1918-05-21

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Speaker informed the House that he had directed the Clerk of the House -to lay upon the Table his recommendation and the Clerk's report in the matter of the appointment of Mr. Marcel Gabard to the position of Official Reporter of the Debates of the House of Commons, in place of Mr. Alphonse Desjardins, superannuated.
Mr. RICHARDSON:: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether this appointment dates from the beginning of next session or dates from now? One man is superannuated and you appoint another in his place.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The record speaks for itself. I think it is the 18th of May last.



VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND JOURNALS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. A. CURRIE (North Simcoe) presented the first report of the special committee to consider the consolidation of the Votes and Proceedings and Journals of the House as follows:
The Special Committee appointed to consider and report upon the question of consolidating the Votes and Proceedings and the journals of the House of Commons beg to report that they have not had time to give full consideration to the matter. They beg to recommend, therefore, that the details connected with the work of such consideration be worked out during the recess by the Chief Clerk of Journals, Votes and Proceedings and Orders; and that a special committee be appointed at the beginning of the next session to fully consider the matter.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. M. MOWAT (Parkdale) presented the second report of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders as follows:
The Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders beg leave to present the following as their second report:
Tour committee has had under consideration the petition of William Louis Scott and others for an Act of incorporation under the name of the British Canadian Insurance Company-in Bill B2 of the Senate named United Canadian Insurance Company-and also the report, dated 18th May, 1918, of .the examiner of Petitions for Private Bills thereon, stating that the notice of application had only been published for three consecutive weeks in the Canada Gazette instead of five consecutive weeks as required by Buie 91.
As your committee has informed itself on the matter and had explanations made and is of opinion that no interests either public or private, will be prejudicially affected by the
shortage of notice in this case, it recommends that the notice, as published, be deemed sufficient.
Mr. MOWAT moved:: That the second report of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders be concurred in.


Mr. CLEMENTS:: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens), I beg to move:
That Bill No. 107 Letter B of the Senate intituled an Act to incorporate the British Canadian Insurance Company be placed on the Order Paper amongst private Bills for second reading this day.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The motion as submitted by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Clements) is not an amendment to the main motion. It would he quite competent for the House to accept the motion to concur in the report, and subsequently for the hon. member to ask the leave of the House to submit his motion. But, it is not properly an amendment to the main motion at all. The report points out that although the notice of a certain Bill had not been published for five weeks, no public interests had been prejudiced thereby, and recommends to the House that the notice, as published, be deemed sufficient.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: What is the, motion?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The main motion is that the second report of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders be concurred in and the motion, as submitted by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, is that the Bill referred to in this report be placed on the Order Paper among private Bills for second reading this day. It is not an amendment- at all. The motion might be moved with the concurrence of the House. Of course it is1 understood that either of these motions can only be isubmitted by 'the unanimous consent of the House. I now put the motion moved by Mr. Mowat that the second report of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders be concurred in. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. H. BURNHAM (West Peterborough) :: Have the Government taken into consideration the very great desirability of having the House adjourn instead of proroguing, in order that the members may



show their genuine enthusiasm at this critical time by manifesting a desire to respond to any necessity that may arise after the Premier's return 'from Great Britain?


Mr. E. LAPOINTE:: Unanimously carried.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: I really cannot say that the matter has 'been under consideration at the present time, hut I will give my best attention to what my hon. friend' suggests.


Wilfrid Laurier: I did not
exactly catch the tenor of the desire of my hon. friend from Peterborough.


Robert Laird Borden: It is for an adr journment instead of proroguing.


Wilfrid Laurier: On Friday?


Robert Laird Borden: Whenever it
coimes.


Wilfrid Laurier: As soon as the business before us is closed, the House has to prorogue, and we will all be glad to do so. I call the attention of my right hon. friend to the fact that Friday, the 24th instant, is Victoria Day, and a statutory holiday. I want to know if my right'hon. friend intends that the House shall sit that day.


Robert Laird Borden: If the House cannot prorogue before that* day I think we should sit.


Wilfrid Laurier: Of course the House has the power to do what it sees fit, but I should think the law ought to be observed in this case, as in all other cases. The 24th of May is a statutory holiday, and should be observed.


Robert Laird Borden: Parliament has sat before on that day, and I think on the first day of July, as well.


Sir SAM HUGHES:: Prorogue to-morrow.


Robert Laird Borden: I should say that under the circumstances we might observe the day better by attending to our parliamentary duties here than by adjourning from Thursday to Saturday.



REPORT ON THE MILLING INDUSTRY.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. F. NICKLE:: Would the Minister of Labour tell us whether or not it is his intention to lay on the table of the House, before prorogation, the report in regard to the milling industry? *


Hon. T. W. CROTHERS (Minister of Labour) :: The report, as soon as complete, will be placed upon the table of the House, and I expect that will be before prorogation.



MARINE TRADES STRIKE IN MONTREAL.

Wilfrid Laurier: I have received a telegram from the secretary of the Montreal Marine Trades Federation in which it is stated:
Four hundred workmen employed upon construction of wooden ships under Government contract by the Fraser Brace Co., (Montreal, men ceased to work Wednesday fifteenth instant. Firm promised men's demand of fifty cents per hour, nine hours' work day with overtime rates (The Canadian Vickers Co., have already signed a similar agreement, everything working in harmony). Fraser Brace refuse to sign. Men not working. Kindly use your good offices in effecting honourable settlement.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I have no information on the subject but I will inquire into it to-day..



CORRECTION-MR. G. B. NICHOLSON.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON:: I would ask the liberty of correcting a figure which appears in my speech on the railway situation as reported in Hansard of May 15 on page 2114. Speaking with reference to the conditions of Canadian railways, I am reported as saying that it will cost the Canadian Pacific Railway $100,000,000 to get its grades between Port Arthur and Sudbury equal to those of the Canadian Northern between the same points. I am not sure that it is Hansard that is in error, but the figure there given is incorrect whether I mentioned it or not. Instead of $100,000,000 it should be $10,000,000.
On the Orders of the Day:



FISHERMEN AND MILITARY SERVICE.

Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guysborough):: I wish to draw the attention of the Government to a matter which is of great interest in the Maritime Province's. I refer to the cases of hardship among the fishermen on account of the recent changes in the Military Service Act. I have had several messages, but will read this telegram as a sample:
We see by papers that the Government is doing quite a lot for the farmers, such as granting them leave of absence to put in their crops, etc., but there is nothing about the fishermen who fitted out extensively this spring, getting large supplies from the creditors for wihich they expected to pay with fish. Now

that spring fishing has just started1, why are they net allowed time to have the benefit of . the spring's catch? Then they will square up accounts and' have better courage to face the enemy. Kindly bring this matter to the attention of the Government and let the public know what is being done.
(Signed) DAVID PISH CO.,
per Pred David.
This matter, of course, is a question for the Government, and I have no doubt that there are cases of great hardship. I simply . desire to ask the Minister of Militia who I observe is not in his seat just now, to take this mutter under consideration.


Robert Laird Borden: As my hon.
friend has observed the Minister of Militia is not able to- be here just at the moment. However, I shall make it a point to direct his immediate attention to the representation which the hon. gentleman has placed before the Government, and I shall ask him to give the best consideration he can to what the hon. gentleman has said.



CIVIL PAY OF MEN OVERSEAS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. T. M. M. TWEEDIE (West Calgary):: I beg to call the attention of the House to a telegram which I have just received:
Mass meeting dependents Civil Servants Calgary held to-day protest Order in Council April second deducting civil pay men overseas. Consider same breach of faith. Petitions being forwarded by mail asking continuation of pay or return of men. Your earnest reconsideration requested.
(Signed) MRS. SPEECHLY,
Committee, Mrs. Jackson,
Mrs. Raokham.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member is exceeding his privilege in reading such a telegram on the Orders of the Day. I have allowed considerable latitude owing to the circumstances that there is not opportunity for placing questions on the Order Paper at the approaching end of the session, but, in any case, the hon. member should not submit arguments.


Robert Laird Borden: In regard to
the matter referred to asked by my hon. friend, I may say that this subject has been under consideration and it is anticipated that the -Government will be in a position to make an announcement to-day or to-morrow with regard to it.



MILITARY SERVICE ACT.


Mr. THOMAS VIEN (Lotbiniere):: I am sorry that the Minister of Militia is not in his seat, but as the session is drawing to a close I shall put the question I intended to address to him, and I would ask the Government to reply as soon as possible. A few days ago the Minister of Militia stated that he had issued instructions to registrars that the men newly called to the colours under the Order in Council of April twentieth were to be ordered up from the cities first, and that the rural men would be called up at a later date. I am now informed that the registrars in the various districts -have sent out indiscriminately, these notices to report, and these orders .are to be complied with on very short notice, many of the rural boys being required to report on Thursday of this

week. I would ask the Government to inform the House whether orders were sent to registrars to discriminate between rural boys and city boys, and now that the condition I have mentioned is known to the Government whether it is the intention to see that the registrars properly carry out their instructions?


Robert Laird Borden: I am not quite sure whether the hon. gentleman refers to those called out under the order directing men from twenty to twenty-two years, both years included, to report for duty. The orders were sent out that those in urban centres should be called first, and that the rural population should be directed to report later. Tile Minister of Militia and Defence told me that in some instances these orders have been misunderstood. I shall direct his attention to What my hon. .friend has represented just now.
Mr.. VIEW:	For the information of the
Government I may say that I am referring to the men from twenty to twenty-two years. I am informed this morning that men in some of the rural districts of Ontario, as well as of Quebec, were ordered to report on Thursday of this week. I *would suggest to the Government that they take immediate measures to countermand the orders issued to these men by the registrars, so that 'the rural population will not he unduly disturbed.



THE YUKON ELECTION.

[Stage Direction]
CONSIDERATION OP THE {REPORT PROM THE COMMITTEE.
On the order being called for the consideration of the third report of the Select Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, covering the Yukon election:
Hon. Mr. H. GUTHRIE (Solicitor-General) moved:: That the third report of

the Select (Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections-Yukon election-be adopted.
, Mr. E. B. DEVLIN (Wright): Mr. Speaker, this question has now been for some time before the 'Committee o.n Privileges and Elections and before the House. I am going to ask the House to be indulgent with me if I refer once again- to -the matter. I want to say right away that we are not intending in any way to try to prevent soldiers overseas who have voted from having their votes counted. On the contrary, we want full justice done to the soldiers overseas who have voted regularly and legally, and to have their votes entered as legal votes. On the other hand, the House has a very important task before it to decide and that question is whether we wish, through any misplaced sentiment, to place upon the records a position taken by this House which will stultify it for all time to come, and which otherwise will go down in the parliamentary history of this country as an act which we might not have committed if we had exercised saner judgment. Will you allow me, Sir, to begin at the very beginning of this question and really see what occurred in connection with the Yukon election.
The Yukon election was considered in committee on the Military Voters' Act, and I want the House to bear well in mind from the start that the Yukon electors were not caught by any technicality of the law. When the question was considered by the committee which was discussing in 1917 that portion of the Dominion Elections Act known as the Military Voters' Act, full consideration was given to the Yukon territory. Full consideration, Sir, I say, was given to the possibility of bringing the Yukon territory within the provisions of the Military Voters' Act. Full consideration had been given to it by the Government before any mention was made in this House of the Yukon territory, and when the question was brought up in the House, as I will show in a few moments, the Minister of Justice, -speaking in the name of the Government, used this language: that it was either a question of deferring all the elections in Canada by one month or deferring the Yukon election for one month; that if the Yukon election was to be brought in under the operation of the Military Voters' Act then some system would have to be devised and the Government thought that it was better to defer the Yukon election, taking it away from the operation of the Military Voters' 
Act, than to adopt some new provision of law which might prove impracticable. That is a point which it is well to consider at the very outset: that if the soldiers overseas, 'as respecting those who would have the right to vote in the Yukon territory, were disfranchised they were disfranchised by the Government, after full -consideration by the Government, and before any provisions respecting them were brought before this House then sitting in committee upon the Military Voters' Act. And, by no act of this House were they disfranchised except upon the proposal of the Government, which I intend to prove, The Dominion Elections Act provided for a general election to take place on December 17. On February 26 the Government passed an Order in Council directing the general returning officer to make a special return to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. A period of forty days from the election day is allowed within which to enter a petition to contest the election or to show cause why the return was not made. The forty days allowed to the candidates in the Yukon election would expire on March 9, 1918; it must be admitted that their recourse to the courts would expire on that date. But by the action of the Government in passing the Order in Council of February 26, both candidates, Mr. Congdon and Dr. Thompson, were prevented from making any application to the court by way of petition or otherwise. All proceedings were stopped; the character of the general returning officer was thereby immediately changed. The passing of that Order in Council had this effect: first, it suspended the discharge by the general returning officer of functions devolving upon him by Act of Parliament; second, it divested the recounting authorities of power to pursue recount proceedings under the same Act; and, third, it divested the court of the jurisdiction conferred upon it by the same Act. These results were accomplished by the fact that the Order in Council expressly prohibited the general returning officer from making a return. No petition could be filed until such return had been made save a petition complaining of no return-to which the general returning officer would have the obvious answer that he was prohibited from making a return by the terms of the Order in Council. That is the second point that I want the House to bear in mind while following me in the story of the Yukon election-.
- Part IV of the Dominion Elections Act is the Military Voters Act, 1917. Section 6 reads:

At the expiration of the time for nominating candidates the returning officer for each electoral district shall inform the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery by telegraph, or other expeditious means, of the names, addresses and descriptions of the several candidates who have been nominated. The Clerk of the Crown in Chancery shall thereupon transmit by telegraph to every officer in oommand-
And so on. The section concludes:
Presiding officers shall cause placards containing this information to be posted upon the bulletin boards of each battalion in all camps where the same may ibe possible and shall use all other reasonably available means to bring such information to the knowledge of the military electors.
It was absolutely essential, therefore, that that notice be given; that placards be posted up showing where and when the vote was to take place. In the official notification which the Government did give to the soldiers overseas the placard contained these words: "The Yukon Election Deferred." What other sense could be taken from these words than that the soldiers were not to vote in the Yukon election at that time, because the election had been deferred?
I wish to draw the attention of the House to section 8, the next section which bears materially upon this subject. After reading this section and the debate which took place when it was adopted by the House, I do not see how any one can conscientiously assert that these votes are legal. Subsection 1 reads:
Polls shall be held in such camps or other places, in Canada or elsewhere, as shall be assigned, to the charge of presiding officers for the purposes of this part. Those held without Canada shall be maintained open during such sufficient number of days and during such hours as military exigencies will permit, but so that no polling shall commence before the day following that of the nomination of candidates nor continue after eight o'clock in the evening of the day for holding the poll within Canada.
The Minister of Justice, who had a great deal to do with this Act, will not say that any vote taken before nomination day was a legal vote. Will hon. gentlemen say that votes cast in contravention of section 8, before nomination day, are legal votes and must be counted? Must the returning officer be ordered-no discretion is given to him by the report of the committee-to declare them legal? You are assuming no light obligation when you instruct him to declare the vote legal when you do not conscientiously believe that the vote is legal. This is not a party question; it is a question for the mature deliberation of the House of Commons. Upon each member of the House will rest the grave responsibility.
if you take this action, of having ordered the returning officer to declare a vote legal -not according to his judgment, but according to your dictation-which by the very wording of the Act is declared to be illegal. Subsection 3 cf the same section reads:
In Canada, and, where conditions make it reasonably possible, without Canada, the deputy presiding officer shall give public notice of the time and place of an intended poll, and, in cases of polls to be held without Canada, a special notice to any person whose appointment as a scrutineer or deputy scrutineer has been communicated to him.
The last subsection, which hears upon this and which I wish to comment upon,, ds subsection 5 of the same section:
In any case where, for any reason, unless the vote of a military elector is immediately taken, it is likely that he may not subsequently be able to vote, the deputy presiding officer may take such vote otherwise than at a formally held poll, but such votes shall be so taken in the presence of the deputy scrutineers, or failing either or both, of a military elector or two military electors, who shall, together with the deputy presiding officer, sign upon the envelope in which the ballot is inserted a certificate that the vote was taken under this subsection and the reasons which made it necessary.
Mark well that subsection. By that subsection those votes would not be counted, but the returning officer will not have any latitude. He will be ordered by this report to declare those votes legal, because you gentlemen have studied the legality of the question, and you declare that according to your conscience, those are legal votes, and the returning officer must in consequence declare them so.


Mr. MORPHY:: Not being on the committee, I am not familiar with all the details. Were the votes cast for the Government, or for any one by name, or how?


Mr. DEVLIN:: The votes were cast as. follows. I am reading from page 24 of the special report of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. This is the report of the special returning officer:
Paris, Prance.
We, the undersigned, special returning officer and clerk, who have counted the ballots hereafter mentioned for the electoral district of Yukon, do hereby certify as follows :
(a) The number of votes cast for each party or candidate is fLS follows:
Name of Party.	No. of votes.
1.	Government	
2. Opposition	 10
3.	Labour	
4. Independent	 -
Names of candidates, A. Thompson, F. T.
Congdon.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Does the hon. member not distinguish between the case of the Yukon where the election was deferred and a case where there was no election at all? 	,
You must surely give the franchise if an election is ever held.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I think I shall make that clear to my hon. friend in a few moments when I refer to the debate that took place on section 8, with which I was dealing a moment ago. I want to call his attention to this fact, and he will find it on page 5 of the special report of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery:
On the 5th day of January, 1918, the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery for Canada published in the Canada Gazette, .pursuant to section 12, subsection 5

The very section I read a minute ago.
-of Part IV of said Act official recognition of the candidate Alfred Thompson by the Government party, and1 of the candidate Frederick Tennyson Congdon by the Opposition party.
That proclamation, therefore, was given on the 5th day of January, 1918, in accordance with section 12, subsection 5, which says:
If a military elector votes for a party, and there is no candidate recognized as aforesaid as representing that party

And there was none recognized until the 5th day of January.
-his ballot shall be rejected.
I simply quote that to show by the Act itself that it is not a question of disfranchising soldiers now. It is a question of finding out whether the soldiers who voted for either of the candidates in the Yukon election prior to the nominations there should or should not have their votes counted. My hon. friend will remember that some 15,000 soldiers' votes were set aside on this and the other side of the Atlantic during the last election. You may say that that was disfranchising soldiers, that these soldiers, whether their votes were illegal,or not, should have had their votes counted, because by the spirit of the law no soldier was to he disfranchised, and that is the argument that has been adduced in this House in connection with this very matter.


John Hampden Burnham: It was considered necessary that the soldiers' opinion should be expressed. It is admitted now that the soldiers' opinion has been expressed.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: 
John Hampden Burnham: I would ask the hon. gentleman to bear in mind the fact that the old strietum jus interpretation has been done away with.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: A lot of old things have been done away with.


John Hampden Burnham: And we are permitted to decide the case according to the principles of justice and right.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: And legality.
Mr. (BURNHAM: We want to see justice done though the heavens fall. I admit

that the hon. gentleman is presenting a very fine argument but why should we not leave this question to the House?


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: with by the Conservative party and if the Conservative party would not decide, without a moment's, hesitation, to deal with *it as Sir John Thompson dealt with a similar question and just as the question was *dealt with in the Bai.rd-King election case to which reference was made by my hon. trend from Dorchester (Mr. Cannon). In resuming my seat let me eay *that I am not asking for favour, *or pity for either candidate; I am *asking for justice and justice alone.
I am asking hon. members not to make this 'a party question, for it is not a party question. Both candidates were pledged to conscription, both candidates were pledged to the support of the Union party; one called himself a Liberal-Unionist, the other called himself a Conservative-Unionist. But must the line be drawn as closely as my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) speaking in this House upon the question the other day, would have it drawn-that the one perhaps was a stronger Unionist than the other, and for that reason the one rather than the other should be declared elected by this House, and that the rules of justice and right should not prevail? I know', Sir, something about human nature. I know something about mankind, I know something about my fellow man. 1 know how strong party feelings may be, and how strong they may run, but back of party feeling there is something in. the soul of every man, if you can only reach it, which rises above party and above petty action, and to that element of the soul I appeal to-day in presenting the amendment which I am about to present. I appeal to that better feeling in man so that he may forget party and do justice. I appeal to hon. members to do justice to themselves and do justice to the claimants for justice before the bar of this House. But in doing justice, Sir, do not ask the General Returning Officer to do a thing, if hon. gentlemen in their very souls do not believe that what they are asking him to do is right. I beg to propose, Sir, seconded by Mr. McKenzie:
That all the words after "that" to the end of the question be struck out, and the following substituted therefor: That the special return of the General Returning Officer in respect to the Yukon elections be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada by the Governor in Council for adjudication and final decision, and that such decision be reported to the House of Commons for such further action as the House may deem proper.


Hugh Guthrie: The recommendation
contained in the third report of the Select
Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections is set forth in the following words:
That the votes, purporting to have been cast, counted and applied under part IV of the Dominion Elections Act, as shown in the Special Return of the General Returning Officer are properly applicable to the respective candidates to whom they have been applied, and that said special return be re-committed to said General Returning Officer with a direction that he do forthwith o-penly proclaim and return as duly elected a candidate to represent the electoral district of the Yukon Territory pursuant to the provisions of section 14 of said Part of said Act.
The special return referred to in the recommendation which I have just read, at clause eleven does apply the soMiens' votes to the two candidates according as they have been cast for the Government, or for the Opposition, and the votes which were given for the individual candidates are applied likewise. When this matter came before the Committee on Privileges and Elections for hearing, it was objected by one of the candidates that the effect of the Order in Council, which was passed in February last, bad been to destroy the right of filing a petition in the courts under the provisions of the Controverted Elections Act. One of the candidates objected that a candidate was now deprived of bringing any election irregularity to the notice of the courts, and that no matter how great had been the contravention of the law in regard to this election, the effect of the Order in Council was to prevent any relief against it all. If appears to me that there was a good deal of force in that particular contention, and I may -tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I had expected there would have appeared upon the Order Paper to-day notice of a Bill which the Government intends to introduce dealing with that particular aspect of the case. Through some omission, the Bill in question does not appear on the Order Paper to-day, but it will be there to-morrow. This Bill will provide, in the first place, for the extension of the time for filing a petition under the Controverted Elections Act. for a period of forty days after the general returning officer has made his return.


Mr. FIELDING:: Will that Bill apply to this case?


Hugh Guthrie: If the hon. gentleman
will just allow me. In the next place, the Act makes the general provisions of the Dominion Elections Act, and amendments thereto, and of the Military Voters' Act of 1917, apply to the Yukon, and provides also that the soldiers' votes cast in the last

election shall be counted, notwithstanding the time at which they ware polled. The Bill follows in the last cause, in general, the principle adopted by the Committee on Privileges and Elections. So far as the question of the time of polling the soldiers' votes is concerned, the finding of the Committee on Privileges and Elections is not disturbed, but so far as any other election irregularities are concerned, either candidate will have the right to file a petition in the courts under the Controverted Elections Act, as heretofore.


Wilfrid Laurier: Has the hon. gentleman a copy of the Bill under his hand?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, I have a copy of the Bill.


Wilfrid Laurier: Will the hon. gentleman be good enough to read it? '


Hugh Guthrie: The provisions of
the Bill, which contains just two clauses, are:
1. Notwithstanding the provisions of section twelve of the Controverted Elections Act, the time for presenting a petition in respect of the election of a member of the House of Commons for the Electoral District of Yukon, held on the twenty-eighth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and eighteen, shall he extended for a period of forty days from the date of the return of the General Returning Officer made in respect of such election.
3.	Notwithstanding anything contained in the Dominion Elections Act or any Act amending the same, or in the Military Voters Act, 1917, chapter thirty-four of the Statutes of 1917, the provisions of the said Acts in respect to fixing the time for polling the votes of military electors shall apply and extend to the Electoral Districts of Yukon; and the votes of the military electors polled at the last general election for a member to represent the said Electoral District in the House of Commons and marked either for the Government or for the Opposition or for an individual candidate shall be duly counted for and applied to the candidate who has been recognized as the candidate representing the Government or the Opposition, pursuant to section twelve of the Military Voters Act, 1917, or to an individual candidate, in accordance with the marking of the several ballots, nothwithstanding the date or dates upon which the said votes were polled.
That is the Bill which it is the intention of the Government to introduce to meet the objection raised by one of the candidates when the matter was before the Committee on Privileges and Elections, and the objection raised <by my hon. friend who has moved the amendment to the motion before the House.
As chairman of the committee, I took no part in the discussions before the committee. But I have listened with a great deal 
of interest to the debate which took place in this House on ,a former occasion whea the House referred back to the committee its second report with regard to this matter; and11 have also listened to the remarks of my hon. friend who moved the amendment in this House this morning. I cannot come to the same conclusion upon this case as that at which my hon. friend has arrived, either in regard to the law or in regard to the facts as they present themselves to me. I do not find: the difficulty which some hon. members seem to find in placing a proper construction upon the terms of the Dominion Election Act and of the Military Voters Act. In my judgment, there is nothing to render the votes cast by the military voters, cast between the 19t.h November and I5th December last, invalid. In my view they are legally cast, although I grant that there is room for some difference of opinion upon that point.
It has been stated and argued that a nomination of candidates is an essential to an election so far as the military voter is concerned; it has been referred to as a pre-requisite. To my mind this is not so. The Act does not contemplate anything of the kind. The Act provides that in certain cases military voters may vote before nomination day. It only applies that section tc those who may be leaving Canada, but section 16 of the Military Voters Act certainly contemplates a military voter casting his vote before there is a candidate. It says:
In case any military electors shall, at the time of or subsequent to the issue of the writs for a general election, be under orders to leave Canada prior to the day for holding a poll within Canada, the Governor General in Council may make provision for the polling of their votes, in the manner by this Part provided, on a day prior to their departure, and may modify the provisions of this Part relating to time or procedure in so far as may be necessary to render such polling possible.
I put this case to the House, Mr. Speaker: the writs for the last general election "were issued at the end of October; the day fixed as general nomination day throughout Canada was the 19th November.
I take.the case of military electors ordered to leave Canada before nomination day, say on the 15th November, when there were no candidates. It is after the issue of the writ, and at a time before polling day. Section 16 provides that these military electors shall be entitled to vote at that time. There are no candidates. For whom can they vote? They can only vote "for the Government" or "for the Opposition." No nomination has taken place. I think

one may assume that, inj regard to that particular class of voters who might be under orders to leave Canada, Parliament intended that they should have the right to express their opinion in a general way, irrespective entirely of the question of who was the candidate. Another thing I would point out, Mr. Speaker, which influences the matter: that there is only one period of time mentioned in the law at which military electors may vote. That is in section 8 of the Military Voters Act, which says in regard to the polls:
Those held without Canada shall be maintained open during such sufficient number of days and during such hours as military exigencies will permit, but so that no polling shall commence before the day following that of the nomination of candidates nor continue after eight o'clock in the evening of the day for holding the poll within Canada.
That is the only period at which military voters may vote anywhere. Now the Military Voters Act gave to the military voter the right to vote. We gave him the right and provided but one time wherein he must cast his vote. Why should a military elector of the Yukon not vote within that prescribed period? It is the only time. We are driven to it. There is no other conclusion. If a man is entitled to vote he must be entitled to vote at the only time laid down by the law wherein he can cast his vote, and that is between the day fixed after the general nomination and the polling day throughout Canada.
Then, Mr. Speaker, let me call your attention also to the language of subsection (5) of section 8, which applies to immediate voting. This must have been in the contemplation of Parliament when this clause was enacted:
In any case where, for any reason, unless the vote of a military elector is immediately taken, it is likely that he may not subsequently be able to vote, the Deputy Presiding Officer may take such vote otherwise than at a formally held poll, but such vote shall be so taken in the presence of the deputy scrutineers, or failing either or both, of a military elector or two military electors, who shall, together with the Deputy Presiding Officer, sign upon the envelope in which the ballot is inserted a certificate that the vote was taken under this subsection and the reasons which made it necessary.
Note the language, Mr. Speaker, 'In any case, where for any reason, unless the vote of a military elector is immediately taken, it is likely that he may not subsequently he able to vote." Surely that covers the case of these military electors in the Yukon.


Mr. McKENZIE:: Why?


Hugh Guthrie: If they did not vote at the time prescribed their votes would not he taken.


Mr.   BOSS@: What does the word " immediate " mean?


Hugh Guthrie: Unless he voted between the 19th November and the 17th December it is likely that he cannot subsequently be able to vote-he would not have another opportunity. Surely Parliament contemplated, when it passed that section, that all military votes, no matter from what riding, were to be taken within those two dates. It is the only period specified in any of our Acts in which a military elector can vote. If we gave the Yukon military elector a vote at all, he must vote within that prescribed period, or we did not enfranchise him. Now, the men didi vote within that period. If their vote is irregular, I submit it is cured and section 18 is the validating clause, lit says:
The validity of any election shall not be questioned on the ground of any omission or irregularity in connection with the administration of this Part which has not affected the result of the election, or on the ground that for any reason it was found impracticable to record or to secure the vote of any military elector or any votes whatever hereunder.


Wilfrid Laurier: The section says " which has not affected the result of the election."	.


Hugh Guthrie: That is, the validity of the election shall not be questioned on the *ground of any omission or irregularity, in the first place; and in the second place *by reason that it was found impracticable to record or secure the vote of the military elector. First, if the votes were cast and there were irregularities-that would not invalidate the result. And, second, if military electors did not have an opportunity to vote that could not be held to invalidate *an election. That section was put there to cure irregularities. And, I submit it is operative under the present circumstances. To my mind the matter is not doubtful, but so many other opinions have been stated in regard to it that I am willing to say that there are two opinions upon the question. Listening, as I did this *morning, with great care to the speech of my hon. friend who moved the amendment, I think, even on his own speech there was every reason why his amendment should not be adopted by this House. According to my hon. friend, the question is a very technical one. His argument was a very refined one. But we cannot, upon a refinement of argument, or upon a tech-


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, the case presented by the member for Wright (Mr. Devlin) in support of his amendment is so full, comprehensive and complete that I shall not add one word to what he has said. To do so would be simply spoiling an absolutely good case which he has sustained and supported at every point. I shall direct my observations for a few moments to the speech (just made by the Solicitor General (Mr Guthrie).
Let me ask him, in the first place, whether there is such a thing as dividing an election into two parts? Did part of an election ever take place in this country on one day and the other part on another? I submit that such a thing was never known and that such a. thing was certainly not contemplated when we passed the War-time Elections Act last year. The member for Wright -quoted the remarks made by the Minister of Justice (Hon. C. J. Doherty) in reply to -questions put to him as to how the election in the Yukon would be conducted. If it was then in his mind or in tlie mind of the Government that special provisions would be made for the taking of

the soldiers' votes for the Yukon, ot that part of that vote would he taken at one time and the balance at a later date, he would have so expressed himself. But he said nothing of the kind. He said: "We are deferring the election." What did that mean? Simply that the election was put off; that no part of it was to take place at the time. No specious form of pleading or argument of the Solicitor General can change that. If it were stated that the election' for the city of Ottawa had been deferred, that would mean that the election for that district was put off; that it was not to take place on the same day as the others; that it was to be conducted later on a day to be fixed and under, certain machinery provided for the purpose. The Minister of Justice said that the Yukon election was to be deferred, that a certain day was to be named by Order in Council, as provided in the Act for nominations for that district. That was done. In compliance with the Act, nomination day was on December 31, and the polling day was twenty-eight days thereafter. That was the day on which all the vote, not part of the .vote, was to be taken for the Yukon.
There was nothing in /the world standing in the way to prevent the vote, whether on this side of the Atlantic or on the other, from being taken on the 28th of January, 1918. I submit to hon. gentlemen who are lawyers, to any men of common sense, that it is the practice that mere physical inconvenience does not stand in the way of the application of the law. It has always been British justice and the principle of the British courts that physical inconvenience does not stand in the way, or that if physical exertion or the expenditure of money will enable the parties to comply with the law, it must be complied with. There was no physical or other inconvenience whatever that stood in the way of the vote for the Yukon Territory being taken on the 28th of January in all parts of the country just as it- was taken in the parts in which the vote was polled upon that day. Could it possibly have been in the mind of the Minister of Justice, when he was making those pronouncements in Parliament, that votes could be polled before nomination day, and that such votes could mean anything at all? That is not arguable, and I am not going to say another word about it. The Minister of Justice said that the Statute must be strictly complied with. That is his version of the law as he is reported on Hansard. The matter is not left to haphazard. It is not left to any construction that I may put upon his words. He said that the Statute must be strictly complied with; that the notices must be given; that selection must be made of the candidates for the Government and for the Opposition; that that must be done at the proper time, and that no voting can possibly take place until after the parties are nominated, or, until after nomination day. That being the case, the legal period for voting-I care not what we do in this House -was between the 31st day of December, 1917, and the 28th day of January, 1918.
I suppose a majority of this House can distort that to something else, but such action is entirely contrary to every principle of justice, and is not in conformity with the proper interpretation cf the Statute. The legality or illegality of this election must stand or fall by the condition of the law on election day in the Yukon Territory. The law existed then in a certain way, and polling should have been held in a certain way according to the law. ' If it was not held according to- the law as it existed on that day, the election is void and declaration to that effect should be .made by this House and a new election held. The Bill which the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. [DOT]Guthrie) says he is going to introduce is not a fair Bill at all; it is retroactive legislation. What is the use of saying to a man: You can go to the court if you like, but I am taking mighty good care to pass legislation that bars your rights and takes [DOT]away the point of law you want to argue; I am going to tie the hands and shut the [DOT]mouth of the- judge before you go to the courts; I shall let you go there, but that is all you will have for your pains, because I am going to legislate you out of court. If there is any sense of justice in regard *to this matter, let the Government send .the case to be tried in accordance with the ,1'aw as it stood on election day. Then we shall accept the situation at once and not another word will be said about the matter. Let the parties submit their claims and let -the case be tried; let the judge declare on the whole facts and the law, and then [DOT]we shall, have no fault to find. But we find fault that the Government .or the Governor in Council interfered where they should not interfere; that they exercised a jurisdiction, which they did not possess to take this matter out of the hands of the returning officer. I take the responsibility of .saying that they had no jurisdiction to pass that Order in Council; they had no

jurisdiction to take the jurisdiction, which rested in the returning officer, out of his hands and drag it into this House. If they made that mistake, they should take the earliest opportunity of righting the matter 'and putting it where it was before, absolutely free as it was on the 26th of February last, and they should say to the returning officer: Use your own judgment and let the parties go to the courts and stand or fall as the courts will interpret the statute and	the	rights of	the parties asthey stood on that occasion. Nothing else	will	do	full	justice to	the
parties, , and nothing else will receive the full approbation of the independent and right thinking people of this country.
At one o'clock the House rose.
The House resumed at three o'clock.


William Stevens Fielding: Mr. Speaker, this
question was fairly well discussed at an earlier stage and perhaps there is not much that is new that can be now added. I have no desire to engage in any lengthy debate or delay the proceedings of the House at this stage, but there are a few thoughts to which I should like to give expression 'before we are called on to give our votes on this Teally important question. A few days ago the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. McGibbon) entered a mild but well justified protest against the manner in which the soldiers' services were toeing exploited from time to time toy persons who' are not more devoted to the soldiers' interests than are ordinary people. He said:
When a man in -this House wishes to draw applause he simply has to refer to something: that has -been done on the Western front by the Canadians.
He might have gone a little further. We are all familiar with that very old and well-worn- story of the legal profession where an eminent counsel who was asked to- advise on a certain case endorsed on the (back of the 'brief: "No case. Abuse the plaintiff's attorney." The story is very old, but sometimes helps to illustrate a thought. We have had a lot of that already in this House and- we are going to have more of it. If a *man has a toad case, if his argument is without a leg to stand on, all he will have to do, according to- this new idea of the best way to influence public opinion, will toe to appeal to the glorious story of Vimy Ridge and Ypres. We have had a lot of that already this session, and shall probably have more of it.
['Mr. McKenzie.]


Samuel Hughes: It is not a toad
thing.	[DOT]


William Stevens Fielding: 
John Hampden Burnham: Did Mr. Congdon state that he intended to support the Government which alone would have the power of carrying out conscription?


William Stevens Fielding: I have not discussed
the matter with Mr. Congdon, but the statement has been made' repeatedly in this House and I have never heard it contradicted, that he stood as a conscriptionist.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


William Stevens Fielding: Of course if hon. gentlemen say it is not true


Mr. DAVIDSON:: It is not true that Mr. Congdon was recognized and endorsed by - the leader of the Opposition, and received, as a result of that recognition, the anticonscription soldier vote?


William Stevens Fielding: Does my hon. friend say that Mr. Congdon sought to be recognized by the leader'of the Opposition?


Avard Longley Davidson: The right hon. gentleman of all men would not recognize a candidate who was not willing to be recognized.


William Stevens Fielding: As between the two.candidates I can understand that the leader of the Opposition might have a preference. But we must get back to the essence of the question. Did Mr. Congdon stand for conscription or not? If he did not, if he was opposed to conscription, then my point is not well taken; but if it be true, as I am told, that he stood for conscription, if it he true, as stated by the Prime Minister, :and I confirm his statement, that conscription was the issue and not the merits of Tom, Dick or Harry, if that be the true issue, and if my friend Mr. Congdon was lin favour of conscription, I say that he was ias much entitled to those votes as my friend Dr. Thompson was.
But, we are told that there is too much technicality in this matter. We are told that we ought to deal with the great equities. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice says with great earnestness that he is not satisfied that this law is not valid. I think I ought to. quote his exact words:
I am far from admitting that under a correct or reasonable interpretation of the statute those votes should not be counted.
The hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Guthrie) confirms1 that and goes farther. In the first place, he claims that the vote should go

to Dr. Thompson, and more than that he claims that if there be any doubt under one section there is another section which cures all the evil. These are two eminent lawyers. I need not say that I have not the presumption as a layman to question their judgment. But, if the Minister of Justice believes that this is a valid law, and if the Solicitor General believes it is a valid law, why in the world are they so anxious to keep it away from the courts? If they have complete faith in the validity of tile law, as they say they have, they should jump at the motion of my hon. friend from Wright (Mr. Devlin) and submit the matter to the courts.
But the Minister of Justice, speaking with regard to. the various methods that might he adopted in dealing with this matter, says that it would be " the most futile of remedies to send the matter to a tribunal which will be bound down to the letter of the law." The letter of the law? The letter of the law is the law itself and, if there is any difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law, surely the courts of the country are the best tribunals to establish the difference. The letter of the law? We have 230 odd members sitting in this Parliament all of whom have to submit to the letter of the law. What harm will there be if one gentleman representing the Yukon shall submit to the letter of the law? The letter of the law denounced practically by the Minister of Justice! What are we coming to? I have heard the Socialists of England and members of other organizations in Hyde Park, London, on a Saturday afternoon, proclaiming to the people that no one should pay any attention to the law. In New York I have heard the soap-box orators on the corners of the streets calling upon the masses of the people to show their contempt for the letter of the law. I have heard Socialistic speakers in the city of Montreal preaching the same doctrine. But now you haw the same doctrine preached by the man who. sits, as Minister of Justice, at the fountain head of justice. The letter of the law? Mr. Bumble says The law is a ass." Mr. Bumble goes farther and says "The law is a idiot." Let the Bumbles everywhere rejoice; they are in good company now. They will rejoice when they come to find tiheir views are precisely the same as those of the Minister of Justice.
I have said, Mr. Speaker, that I regard 'the main issue to be: Is this matter to be governed by our law and our custom? I *am paying some little attention to these 
questions which have been raised in the *debate because I do not want it to be said J have ignored them altogether. We are told about technicalities. To most minds all law 08i a bunch of technicalities, and if there , is one law which, more than any other, Is a bunch of technicalities, that is the election law. We are asked to take very generous views of these things. A young man comes into the poll to poll his vote *on election day. Everybody knows him, he is a bright young fellow, one of the finest fellows in the town. He gives his name and residence and he is about to get *a ballot when somebody says: "Hold on, young man; how old are you, are you twenty-one years of age?" " Yes, substantially." " What do you mean by substantially?" " I am not actually twenty-one to-day but I will be twenty-one to-morrow." That young man. should get a ballot because he will be twenty-one before the election proceeding is all over. You 'are going to shut him out of that Tight on a mere 'technicality. Later in the afternoon another mam comes in, out of breath, two minutes after the hour fixed for closing tihe poll. He asks for a ballot and he is told: "You -are- too late." "Why," he says, " I have a vote, my name is on the list and surely you are not going to deprive me 1 of a vote because I am two minutes late?" He says " The train .was' late; my carriage broke down; my wife was sick." But he can not. get the right to vote. These technicalities' are such as to prevent him from getting a ballot. The whole election law abounds in 'technicalities. The extraordinary part of it is that while the rest of us are supposed to be governed by technicalif-'es, in this ease we are to turn to the broader /view, to set aside all precedent, all law, all rule or custom of Parliament, adopt a new principle, and give the seat to a gentleman who has not been lawfully elected.
I have said before and I repeat that the principle to be followed in this ease is the one which, I believe, has been established by the law and custom of Parliament for a very long time. The principle which has been laid down beyond all question is that, except as to the matter of the qualification of ia candidate, Parliament will not intervene in the trial of a controverted election; we had dark days in the old times' when Parliament did deal with that question. I am not going to allude to that. We have come to better days. We have moved forward since the time away

back in the dark days of fifty years ago when elections were decided by partisan committees and a partisan House. The views of Sir John Thompson have been quoted during the course of this debate but they are of sufficient importance to justify me in quoting them again. They deal with the essential principle of the whole question. Sir John Thompson was speaking in the famous King-Baird case in 1887. If ever there was a case where the equities were on one side and possibly the law on the other that was such a case. Mr. King had been elected by a majority of the votes. The question was raised at the eleventh hour as to his deposit. The deposit was madie in good time but the point was raised that the deposit had not been handed in by his agent but had been handed in by another person. Surely that was a case in which all the equities were in favour of Mr. King.	If there ever
was a case in which Parliament should have intervened it was that; but Sir John Thompson said there was no question in that case for Parliament to deal with; that it was to be determined by the law, custom, and precedent of Parliament, and that Parliament must be guided by these. I have been indulging the hope that the right hon. the Prime Minister (tSir Robert Borden) who is the guardian of the laws and precedents of Parliament, would see the wisdom of adopting the views expressed by ISir John Thompson, not only because they were the views of Sir John Thompson, although that in itself had merit, but because of the intrinsic merit of the argument itself. Sir John Thompson spoke as follows:
Twenty years ago in the' Imperial Parliament the gravity of questions connected with Parliamentary elections, and the necessity of having them adjudicated upon by an entirely impartial tribunal, led the Parliament of Great Britain to adopt an Act which relegated to the judiciary of the country the disposal of all questions connected with controverted elections. Upwards of ten years ago a similar statute was not only adopted by the Parliament of Canada, but adopted toy a number of the Provincial Legislatures.
* * *
Since the change which I have referred to, and by which Parliament has renounced its rights to deal with the matter of controverted elections, there has been fully recognized in the various discussions that have taken place in" the House of Commons this principle,-that everything has been transferred to the judiciary in connection with controverted elections, excepting the one question of the qualification of persons who have been returned to Parliament.
The House, therefore, is still seized of the right to decide whether the Writ has been obeyed by the election of a person who is fit and proper to sit in that House. But as soon as the question has been decided as to the qualification of the person so returned, the conduct of the Returning Officer, or the number of votes which were received, the conduct of the candidates and every other question connected with the election, with the. conduct of the Returning Officer, has been relegated to the judiciary.
I think I was warranted in assuming from the hon. gentleman's remarks that he -recognized the propriety of leaving the case to the courts.
The King-Baird case was the subject of very keen party strife in this House, but I think I am justified in saying that the principles of parliamentary law then laid down by Sir John Thompson were not questioned by anybody. I must say, Sir, that I think that is the principle that should guide us in this case. This ought not' to be a party question. I was sorry when the matter was before the House on the last occasion to see evidences of partyism on one side or another. I found that some hon. gentlemen who nad not been in the House at all during the day, who had not heard the debate and probably paid little or no attention to the matter, were suddenly inspired to come in on one side or the other and cast their votes. And if there was any doubt as to the party character of the movement, that doubt was removed when an hon. gentleman rose after the division and said, "I am paired with Mr. So-and-So," and another said, "I am paired with Mr. So-and-So," and so on to the extent of half a dozen gentlemen on either side. Surely, Mr. Speaker, in the light of the troubles of the past, in the light of the struggles that great men have made to place this question of controverted elections upon a sound basis-surely in the light of all that, we ought not to feel happy at the idea that we are undertaking to deal with this ques-^ tion from the point of view of party division.
I do think, Mr. Speaker, that somehow a great mistake has been made in this matter. We talk about fairness and fair-play. Speaking this week in Montreal, Lord Reading asked the question: "What is the fundamental principle which makes the Englishman admired everywhere? It is his fundamental love of justice and fair-play." That is true. Whether it be in the field of sport, or in the field of business, or in the trials of the battlefield, the appeal to the Englishman to show fair-play is always responded to. The stirring words of New-



boldt "Play up, play up, and play the game," appeal to -an Englishman. Mr. Congdon has played the game boldly and courageously.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Stevens Fielding: He came before a committee of this House and said: "I believe I am lawfully elected, I believe I have a substantial majority of the electors of this constituency, I believe I am entitled to my seat in the House; but in view of questions that have been raised, if I am elected, I will resign and submit myself to the electors of the Yukon." That is fair-play. That is the kind of declaration of fair play which will' appeal to the soldiers on the battlefield, if one may allude to them ah all. That is the kind of declaration of fair play that i's apt to meet the view of every man. "Ah," said the Minister of Justice, "that should not be; if you have another election the soldiers will not have their votes." Well, whose fault is that? There is an electoral vacancy to-day in the county of Glengarry, and we shall soon have, I presume, a by-election there. The soldiers from Glengarry that are overseas will not have votes. That must be right because it is the law that my hon. friend made, and if it is no great harm to disfranchise the Scotch electors of Glengarry who happen to be overseas, what harm could it be if we had an election in the Yukon and had to disfranchise the Yukon soldiers who aTe overseas? If my hon. and respected friend, the Minister of Justice were called to-morrow to his heavenly reward, there would be a vacancy in St. Ann's, Montreal, and the Irish soldiers from St. Ann's who are now over at the front would have no vote. That must be right, because the Minister of Justice made the law. Now if it would be no wrong to cut out the votes in a by-election of the Scotch electors of Glengarry, or the votes of the Irish electors of St. Ann's, what great wrong could it be if the votes of some of the Yukon electors overseas were also cut out? But I will go beyond that argument. If my hon. friend the Minister Of Justice thinks that is not giving the soldiers a fair chance, I will make this suggestion: Let the Government take steps to order a new election. Let them give ample time, let them give time enough to have the soldiers in every part of Europe notified, and give them a chance to vote, not for the Government or the Opposition, but for the man. Let them vote for the man for whom they want to vote.

Let the Government take time; there is lots of time between now and the next session. Mr. Congdon has played the game fairly. He has offered to- resign. Take his offer, accept the proposal, order a new election, and let the two men fight it out. Give time for the soldiers overseas to vote. Pass your special Act here and qualify them to cast their votes. Although you would not give votes to the Irishmen of St. Ann's and the Scotchmen of Glengarry, give votes to the Yukon -men, and let us have fair play. That is the kind of fair play, that is the kind of spirit that will appeal to the nation.	.
My hon. friend, the Solicitor General (Mr. Guthrie), has given us an intimation to-day of what the Government are going to do. What is it they are going to do? They are going to bring in an Act by which they will slam the door in Mr. Congdon's face, and then invite him to come in. That is the effect of what the Government proposes. Mr. Congdon was in possession of his rights as a petitioner at the close of the Yukon election some day towards the end of January last. If you do not want to give Mr. Congdon the seat, respect his rights as they stood at that time. Surely that is a fair and reasonable proposal. But if it be proposed now to pass a Bill which will practically bar the door to Mr. Congdon, and then invite him to come in, that is not fair play .and that is not playing the game as it should be played.


Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Minister of the Interior):: Mr. Speaker, the subject that is now before the House was under discussion in virtually the same form and with virtually the same purpose some few days ago. At that time I had the honour of addressing the House, and in what I say this afternoon I shall add very little to the material presented then. What I shall say, though, shall have particular reference to the speech that has just fallen from -the lips of the hon. member from Queen's and Shelburne (Mr. Fielding). The hon. gentleman was a member of this House for many years prior to 1911. Those of us who recall his performances- in those days will have cause to regret that though his reputation as an impassioned orator may not have suffered1 by his deliverance to-day, we cannot remember and recognize the -sound, logical debater in the speaker of this afternoon.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.
Other hon. MEMBERS: Shame.


Arthur Meighen: I do not go so- far as to say that the hon. gentleman's performance was shameful, in many respects . it was creditable, but it was not a sound, logical deliverance, and it was not a fair deliverance. The hon. gentleman argues that it matters very little whether the soldiers of the Yukon -are disfranchised or not, and he supports that 'by several allegations.
In the first place, it is well he argues that, because that is the issue, that and nothing more. If the course that the hon. member suggests, and which the amendment which we are now discussing proposes, ds to he adopted, that course invites the possibility of the permanent, irrevocable disfranchisement of 325 soldiers of the Yukon territory. It is because it invites that possibility that I oppose that amendment (and have opposed the principle from the beginning. I can assent to no proposal which in any way admits that possibility (under any circumstances whatsoever. The hon. member says we have to do it because the law, even the technicalities of the law, gay so. I do not know that the technicalities of the law say so. But I say this that iwhether it does or not the duty of Parliament is to see that it does not, even though the law must be changed. The hon. member says it matters very little, because both of these candidates were conscription candidates, and that was the issue; consequently, he says, the vote of the soldiers overseas in that Yukon election might just .as honestly or fairly, no matter how they 'marked their ballots, be counted for Mr. Thompson or Mr. Congdon. I am surprised that the hon. member should argue ithat in the determination of the rights of the constituency, even of the candidates iin the constituency, we should take into account the political view of these candidates. If we are to take that consideration into account, in the sense that because their political opinions were one on the main issue it did not matter how the soldiers votes went, then I am ready for him on that controversy. The hon. member may be right when he says that each of them, ,at some time or the other, supported conscription. But this I do know that one of them consistently supported conscription in principle and practice, and took the only course that could enforce conscription. The other, though he may have in theory supported it, took the course which would ultimately defeat conscription. Did he support the conscriptionist leader of a government? What is to be thought of the opinions of a candidate supporting conscription 1471	.	.
who takes the course that is destined to defeat the object he professes to have in view? Mt. Thompson is recognized by the leader of the Conscriptionist Government. .Mr. Congdon is recognized by the leader of an anti-Conscription,ist Opposition. Does anybody in this House, in honour to his own .mind, even dream for a minute that any of the 293 soldiers overseas who voted for the Government intended that their vote should be cast for a man who opposed the Conscriptionist Government, for the man who .was recognized as the candidate of an anti-conscriptionist leader? Does any one for a moment dream that .any one of these 293 men who voted for this Government would not have been outraged if his vote had been cast in favour of the candidate who opposed this Governv ment and supported the leader who wanted this Government destroyed? Consequently, what is there in the contention that't did not matter how the soldiers' votes were cast? It mattered just as much how these soldiers' votes were cast as- it did matter how the votes of the men at home were cast, and just as much as it mattered how the votes of the 300,000 soldiers were cast in the last election. Oh, but he tells us,
" that is a technicality, -a technicality that must stand; we cannot cure a technicality, no matter what the object to he gained is."
I never heard that doctrine supported by a member of the standing of my hon. friend from Queen's-Shelburne before-that Parliament could not cure such a technicality if it did no injury in the process; that it could not cure any technicality of -the law if by doing so it would prevent injustice. I never knew that Parliament's hands were tied like that. The hon. member Irmself has sat in this House and loosened the bands that tied Parliament in similar cases.. Does he remember that not very many years ago, when he was a distinguished member of the Government of the day, a Bill was in- . trodu-ced in this House to declare elected a candidate whose seat was in peril by at. technicality of the law? Does he remember-that the member for West Huron at that time was declared elected by the returning officer, and that it was afterwards found that he was a guarantor on a bond -for -some post office liability, and consequently that the seat of the member for West Huron was in peril? Did the hon. member then get up -and discuss the soapbox orators in the city of London and New York who dared to defy-the majesty of the law. and. those who suggested that Parliament should:

[DOT] go back and cure that technicality and prevent the injustice that would be done to Mr. iLewiis if he were to be unseated for that cause? No. He was the spokesman, for the Government, the member of the Government who supported the Bill, and rightly supported the Bill, to cure the technicality and declare the member for West Huron elected. So, if only soapbox orators and Hyde Park declaimers are the men who are ready to cure technicalities in the law, where these technicalities do injustice, then my friend from Queen's-Shelburne must take his place with -them, because that is where he stood at that time. He has made reference to the King-Baird case. I gather from his words that that case was something like this:	A
deposit was made by the candidate and some irregularity through a technicality occurred-I do not know the case, but I gather from the words of the hon. member that on account of this technicality the seat was imperilled and Parliament was asked to cure that technicality. Parliament refused. I do not know that Parliament was justified-I do not know the circumstances-but if the circumstance my hon. friend presents is the only one, I would say Parliament was not justified. There is this that distinguished the King-Baird case from the present case: If Mr. Baird was unseated through an irregular deposit, an appeal could be made to the electors, because that meant an appeal to the same electors who had voted before. But an appeal to the men of the Yukon does not mean an appeal to the same electors who voted before at all; it means an appeal to four-fifths of the electors and the disfranchisement of the other fifth, the most deserving of all. You cannot cure a technicality then by an appeal to the constituents of the Yukon.


William Stevens Fielding: Why not?


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend suggests that we should go to the constituency now. He knows that the soldiers' votes cannot be taken in a by-election, mot one of them can be counted by the law as it stands. To get the vote of the soldiers now we should have to chase through ail the countries at war, and even if we had only to go through France and Flanders alone would be to commit an outrage on those soldiers-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, my hon. friends opposite laugh-


Mr. BUREAU:: It is laughable, too.


Arthur Meighen: Their regard for the war is measured by their laughter.


Mr. McMASTER:: I rise to a point of order.. That is a gratuitous insult to every man in this House, and I ask the hon. minister-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I did not so take the remark of the Minister of the Interior, but I would ask him to withdraw it if it was so meant.


Arthur Meighen: I say, and I repeat, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Louder.


Ernest Lapointe: Don't look so pale.


Arthur Meighen: Then I would state it, for the purpose of making a repetition-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I made the statement that I did not take the remark of the hon. the Minister of the Interior as an insult; that if I had, I would ask him to withdraw it.


Andrew Ross McMaster: May I say a word, Mr. Speaker?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I rise to a point of order. I ask your permission, Sir, to speak to the point of order. The minister said that the laughter which he elicited from this side in response to one of his remarks was the measure of our interest in the war.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Andrew Ross McMaster: It is applauded now from the other side. The inference was, Sir, that members sitting on your left did not take the same interest in the war as members sitting on your right. That is a gratuitous insult to every member on this side of the House, and I will not allow it to pass unchallenged.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If the remark can be interpreted in that way, I should be the first to ask the minister to withdraw it.
I feel called upon to ask him to say that no such meaning was conveyed by his remarks.


Arthur Meighen: I do not question the interest in the war of any individual in this House.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Louder.


Arthur Meighen: What I said calls for no apology and no withdrawal. I do not question the interest in the war of any hon. member. But there are ways of measuring interest in the war, and I do think that one who seriously suggests that our forces at the front should be disorganized to the extent of withdrawing 325 men from various points all over the fighting area in order to repeat the vote of the last election does not realize what the necessities of the nation are.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: The one who says that does not seriously understand his responsibilities as a member of this House. It .s all right for Mr. Congdon to say: I am ready to Tesign. Under ordinary circumstances that answer might be taken and it might be possible to cure the defect, as in the King-Baird case, by an appeal. But as the law stands to-day it is practically impossible to take the vote; that impossibility has been recognized by th'is House itself. Why was the War-time Elections Act made applicable only to a general election, and not to by-elections? Because it was a practical impossibility to take the soldiers1 vote in a by-election, and it would be an injustice to our fighting forces, for all the purposes that would be served, to subject them to such disorganization as would result from The taking of the vote of the soldiers in a by-election. That was the decision of this House; why should j-t be reversed in a single case? In fact it cannot be reversed m a single case; consequently the offer of Mr. Congdon, supported by the member for Shelburne and Queens (Mr. Fielding) leads to the possibility of the permanent and irrevocable disfranchisement of 325 soldiers, if by any chance the court should find that under the strict and literal meaning of the Act the votes cast before nomination day in that special constituency were illegal. I do not say that it means that or that it does not, but I am not prepared as a member of this House to take the responsibility of committing to any court or any man the possibility of disfranchising 325 soldiers from the Yukon. I will not take into account the possibility of doing it, either directly or by a circuitous route -and that is all the difference there is between the two suggestions. You do it directly if you disfranchise them now and declare Mr. Congdon elected; you do it circuitously if you disfranchise them how, have a by-election and elect Mr. Congdon
on the vote that votes for him and cast aside the vote that votes against him. There is no difference whatsoever in principle; it is only a difference of method. Because I am not ready, as a responsible member of Parliament, to take any course which permits of that possibility, I cannot support the amendment.	[DOT]
If in the ordinary sense this were to be a controverted election, certainly the court is the place to try the case, in so far as the courts can try it and do justice. A Bill is before the House, or will be, whereby the right 'of protest on all subjects that possibly could be in dispute in an ordinary controverted elections case will be restored. It appears that that was taken away by the commitment of this case to the committee on Privileges and Elections. It was not the intention to take that right away, The case was committed because Mr. Congdon raised a legal question, 'and this method was adopted of solving it. There was no intention to take away any right of protest. That right is restored and protest may be entered in any fair and proper case-namely, on any charge of fraud, or to decide whether any votes were fraudulently obtained or whether anything else was wrong in connection with the contest.' Surely that is all that should be covered in any commitment to the courts. We should not commit to the courts-because it is the right of Parliament, not the right of the courts-the question of the permanent enfranchisement or disfranchisement of a considerable , portion of the population of any constituency. It is right to safeguard that franchise and if there is no practical method of restoring it surely - it is our duty to make good and valid the measure of franchise which those 325 men were able to exercise and did exercise.


Mr. DOHERTY:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: I was paired with the hon. member tor Provencher (Mr. Molloy). Had-I voted, I would have voted against *the amendment.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Unless the vote of an
hon. member be challenged according to the rules, I doubt either the wisdom or the .necessity of announcing pairs in the House, inasmuch as through an arrangement made by the whips, pairs are now recorded on Hansard.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. .Speaker, this question was discussed in .the House last week, and - it has been further discussed to-day. I do not rise for the purpose of repeating arguments .Which have already been adduced, but I intend to make a few remarks 4 p.m. which I shall conclude by moving an amendment to the motion .now before the Chair. Let me first draw the attention of the House to the wording of the Order in Council o>f February 26, 1918, which directed the 'General Returning Officer to abstain from proclaiming elected the candidate who might have appeared .to him as having received a majority of the votes legally cast at that election, and which, ordered him to file a special return .which is now submitted to the House. Section 1 of the regulations made by virtue of that Order in Council reads:

The lawful disposition of certain ballots purporting to have been polled under said Part IV of the said Dominion Elections Act having become a matter of difference, it is now with respect thereto provided that the special returning officers and their clerks shall comply with all the provisions of section 12, subsection 4, Part XV of the Dominion Elections Act, but that the General Returning Officer shall not declare any candidate to have been elected, to represent said Yukon Territory.
Therefore, there can be no discussion nor argument as to the causes or motives or raison d'etre of the Order in Council. The difficulty was purely a legal one, it being stated that the matter of difference was the lawful disposition of certain ballots purporting to have been polled under Part IV of the said Dominion Elections Act. The House should remember this when dealing with this question. The Government *accordingly by virtue of this Order in Council made regulation No. 3, which reads: The General Returning Officer shall, with respect to the elections in said electoral districts of the Yukon Territory, and Nelson, make to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery a special return fully disclosing the conditions and showing the result of the polling and such return shall be put before the House of Commons for its consideration and1 for such action by it as may be deemed necessary or proper according to the circumstances.
What were the effects of that Order in Council? By virtue of sections 13 and 14 of the Military Voters' Act, the General Returning Officer was substituted for the returning officer for the electoral district of the Yukon for the purpose of proclaiming elected the candidate who, according to the provisions of the law, had obtained a majority of the votes legally cast at that election. The duty imposed upon him was imperative. That duty is prescribed by section 184 of the Dominion Elections Act, and sections 13 and 14 of the Military Voters' Act. Section 13 reads:
The general returning officer shall be substituted for him-
That means the returning officer for the constituency.
-and shall act in his place and stead as returning officer in respect of the said election.
Section 14 reads:
The General Returning Officer shall add the number of votes given for or applicable to the respective candidates in each electoral district, as disclosed by such statements, to the votes given for the candidates as shown by the certificate of the returning officer made pursuant to section 13 of this Part, and shall openly proclaim and shall return pursuant to the provisions of section '211 of Part III, as being duly elected a member or members to represent such electoral district in the Commons of Canada, the candidate or candidates found to have the greatest number of votes.
Therefore, the General Returning Officer has to exercise his own judgment in the matter. He hasi to apply the law. It was part of his duty to interpret the law. He had the right to take legal advice if he found that necessary; tout he was the officer appointed and designated by statute to decide as to the validity or legality of the ballots which were disputed, and his decision could be challenged only by either candidate before the tribunals of the country. The Governor in Council intervened and prevented the course of the law from being followed. The effect of the Order in Council of February 26th was manifold. In the first place, it prevented a public officer from fulfilling a duty and accomplishing a task which was imposed upon him by a special statute of this Parliament. Secondly, it prevented the authorities entrusted -by statute with recounting the votes when requested toy one of the candidates to do so, from proceeding with such recount. In fact, Mr. Congdon, one of the candidates, applied for a recount, and sent to the General Returning Officer a .telegram which will he found .on page 23 of the special report of the Clerk of the Grown in Chancery, and on page 24 is a copy of the telegram which was sent in answer by the General Returning Officer, and which reads:
Fred T. Congdon, K.C.,
Dawson, Yukon Territory.
Governor General in Council having by Order in Council directed special return of Yukon elections proceedings to Parliament as result your contention that Military Voters' Act does not apply to Yukon election must respectfully decline obedience to Justice Macauley's order as being made without jurisdiction.
(Sgd) W. F. O'Connor,
General Returning Officer.
In the third place, this Order in Council deprives the losing candidate of his right to protest the election, which right is guaranteed and provided for by statute. So the provisions of the law have been set aside, and the equal rights of tooth candidates under those legal provisions, and the still greater rights of the whole people of Canada in seeing that the election of each and every member of the House of Commons shall be made according to well established rules and principles, have been utterly disregarded as a result of the Order in Council of February 26. That Order in Council was and is illegal. The Governor in Council had no right to adopt it, he had no power to virtually annul the provisions of both a general and a special statute respecting elections in this country, simply for the purpose of electing a supporter of

the Government. By what authority was that Order in Council passed? Th-e authority is stated in express terms in the Order in Council itself, which reads as follows:
His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Secretary of State and with reference to Sections 89, 90 and 91 of Part III of the Dominion Elections Act and to Sections 7 and 8 of Part IV of the said Act and with respect to the deferred election of a member to represent in the House of Commons the Electoral District of the Yukon Territory, and to the postponed election of a member to represent in the House of Commons the Electoral District of Nelson, in the Province of Manitoba, is pleased under authority of Scetion 19 of Part IV of the Dominion Elections Act, and Section 6 of the War Measures Act, 1914, to make the following regulations and the same are hereby made and enacted accordingly :-
Sir, I contend that neither of those two statutes could empower the Governor in Council to pass that Order in Counoil. The War Measures Act was never enacted for the purpose of enabling the Government to tamper with the election laws of this country. It was enacted in order that in cases of emergency, (when Parliament was not in session, the business of the war could be carried on, without summoning Parliament, for the benefit of Canada and her Allies. Now, was it necessary to the success of the Allied armies, was it necessary * for the winning of the war, that a member for the electoral district of the Yukon shou'd be elected as a supporter of the present Government, and that in order to accomplish this end the statutes and the laws of this country should he set aside? Section 19 of Part 4 of the 'Dominion Elections Act, which is the Military Voters' Act, reads:
For the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Part or supplying any deficiency therein, the Governor in Council may make such regulations, not inconsistent therewith, as may be deemed necessary.
There is nothing there which gives the Governor in Council power to make regulations that would supersede or prevent the operation of the statute as it was passed. First, only such regulations could he made as would give effect to the provisions of the statute, and in the second place, no regulations could be made that would be in any way inconsistent with the provisions of the statute.
I believe I have shown that the Order in Council not only is not consistent with the provisions of Part 4 of the Dominion Elections Act, but actually cancelled those provisions and made_them null and void. Moreover, any regulations made under Sec-
tion 19 of Part 4 could only be made before the election had actually taken place, and not after the election for the purpose of electing the candidate wno happened to be favoured by the Government. No wonder the Government felt this Order in Council could not be passed under the authority of section 19 of the Military Voters' Act, and therefore invoked the authority of the War Measures Act. But two wrongs do not fiiake a right or, as we say in French, "Deux noirs ne font jamais un blanc." From the day that Order in Council was passed on February 26 up to the present time all things done in connection with the Yukon election have been done illegally, and I claim that this matter is illegally before the House to-day. The hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) said last week when this [DOT]question was 'before the House that we had no right to refer it to the Supreme Court by way of resolution. What right, I would ask, has this Parliament to elect by' way of such a resolution as is now before the House a member of Parliament to represent the electoral district of (the Yukon? ,What moral or legal right have we to set aside a statute? What right have we to let a partisan majority substitute itself for the courts of the country, and virtually to change the law by a mere resolution of the House, when that 'change moreover is retroactive in its effect? What right have we to declare by resolution that votes given at a 'time when there were no candidates nominated must be considered legal and valid? I believe that in view of the vote that has just been taken there is only one fair, just and legal way for us to act and that is to order a new election for the electoral district of the Yukon. I cannot see any serious objections to carrying out that proposal, which would he fair to all parties, and put both candidates on an equal footing. Of course, I foresaw the objection which was raised a few minutes ago, namely, " What are you going to do with the military voders? Do you want to disfranchise our brave boys at the front?" As my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's .(Mr. Fielding) has said-perhaps jl am going a little further than what he actually said, but the meaning is the same-every time our friends opposite have any illegal or doubtful expedient to propose they should shield themselves behind the gallantry of our Canadian soldiers. The Minister of the Interior has just sat down after playing that chord with all the art and science of a virtuoso, and everybody knows that he is

*a Paderewski in that line. I do not yield to any one in my desire to give the franchise to the brave boys of the Yukon. Let then vote at this new election. That should be easy enough. The name of every man who registered his vote for the Yukon district in the election last December is inscribed on the back of the envelope containing his ballot. There are lists of all the men who voted at this election and it would be an easy matter to organize the machinery for the purpose of enabling them to register their votes at a new election. When such a course was suggested before the committee it was said by the hon. the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) that the British authorities might object to the vote being taken. If it was possible in the month of December last to register the votes of 300,000 men, how is it impossible in the months of May or June to register the votee of 300 men?	-	.
Furthermore, this Parliament must have something to say in regard to the Canadian army. We must have some control of our own soldiers. If we have not we have been deceived in the grossest way. If our soldiers are simply a part of the (British army, without any direction or control on our part, if Canada is not fighting in this war as a self-governing, autonomous country, then the Military Service Act and the principle of compulsion which it involves would constitute the extreme limit of serfdom.
I submit that a new election is nothing but fair to the soldiers from the Yukon because they have the same rights and privileges as those which were enjoyed by the soldiers of other constituencies. Those who want to treat the Yukon soldiers unfairly and to deprive them of the rights which we gave to their brother soldiers at the last election are not those who ask for a new election. Those who refuse to give them the privilege of knowing who the candidates are who solicit their votes, who compel them to vote blindly while the other soldiers are treated in a different way, are the ones who are depriving the soldiers of their rights. Mr. Congdon- has been a resident of the Yukon for many years. He has occupied many public positions in that territory. He has represented that constituency in the House of Commons. Every soldier at the front, who has gone from the Yukon, knows iM-r. Congdon. They all know his ability, his standing, his qualifications, his loyalty to their interests, to the interests of the constituency, to the interests of Canada and to the interests of the British
Empire and they are entitled, they have the right, to know that Mr. Congdon is one of the candidates when they register their vote in an election in the Yukon Territory, Some time ago the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) and the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) complained very bitterly because the list of candidates which was posted in certain military camps in England djd not contain the names of two soldier candidates who were running for constituencies in the province of Ontario. They described that condition of things as most unfair. What do they say of a condition where no candidates have been nominated at the time 'the actual voting took place? I am really surprised that those gentlemen siding - with the other side of the House when the vote was taken a few minutes ago. It must shock the sense of justice of some hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House to act as the Government require them to do in the present instance. It must shock their sense of justice to be a party to doing away with the statutes and the courts of justice for the purpose of giving' a seat in this House to a supporter of the Government. It must shock their sense of justice to listen to the argument as it was put forward the other day, when the matter came before the House, and when an hon. gentleman said that he, himself, having benefited 'by the votes of soldiers, he could not do otherwise than voce in favour of another one profiting by the same vote. Another hon. gentleman undertook to question the Unionist principles oE Mr. Congdon, saying that they were too elastic, too flexible, and that Mr. Thompson was a much safer man to elect as a supporter of the present Government. To those gentlemen on the other side of the House who still believe in Liberalism, who believe in justice and fair play, who believe in the equality of all citizens before the law, I can fairly appeal and ask their support for the amendment which I am going to move. The election of a member for the Yukon Territory iby a partisan majority in this House is, under the circumstances, the quintessence of Toryism. I cannot believe that this temporary union with the Tories is sufficient to prevent some-I say some- hon. members opposite from looking at that matter in its true light. If it is, I can justly apply to them these words of Robert Burns:
Or like the snowfall in the river,
A moment white-then melts forever.
I beg to move, seconded by the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau):

That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
The report of the Committee on Privileges and Elections be not concurred in, but that this House is of the opinion that the seat for the electoral district of the Yukon Territory is and should be declared and considered vacant, and that writs be issued for a new election in the said Yukon Territory, and that legislation should be at once adopted for the purpose of enabling the military voters who are entitled to vote in the said electoral district to register their votes at- the said election.
Eight Hon. Sir ROBERT BORDEN
(Prime Minister):	Mr. Speaker, I .would
like to say one or two words in regard to the motion which is just proposed by my .hon. friend (Mr. E. Lapointe). The legislation, which was passed at the last session, *comprising both the War-time Elections .Act and the Military Voters' Act, had regard to the right of the men at the front to exercise their franchise, notwithstanding the fact-more than that, because of the fact-that they were fighting the battles of this country over yonder in France and in Belgium. Let me grant for the purpose of argument, and only for the purpose of *argument, that there were two oversights in that legislation-one the oversight of failing to provide for a deferred election in the Yukon, or in any other constituency where it might possibly happen that the election would have to he deferred, as it had to be deferred in Nelson. That was one oversight, in the Military Voters' Act, we -may grant for the purpose of argument. The other oversight wa-s the failure to make .provision for the filing of election petitions at a date which .would ensure the right of .any man who was a defeated candidate at that election, or any man who desired to present a petition, to bring the matter before the courts of this country and have lit determined. The report of the committee before the House at the present time relates solely to the Yukon Territory, but it restores each one of those rights. It seeks to repair those two oversights. It .seeks to repair the supposed oversight in respect of the franchise of the men from the Yukon who were in the Canadian army overseas. My hon. friend the member for Kam-ouraska (Mi. E. Lapointe) will not for one moment pretend that he, or any member of this House had it in mind, that those men should not exercise their *franchise. The hon. gentleman will not tell the House that he, or any member of the House had it in mind that if an election were deferred by reason of unforeseen circumstances, the .men from that

constituency who -happened to be overseas should be deprived of ithe right to exercise their franchise. My hon. friend, (Mr. E. Lapointe) does not venture to take issue with me in that regard, and I know that he agrees with me. Well, then, is that, .or is that not, an error which this Parliament has not only the right, but the duty, of repairing? And that is all that is proposed in t'he resolution now before the *House.
But there is something more: If in the Yukon, or anywhere else, any man who, .under the ordinary law of the land as contained in t'he Dominion Elections Act, would have the right to file a petition against the return of the successful candidate, is deprived of that right, it is proper that that right should be restored. Therefore we propose that that right shall be restored to the unsuccessful candidate in the Yukon, or to any other man in the Yukon who would have the right to present an election petition. That is what it comes down to in the end. The argument of my hon. friend at its best is that there was an oversight in.the Military Voters' Act. Let that be repaired. There was an oversight also in not preserving the right to file a petition for the purpose of contesting the election. Let that oversight also be repaired. This matter will then stand before Parliament and before the people of this country precisely in the way that Parliament intended when the legislation in question was passed.
Now my hon. friend the member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) has spoken of this question as being dealt with in a partisan way. I do not desire it to be dealt with in a partisan way, and I hope my hon. friend will acquit me of that intention. I might say in that connection that the case of the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) was brought to my attention early in the session. It was pointed out that he was in precisely the same position as Mr. Lewis-that by reason of having signed a guarantee for a person who had a contract with the Government, he came technically within the law which would prevent him from sitting in this Parliament. I said at once, "It. seems to me doubtful whether the Act really means that, but you can assure the hon. member for Lunenburg that if that question is seriously raised in the House, or in the courts, I am prepared to go before Parliament with a Bill declaring that notwithstanding any such enactment he shall have [DOT]his seat in Parliament." I stand precisely

by that declaration to-day. I might be overriding a technicality in the law in doing so, but I am prepared under such conditions to override such a technicality in the case of any hon. gentleman on either side of the House. And after all, my hon. friend the member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) will remember there is a very wise and very grave saying: "The law killeth, but the spirit maketh alive.'' It is the spirit of what was intended by the legislation enacted at the last session of Parliament that we are keeping alive in this case. My hon. friend (Mr. E. Lapointe) is somewhat shocked that Parliament should have anything to do with this question. Does he not realize that his vote in this House, along with the vote of about two hundred other gentlemen, kept him in his seat for a year after the time when otherwise he would have1 ceased to be a member of Parliament?


Ernest Lapointe: Much against my
will.
Sir ROBERT BORDEN- My hon. friend seeks to evade the issue by saying that it was done against his will. That is an extremely unsatisfactory answer. If he thought the legislation was not right he should have stood up and voted against it. By his silence he voted for that legislation, and he kept his seat in Parliament for a year beyond, the term for which he was elected. I am not saying that by way of reproach, because I myself proposed the motion, and I thought it was a wise and just proposal under the circumstances; but if my hon. friend intends to cast discredit upon Parliament, by reason of the action proposed at the present time, his hands are not absolutely clean in that regard, and that applies also to two hundred and twenty other gentlemen who were members of the late Parliament.


Jacques Bureau: It was in a moment of weakness that we yielded to you.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friends on the other side in a moment of weakness are endeavouring to controvert the just proposal which the Solicitor General has submitted. There was a moment of weakness on the other occasion, my hon. friend (Mr. Bureau) says. Let me suggest to him that he is also yielding to a moment of weakness on the present occasion.


Jacques Bureau: We yield very often.
, Sir ROBERT BORDEN: The opportunities are not so frequent now as formerly. Well, I cannot put it better, according to
my view than in the manner indicated a moment ago: That there was an oversight, let us say, on the one side, and there was an oversight on .the other. iS'uch being the case it is not only the right but the duty of Parliament to repair them both, and that is what the Solicitor General proposes by the motion which he has submitted.


Mr. J. ARCHAMBAULT (Chambly and Vercheres) :: If neither the Government nor the Opposition had endorsed the candidates, as happened in other constituencies, or if, on nomination day, on the 31st of December, there had been only one candidate who was elected by acclamation, would the Yukon soldiers' vote in that case have been applied to any other constituency?


Robert Laird Borden: Certainly not.


Joseph Archambault: Then the soldiers from that constituency would have been disfranchised?


Robert Laird Borden: Not_at all; no more than the soldiers or any other electors would have been disfranchised in any constituency where there was an election by acclamation.


Joseph Archambault: They would have been disfranchised.


Robert Laird Borden: Not at all.


Mr. JOSEPH READ (Prince):: I would have been pleased to support the original motion if it had been a fair one, and, if it had gone to the extent of repairing the wrong perpetrated by the- Government in passing the Order in Council, which took the righto from these candidates which they now seek: to restore; or if the Bill my hon. friend the Solicitor General has proposed to the House did not eliminate the very controversy at issue as it eliminates that part of the point in dispute which refers to the validity of the soldiers' vote. My contention is-and I look at this matter absolutely from a non-partisan and independent standpoint-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Joseph Read: I am not like some of my hon. friends- on the opposite side of the House who sit down and let them drop worms, shingle nails or sparables or anything else into their mouths if they were young robins! The- point I want to make is this: that the record of the soldiers' vote that lias been sent to the returning officer here is not the correct return1 of the soldiers vote, and I want to show hon. gentlemen why and how. In the first place, the pTin-

ciple of representative government involved in the election of a candidate to represent a constituency has been based upon the personal equation, upon the individual. The War-time Elections Act was the first piece of legislation which violated that principle and changed the principle to a vote for a certain party or against that party, "for the Government" or "for the Opposition." But I understand they re-considered that sweeping change in 5 p.m. the principle of election, and put in the Act the right of the voter to vote for, an individual. They not only did that, hut when they made their official ballot they provided a blank for that particular purpose on the very top of the ballot. The very first principle then involved in. the Military Voters' Act, so far as the soldier was concerned, the very first principle recognized by the late Parliament, was that the individual candidate was the first factor on the ballot to receive the attention of the elector. But as there was no candidate in the field when the election took place, it was impossible for the elector to write the candidate's name on the ballot with the result that the return's were all wrong. It is not the same result that would have obtained had a nomination taken place before the election. This ie a case where the election took place before the nomination, and where the name of the Candidate was not known and could not be put in the first, blank provided oni the ballot to receive it. But if the Government will undertake to allow us to put in the new Bill that the whole matter can be referred to the court, including the question of the validity of the soldiers' vote, il have no objection to the motion. Otherwise I must vote for the amendment.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear. Mr. JOSEPH READ: But if that is refused, I cannot do anything else than vote for the amendment of my hon, friend (Mr. Lapointe).


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This Bill, of course, can
be introduced only by unanimous consent of the House.


Wilfrid Laurier: Next sitting of the House. Motion stands.



ORDER IN COUNCIL, ON HEREDITARY TITLES.

Robert Laird Borden: By the leave of the House I should like to lay upon the Table a copy of the Order in Council of 25tli of March last respecting titles. It has already been read to the House, but it has never been formally laid upon the Table.



HEREDITARY TITLES IN CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir Robert Borden, the House proceeded to Public Bills and Orders for the purpose of resuming the adjourned debate -with respect to the resolution rf the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) respecting titles (resumed from April 8, 1918).
Right Hon.   S@: When this motion was last under consideration on the 8th of April, the hon. member from Springfield (Mr. Richardson) moved the following amendment:
That the word "hereditary" be struck out from the Resolution, and that the third paragraph thereof conclude with the word "Canada" in the ensuing line.
And then, as explained by the hon. member for Springfield on that occasion, the result of that amendment, if carried, would be that the motion would read:
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the House of Commons of 'Canada in Parliament assembled, humbly approach Your Majesty praying that Your Majesty hereafter may be graciously pleased to refrain from conferring any titles upon Your subjects domiciled or living in Canada.
Before moving the adjournment of .the debate, I ventured to point out to the .members of the House the far reaching effects of that amendment if it should be .carried, and at the conclusion of my brief remarks, I moved that the debate be adjourned, and it is now resumed upon that motion. I am still of the opinion that the amendment moved by the 'hon. member for Springfield goes too far, and I am still of the opinion, which I expressed to the House on the 8th of April, that the concluding portion of the motion of the hon. member for Kingston ought to be eliminated. It has been suggested to me that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Springfield might be amended so as to pray His Majesty to refrain from conferring any hereditary titles upon persons domiciled or living in Canada or any titles other than such terms, distinctive of variations of naval and military rank, as are necessary or customary for the purposes of His Majesty's naval or military forces. Even if that form of resolution were
[Sir Wilfrid Laurier.l
(adopted, it seems to me it would carry ithe proposal beyond what is desirable at the present time. For example, we have in Canada, under the authority of the Crown, acting under the constitution, certain distinctions which are recognized and which would have to be withdrawn if the motion passed in the form which my hon. *friend proposes.
I find that the word "title" is defined in the dictionaries as " an appellation of dignity, distinction) or preeminence," and 1 find also that under the authority vested in the Crown there are certain appellations which have been in force from Confederation down to the present time, which I think have not heretofore been found in any way prejudicial to the public interest, and which would have to be withdrawn if the motion which my hon. friend from Springfield (Mr. Richardson) proposes should be passed by this House and by the Senate. That House, it must be remembered, is a recognized part of this Parliament, and has a voice in such matters.
The Lieutenant Governor of a province is designated by Royal authority as "His Honour," Privy Councillors in Canada are by Royal authority designated as "Honourable," and that during the term of their life. The Solicitor General of Canada is by the same authority designated by the title "Honourable." Senators of Canada, by the like authority, are designated by the title "Honourable," but only during their office, the title not being continued afterwards. The Speaker of the House of Commons during the tenure of his office is entitled under Royal authority, to the designation of "Honourable." The Chief Justice of Canada, the judges of the Supreme and Exchequer Courts of Canada, and the Chief Justices and judges of the Superior Courts of all the provinces of Canada are by Royal authority entitled to the designation of "Honourable" while they hold office. The same authority provides that upon the recommendation of the Governor General the title may be continued to them after they have resigned from office. The Presidents and Speakers of the Legislatures of the province are styled "Honourable" during their tenure of office. The Executive Councillors of the provinces are styled "Honourable" while in office. Legislative Councillors in any province are not to have that title except those who were appointed before Confederation.
The amendment proposed by my hon. friend from Springfield (Mr. Richardson), as I pointed out, would prevent recognition

by the Crown of the service of men serving in the military forces of Canada, and if adopted it would create what seems an invidious distinction between men who are *serving in the Canadian Army Corps beyond the seas and the men who are serving in the forces of the Empire from other dominions. I think even the hon. gentleman who proposes the motion would agree that a man who has earned the Victoria Cross or any other of the distinctions conferred by Royal authority in recognition of valorous service at the front should be recognized, if he belongs to the Canadian army corps to the same extent and in the same manner as if he belonged to the forces of any of the other dominions of the Empire or of the United Kingdom.
But in the suggestion put forward, it is proposed that military distinctions shall be continued, and that all other distinctions in this country shall be discontinued. I suggest to hon. members that it might be worth while to consider carefully before this Parliament embarks upon such a policy. Our country, I hope, and more than hope, I believe, is not embarking upon the path of being a great military nation. We are fighting in this war in order that war may end. We are not fighting that our Empire may embark upon the project of becoming a great military power. We want to bring it about that the menace of war shall cease. It does not seem to me appropriate that we should continue designations of distinction solely to those who have served in military or naval forces. There may be persons in this country who have rendered valuable public service to Canada in other spheres of national activity. If we adopted the proposal of recognizing only service of a military or naval character we would be very much following the example which Germany has given to the world. So I would suggest with all due respect that perhaps we have gone for the present, .by the Order in Council which has been laid on the Table to-day, about as far as it would be wise for us to go without further consideration, and I have myself prepared an amendment to the amendment submitted by the hon. member for Springfield. The sub-amendment which I thus propose to move, reads:
That after the word "Canada" referred to in the saii amendment, the following words -be added,
"Except in accordance with the principles enunciated1 in the Order in 'Council approved on the 25th day of March, 1918, and laid upon the table of this House on the twenty-first day of .May, 1918."
In order to make my proposal perfectly clear, I shall read to the House the Address as it would be if the sub-amendment which I have just now proposed, should be adopted:
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled, humbly approach Your Majesty praying that Your iMajesty hereafter may be graciously pleased to refrain from conferring any titles upon Your subjects domiciled or living in Canada, except in accordance with the principles enunciated in the Order in Council approved on the twenty-fifth day of March 1918, and laid upon the table of this House on the twenty-first day of May, 1918.
In order that I may make the matter still clearer to hon. gentlemen, I shall read, not the whole of that Order in Council, because I read it in my remarks on the 8th of April last, but just the portion that sums up the conclusions which Council reached and which, when approved by His Excellency the Governor General, have been forwarded to His Majesty's Government:
1.	No honour or titular distinction (saving those granted' in recognition of military service during the present war or ordinarily bestowed by the Sovereign proprio motu) shall be conferred upon a subject of His Majesty ordinarily resident in Canada except with the approval or upon the advice of the Prime Minister of Canada.
2.	The Government of the United Kingdom shall exercise the same authority as heretofore in determining the character and number of titles or honours to be allocated to Canada from time to time.
3.	No hereditary title of honour shall hereafter be conferred upon a subject of His 'Majesty ordinarily resident in Canada.
4.	Appropriate action shall be taken, whether by legislation or otherwise, to provide that after a prescribed period no title of honour held by a subject of His Majes.ty now or hereafter ordinarily resident in Canada shall be recognized as having hereditary effect.
I should add that it is my intention, so jong as I am called upon to discharge the duties now incumbent upon me, to see to it that whenever any honour of any character is conferred upon my recommendation, the reasons on account of which the honour is conferred shall be publicly stated at the time when the honour is announced. That is the course which, I understand is to be followed in the United Kingdom and I think it eminently desirable that it should be followed here,
There is another consideration which I submit to the House and it is this: His Majesty's Government have to take into consideration, of course, the relation of this proposal not only to Canada but to all the dominions of the Empire and they have asked us, in a respectful and courteous way, that the whole subject be brought

under discussion during the coming summer when certain of the Canadian ministers are to visit the United Kingdom. It seems to me that as the Order in Council has been passed and has been communicated to His Majesty's Government, the delay that would ensue between this session and the next session, when the matter might be taken up again, if desired, ought not to stand in the way of our acceding to that respectful request. I do not imagine that the public interest will suffer by any action taken before Parliament shall assemble again. The Government of this country will then be in a position to announce to Parliament the result, of their conference with the Imperial authorities in respect to this subject. So, I would suggest to my hon. friend from Springfield (Mr. Richardson)-and I hope he wild accept this suggestion- that the sub-amendment which I have proposed be accepted.
There is just one further consideration which I omitted to mention, and it is this: If the amendment in the form proposed by my hon. friend on the 8th day of April last, or in the form since suggested to me, were passed, I think it would have the effect of preventing any minister of the Crown or any other person in Canada, from being appointed to His Majesty's Imperial Council. Appointment to the Privy Council carries with it the designation of "right honourable" and the terms of the motion as proposed on the 8th April, and of the motion as suggested to me since, would prevent the appointment of any person domiciled, or living, in Canada to His Majesty's Imperial Council, if I understand the terms of the motion correctly.
I venture to submit that we have made a very important advance by the Order in Council passed on the 25th May last and that this matter might very well stand at that until there has been consultation with the Imperial authorities. If it is thought that a further step should be taken in the immediate future, that step can be taken in five, six, or seven months from now when Parliament assembles again.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


John Hampden Burnham: In approaching this question I first of all desired to assure myself that the right hon. leader of the Opposition would not consider a vote upon it as a vote of want of confidence, so I asked him if we were all free

to express our opinions without any such dire consequences attaching themselves, and he said most distinctly, Yes.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


John Hampden Burnham: 

in Canada we want to be a democracy. If possible we want to eliminate as far as possible all these meretricious things such as titles and humbugs of every kind. Now is our time. Let us announce, not only to the Old Country but to the world, in the politest, most respectful and humble way, in fact, crave them not to encumber us with titles, because we do not wish them. In doing so, we do not wish to offend the people of the Old Country. Far from it. Let our politeness be excessive, if necessary, but do not throw our principles to the wind because somebddy else may be offended, and do not let us act as if we had no convictions in this matter, and could not originate an idea without .thinking of what somebody else thought about it. That stage of life in Canada, I am sure, has long since passed. Our soldiers and great men-including the great men who sit on the front benches to-night-have established a condition of nationhood in Canada and for Canada which make us above all this petty business. Boosting some men, who may be merely railway swindlers' or cement merger experts, into the eeate of the mighty, and letting the poor people, whose voice could not be heard, because they do not wish to be heard, whose lives are the very fruit and flower of virtue, leaving them to die in obscurity because we dto not know any better than to let them' die and prefer others, instead of them; such a condition of affaire in a highly educated country such as this is insupposaible and is certainly intolerable. Let me repeat: on account, Mr. Speaker, of the Prime Minister's having asked us for a decision to-night, and having demonstrated by his speech that he must he instructed as we want him, to be instructed, and as he can express our wishes, no man in this world better, and in view of the fact that the leader of the Opposition says, "Go to it; this is a matter for the general benefit of ^Canada, and the Opposition will take no advantage of it whatever"-in view of all that, let ns make this decision; let us instruct the Prime Minister that it will be better to postpone this whole question than .to- committ the dreadful faux pas of going to London and expressing the opinion of Canada in any way equivocal or unequivocal in favour of titles, when, as a matter of fact, we want to- be let alone and do not want titles. I am persuaded that the people of this country will not have them.


Robert Lorne Richardson: When this question was first introduced

by my hon.. friend from Kingston (Mr. Niokle), I was of the opinion that his resolution, in that it merely asked for the cessation of the granting of hereditary titles, did not go far enough, and after the debate was continued on that motion for some time I got the impression from the remarks made by various members that the desire of Parliament was that we should cease granting all titles in future. I listened with very great interest to the declaration of my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) that, so far as his title was concerned, he would be delighted to throw it on a bonfire in the marketplace and have it consumed. I was delighted to hear an expression of opinion of that kind, and in the hurry of the moment I prepared an amendment calling for the abolition of all titles. I was going to ask the House to agree unanimously to the substitution of a more carefully -worded amendment than the one which I hurriedly threw into the arena on the spur of the moment. But my right hon. friend the _ leader of the House (Sir Robert Borden) ' thinks that my amendment goes further than the House would wish to go. I do not quite agree with the right hon. gentleman, because I believe, with the hon. member for West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham), that the entire country is heartily sick of titles. I come from the great West, where I have lived for over thirty-five years, and I believe that I am not going too far when I say that the idea of titles is practically an offence in the nostrils of the people of that country. Titles have been conferred upon some very unworthy people in the Dominion of Canada, but that is not the main objection to the continuance of this practice The people do not believe in titles. Now, when we have the opportunity and the question is before the Parliament of Canada representing the people, I feel that it is the bounden duty of every member to express his opinion by his vote. I am persuaded to express that opinion more strongly because of the declaration of the leader of the Opposition that he does not propose to make this in any sense a' party question; he throws it open so far as he and the party that follows him are concerned, and thus throws it open to every member to express his opinion. Therefore, I believe the duty presses itself upon every member of the House to s-peak his mind through his vote at this time. And I cannot help but be persuaded, from the conversations I have had with a great many members of this House, that this House almost unanim-

ously .believes that the conferring of titles is an evil in this country. Apart from a desire to support the Government or a party, members alAiost unanimously are in favour of wiping this thing out at this time. As I said in the few remarks I addressed to the House when this matter was first brought up, I believe that the time has come, particularly in view of the struggle through which this world is passing, when, if we are not going to have a new heaven, we are at least going to have a new earth. The idea of titles will grow more unpopular daily, and I believe we could not do better at the present time than wipe titles off the slate for all time to come. The right hon. Prime Minister has suggested in his amendment to the amendment that the matter be left to the nomination of the Prime Minister. That, of course, would be a great improvement on the system which has prevailed in the past, because we know that titles have been given over the head of the Prime Minister and over the heads of the advisers of the representative of the .Crown in this country. That is an intolerable state of affairs, and even if the amendment to the amendment carries we shall have made an important step in advance. In doing so we should be representing the people of the country and the best interests of all concerned. We wish to build up in Canada a real democracy. What need we care about precedent? Let the people who constitute this premier nation of the Empire take the lead for once. Let us say what we believe should be done. If the Australasian colonies or other portions of the Empire choose to follow suit, all the better; but let us have the credit of taking this important step towards the building up of a real democracy.
When this matter was first brought up in the House the circumstances connected with the conferring of titles were referred to as leading to corruption. No statement, however, was made by any of the speakers to the effect that such corruption had prevailed in Canada. On that occasion I had a case in mind and I had intended to mention it to the House. A prominent man in the West who is well known to almost every one who has participated largely in the public life of this country told me personally that he had been offered a knighthood if he would pay $10,000 for it. When I was in Winnipeg a few days ago I discussed the matter with one of this gentleman's friends, who said: " Why, he told me the- very same thing; I understand that he has told a number of people." I
148*
do not wish to emphasize the point;.l simply want to show that the conferring of titles has been made the subject of corruption in the political life of our country. We ought to strike it a deadly blow when we have the opportunity.
The reference of the Prime .Minister this afternoon to the danger of depriving members of the Senate, of the Federal Cabinet and of provincial Governments of the prefix " honourable " was an unhappy one. As a mattter of fact, these are not real titles; they are simply appellations of courtesy. If we adopt this resolution or my amendment, members of the Senate, of the Federal Cabinet and of provincial Governments will still be called " honourable," and judges will be called ' Your Lordship." These are merely appellations of courtesy and1 will continue.
The Prime Minister spoke also of the danger of creating a military aristocracy in this country. My proposal is that no knighthood shall be conferred on any military or naval man who has distinguished himself. The V.C., the D.lS.O., and other awards of that kind, are merely military distinctions, and will continue. To meet the objection made by the Prime Minister in this respect I recast my amendment, and if the amendment to the amendment is voted down I purpose asking the House to allow me to substitute the following for the amendment which I originally proposed :
That all the words in the first paragraph of the address after the words "or any" in the fourth line be struck out and that the following be substituted therefore:
"Titles other than such terms distinctive of variations of naval and military rank as are necessary or customary for the purposes of Your (Majesty's naval or military forces."
The resolution as amended will then read as follows:
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled, humbly approach Your Majesty praying that Your Majesty hereafter may he graciously pleased to refrain from conferring any hereditary titles upon Your subjects domiciled or . -living in Canada, or any titles other than such terms distinctive of variations of naval and military rank as are necessary or customary for the purposes of Your Majesty's naval or military forces.
I believe that if that amendment -is -adopted, it will cover the entire ground. You have gat in the Chair, Sir, d-uring the last two months and yon know how the -soldiers are exploited on every possible -occasion. Gentlemen hold 'up their hands in holy horror and say:	" Do not interfere with the militia of this country." As


Andrew Ross McMaster: Mr
Speaker, as I had the- honour of seconding the motion concerning titles which was moved about a month ago, in a most able and eloquent speech by the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle), I may perhaps detain the House for a few minutes in expressing the views which I hold upon the amendment moved by the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Richardson). When the hon. member for Kingston and myself proposed to do away with hereditary titles, we felt we were taking the shortest possible steps in the right direction, and it was a great pleasure to me to find that the House was prepared to take a longer step in that direction and therefore I purpose voting for and supporting the amendment moved' by the hon. member for Springfield and voting against the amendment to the amendment moved by the Prime Minister. I am not unaware, nor unappreciative, of the advance which the amendment to the amendment moved by the Prime Minister indi- ' cates. It indicates first that there is a unanimous public opinion in Canada against hereditary titles-and that is a good thing. Secondly, it enunciates the principle that the Prime Minister and the Government of the day should, and will in the future, be responsible for the creation of all, titles. But I want to take a

step further; I do not want us to be creating titles in this country at all. We. have our own political evils' to tight against, *why perpetuate, why sanction an abuse from overseas?-for the giving of titles in the Old Country is admitted by all in that country to be a great source of political corruption. Let us get rid of it altogether.
Just a word as to the arguments advanced by the Prime Minister against the amendment of the hon. member for Springfield. The Prime Minister says that this will interfere with Canadians accepting the office of Privy Councillor, because a Privy Councillor is known as "the Right Hon." Mr. So and So. In the first place, I would think that the argument used by my hon. friend from Springfield that the title "Right Honourable" is merely a courtesy title, will apply. But even suppose it will not apply, is a Canadian who is given the distinction of being made a Privy Councillor any bigger man because he is called. "Right Honourable?" Surely one of the biggest men in the whole world to-day is proud to be known asi "Mr." Woodrow Wilson. You do not add anything to a man's stature, nor to the consideration which is felt for him by informed people by calling him "Sir" or "Lord" or anything of that kind. I rather fear that John Morley has gone down in the scale by calling himself "LoTd" Morley, and the name James Bryce signifies a bigger man than "Viscount" Bryce. They have not added anything to their stature, socially, intellectually, or in any other way by accepting those titles. The Prime Minister seems to find difficulty in the fact that it has been customary to call our judges "Lords," or to address them as "Your Lordships." This is purely a matter of custom, of courtesy. I remember, shortly after I came to the Bar, that in the province of Quebec, we changed our mode of addressing our Court. We had formerly addressed the court as "Your Honour," and subsequently we addressed the court as "Your Lordship," and I do not think that made the slightest bit of difference. I do not think they were treated with one atom more of resepect, and I doubt if the judges were one whit better or worse after they were called "Your Lordships." The Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), who was a judge of the Superior Court of Montreal at that time, will be able to hear me out in what I say.
There are other courtesy titles. We have in this country the extraordinary spectacle of certain dignitaries of a church being
called "Your Lordships." Men who follow the Founder of our religion, who washed His disciples' feet, are addressed as "Your Lordships," If that term disappears, then we shall he returning to proper first Christian principles.
I do not purpose detaining the House at any length. The burden of proof, in this House and in this, country, is upon those who advocate the continuance of titles of any sort or kind. We do* not seek to interfere with calling a man "captain" or "commodore," -if he is in the army or navy. Nothing of that sort is suggested, and an argument founded on that is trying to draw the proverbial herring across the trail. The question before the House is this: Do you want in future to have a system by which the leader of the Government, for reasons best known to himself, can put handles, to certain .of His Majesty's subjects living in Canada, or are you against that? I am against that, and. I am going to vote with the hon. member for Springfield,


William Stevens Fielding: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a great misfortune that the three proposals before the House could not be submitted to us separately. The presentation of three motions on this subject is rather embarrassing. It is, I think, a pity that we could not be allowed to vote on the motion of the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) against hereditary titles as a distinct proposition. I think we shall all agree that we should probably have on that question a unanimous vote. At all events, I have heard no expression of dissent. Then if we come to the motion of the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Richardson), I am inclined to think, from the widespread endorsement of it, that the vote on that will be pretty nearly unanimous. But I do nol think it will be unanimous. I have not any very strong opposition to it myself, but it goes a little further than I am disposed to go, and I do not think at present I will support it. Possibly there may be others who feel in the same way. Then we come to the third proposition, that of the right hon. leader of the Government. I regard that as objectionable for several reasons. I was glad to hear the hon. member for West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) say that he had discussed the matter with the Prime Minister, and that this was to he an open question. *


John Hampden Burnham: No, it was the leader of the Opposition I spoke to, and he assured me he would not make it a party question.


William Stevens Fielding: I have heard that one or two excellent members of the House are not a little worried over the motion of the Prime Minister, being afraid if they vote it down the Government might have to resign. On these terms I would not like to see the motion voted down. I am not always able to agree with everything the Prime Minister .proposes, but if it was a question of turning out the Government, I would not vote to turn them out. The House is strongly behind the Government; there is no doubt about that, and I am not so sure that hon. members who sit on the left of the Chair are very anxious to succeed the Government just now. I do not think they have very much reason to desire that. When we see the members of the Cabinet rushing from pillar to post from hour to hour and day to day, pestered with a thousand and one different things, how in anybody s name could any one envy them the job? However that may be, I see objection on the merits of the motion of the Prime Minister. I dislike very much the idea of coupling the Order in Council with the action of this House. Let the Order in Council stand for what it is worth. There is a great deal in it that has met with the approval of the House; perhaps it is entirely approved, hut I think it is very desirable that the Order in Council should stand by itself and that the Parliament of Canada should express its conclusion, whatever it may be, entirely separate and apart from the Order in Council. An Order in Council, after all, is an order of the ministry of the day, and while I do not suppose such a thing would happen, another Government in power at any distant day could repeal that Order in Council. Therefore, I think the motion of the Prime Minister, in which he mingles the Order in Council and the other motions here, ought not to be approved.
There is another thing mentioned in the Order in Council which rather grated on my nerves. The right hon. Prime Minister, in that Order in Council, indicates that knighthoods, or honours, or whatever it may be, are to be conferred upon his recommendation. It seems to me that is a little too much emphasis laid on the office of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is the channel of communication between the Cabinet and the Governor General, and in that sense he is brought into close relations with his Excellency the Governor General, but, after all, this country is not governed by the Prime Minister, but by the Cabinet and Parliament, and any attempt to give to the Prime Minister in his individuality
UVIr. Burnham.]
a special power in these matters, except as he is' the representative and exponent of the Cabinet, would, I think, be a great mistake. For these reasons I shall feel obliged to vote against the amendment of the Frime Minister, but I do hope it will not be regarded as a non-confidence matter, because, as I have already told the House, I do not want to turn out this Government. I. clo trust that we are going to have absolute freedom of thought and of discussion in these various matters, and while there is no question of the desire of the House to stand strongly behind the Government of the day, we are going to exercise our freedom on all the questions that come up. I think that is important, and I am sure the ministers of the Crown will think none the less of us for making that assertion of our independence.


Wilfrid Laurier: I had the opportunity on a previous occasion to make known the views I hold on this subject, and I would not rise at all this evening were it not for some words which fell from the lips of the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) this afternoon. My right hon. friend, in speaking to the motion, coupled with it the title of " Honourable," which has been bestowed on some classes of His Majesty's subjects in this country, members of the Privy Council of Canada, for instance, members of the Senate, and some of the judges. Such titles, if titles they can be called, are not at all affected by the present motion. These titles exist by Royal letters patent, and they will continue to exist whether this motion passes or not until, upon petition of this Parliament, or upon proprio motu of the Sovereign, the Crown chooses to withdraw these letters patent. Therefore, we can dismiss altogether that aspect of the case.
With regard to the motion of the Prime Minister, that these titles should be conferred upon the recommendation of the [Prime Minister to the Crown, for my part, if I were a Conservative member, I would hesitate very much before voting for such ;a motion as that, because if these titles have any value at all in the eyes of those jwho accept them it is because they come from the Crown, from the supreme authority of the King. But if they are going .to be conferred upon ministerial responsibility on the advice of the Prime Minister they are no longer the gift of the (Crown, but simply the gift of the Prime Minister, the gift of a subject like myself but who for the time being is in supreme *authority. I repeat, it seems to me the

.very idea is destructive of the honour svhich may be involved in these distinctions, and for these reasons alone I think Ithe motion of the Prime Minister ought [DOT]not to be accepted.
, With regard to the effect of this motion if it were voted down, it having been .moved by the Prime Minister, I quite agree (with my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queens (Mr. -Fielding) that such a vote would not involve a change of Government. For njy part I will say at once that I do [DOT]not make it a party question, and when .my hon. friend from West Peterborough, j(Mr. Burnham) asks me if I intend to make .it a party question I would say no, it is .not for me but for the Government to do *that. But I have understood all along .that the Government did not intend to make -it a party question. At all events, without any such understanding, if the motion of .the Prime Minister were to be voted down j can tell my hon, friend from West Peterborough and every one else in this House that I think I know my business as a party leader too well to be tempted under such .circumstances to assume office. I do not .want anything of the kind, and: I do not .contemplate anything of the kind. I do .not want to bring about a ministerial crisis on this question. There is a great deal of discontent and irritation among the people over this question, but I am sure no one ,in the country would want to make it a .party question if it were to involve a phange in the Government. If there is *to be a change of Government soime day, *as many people hope there will be by the .providence of God, it will be upon a more serious question than this and one in .which the people of the country take a deeper interest. I look upon these proposals as a step in advance of an educated .public opinion. All these titles will gradually lose their value as people become more *educated and more democratic, and, for my part, my plan and my disposition is .very plain. I shall vote against the motion of the Prime Minister; I shall vote for the motion of the hon. member for Springfield ,(Mr. Richardson), hoping it will carry, .and if it is defeated I shall vote for the .motion of the hon. member for Kingston ,(Mr. Nickle).


Hon. A. L. SIFTON (Medicine Hat):: There does not. appear to be any very great difference of opinion between the [DOT]members of the House who have spoken on this question as to what is the desirable result. There does, however, appear to be a very considerable difference of opinion
.as to the proper means of getting there, 'and the five or six hon. gentlemen who have .spoken have all apparently rather a different idea as to the proper course to be .followed.
We have had. three motions which are all possible and none of which .would do any grave harm to the country at large, and we have had a little difference of opinion expressed by some hon. members of the House in regard to the best way by which our object may be accomplished. In the first place, I would not like to vote for the original motion in a House in which the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier was the leader of the Opposition and in which the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden was the leader of the Government, eminent statesmen who, probably for good reasons, for reasons best known to themselves, have seen fit to accept titles at the hands of their Sovereign. I do- not think it would be nice for us as members of this House under circumstances of that kind to say that no title of this kind should be given in the Dominion of Canada.
I thoroughly agree with the gentlemen who have spoken in regard to hereditary titles, and there is a strong reason for the position that has been taken upon this question. There is a reason why hereditary titles should not be drafted upon the democratic feelings of the people of Canada. It was due to this reason, and some other things, that have taken place in regard to various titles given in this country, that the Order in Council which has been laid on the table of the House was passed with a view to providing a way in which to approach this subject in a constitutional manner. I fail to see the strength of the idea that this Order in Council should not be backed up and supported by the members of this House, and the hands of the Government strengthened along the line of democratic feeling that it is endeavouring to persuade the British Government to give effect to in reference to the Dominion of Canada.
The right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) took the same stand practically a number of years ago. A copy of the letter that was written in regard to this question by his own Government was read to this House upon the same occasion that this Order in Council was read, and the Order in Council is just along the same lines, but a little stronger than the action which was taken by the former Government. Ilf the members of this House can see their way clear not to weaken it but to strengthen it so that the

Order in 'Council may be transmitted to the 'Colonial Office in England with the support of a united House behind it, the House will have done a great deal more to carry out the idea which is the foundation principle of that order than if they separated it ai^d made two distinct propositions for the Government to consider.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Is the House ready for the question?
Mr. NI'CKlLE: If nobody else wishes to speak I would like to exercise my right to close the debate.
Rt. Hon. 'Sir GEORGE FOSTER (Minister of Trade and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the various expressions of opinion upon the subject now before the House. I have had my own thoughts while this discussion has been going on. I am bound to say, in the first place, that I stand by and thoroughly agree with the Order in 'Council which has been laid before the House and which was the reasoned judgment of the Government as to the step that might be taken at this time in regard to this question. I am told by different members of the House- and I do not want to impugn their authority at all-that the country is greatly stirred up over this matter. Well, I take leave to think that the country is not widely and largely paying very much attention to this subject at the present time. I know it is easy to think that one's own opinion is the opinion of everybody else in the country, but when we start out on that line we are apt to get a rude shock and to be disappointed in that belief. As I say, I have not seen in the country at large any determined agitation or any deep feeling in regard to the bestowal of certain distinctions and honours by the Crown of the Empire upon people in this country.
There is, I think, a very deep and wide feeling amongst the people against the importation of hereditary titles to this country. If a title or honour is given at all fairly, through proper methods and in an organized and orderly way, it is given to mark some act, some quality, some phase of character, some activity, in the person upon whom the honour is given. There is a basis for that. There may happen to be cases in which, through lack of judgment or information, or otherwise, the distinction has not been well bestowed, but the raison d'etre for the bestowing of the distinction is that which I have stated-it is to mark the approbation of the State itself ['Mr. Sifton.]
intimated through its head. There is a basis and a good ground for it. But I need not 'say that I think it is foreign to all Canadian ideas, that because that mark of approbation has been given for a particular phase of character, or activity, or act of excellence, there is any reason why it should descend from father to son and from that son to hrs son. Therefore, I am absolutely opposed to hereditary titles in this country and I would be just as much opposed to them if I were in any other country.
We talk a good deal about being democratic in this country. Well, democracy is in the air all the wide world through and it is a pretty bold thing for any one man, or any one country, to set himself, or itself, up as par excellence, the example of democracy. I go to France, I go to Great Britain, I go to Italy, I go to other countries, and I find that democratic principle and feeling always in varying currents and in different degrees. But in some of these countries I have named it is even more radical, I think, than the average democratic opinion is in this country. I go to the United States 'and I find the very same kind of feeling. Yet, in all these democratic countries, or nearly all of them, you find honours and distinctions. If you really come down to the heart and essence of the matter, do you not weaken your case when you make the argument for the doing away with the bestowal of these marks of distinction by the Crown upon persons in Canada and yet in the very same breath admit that no matter if royalty, or the head or symbol of the State, ceases to give them, distinctions, even in this country, will always exist?
For I think my hon. friend from Springfield (Mr. Richardson) said that we -would always call the judges "Your Lordship", and we would always call the senators "Honourable", and we would by courtesy, if not by patent, have our distinctions even in this democratic country. That goes to the very root of the matter, to my mind.
If we are true democrats-and if to be true democrats we must have a dead level in which no hill is higher than the other, no mountain top goes higher into the blue than the other-then we cannot have these courtesy titles any more than we can have patented titles. And so it seems to me that we may well revise some of our idea6, probably, with reference to this matter of a democracy being dead against all distinctions and marks of difference. We are all born free and equal, it is very commonly said, iSo we are. But you may put a nation

to the birth and have all its eons born free and equal, and before the end of a generation has been reached you will find distinctions of all kinds and of all grades. Human nature is built that way, and it is impossible to escape the general verdict of humanity and the absolutely evident trend of human progress by trying to keep everything onto a dead level of uniformity. Men will be different, excellencies will appear, activities will develop, and the mark of appreciation and approbation in one way or another will be differently placed according to the degree of evolution and of progress. There is no feeling more widespread' in humanity than the desire for approbation, for appreciation. It is in the infant from the time that it begins to take cognizance of its parents, and the approbation of the parent is decidedly looked for and is desired by the child as it grows up. It goes with the child from the home into the school, and the very essence of the progress and work of school life is that the deserving and the studious, the one that is applying himself _ to the acquisition of knowledge is largely influenced by the desire for appreciation and approbation. That is hot vanity, that is one of the springs of human progress. That is one of the motives which makes the world climb higher. I do not care how much a man may profess, or how humble a name or a profession he may write upon his brow, the man is not worthy of being called a man unless, having done good work, he feels glad to be appreciated for that work. Now, does it harm the man to be appreciated? Whether it is the public approbation of his town, of his community, of his country, or whether it is the word of the Sovereign of the State, which marks the majesty and which is the symbol of the-whole State, that puts that mark of approbation upon him, it is only a difference in degree- it is not a difference in essence at all. Now if that is a general feeling in humanity- deeply inset in it from the very birth of humanity until the present, and which will remain as long as humanity struggles along into an upward course of betterment and of amelioration-if that is so, it is absolute folly to talk about doing away with distinctions, for there will still be these public valuations: First by the family, second by the community, thirdly, by the State, and afterwards by the Empire-as the service and the action become widely known-and that stamp of appreciation will cling to the individual. It may be made known by a label, it may be by the tongues of the thousands who acclaim the action and
applaud the characteristics of the man; but it may be made known also by a word of the ruler of the State-it is all the same in essence, it is different in degree, that is all. But that is an absolutely necessary coincident of the progress of the world, to my mind, and we cannot cheat ourselves by the idea that we will get away from all valuations, that we will sink to one common level and there will be no distinctions at all.
Now, my argument, or my statement, may be connected in some men's minds with the idea that I am standing up for an honour which has been conferred upon myself. Well, I do not think that need affect the argument; I think I. may go on with my argument just in the same way. Perhaps it may be well to say that I never sought the distinction, that it came to me after thirty years of very considerable effort and public work, and that when it did come I did not feel that I was one single iota better than before the honour or the distinction was given. But I will confess-what any honest man will confess -Ithat I did feel deeply the mark of the honour that was given, because it united me to the head and to the heart of the country that I love and to which I had given some of my effort. It was not King George that tagged me, it was the country of my birth-the Empire out of whose loins I sprang, that aggregation of units which existed, lived, struggled, and died for a thousand years, and has built itself a name and a character that shall endure. I felt that the hand of that past, present, and future was laid on my shoulder, and that the words were said to me, "Well done; it is for something you have done for your country, and which goes afterwards to those that succeed you." I was not made any worse, I was made better-a better servant of the State, linked by a tie that did not before exist. That is my honest confession, and any man, I think, who has gone through the same experience, and has really, in part, deserved what he got, has felt exactly the same way.
Now there will be abuses of everything. Some one made the assertion here to-night that if we could not have a new heaven we could have a new earth. We have got to get out of heaven to get rid of the distinction.


John Hampden Burnham: How does the hon. gentleman know?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: The hon. gentleman, with his usual incisive inquisitiveness, wants to know how I know. How does

he know that he is a iChristian, if he is? How does he know what he believes? How does he know the Christian doctrine and tenets? He draws it from the Book of God, from the Bible, which is the charter of the faith of our Christian religion, and the Bible, from one end of it to the other, talks of differences and of hierarchies in heaven as well as upon earth. But what I started out to say, and to remind my hon. friend behind me (Mr. Burnham), was that he would not get rid of distinctions when he gets to heaven-it is against fair-minded, fair-play work, that there should not be distinctions.
For instance, my hon. friend, who may get into Heaven by the very skin of his teeth, having done many things that are naughty and comparatively few that are good, and another hon. gentleman who has been a saint from his youth up and has done no naughty things and an immensity of what is good, would my hon. friend have the face to take the same high seat in Heaven as he?


John Hampden Burnham: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


George Green Foster: I have the absolute argument on my hon friend. His own conscience is testimony to the fact that there are grades, and he would not aspire to the higher grade, because he felt that he was unworthy. It is no argument against titles and distinctions because they may be sometimes unworthily bestowed. That is where the human factor comes in, and the human factor is apt to make these mistakes. But I would not admit that a system which is as wide as the world, as distributed as nationalties are distributed, as persevering and constant as a force of action in this world and in these nations as anything else well could be-I would not undertake to say that the whole experience in the course of the world had gone on a delusion, and that it was a delusion, and that we at this present time are just beginning to find it out. I am not making an argument that the world may not for a long while have remained under delusions with regard to certain things. But I think there is something from the world-wide situation that teaches us that there is more in this maybe than we would think of at first sight and before giving it most mature consideration.
I do not want to weary the House with what I have to say. I have not much more to say. I think the House will be wise if it will come to one conclusion, to support the Order in Council which has been passed, 
and which does away with hereditary titles and affirms the doctrine that the Canadian people shall be the supervisor of its own distinctions. Having done that, I think we will have gone forward a long way, and that would be my mind. Every other man has his own mind and has a right to it.
Mr. JEAN J. DENIS (Joliette): Mr. Speaker, up to the present juncture I have taken no part in this debate for several reasons. Thn main reason is because I thought it preferable to leave the discussion of this subject to more highly talented members, although I have been, and am, thoroughly in accord with the proposer of this resolution. However, I cannot refrain from making some very brief remarks on the sub-amendment proposed by the right hon. the Prime Minister. As I see it, and as it has just been explained to this House, if this sub-amendment should carry, titles in the future will be conferred upon the recommendation of the Prime Minister; and consequently the Prime Minister will virtually be conferring titles himself. Everybody in Canada will be well aware of that. Should any one receive a title from overseas, the first impression that will strike him will be that he has received a title upon the recommendation of the Prime Minister; in other words, that the Prime Minister has given him a title. And this person will, of course, be aware that if he owes gratitude to any one, he owes it to the Prime Minister for the title he has received. Therefore, we are only shifting the title conferring powers and instead of leaving it to the Imperial authorities to confer' titles, we are leaving it in the hands of the Prime Minister of Canada. I am not alluding in any way to the personality of the hon. the Prime Minister, but in accepting such responsibility the Prime Minister, whoever he may be, will certainly not improve his position before the people of Canada. The matter goes much further. We have passed a Bill in this House this session abolishing patronage. Well, this is patronage. If vve leave it to the Prime Minister to distribute titles, is not that patronage? Is not the title of " Sir," or any other title, just as much patronage to many people as a position in the Civil Service? It is nothing more nor less than patronage. And the Government-well, not even the Government, but the Prime Minister-will have it in his power to distribute the patronage of titles. So I say that we are not improving our position by any means, and I think it is beneath the dignity of any country to

leave it to its Prime 'Minister to beg titles from England. As it is now, the titles come from the otheT side, and they are supposed, at all events, to come without recommendation. It has been stated to-night that titles have been given over the head of the Prime Minister. I am not sorry for that. Titles are a gift that we do not want, tout at all events they are supposed to come from the highest authority in the British Empire. Now it is proposed that it will he the Prime Minister of Canada who will send a request to England asking that Mr. So-and-So in Canada shall receive such and such a title. I say that is beneath the dignity of this country. By adopting the amendment moved by the Prime Minister we would not be improving the situation; we would be making it far worse than it is now. For these considerations, Mr. Speaker, I think that if any proposition now before the House should be defeated, it is the sub-amendment of the Prime Minister. I would rather see the amendment or the main motion itself defeated than to see the sub-amendment carried, because in so doing we would be making the position worse than it is now. For that reason I will vote against the subamendment.


Mr. E. W. NESBITT (North Oxford):: I am sorry that I was not in the House at the time of the introduction of either the resolution or the amendment, and that I did not hear any of the discussion on this question. I did start to read the speech of my hon. friend from Kingston (Mr. Nickle), but had not got very far before I was called away to something else, and, unfortunately, was not able to return to it. Therefore, I speak with some ignorance on the question as it goes to the House. But I have thought it over considerably, and I am opposed to hereditary titles in this country under any possible excuse. This is a democratic country, and we should not have hereditary titles here. So long .as we are under the British Crown I am not opposed to the conferring of life titles as a reward for very distinguished service in the public interests of the country.
If the King wants to honour a man who has given distinguished service of any kind, political or otherwise, to his country, I do not see why he should not do so. But the reckless distribution of titles which has been going on for the last few years is absolutely absurd. I may add that some men in the country who have performed great putolic service carry their titles properly and are a credit to the community. But, from what knowledge I have of the subject, I should think that titles should be conferred only on the recommendation of Parliament. ' Parliament should know whether or not a man has rendered such service as to warrant his receiving a title. Then, if Parliament recommends it, I see no reason why he should not receive it. I do not know what the resolution is or what the amendment is, and I shall have to toe-come (better acquainted with them before I can give an intelligent vote. In the meantime, I think it is tout right that I should give my views to this extent. There are times when it is perfectly right for the Sovereign to confer titles upon people who have given distinguished service ito the country.


William Folger Nickle: Mr. Speaker, when I introduced this subject to the House over five weeks, ago, I was. actuated toy a three-fold motive. First, I desired to project in the House a discussion on the constitutional aspect of the question. Second, I desired to bring to an end the practice of granting hereditary and what I have termed reflective titles in Canada. Third, I desired to direct attention to the anachronism of titular distinctions in Canada and the abuses which would probably arise from a continuance of the practice of granting recognitions which gave privileges without carrying responsibilities and duties.
As the Prime Minister said in the speech that he delivered to-day and also in the speech that he delivered when the motion was first heard, the whole national tendency in Canada has been to the recognition on the part of the Crown of ministerial responsibility. My attention was first directed to the subject in 1912, I think, when the member for West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) introduced a Bill into the House which, on the occasion of its second reading, was discussed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster). If I understand the English language, the Minister ot Trade and Commerce in his speech on that occasion, clearly enunciated the doctrine that the granting of titles was entirely within the control and prerogative of the Crown and that, viewing the matter from his point of view, he thought that the House of Commons had nothing whatever to say in the matter and was not justified in expressing an opinion. The language used by the Minister of Trade and Commerce at that time was as follows:
I have not very much to say upon this question, except that I think the bestowment of honours conies from the source of all honours,

that is, the King; and that we must allow the King to have unrestricted scope as to the selection of persons upon whom to bestow these titles of honour.
If that means anything, it means that the Minister of Trade and Commerce enunciated the doctrine that the prerogative of the Crown was to be exercised without constitutional limitation and without ministerial responsibility. As I said on the 8th of April, when I introduced this resolution, that principle is not satisfactory to me as a Canadian. I made up my mind in 1912 that if suitable opportunity ever offered itself I would again bring the subject before the House for discussion and, I hoped, decision. I have listened with great interest to the speech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to-night. I always listen with interest to his addresses; they are couched in language of singular force; they are perfect treatments from his point of view on the subjects that are under discussion. Looking at the matter from the point of view of the Minister of Trade and Commerce when he gave utterance to the words which I have just read, I quite understand how he was moved, by obtaining the recognition of his Sovereign, to the feeling that he was drawing nearer, as he expressed it, to the heart and the Throne of the Empire. But when he takes into consideration the evidence I laid before the House when last I spoke on this subject of the gross corruption that characterizes the granting of titles in England at the present day, I do not think that he can, with reason, say that the titles which are granted to-day carry with them the honours to which he refers.
I admit that down deep in the hearts of us all there is a desire to do the right thing. But, Sir, I am not of that school of thought which believes- that men do the right thing so that they may have the recognition of their fellowmen. I believe that the true standard by which a -man should be judged is not whether he does that which at the time has the approval of his fellows, but whether he does that which has the approval of his conscience. I am not much given to speaking on religious matters; 1 do not profess to be very much of a biblical student. But when I heard the Minister of Trade and Commerce speak to-night about whether or not there should be gradations of rank in Heaven, I was reminded of that part of the New Testament which tells us of the thieves who hung on the cross with our Saviour between them, and of our Saviour saying to one of them:	" This
day shalt thou be in Paradise with me."

d'f a man is repentant for the things that he did which he should not have' done and that he left undone which he should have .done, I should be sorry to think that when ,the day of final reckoning comes he would not get equal forgiveness with the man ,who, perhaps, from his early days had lived ias a man should live. I judge a man not so much by what he actually does as by the temptations that he has overcome; as by the resistance that he has (Shown to the temptations that may have -surrounded him. I am not moved, therefore, for the reasons which I have given, *by the arguments advanced by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I do not believe that the recognit'on given by the granting of titles is an incentive, to action .in most men, because if it were, most men [DOT]would- become absolutely indift'etent and jwould settle down selfishly in life. There jis no man in this House, there is no man [DOT]in Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific, who cannot give, as the former Minister of Finance (M.r. Fielding) said a short time ago in-stances by the score of men equally worthy of recognition as those who have obtained the recognition of the Sovereign. When you analyse the thing to the l-ast word, it is not recognition by the Sovereign at all; ,the Sovereign probably knows- nothing whatever, except so far as the information may be conveyed to him by. another, of the merits or demerits of the man to whom the recognition goes. Thousands of people in (Canada have within the last few years given faithful service never expecting recognition. Many who never expect a title and never had any reason to do so are just ,as sincerely and honestly bound to the [DOT]heart and the Throne of this Empire as .those who may have enjoyed the distinction that the Minister of Trade and Commerce enijoys. If the recognition of a title (was the thing that moved men to duty, what would the 30,000 men who to-day lie dead in Flanders' fields have thought if they knew that death was to overtake them before that recognition could be given? They [DOT]did their duty because it was their duty.
It is a pernicious doctrine to preach in this country that recognition is the reward of virtue. What should be preached in this House and in this country is this: that virtue is its own reward, and that man should act from a conscientious motive and no-t that he may obtain recognition from an extraneous source. As I was going to say before I was led-I shall not say astray-aside by the argument of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (-Sir George Foster) the whole tendency of eonsfitu-

'tional practice has been along the line of recognizing ministerial responsibility. In 1876 the Hon. Edward .Blake secured the recognition that the Department of Justice should have the last word in regard to clemency. In 1902, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, then the leader of the Government, submitted to the Colonial Secretary a note to the effect that he desired to be consulted or to have the determining voice as to those who in Canada should obtain recognition. True, his claim was not recognized, but he laid down, in language clear and forcible, what he called and what we now recognize to be the true constitutional practice. In 1916, the right hon. leader of the Government told us that when the British Government decided to commandeer our shipping, representations were made to the British Government that this should not be done without the consent of the Canadian Government, .and the principle was recognized by the British Government that Canada had the right to speak and must be considered in the matter. 'Again in 1918, by the Order in Council to which the Prime Minister has made reference, the Prime Minister and the Government of to-day laid down the principle that hereditary titles and all other titles .shall be granted only in the event of the Prime Minister consenting to the bestowal. I want to say this for the Order in Council of the Prime Minister, if I may be at liberty to comment favourably on an Order in Council that has been drawn up by or has had the approval of the First Minister: In my opinion, it is one of the finest and most dignified constitutional documents that any country could desire. It lays down, in a way that cannot be contradicted, the true position that I think every Canadian should take in regard to the position that our Government, the Government of an overseas Dominion, should take in the administration of the affairs of the Dominion.
I said that the second point which I desire to bring before the House and the principle that I desire to have admitted was that hereditary titles should no longer be granted to domiciled Canadians. I do not think 1 need elaborate the argument further, because, since 'this subject was introduced into this House, I have not heard, either on this side or the other, one favourable word said in regard to hereditary titles. Every one admits that they have no place in Canadian life. I think we all admit that they have lost their position in the British constitutional system, and that to-day they constitute a privilege without a corresponding burden or obligation. In regard to this second point, when last I spoke in this House, I directed attention to the fact that I wanted reflected titles also put an end to.
I said that, in my judgment, much of the desire for recognition had its inception in the desire of the wives of certain men for social pre-eminence and social priority. In replying to me, the Prime Minister said that, in his opinion, the term " lady," as applied to the wife of a knight, or the wife of a baronet, was purely a title of courtesy, and he did me the honour of saying to the House that I differed with him on that, conclusion. He also said that he had not the time nor the inclination to dig further into the law or the regulations. Having more of desire and also more of time, since the debate of April 8, I have gone somewhat into the question, and I want to be absolutely fair to the Prime Minister and say that in the discussion I think we break on a basis of fifty-fifty. As far as my researches have taken me, I have reached the conc'usion that the title of " lady," as given to the wife of a knight, is a title of courtesy, but that the title of " lady," as given to the wife of a baronet, is hers of right. If the House will permit me, I shall read a few notes that I have prepared so that I may speak with greater exactness than if I spoke without them.' The Prime Minister was quite right in saying that many of the dictionaries did lay down the principle that the wife of a baronet or a knight is commonly spoken of as " lady," but the customs- this is not from the dictionary; this is the result of my researches-and privileges and duties of knighthood go so far 'back into the Middle Ages that it is difficult to make these distinctions justly-that is whether the title is of courtesy or of right. Chaucer, in his works, speaks of his knight as having a maiden " to lady and to wife." Perhaps I should say for the benefit of the House that the word " to " is not used as a verb; it really means " for." What Chaucer says is this, that a knight has a maiden " for a lady and for his wife." The expression ''my lady" was commonly used toward any one of gentle birth, whether married or unmarried. For example, in Chaucer's Prologue, the Prioress is .addressed as "My lady Prioress." Knights, apparently, did not often marry out of their class, so that this form of address was not acquired by marriage, but simply continued. Occasionally, however, the old ballads speak of a knight marrying a girl not of gentle birth and " making her a lady;" in such a -case the form of ad-

A Parliament White Paper issued on the 29th of October, 1917, contains a return of all hereditary honours granted since the 4th of August, 1914 :
(a) To members of the House of
Commons	39
(b)	To members of the Civil Service	 5
(c)	To officers of His Majesty's
Naval and Military Forces who have been on active service during the	war	 7
Of the seven Naval and Military honours, three were accounted for respectively by the Duke of Teck, Prince Alexander of Teck, and Prince Alexander of Battenberg, while two more were given to military members of Parliament, viz., Major the Honourable E. E. T. W. Fiennes, M.P., and temporary Dieut.-Col. H. Webb, M.P. leaving only two which were granted to mere professional sailors and soldiers, whose sole claim to recognition was fighting for their country.
That would lead you to believe that the principle that military and naval men should have distinctions conferred upon them is not being recognized in Great Britain at this time.
The Prime Minister, in his address this afternoon, held up the horrible example of Germany. We hold up Germany as the horrible example in regard to everything. If I understood correctly the Prime Minister this afternoon, he laid down the principle that if military men were to get titles and all others were to be excluded, the militarism of Germany would be introduced into this country. But, before I leave that I want to make this point clear. I do not believe that, if titles are discontinued in respect to the civil population, titular distinctions should be given to those who have done great service to the country in the military and naval spheres of the war. All should be treated alike. If you are Agoing to lay down a principle for one class, you should lay down exactly the same principle for another. In my judgment at the present time the whole thing should be swept away and we should not have any titular distinctions at all.
The Prime Minister alluded to the conditions in Germany, and I should like to read, for the edification of the House, a few words of Ambassador James W. Gerard from hie book " My Four Years in Germany." It is an illustration of how the German nation has been managed by the aristocratic classes by the creation of titles and the granting of decorations. I will read from page 114 of Mr. Gerard's work:
One of the most successful ways of disciplining the people is by the Rat system. Rat means Councillor, and is a title of honour given to any one who has attained a certain measure of success or standing in his chosen business or

; profession. For instance, a business man is made a commerce Rat; a lawyer, a justice Rat; a doctor, a sanitary Rat; an architect or builder, a building Rat; a keeper of the archives, an archive Rat; and so on. They are created in this way: first, a man becomes a plain Rat, then, later on, he becomes a secret Rat or privy councillor; still later, a court secret Rat, aud, later still a wirklicher or really and truly secret court Rat to which may be added' the title of Excellency, which puts the man who has attained this absolutely at the head of the Rat ladder.
But see the insidious working of the system. By Herman custom the woman always oarries the husband's title. The wife of a successful builder is known as Mrs. Really Truly Secret Court Building Rat and her social precedence over the other women depends entirely upon her husband's position in the Rat class. Titles of nobility alone do not count when they come in contact with a high government position. Now if a lawyer gets to be about forty years old and is not some sort of a Rat, his wife begins to nag him and his friends and relations iook at him with suspicion. There must be something wrong in his life which prevents his obtaining the coveted distinction and if there is anything in a man's past, if he has shown at any time any spirit of opposition to the Government, as disclosed by the police registers, which are kept written up to date about every German citizen, then he has no chance of obtaining any of these distinctions which make! up so much of the social life of Germany. It is a means by which the Government keeps a far tighter hold on the intellectual part of its population than if they were threatened with torture at the stake.
Then, at page 118, Mr. Gerard says:
Besides the Rat system there is, of course, the system of decorations. Countless orders and decorations are given in Germany. At the head is the Order of the Black Eagle; there are the Order of the Red Eagle, the Prussian Order of the Crown, the orders, "Pour le Merite," states there are also orders, distinctions and many others, and in each of the twenty-five States there are also orders, distinctions and decorations. These orders in turn are divided into numerous classes. For instance, a man can have the Red1 Eagle Order of the first, second, third, or fourth class, and these may be complicated with a laurel crown; with an oak crown, with swords and with stars, etc.
That proves conclusively that if there is anything ito be learned from the German system it is that we should keep free the democracy of this country from the granting of titular distinctions.
Now, Sir, I do not think there is much more that I should say on this question. In my original presentation of the case, I endeavoured to deal with the historic side of it. Before this House there are three propositions. The first is that introduced into the House by myself that all hereditary and reflective titles should he done away with and that by an humble address we should ask 'His (Majesty to make no further grants of hereditary titles to people domiciled in Canada.


Mr. BUTTS:: Perhaps my hon. friend
would allow me to ask a question

?
Mr. iNICKLE: Yes.
Mr. iBUTTS:	I mean to put a question
to the right hon. the Prime Minister.
Mr. NI'CKLE: You may ask me a question.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: The hon. gentleman for iSouth Cape Breton and Richmond (Mr. Butts) certainly has no right to interrupt otherwise than to ask a question of the hon. member who has the floor, but with his permission.


Robert Hamilton Butts: Perhaps the hon. gentleman will give me permission?


Mr.   MDCKLE@: I am quite willing to
answer any question the hon. gentleman cares to ask me.


Robert Hamilton Butts: Perhaps if the right hon.
the Prime Minister


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. The
hon. gentleman is entirely out of order in asking a question of the Prime Minister at this stage.


Robert Hamilton Butts: I will not ask it then, Mr. Speaker.


William Folger Nickle: The second proposition
before the House is that laid down by the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Richardson). (He lays down the proposition that no titles of any class or kind shall be granted to domiciled Canadians. When I spoke on this question on the 8th of April, .1 said that in my judgment it would be wise to go as far as the hon. member for Springfield has gone, but I did not believe the House was sufficiently far advanced to warrant jme in introducing such a motion. For that reason I did not introduce that motion, but I am prepared to say to-night that, if the amendment to the amendment moved by the Prime Minister is lost, it is. my intention to vote for the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Springfield. The third proposition that is before the House is the amendment to the amendment moved by the Prime Minister. I am at one with the hon. the ex-Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) in realizing the difficulties that confront hon. members incoming to an intelligent conclusion as to how they should vote on these conflicting resolutions. Perhaps each has in it something that will appeal to a member and each may have in it something that is objectionable 149	*
to him. The -third proposition, which is enunciated by the amendment to the amendment of the Prime (Minister, is that the Order in Council passed by the Government be approved in reference to hereditary titles and that we shall establish the principle that there shall be responsibility on the part of the Prime (Minister for any title granted, whether it is hereditary or otherwise. In other words', the Prime Minister, in his amendment, says the Government, by its Order in Council, has said that, if the Colonial Office and the British Government are willing, there shall be no further hereditary titles in Canada. But if the British Government are willing to go that far, we want them to go one step farther and say that the Canadian Government, through the Prime Minister, shall be responsible for all titles less than hereditary titles granted to any resident of this overseas dominion.
Therefore, it is my intention, in the first place, to vote against the amendment to the amendment as moved by the Prime Minister, when it comes to be voted on, because it does not go far enough, in my judgment, to purge from o.ur system of government all titular distinctions. But if the amendment to the amendment as moved by the Prime Minister carries, then, when the Speaker puts the question to the Douse " shall the motion, as amended have the concurrence of the House?". I intend to vote for it, because if I cannot get a whole loaf of bread I am willing to take at least a slice. And if I cannot get the abolition of all titular distinctions, then I want to have it established for this country that titular distinction is granted on the advice of the Prime Minister of the country, and is not granted on the advice of what I, with all respect, term an irresponsible Governor General. When I use the expression " irresponsible Governor General," I mean a Governor General not directly responsible to the people of this country. In other words, as far as my desire goes, it is that the .resolution of the hon.. member for Springfield (Mr. Richardson) be sustained. But if that resolution, or amendment, cannot be carried then my desire, as expressed by my vote, will be that the responsibility .for titular distinction shall be on the man who, for the time being, is Prime Minister of this country.


Mr. R. J. MANION (Fort William and Rainy River):: I regret that at this late hour I feel it necessary that I should say-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.



M.r. NICKLE: Before making my speech I asked whether there was any other hon. member who wished to address the House. I was under the impression, when I rose to speak, that I was closing the debate.


Robert Laird Borden: My ihon. fnend is entirely mistaJken; he is not closing the debate. The hon. gentleman has spoken upon the amendtoent, and the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) has a perfect right to be heard, as I understand it.


William Folger Nickle: I only want to put myself right. Before I rose to speak I discussed the matter with Mr. Speaker, and if l misunderstood him it is my misfortune, not his fault.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think there can be any possible doubt at all in the matter. We are not speaking on the original motion, but on the amendment which has been moved. The hon. member who has just risen to speak is, therefore, perfectly in order.


Robert James Manion: I regret that I did not speak before the hon. member for Kingston made his remarks. I did not catch the meaning of the statement which he made at first, but I now understand from him that he thought he was closing the debate. However. I am not going to take up the time of the House for more than a very few moments. My reason for speaking at all is that I should like to put myself on record and explain the position that I intend to take in this' vote.
In the first place, I think that in the speeches which I have heard to-day there has been a good deal of what I thought-I may be wrong-was confusion of ideas. I I submit that the word " title ", the word " decoration " and the word " order " are not the same-that is, they have not the same signification. The Prime Minister in his remarks spoke, ft think, as if he looked upon them in the same light-and he may be correct. I do not wish to differ from his judgment, which is a more mature judgment than mine. But I feel, and I have felt ever since the first debate on this subject took place in the House, that a great many mistakes had been made in the discussion of this question. A title, to my mind, is a name given such as the title " Sir " before the Prime Minister's name. That is,. it is an appellation of honour given for some cause or other. The definition of the word " title '' as given by the authorities-and I may say that I looked the matter up when the discus-

sion on this matter first took place-is an appellation of dignity, distinction or preference given to persons. The definition of " decoration " is any badge, such as a medal, cross of honour, and so on, bestowed for distinguished service; and an "order" something akin to it though an order may confer a title. However, I am distinguishing particularly between decoration and title. Fot example, there are in this House to-day a number of men who have won decorations, and there are also in this House a number of men who have-I perhaps should say won-at any rate, who have been given titles. And yet, I think, they are two distinct things. Their title contains the " Sir ". I believe that the amendment of the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Richardson) deals particularly with the title " Sir "-that is, with baron or baronet or knighthood'-but the decoration such as VjC. gives no title. Private Tommy Atkins, when he is given that decoration for particular bravery on the field, or for saving somebody's life, is still Private Tommy Atkins, although given the highest decoration in the power of the King. The same with the D.S.O., and the Military Cross, and a number of other decorations. I will try to prove my argument in this way: The Republic of France is perhaps as democratic a country as any 'Country in the world. France confers no titles, but it confers many decorations, for instance, the croix de guerre, the legion of honour, and many other decorations, which are given for bravery. And ye't the only titles in France [DOT]to-day. are the titles which have been bestowed under the old regimes, such as,' .count and countess. I have seen a few of .those notabilities over there, but I think there are very few titles in France. I understand from inquiries made in that country, that many people take the title of (count or countess without anybody caring .whether they have them or not-they do jnot have to have such titles cou/ferred upon .them. However, I wished, to make that point clear in the first place, because I do not think that the abolition of titles iwould be the abolition of decorations at all.
J believe the great republic to the south allows decorations to be conferred upon its soldiers at the front, and- already the republic of France, and I believe our own .great Empire, has conferred decorations ' su.pon some of the American soldiers. Yet I have never heard, and I do not believe it is permitted, of any American being allowed to accept a knighthood from the iGovernmerit of England.


Robert Laird Borden: I think 'Mr. [DOT]Gerard had a knighthood conferred upon him.
* .Mr. MAiNION:	I do not think Mr. Gerard uses it.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think he is referred to in his own country by the title of " Sir " but I believe he has had the distinction conferred upon him by the King.


Robert James Manion: The Prime Minister gives one exception, and I believe he is absolutely correct in his Statement. But I do not believe that iMr. Gerard is given the title in his own country, and I do not believe that the United States permits its citizens to accept such titles, at any rate, not as a general thing.


Robert Laird Borden: That is the rule in every country-that no one is allowed to accept a decoration from another country except by permission of the exeoutive authority of his own.
Mr. MiANION: I believe that the Prime Minister will not state that there have been many oases such as Mr. Gerard's. I know of no other.
Sir ROBERT BORD'EN:	I do not know
of any others.


Robert James Manion: I do not believe there
are any others. Now, a few words in regard to the speech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster). I am afraid I am speaking at greater length than I intended, but I shall not occupy much longer of the time of the House. The Minister of Trade and Commerce mentioned that every man of this country., and every man in the world, who had any pride, desired approbation or appreciation for works that he had done. The minister said the man would hardly be a normal individual, or something to that effect, if he did not desire such approbation, and I heartily agree with him. But I do not agree that the approbation of the world is the same as the conferring of title, such as the giving of a baronetcy or a knighthood. The minister spoke of the different ranks in heaven. Of course, even the Minister of Trade and Commerce has to surmise in Tegard to the ranks in heaven, because many of us have different ideas from him in regard to heaven, and maybe many different views with respect to the ranks there.
Now before I close, let me say that I wanted to make my position clear on this
149i
question before the vote is taken. I regret very much that I felt it necessary to put myself right before this House as to why I intend to vote in a certain way when this vote is taken. I wish to say that, generally speaking, I agree absolutely with the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Richardson) and the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) that not only hereditary titles but all knighthoods should be abolished in this country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert James Manion: And the reason that hon. members on your left may not cheer me so heartily is because I am not going to support this abolition this year, because I do not think the problem has been sufficiently discussed and considered to have it properly solved at the present time. I believe the hon. member for Springfield is right. But I believe there should be a much greater discussion and consideration of the subject before a vote is taken to turn out _ this Government, which I believe this vote would mean.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Robert James Manion: I have heard "noes" from my right but not from my left. I repeat that I believe that this Government was elected for the purpose of carrying out the Military Service Act and sending soldiers ro the front. I do not believe that it is the duty of this Parliament, of men who are elected as I was with that specific purpose in view, to turn out this Government on such a question as this without due consideration. If after due consideration this question comes up again, if it comes up in the next Parliament, I am willing to say here to-nighit, that if the hon. member for Springfield moves this- motion I shall be willing to support it at that time.
Another point I would offer as a suggestion is this : that the Prime Minister should consider the question of not giving any more titles-I should not say giving, because he does not give them-but so far as. he is able preventing the conferring of any more titles upon the people of this country until this subject has had further consideration in this House. That is a suggestion I lay before him for his consideration. There is one point I wish to make before I sit down, a point, in regard to naval and military titles. I do-not agree that there should be titles given only to naval and military men in this country. I agree absolutely with the Prime-Minister in that. We should not make a:

military caste to stand over and above the other people of this country. While we are fighting to put down autocracy in Germany, we do not want to create a military aristocracy or autocracy in our own country.	I do not believe that the military should be given titles any more than any other class. But I do believe that for deeds of valour the military should be given decorations. I am going to support the amendment to the amendment as moved by the Prime Minister, for the reason that I do not think that the amendment of the hon. member for Springfield has been given sufficient consideration and discussion in this House to pass upon it. It would confuse us, and would confuse what the members of this House really wish to have done.
Mr. KICHA;RDSON:	Could I get the
unanimous consent to offer-
. Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. member has already spoken on the sub-amendment. Is it the unanimous wish that the hon. member should speak?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes. .


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Do I hear the word " no?"


An hon. MEMBER:: Yes.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am very sorry, but the hon. member for Springfield has not the unanimous consent.


Robert Lorne Richardson: A moment would have done.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Is the House ready for the question?


Mr. J. A. CAMPBELL (Nelson):: A point arises from a statement made by the last speaker (Mr. Manion), which I think it is in the interest of the House to have cleared up. I do not know whether or not he was making the statement for the Government when he said that a vote against the amendment to the amendment meant a vote of want of confidence. And we all know what that would mean. I was pretty clear, Mr. Speaker, as to how I should vote on this subject for a long time before it was a.'gued in this House. And I may say that my attitude towards the Government is also clear. It is in .accordance with .the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Queen's and Shelburne (Mr. Fielding) this evening. We do not wish to see a change at this time. We have confidence in this Government in connection with the general busi-

ness they have in hand. But we think they have possibly made a mistake in taking, such a definite part in this matter. The question now before the House, I understood, Mr. Speaker, is one introduced by a private member, and I have always looked upon it as a private matter, and' that the Government would not be affected in any way by any vote on this question. If I am wrong, many hon. members share the same opinion. Consequently I think it is not out of place to ask that members in this House be advised definitely by the Government as to what is the significance of this vote. If it is in effect a vote of want of confidence I can do only one thing. There is, on the other hand, no question as to where I stand so far as the matter at issue is concerned. I am absolutely in favour of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Springfield. We are, therefore, m a difficult position, and we should know, and we have a right to know, exactly where the Government stands on this question.


Robert Laird Borden: If by the leave of the House I may be permitted to say a few words, I shall make the matter perfectly clear so far as I am concerned. The subject was taken very fully into consideration by the Government at different times. We spent three or four weeks in reaching a conclusion as to our recommendations through the (Governor General to. His Majesty the King and to the Government of the United Kingdom. We dealt with it according to the light that we had. And when the motion of imy hon. friend the member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) came before the House, I took the House absolutely into my confidence, told them of the discussion that we had had, and of the conclusion that we had reached. I said that the Government of the United Kingdom, regarding some of the matters in the Order in Council as of very grave import, had asked us for an opportunity to discuss the whole subject, because undoubtedly it has relation to its ultimate effect not only to this Dominion but to all the dominions of the Empire and to the United Kingdom as well. We,reached a certain conclusion, and it has been 'te'ted frankly and clearly, as far as I was able to state it frankly and clearly, to the House.
I can only say, so far as I am concerned, that if the House does not propose to accept the course which I have asked them frankly and with much respect to take, I should consider that I am relieved from my duty of carrying on any longer the Government of this country, and I should ask His

Excellency the Governor General to seek other advisers. It seems to me that a somewhat peculiar course has been pursued by some hon. gentlemen on this side of the House in inquiring of the leader of the Opposition! as to whether or not this motion was to be treated as a motion of want of confidence. My understanding of the course to be pursued on such occasions is that the leader of the Government should be asked with regard to that question, and I cannot quite understand the reason why there should have been resort to my right hon. friend on the other side of the House to learn 'how I should regard a motion of this kind. However, the course has been taken, and it is entirely in the judgment Of the House to determine what course they propose to pursue in the .matter. So far as I am concerned my course is absolutely clear and open.
Mr. Nickle having risen,


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Thomson) has the floor.


William Folger Nickle: With the unanimous consent of the House-


Mr. SHEARD:: Order.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Is the unanimous wish of the House that the hon. member have leave to proceed?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


William Folger Nickle: With the unanimous consent of the House-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member has not the unanimous consent of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: Go on.


Mr. LEVI THOMSON:: I understand that the Prime Minister is willing to let the member for Kingston make a personal explan ah' on.


Robert Laird Borden: I am satisfied, yes. I would ask the House to permit it, if the hon. gentleman wishes to make a personal explanation.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Is>
it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member for Kingston have the privilege of making this explanation?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


William Folger Nickle: When the Prime Minister was speaking he turned in my direction as if it were I to whom he alluded when he spoke of an hon. member on this side having this evening asked the leader of the Opposition if this were a party question.


Robert Laird Borden: I was not referring to the hon. gentleman.


William Folger Nickle: Then I have nothing further to say.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Was the Prime Minister referring to me?


Robert Laird Borden: I was referring to the member for West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) who stated that he had sought that advice.


Levi Thomson: I would not have taken part in this debate but for the fact that the member for Springfield (Mr. Richardson) was not allowed to say a few words that might have been said. I seconded the amendment of the member for Springfield because I believed that it was along right lines-and I am sure that eighty per cent of the members of this House hold the same view. I agree that the Government have some rights, but I do not think that the rights of private members should be entirely ignored, and if they have not been entirely ignored, -they have been very much so. The member for Springfield offered a bona fide amendment and I, in bona fide manner, seconded it. This is a private matter, not a public matter; it has nothing to do with the carrying on of the war. This Government have been elected to carry on the war. I for one am certainly not going to vote any want of confidence in the Government; I am not going to vote against them in anything that, they do to work out a plan for carrying on. our part in the war, even though I think, they are mistaken. I shall follow that course until I change the views which I now hold concerning the advisability of retaining this Government in power. If the amendment to the1 amendment is voted down it will not mean a change of Government, because even if the Government resigned they would come back again; they are the only Government that can command a majority in this House. But I do not think that we should be placed in a false position because in honour bound, and in order to. be honest with ourselves and with the people, we vote against the amendment to the amendment. I do not think that we are being (treated fairly. While I want to give the Government every bit of fair play that is. coming to them, I do believe that private members also have the right to fair play, and I do not think

that the member far Springfield and myself are getting it.
Hon, CHARLES MURPHY (Russell): It may be worth while, Mr. Speaker, to go back to the conclusion of the debate when this matter was first before the House, so that we may understand exactly what we had a right ito expect from the Government and what this House is now receiving from the Government.
When this matter was first brought before the House there were two motions on the Order Paper, one in the name of the member for Brome (Mr. McMaster), and the other in the name of the member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle). By arrangement between those two hon. gentlemen the debate was initiated Iby the member for Kingston and upon his motion. As the debate proceeded -and as the practically unanimous opinion of this House was voiced, the member for Springfield, in order to give expression to what seemed to be a stronger opinion within the House than that *embodied in either of the motions to which .1 have referred, introduced an amendment. The Prime Minister asked the member for Springfield not to press his motion, in terms which gave the House to understand that the Prime Minister was in agreement with the general purpose of the amendment and, indeed, with the spirit also of the motions and of the speeches that had been made on that occasion. Then an agreement was entered into which the members of this House expected would be carried out, and the result of which we had a right to expect would be placed before us in ternis to-day. Let me refer to the language of the Prime Minister on that occasion. He said:
In view of the fact that we have had no notice until to-night of the proposal which has been put forward by the hon. member from Springfield, I think the 'House might very well consider the question a little more.
After the P-rime Minister had made some further remarks, the discussion, proceeded:
Sir Wilfrid Laurier: If the debate is to he adjourned, will my right honourable friend give us a day to take it up again?
iSir Robert Borden: Yes.
Mr. Richardson: Probably the right honourable, the leader of the Government, would prepare a resolution worded in such a form as might be acceptable to the House, and if so, would be perfectly willing to accept it in place of my amendment.
There the matter ended for the time being. We had every reason to expect, in view of the terips of the debate which took place on the oocasion to which I have referred and of the agreement that had been

come to between practically both sides of the House and every hon. member in the House, that when the matter came up again a resolution would be placed before us embodying the unanimous opinion of the House. Such, in any event, was what I expected: such, I thought, was the resolution to be presented to-day. When the resolution was presented I inquired of the three pioneers of democracy in this debate, the member for Brome, the member for Kingston and the member for Springfield, w'hether the resolution as presented met their views. I was astonished to find not only that it did not meet their views, hut that they had not been consulted, so far as I understood, regarding it. (Hence the confusion-


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend understood very erroneously if he understood that, because I discussed the matter with these three gentlemen during the forenoon.


Mr. MURPHY:: Of to-day?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.


Robert Lorne Richardson: The Prime Minister is correct; he did send us a copy of the resolution this morning.
Sir ROBiBRT BORDEN: And consulted with my hon. friends, too.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Yes, and conferred with us.
iMr. M'URPHY: Then, the intimation given to me was not exactly 'correct. In any event, whatever took place took place to-day. Be that as it may, the resolution presented to-day did not meet with the approval of the three hon. gentlemen who were the conspicuous figures in the debate on the previous occasion. The House, therefore, was thrown on its own resources and was not given the benefit of that leadership and direction which it had a right to expect. That, in view of the stage which we have reached in the session and of the business which we are supposed to have on hand, was bad enough. But the turn given to the debate this evening by * the speech of the Minister of Customs (Mr. Sift-on) surprised me still more. Up to the time that hon. gentleman spoke I thought that there was perfect agreement within this House as to the desirability of abolishing titles in general. But when that hon. gentleman spoke and took very strong ground against the arguments advanced by my hon. friend from Springfield (Mr. Richardson) and my hon. friend from Kingston (Mr. Nickle), it be-

came evident to me that, however the Ethiopian may have been concealed until this evening, there was a "nigger in the woodpile" somewhere, and the darky soon manifested himself in the speech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), and later on in the speech of the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion).


Robert James Manion: There was no "nigger in the woodpile" so far as my speech was concerned. I spoke absolutely off my own bat, without consultation with any one.


Charles Murphy: Then I exclude my hon. friend from the reference, but still I think it is remarkable that he was in such perfect unison with the two members of the Government, particularly in view of some hurrying and scurrying that we saw on the opposite side of the Chamber after the Minister of Customs had spoken. I, of course, accept my hon. friend's statement unreservedly.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Charles Murphy: I am perfectly serious. I would not take any exception to any statement that my hon. friend would make, because I have too much regard for him. The question resolves itself into this-Are we serious about this question of titles? Do we want to abolish titles, or do we not? My hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Levi Thomson) said a few moments ago, and said truly, from his patriotic and unselfish standpoint, in meeting the ridiculous contention that this amendment is in. the nature of a want of confidence motion, that this matter has nothing to do with carrying on the war, and I understood him to say, if he did not say so in as many words, that for that reason he would not be influenced by any argument of that kind. I am not so sure that this discussion has nothing to do with carrying on a certain phase of the war, as it is being carried on in this country. I am not so sure that a number of people, who play at carrying on the war for the sake of getting the titles that such play may bring them, are not responsible for the sudden volte face on the part of the Government. Therefore, I say to my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle and to other hon. members like him that, while from their point of view this matter certainly has not and cannot have anything to do with the carrying on of the war in the proper sense of ithe term, I am not so sure that it has not something to do with the methods pursued by some people who pretend that they are
helping to carry on the war. Otherwise, I am completely at a loss to understand the attitude taken by the Government this evening. I do not want to say or do anything to prevent unanimity on this question. But what are we going to have if the Government persists in this course? What position are hon. gentlemen going to be placed in who have declared themselves as they have declared themselves upon this question? What position will the hon. member for Springfield, the hon. member for Kingston, and other hon. -members occupy if the Government persists in taking the position they apparently intend to take? It is not treating the House properly; it is not treating the private members oi the House fairly, to take this attitude upon an occasion of this kind. I would point out to my hon. friend .from Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) that, whi'e he expressed the view to which he gave utterance a few minutes ago when he stated that if the matter came up next session he would vote for a motion similar to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Springfield, there is nothing to prevent him from voting for it now, since he has said that he approves the principle of it.


Robert James Manion: I said, with proper discussion, which I do not think this subject has had in this House at the present time.


Charles Murphy: I do not know what more discussion a subject could possibly have unless we were to devote unnecessary time to it. I have intervened only .for the purpose of showing the point we had reached when the matter was up before, and the opinion that -was general amongst the members of the House upon the adjournment of the debate upon that occasion, that it was the intention of the Government to bring in a resolution that would express the unanimous opinion of the House. If, however, the Government has seen fit to adopt other methods, then hon. members are left to their own resources and will have to take their course .accordingly.


Hon. MARTIN BURRELL (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree that the subject under discussion is really regarded as one of primary importance in the country, nor do I think that it has merited the whole time of 235 men that has been given to it in this House. Naturally some one will retort: Why are you still further discussing it? I do not think members of this House will regard me as a prolific speaker, at all events this session, if I bore them for a few minutes to ex-


Martin Burrell: If I am wrong I must
retract.	_
, Mr. HECKLE: Wh'at I said was that so long as we constituted a part of the Empire, and I hoped we should long so remain, we were within our rights in criticising the formation of other Houses that could pass legislation affecting us.
. ;Mr. BURRELL:	I do not wish to misquote my hon. friend or to misunderstand him. When we start a line of criticism on affairs that, after all, are primarily the affairs of the people of Great Britain, who are in very truth a democracy, we should [DOT]remember that the people of this country would be the very first to resent criticism by people in the Old Country of our institutions and practices and policies. However, I shall not dwell on that, i It is certainly right that we should not encourage, and we are not encouraging, -the bestowal of hereditary titles in this country. It is equally to be desired that we should discourage any farm of special recognition in this country when that recognition is not properly and worthily

earned and lived up to. But I would like to say, and I think it is time some'body spoke a little on this subject, if we are to discourage these things it seeme to me it is also time that we should discourage the tendency toward national and individual Pharisaism in this country on some things. There is certainly ostentation and pride and meanness wrapped up with titles ill-earned, and everybody regrets that, but ostentation and pride and meanness and selfishness are not necessarily linked to titles, and we need only Cast our eyes around the world and seach our own hearts to find a lot of other things of that kind which we might make as big an effort to discourage as we are making to discourage these other things. It is well, I think, that every one of us should hear in mind that good old saying of Butler's, and not
Compound for sins we are inclined to,
By damning those we have no mind to.
Amongst our national tendencies, there is a tendency to legislate ourselves into virtue. There used to be a time when a man could he honest without getting on the *housetops and shouting to his neighbour that he was honest. We took it for granted that he was honest and I think it is just as well that we should look at ourselves and our methods and legislation to see if we are not going along that road in a somewhat dangerous manner.
Something has been said about this being a private matter, and some of the last speakers rather complained that the Government had not, perhaps, treated them quite fairly. I do not quite see how this can be considered a private matter, although I can understand the viewpoint which would1 regard an academic discussion as a matter for members' private or individual opinion, but the House I am sure will remember this. In the first place, the Prime Minister and the Government which he is leading were endorsed by the people on 'December 17 in a very clear and unmistakable manner to carry on all the national affairs of this country. There was no mistake about that mandate. Even my hon. friends apposite well recognize it, much as they lament it. The Prime Minister and his colleagues, since December 17, have had to give attention to a great variety of matters, and in spite of the special strain imposed upon them, and especially on the Prime Minister in these days, this question of titles was given that thoughtful, earnest consideration which the Prime Minister always gives to any question of public or semi-public character. It must not
be forgotten that nine days before this House, met, this matter had been discussed and the Order in 'Council referred to had been framed, and therefore it is so far from being an absolutely private matter that the Government officially through the Prime Minister had put itself on record to the British authorities in this particular matter of titles, and therefore it ceased to be any longer a private matter, and could not he regarded as private simply because a resolution on the matter was introduced by a private member. I would point out to the members of this House that never has any Government in this country or any Government in any of the self-governing dominions gone so far in expounding its mind and explaining its convictions to the British authorities in regard to this matter as this Government has gone. That being the position-this is not exactly in the realm of private questions on which any member, should or should not vote, jjust as he liked, but is rather one of those questions, perhaps of minor importance, of which the Prime Minister and his Government had taken official cognizance and had expressed their best mind to the authorities in the old country. Under such circumstances, and especially as the leader of the Government himself moved the amendment, an adverse vote, if carried, would jeopardize the larger question and policies which the supporters of the Government themselves stand far. I am sure that however much individual members may disagree on certain phases of this question, or whatever views they may hold, they will in the main believe that this Government has gone a long way towards clearing the air and expressing the views of the people of this country on this question, and that when the Prime Minister gets over to England, following the Order in Council that has already been sent, a great deal will have been accomplished to achieve the purposes for which in the main all the members of this House stand.


Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (South Oxford) :: I had not the privilege of being in the House when this question was first under discussion on April 8, and nothing was further from my mind than saying anything on the subject as recently as eight o'clock this evening. But in view of some of the statements made I do not feel I could in justice to myself give a silent vote on this question. I have been sent here by the people of my constituency to support the Union Government in carrying on this

war. Consequently, there is no other course for me to follow but to support the amendment of the right hon. leader of the Government. I am sure, Sir, I little thought this question was going to assume the serious aspect it has, and that such serious consequence would result if this amendment were voted down by the House. Although I am in duty bound to support the Government, I think, in view of the statements that have been made Iby the right hon. Prime Minister and a number of the members of the Government, it was rather unfortunate this matter was not referred to in the speech from the Throne. We would then have had some intimation as to the attitude of the Government with regard to it. I do not consider the question of hereditary titles a very serious matter. It is one that has been in the minds of the people of this country for a great many years. But at this very moment a revolution is taking place throughout the world. Conditions are no't what they were six months ago, and' conditions will never again be what they have been in the past. It is only a day or so ago that "we heard1 from members of the Government statements with regard to those engaged in the public service of this country. While I listened to the right hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Poster) delivering his eloquent address here to-night and while he was pointing out the reasons why rewards should be granted for public service, I could not help but feel that perhaps the question of titles might have been relegated to the Civil Service Commission in whose hands we have placed so much responsibility. I am a little surprised, in view of the splendid results that are expected from that commission, that this question should not also have been handed over to them. As for myself, I am absolutely opposed to the granting of titles to people in this country as has been the custom in the past. It is something that is entirely foreign to the disposition and ideas of the people of Canada. It is not in keeping with the cause for which we are contending. Surely, when the civilization of the whole world is at stake, when the liberties and freedom of the people are so wrapped up in the issue for which we are fighting, the day for the conferring of titles, through the leader of the Government or through any other source, has passed. That is my attitude on the question. I wanted to say these few words in explanation of the vote which I will likely record in the course of a few minutes.


Mr. W. A. BUCHANAN (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of the abolition of titles of all kinds. I. am also in favour of prosecuting the war to a finish. I am prepared to accept the promise of the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) that this matter will be taken up at the Imperial Conference. I hope that in the meantime no titles will be conferred on any Canadian, and if any titles are granted before the next session of Parliament when this matter comes up my position may be entirely different. In the meantime, T think, with a well known labour member of the British Parliament, that it is our business to get on with the war.
Mr. F. F. PAiRDEE (West Lambton): Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to say anything had it not been that my hon. friend from Russell (Mr. Murphy) referred to the "pioneers" in this question of titles should be conferred upon residents of Canada to say a few words upon this subject. My attitude to-night is the same as it was at that time. I then suggested that no more titles should be conferred upon residents of Canada except for cause, and I am exactly in the same frame of mind now. In the old days titles were granted, when they were granted, for cause. They were granted for some national service, they were granted to outstanding figures in our national life. But it does appear to me that of late titles of all kinds have been conferred without any apparent reason. This even applies to the titles that are bestowed upon lawyers. In the old days it was regarded as a most distinct mark of approbation that one who practised law should be given the title of K.C. To-day the title of K.C. is granted not for merit by any manner of means, but wholly and solely for political purposes. I will not say that this distinction has entirely fallen into disrepute to-day, but it is valued much less than it was in former days. We have had titles turned out almost with a treadmill. Scores of men have been made knights, not for national service, not for service in any particular way that required the recognition of the state as a whole but for purposes entirely foreign to those considerations and for activities or achievements that do not deserve the slightest recognition or approbation. We are to-day engaged in the greatest war in history. Men have risen not only to the heights of national but of international fame, and they stand out in the world's history. I refer to Poincare, Wilson and Lloyd George, three of the greatest names that stand

before the people to-day. To-day these men are pre-eminent figures in the world's affairs. They, like that greatest of men, William Ewart Gladstone, were content with the simple title of English, French or American gentlemen. So it should be in this land of Canada. The whole spirit of the people of Canada is adverse to the granting of titles, unless, as I said before, it is for some national service. However,
I am glad to know that the ball has been started, end that like a snowball it is increasing in volume and force. This Government and future Governments will know that the people of Canada are distinctly and entirely opposed to the granting of any more titles in the way that they have been granted in the past. The people of Canada will insist that if titles are to be granted they shall be granted for outstanding services to the State or in recognition of conspicuous ability. We have had the assurance of the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) this afternoon, I am glad to know, that this matter will be taken up at the conference about to be held in England. Those of us who do not approve of what has been going on in the past have the distinct promise of the Prime Minister that the conference will deal with this matter, that they will inquire into it, and that the authorities who have to deal with the granting of titles will be given notice that, as far as the people of Canada are concerned, and as far as their representatives in this House are concerned, titles shall only be granted to those who have merited them.


Mr. H. P. WHIDDEN (Brandon):: Mr. Speaker, I think that all of us realize that titles will have to go in Canada. I am not sure that our disposition of titles is going to determine our final democratic spirit. I agree with the resolution before us; I agree with the amendment, and I agree with the amendment to the amendment. I cannot vote for them all to-night. I agree with the motion as an expedient beginning. I agree with the amendment as the goal to be reached, but not now. I believe in the amendment to the amendment as the natural thing to vote for, not by way of private members on. this side of the House apologizing for the right hon. leader of the Government (Sir Robert Borden), but because the amendment to the amendment is suggested in view of the action taken prior to the assembling of this Parliament, in view of the fact that in war time, when democracy is reconstructing itself in the consciousness, not only of the Canadian
people, but of all people who are alive to-day, certain prejudices, especially among the allied group of British nations included in the Empire of which we are a part, must be respected, and in view of the fact that we must not forget to recognize those true relationships which cannot be ignored in such a time as this.
I believe in supporting the amendment to the amendment, because we are assured by the right hon. gentleman who has submitted it to the House that a fair and full opportunity will be given for the discussion of this whole question within a few weeks-in which discussion the representa-tves of all the other dominions, and of the Motherland, as well as the worthy representatives of this country, will participate-and in that discussion the Canadian representatives will adequately state what we are thinking and what we are expecting, and what we hope to see a little later on.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that when Parliament reassembles, and if more time is needed for 'the consideration of this question, it will be afforded in the interval and we shall be in an even better position to vote for the amendment which has been placed before us during the present session, or for some resolution which will carry out the purpose and the spirit of that amendment. There is no need to apologize for supporting a course that today is the only one to be pursued, and I wish to say that as a private member of this House, occupying a seat on the Government side, and as a Canadian democrat, and the representative of a democratic constituency, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I can conscientiously and intelligently supp'ort the amendment to the amendment. 1


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: I desire to say but a very few words upon this subject. First of all I think that the present Government should be congratulated upon the Order in Council which has been passed and the recommendations which have been made to the Imperial authorities in regard to the question of the bestowal of titles in this country. Strong feeling has been aroused in Canada, principally in connection with titles which were of an hereditary nature, and the people have placed the stamp of their disapproval against all such titles in this country.
Let me qu'ote the third and fourth clauses of the Order in Council relating to this matter:


Robert Lorne Richardson: Mr. Speaker, if
the Housje would allow me a word of explanation-
-M-r. SPEAKER:	With the unanimous
con-sent of the House.


Robert Lorne Richardson: When I proposed
this amendment I -had no conception that it was a question which might in -any way precipitate a -crisis in the country. I had ho conception that the Prime Minister of this country would stake the existence of the Government on the issue. I was elected as a supporter of the Union Government, and I would much .prefer to resign my seat here to-night than to jeopardize the existence of the Government. In- my parliamentary experience in the old days, I understood that when a private member introduced a resolution members of the House on both sides were perfectly free to vote for or against it according to how it appealed to them. It was in that sense .that

I viewed this resolution of my friend the hon. mem'ber for Kingston, and I was thoroughly in favour of abolishing, particularly, hereditary titles. But when I observed the general opinion of the House that all titles should go on the scrap heap,
I thought to myself:	"Here is your opportunity, memberr for Springfield, just throw the imonikey wrench into the works." And I must confess that, after all the fuss that has been raised over this, I will toe disposed to hesitate before mature consideration of the consequences of an apparently entirely innocent and well-meant action. There is one thing, however, that I am, well satisfied with. Member after member has arisen in this House and declared that titles must go. Where would that place myself and other hon. members if we forced the issue toy voting against the Prime Minister's amendment? I think we are absolutely safe in concluding from this time forth that they are on the scrap-heap, and on the scrap-heap they go. The point I wish to emphasize is this:	the right hon. leader
of the Government has stated that if the amendment to the amendment moved by him fails to carry, his resignation will be in the hands of the Governor General. I was elected by an immense majority to come down and support the Win-the-War Government. I am free to say that there is no man in this country, in my judgment, as fit to lead this Government as is my right hon. friend the Prime Minister. I am free to say that I have sat behind this Government during this session with the greatest satisfaction. I have seen this Government implement its promises to this country one after the other -prohibition, Civil Service reform, Woman Suffrage, and so on all down the line. And I [DOT] am delighted with the record that this Government has made. But I do not wish as a member, misunderstanding what the result of a simple amendment regarding titles would be, to take the responsibility of driving this -Government out of power, [DOT]and I do not think any member on this side of the House would desire that responsibility, and if I did so, I could not go back to Manitoba and face my constituents who elected me by such a tremendous majority to come here and support Sir Robert Borden and the Win-the-War Government, a Government composed of the best elements of both parties of this country.
I have come down here to support that Government, and I am delighted with the record that it has made. But when my right hon. friend the Prime Minister stands
up in this House and before this country and says on this question, of titles: if my amendment to the amendment fai:s to carry I shall resign-and the Government would be out, and the country thrown into chaos as a result. I am not prepared to take the responsibility. I am perfectly willing, in view o,f the promises that have been made, that titles from this time forward are as dead as Julius Caesar, to withdraw my amendment, with the consent of my seconder. .


Ernest Lapointe: Do I understand, Mr. Speaker, that - the hon. member has. the right to withdraw his amendment without the unanimous consent of the House? 1 am not willing to give my consent.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It requires the unanimous consent of the House.


Ernest Lapointe: I refuse to give my consent.
House divided on the proposed amendment to the amendment of Sir Robert Borden:

Messrs.
Allan,
Ames (Sir Herbert), Anderson,
Andrews,
Argue,
Armstrong (Lambton), Arthurs,
Ballantyne,
Ball,
Bolton,
Borden (Sir Robert), Boyce,
Boys,
Brien,
Buchanan,
Burrell,
Butts,
Calder,
Campbell,
Carvell,
Casselman,
Chaplin,
Charters,
Clark (Bruce),
Clarke (Wellington), Cochrane,
Cockshutt,
Cowan,
Crerar,
Cronyn,
Crothers,
Crowe,
Currie,
Davidson,
Davis,
Doherty,
Elkin,
Finley,
Foster (Sir George), Fraser,
Mackie (Renfrew), Maclean (Halifax), McCurdy,
McGibbon (Muskoka) McGregor,
Mclsaac,
McDean (Royal), McQuarrie,
Maharg,
Manion,
Marshall,
Martin,
Meighen,
Mewburn,
Middlebro,
Morphy,
Mowat,
Munson,
Myers,
Nesbitt,
Nicholson
(Queens, P.E.I.), Nicholson (Algoma), Pardee,
Porter,
Reid (Grenville), Reid (Mackenzie), Rowell,
Scott,
Sexsmith,
Shaw,
Sheard,
Sifton,
Simpson,
Smith,
Spinney,
Steele,
Stewart (Hamilton), Stewart (Lanark), Sutherland,


Mr. ROBB:: I desire to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the member for Springfield (Mr. Richardson) who	
is in the House,	has not voted.


Robert Lorne Richardson: The reason why I did not vote was that the House declined to accept the withdrawal of my resolution, and the Government bad an abundant majority without my vote. I was not quite sure what position I should take, and when I do not know what position to take, I do not take any.


Mr. TREMAIN:: I was paired with the
member for Inverness (Mr. Chisholm). Had 
I voted I would have voted for the amendment to the amendment.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The question is now on the amendment as amended.


William Stevens Fielding: May we have the
amendment in its present form Tead? We are a little muddled as to how the matter stands.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The amendment of Mr. Richardson, seconded by Mr. Thomson, is as follows:
That the word "hereditary" he struck out from resolution and that the third paragraph thereof conclude with the word "Canada" in the ensuing line.
The amendment to the amendment, having been adopted by the House, now stands as part of the amendment.


William Stevens Fielding: Including the words
which you have just read from the original amendment?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes. The amendment to the amendment is now added to that.


Wilfrid Laurier: The resolution of the member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) is in the following words:
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled, humbly approach Your Majesty praying that Your Majesty hereafter may be graciously pleased to refrain from conferring any hereditary titles upon Your subjects domiciled or living in Canada-[DOT]
I understand that that resolution is now affirmed, and that the words of the Prime Minister's resolution are added thereto.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The word "hereditary" is omitted, and superimposed on that are the words* of the amended amendment.
Amendment to the amendment agreed to, and motion (Mr. Nickle) as amended agreed to.



COMPANIES ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir Robert Borden, Bill No. 106, to amend The Companies Act in various particulars-Mr. Burrell-was read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. A. K. Maclean for Committee of Supply:
Wilfrid Laurier: It is nearly twelve o'clock. Does the Prime Minister not think that we should adjourn?


Robert Laird Borden: We have not accomplished very much; I thought that we might go on for a while.


Wilfrid Laurier: We have accomplished a great deal. It is understood that to-morrow the first Order will be the motion of the member for Westmorland (Mr. Copp) on going into Committee of Supply?


Robert Laird Borden: I should he glad if he would go on to-night. If he does not, we will move the House into Committee of Supply to-morrow.


Wilfrid Laurier: To-morrow
morning?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, if he does not care to go on to-night.


Wilfrid Laurier: No.


Jacques Bureau: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister to what hour he intends to keep the House sitting?


Robert Laird Borden: I really do not
know; it will depend upon how we feel. If we continue to be as fresh as we are at present we might keep on until half past twelve or one o'clock.


Jacques Bureau: We sat until twenty minutes past one this morning. Hon. gentlemen opposite can obtain some relief by taking three shifts, but we are here all the time. I think we should adjourn at twelve or half past twelve.


Robert Laird Borden: We will say half past twelve, if my hon. friend does not feel in good form.


Jacques Bureau: I feel in good form, but I do not feel like being imposed upon because we are less numerous on this side of the House.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: I do not see the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) in his seat, but I wish to give notice that at the earliest opportunity I shall direct the attention of the House to the expropriaion case of the. King v. Belanger in the Supreme Court.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House went into Committee o'f Supply.
Allowance to J. B. Ohallies, a member and secretary of the Lake of the Woods Technical Board for services rendered since March, 1914, $500'.
Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Ohallies has performed very efficient services, and this allowance has been recommended by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Bal-lantyne), who is the Chairman of the Board.
Arts and Agriculture-towards the encouragement of cold storage warehouses for the better preservation and handling of perishable food products, $26,OW.


Mr. PARENT:: About May 8, I put on the Order Paper a question which was answered yesterday. From that answer I found that Mr. Philippe Furois, of the city of Quebec, had apparently been appointed to a very important position. That position, from the answer given on Hansard was that of secretary and organizer for increased conservation in the province of Quebec. The position is apparently an important one, because Mr. Furois receives a salary of $250 a month for that work. I have nothing to say against Mr. Furois personally. Probably the Government found that it was necessary to give him remuneration of some kind for his services, because, in the last election-he was a candidate for the Union Government in the constituency of Bonaventure-but that I shall leave aside. The term " secretary and organizer for increased conservation in the province of Quebec " is not quite clear to me, and I should like to get some information as to his duties. As I did not find that out in the answer that was put on Hansard, I tried to secure some information outside. I have discovered that Mr. Furois is attending particularly to the conservation of fish and is endeavouring to popularize the consumption of fish, especially in the province of Quebec. Whether that information is correct or not, I do not know, but that is my information. The minister, I think, might have answered my question somewhat more clearly. The duties of Mr. Furois, as I understand it are as follows: First, to see that a good supply of fish is maintained;
12 m. secondly, that the fish is reasonable in price; thirdly, that the fish is in good condition and kept in a sanitary manner. If that be the case, possibly Mr. Furois has all the qualifications necessary for fulfilling the duties imposed upon him. 'He has run in a constituency the shores of which are washed up by the river St. Lawrence. The county of Bonaventure touches the Gulf of St. Lawrence, in which any quantity of fish can be found. More than that, he has been in the real estate business all his life, so he probably knows all about fish, so it may be a good' appointment. But what 1 want to call the particular attention of the minister to is this, that in the city of Quebec for the last two or three months the attention of the department and of the Food Board has been especially directed to the

fact that the price of fish in that city and its environs has been so high that it has been practically impossible for any man of ordinary means to attempt to buy it. The department and the Food Board have had offers from men like Mr. Carroll, of the Daily Telegraph of Quebec, who, acting in a truly patriotic fashion, offered his services gratuitously to the department and to the country with the view of popularizing the consumption of fish, not only in Quebec, but throughout the rest of Canada. Further,'Colonel Talbot, who for a good many years represented the constituency of Bellechasse in this House, and who is well known to a few hon. members, offered his services without remuneration for the very purposes that I mentioned a moment ago. At one time the Food Controller said that Col. Talbot's services would be welcomed and that he would receive word one day or another that his services were required; but there was so much delay that that gentleman, after a while, got so tired of corresponding with the Food Controller that he thought fit to send the following letter, which I would like to place before the minister so that he will know the feeling of a man Who has offered his services without remuneration, when the minister has seen fit to-appoint a man like Mr. Furois at a salary of $250 a month:
Sir,
I have been waiting in vain for your many proposals and offers to mature into facts. I am now thoroughly convinced of what I surmised from the beginning and what I told to Mr. Carroll on our return to Quebec about the composition of your Board of Control and Pish Committee. You are a bunch of well selected four flushers paid according to your ability at bluffing. Your game costs the country $200,'000 a year. What a lot of fish this amount would buy for the poor people. With such a government of autocrats and millionnaires as this country is now cursed with one should not be surprised at anything. It is quite evident that besides talking, the only work you do is reading letters, dictating answers and giving advice gathered from different points where you have found good men patriotic enough to do your work for nothing. The 34 stenographers you employ, being no doubt overworked; you can save yourself the trouble of answering this letter as you cannot even follow a correspondence properly.
This letter was written by a man who is experienced in public life, is well known to a good many members' of this House, and has been overseas. He offered his services without remuneration to the Canada Food Board with a view to increasing the fish consumption in this country, but his services were declined and Mr. Philippe Furois, the defeated candidate in the last election

in the county of Bonaventure, was appointed in bis stead at a salary of $250 a month. I am not complaining about Mr. Furois, and I know that having given the facts to the minister he will take them *into his consideration and I can leave the matter to him.


Mr. CRERAR:: The appointment of the gentleman referred does not come within the Department of Agriculture. He was appointed by the Canada Food Board, I understand. I did not know there was such a gentleman in existence until a question on the Order Paper was brought to my attention a few days ago. I do not know what the capabilities of Mr. Furois are for the position he holds, but I presume the chairman of the Canada Food Board would satisfy himself that he was well qualified. I shall look into the matter.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Had patronage anything to do with it?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I knew absolutely nothing about the appointment, but as I have already said I shall be glad to bring this matter to the attention of the chairman of the Food Board.	[DOT]


Georges Parent: I am quite convinced the minister knew nothing about it personally, or I should probably never have brought the matter up in the House. The gentleman this letter is addressed to is Mr. H. B. Thomson, Food Controller, Ottawa, and I believe the Food Board is under the administration or supervision of the Minister of Agriculture.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The Food Board reports to Council and carries on its business with Council through the Minister of Agriculture, and that is about the extent of the jurisdiction of the Minister of Agriculture.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The minister does not suggest that he is not the minister responsible to this House for the dealings of the Food Board?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Oh, no.
Exhibitions, $25,000.


Mr. KAY:: What exhibitions are included?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: As hon. gentlemen are, perhaps, aware, it has 'been the policy of the department for a good many years to be represented at international exhibitions in various parts of the world, the Iasi one in which we took part being at San Diego, I believe. This work has largely ceased since the war broke out, but the vote is retained to keep in existence the organization

that was built up during several years to carry on this work. This money is required to pay the salaries of the officials.


Mr. PEDLOW:: While the war is on could not this branch be dispensed with, or the officials be engaged in some other branch of the Service?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It is really a question of policy. It has been thought wise for a good many years now for Canada to be represented at these exhibitions, and I think it would be unfortunate to break up an organization that is skilled in the handling of this work.


William Frederic Kay: Do I understand there w:ll be 'no grants to exhibitions this year?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I was stating that the members of the staff are practically all engaged in other branches of the Service, but their salaries are still paid out of this vote.
Mr. pEDLOW: That is carrying out the suggestion I made a moment ago, but the salaries are still charged up to the Department of Agriculture. Why not charge them to the departments in which the men are working?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is merely a matter of book-keeping.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: But why not show the true state of affairs?


Georges Parent: Has the minister received a request from the corporation of the city of Quebec for a grant to the annual exhibition held in that city in September?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I believe such a request has been received, but any money granted for that purpose would come out of the vote under the Live Stock Branch.


Georges Parent: It is immaterial to me what branch it comes out of, but I wanted to know whether a grant would be made by the Government to the Quebec exhibition this year.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No such grant would be made out of this vote, which is to pay the salaries of the exhibition staff.


William Frederic Kay: In previous years, under this vote, there has been a grant made to special exhibitions. I am glad to hear the minister state that it is not to be continued this year. I had, earlieT in the session, a resolution on the Order Paper urging the Government to prohibit the holding of exhibitions this year for the purpose of increasing and conserving labour on the farm. Unfortunately, this resolution was not reached
and it "was withdrawn. I put that resolution on the Order Paper because I was firmly convinced that production was of paramount importance during the war and that there was a great expenditure and loss of time and labour in attending exhibitions,
I calculated that at least 5,000,000 days of labour are lost on the farm by farmers attending fall exhibitions in this country, by the transportation of livestock and by the travel of the people in order to attend exhibitions.. But inasmuch as the Government, by their recent Order in Council affecting the Military Service Act, seem to indicate that production is, not of paramount importance, I will have nothing further to say in this regard at the present time. I am very strongly in favour of exhibitions in normal years. They have done a great deal for agriculture and for promoting the livestock industry. But I think that in the interest of greater production they should not be held during the war. I offer that suggestion, although it will not be possible to carry it out this year. In case, next year, the Government should decide that production is of paramount importance, I would suggest that they prohibit the holding of fall fairs.


Mr. GLASS:: I cannot see it from the
same angle that my hon, friend (Mr. Kay) does'. I do not agree with him in what he said with reference to any reduction in the assistance or support given to the holding of fairs throughout the country. He says that the object of withholding or reducing the grant i3 to enable the farmers to increase production. 1 do not think his, reasoning is at all logical, because I do not know of anything that has done more to stimulate production or to encourage intensified farming than the fall fairs. I think the House and the country can be congratulated on the fact that the resolution that the hon, gentleman had on the Order Paper has, not been presented and that his wishes have not prevailed. I call the attention of the committee to the fact that the experience of recent years, in extending these fall fairs, even to the pupils in the schools, has proved most effective .in stimulating the agricultural industry and increasing production. I refer particularly to township fairs where the competitions have been among the younger element and the school children. We have had competitions in production in my part of the country which have brought out products that have outclassed anything that the farmers have been able to produce in this country. On



one occasion we had an acre production competition. The object of this competition was not to see who could grow the best potatoes, fruit, or products of other kinds, but to see who could produce the greatest amount of value from an acre of land. In connection with this competition, three boys, side by side, in the township, produced an average of about 500 bushels of potatoes to the acre. They produced that at 40 cents per bushel, and they had a profit of over $168 per acre over labour and everything else. The results obtained by those boys demonstrated to the farmers the fact that they were not getting the greatest production out of the ground. School children, in *>
connection with these little exhibitions that are held, are being taught how to organize and to work their small plots of ground set apart for them on certain portions of the farm. Since these fairs have been established they have had a most stimulating and encouraging effect upon production and intensive farming. I should be sorry to see the Government take any steps that would result in withdrawing any encouragement from these exhibitions. I did not understand the minister to say that it was the intention to reduce these grants. There has been for a number of years past a grant given by the Dominion Government to exhibitions which have a prize list aggregating a certain maximum-I think, $10,000. I hope it is not the intention of the Government to reduce that encouragement to exhibitions.


Mr. BOYCE:: It would be a very great mistake to do anything that would offer any discouragement to the agricultural industry at the present time. There never was a time when it was so necessary to get all we possibly can out of the soil. This applies not only to crop production but to the live stock industry as well. Nothing stimulates the live stock industry like the competitions at these exhibitions. I am not speaking as one who is not interested, because I have been a farmer all my life; I have attended these exhibitions, and I think they are a very great benefit to .the country generally. If you break them down now you will be put to a great deal of trouble and expense before you can revive them and put them on the footing that they at present occupy. I must congratulate the Government generally on the great assistance that they have given to the agricultural and live stock industries. I trust the Government will give very serious consideration to the question before favouring any proposal that will result in the dis-

couragement of these exhibitions, because they are the very best agencies we have in stimulating production and encouraging the development of the resources of this country.


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: While it may probably appear presumptuous of me to intrude on the domain of agriculture, I would like to felicitate my hon. friend from Missisquoi (Mr. Kay) upon dropping his motion. However well known my hon. friend may have been in Ontario before he introduced his motion, I can assure him that he became even better known in all quarters of the province after he had given notice of it. We have in Toronto am exhibition which we look upon as a liberal education for the people of Ontario, and when it is learned that that hon. gentleman has abandoned his resolution the many people who are interested in that exhibition will be very pleased.


William Frederic Kay: I do not wish to sail under any false colours. The hon. member from Parkdale (Mr. Mowat) must thank the Government, and not me. It is only because the Government does not favour production that I have withdrawn my resolution.
Publications Branch, $30,000.


Samuel Francis Glass: I suppose this item is for the publication of pamphlets in connection with the department. I sometimes think, in reference to ,the publication of information given out by the department, that very much more effective and speedy work would be accomplished if the agricultural press were used. For example, in connection with the regulations which have been promulgated by the Food Board in reference to the matter of food, I had the situation illustrated to me when the farmers' delegation were here a short time ago. In the district from which I come dairying and generally mixed farming is carried on. The farmers in that district,. responding to the urgent demand of the Government to increase the production of hogs, had made arrangements for increasing that production this year, and they were guaranteed that an ample supply of feed would be available. However, we know that in all parts of the country great difficulty has been experienced in that regard, and the facts have already been given to the House, that in some places the farmers were compelled to take a percentage of flour from the millers in order to get a certain quantity of bran and shorts. In fact, the situation is reaching the stage that in some localties in the West

the farmers cannot get either bran or shorts; they have the stock on their hands and cannot feed them. The farmers whom I met wanted to know where they could get corn and oil cake. As a matter of fact the Dominion Government have made every provision for putting the farmer in touch with the market for corn, and they also had under their control supplies of oil cake, but the farmers did not know anything about it. Announcement of the Government's plans was made in an Order in Council, or in some other way, but it was of no use to 'the farmers because they did not know anything about it. If matters of that kind were published in the agricultural press, and that press was more generally used for the publication of announcements that are designed to quickly reach the farmers, much better results would be accomplished, and a good deal more speedily. The Agricultural Gazette which has been published in the past, I think might well be dispensed with altogether. I do not think it reaches those that it is intended to reach, because it is not producing any beneficial effects. I wish to impress upon the minister that the reports which are intended to reach the farmers quickly do not reach them through the ordinary bulletins as now published and circulated and, as I say, more effective results would be achieved if the agricultural press were used for the publication of matters of this kind.


Georges Parent: I would call the attention of the minister to the fact that in the province of Quebec the farmers are not generally aware that there are such publications as the department is distributing. I would suggest to him that he publish an advertisement in every newspaper in the province announcing that bulletins will be supplied to any one who asks for them. In that way he is likely to secure very beneficial results. I have no complaint to make of the bulletins which he issues-they are very interesting and very much appreciated -but the trouble is that they are only distributed by members to their constituents in very small numbers, whereas if they were more largely circulated, greater benefit would result to the country at large.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: 
Air. DAVIS:: Advertising in publications, in my opinion, would not be as effective as the sending of educative pamphiets to every public school throughout the Dominion.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I shall be very glad to keep in mind the suggestions that have been made by hon. gentlemen to-night, with respect to the distribution of these pamphlets, some of which suggestions, I think, have a good deal of merit.


William Frederic Kay: Would the minister tell us what i,s the cost of publishing the Agricultural Gazette?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It is $25,000 a year.
For the development, of the live stock industry, $600,000.
Mr. MoCREA: The Department of Agriculture has an office in Sherbrooke in w hich I think some five or six individuals are employed, and I would like to ask the minister if he is thoroughly informed as to what these people are doing. I think it would be well for him to inquire into the running of that office and see if full value is being given for the money spent. I am of the opinion that the staff there is supposed to buy and distribute thoroughbred stock but the class of stock they have been handling has been of a very poor class, and I think there has been more speculation going on than anything else. I am not here, however, to make charges; I simply caU the attention of the minister to the fact that it would 'he wise to look into the running of that office and ascertain whether he is getting full value for the money expended.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I stated last evening, when we were considering some other items m the Estimates, that I have not yet had an opportunity to go very fully into the work .of the department. As hon. gentlemen will appreciate if they reflect for a moment, 't is a very large department, and embraces a great many activities. I tell the hon. gentleman (Mr. MoCrea) that the matter which he has brought to my attention will he closely scrutinized. I aim, as far as possible, at getting efficiency in this department. And I do' not intend for one moment that officials shall hold jobs unless they are giving service for the money they are getting.
Mr. AfieCREA:	I appreciate very much
the distribution of a good class of livestock, but I also am aware of the damage that can be done by distributing livestock

that is not very good. And. I am inclined to believe that there is speculation going on.


Donald Sutherland: I notice that there is a decrease of 3100,000 in. this item as compared with last year, and the cost of pure-bred animals has increased fully one-third during that time. I aim afraid the hon. gentleman- who has just spoken will not be getting the quality of animals he expects if the distribution is to be kept up while the estimate is being reduced by 3100,000. I think that is the reason why the animals in many cases are not as satisfactory as he would like them to be. You may get a pure-bred animal, but it is impossible to get one of high standard and really up-to-date from a progressive farmer at the price that has been fixed. The department has set a fixed .price for purebred animals. Consequently, you cannot expect to get animals of a high standard, with the estimate being cut down by $100,000 and the price going up. In many instances, the prices are almost double what they were two years ago. What proportion of these animals are distributed in the various provinces? For instance, can the minister give any estimate as to the number of animals placed in the province of Ontario during the past year?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I shall give the hon. gentleman the information; it is available.
. Mr. KAY:	Do I understand that this
amount is entirely devoted to the purchase of pure-bred sires?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No. It is for the general livestock industry, the purchase of livestock, cattle, horses, swine and sheep; grants to agricultural fairs, which were .referred to a short time ago, are also included in this vote.


William Frederic Kay: How much is to be applied
to agricultural fairs this year?


Donald Sutherland: I do not ask the
minister to supply the information now but any time in the near future will do just as well.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The appropriation for agricultural fairs for this year is $80,000 for the whole of Canada.
Mr. KAY; How is it to be distributed and where?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It is distributed to the fairs throughout Canada which qualify under the regulations governing the grant laid down by the department. The prin-

ciple on which it is operated is that the local fair board shall contribute a certain amount of money; if they reach that amount then the department will supplement it with an additional grant.


William Frederic Kay: Does that apply to any fall fair throughout Canada?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It applies to any fair which will meet the conditions laid down by the department.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: This grant is on the same basis which has obtained heretofore? There is no change in the basis?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No. The conditions under which this grant will be given this year are the same as last year with the exception that the general grants are cut down twenty-five per cent.


Mr. KNOX:: I would like to put myself on record as saying that the grant to the fall fairs is made to those that have previously paid out $6,000 in prizes for livestock. That means that large fairs have no difficulty in complying with the regulations, whereas the smaller fairs cannot come up to that. I suggest that some other system be adopted, whereby the small fairs shall be given some assistance.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: What is the idea of cutting down the grant twenty-five per cent?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Economy.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Does the hon. minister think that is wisdom in view of the fact that these fall fairs are an encouragement to greater production? I think it is wise to increase, rather than decrease, these grants, if you want to encourage the farmers to produce.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: There are quite a number who agree with the hon. member for Missisquoi (Mr. Kay) that these fairs should be out out altogether. We have tried to strike the proper medium and balance between the two ideas.


Mr. CAHILL:: How does the number of animals this year compare with previous years. Has the department as many horses or cattle' for distribution, and are they buying any this year?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The department anticipate that there will not be as many distributed this year as in former years. Of course, the distribution has been going on for a number of years, and the demand to a certain extent has been met. In addition there is difficulty in getting sires of the proper type.


Ernest Lapointe: There were some
left in Dorchester county.


Donald Sutherland: The appropriation
for fall fairs usee up only $8,000, consequently there is $592,000 of this vote left.


Mr.  A. K. MAOLEAN@: The Minister of
Agriculture said $80,000 was set aside for fairs.


Donald Sutherland: There is a decrease of $100,000 in this item compaired with last year, and the minister says this is done' for the sake of economy. In view of the condition of the livestock industry of Canada at this time, if there is one place where economy should not be exercised it is here.
I do not think this is the right time to practice economy so far as the livestock industry is concerned. This industry was never in a more critical condition, in our country or in the world than at the present time. If there is one item in the Estimates which should not be reduced, it is this one. It should be increased.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: The vote is for
the same amount as the actual expenditure under this item last year.


Donald Sutherland: That would indicate that the whole amount voted in the previous year has not been spent. As the increase in the cost of these animals is so much greater at the present time, even with the amount of last year's expenditure not nearly so many animals can be distributed this year as last year.
This is one branch of the department 'that ought to be encouraged. Splendid results have been obtained through the distribution of male animals throughout the country. Few of these animals have been distributed throughout the older districts, but settlers in the newer districts who, perhaps, have not the means of purchasing these animals welcome the opportunity of getting them in this way. A great stimulus is thus afforded to the live stock industry, which was*never so .much in need of a stimulus as it is to-day. After the war there will be greater demands for pure-bred live stock than there ever was before, and the encouragement of the live stock industry will amply repay the Government for any expenditure they may make in that line. I regret that there has been a reduction of $100,000 in the estimate for this purpose this year.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: While the vote last year was $700,000, of that amount $105,000 was not expended. Consequently, the estimates for the present year are about equal to the total expenditure of last year.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Why do you make a reduction of twenty-five per cent in the grant you give to the fall fairs?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: In order that we may have more money to meet the request of the member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) with regard to the purchase of higher-priced sires.


William Frederic Kay: If this item carries, may we discuss the live stock industry when the. estimates come up again?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It may be discussed on the Supplementary Estimates.
To enforce the Seed Act, to test seed for farmers and seed merchants, to encourage the production and use of superior seeds, and to encourage the production of farm and garden crops, $165,00*0.


Thomas Vien: I move that we adjourn.


Georges Henri Boivin: It is customary for the hon. member leading the Government or the hon. member leading the Opposition to move such a resolution as that. But, if the hon. member (Mr. Vien) insists, I will put his motion that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Thomas Vien: I do not insist.


Georges Henri Boivin: There was an agreement with the hon. gentleman who is leading the Opposition that item 58 should be passed before the committee rises.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I propose that we put
everything through except item 59, which had better stand so that there may be a general discussion on it.


Samuel Francis Glass: Yesterday I attended a
convention of the flax growers in Toronto. When the subject of flax was under consideration in the House on a previous occasion, I drew the attention, of the minister to the fact that seed imported into- Canada- some say from Siberia, some say from Japan -was being distributed by Colonel Way-land under the direction of the British Government for the purpose of growing seed to reproduce flax in Ireland and in Great Britain next year. In Ontario, Quebec, and all the other provinces where fibre flax is grown, a reputation has been built up for the production of high-grade flax fibre seed. Nobody knows anything about this seed which comes from- Siberia, or from Japan,
. as the case may be; we do not know whether it is pure seed; we do not know whether it can grow fibre; we do not know whether it will be good even for linseed oil; it is simply a gamble, an experiment. This seed is being distributed throughout Ontario,



Mr. J. D. REID:: On the Order Paper there are two or three small Bills that should take only a very short time to pass * this House. There is one Bill, No. 70, to consolidate and amend the Railway Act.
A good many hon. members from the West; in fact, members on both sides of the House say that this Bill should remain over until next session. If the House wishes this Bill to remain over, it should take but a very short time to pass the other three Bills. There are quite a number of Estimates yet to be passed. From what I can judge, it is the desire of hon. members on both sides of the House that we should, if possible, prorogue on Thursday, the day, before the Queen's birthday, and I simply wish to suggest that perhaps after our debate on Wednesday, we might sit late in the evening and get the Estimates through if possible. If we could agree on both sides of the House about working late Wednesday night, we might be able to prorogue late

on Thursday evening. So far as the Government are concerned, we would be very willing to facilitate matters, if members on both sides of the House would agree to that proposition,


Rodolphe Lemieux: I should not like to commit the Opposition. I understand the leader of the Government and the leader of the Opposition have some sort of an agreement. In the morning, before the Orders of the Day are called, if the minister will renew his request, we might come to some agreement.
On motion of Hon. J. D. Reid, the House adjourned at 12.55 a.,rn., Wednesday.
Wednesday, May 22, 1918.