-third to one-half of the Cabinet are opposed in principle to participation in the Empire's wars such as we are engaged in at the present time? Let the Conservative


Mr. WRIGHT:: Shame.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Shame on your
friends.


John Gillanders Turriff: Shame on you (Mr. Wright), you are perfectly right, you ought to be ashamed and I am glad you are.


William Wright: You ought to be
ashamed


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. I must remind hon. gentlemen that there is only one method of address permitted in the Chamber, and that is through the Chair.


John Gillanders Turriff: I say that for no other purpose, the Prime Minister has kept in his Government these three Nationalists- disloyal Canadians, disloyal Britishers- simply and solely and purposely to hinder recruiting in the province of Quebec. Why, Mr. Speaker? Simply because my hon. friend who is leading the House (Mr. Rogers) and my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) know that they have no possible chance of being returned to power on their record as the administrators of the Government of Canada, and secondly that my right hon. friend the Prime Minister and his minister of elections know perfectly well that on their administration of Canada's part in the war they have no possible chance of being returned to power; and therefore they had to seek about for some other means that would bring them to power; and they have kept up this Nationalist arrangement, as I said a moment ago, for the sole and only purpose of being able to carry on the next election as a racial fight, bringing into line, so far as they could, all the Englishspeaking provinces in Canada, the eight English-speaking provinces, bringing them up and making the fight English against
French in the province of Quebec. That is what I charge against the Government, and that is what the Government will have to clear themselves from. Why, Mr, Speaker, look at the Conservative press throughout the province of Ontario. They openly advocate it. You cannot talk with half a dozen Conservatives in this city or any other place that three, four or five of them will not tell you that is going to be the next fight. They make no bones about that, they do not hide it. They simply say: The bilingual question; Quebec is not recruiting-and that is going to be the bone of contention during the election.
Mr. Speaker, I was born and brought up in the province of Quebec. I am proud of the province of my birth. I am not here to defend the French people of Quebec; they are well able to defend themselves. I am not here to say that they have recruited in as large numbers as they should, but, in the name of Heaven, how can they be expected to recruit in the face of what I have brought forward in this House tonight, in the face of what has been said by my hon. friend from Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil); in the face of what was said only last night by my hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux)? How could you expect recruiting to be good in the province of Quebec under the leadership it has had, and under the circumstances, and in view of what has been done to prevent recruiting. It has been said that Quebec has not recruited as largely as Ontario, and that is made a terrible crime against Quebec. As I said a moment ago, I think they should have put up more men; but you might as well say that Ontario has not recruited as largely as Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta or British Columbia-and she has not, not by any manner of means. Is that a particular crime?
I will tell you why Ontario has not recruited so well as the western provinces. The reason is that we have more men of' British birth, Englishmen, Irishmen, Welshmen and Scotsmen in these provinces than, in Ontario. We may laugh sometimes at the young Englishman who comes out to, this country, and who knows nothing about it, but I take off my hat to the remittance-man for what he has done since the war began. The moment hostilities broke out he did not stand on his going; he immediately went to the nearest recruiting place and enlisted. The reason why the proportion of recruits has been so big in Saskatchewan, in Alberta, in Manitoba, and in.

British Columbia, the reason why it has been longer than in the province of Ontario is that in these provinces there is a larger proportion of British born people. I say, Mr. Speaker, without fear of successful contradiction, that if you take the rural population of Canadian born people you will not find so much difference in the number of recruits in the different provinces. Do not misunderstand me. I say that if you could separate the Canadian born men in the English-speaking provinces the proportion of recruits would be larger, I know-and I am glad of it-but at the same time the difference would not be nearly so great as a good many people on both sides of politics seem to imagine. I do not want to defend Quebec; I do not need to do so, but I want to put the matter fairly and reasonably.
I am going to say something else that, perhaps, my hon. friends on the other side of the House may not like. I am sorry to say it, but I am going to say it all the same, because I believe it to be true. We hear a good deal to-day about what has been said down in Dorchester by a hot-blooded young Irish French-Canadian, and it has been twisted and distorted in the Tory papers until I believe very little of it. However, we are going to have that young man here next week, and he will make his ,own explanations.


Robert Rogers: No chance.


John Gillanders Turriff: This young Irish-French-man says he is a true Britisher through and through. We have heard a good deal of what he has been saying, but we have not heard anything from the other side of the House about the intimation made by the Prime Minister, the right hon. Sir R. L. Borden, last spring to the representatives .of the Ontario Recruiting Committee, that if he had his way there would be no -more recruiting in Canada, and that the attention .of the Canadian people should be turned to the development of their industries. That intimation, Mr. Speaker, was followed by a direct falling off in recruiting from the Atlantic to the Pacific.


Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: Who does the hon. gentleman say used these words?


John Gillanders Turriff: I will say it over again for the benefit of my hon. friend, because I want to make it absolutely clear. I said That we had heard a good deal about what a young Irish-Frenchman, Mr. Cannon, had been saying, but that we had not heard anything from hon. gentlemen on the other .side of the House about the intimation that

had been made by Sir Robert Borden. I want to get this correctly. We have not heard about the intimation given by the Prime Minister last spring to the representatives of the Ontario Recruiting Committee in Toronto that if he had his way there would be jjo more recruiting in Canada, and that the attention of the Canadian people should be turned to the development of their industries. That was followed by a direct falling off in recruiting from one end of Canada to the other.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman give his authority for ascribing these words to the Prime Minister?


John Gillanders Turriff: If my hon. friend, who is a Minister of the Crown, will appoint a committee I will give my authority and bring him forward, and I will make it good.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Come on.


John Hampden Burnham: Docs the hon. gentleman really think-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Hampden Burnham: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to ask him a question?


John Gillanders Turriff: Certainly.


John Hampden Burnham: Does he really think
it fair to make that charge; is it his code of ethics to refuse to give his authority?


John Gillanders Turriff: I have offered my hon.
friend the Solicitor General, that if he will appoint a committee I will bring forward my authority. What more can my hon. friend from Peterborough want?


John Hampden Burnham: A committee on lunacy.


John Gillanders Turriff: What more can my hon. friend want? The Government now know how they can get the authority, and they can act accordingly.


Arthur Meighen: Why will the hon. gentleman not give it now?


John Gillanders Turriff: Simply because I do
not choose to satisfy the curiosity of my hon. friend at this moment; that is all. Let my hon. friend, who is one of the big men of the Government come forward with his committee, and I will get all the information he wants, and more than he wants along that line.'


Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: My hon. friend is
surely not ashamed of his authority; he is surely not ashamed of the newspaper from which he is reading, if he is reading from a newspaper.


John Gillanders Turriff: Did I hear my hon.
friend rightly?


William Sora Middlebro: I take it that my
hon. friend is reading from some newspaper report of the meeting he speaks of. Snrely he is not ashamed to give the name of the newspaper.


John Gillanders Turriff: I always like to satisfy
a moderate man when I can, and I am going to satisfy my hon. friend right now by telling him that I am not reading from any newspaper.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Gillanders Turriff: I said a moment ago
that the reason for the alliance between the Nationalists and the Government was that the Government were perfectly satisfied. I know that my hon. friend, the Minister of Public Works, will in his heart agree with me because, as he says, he knows something about elections.
I suppose the Government felt that they were not able to carry the country on what I might call their domestic record-their record in connection with carrying on the affairs of Canada. You will remember that the present Prime Minister thought that the late Government were extremely extravagant, and promised all sorts o.f economies.
I am not going into that question to-night, because I have taken up a lot of time already and that question can, and will come up for discussion later on. But, I may say, shortly, that the record of the Borden Government from September, 1911, to the present time has been a record of broken promises from first to last with one single exception. Of all planks in the platform issued by the leader of the Government prior to the election of 1911 there has only been one carried out. Therefore, my [DOT] right hon. friend the Prime Minister and his friends know perfectly well that it would be ridiculous to appeal to the country on their record, or on the plea that they have carried out their promises. Have they done any better in carrying out the part which Canada has taken in the war? I heard my hon. friend from Westmorland (Mr. Copp) speak about the two hundred lieutenant-colonels who were in England, who have been in England from the time that the first contingent went over, who are there yet drawing salaries and incurring expenses costing the country about 81,000,000 per annum, and the country is getting absolutely nothing for it. My hon. friend only dealt with the lieutenant-colonels. What
about the majors? We have some of them back, I see.


Mr. BRADBURY:: I would like to know
where the hon- gentleman gets his information when he says that there are 200 lieu-tenanhcolonels in England. That means two hundred battalions and 200,000 men. It is absolutely absurd.


John Gillanders Turriff: We have lieutenant-colonels who are not with battalions.


George Henry Bradbury: That is rot.


John Gillanders Turriff: We have more lieutenant-colonels than battalions over there.
Mr- BRADBURY: No, you have not.


John Gillanders Turriff: Yes, we have; my hon. friend is not such a good military man that he knows everything. Very many battalions went over with lieutenant-colonels at their head and these lieutenant-colonels are still in England. The - lieutenant-colonel who went over with the battalion is still in England and another lieutenant-colonel has been appointed to do the fighting.


George Henry Bradbury: That is not right.


John Gillanders Turriff: To-day you have more lieutenant-colonels than battalions over there. But, what about the majors and captains? The Prime Minister said that there were 2,700 men alone in the Pay and Records Office besides the hundreds of clerks hired in England to do the work; these 2,700 majors, captains, lieutenants and a gang that are no good for war purposes are hanging on to the skirts of the Government, the idea being to spend the money of Canada, and it is not $1,000,000, as my hon. friend from Westmorland said, but many millions of dollars a year that are being absolutely squandered and wasted for that very purpose. In addition to that, my information is that there are 30,000 men, privates, corporals and ser-
9 p.m. geants, in Great Britain to-day who are unfit to be sent across the channel to the firing line. What does that mean? It means that these 30,000 men cost this country at least $30,000,000 by the time they were landed in Great Britain. It means that since they have been landed in Great Britain another $30,000,000 of Canadian money has been expended'; What are they doing?-nothing at all. They cannot be sent to the front; they are too old, or too cripled, or too young; they are men who never ought to have been enlisted at all. I say, with all due respect to many excellent physicians and doctors throughout


Robert Rogers: A million and a half.


John Gillanders Turriff: We are spending over a million dollars a day in Canada.


Mr. HAZEN:: Not in Canada.


John Gillanders Turriff: In England for what Canada is supplying to the soldiers in England? But when the soldiers go across the water, as I understand it, the British War Office supplies the food, the uniforms, everything that the soldiers in France and Flanders use. It may be that that only amounts to a million and a half a day. My hon. friend may be right. But that is what I want to know, and I would like to have the Finance Minister, if he has the facts, give us, a statement showing approximately, if he cannot show exactly, how much a day the war is costing us over and above what Canada is paying at the present time. I think it will be found to be a very large sum. The Minister of Militia (Mr. Kemp) is now in his place, and possibly he might be able to give' that information approximately. I can quite easily understand that he has not the exact figures. But if he or the Minister of Finance will give us that information at a later day I for one would appreciate it very much.
I was surprised when the Prime Minister took the position he did concerning the extension of the life of Parliament. He spoke of the disadvantages of holding an election during the war. There would be disadvantages for the Government-I quite appreciate that. But what right has the Government to come forward with that plea now? War broke out on the 4th of August,

1914, and a special session was called to [DOT] open on the 18th, which session lasted far five days. During that session my right hon. leader (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and every member on this side of the House joined in with the Government and voted all the money the Government asked in order to carry on the war. My right hon. leader had a number of engagements to hold meetings; he cancelled them all. It is true that no formal political truce was made, as the hon. Minister of Militia stated at a meeting in his constituency, but there was a tacit abandonment of partisan activity-on the part of the Liberals, at all events. However, during that time hon. gentlemen opposite were preparing and 'Sending out the most atrocious partisan literature ever sent out under the stamp of a member. This was done at the very time when they were saying: We must all join together, we must put the whole force of the country behind the Government in carrying on properly our share in the war. The circulation of this literature by hundreds of thousands of. copies went on during September, October and November, 1914. It i3 not often that my hon. friend who is leading the House (Mr. Rogers) slips a cog, but he did it on that occasion. This literature was supposed to be sent out privately; but the West was flooded with it-and it was dated. If anybody questions the time, I have the goods and can show them.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: You call that " goods."


John Gillanders Turriff: It is goods of a kind, the goods the hon. gentleman (Mr. Rogers) uses to win elections. Hon. gentlemen opposite have, whenever it suited them to do so, claimed that there was a truce. But, if there was a truce, that is the way they kept it. I do not make this charge against all the members on the other side, because I know there are many men sitting before me who would not be guilty of such an action as that; but naturally they are all willing to take any advantage that may come to them from it.
One member of the Government, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), is travelling all over the world to secure trade for Canada; and he and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Burrell) and the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) are talking increased production. We are glad to see the Minister of Agriculture in his place, and hope that his health is fairly well recovered from the bad experience he went through at the
fMr. Turriff.]	.
burning of the Parliament Buildings last year. I would like to say to him, in the most friendly manner possible, that if he and his colleagues want to increase production and to secure more trade, it is not necessary for them to send the Minister of Trade and Commerce travelling all over creation. All that is necessary is to take off some of the trammels that now hinder trade. Let us in the West have the American market,-not that it will make much difference this year with wheat at $1.50 to $2 a bushel-let us have the right to sell our wheat where we please and get the best price for it. Take off the extra duties on everything the farmer uses. Put the farmer in a position ta make the best of his land. Then there will be no need for the Minister of Agriculture to make appeals to the people for increased production; the increased production will come without any effort on his part. But under the system adopted by the Minister of Customs (Mr. Reid) and ihe arbitrary action taken by his department, farmers have had to pay during the past year duties on agricultural implements amounting to from 48 per cent to 76 per cent, and that on goods on which the nominal rate of duty is 27J per cent, with 7J per cent extra, a total of 35 per cent. I say that through the arbitrary measures of the Minister of Customs and his Customs board, prices have been so changed, at the demand and instigation of the Canadian implement manufacturers, that the duty the farmer has to pay amounts to the figures I have given.
Mr- REID:	That statement is both absurd and untrue.


John Gillanders Turriff: Did my hon. friend ever collect that duty and afterwards refund it?


Mr. REID:: No, we have not. The rates of duty collected on agricultural implements are based on the prices at which the manufacturers invoice them to the people in the western provinces.


John Gillanders Turriff: In spite of what my hon. friend has said-and he has not made a straight answer-I say again that the importers of goods in the West have in many cases paid duty on a valuation which was 20, 25 or 30 per cent more than the price they paid for the goods. For instance, if a man imported a machine for which he paid $100, the Customs Board would say: the valuation fox duty purposes of that machine upon its entry into Canada is $120

or $125- They use the dumping clause to do this.


John Dowsley Reid: Th!e members of the Board
of Customs are the same gentlemen who havie been the members of the board for the last twenty years.


John Gillanders Turriff: I know that.


John Dowsley Reid: The large implement manufacturing companies in the United States have a regular price list upon which they sell in the United States, and on that pricelist are based the values upon which customs duties are collected. There has been no change of policy on the part of the Customs Board since this Government came into power. The policy adopted is that which was in force during the 15 years that hon. gentlemen opposite were in power, when the hon- gentleman was sitting on the Government benches.


John Gillanders Turriff: My hon. friend says that the Customs Board has not been changed. That is true enough, but unfortunately for Canada the minister was changed. I say again, and the minister knows that I am stating the truth, when I say that the prices at which the goods are sold are in many cases not those of the price-list and that the minister has made importers pay duty on a valuation greater than the price paid for the goods imported. I stand by that statement, and I do not take it back in view of anything that has been said, because I know what I am talking about.


John Dowsley Reid: You have been giving us no evidence but your word, and I do not think that is good so far as this case is concerned.


John Gillanders Turriff: Will my hon. friend give me a committee to prove it? He knows better than to give a committee; he knows that what I say can be proved, because 1, am stating an absolute fact that is known to many people. It is no secret. I have seen price lists from which deductions of 50, 20 and 10 per cent are made; you cannot go by price lists. As I said a moment ago, this has been done at the instigation of the big manufacturers in Canada. I say to the Minister of Agriculture: take these burdens off the farmers and you won't be able to keep the people away from the land. It will not be necessary to put advertisements in the papers calling on the farmers to increase their production, because no man knows better how to use the land than the man who is working it.
We have heard a good deal about these National Service cards. I would like some member of the Government to say what they are going to do when they get these ca:ds all in. Suppose every man in Canada filled in and returned the National Service card, how much further ahead would' you be? I will tell you how much further behind you are going to be. These National Service cards have already driven thousands of people out of Canada, and thousands more are going. I have heard it stated- and there is much to be said for it-that we are as well without the man who would leave Canada for fear he would be sent to the war. But many of these people who have left are not Canadian citizens as yet. They are people who have come into Canada, many of them into the West, and they are going over the border in hundreds and thousands. They say that they are going to visit their people at home and that they will be back. Yes, I believe they will be back, but not until after the war is over. The same applies to eastern Canada; they are going by thousands simply because of the fear that these National Service cards may lead to conscription. For myself I do not think so; I do not believe the Government has any intention of that. But what I say is that these cards are doing no possible good and any amount of harm.
We heard to-day before six o'clock that not later than the day before yesterday a member of this Government told the people in the county of Dorchester that if they feared conscription they could go across the line and there would be no danger. You cannot stop people from going across the line. The hon. Postmaster General, Mr. Blondin, telephoned the Minister of Public Works and asked him to deny that, but unfortunately for the Minister of Public Works, who has just made the denial- probably in good faith-Mr. Blondin had already sent a letter to the press in which he acknowledged both charges. Here is the letter, Mr. Speaker, on page 5 of to-day's Evening Journal.


Mr. MARCIL:: Read it.


John Gillanders Turriff: It was read before, but I will read it; I am always willing to oblige. It is as follows:



SAY1S LIBERALS HAVE DISTORTED HIS WORDS.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. E. Blondin Says He Never Intended to
Convey Meaning They Attach to His Speech.
By Canadian Press.
Montreal, Jan. 26. - Hon. P. E. Blondin.
[Stage Direction]
through his lieutenant, Felix Durocher, has issued a reply to an affidavit, which purported to give a report of his remarks at Ste. Rose during a Dorchester county by-electioh speech on Wednesday night. The affidavit credited Mr. Blondin with contending that the Allison scandal was of no importance to Ste. Rose be-*cause it is English money that was stolen, while those who desired to escape conscription could do so by crossing the United States border. Mr. Blondin's explanation follows:
"The statements which have been sworn to by certain Liberals with regard to my utterances -are a distortion of my words. I never by any means intended to convey the meaning which they have attached to my speech. Mr. Cannon had been stating in his speeches that the Conservative party had been grafting from the Canadian treasury in connection with munition -contracts.
"In my speech at Ste. Rose I explained that it was not true that the Allison scandal had to do with Canadian money, pointing out that the money paid for the shells was the money of the British Government. I did not imply that Allison had done a worthy act, but simply corrected Mr. Cannon's mis-statement. In regard to the conscription matter I told the people of Ste. Rose that I did not believe conscription would be necessary because so many Canadians were eager to go and fight for the cause of liberty and humanity. I added that if any of them were afraid of conscription, if conscription should be passed and they did not want to go to the war, they had a remedy left. They could go across the United States line which is near Ste. Rose and escape military service."
Mr. Speaker, when you find a Minister of the Crown advising the people of Canada in Quebec to get across the line to escape conscription, do you wonder that recruiting is slow in Quebec?
Mr. WILCOX:: Is that a signed letter?


John Gillanders Turriff: Do you imagine that recruiting would be good in Quebec in view of a statement of that kind by a Minister of the Crown, a Minister who has just been promoted? Why it is absurd to expect anything, and if it had not been that by mistake that letter got into print, my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works would have got away with his bluff.


Robert Rogers: No bluff.


John Gillanders Turriff: It was not a bluff on the part of my hon. friend, perhaps, but it was a bluff on the part of the Hon. P. E. Blondin, and my hon. friend, in his innocence, was carrying it out.


Mr. McKENZIE:: Innocence, eh?


John Gillanders Turriff: We have the three Ministers in this bluff on the Canadian people; and it apparently worked, because while there is the letter on page 5 of the Evening Journal of to-night, it is in only a few of the papers. In all the balance of

the issue of to-night's evening Journal, the home edition, these two columns, down about two-thirds of the way, are cut out. Somebody found out that there was a bad give-away in this letter, that there was an acknowledgement of both charges in the affidavit, and they got busy in the Journal office and cut out the whole two columns, in order to keep that particular letter out. But some papers of the issue had already been distributed and I hold one of them in my hand, with this article in it. So my hon. friend, the Minister of Public Works, nearly got away with it, but he just slipped a cog Iot once-and I give my genial friend credit that he does not often slip a cog in that manner. It was not in his hands. If it had been in the master's hands the cogs would have clutched together all right, and it yvould have worked. But the tools that my hon. friend uses are not as good as he is himself. You cannot expect the ordinary mechanic to be as good as the master mechanic, and I take off my hat to the Minister of Public Works and express my sympathy for him that the cog slipped on this occasion. But do not wonder if in the future, so long as this gang are trying to get recruits in Quebec, they do not get very many.


Oliver James Wilcox: Order.


John Gillanders Turriff: Why order? They are not a single individual, and what are they if they are not a gang-and the gang is not improved any by my hon. friend. _


Oliver James Wilcox: Compare favourably with yourself.


John Gillanders Turriff: Perhaps. My hon.
friends are starting in now recruiting from the Civil Service, and I want to say just one word on that. If you are going to recruit from the Civil Service let it be genuine all through, let there be the same 'treatment to everybody. Why, in the House of Commons here, have we so many young able-bodied men, single men, between the ages of twenty and twenty-five? Why are those men hired by the House of Commons for the session when they ought to be at the front, fighting for their country? And they would be if they had the blood of men in them. But, if you are going to recruit from the Civil Service, let it be fair all round. I know the case of one Minister who has a man working for him who wanted to go, but the Minister says he cannot be spared. I understand that in the recruiting that is taking place now in the Civil Service, the chief clerk

in a department has the right to say what men ean go and what men cannot. Is that fair? Does anyone mean to tell me that there is any man in the Civil Service, or any man in this Government, or in this House, who cannot be spared? I never knew a man yet so big that he could not be replaced. So, if the Government wants to get the Civil Service to recruit, they should make the lecruiting fair and even all round, and not have one taken and the other left, because one has a little bit of influence.
I had intended to speak on the high cost or living and also of what is going to happen when the war is over and three hundred thousand soldiers and four hundred thousand munition workers are discharged. I was also going to speak of the Ross rifle, and I will say one word on that. Mr. Speaker, I have talked to men who have come back from the trenches, and those men have told me with tears in their eyes that on several occasions when they were in the trenches and the Germans made attacks on them, they were there in the trenches with the Ross rifles jammed, and they could not get a cartridge in or out and could not use the rifles, and the Germans came right up to the edge of the trench and shot them in the trenches with the useless guns in their hands-and them cursing because they could not retaliate and kill some of their enemies. The Government and my hon. friend the Solicitor General said that they were bound by the contract that was made by the Liberal Government, the contract that provided that no change could be made inside of a year. But Sir Charles Ross has said that he never insisted on that part of the contract, but was always ready to make any changes, and Ross has challenged my hon. friend to say what he means by this statement. My hon. friend has kept a judicious silence ever since.
Another returned soldier told me of one battle that he was in where his battalion made an advance and were able to dig shallow trenches about a foot deep, in which they were lying protected to a certain extent from the German bullets. After firing a few shots their rifles jammed, and they could not get the bolts to work. In their eagerness to do some execution against the enemy, they would rise up on one hand and their knees and take the other hand to get a crack at the bolt in order to force it back so as to be able to insert a cartridge, and as they would rise up six
inches or a foot above the ground, they would fall over dead or wounded by the scores and by the hundred-and the fathers and mothers of this country have a right to know from this Government what they meant by continuing the use of that rifle for a year after they knew that it was no good for war purposes, a year after the commander at the front had to withdraw a division of Canadian soldiers because of the arm they carried, and knew that thousands of our men had discarded the Ross rifle and stood around the dressing stations to grab a Lee-Enfield rifle whenever one was dropped by a wounded British soldier. This Government is responsible. I do not hold them responsible at the first, but when they found out that the rifle would not work in war, I say this Government is absolutely and directly responsible for the death of hundreds and thousands of our Canadian boys who were killed because of the uselessness of the rifle that they had in their hands.
If they had had a good rifle they would have put the enemy out of business, and fewer of them would have been killed. At this hour of the night I have not time to take this matter up-I have spoken too long-but we intend to take it up and to hold the Government responsible. My hon. friend the Solicitor General has a good deal to do yet before he can make good his claim that the Government were bound by the contract made by their predecessors with the Roes Rifle Company. That contract was for a rifle agreed to by the Government, a rifle which could be' changed at any time; and what is more, Sir Charles Ross himself pointed out the defects of the rifle a year before they stopped manufacturing. What are the Government doing now? They are buying thousands and tens of thousands, yes, hundreds of thousands of uniforms more then they neied, but they have not ordered any more rifles. Why, I do not know, but they have not, and it is up to them to. eixplain. I will not say anything further about the Ross rifle in the meantime.
I had intended to take up the question of nickel. My hon. friend the Solicitor General did some fancy skating around that matter last year, but it looks pretty poor stuff in view of the information, that has come out during the past year. These are things that will have to- be taken up. The men and women of Canada who have sent their sons to the front want to know, about how the Government have handled the nickel, the Ross rifle, and other things;



but they will keep until after the adjournment^ until the Prime Minister comes back, and then we will take them up and discuss them with our friends opposite.


Mr. G. W. KYTE (Richmond):: Moved
the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of 'hon. Mr. Rogers the House adjourned at 9.50 p.m.
Monday, January 29, 1917.