1918-04-05

PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 33, respecting Brazeau Collieries, Limited.-Mr. Buchanan.
Bill No. 34, respecting The Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Company.-Mr. Morphy.
Bill No. 35, respecting The Ottawa Gas Company.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 36, respecting Ottawa and Montreal Transmission Company, Limited.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 37, respecting The Toronto, Niagara and Western Railway Company.- Mr. Morphy.


[Stage Direction]
On Motions being called:
Rt. Hon. Sir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime Minister):: I desire to bring t>
the attention of hon. members two Orders in Council which received the assent of His Excellency the Governor General yesterday, and both of which are of so important a character that they should be communicated directly to the House. The first is:
At the Government House at Ottawa, Thursday the 4th day of April, 1918.
Present:
His Excellency
The Governor General in Council:
Whereas it is necessary to enact suoh regulations as will utilize to -the hest advantage the human energy of Canada for purposes essential to the prosecution of the present war;
And whereas the need of men of military age to provide reinforcements for the Canadian Expeditionary Force, and1 the equally urgent

need for labour to assist in the production of food and of other articles essential for war. purposes, necessitate special provisions to the end that all persons domiciled in Canada shall, in the absence of reasonable cause to the contrary, engage in useful occupations under the regulations hereinafter set forth;
And whereas the (Minister of Agriculture is impressed with the necessity of enacting forthwith the regulations hereinafter set forth, which in his opinion will greatly assist in rendering available for the purpose of production labour which otherwise might not be secured;
And whereas the Minister of Militia and Defence also fully concurs in the enactment of such regulations;
And whereas these regulations are not intended to alfect any right of members of organized labour associations to discontinue their work in the employment in whch they have been engaged when such discontinuance is occasioned by differences actually arising between the employer and the employed. The purpose is to prevent persons capable of useful work from remaining in idleness at a time when the country most urgently requires the service of all human energy available.
His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Right Honourable the Prime Minister and under the powers vested in His Excellency in Council under the War Measures Act, 1914, and under all other powers His Excellency in Council, thereunto enabling, is pleased to make the following regulations and the same are hereby made and enacted accordingly:



REGULATIONS.

[Stage Direction]
1.	Every male person residing in the Dominion of Canada shall be regularly engaged in some useful occupation.
2.	In any proceeding hereunder it shall be a defence that the person is,
(a)	Under sixteen years or over sixty years of age.
(b)	A bona fide student proceeding with his training for some useful occupation.
(c)	A bona fide student in actual attendance at some recognized educational institution.
(d)	Usually employed in some useful occupation and temporarily unemployed owing to differences with his employer common to similar employees with the same employer.
(e)	Physically unable to comply with the provisions of the law as herein enacted.
(f)	Unable to obtain within reasonable distance any kind of employment which he is physically able to perform at current wages for similar employment.
3.	Any person violating the provisions hereof shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction before a Magistrate to a penalty not exceeding One Hundred dollars and costs, and, in default of payment, to imprisonment with hard1 labour for a period not exceeding six months in any common jail, or in any institution or on any farm owned by a municipality or province and declared by by-law or Order in Council respectively to be a public institution or farm for the purposes of this law, which said institution or farm for the purpose of this law shall be a common jail.
4.	Where the proceedings in any case in which a fine is imposed under the authority hereof are instituted at the instance of any muinicipality or by any officer of a municipality, the fine shall be paid to the treasurer of such

municipality; and where such proceedings are instituted at the instance of or by any provincial officer, such fines shall be paid to the provincial treasurer; and where such proceedings are instituted within a municipality by any other person, the fine shall be paid in equal portions to the treasurer of the municipality and the treasurer of the province; and where the place in which such proceedings are instituted is not within the boundaries of any municipality, the fine shall be paid to the provincial treasurer; and where the proceedings are outside the boundaries of any province, the fine shall be paid to the Receiver General of Canada.
5.	Useful occupation and reasonable distance shall be questions of fact to be decided by the magistrate.
6.	The magistrate may hear and consider other defences than those mentioned in section two.
7.	"Magistrate", shall include Justice of the Peace, and Police Magistrate appointed by Provincial or Dominion authority.


[Stage Direction]
Rt. Hon. Sir ROBERT L. BORDEN (Prim© Minister):	The other Order in
Council which I desire to communicate to the House has relation to the recent unfortunate disturbances in the city of Quebec. It reads:
At the Government House at Ottawa.
Thursday the 4th day of April, 1918.
Present:
His Excellency
The Governor General in Council.
Whereas on the 28th day of March last the opposition of a large number of the population of the City of Quebec to the enforcement of the Military Service Act, 1917, and the regulations thereunder, broke out in open violence and serious riots ensued on that day and on subsequent days in which the rioters destroyed the office of the deputy registrar appointed for the District of Quebec under the said Act, and moreover caused great damage to other property, and threatened further damage, and it became necessary for the restoration of order, the protection of property and the preservation of the King's peace that these riots should be suppressed by military authority;
And whereas at common law it is the duty of a military officer with the troops under his command to interefere, when such interference is necessary, to put down riot, insurrection or civil disturbance;
And whereas it is provided by the Militia Act that the active militia of Canada may be called out on active service in aid of the civil power upon requisition of the civil authorities, and the King's regulations and Orders for the Militia contain certain directions for regulating the exercise of command and disposition of the troops upon such occasions ;
And whereas notwithstanding that it was necessary as aforesaid for the preservation of the peace and to repress rioting that resort should be had to military force the civil authorities of Quebec made no requisition for the

calling out of the Militia and the Officer Commanding therefore, acting manifestly in the general interest and for the protection of the public, and by direction of the Minister of Militia and Defence assumed the responsibility to command and direct the operations of the troops for the protection of life and property and the restoration of the peace ;
And whereas it is expedient that the legality of such intervention, and of the proceedings of the military authorities consequent thereon, should be declared and affirmed, as it is hereby intended to be, and that provision should be made for such further action by military force as may be necessary for the preservation of law and order in the existing circumstances, or in similar cases in the future if they should unfortunately occur;
And whereas for the reasons aforesaid it is expedient for the peace, order and good government of Canada that the effect and operation of law should be given to the provisions herein contained;
Now therefore His Excellency the Governor General of Canada, by and with the advice of the King's Privy Council for Canada, in the execution of the powers conferred upon him by the War Measures Act, 1914, is pleased to provide, order and enact, and it is hereby provided, ordered and enacted as follows:-
1.	If, in the opinion of the General Officer or the Officer Commanding the Military District in which any riot, insurrection or civil disturbance takes place, the circumstances be such as to demand or justify the intervention of the military power, it shall be competent to and within the authority of the General Officer or the Officer Commanding the said military district to issue orders for such intervention to the troops on service or on active service under his command, and with such troops to use such force as he may determine to be reasonably necessary to quell and suppress such riot, insurrection or civil disturbance and to restore the peace, whether or not any requisition be made upon or order given to such Officer or to any military authority by any civil magistrate or civil authority ; and the provisions of this section shall extend to and authorize and make lawful the intervention operations and proceedings of the Officer Commanding the troops in Quebec and the officers and troops under his command in the circumstances herein recited to quell and suppress the riots and disturbances at the City of Quebec on and subsequent to the 28th day of March last and to restore peace and order there.
2.	In the case of any riot, insurrection or civil disturbance which takes place while the Military Service Act, 1917, is in operation, if the General Officer or the Officer Commanding any military district of Canada, order any troops on service, or on active service under his command, to be called out for the maintenance of public order, or for preventing obstruction to the due enforcement of the Military Service Act, 1917, and the regulations thereunder, the Governor in Council, may, within the affected area which he shall by order designate, supersede, or supersede to such extent as he may specify, until his further order, the jurisdiction and powers of the civil courts, and declare that within the said area the orders of the General Officer or of the Officer Commanding the troops shall in all respects be obeyed by the civil population, and that offenders against the law.
or persons disobedient to such military orders, shall be tried and punished by courts-martial constituted in the manner hereinafter provided; and consequent upon any such order of the Governor in Council the provisions of the two next following paragraphs shall, until his further order, have effect:-
(a)	All persons within the said area shall be subject to military law, and the civil tribunals shall continue to exercise within or in respect of the aforesaid area only such powers and jurisdiction as shall not have been superseded or suspended by the Governor in Council; and the General Officer or the Officer Commanding the troops may constitute court-martial for the purpose of trying any person who is charged with any offense against the law, or with disobedience to any military order, within the said area;
(b)	The constitution, powers and procedure of any court-martial so constituted as aforesaid shall be the same as the constitution, powers and procedure of either a general or of a field .general court-martial; and any such court-martial shall have the .power, in addition to the ordinary powers possessed by a court so constituted, to impose any sentence which might be imposed in a like case by any civil court of the Province ; provided that a sentence imposed by any such court-martial shall not be executed until affirmed by the Governor in Council.
3.	Notwithstanding anything contained in the Habeas Corpus Act, or in any other law or statute, and notwithstanding any right or remedy of habeas corpus or proceeding by way of habeas corpus, all persons in military custody within any area which shall have been designated as aforesaid, and all persons who may be captured, arrested or taken into military custody whether within or not within any such area during or in .consequence of any riot or insurrection, shall .be held, detained and remain in such custody without bail, inquiry or main-prise until released by direction of the Minister of Militia and Defence or delivered by his order to the civil authorities.
4.	Any male person who takes part in any riot, insurrection or civil disturbance, incited, instigated or caused by way of opposition to the enforcement of the Military Service Act, 1917, or the regulations thereunder, shall if declared or found guilty of so doing by sentence of a court-martial or of a competent civil court, be deemed to have been called out for military service under the said Act, whether or not he be within any class of persons which has been called out for military service by proclamation, or within any class of persons to which the said Act or regulations apply, or within any of the exceptions of the schedule to the said Act; and he shall by reason of such offence forfeit any exemption or claim to exemption to which he would otherwise be entitled, and be liable forthwith to military service in all respects as if finally selected therefor and required to report for duty under the provisions of the said Act and regulations; provided that if any male person be captured, arrested or taken by military authority during the continuance of any such riot, insurrection or civil disturbance, while taking part or having taken part therein or while being present thereat to encourage, or assist the rioters, he shall be liable forthwith to such military service as aforesaid without any further or other warrant or proceeding than the certificate of an officer in command of the body of militia
[Stage Direction]
effecting the capture, arrest or taking that he was so captured, arrested or taken in the circumstances aforesaid.
5.	Any male 'person who
(a)	Wilfully prevents, impedes or obstructs, or attempts to prevent, impede or obstruct, or engages or takes any part in any riot, insurrection or civil disturbance, or breach of the King's peace against the enforcement or carrying out of the Military Service ActK 1917, or any of the provisions of the said Act, or any regulation thereunder; or
(b)	Wilfully with violence, or attempted violence or otherwise obstructs, assaults, intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to obstruct, assault, intimidate or interfere with any officer or person, or the property or premises occupied by any officer or person charged with the execution of any duty under the Military Service Act, 1917, or any regulation thereunder; or
(c)	Incites, counsels, encourages, or assists any person to disobey or to refrain from executing any lawful order or direction made under or in pursuance of the said Act or any regulation thereunder; shall upon conviction of any such offence, in addition to any other penalty therefor by law provided, thereby ipso facto become liable to military service under the said Military Service Act to the extent and in the manner provided in the fourth section of these regulations and as if finally selected for military service and required to report for duty under the provisions of the Military Service Act, 1917, and the regulations thereunder.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. A. CURRIE (North Simeoe):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the rioting, agitation, disturbances and non-observance of the law in Quebec together with all the circumstances, conditions and causes near and remote having any bearing on or connection therewith.


Mr. SPEAKER:: This motion is made under Rule 39, and I shall take the liberty of adding that fact to the motion. Under Rule 39, subsection 4, it is my duty to determine as to whether, in the first instance, a motion so proposed is in order. It does seem to me that in view of all the circumstances the motion of the hon. member is peculiarly within the meaning and scope of this rule and, in my judgment, it is in order. Having so ruled, my responsibility ends. There is a further question as to the propriety, or perhaps I had better say the desirability, of discussing a matter of such grave importance. That is for the House, and I shall submit the question to the House as

to whether it is their wish that the hon. gentleman should proceed. Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. gentleman have leave to move this motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The rule says: those in support of the request of the hon. member will please rise.
And twenty-one members having risen, in their places.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member may proceed. Before the hon. member does so I had better state that under a motion of this character, which is submitted without notice, the rules are very clear that the discussion must be strictly relevant to the subject. The authorities are all agreed that discussion must he much more strictly confined to the subject thap is the case with an ordinary substantive motion. The wording of the motion, as submitted by the hon. member, appears to indicate a desire on his part to widen the scope of the discussion. The rule is clear that only one matter can be discussed upon a motion of this character. That matter is the recent unfortunate disturbances in the city of Quebec, and the wording of the hon. member's resolution does not help to enable him to widen the field of discussion. I deem it my duty to direct the attention of hon. members to the rule in this respect, and I ask their assistance to see that the field of discussion is not unduly widened.


John Allister Currie: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of diffidence that I have brought this motion forward. Every one is conscious-no one in this House more than I-that we have had serious disturbances in the city of Quebec, and in the province of Quebec generally. I have not brought the motion forward, as has been suggested, for the purpose of self advertisement in any manner, shape or form. I have not raised it for the purpose of stirring up any political trouble or faction; and as far as I am personally concerned, my treatment of this subject will be as mild as the tone of any discussion that has ever taken place in this House. But it must be noticeable to every person, it must be common knowledge to everyone, that if there is anything that this House should discuss, it is this very matter which I have brought before you to-day.
For nearly a year this question has been before the public. In undertaking to raise it here, great pressure was brought to bear upon me not to proceed with it to-day. I

could have rightly brought this question before the House in two ways. I could have brought it up, as I am now doing, in the old-fashioned method of having a discussion on a public question without bringing on a vote. No vote of want of confidence is asked under this motion; all that is sought is a simple discussion. It is very important, indeed, that the House should discuss matters of this character relating to documents laid upon the Table by ministers of the Crown. Under the rules of the House, when a minister answers a question or makes a statement to the House, no discussion is allowed, and the only way in which a discussion can be obtained on this subject is under the present rule by moving the adjournment of the House to discuss a matter of grave urgency. There is another way by which discussion could be caused, and that is by moving a motion on going into Committee of Supply. Now we all know that the House has had very little opportunity since it has met this session to bring up any question on going into Committee of Supply. If this question were brought up on the motion to go into Committee of Supply, it would have had to be brought up as a want of confidence motion in the Government of the day. Now as I am one of the supporters of the Government of the day, and wholly in sympathy with the ideas and objects that the Union Government has placed before the people, and it would not look very well for me to raise this question through the medium of a motion of want of confidence. For that reason, I have had recourse to the present procedure, and there will be a free and open discussion of the whole question, and for such free and open discussion the whole country is waiting.
These are my reasons for having brought the matter forward in this manner. I hope to lay my statement of the case clearly before the House, and then the ministers of the Crown, as well as other members of the House, will have the opportunity of discussing it fully and freely. Now under other circumstances this question would not have been of very great importance, because every member who sits in this House, certainly all the old members, kno*v that during the last session of the House there were frequent outbursts of rioting of this character in the province of Quebec. The matter was suppressed by the newspapers and nothing was said about it in this House, because during the last session every member felt under a great deal of restraint. We could not criticise anything
openly and above board, for the simple reason that voluntary service was the method then in operation of securing men for the war, and if a man spoke out his mind here on any of the public questions at that time, it would have been said that he was injuring recruiting. In fact, on more than one occasion at that time matters were raised in the House which the public press declared were injurious to that cause. As a soldier, as one who has taken part in the war, as one whose whole heart is in this war-
Some hon. -MEMBERS: Oh! Oh!
Mr. CURiRIE: I have taken a little part in the war.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh ! Oh!


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


John Allister Currie: As one who has taken a
little part in the war, and whose whole heart is in the successful prosecution of the war, I desire to see that out brave troops at the front are 'Supported in every possible way. As I sat in the House last session there often occurred to me the words of Robert Louis Stevenson in one of his famous essays, (where Jhe said that the greatest lies are 'told in -silence. I heard things said in this House, which, had they been uttered outside, and I had ibeen free from any responsibility in 'connection with voluntary service, I would have denounced as untruths. But noiw the Military Service Act is in operation and we axe taking men for the war under the form of conscription, and the lips of men in this House and in the country need no longer be still for fear of injuring voluntary recruiting. I have made it my rule of conduct, and I am going to continue to do so from now on to the end of the war, that in iany action or matter that- comes before this House, or is raised outside, to first ask myself the question whether il should take a certain course which might be pleasing to the enemy, or adopt anobbeT .course which would be the opposite of that, and which would be in the interests of my country. So that I say in whai; I am going to do I am adopting the motto of Saint Gregory, " Better a scandal than a lie."
Now this question might not have come before the House at -all. A little bit of rioting might not have! Mattered very much, 'but -what do we find? 'The condition of affairs as far as this war is concerned- 'because this country is at war and at war very seriously, although a great many people do not realize it-the condition of affairs


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not see what connection the remarks of the hon. member have with the subject under discussion. I do. not wish to restrict the hon. member unduly, but I must ask him to adhere more closely to the subject. It is inevitable, perhaps, that the question of national service must be touched upon or referred1 to, hut I would ask him to confine himself as closely as possible to the present subject.


John Allister Currie: I am, very thankful to
you, Mr. Speaker, for calling my attention to this matter. Perhaps I was getting a little too lengthy in my remarks. However, I will try to come to the point quickly and say that the late Government introduced into this House the Military Service Act, and the Military Service Act that came before this House was not such a Military Service Act as that Government would have produced had there not been certain elements in the Government which were opposed to compulsion of any kind in order to send men. to the front. We all know of the trouble that occurred. Ministers resigned and left the Government. Finally we had this law brought down by which a hundred thousand men were going to be secured by means of what is called the draft. Everybody in the corridors knew that it was a joke, that that law which was 'brought down was not the law that was really required, but it was the law, and as such it was shot full of holes. The enforcement of the Act was virtually left to the lawyers and judges and officials; if they did not wish to enforce it vigourously, every man in the country could avoid coming under its provisions. Why was the law formed in that way? I will tell you. There was intense opposition to the law on the part of our friends from Quebec and of members from that province within the ranks o,f the Conservative party. There was a constant agitation and struggle so to keep down the Act that it might be delayed or that the war might end or something else happen before it could be really enforced. But the measure was brought

down; we passed it, and we passed also the War-time Elections Act. I say without hesitation that had the Military Service Act been adopted by this House after the passage of the War-time Elections Act, the provisions of the former would have been much more stringent. As it is, the law is not as strong as the first law they had in England-and in England that law was subsequently amended so as to be stronger. We shall likely have to do the same thing here before the session is over.
So, when the War-time Elections Act was passed, the Government had to face the possibility of hostility in the West as well as hostility east of the Ottawa river. I have nothing to say against my good friends in the province of Quebec. Men from that province fought with me in the trenches in the greatest battle of the war, and I can testify to their courage,
4 p.m. devotion and bravery, because no braver men ever lived. Had they been properly managed by their leaders; had they not been misled and misrepresented, I firmly believe in my heart that no part of Canada would have taken part in the war more joyfully or more gladly than the province of Quebec. If Quebec has not done its duty, it is not on account of the people of that province; it is on account of their so-called political leaders.
As I say, we had to face an adverse vote in Quebec and in tihe West, and men like myself realized that if the Government had gone to the country without first adopting the War-time Elections Act the control of the country would have been lost to anti-British


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Allister Currie: The control of this country would have been lost by the British element and handed over to the anti-British element for the next twenty-five years.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I wish the hon. member would adhere more strictly to the subject under consideration.


Mr. E. LAPOINTE:: Let him blow off.


John Allister Currie: What did we have to do? We had to deprive men of the vote, because we wished this to be a British country. We know very well that if the Opposition party had won the election contest, the men from the provinces who voted on the referendum in favour of conscription would be conscripted, and those who voted against

conscription would not be conscripted. That was the question that was up at the last election. Well, we went before the electors, and the electors endorsed the Military Service Act and everything that we did. The men of other parts of the country have been conscripted; they have carried on under the law, with very few complaints. But in the province of Quebec every effort has been put forth to prevent the law from going into effect and to keep the men from going to the war.
I would not have brought this question forward to-day did I not feel that unless [DOT]some drastic steps are taken-'more drastic even than have 'been mentioned in the House to-day-Quebec will not be conscripted until after the war. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, why I say that. Up to the present time the province of Quebec has given only 5,000 men under the Military Service Act, and of that number fully 3,500 are English-speaking. So that our Frenchspeaking friends, who should' be the first to stand loyally by us, have given only


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. gentlemen would, perhaps, be in order in referring incidentally to conscription or the Military Service Act so far as it bears upon the question of the riots at Quebec. Under this motion, however, he is certainly not in order in entering into a discussion of conscription or the Military Service Act, as he apparently purposes to do by giving figures and going into details.


John Allister Currie: I will try, Mr. Speaker, to keep out of difficulty as much as possible.. In order, however, to make my point clear and to carry on the discussion of all matters connected with the rioting in the province of Quebec, it is nceessary that I should take into consideration the number of men enlisted under the Military Service law in the province of Quebec. You will note, Sir, that my resolution says " Quebec," not " the city of Quebec." In saying that this law has so far taken only 5,000 men in the province of Quebec, I think that I am not infringing on the rules. However, I will try to keep as straight as possible, because I want all these facts to go before the public; it is not in the public interest that any of these matters should be stifled. I do not wish to cause any trouble or raise any disturbance; nor do I wish, to quote the language of the papeis, to "blow off the roof." We are not blowing off any roofs. I believe that the time has not yet come when a member of this House shpuld sit up like a stuffed manikin at a puppet show

and say or do nothing in regard to any question of the day. Every member has a perfect right to speak out here.
In the province of Quebec 60,000 appeals under the Military Service Act are pending, and only about 600 of them have reached the Central Appeal Judge. If six months after the passing of the law, 1,500 men can be secured in the province of Quebec, I leave it to members of the House to figure how many years it will cake to obtain the balance.
I now wish to discuss the matter of who is to blame for this state of affairs.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Hear, hear.


John Allister Currie: 

has been virtually accepted as tbe leader of tbe Nationalist party in the province of Quebec, should have been interned. The country could very well afford to do without him; there is nothing he is needed for; he is not making munitions, or farminghelping to do something that would assist Canada or the Allies in this war-nor is he soldiering, though he is called a colonel. Why, in Toronto recently, a man got up on a public platform and said that the soldiers at the front had taken a little too much rum on Christmas day. He was locked up and his badges and uniform stripped from him, and he was thrown out of the army. While that was happening in Toronto, La-vergne has heen allowed to roam at large in Quebec, preaching seditious doctrines, and generally doing as he pleased. What is more, when the Government decided to end these riots in Quebec, the representative of the Department of Justice, if we are to believe the newspapers, went to Quebec and sent for Lavergne and his partner to find out what -could be done. Lavergne laid down his terms. First he wanted the troops withdrawn. Then he wanted the police withdrawn, and iwhat in the world else was theTe for us to do but leave the country to -him and his friends. I understand that the officer of the Government refused to entertain such a proposal, and I am very glad that this Government had a man with backbone enough for that; but 1 am sorry he called on Mr. Lavergne at all. Lavergne should have been utterly ignored; in fact he should have been the first man placed under arrest in Quebec when the riots broke out.
What effect did the agitation and the disturbances have on the right hon. leader of the Opposition. I -have recollections of the day when, though opposed to him politically, I greatly admired him. He was a stout,' strong Britisher, and we all loved him for that. He had the courage to spieak up against the Nationalists at the beginning. I have his speeches here, and I sometimes enjoy an hour or so reading them over; those on British topics are well worth reading; if we forget- what has occurred during the past year. 1 used to think he was of the old type of French Jacobite, the beausabre, who would occasionally take an old rusty tricolour cockade out of his pocket, -brush it lovingly and then put it back and -come up the steps whistling Marl-Vook and the Sambre and the Meuse. I used to think be drew nis inspiration from brave France, that fountain from which fresh drafts of Juberty come daily to a struggling world. Here is what he said at 
a speech delivered in the province of Quebec on June 24, 1889 at the national festival of the French Canadians and I wish we had a few more speeches from him now like this:
But Quebec -possesses another charm which can be enjoyed in all its plenitude only by us French Canadians, it is the charm of memories. Men of Quebec, you are privileged beings. Antiquity has preserved for us the memory of a famous epitaph, calling on the passer-by to stop, as he was treading on the ashes of a hero, but you, men of Quebec, you breathe, live, and have your -being among the dust of heroes.
At each step you make in your city, a mom-ument, a building, a stone, a glimpse of the sky at the end of a narrow street calls to mind a whole world of heroic events. Today you have raised1 another monument which will "forever -perpetuate the memory of the cross planted by the envoy of the King of France when he took possession of this, country in the name of his royal master.
This country, however, has not remained French soil. Still we have remained true to the memory of our old mother country.
Although separated from France for over a century and differing from her at present in several ways, we have always worshiped her in our hearts, watching from afar, but with ceaseless interest all the vicissitudes of her agitated career, and sharing in her joys and triumphs, as well as in her disasters and sorrows, still more, indeed, in her sorrows than in her joys.
Adversity is the test of affection, and a appeal to you -all if it is not true that we never realized how dear France was to- us as we realized it during the period of her reverses, during the fatal years of 1870 and 1871, when the telegraph brought us the news of defeat instead of the victories which we had looked for. And when there was no longer room for doubt, when, having hoped against hope, we had, in order to convince ourselves, to read over and over again the text of the harsh law imposed by the conqueror and when Alsace and Lorraine were violently severed from French territory, I ask you if .we had been deprived! of one of our own limbs could we have suffered keener anguish.
What nobler words could any man utter than these? Does the hon. gentleman still believe in these sentiments, and is he prepared to implement the sentiments that have brought him into power-for that speech was delivered just previous to that great movement in the hiistory of Canada that sent him into office in 1896? No, the shadow of Bourassa and the haunting stars of Lavergne have dimmed his eyes to the troubles of Franco. He sat silent in this House day -after day and night after night, when men were being shot, rioting was taking place in the city of Montreal, and when dynamite was used to intimidate people who ispoke in favour of the Military Service Act and compulsion. I pointed that out to him shortly before the session closed, and I told him the people .of this country

would take dire vengeance on him for that, and I think they have. Now we are confronted again with the same topic. This law is not as complete as it should be. It should be made more complete. We have no desire to do any injury to those who are tilling the soil honestly. The farmer has just as high a duty to perform as the man in the trenches, and the man who is making munitions is the same as the man in the trenches.


Sir SAM HUGHES:: A little bit easier.


John Allister Currie: and the dying. All these things come to my . mind, and I can see before me the pallid faces of the dead, who have perished for you and for me, and the mangled forms of the wounded who are being carried off the field. To you, my comrades in this House, who have served in this war-there are a few of us here, thank God-I say, " Keep faith with the living and the dead, as you promised, in Flanders Fields."


Mr. H. H. STEVENS (Centre Vancouver):: Mr. Speaker, I noted the words' of caution which fell from your lips when this resolution was introduced, and 1 am conscious at this time that one perhaps lays himself open to a measure of criticism in bringing up this question or discussing it on the floor of this House. There are those in the House and out of it who think perhaps it should not have been done. On the other hand, Sir, if we are not to be permitted to discuss a matter of this kind, or kindred matters, on the floor of the House where, within the confines of Canada, will we find a more appropriate or fitting place? As I conceive my duty as the representative of a constituency in this country, it is to endeavour to properly present to1 my colleagues in the House the views of those whom I represent.
We ,are told by some who think that perhaps this question should not have been brought up that we should have more consideration for our fellow citizens in the province of Quebec, because they have a, unique character, because they are distinct from the rest of Canada, and because they have traditions and customs -which we must observe and respect. To a large degree I frankly acknowledge that that is,the case, and it i6 not my intention to-day to violate in any iway the opinions o-r-feelings of my fellow citizens in the province of Quebec, but I desire to remind you, iSir, and this House that the citizens of the rest of Canada have rights just as well as the citizens of Canada in the province of Quebec. Throughout the length and breadth of this country we have families who have sent two, three, four or five sons to the front. My attention was brought to one in my own city-the fifth son gone to the front, three dead and one lying in a hospital in England. Families such as that have some claim to the attention of the administrators of the law in this country.
It has been rumoured that the -second class was About to Ibe called up. I wish to say with the utmost frankness, and -with all respect and consideration for what the -words may mean, that I think the Government

would be exceedingly ill-advised in calling up the second class until adequate and definite efforts had been made, -and successfully made, to exhaust those who come under the first class-.
British law, Mr. Speaker, is fundamentally rooted in the principles of impartiality, firmness of application, and persistence. I am reminded of the- long trip of several thousand -miles made into the Arctic regions a oo-uple of years ago by two or three Mounted Police officers to apprehend two murderers. After sixteen, months they brought these two murderers from the Arctic circle to Edmonton and. they were there tried. That is simply an, illustration of the administration- of British law wherever the- British flag flies. I am reminded of the famous- CamieTon -case in Abyssinia, and there are many others- that might be called to mind. But twe have this condition in Canada, to-day, that with the -same law and with the same constitution of courts we have entirely diverse interpretations of this Act of Parliament. In one province it is viewed from one standpoint and you have a certain application of it. In eight provinces we find a directly opposite interpretation, and application. It must be apparent to every man of commonsense that one of two things is wrong, and perhaps the two things are wrong-either that the law itself is faulty and needs amendment or correction or strengthening, or else that there is a tendency on the part of one section of the community to disregard the -law. It must be one of these two things,, or perhaps in a measure it may be the two, and what I wish to draw to the attention of the House is that it cannot and must not -be allowed to continue. The law must be impartially administered in all sections of the * country. We had the assurance of the right hon. the Prime Minister the other day that it would be so, and I must say that I am willing to admit, and to frankly and cheerfully admit, that I trust in the good faith, of the Prime Minister. But, Sir, in my province, in the Western Provinces and in Ontario, you find tribunals constituted under this Act


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. member but in so far as I have been able to follow the discussion he has been confining himself entirely to the Military Service Act. Tihe resolution deals with rioting in Quebec.


Henry Herbert Stevens: 
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Perhaps it is inevitably that reference must be made to the Military Service Act in connection with the riots in Quebec. At the same time it is not competent for any hon. member to confine his discussion to the Military Service Act.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was not intending to do so, but I was asking the question: Why did these riots occur in the province of Quebec? By the evidence laid on the Table officially by the Prime Minister we find that these riots were directly the result of the effort to administer the Military Service Act. In the administration of the Military Service Act in the province of Quebec and in the rest of Canada we see a distinct difference. I am willing, Mr. Speaker, to submit to your ruling, but I was going on to say when you stopped me, in explanation of the point I am making, that in all sections of the country outside of the province of Quebec the tribunals administered the Act without the assistance or appearance of lawyers or anybody representing those who appeared or appealed. There was a summary administration of the Act. Generally speaking, the public accepted the Act in that spirit and from that standpoint. In the province of Quebec we find that the administration of the same law and with substantially the same machinery, endless technical appeals did occur so that there are practically no results from the Act in that province.
Now then, we are brought face to face with the question: Why this failure in that one province when apparently there was success in the other provinces? That brings me to this point and I wish to make it the chief point in my remarks. I do not think that we will evade trouble in the province of Quebec such as unfortunately occurred last week, I do not think that the Military Service Act will be successfully administered so long as it is placed under the Justice Department of this Government. I say that advisedly, and with no desire to cast reflections personally upon the Minister of Justice. He is placed in a most awkward position, a minister of the Crown charged with certain duties, but a citizen of a province whose practically unanimous opinion was against this law, and in which province there exisis a large section of the
community bitterly opposed even to the administration of the law now that it is enacted. Let me make myself clear on that point by disclaiming any charge of a wholesale character against the province of Quebec, because in the last week I have met many citizens from Quebec, representing a large section of that province, who say that they wish the law to be enforced; and still we are bound to admit, if we are frank at all, that a large section of the province is determined to oppose the administration of the law to the limit of their ability.


Wilfrid Laurier: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The right hon. gentleman says "No." I would be very glad when he comes to speak, if he should give, the House some assurance that he speaks wTith authority as representing a section of his own constituency which acted as they did in the most unfortunate manner the other day.
Some hon. MEMBER'S: Hear, hear.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And I might also suggest to the right hon. gentleman, and I do it with all respect, that perhaps his own presence in the city of Quebec might have had a better effect than leaving interven-vention to Armand Lavergne, or other members of that particular class and kind.
I say that I do not think the Act can be properly administered in that province by the Minister of Justice, or the Justice Department, so as to avoid a recurrence of these troubles, and I think it is desirable that these gentlemen should take into consideration the possibility of such recurrence. The Justice Department has been known, I think, to all the former members of this House as a sort of embalming emporium to which is committed all knotty and embarrassing questions by the Government. If it is desired to bury a question so that it will not see the light of day again for any considerable period it is usually handed to the Justice Department. I might say that in a sense perhaps that is a useful function, because very often the Government is confronted with embarrassing questions; but, Mr. Speaker, this was an Act that demanded the utmost expedition in its application. We were told last summer, and told repeatedly in this House, that it was absolutely necessary to pass this Act in order to keep faith with t'he boys at the front. We went before the people of Canada with that cry, and they sent us back here almost solid from every province of the country, except one province, with

the mandate that this Act should be enforced, and enforced impartially and swiftly; and yet, we cannot say for one moment, by the widest stretch of imagination that the Minister of Justice, or his department, has enforced it with any degree of expedition.
There is one other phase of this question to which I wish to refer, and to add my voice to that of the mover of the resolution, and it is to make a definite protest against any further toleration of the doctrines preached by Bourassa and Lavergne in Quebec.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In my city, Mr. Speaker, a man simply refused to report-he was guilty of no violation of the law, but simply refused to report. He was seized, and he is now serving a term of two years in a penitentiary, and he was not even allowed to see his friends. I made no complaint, and I make no complaint, but I cannot see why an English-speaking man in one section of the country should get two years in a penitentiary for simply passive objection, and the conduct of others should be winked at, year in and year out, who are guilty of the utmost sedition and most violent opposition to the law of the country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Order in Council brought down by the Prime Minister is, without question, a decided advance beyond what we have seen in the past in an effort to administer this law; but there is one weakness in it. Before that Order in Council will become effective in the application of military authority there must have been a violation of the law in the form of an outbreak. What we are up against, Mr. Speaker, and the underlying cause of these riots, is the passive resistance to this Act, through the technical medium of the courts, the pettifogging legal technicalities against its enforcement. That is a point the Government must remedy. Until the Government remedies that point, until it so amends this Act that it can be enforced in the province of Quebec, as in other sections of the country, impartially and firmly and without any hesitation or delay -until that is done I say there will be a great deal of dissatisfaction in other parts of Canada as well. I was told by an exmember of this House the day before yesterday, something of a surprising character. He represented in this House for some years a constituency, one-half English-speaking and the other half French-speaking. He

said the members of the tribunals in the constituency were French-speaking, and that if an English-speaking applicant came before the tribunal he was promptly enrolled and not 'allowed exemption.
Some hon. MEMBERS : Oh ! Oh !


Henry Herbert Stevens: When a French speaking .applicant came before the tribunal he was allowed exemption.
Mr. P. R. DuTREMBLAY: The hon. gentleman should give uis the name of the tribunal in question.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon, friend will have to accept my word that the information came from an ex-member of this House, and I do not want to expose him to possible indignities by giving his name.
The point, Mr. Speaker, is this:	That
there seems to be a passive, shall I say defiance of this law in one province, while there is a rigid enforcement of it in the other provinces. The causes to. my mind are those that I have pointed out, first, and before all, the agitation and sedition preached for yeans by Bourassa, Lavergne and those associated with them, and, secondly, the slow, cumbersome, involved administration of this law by the Justice Department.
Right hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIE R: The mover of this motion was hind enough in his remarks to say that at one time fee had some regard for me hut that I have sadly fallen from grace in bis eyes. Mla.y I say to him that on the present occasion the hon. gentleman has sadly disappointed me. I thought fee moved his motion in order to discuss the riots and disturbances which took place recently in the city of Quebec, but be discussed altogether another question. He discussed the enforcement of the Act and the -action of the exemption tribunals, hut as to the riots in the city of Quebec he hardly said a word.
Sonne hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Wilfrid Laurier: insisted on (bringing the man to the station. A squabble ensued, and this was the origin of the trouble. Now, Sir, I do not at all intend to excuse the squabble (which ensued in which there was a free fight between the Dominion police, the men I have just mentioned, and the crowd. Violence is always to be deprecated and must be condemned whenever it occurs. But, after all, there is some excuse to ibe given for a man who is provoked into violence. I believe that if nothing else had followed in the succeeding days there would have been peace in Quebec. This was the first act of the drama; this was the origin of the squaJbble on the 28th of March.
The following day the disturbance continued and on a far greater scale. I must say that upon this, my conclusion is-after having investigated the matter for my own sake, and having been in communication with my friends and my constituents in the city of Quebec, that the trouble which took place on Friday the 29th of March was caused by a secret association of some kind. What it is, I do not know. I am sure of one thing. The origin of that association is not in the city of Quebec. The instigators of the trouble are not Quebec men.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Wilfrid Laurier: They are not Quebec men. I asked my friends and constituents to tell me who were the leaders of these riots, and one and all tell me that they did not know them. It is known as a fact, that on that Friday evening there was a motor car in which there were four persons who appeared to be the leaders of the movement, and so far as my information goes at the present time, those four persons do not (belong to the city of Quebec. Who are those men? That the movement was organized is undoubted. Who were behind .it? My impression is-I have no information upon this, but I will give my reasons for believing what I am going to say-that it i6 the same gang which attempted to terrorize the city of Montreal last summer.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Wilfrid Laurier: company also. Mr. Lavergne was a candidate in Montmagny in the last election, but the young man who was elected in that county with my support, sits in this House to-day behind me. The views of Bourassa and Lavergne are not my views. The separation is not of to-day only; it goes, back to the years 1910 and 1911, when I was opposed by Bourassa and his friends. And upon what ground? I took the stand that it was within the power of the Parliament of Canada to decree whether or not we should take part in the wars of Great Britain. Bourassa and Lavergne held that under no circumstances should we take part in the wars of Great Britain. For this difference of opinion 1 incurred their enmity, and they fought for the Conservative party; and my hon. friend (Mr. Currie) sitting there amongst the large majority in this House, owes a deep debt of gratitude to Mr. Bourassa.
He may ask me, why did I oppose the policy of conscription? I will answer him. I opposed the policy of conscription because I am a man of common sense; because I know human nature; because I know the conditions in this country. I knew that compulsory service would not bring the same results as the voluntary system. My hon. friend has alluded to the fact that the province of Quebec has not done as much as it should have done. I agree; I wish it had done more. But there is one way and one way only to deal with my fellow-countrymen. If you attempt to coerce them, they have too much of the Celtic blood not to resent it; but appeal to their heart and their imagination, and you will find them responsive. If that had been done, there would have been very different results.


John Allister Currie: Then why did not the hon. gentleman, as the representative of the French Canadian race, speak to his French Canadians in that way?


Wilfrid Laurier: formed their whole duty. The statement of the Prime Minister proceeds:
*The incidents which have taken place have made it apparent to the Government that some amendments will toe necessary to the Military Service Act. One of those which is now in preparation is this:	That (persons who engage
in active or forcible resistance to the enforcement of the Act shall toe forthwith enrolled in the military forces of Canada, without regard to whether their class has been called out.
Three days ago the Prime Minister, speaking in his place, stated that, in order to put in uniform a man who is not to-day called upon to go on service by the law, it was necessary to have an amendment to the Military Act. To-day this is done by Order in Council. Where is the authority of the Governor in Council to amend the statute? My hon. friend will tell me he has that power under the War Measures Act. If he tells me that, I will tell him if he has that power under, the War Measures Act, he has the same power to conscript everybody, without the authority of Parliament, simply by Order in Council. But he has not that authority, and he knows it well. He had to pass a statute last session in order to enforce conscription. That law has been passed, and now when he tells me that this law which was placed on the statute last year can be amended by Order in Council, I say it is simply an abuse of the powers which are vested in the Governor in Council, and it is assuming a power which the Governor in Council does not possess..
We are here to-day, proud to say that we are British subjects. At all events I am proud to say so. I have always proclaimed myself a British subject. No man is a greater admirer of British institutions than I am. And why? Because if there is one authority in the British Empire . which is the supreme authority, it is not the power of the King, but it is the majesty of the law; and a law can be destroyed only by another law. But let me call attention of my hon. friend to this precedent: In 1798, when Ireland was in a state of rebellion, the French had sent an expedition to Ireland under the command of General Hoche, and Wolfe Tone, a member of that expedition, was captured by the military authorities, court-martialled and sentenced to death. But habeas corpus proceedings were taken, and Wolfe Tone was taken out of the custody of the military authorities, and declared a free subject-free from the military authorities altogether. My last word is this: We must have peace, we must 
have order, we must have protection for our property and the law must be observed. I say this with the greater authority in that I am not a believer in the law. I thought it was a mistake, but it has been adopted by the Canadian people, and the will of the people is the law.
Eight hon. Sir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to what has been put forward in this debate. I shall not pretend, in making the few observations that I shall offer, to- follow precisely everything that has been alleged by all the speakers. My -hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Currie) has gone into these matters with a good deal of detail as to which it is perhaps not necessary that I should follow him. I should not care to commit myself absolutely to his conception of the events that occurred during the last session of Parliament. He, and the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) as well, seemed to be impressed with the idea that the Military Service Act has been enforced with too great moderation in the province of Quebec, and my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid LaurieT) is impressed with a contrary appreciation of the situation in that province.
There were some observations made in regard to the newspaper press of the country and particularly the newspaper press in the province of Quebec. The general principle of British parliamentary government-and that principle has received no stronger illustration than in the United Kingdom itself-has been not to' interfere with the right of free speech unless it is absolutely necessary by reason of a great emergency. Any one who has seen men, even during this war, airing their opinions and criticisms in -Hyde Park will realize the truth of what I am saying. I do not know, anything about the advertisement which is alleged tp have been inserted in Le Devoir. I presume the hon. gentleman who brought it to the attention of the House is right in his conception that these matters have been left to some business agency apart altogether from any consideration of patronage and that the advertisement has found its way into the columns of Le Devoir in that way. I do not know of any other explanation.
Reference was also made by the hon. member for Simcoe to Col. Machin's interview with Col. Lavergne. I have documents under my, hand to show that the interview which took place, I think at the suggestion of Mr. Taschereau, was not an interview

by Col. Machin in any official capacity as he so explained to Col. Lavergne at the time.


Wilfrid Laurier: Alleyn Tasche-reau?


Robert Laird Borden: Alleyn Tasche-reau. I have Mr. Taschereau's statement and Col. Machines statement in regard to it. It is not necessary for me to stop to read these to the House. I shall give them to the .press afterwards if necessary. At all events I believe that the statements of these gentlemen give a correct version of what occurred.
The hon. -member for Simcoe seemed to think -that very drastic amendments should be made to the Military Service Act. He suggests that every man in Canada should have been taken from his occupation and put under drill at once.
Mr. -CURRIE: I did not say that; I said those in class " A ".


Robert Laird Borden: He suggests
that every one in class "A" should -be taken from his ordinary and usual avocation and * put under drill at once. My hon. friend and the members of the House generally will realize that such was not the principle upon which the Military Service Act was passed. The Military Service Act received the approval of a very large majority in the last Parliament and it also received very strong support from the people o-f Canada in the last election. It was based upon the principle that we should endeavour to find out, as to every man in Canada, whether or not he would give better service at the front or better service in the avocation in which he is engaged. That was the principle which commended itself to us and that was the principle which was affirmed by the people at the last election. I do not deny that it may be necessary, and T have so stated in the -House, to make amendments to the Military Service Act, and as my right hon. friend has observed, we have -made one already. I shall come to his criticism of the action of the Government in -that regard in a very few moments.
The hon. member for Vancouver, if I gathered his meaning correctly, seemed to be under the impression that there had been one application o-f this law in eight provinces of Canada and an entirely different application of it in the province o-f Quebec. So far as- the efforts of the Government are concerned I must take the strongest possible objection to such a statement. There has been nothing of the kind. The effort of the Government has been to enforce this law impartially, considerately, firmly and without any distinction whatever in every -province of Canada. That has been the purpose and it has been carried out to the best of our ability. I want to say, in justice to my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), that no man could have worked more indefatigably to give that Act effect in the province of Quebec than he has done during all the time that he has had it under his administration. Hon. gentlemen who are suggesting that the Government have been lax in the enforcement of this law in Quebec should recollect that it has been enforced with sufficient firmness in that province to bring about the unfortunate conditions which have prevailed in the city of Quebec during the past week. On the one hand we are told that the disturbances in the city of Quebec are due to the fact that we have enforced this law too rigorously and too sternly


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.	_


Robert Laird Borden: And on the other hand we are told that the law has -been enforced in a very lax manner in that province.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is not what -I said. What I said was that the way in which the Act was being administered in the province of Quebec was entirely different from the way it was being administered in the other eight provinces.


Robert Laird Borden: I accept the correction of my hon. friend and I shall come to that in a moment. What step did the Government take when this Act was first proclaimed? The Minister of Justice brought a recommendation to Council that a Military Service -Council should be -formed. The Deputy Minister of Justice was a member of that Council of which the Minister of Justice was chairman. The gentlemen who were selected were very able and capable men. They were Colonel Biggar from Edmonton, Colonel Moss from Toronto, Colonel Machin from the western part of the province of Ontario and Mr. Lor-anger from Quebec. They have been active and indefatigable, giving their whole time to the work and there has been no step taken and no act done or left undone in so far as I am aware, without their absolute approval and concurrence.
I realize perfectly that the conditions in the province of Quebec' have made it difficult, not to enforce the Act, but to enforce it with the expedition whi-ch the Government, and the country for that matter, would

have desired. I entirely understand and appreciate that, hut I should like the House and the country to understand that there are some misapprehensions abroad as to what the total result of that Act has 'been up to the present time. My right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) told ue a moment ago the we would have had better results in procuring reinforcements for the overseas service if we had adhered to the voluntary system. He did not give us any evidence in support of that statement, and I venture to say that his view on that subject cannot be supported :by any evidence.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: In the month of August last we recruited 3,117 men. In the month of September last we recruited 3,588 men, and: there is not the slightest doubt that a good many of these imen oarne to the colours for the reason that they knew compulsory service was about to toe enforced.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: Without that Bill before the House there is noi question that the number who came forward in that way would have been very much smaller. What have we done during the last seven weeks? I have given the figures for August and September, which comprise nearly nine weeks, but in the last seven weeks, by means of the Military Service Act, we have brought to the colours 16,000 men. I venture to say, with the utmost possible confidence, that no such results, no results even approaching them, could have been attained if we had continued' the system of voluntary service.
I should like to say further that since the first day of October last, which is about the date on which this Act was proclaimed, 50,000 men have joined the Canadian colours; 18,000 of these have been recruited in the United States, .and 32,000 have been recruited under the Military Service Act. From the first day of October, 1917, to the thirtieth day of this present month of April, if the anticipated sailings for the present month are such, as I have no doubt they will be, we shall have sent overseas to the support of the gallant men who are fighting our battles there, about 47,000 Canadian soldiers.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: Now, with regard to conditions in the province of Quebec, I have stated publicly, and I state it here again, that in many parts of that province exemptions were granted almost wholesale by the tribunals of first instance. There is

no doubt about that. What was the result? The Government had given its pledge to the people of Canada that it would see to it that that Act was enforced fairly, and impartially, and firmly in every province. What, then, was our duty? Our duty was to see to it that by appeals we1 brought these cases up to the Central Appeal Judge, so that in the end there would be a fair, a just, a uniform and an impartial administration of that Act for all the provinces and all the people of Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: We have done that. A great many appeals have already come up from the province of Quebec to the Central Appeal Judge-appeals lodged by the Government of this (country, and necessarily so, in order that there might he a just and fair enforcement of the Act. I believe that there are at the present time above twenty thousand appeals which have been disposed of by the appelate tribunals in the province of Quebec, and which are being brought up to the Central Appeal Judge as rapidly as possible.


John Allister Currie: Is it true that only six hundred of these appeals have reached the Central Appeal Judge?


Robert Laird Borden: I am not prepared to state how many have reached him. I say that that number I have mentioned are ready to come forward. In order that they may be brought forward they have to be classified, information has to be procured, a ease has to be stated for the Central Appeal Judge, and eventually, when the appeals begin to come forward in rapidly increasing numbers in the immediate future, it will probably be necessary that the Central Appeal Judge, in order that they may be expeditiously disposed of, shall have further assistance, which he can obtain under the terms of the Military Service Act. But besides that, as I understand, there are more than twenty thousand other cases in the province of Quebec, nearly all, if not all, of which have been passed upon by the tribunals of first instance, hut which have not yet been passed upon by the appelate tribunals. Of course, it was the duty of the Government, with such a mass of appeals in that province, to expedite by every possible means in its power the hearing of those appeals, and that the Government has done. The Minister of Justice, since he returned to Ottawa, about the middle of January, made a personal visit to the city of Montreal, saw the Chief Justice and the other judges of the courts there, and urged upon

them, in the national interest, the absolute necessity that they should lay everything else to one side and expedite these appeals. He had an interview also with Sir Francois Lemieux, Chief Justice of the Court in the Quebec district, and urged the same consideration upon him. The Minister of Justice found on the part of those judges an absolute disposition to lend themselves to the enforcement of the Act in this way. They have been disposing of these appeals very rapidly indeed in the city of Montreal, and I believe also in the city of Quebec. The appeals have been disposed of at the rate of about two thousand a week in Montreal; indeed, I am informed that all the civil business of the province has been put to one side by the provincial courts, and that those courts at the present time are occupying themselves absolutely and solely with the enforcement of the Military Service Act.
Mr. (LEMIEUX: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: Under these circumstances, I venture to question whether under the terms of the Act as it stands to-day it would have been possible for the Government to have taken any measure which has not been taken. I also venture to believe that within the present month results will come from the enforcement of the Act by the disposal of these appeals which will be reasonably satisfactory to the Government, to the Parliament, and to the people of this country.
My right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition has spoken upon this question, sometimes with a good deal of warmth, and I desire to devote a few moments to certain of his observations. He stated in the early part of his remarks that the people of the district which he represents in Parliament, and in which these riots occurred, are highly sensitive to injustice. I do not know that the people there differ in that respect from the people of any other part of Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: All the people
of Canada are -sensitive to injustice, and all the people of Canada, I 'hope are law-abiding to as great an extent as those whom he represents. The right hon. gentleman states that on the occasion to which he alludes one of the young men produced his papers and the other did not; and, to the action of the officers on that occasion, he attributes the riots and disturbances which afterwards occurred. He attaches great importance to the fact that the young
man was not permitted1 to telephone to his parents from the bowling alley, but was taken to the police station, and a telephone message, or some message, was there sent to his parents. That does not seem- to be an incident which would reasonably account for the disturbance that subsequently took place. I assure ,my right hon. friend -that incidents of the same character by the hundred have occurred in other parts of the country, and there has been no riot. I entirely admit that the enforcement of a law like this, without any previous system of registration, occasions a great deal of difficulty to the -Government, and, very often, a great deal of inconvenience to the people among whom it is enforced. But we are in a time of war, and is there to be a riot in Quebec, or any where else, because, instead of permitting a young man to telephone to- his home and bring his parents to him, he was taken to the police station and a message was sent from there? That was my right hon. friend's point, nothing more and nothing less. Upon that, and certain other considerations to which I -shall call attention, he bases his argument. He says that the -men who have, been selected to enforce this Act in the province of Quebec are not of a proper typ-e. But he -also says that the higher officers who have been selected in that province are of the right type, -and he found no fault -with them. These constables were selected, I have not the -slightest doubt, by the very men whom he commends, and he, and every hon. gentleman, -m-ust understand that when yon seek for men to enforce an Act of this nature amongst an unsympathetic population you cannot al-w-ays get men- of the -most polite and refined type.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: The Minister
of Justice, and those who have been advising him in these matters, have undoubtedly done the best they co-uld in that regard, and T find in the statements of my right hon. friend no justification whatever for his -suggestion -that "these riots -are due to some act of the Government


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: And I feel
that that observation, and oerain others, to which -my right hon friend gave utterance, are particularly unfortunate in view of the conditions which prevail in- the province of Quebec. '


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: My right hon. friend says that the leaders in these dis-turtances were not Quebec men.


Samuel Hughes: He said that they were not from Quebec city.


Robert Laird Borden: That they were not residents of Quebec city. I hope that is so. I do not know. But I do regret that, if they were not citizens of Quebec, the appeals which they made produced so great an effect upon the population of Quebec.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: My right hon. friend finds fault also with the Government because he thinks Gen. Lessard should have been employed sooner. My right hon. friend would not desire to mislead the House in any way, and therefore I presume that he has forgotten what I stated in the late Parliament. I personally sent for Gen. Lessard nearly two years ago and asked him to take charge of recruiting in the province of Quebec.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: I not only asked him, hut I very strongly urged him to do it; and after mature reflection and consideration he declined to undertake that duty. We sent him to the city of Quebec some months ago, and he remained there during the early part of the enforcement of this Act; and then, owing to requirements in the Maritime Provinces, he had to be sent there to deal with certain important matters. When this riot broke out we ordered him to proceed to Quebec and take command there, and he has done so. He has discharged his duty well and adequately and I do not doubt that he will continue so to do.
My right hon. friend then went on to criticise the Order in Council that we have brought down, and, in what sense I do not know, he said there 'has been a great falling down by the Government. He quoted some words which I uttered in this House a few days ago, and he intimated that in some way the Government had departed from that promise. I said that the Military Service Act was to be amended in a certain respect, and the Military Service Act has been amended in that respect.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: My right hon.
friend saye that we should have come to Parliament. I say that, under the conditions that confront this country at the pres-
['Slr Robert Borden.]
ent time, we would have been derelict in our duty if we had waited to come to Parliament. I felt, and I still feel, that we should act at once, and we did act at once. It will be open to my right hon. friend, if he desires to do so, to challenge our action by a vote in this House.
He says that we should have the spirit of conciliation; that this is not the spirit of conciliation; that the Order in Council contains authority to give to the military control in any proclaimed district. That law is of general application throughout Canada, just ae the Military Service Act is of general application. Whenever conditions arise in the province of Quebec, or in any part of that province, or in any other province in Canada, which bring it within the terms of that Order in Council, the powers which it confers will be exercised.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: 
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: The civil authorities did not act. WeTe we then to hold our hand? No, we are not to hold1 our hand. In this I think my right hon. friend agrees: that it was our duty to use such force as was found necessary to prevent disorder, to preserve public peace, and to ensure the enforcement of the Military Service Act. I would further suggest to my right hon. Mend that expressions such as he has used are not helpful to that very conciliation for which he so strongly appeals. I concur in that appeal, but he tells us in a very eloquent period: "Now is the time to put aside all our differences, to stand together and unite as one people in the carrying on of this war;" then, in the same breath he attacks the Government in violent language and characterizes the passing of this necessary Order in Council as an abuse of power.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: So it is.


Robert Laird Borden: Do my hon.
friends on the other side think that observations of that character are desirable under the conditions which prevail at present in this .province?


Mr. McMASTER:: We think that when Parliament is sitting the Government might trust the representatives of the Canadian people to legislate in accordance with the necessities of the situation.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Robert Laird Borden: And we think also that the representatives of the people in Parliament assembled will trust the Government in an emergency to act so that riot and insurrection shall not be repeated. Whether my hon. friend agrees with me or not, that is the policy by which this Government will stand or fall.


Samuel Hughes: Has not the Government of Canada the authority of the people, conferred under the War Measures Act, to act in such cases?


Robert Laird Borden: Of course it has. The War Measures Act of 1914 speaks for itself; it confers on the Government the most absolute authority in that regard. I entirely agree that under ordinary conditions it is proper for the Government to come to Parliament, and as a general rule we have observed that policy. But when there is emergency; when there is riot and insurrection, I venture to think that we would not be fit to sit on these benches unless we were prepared to act instantly. We have shown that we are prepared so to act, and, in the province of Quebec as elsewhere, we shall see to it that there is no obstruction to the enforcement of the Military Service Act, and that the King's peace is kept there as in every part of Canada.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS.



SECOND READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 28, respecting The Belleville, Prince Edward Bridge Company.-Mr. Porter.
Bill No. 29, respecting a patent of O. G. C. L. J. Overbeck.-Mr. Fripp.


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of Mr. J. A. Currie to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing a definite 'matter of urgent public importance, namely, the rioting, agitation, disturbances, and non-observance of 26
law in Quebec, together with all the circumstances, conditions and causes, near and remote, having any bearing on or connection therewith, resumed.
Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I wish to say that I regret very much the disorderly scenes of which the city of Quebec has recently been the theatre. These disturbances should not have occurred, and those who are responsible for 'them have certainly incurred a very great responsibility. Whatever provocation there may have been, whatever abuses may have occurred, whatever resentment may have been caused by certain events which are still recent, there was no justification for rioting or unlawful resort to violence. The majesty of the law is supreme, and the law must be respected. I sincerely trust that in future better counsels will prevail and that the demand of my right hon. leader (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) will be effectively responded to. But certainly the desired goal will not be reached as a result of the speeches we have been compelled to listen to this afternoon from the other side of the House. Order is frequently broken by passion, inadvertency, or blunder, but it can hardly 'be restored by monitors like the mover of this motion. He cannot even govern his own passion while condemning the impetuosity of others. Knowing the hon. gentleman as I do, I fully expected that he would use the unfortunate occurrences in the city of Quebec to gain what he thought would be a paltry advantage over political opponents-opponents, I might say, in the ranks of the Government, as well as on this side of the House. It has been suggested that we should let the vituperations of the hon. member pass unnoticed. I think every one will admit that since the opening of the session we on this side of the House have scrupulously refrained from doing or saying anything calculated to arouse passion or even excitement in the country. We have offered no criticism or comment on the disturbances that took place in the city of Quebec, being desirous that those whose obvious duty it was to restore peace and order should be untrammelled in every respect; but when hon. gentlemen have what I would call the insolence to come upon the floor of this House and throw mud at us-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. I think the hon. gentleman is using language that is hardly parliamentary.


Ernest Lapointe: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and withdraw the word. I will say when bon. gentlemen insult us


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think that is unparliamentary also.


Ernest Lapointe: Again I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I certainly do not wish to clash with you, Sir, at the outset of my remarks. I will say when hon. gentlemen use language of a nature not calculated to please us-we can, of course, treat it with silent contempt. There is a limit, however, beyond which silence only invites further humiliation, and that is my excuse f-qr answering the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie). Perhaps some hon. gentleman on the other side of the House may he excused for attempting to divert attention from what has gone on in this House since the opening of the session. Quite a few of them have been daily shooting at the ministerial citadel, forgetful of the fact that it was garrisoned by themselves. It may be good tactics now to introduce a diversion and direct the shooting at the province of Quebec. The abusing of Quebec seems to be the only solid ground of this patriotic Union Government. If striking at the province of Quebec, if insulting us-I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker -if displeasing us is the only material that can cement the amalgamation, hon. gentlemen opposite are quite welcome to do it; we are able to withstand the onslaught. The history of the past and the lessons which have been bequeathed to us by our ancestors teach us that those who make the onslaught do not always come off victors in the fight. Certain supporters of the Government have been elected on the cry: " Quebec shall not rule Canada," and it is doubtless to be expected that the illegitimate products of such a narrow and brutal appeal will need the same food and fuel to maintain their spirit and effectiveness; and this must be the reason why the campaign against Quebec is still going on in so many quarters, while at the same time strong appeals are being made for unity and concord. The people of Quebec read and heard of both the abuse and the appeals. They read the sane articles of hon. members of this House when they are published in respectable newspapers and reviews, like the Canadian Magazine, for instance, and some of us even go to the extent of putting on a gas mask and reading the views expressed in the Orange Sentinel. Only a few days ago we were told by a certain minister of the Crown of the Ontario Government that we deserved to be classed with the Germans and Austrians. Now, everybody in the province of Quebec reads those utter-	/
ances. That good Tory newspaper, the Quebec Chronicle, said of this particular minister that his statesmanship must be of the asinine kind; but that, I think, was most unfair to the ass, because even if the ass is as stupid as that gentleman, he is very much less of a mischief-maker. What is the purpose of all these attacks? Surely they are not made with the intention of converting us or changing our way of thinking. The campaign is not intended for circulation in our midst, and *it is not conducted in a way calculated to have any good effect on our fellow-countrymen. Again, I ask, what is the purpose of that campaign? The only purpose I can see in it is to arouse passion and prejudice, and to create an ill feeling against two million fellow-Canadians for the sake of gaining a miserable political advantage. Especially is it to be regretted at this time when national unity is desired, not only for the successful prosecution of the war, but for the solution of the great national problems, and even the Imperial problems which will have to be solved during the after-war period. True it is that this eminent pork-seller and conserver of dead chickens, Sir Joseph Flavelle, notified us last year in his speech before the Canadian Club of Ottawa that we should have no voice in the solution of these problems, but he may have been mistaken, and the democratic people in all parts of the country may have just as much to say as the noble class of lords, barons, knights and others, of whom Sir Joseph Flavelle is so distinguished a representative. Sir, a better union is needed for Canada. Everybody admits that, except those who live out of hatred and discord and who nurse their wrath to keep it warm. But, Sir, the first condition of a possible union is mutual respect, to say nothing of common courtesy and politeness. Our partnership must be based on absolute equality and respect for pledges. We do not want to< bury our Canadian aspirations, our customs, our higher traditions, ideals, and principles, even for the purpose of being friends. We believe that in this land which our forefathers discovered, and which they have built up and developed we have the right to live in the full enjoyment of liberty, and that nothing has ever happened to deprive us of that right. The sooner everybody realizes that it is impossible in this country for one of the great partners in the Canadian association to compel others to think as he does, or speak as he does, the better it will be for the country and for all concerned. The Germans have forced

the sons of Alsace and Lorraine to learn their ridiculous goose-step, but they (have never won' their hearts, and surely nobody in this country would like to copy Prussian methods. There is no disguising the fact that there is in Quebec province a disquieting feeling and a feeling of unrest, and it is, indeed, a tragedy to apply the fine word "union" to the work of disruption which the right hon. Prime Minister has been so unfortunate as to achieve. Conscription and the circumstances under which it was enacted and carried out aTe only amongst the causes of that feeling. The constant and permanent flow of insults and misrepresentations which our people have to suffer is a more direct cause. I was strongly opposed to conscription-yes, and I am still opposed to it, although I always told my electors and fellow-countrymen that they must obey and observe the law. I need not repeat the grounds of my opposition to conscription. But, Sir, those reasons have been deliberately and criminally misrepresented throughout Canada, and even in the British Empire, in order to secure the success of the Government. We opposed conscription because we believed the voluntary system [DOT] was the only one suited for this country and the best system to obtain the end every one of us desired of winning the war. We fought against this measure because we believed the pledges of the Prime Minister and the other public men of this country ought to toe respected and ought not to be treated as so many "scraps of paper." I opposed conscription because I thought it was a constitutional change and a radical departure from the principles which were agreed to by all those who were party to the building of Confederation. We have been accused of being indifferent or even hostile to the great cause of the Allies. It has been said everywhere that we were against further participation in the war, and that we wanted to desert the Canadian boys who are fighting on the glorious battlefields of France. No more infamous or diabolical lies have ever forced their way through human lips. Some people profess to toe more generous and more patronizing. They say our attitude is due to our lack of understanding of the real conditions, and to our ignorance as to what is going on in the world. I have read that statement *made by patriotic old ladies, kind clergymen and other supporters of the Government, and I am sure some of the members of this House must be of their opinion, I would like to know how many of those who thus believe that we are provincialist, 26i
sectional and living in gross ignorance o>f everything that is going on in the world, read more newspapers' and other literature than I do, or than most of the gentlemen do who represent my province here. We are reading their newspapers and we are reading our own, which, as a rule, they cannot do. Most of us are reading British newspapers, and we read also the newspapers of old France, which, again, many cannot do. Do you not think, Mr. Speaker, that we can stand a fair comparison, as to our knowledge of what goes on in the world, with the exclusive readers of the Toronto >News, the Ottawa Journal, the Free Press of Winnipeg, and even that radiant beacon light, the Orange Sentinel. As to the material effect of conscription, in regard to the help that Great Britain and her Allies shall receive by virtue of its enforcement, the facts, in spite of what the right hon, gentleman said this afternoon, already prove that we are right. All impartial authorities admit to-day that conscription has been a failure. A larger number of men would have been secured by voluntary enlistment, even at the rate enlistment was going on when conscription was introduced. Even newspapers friendly to the Government admit that a blunder was committed, and even the good old Tory organ, the Quebec Chronicle, in the edition of February 26, published an editorial, with which I will not weary the House, under the heading of " The Great Refusal," and the Chronicle was not excusing the other provinces any more than Quebec. Very naturally in Ontario the blame is placed at the door of Quebec.
The statistics show that the accusation is unfounded. What were the registrations in Ontario and Quebec respectively? I find that 125,750 men registered in Ontario and 117,104 registered in Quebec. There were 8,646 more men in Ontario than in Quebec in class one. According to a statement issued from Ottawa-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have not been unduly strict in applying the rules in this debate but I have tried to prevent hon. members from entering into a discussion of the Military Service Act. It is quite germane to the discussion at various points, but the hon. member in proceeding to discuss the Military Service Act is not in order.


Ernest Lapointe: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to call your attention to the fact that I am called upon to answer statements made on the other side of the House this afternoon even by the Prime Minister.



-COMMONS

Edgar Nelson Rhodes: As I understood the remarks of the Prime Minister, he drew no distinction as between provinces.


Ernest Lapointe: He said that in Quebec there were wholesale exemptions. The hon. .member for North Simcoe said that also. I am going to prove that the comparison between Quebec and Ontario is a very fair one to make. According to a statement issued from Ottawa, up to the 10th January there were 94,197 exemptions in Ontario and 89,575 in Quebec. These figures are very illustrative -but -quite naturally our good friends from Ontario loudly protested and clamoured that these miserable people from Quebec were getting too many exemptions. They were seeing the mote in the eye of Quebec. Quite naturally also the Government instituted a large number of appeals against the Quebec exemptions and a small number of appeals against the Ontario exemptions, namely, at that date, January 10, 10,638 appeals in Ontario as against 25,115 in Quebec. A considerable number of appeals have been instituted in Quebec. I believe the hon. member for North Simcoe said that actually there were 60,000 appeals from exemptions in Quebec. That shows that appeals- aTe made against exemptions in the province of Quebec and they do not seem to be made to such a large extent in" the province of Ontario.


Mr. EDWARDS:: The hon. gentleman says that his figures are very illuminating. Would it not be even more illuminating if he would just give us, in conjunction with these figures, the number of enlistments since the war started in Ontario and the number in Quebec?


Ernest Lapointe: I believe I would not be observing the ruling of Mr. Speaker if I were to do that. In spite of the pleasure that I -would have in obliging my hon. friend, I prefer to remain parliamentary. Now, Sir, as to the delays which have -been referred to in dealing with the appeals from the province of Quebec, I wish you to recollect the fact that according to the law, as made by this Parliament, there are only thirty-six judges in Quebec who are empowered to hear these appeals, while there are ninty-one judges to hear the smaller number of appeals instituted in Ontario. If there is a congestion in the Quebec courts, is that province, or anybody in Quebec, to be made responsible for it? Is it not again a clear case of the province of Quebec being made the scapegoat?
Apart from these regrettable troubles in Quebec, the young -men o.f the province,

h-ave observed, and are observing, tlbe law, -notwithstanding, and in s-pite of all the provocations, insults, abuse and arbitrary deeds which -would have had serious consequences -among any other people. Why, *this -Government, as -was said by -my right hon. leader this afternoon, or rather its predecessor-because I hope no Liberals would have consented to- do. that-employed detectives, especially the notorious Tit-Noir Desjardins, who is well known in that province, for -the purpose of giving money to ex-convicts liberated on ti-cket-of-leave by -the hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) to induce these -men to commit criminal acts, -to dynamite Lord Atholstan's property and to -do- other things of that nature. This m-an was actually indicted before the criminal courts, -and when np respectable citizen undertook to give a bond on his behalf, -the -Department of Justice of Canada sent a cheque for $10,000 to get Tit-Noir Desjardins out of jail.
In -the meantime the farmers are -appealed to for greater production. Our province is .a purely agricultural province and- the farmers, while willing to do their utmost bo help production, do not know whether they can undertake the work and rely -upon the labour of their -sons who are needed in -the field. Lord Rhondda -said l-ately that food power was co-equal with man power under the present circumstances and that relief must come from America. Mr. Lloyd Ge-orge said that the food producer is a more needed soldier than the one who bears a rifle. I '-represent a county in which there are no cities or to-w-ns. -It is a purely -agricultural county, one of the best agricultural districts in eastern Canada. The .population is entirely composed of farmers and -there are, Mr. Speaker, actually 600 appeals pending before -the tribunals from exemptions granted to- these farmers' -sons in Kam-ouraska county. (If, -according to Lord Rhondda, food power is co-equal with -manpower, and if, according to Mr. Lloyd George, the -man who cultivates -the land is more needed than the one who carries a rifle, I claim that no -man has -the right to call these young men shirkers or slackers. They are -acting for -the best interests not only for -Canada but for the British Empire. The most regrettable fact is, perhaps, the breaking of solemn pledges which has destroyed for a good many years the faith and -confidence of an important part of the people in the honour and" truthfulness of Canadian public men. But, Sir, we are being told: You have your opinion regarding the Military -Service Act -and you are -entitled to that opinion; we have a

different opinion, we fought it out and the majority went against you.
What we have to do is to bow and gracefully acquiesce in the finding of the majority. I agree that the law must be observed, hut I do not adlmit that the verdict at the last election was a fair verdict. That verdict was not given by all the people who were entitled to pronounce upon the issue, and the battle was fought on ground quite different from that involved in a reference to the people of the question of conscription'. The late Government, before going to the country, ran away from the judgment of those who had elected them.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member might explain to the House how he connects such statements with the subject at issue.


Ernest Lapointe: I will ibow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, tout if you will permit me I will explain how I came to take up ' this 'subject. It has toeen stated this afternoon toy my hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. Currie), and repeated afterwards toy the right hon. the Prime Minister, that the issue of conscription had been overwhelmingly approved by the people of Canada, and that everybody now should also approve it, and accept the verdict.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member himself has said that the law is on the statute book and must be obeyed.
[Mr. E. LAPOINTE: Certainly.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member must
deal with the subject more closely.


Ernest Lapointe: I am trying to explain what the feeling is in the province of Quebec at the present time, which, I think is within the purview of the discussion before the House. Related to that feeling, in my humble opinion, is the fact that the verdict of the people, which is claimed by the gentlemen opposite as toeing an endorsation of their policy, cannot carry the influence and the consideration which a verdict obtained under ordinary, fair and natural circumstances, would naturally carry. But if you do not permit me to proceed, how am I to explain that everybody in the province of Quebec, as I think everywhere else in Canada, resents the tampering with the electoral law of the country on. the part of the Government before appealing to the people?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The door has already
been opened too wide in this debate in permitting discussion of the Military Service Act. I certainly do not intend to- permit the War-time Elections Act also to toe discussed.


Ernest Lapointe: I only want to explain the feeling of ihe people, but I will bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, except to the extent of saying, if you will permit me, that we have no friends, or practically no friends in the press of the country outside of my own province. Except in the province of Quebec the press is under the control of the present Government. We have been misrepresented for months and months. We have nobody to defend us, and the voice of my province has no other forum for expression than the House of Commons.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. No one disputes that this is a forum for the ventilation of grievances, but that has nothing to do with the subject before the House at the moment. The hon. member has ample opportunity, in various ways under the rules of discussing almost any subject, but not on the motion before the House at the moment.


Ernest Lapointe: Well, I will not refer to the War-time Elections Act.


Mr. BUREAU:: That is a sore spot.


Ernest Lapointe: I will not refer to the fact that only a portion of the women of the country were permitted to vote, but I think I can fairly argue that the last election was not decided upon the issue of conscription. I think that is a fair answer to what has been said on the other side of the House.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I wish again to direct the hon. member's attention to the fact that we are considering a motion made under Rule 39 for the purpose of discussing the disturbances, and the agitations and non-observance of the law in Quebec.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but the member for^Simeoe (Mr. 'Currie) who moved the -resolution did not refer to the Quebec riots. Surely if I cannot follow his example I am sitting on the wrong side of the House.


John Allister Currie: On two occasions it has been said that I did not refer to the Quebec riots. In my address I dealt with the riots in the province of Quebec generally.


Ernest Lapointe: In deference to the Speaker's ruling I will not deal further

with the issues upon which the election was fought.
Now, Sir, when speaking about the disturbances in Quebec, the Prime Minister made use of the following language, foreshadowing the Orders in Council which have been brought down this afternoon. As will be found at page 251 of Barnard, the right hon. gentleman said on April 2nd last:
The incidents which have taken place have made it apparent to the Government that some amendments will be necessary to the Military Service Act. One of those which is now in preparation is this:	That persons who engage
in active or forcible resistance to the enforcement of the Act shall be forthwith enrolled in the military forces of Canada, without regard to whether their class has been called out; without regard to any exemption that they may have procured, and subject only to the consideration that they are within military age. I believe that is a proper principle to adopt. If any persons in this country are disposed to wage war upon the civil authorities of Canada engaged in the enforcement of this Act, then it seems to me they may well he given the authority to exercise their warlike spirit upon the enemies of this country.


Mr. MURPHY:: Was that said before or after the disturbances in Quebec?


Ernest Lapointe: 

ADOLPHE STEIN.

[Stage Direction]
Now, Sir, I am informed tbat recruits are being sent overseas every week from the

city of St. John. From my seat in Parliament, I demand the release of that young man who is detained illegally under military custody in St. John, N.B., and if that gentleman, Col. McAvity, is a Prussian, I hope the Minister of Militia will call him to his senses.
Sir, it is the imperative duty of the Government, and I appeal to them in that respect, to use discretion, tact and common sense. They should not forget that Quebec is not represented in this Administration, and I say that with all deference to my hon. friends the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne). Measures promulgated by the Government cannot carry the weight and influence with us which is carried by other measures in the enacting of which, or in the execution of which, the people had a voice and were effectively represented. That is one of the reasons why I protest against the amendments to the Military 'Service Act being made by means of Orders in Council. In the framing of these, nobody represents the feelings, sentiments and views of an important section of the people of this country. If they were enacted by Parliament, even if we have no representative on the Treasury benches, we have at least somebody to express our point of view. There is nobody at the council table who can express the feelings and represent the views and the mentality of our section of the people. I do not complain about it. I really do not wish to be represented in the Government under the present circumstances, and constituted as it now is. What I wish to argue is, that the Government should be more- cautious and use more tact and prudence in this matter by reason of the fact that so large a portion of the people of this country are not represented in the Administration, and especially when dealing with that section of the people which is unrepresented. In courts of law, judges always take greater precautions when they have to decide cases of litigants who are not represented by counsel, and the same rule should govern in the dealings of the Government with the people of Quebec. Many respectable, law-abiding citizens tell me: We are not represented in the Government; we have nobody there to speak for us, but we wish to obey the law, and even the numerous Orders m Council; all we ask is to be treated in a fair and decent way. We do not want our young men who have lived up to the requirements of the law to be insulted, reviled, and illegally put in jail like criminals by blackguards and drunkards, like those who were in my own town last week. There, young men, duly exempted were arrested by drunken brutes

I cannot call them otherwise-and taken to jail handcuffed. I know that the task of the Government is a hard one, 'but surely they should use greater discrimination in the selection of their officers and agents.
I wish, in conclusion, to join with my right hon. leader in appealing to my fellow-coun'trymen of Quebec and elsewhere not to allow any resentment to get the better of their moderation, and not hurry themselves into actions contrary to the law, which, in their cooler moments, they would regard with horror. They have always (been law-abiding citizens and they must remain so. The present crisis will come to an end. I sincerely hope and trust that better times are coming, when all conscientious public men will join hands for the purpose of putting an end to racial and sectional strife and eliminating from the public life of our country all men who want to sweep away the landmarks of right and justice and break down the traditional policies of Canada.
Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, the address of the hon. member for the beautiful county of Kamouraska (Mr. Lapointe)-and I join heartily with him in every word he has said about that splendid county, in which I have spent many a day- merely illustrates how things are going. I sat here this afternoon

and while there is not as much French blood in my veins, maybe, as in those of my good friend who has just spoken-I said to myself while the hon. member for North Simcoe was speaking: what an example of moderation, of fair and logical conclusion, what an example of sound argument. I did not heaT any " brutality," or " insult," or any of the " nasty spirit " which seemed to impress itself upon the right hon. leader of the Opposition and upon my good friend from Kamouraska. Perhaps it is just the point of view that one 'takes of it. At all events, it illustrates the necessity of having measures, such as the one before us to-night, brought up and discussed fairly and squarely on the floor of this House instead of in the back hustings of the various constituencies in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec.
When I was a barefooted hoy, I well remember my father taking me to a political meeting. He was a good old Orange Tory, thank God. What did we hear? That the Tory party was hand-in-glove with the Pope of Rome in the province of Quebec; that

the Tory party was hand-in-glove with a lot of Frenchmen that could not ispeak a word of English; that the Tory party was hand-in-glove with all the worst elements in the public life of the country.
Mr. JOSEPH READ; And the best.


Samuel Hughes: We are not discussing best and worst; that is a matter of viewpoint. I said to my father: Is that the sort of outfit you are in alliance with? He said: pay no attention to that fellow, ho is only a Grit spouter. The member for Maisonneuve (Mr. -Lemieux)-charming, delightful, pleasant in manner-will remember that in the elections of 1896 he did not take particular pains to soothe the feeling of the people of the province of Quebec against the people of other provinces. Their cry was: " What? Are you going to vote for Tupper and the Tories who are spending $3,000,000 in the purchase of rifles to shoot down your sons and to drag them off to foreign wars?" The member for Maisonneuve will recall that the late Mr. Mackintosh, fine old member for the Eastern Townships, rose in his seat, pointed his finger at the member for 'Maisonneuve and told him that if he were in his proper place he would be standing not in the House of Commons, 9 p.m. but behind the bars, serving a sentence for treason. I recall these things only because it shows


Mr. LEMIEUX:: In friendship.


Samuel Hughes: Yes. Let me say that I was proud of the member for Maison-*neuve when, while Minister of Militia, I asked him to assist in recruiting; he gave *nip his hand and did everything in his power to help on recruiting in Montreal. Moreover, his relatives went to the war, and, I believe, are there yet.
Time rolled on, and an election occurred in a place called Drummond and Artha-basca. The Nationalist party of Quebec *are to-day .charged, paraded, slated, by our good friends of the present Opposition for raising the standard of appeals to prejudice in Quebec. What did they do? They took the identical speeches, word for word, delivered by members of the Liberal party in the elections of 1896, and they used them throughout the counties of Drummond and *Arthabasca. In other words, they simply turned the guns on themselves.
In my first election a young fellow called on me one day and said: I have the stuff that is going to elect you, ,suTe. Good hoy;
I said; what is it? What is the denomina-

tion? He said: Gome out here and I will show you a sample of .some circulars I am sending out. He then showed me two circulars, one printed on a brilliant green paper, for circulation among the holy Romans, and the other printed on orange, for circulation among the Orangemen. The orange circular was to show what the Tory party had done for the Orange cause and what the 'Other felloiws had done against it; the green circular was to show the Romans wihat the Tory party had done for the holy Roman cause, .and what the other fellows had done against it. I said: this is a fine specimen of literature; I will take these two. I remember that in the office there was an old stove with a sliding lid. I went out, put the lid to one side and dumped the whole outfit, orange and green together, into the fire-and that ended it. I found that the fellow had been to half a dozen other constituencies, Grit and Tory alike, peddling similar wares. This sort of thing .may be all right for innocents abroad, but the time has arrived in Canada when this kind of stuff should be wiped out and these appeals to the public put .an end to forever.
My good friend the member for Kamour-aska (Mr. Lapointe) has a grievance because some young fellow from his county was bagged the other day. Why, I myself was bagged the other day.


Ernest Lapointe: I am ready to protest against that, 'too.


Mr. POWER:: The officer who did the ar-reetation was discharged, I understand. *


Samuel Hughes: fighting each other," and the man replied, " We are never fighting each other, except when there is nobody else to fight." We have somebody else to fight just now, so let us put off fighting each other until after the war, and then we can go at it hammer and tongs, if you like. But in the meantime, let us stand shoulder to shoulder before the world to fight the Germans to a finish. What we want is to strengthen our boys in the trenches and give them backbone and confidence.
That brings me to another point, and I trust the House will excuse me if I give a few facts as to the cause of the falling off in recruiting in the province of Quebec. I did not purpose saying anything on this head, but for the remarks that fell from the right hon. leader of the Opposition. We may as well get at the facts. I will narrate the facts, and we can look for the causes afterwards, and in narrating the facts I do not want to hurt anybody's feelings, but if it be a question of hurting somebody's feelings or telling the truth I am going to tell the truth. When war broke out the first thing I did was to appoint a Roman Catholic chaplain, a dear old fellow, Jolicoeur. He was a fine old fellow, and I venture to say he is as true a friend of the Allies to-day as can be found in the Dominion of Canada. I sent for him and said: " We are going to have our troops here at Valcartier to-morrow ; that will be Sunday, and I want you to look after your boys; we have no place here, but will nail a few planks together and you can put a show on here." We had lots of old boards, and we fixed the old gentleman up. We wanted to meet the wishes of the French Canadian boys, and we tried to meet them every time. I communicated with the best French Canadian boys in the province of Qhefoec immediately. General Lessard-I made him a general, I promoted him, I made him what he is today, as far as titles go. When I sent for him and spoke about raising a French Canadian brigade he said 'that he would be the worst man in the province of Quebec, or in the Dominion of Canada, to take that in hand, because he did not like them, and they did not like him. The Deputy Minister of (Militia and Defence is a splendid fellow -and, incidentally, I hope the Minister of Militia will bring his salary up to what the other deputy ministers are getting. He- is a French Canadian and did valiant service in the South African war as a medical officer; every man in the forces, if they had the choice, would go to General Fiset. He is one of the finest officers a man could have the privilege of serving with. I said to him:

" How the mischief can we get these fellows into line? Lessard does not want to go and Landry holds back." We did everything human beings could possibly do to get these lads, and let me say that during the early paTt of the campaign the recruiting of the French Canadian boys was magnificent, and further, their work at the front at Courcelette, on the Somme, and at every other place where they had an opportunity, as the hon. member for North Simcoe has said this afternoon, was everything that could foe desired. I am sure that if the leader of the Opposition could only have seen the spirit of these men, old as he is, and weak as his nerves may be, I think he would have risen to the occasion, and instead of bowing to the less noble element would have taken up the flag of liberty in the great struggle and gone through the province of Quebec calling on the hoys to stand behind the guns of their lads who were at the front. On more than one occasion 1 consulted the leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux). The hon. member for Maisonneuve, I think, did everything he possibly could; he did good service, I am free to say that, no matter what he did in the 1896 election, and I forgive him for all that. He di<f good service in this recruiting campaign, but the leader of the Opposition did not come out as I felt he should; but maybe L am wrong. He made three speeches so far as I could observe on recruiting, one at Napanee, the United Empire Loyalist centre, a splendid place to go and speak on recruiting. He got sick afterwards, I do not know from what cause, but he was laid up for a long time. Then he made a speech in Montreal and another in Quebec, I think. I read those speeches in both the French and English papers, and found three references to bilingualism and only two to recruiting. Those were all the recruiting meetings he spoke at, so far as I know.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about the
meetings in Sherbrooke?


Samuel Hughes: I did not hear about those. I am glad to hear about them. What was the next step in recruiting? As I said, we offered a corps to every leading French Canadian officer. When an officer came to me, I would say, "Delighted; here is your commission-go ahead and raise a battalion," and a great many of them tried it, and succeeded for a time, but gradually the boys melted away. We observed this with sorrow. At Valcartier I offered General Landry the command of 'a brigade,

I offered him any French officers he should choose to command his battalions, but he did not materialize more than enough for two-thirds of one battalion from the province of Quebec. I spoke to General Lessard and General Landry; and General Fiset did his level best to get these men to raise battalions. As time wore on I secured not one or two, but twenty or thirty or forty or fifty of the best boys from the front trenches, and these lads distinguished themselves at St. Julien. Let me say here, that I was sorry to-day to hear some hon. gentlemen sneer at Colonel Currie when he remarked that he had been in the fight. It is the easiest thing in the world for a coward to sneer at the men who risked their lives, but Colonel Dansereau told me that he stood within six feet of Colonel Currie every hour of the first three days of that fight, until two o'clock Saturday, and my own son has a copy of the ord r which he gave Colonel Currie about two o'clock on Saturday afternoon, ordering him to withdraw from the fighting line, there to be replaced by two British battalions, and less than 200 men out of 1,000 marched out. We brought back these veterans.
I thought the name DeSalaberry would thrill the people of Quebec, but let us be frank and tell the story. I must say that I was proud of Colonel DeSalaberry. He went down to Rockland; he was practically assaulted by the parish priest, who threatened him with all sorts of penalties, practically drove him from the village, and ordered the boys not to enlist. The same thing holds true up and down the Ottawa valley. Colonel DeSalaberry came to me and told me there was no use his trying to raise a French Canadian battalion, that a great many of the clergymen were fired by the teaching of the Old Country clergymen who were expatriated from France years ago. Colonel DeSalaberry gave it up, and went over in command of an English battalion. I saw that he got his battalion.
I thought the grandson of the hero of Chateauguay was entitled to some recognition, and he got it. But everywhere there was a hidden hand.
Take the case of the 41st Battalion. We had to enlist nearly 5,000 men to get 1,100.
I think that is about the number. We enlisted nearly 5,000 men and they gradually melted away and finally we got about 1,100 to go over. I do not know the cause. I am telling facts as they occurred, and hon. gentlemen can look for the cause themselves. I suspected at once a German [DOT] agency. I communicated that thought to
some of my colleagues but we had no proof of it at the time.
I want to make another statement here of a fact which will not be denied. Some of these clergymen were expatriated from France for violation of the French laws I suppose. I am not going to discuss that because I do not know. But they were in the city of Quebec and eight of these clergymen were found with a collection of German propaganda circulated from the United States, coming into this country. I did not have them arrested. I simply refer you to the fact, but if you doubt it ask Inspector Green, a good Irishman, who was post office inspector, and I left it for him to settle with them. One of these gentlemen went to the United States and has since died. I think the others followed across the lines, but they were all busily engaged in circulating German propaganda through Quebec. It is not much wonder that these splendid boys, who would he only too glad to have upheld the honour of France, of Canada, of the Empire, and human liberty in this great war were influenced, many of them by teachings such as that. Some one said to me: "there is an officer at the front. Colonel J. B. White, of the Hawkesbury Lumber Company, who employed upwards of 200,000 men in ihis day in the Ottawa Valley, and be will raise a battalion inside of a week." We cabled for him and brought him home. He came to me and told me he would guarantee to raise me a French Canadian battalion inside of two weeks. I said "God bless you my hoy, go ahead, I will give you every help I can." But I never dreamt he would get them. The French lads who had gone to the front did well, they were enthusiastic in the cause and did their level best. Dozens of men besides Colonel DeSalaberry tried to get the boys to enlist, but some in-, fluence was at work with them and they disappeared a few days after they came in. There was nothing of this kind in Ontario and there was no question of a Military Service Act. Everybody was loyal, and all were looking at the front line trenches. Colonel White came home and called a large number of his foremen together and said:
" I want each of you to get me a few boys, and in a few days we will have a battalion." Inside of two weeks Colonel White came to me and said: " The jig is up; we cannot raise the men."
I am not going to turn a comer; we may as well face the facts and thresh it out and know where we stand. Colonel White said: "These foiemen come to me and say the

men will not enlist; the clergy, these old country clergymen have disseminated the teachings that this is a just judgment on France for having expatriated the Church," and he could not get enough to form a corporal's guard in the whole of the Ottawa Valley. I gave Colonel White command of an English-speaking battalion. In the meantime Colonel White said: "They say that the advice of the clergy to them is to let the English-speaking people go to the front; you can go up into Ontario and get their jobs; stay at home and earn good money, and if they get killed you will retain their places."
Let me inform the right hon. leader of the Opposition that we held our counsel and worked on and on. I tried .to get his assistance not only from my hon. friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux), but from another gentleman, I forget his name.


An hon. MEMBER:: Lavergne?


Samuel Hughes: Oh, no. It was the officer who commanded the battalion afterwards, Oliver Asselin. He is now at the front doing yeoman duty. He was Bou-rassa's editorial writer, I believe. We captured him, and a magnificent little fellow he is too, and this is where our good friend (Mr. Lemieux) came in largely. He raised a battalion and is commanding it at the front to-day, or is second in command of it. At all events he is with the forces at the front doing splendid service. Yet he is the man who so strongly espoused the Nationalist cause in Quebec in 1911. However, I take no particular stock in that phase of it. The leader of the Opposition brought in the name of Lloyd George as having been pro-Boer in 1900, and today leading the British Government, We had a similar instance of that in this country where a man held the British flag in his hand at St. Eustache in 1911 and said that if he had been with the hoys in 1837 he would have shot holes through the British flag. Yet, Mr. Blondin is to-day leading a Canadian battalion at the front and doing his duty as a loyal British subject. I have every faith that if we only come out and discuss this thing on a high plane the result will be what we all desire it to be. 1 do not believe that there is one of 10,000 in Quebec who does not in his heart and conscience feel the desirability of winning this war to as great a degree as the most ultra. Orangeman.
Something has been said about Armand Lavergne. I shall not speak of Armand Lavergne at any length but I merely wish to say that he was offered a battalion if he
[Sir Sam Hughes.}
would raise one and go to the front. There was no stone left unturned in the effort, kindly, lovingly and affectionately, to prevail upon the French Canadian people to gc and fight in the great cause. As far as I am concerned and as far as the Canadian Government is concerned, I challenge any man in the Dominion of Canada to stand up and say to the contrary.
This is the second time in my presence that the leader of the Opposition has seen fit after he was corrected to say that if General LessaTd had been sent in he would have done wonders. He knows that the Prime Minister and I-and General Les-sard will not deny it-gave General Lessard every opportunity, although General Fiset and I knew that he was not the man for the job. I went farther. T did myself the honour of attending the memorial service in Notre Dame church in Montreal when Archbishop Bruchesi delivered a magnificent oration. I had the honour of meeting Archbishop Bruchesi in the vestry and he told me that he was heart and soul with the Allies in this great cause but I am not at liberty to give the reasons why he was powerless to help in the cause. What he said, however, was satisfactory to me. I got Sir William Price to go with me to *Cardinal Begin in Quebec, in his own palace, and I laid the matter before him. I wanted him to appoint chaplains in every county and we offered to put them in uniform, to give them every dignity and do everything that we could in that direction hoping that they would help us to raise men, but -for some reason the plan did not succeed. I challenge any one from the province of Quebec to show where any young men from that province worthy of a commission failed to get it. I have gone to the fathers of the splendid boys in that province and said that if they wanted their sons to get training we would give them that training. There are young gentlemen sitting in this House, on the Opposition side, who have taken part in this war and there is not a man of them who can say that justice has not been done him. It cannot be asserted that the French Canadian people have not been fairly treated. Notwithstanding all the random nonsense that has been talked about it, I maintain that every preference has -been shown towards them, that kindly treatment has been accorded them, but there is the "hidden hand " and for some unaccountable reason, unless boys -were wildly enthusiastic they did not long -materialize in the ranks. I offered to train the hon. gentleman (Mr

Boivin) 'who occupies the Chair in front of me to-night, and I offered to train other gentlemen on that side of the House if they would go out and raise hattalions. I left no stone unturned to get these splendid boys into harness. Therefore, I say that the cry of Ontario prejudice and " Orange-iste " will not do. No men ever had a fairer opportunity given them than the boys of Quebec but the "hidden hand" was behind and stopped it all.
Now, in cnoclusion, let us drop all this tittle-tattle. They have had a row in the province, of Quebec. I am not going to criticise anybody: the city police, the provincial police, the city authorities, or the Dominion authorities, tout I do say that one ounce of sense would have settled the whole thing without any trouble. I believe that if the boys had been handled in the right way there would have been no trouble whatever. It is the easiest thing in the world to handle a mo'b. The leaders of a mob are generally hot-headed, enthusiastic fellows, but if one goes the right way about it it is easy to handle them.


Mr. JOSEPH READ:: Commonsense and tolerance.


Samuel Hughes: That is right, sir; if you and I had been handling it we would have had it fixed up long ago. We had no trouble in the great camp at Valcartier, where we had 37,000 men. The boys would go to Quebec by the hundreds and they would cut the Quebec boys out of their girls, but they took it good-humouredly. They knew the fellows would not be there long and they would have their chance later on. Everything went smoothly and we watched the situation to see that everybody was treated fairly. I am satisfied that if common sense had been exercised this trouble would not have occurred. I do not look upon it as a matter of very great importance, but it is of great importance to know what the unseen power is that has1 prevented these splendid boys-and there are no finer in the world-from following the dictates of their own impulses and joining the forces. What has prevented them-?


Joseph Read: Let me tell you- bigotry.


Samuel Hughes: 
Wilfrid Laurier: Platonic sentiment it was.


Samuel Hughes: Not a bit. When
the ultramontaine wing of the Roman Church got control of the Quebec end of the Conservative party on a certain occasion, and when the Manitoba School quee-

tion came up, and certain gentlemen resigned because they were not getting all they thought they were entitled to, did I not organize thirty-five good members of Parliament and suggest to- the right hon. gentleman, who was then leader of the Opposition, that it was his opportunity to make a stand for the rights of a free people and join with us in keeping these people -where they belonged? I still have an admiration for him, tout, like myself, he i-s getting old. But not too oldi, there is vigour enough in us yet. If the right hon. gentleman, and the right hon. leader of the Government bring forward any proposal with the Object of uniting and effecting harmony between the two races* I will support them. Let us come together and fill up the ranks, that is all I aim* desirous of seeing. I do not care twopence for political preferment, tout I do want to* see the Iboys at the front strengthened, our ranks filled, the German tyrant smashed, -and human liberty triumph.


Mr. GEORGE PARENT (Quebec W.):: 
Samuel Hughes: Might I interpose? The hon. member, I presume, does not intend to be unfair to state what is not true to the House. His statements .are not borne out 'by the facts in any particular. Gol. Paquette, and other French Canadians, were given command of their battalions. It was subsequently reported that Col. Paquette was totally unfitted to command a battalion at the front, on account of his health among other reasons, and on the recommendation of French Canadian commanding officers the men were drafted and sent overseas with other battalions.


Georges Parent: There is an explanation that I am, of course, bound to accept. The hon. gentleman was once Minister of Militia, and makes a statement which I must accept but at the same time-


Samuel Hughes: Might I say further-


Georges Parent: At the same time, I may recall that the same statement, or something to the same effect, has been made by one of the present ministers of the Crown.


Samuel Hughes: May I go further? Col. Paquette was picked out by me long before the war to .act as cadet officer. I had a very high opinion of him, and I raised several lively rows because Col. Paquette was not sent to the front. I made inquiries, and found, when I demanded explanations, that Col. Paquette was not fitted, physically and otherwise, to be sent to the front. I will not go into details. That was the report of the French Canadian officers. *Col. Paquette was a great personal friend of my own, and I was very anxious to see him go-


Georges Parent: There * are other cases, Mr. Speaker. There were offers made also, we are told, by Col. Geliy of Levis, to fake his own battalion, and such offers have not been accepted by the Government.


Samuel Hughes: I never heard of him, that must be after my time.


Georges Parent: I might also mention Col. Rioux, of Sherbrooke.


Samuel Hughes: He was given every chance.


Georges Parent: These things are well known in the province of Quebec. The people know that the services of these men were offered to the Crown, and that these people wanted not 'to get the chance for the sake of showing off their medals across the seas, but with the purpose of going to fight. And we are fold that over and over again al'l their offers were turned down by the Government.


Samuel Hughes: May I correct my hon. friend about Col. Rioux, another great personal friend of my own. He was given every opportunity, and a number of his men, some forty or fifty, perhaps more,

joined the first contingent. I gave him every opportunity to raise a battalion later on. I forget the details. Gen. Fiset will know' them.


Georges Parent: The hon. gentleman has spoken. I pass that officer. I will take the case of one to whom he paid a few compliments a moment ago, Major Asselin. Major Asselin got away through what circumstances and by what efforts? It was only through the press of the country, and through articles that he wrote and wrote over again in newspapers of Montreal, that he was able to go across. What did they do with him? Did they send him at once to England or France to fight? No, Sir, that very man who had offered his services in such a gallant way, was sent to Bermuda, and when he was in Bermuda with his French Canadian compatriots, there again he appealed to the Minister of Militia imploring to be sent across, but it took months and months before his voice could be heard.


Samuel Hughes: Again let me correct my hon. friend. Col. Asselin and his battalion went to Bermuda of their own choice. A deputation of hds^officers came from Montreal and asked that they be rushed off to Bermuda to get themselves ,in shape rather than stay in Montreal. They wanted to get to Bermuda where they would be free from hidden influences and otherwise, and to oblige them, and at their own request, they were sent to Bermuda.


Georges Parent: 
Mr. H. A. MACKIE (Edmonton):: Tihe
question before the House this evening is the justification or non-justification of the riots in Quebec, and after having listened to a number of speeches I say the defence which has been put up on behalf of the rioters is to me the evidence of their condemnation, unless you take into account the ideal which governs the province of Quebec. To say that a man named Desjardins, or a man called Petit Blanc were scoundrels, or to say that the people of Quebec were sensitive when the law is enforced, is merely to say that the temper and disposition o.f the people is receptive to rioting, unless indeed you take into account tihe ideal which governs that province. Every nation is governed by an ideal, and national character is expressed by what is called patriotism, which is nothing more nor less than a passion, or an emotion, which is in the heaxt of every man. The emotion and the passion in the heart of every individual in the province of Quebec, collectively speaking, is that of a colony participating in the benefits of British connection, without doing anything towards the defence of the Empire, and, if need be, the independence of Canada in the end. That is the ideal which has been, spread in the province of Quebec of recent years by certain leaders. The .people are not .apt to 'be in a receptive mood for patriotic effort in that province, and that accounts for the rioting which took place recently. I am in sympathy with- the French Can-

adian people as a people, but their leaders are not entitled to much sympathy from me. I differ in toto from the views of the leaders of the people of Quebec, but the people themselves I do not blame, because they are governed by an emotion or a passion falsely impressed on them. I will prove my case out of the mouth of the leader of the Opposition, and others who 'have spoken this afternoon. There is no question that both political parties, prior to the last Federal election, expressed the opinion that there was a duty on Canadians to participate in this war. Sir, a duty is engendered from a principle, which, like eternal truth, never changes, and, therefore, duty cannot change or deviate any more than can the principle itself. If it was a duty before the war, then, unless circumstances changed, it was a duty at the beginning of the war for Canada to serve the Empire. But the circumstances had not changed, or, if they did, they changed in the respect that our duty became the more imperative. Sir, to show that a nation acts by emotion and passion, and that a nation is a collective body, with neither judgment nor intellectuality, but that absorption into the collective whole is made by emotion, I have only to recite you a few instances that took place at the beginning of the war. When war was declared men were staggered at the enormity of the impending disaster, and those who came from the old land and had relatives there were the first to think of enlisting and going to the succour of those they had left behind. There was passion and emotion in the hearts of those individuals. Them, shortly after that, you had the reports which came from time to time from the front of Senlis, of Dinant, of the outrage at Scarborough, of the execution of Edith Cavell, of the crucifixion of Canadian soldiers', of poisoning wells, and many other atrocities perpetuated by the Hun. Then Canadians flocked to the recruiting offices and enlisted. Some from the province of Quebec were moved in the same way, because it was the emotion within them that inspired them and not their individual judgment. That was the system of voluntary recruiting, not that there was an exercise of judgment, but because the passion within each impelled him to resent the atrocity that was perpetuated against Canada and the Empire.
But the time came, when that passion and emotion virtually died out. I cannot give you the reasons why, but I may hazard a guess at a few of them, and perhaps it was through the fact that we learned a very short time after the declaration of war that
27t
the British navy was impregnable, and that we were secure behind it, and it was also perhaps due to the fact that we had repeated reports of the atrocities of the Hun, served to us every morning and two or three times a day as a menu and we became callous by the repetition of atrocities which created the passion and emotion in the heart of every individual in Canada. Gradually we passed from the voluntary system into another system. I say if it was a duty at first to fight, it is still a duty to-day, and I will refer now to the statement which has been made in this House to-day that the farmer is just as much a soldier as the man who fights in the trenches. I say, yes he is, and he is required. But the war is a sacrifice of blood and not the service of digging spuds, and I will say, Sir, that when war is declared you are called upon, not only to produce food, but also to give the best of the blood of your country in defense of the principles for which you fight. If it were right to fight in the beginning it is right to fight now, and if the voluntary system has failed, then I say to you there are only two ways in which you may fight in this war, as to this, and I defy contradiction from any man in the House. Either you fight voluntarily or you fight by the interpositon of military organization. I agree with the leader of the Opposition that is is not democratic to impose military organization, but it is necessary, as the only alternative of continuing the fight, I say. it follows that, if a military organization is necessary to continue this fight, every democratic principle in government must be suspended if it stands in the way of success. Each man's life belongs to the State and each man must take his place in the organic whole.


Joseph Read: Is that not democratic?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Do not interrupt.


Henry Arthur Mackie: I court interruptions.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If hon. gentlemen wish to interrupt, they must rise in their places.


Joseph Read: May I ask a question?


Henry Arthur Mackie: Yes.


Joseph Read: Is that doctrine not democratic?	[DOT]


Henry Arthur Mackie: That democracy which we had before the war, that democracy we had during the voluntary system, we would

have right now, if you people of the other provinces had done your duty as well as the people of the province of Alberta. But Sir, I say that the only alternative-


Joseph Read: May I ask a question?


Henry Arthur Mackie: Yes.


Joseph Read: The hon. gentleman dodges the question I ask him. Is the principle of universal compulsory military service not a democratic principle?


Henry Arthur Mackie: It cannot be a democratic principle, and, Mr. Speaker, because the moment that you impose a military organization upon a country, you must necessarily do away with democratic principles. Every man is ordered to take his place in the defence of his country and there is no alternative for him.


Joseph Read: That is democracy.


Henry Arthur Mackie: Well, you can have it
your own way; I say it is not. If the hon. member will repair to my room.some time to-morrow or on Monday, I will give him a number of volumes on the subject and he *can study it for himself. When a country is at war there is only one object in view and that is victory. Citizens whose individuality is so strong that they will not submit themselves to restraint must either be compelled to accept that restraint or they should lose their citizenship. If the German people have to give up their individuality for the sake of the collective whole, then their opponents must necessarily do the same or else go down to defeat.
(Mr. JOSEPH READ: Sure; that is democracy.


Henry Arthur Mackie: Well, Mr. (Speaker, Shakespeare asks: What's in a name? My hon. friend is entitled to all the distinctions in names that he likes. When the right hon. the leader of the Opposition, in 1899, for instance, spoke on this question of war, he enunciated those great principles which ought to have 'been enunciated in this war. Other gentlemen have read his speeches; so have I. II have had the greatest possible admiration for the right hon. gentleman and I have still to-day except for the fact that in 1917 he miscalculated results. But when he said: Let the people rule he understood the philsophy of crowds, he knew perfectly well that he did not mean to say-what was printed in these pamphlets. He knew that people are moved en masse by ambition and passion and it was an election 
appeal that he was making to them for the purpose of returning him to power. I do not believe that the right hon. gentleman has changed the views which he enunciated in 1877, when he spoke on Liberalism in the province of Quebec; or in 1899, or in 1910 when he spoke at the Monument Nationale, Montreal, on the question of Imperialism, or'in 1914 when he spoke in this House, in Toronto and elsewhere; or in 1916 when he again spoke in this House. Understanding the philosophy of nations, and the growth of emotion and passion, he threw those principles over in 1917 for the purpose of being returned to power. But he had forgotten that there are other men to-day who are taking a leading part in the province of Quebec, and taking over the fight for the achievement of another ideal than that he himself had set. He forgot also that these men have a greater grip on that province than he himself has today, and that they are being influenced by different ideals; and those who say that they will not stand for conscription are really standing for independence. I put this question to those men: To what nationality do you belong; to what nationality do you want to belong? They cannot split their nationality. A man is a British subject in Canada or he stands for independence or annexation. If the battle goes badly, as it might perhaps, the only alternative would be annexation; and the men who say in this House to-day, or at any time, that the system of voluntary recruiting was the only system, and that there was no other alternative, must necessarily draw the deduction from that position, that they stood and stand for the independence of 'Canada. Because if you are a British subject, you have a British nationality to protect and as the right hon. leader of the Opposition said: " In the matter of the South African war, and when he was attacked here in this House by men who have been attacking him recently, and within the last few years, because they desire to suppress him and to take his position. Sometime the best method of defence one will have is to attack." And that is the case. If in 1899, it was justifiable to speak that way, why do we not find the right hon. leader of the Opposition going through the province of Quebec at the present time and telling the people that the ideal which is governing them is not the ideal which should govern them, and that the best way to protect the Dominion of Canada to-day is not to wait until our shores are invaded, the best way to defend ourselves at the present time is to attack?

There is no question but that Germany's aim in conducting this war is world conquest, and anybody who tries to deny that has not followed the papers. But, Sir, I am getting away from my subject, which is the ideal of the province of Quebec. I want the right hon. leader of the Opposition to go through the province of Quebec and to read to the people statements that he made in 1899 at the time of the South African war. I will not take up the time of the House in doing so, but will just quote a few lines here and here. Let me quote the following utterance of his:
It is inspiring to reflect that the cause for which you men of Canada are going to fight is the cause of justice, the cause of humanity, of civil rights and religious liberty.
What are we fighting for to-day? Again the right hon. gentleman said:
Should any one of you unfortunately lose life or limb your country will feel that you have fully discharged the duty under which you place her this day by this sacrifice to Canada's glory, the glory of the empire, and, above all, to the cause of justice, humanity and liberty.
I thought those were beautiful sentiments, but to-day the expression is, "Let the people rule, and down with conscription." The right hon. gentleman is a man who understood the philosophy of nations. He played a political trick, which now he must repent. But he did not mean it. To show you that the right hon. gentleman did understand the philosophy of nations, let me read the language which he used in a speech at Quebec in 1899, when he said:
I told you a moment ago that I would not swim with the current, I would endeavor to guide the current, and on that occasion I tried to do so. But a moment came in this question when President Kruger sent his insolent ultimatum, and there was a wave of indignation passing over all the British Empire, and I said there is no longer any hesitation, we must act, and we did act on October 14th.
He recognized that Canada in 1899 was moved by passion and emotion, just as it was in this present war. But there were some in Quebec who took exception to the policy determined on at that time. The province of Quebec manifested its ideal on that occasion just as it has done in the present war. And then the right hon. gentleman, speaking in Chicago, said:
Can we not hope that if ever the banners of England and the banners of the United States are again to meet on the battlefield, they shall meet entwined together in the defence of some holy cause, in defence of holy justice, for the defence of the oppressed, for the enfranchisement of the down-trodden, and for the advancement of liberty, progress-
These were the sentiments that he then expressed, and he went on and said:
Shall the sacrifice !be all on the one side and none on the other?
These were beautiful expressions, but they are not being used to-day. The right hon. gentleman's famous speech on Liberalism, delivered at Quebec, I have read a dozen times. I have not yet learnt it by heart, but I am going to before the session is over. He was telling the French people about the liberties they were enjoying under the British flag, and for the purpose of expressing the idea better than he thought he could himself, he quoted Tennyson:
It is the land that Freedom till,
That sober-suited Freedom chose,
The land where, girt with friends or foes,
A man may speak the thing he will;
A land of settled government,
A land of just and old renown,
Where Freedom slowly broadens down, From precedent to precedent;
Where faction seldom gathers head,
But >by degrees to fullness wrought,
The strength of some diffusive thought Hath time and space to work and spread.
This is really the country that we are asked to defend to-day, the country that the leader of the Opposition was telling his people was the land of liberty and freedom. Now, if the mass of the people of Quebec are wrong, it is due purely and simply to another ideal which has developed in the Dominion of Canada, because a national ideal may he divided. A nation need not be unanimous in its ideal. A nation, an empire, or a race is just like a group of individuals; you may have a sub-group. To-day if the labour group of the Dominion of Canada were unanimous in their ideals and agreed together they would become a menace to the nation itself, and there would necessarily be a clash. There is a sub-group in the Canadian nation to-day. That sub-group is the province of Quebec, which is governed by an ideal, an ideal which has spread from the leaders to the masses, whose thought has been trained in one particular direction, although the leader of the Opposition had taught them a better lesson from his entry into politics up to quite recently. But there are those who have followed him, or are going to follow him, who have 'been educating the province of Quebec in another way. There are leaders in that province who cannot sit in Parliament, and never will sit here, and they are the men who are particularly obnoxious to the rest of Canada.
In conclusion, those who state that the Government has furnished material whereby riots can be created in the province of Que-

bee are arguing against themselves, 'because it has reference to a nation with a temper and a disposition to be excited by the least possible thing. In war there is no choice, there is no individual liberty and freedom, and every man should take his place. One of the hon. members who spoke in this debate referred to two young men who were taken off the train at North Bay. I was on the same train and was accosted myself. Fortunately, I had a pass, which I showed to the Government officers, but even if I had no papers I could not be mistaken for a man of twenty-five years of age by any means. This illustrates that in war time men must be subjected to annoyance, and if they do not expect annoyance then they are not properly disposed towards war. I extend any sympathies to the mass of people in the province of Quebec,, because it is not generally understood that these people are not acting from individual judgment or desire but from emotion and a passion which has been instilled into them by their leaders, leaders who differ with us in principle and are responsible for creating the riots which have taken place in that province recently.


Charles Gavan Power: Mr. Speaker, in the course of this evening's debate the ex-Mimister of Militia and Defence referred to hon. gentlemen on this side of the House on whom he had conferred certain favours', and, in wishing to prove his case, he said that he had always been in favour of the people of the province of Quebec. I think the ex-minister wished to refer to my humble self, and I think it is only fair to explain to the House' the nature of the benefactions he has referred to. At the time that the hon. gentleman discovered me, I held the soft and somewhat lucrative', if not honorable, position of batman to a colonel on the staff, and from that he transferred me to be scout officer on the . firing line, and then had me shot. Mr. Speaker, I think that the then (Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Sam Hughes) was probably carrying out, in my case, what he has been endeavouring to carry out ever since he began his public life, that is to get rid of the people in the province of Quebec as fast as be can, and to diminish the population of that province. '


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh.


Charles Gavan Power: Young as I am in years and in parliamentary experience, I cannot but feel that no condemnation is too strong and no censure too severe for those who, whilst the bodies of the unfortunate victims
[Mr. Mackie.l
of the late riots are still unburied, have endeavoured to revive the questions which disturbed the electorate at the last election. And, Mr. Speaker, I would remind hon. gentlemen opposite that in their indignation at the outbreak of a few irresponsibles, they must not forget that at this very moment, this very evening probably, from
25.000	to 50,000 Quebeckers are fighting, bleeding and dying on the plains of Picardy and the, hills of Flanders.


Mr. BEST:: Oh.


Charles Gavan Power: I did not quite catch the remark of the hon. gentleman, but if he has anything to say I will take my seat.


John Best: There is not half that number of French Canadians fighting at the front.


Charles Gavan Power: Mr. Speaker, I was speaking of people from the province of Quebec.
*Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


Charles Gavan Power: I said that there were from
25.000	to 50,000 Quebeckers now fighting in France. I am sure that there are at least five or six battalions-and I know that the Minister of Militia will bear me out in this -and perhaps seven battalions, excluding the Forestry, Railway Construction, Medical units, and the reserve battalions in England. Surely some hon. gentlemen opposite have forgotten to read their newspapers, or have forgotten that not long ago they read in the English papers of the deeds of the 22nd Battalion which stormed the Sugar Refinery and won the streets of Couroellete. Surely they have heard of what our men accomplished at Vimy. Surely they will remember the account cabled a few days ago by Phillip Gibbs of the work of a machine gun unit from Quebec, which for ten days helped to stay the advance of the victorious Hun. Some of their remarks make me think of something which happened in France during the disastrous days of June, 1916, when, unfortunately for the Canadian corps, a certain portion of it lost some lines of trenches, and was ordered to retake them. The attack was made, and the troops had to advance across 600 to 800 yards of open ground in broad daylight. A charge was made, and some 580 men were lost inside of an hour, and I do not know how many officers. Shortly afterwards, a British staff officer-staff officers do not as a rule visit the front line, came along and, after congratulating the colonel on the discipline and bravery of his men, said: "I wish particularly to make a remark about

the company on the left; the company on the left behaved themselves under fire like the very best of the regular troops." The colonel answered: "Those are the French Canadians." Very much surprised, the staff officer said: "The next man who says a word about the French Canadians, I would like to break his block off." That is the translation in the vernacular of what he said. In saying that, I have no warlike intentions towards hon. gentlemen opposite, because of reasons not unconnected with the war I am unable to indulge in fisticuffs. I only wish that English staff officer had been here to listen to the speech on the national ideals of the French Canadians delivered by the hon. gentleman from Edmonton (Mr. Mackie), wtho has just spoken.
As member for one of the constituencies Of the city of Quebec, I intend to do something which, perhaps, has not been done to the extent it might have been during the course of this debate, that is to talk about the Quebec riots. I represent a constituency somewhat mixed both ias to race and as to the various classes which are contained therein. Something more than three-fifths are French Canadians and the remaining two-fifths are Irish and English Canadians. It is about equally divided between the professional and clerical classes and the labouring classes. Some disorders did occur in my constituency, but they were not brought about by any of my constituents. Unfortunately, the constituency contained the offices of two newspapers, L'Evenemen't and the Chronicle, which had aroused the ire of a certain portion of the population, and they were made victims of the attack. However, on Thursday, 28th March, a certain young man named Mer-cier, of whom you have all heard, was asked for his papers by one Evanturel or one Belanger, it matters not which, and on not being able to produce them, he offered to telephone for them or send for them to his home. A man named Moisan offered to go for them.
This offer was refused; the young man was taken to the police station, -and afterwards released when his papers were produced. In the meantime the crowd got unruly; -certain passages occurred between the crowd and the policemen, lit has mot been brought out in the debate that the man Belanger, whose pedigree yon have heard, having safely escaped from the police station, returned because he had seen one of his old pals in- the crowd who had said something to- him. He came back and s-poke to hi-s pal -about it, and that really started
the whole fight. 'The vtfhole thing would have been over with a few broken heads -rows such as that have occurred in other places. There weTe riots in Val-cartier camp when some of the soldiers thought that -the persons who sold tobacco and -cigarettes to them were charging too ' much for the g-oods. I remember in the early days of the war that some of the soldiers tore down two or three of the stalls where cigarettes were sold, and there were a few broken- heads. There have been riots, I understand, even in -Camp Borden -tl do -no-t know why. I remember -that there was -a riot in Folkestone, England- perhaps some hon. gentlemen opposite were in Folkestone at that time-when some of the -Canadian troops were displeased with the manner in which they had been treated by the British redcaps, the military police. A riot of considerable proportions occurred, and when the firemen came to turn on the hose they were served in- the same way as it w-as attempted to s-erve the firemen in Quebec

the hose was cut, and they had to turn out British troops who were garrisoned in Folkestone to put down the riot. Nobody, however, thought of -proclaiming martial law for the soldiers. If soldiers will get out of hand-anybody who has eeived as -a soldier know-s what discipline, particularly in the 'Canadian forces, m-eans-if soldiers will get out of hand, I say, how much more must we expect the ordinary every-day mob to get out of hand.
On the evening of Thursday, or the -following evening, the people were saying -to each other -throughout the to-wn that they were going to the auditorium. On arriving there they did nothing for about twenty-five of thirty minutes. Some songs were sung and a few pieces of snow -thrown, but no one was harmed. Finally, the crowd broke in. In order to reach that part of the auditorium building in which the registrar's office is situated one has to climb very narrow stairs, which can scarcely be mounted by two persons abreast. There were, I understand, in the district of Quell p.m. Ibec-I have an answer on the subject to -a -question which I put to. the Minister of Militia last week- some forty or forty-two Dominion detectives. Surely these detectives, on a stairway where not two men could climb abreast, if they were worth their salt; if -they were worth anything to the Government which hired them and paid them to annoy the people of Quebec, should have defended the auditorium building and not have had to rely on the military power. However, the burning occurred, and on the following evening a

kind of attack, or, rather, a sing-song, occurred at the drill hall in Quebec. Two or three hundred young men came up from St. Roch's to the drill hall and there were met by the troops. I do not think it has been brought out so far in the reports of hon. gentlemen opposite that the Riot Act was read on this occasion. I happened to be present, and I heard it read by the troops. The crowd then were caused to disperse very easily, and little of any account was done. Early in the evening, before the Riot Act had been read, snow was thrown-and in that connection I wish to congratulate the troops for their forbearance in not acting any worse than they did.
Next day, Sunday, March 31, the troops were ordered to empty the stores in St. Roch's, lower town. While they were thus employed at the store of Herman Young and Company a certain amount of snow was thrown at them and there the first shot of what we might consider the riot part of the occurrences was fired. Though it has not yet been brought out 'by hon. gentlemen opposite, this first shot was fired by the troops, and three innocent citizens who were something like a quarter of a mile away, were wounded.
Sir ROBERT BORDEN; Of course, the hon. gentleman realizes that that is not General Lessard's account.


Charles Gavan Power: I am quite aware that
that is not General Lessard's account; General Lessard was not in town at the time. For the information of my right hon. friend, 1 may tell him that about six o'clock on Sunday I was entering the Garrison Club when I saw a party of sold'crs coming up the street under command of Captain Dunn. I said: "What is the trouble?"-for everything seemed to be quiet at that time. He did not say very much; but he ordered his men along and they went up Citadel hill. Then Colonel Beaubien came along and saidj " Did you have any trouble, Dunn?" "Yes, sir." "Any shots fired?" "Yes, sir; our men fired two or three shots; don't know if anybody was hurt." That is the source of my information. Whether this was reported by the military men to the Government, I know not, but I happened to be there by accident and this is what was said. However, I think that even then the situation might have been satisfactory. On Sunday night the rioters, that is to say, the young men who had taken part in these disgraceful scenes-L cannot but condemn them and will condemn them as long as I can-these young men were about satiated; they had seen that force was to be used;

they had seen fixed bayonets and realized that the militia were determined to put down all riots and rebellion with a strong hand. Things, therefore, were becoming quiet.


Mr. MORPHY:: Who were these young
men, and where did they live? Were they from St. Roch's?


Charles Gavan Power: I am not from St. Roch's; I have not very much acquaintance with the people there. Moreover, I have been away for the past three years and do not know many of the younger generation.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Tell him why
you were away from Quebec.


Charles Gavan Power: As I was about to say, on Sunday night the rioting was about over. The rioters were to a certain extent cowed by the display of arms. At that period the Government officials in Quebec-that is to say the then public representative, Mr. Taschereau, who is now registrar, accompanied by one Colonel Machin, who, I understand, went to Quebec as the representative of the Militia Council, spoke to Arm-and Lavergne. I wish to state here positively that Armand Lavergne has never been, is not, and possibly never will be a political friend of mine. I have nothing to do with taking up his defence; I am only stating the facts of the case from my own personal knowledge and from the information which I have been able to secure. Armand Lavergne was summoned to the Chateau Fron-tenac by telephone, and there was asked if there was anything that he could suggest with a view to putting down the riots. Armand suggested that he speak to the rioters, so I understand-and I think we are in a position to prove from Armand's own words -that he was asked by Colonel Machin and Captain Carruthers (whose position I do not know) if he would attempt to appease the crowd. Armand told them he would, and left the Chateau Frontenac after they had wished him Godspeed, and told him that anything he said would be accepted.


Robert Laird Borden: That was a
pretty large order.


Charles Gavan Power: It was; it is the largeness of the order that surprises me, particularly when given to Armand Lavergne, who is supposed to be the arch-rebel of Quebec, as he states himself. However, Armand met the rioters and told them he had been instructed by his friends in the Government to allay the troubles, and asked them to go quietly to their homes, saying that if they did the Government would see to it that

the troops would no longer patrol the streets, and if possible the obnoxious detectives would be withdrawn. Now, I see by the newspapers that the Government have to that extent carried out Annand's promises on their behalf, for they have withdrawn the detectives in the last few days. Armand made those promises, and the crowd went home. On the same evening Armand returned to the Chateau Fron-tenac and was congratulated on his work by the public representative in Quebec and by Colonel Machin, a member of the Militia Council, and the representative of the Minister of Militia.
Major-General MEWBURN:	He has
nothing whatever to do with the Militia Department.


Charles Gavan Power: I accept the minister's
statement. I should have said the representative of the Minister of Justice.


Mr. DOHERTY:: He is certainly not my representative.


Samuel Hughes: I sincerely hope
the Government will not go back on Machin.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I understood the hon. gentleman to say that Armand Lavergne was my representative.
Major-General MEWBURN:	The hon.
gentleman said that Colonel Machin was the representative of the Militia Council, and I said no, he was not.


Charles Gavan Power: After all these denials by
the Government, I do not know exactly who Colonel Machin is, tout he appeared to have some official position.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not want any misunderstanding. Colonel Machin was the representative of the Military Service Council, and we have no apologies to make for him.
Mr.. POWER:. The Minister of Militia and the Minister of Justice may have a fight on this matter, but I am neutral. At all events, Colonel Machin represented' somebody, because the Prime Minister read a report from him. Whoever he was, he congratulated Armand Lavergne on his work on the evening of Sunday, March 31.


Mr. DAVIDSON:: How does the hon. gentleman know this?


Charles Gavan Power: thirty or forty thousand, but appeals on the part of individuals were very few. These appeals began to be heard some time in January. The judges heard witnesses, allowed the conscript to state his case, and to be represented by counsel, and the case was heard like an ordinary civil case. Everything went welh Later on, the Government or the Minister of Justice, or someone else in authority-because after my experience with Colonel Machin I do not know just where to place the responsibility -decided that perhaps the law was being too well observed in Quebec, that they reported well, and that their exemptions were being pleaded well. But the rumbling of the storm which broke out this evening, was being heard in the other provinces, and it was suddenly decided to clean up in six weeks the cases which in the ordinary course of events would have taken six months to decide. Hundreds of people were summoned to the courts; relatives and children came to hear these exemption cases. There is nothing discussed except exemption and exemption and exemption. So long as the cases were carefully listened to, nothing was done; but from the moment that a judge was brought from Three Rivers, conditions changed. As a member of the Bar, I have the utmost respect for the Bench, but a certain judge was brought from Three Rivers, and with all the brutality which characterized Judge Jeffries in the worst time of English history, he refused to listen to draftees, treating them rudely, would not allow attorneys to'state their clients' cases, insulted any one who appeared in court


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order; the hon. gentleman is not in order in making such a statement with respect to a member of the Bench.


Charles Gavan Power: I withdraw my statements with regard to the judge. However, there was a feeling in Quebec that certain members of the Bench were more or less inclined to be adverse to the draftees. Even that did not affect things very much until the Government adopted the system of Government by Order in Council. First, an Order in Council was passed to the effect that the family physician was no longer to be considered as an expert in the case, that his finding was to be submitted to the Board of Medical Review, and the decision of the Board of Medical Review was to be final. In one case a family physician produced a sworn certificate before the judge to the effect that Mr. So-and-So was an epileptic and had suffered from epileptic fits all his life. That man went before the Board of

Medical Review and he was classed A-l because he could not have an epileptic fit at the proper time to convince the Board of Medical Review. These cases were well known. Everybody in Quebec talked about them.
Then, we had another Order in Council to the effect that the delays foreseen by the law-that is three days and, in some cases, twenty days, to allow for appeal from the decision of the first tribunal-would no lpnger count. Apparently, from the interpretation which we have had of this Order in Council, these delays were only to count in favour of the Government. A poor devil who wished to apply for his exemption, and who had been in the bush somewhere, or in the back blocks, had not a chance within the twenty days and was conscripted; whereas, if through lack of diligence on the part of the officers of the Government, the public representatives, and others, thfey had forgotten to apply for the review of a certain man's exemption, the Government representatives were perfectly at liberty to take the law into their own hands and see that the appeal was carried on. There was a further Order in Council prohibiting rehearing, but with that I am not familiar.
However, these are only some of the causes. The question of the men who were placed in charge of the enforcement of the Military Service Act has already been very fully dealt with by my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, but there were other things which were said, and I think with some show of justice, because arrests took place in Montreal and it was stated that certain Dominion detectives held up people on the streets, and, if their papers were not exactly right, these Dominion detectives asked them to give them $2, or $5, or $1.0, and they would let them go free. I understand that certain people were arrested in Montreal under those circumstances. There was another rumour. This is for the information of my hon. friend who asked :me a question some time ago. I hope to be able to substantiate it at some other time, because I cannot substantiate it to-night. But it is a rumour and I am giving the causes of the riot. It was rumoured among the people that the Dominion detectives were in the habit of tearing up the exemption papers.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Were these the papers of persons who were strangers to the city of Quebec?


Charles Gavan Power: The rumour was that certain of these detectives had torn up papers belonging to exempted men.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Of the city of Quebec?


Charles Gavan Power: Of the city of Quebec and the province of Quebec, presumably. I understood from the Prime Minister that such disgraceful occurrences took place all over Canada.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not say occurrences, such as the tearing up of papers, had taken place anywhere in 'Canada. I did not allude to the subject at all. I never heard of it.


Charles Gavan Power: I beg the right hon. gentleman's pardon. I was speaking in the more general sense. The Tight hon. gentleman had said that such abuses as had taken place in the enforcement of the Military Service Act -and I presume that would cover the case that I have mentioned-had taken place in other portions of Canada.


Robert Laird Borden: I said that in other portions of Canada men had been asked for their exemption papers and if their exemption papers were not produced they were taken into custody until they were produced.


Charles Gavan Power: I understood the right hon. gentleman to say that the abuses by Dominion detectives had taken place in other parts of Canada. However, these were the causes of the riot. I do not intend to go into any further discussion as to the more remote causes of the feeling in Quebec, but I do say that the fact that the Government, in its enforcement of the Military Service Act, changed the law and employed these detectives in the way which I have indicated contributed to the causes which were responsible for the outbreak in Quebec.
Instead of asking the House to moderate its views on this subject, instead of asking the country to be patient with Quebec, instead, after having studied the question, of saying: This was an outbreak which might have been avoided had we been more careful in our exercise of power, the Government have come before this House and said: We will see to it that coercion is used in the province of Quebec. They have deposited on the table of this House an Order in Council such as I do not think ever was passed in any other British country in the world. Extraordinary power has been placed in the hands of military officers. I respect the uniform of His Majesty and every one who wears it but we have put it in the power of the military officer to arrest on sight any man whom he thinks is committing a breach of the peace. This poor individual is to be tried by court martial. The
civil law of the Dominion, and of the province of Quebec, is laid on one side in order that the military authorities may have full sway. I appeal to my hon. friend the Minister of Justice, who should know the history of his motherland; he ought to be able to tell us whether, from his reading of history, the 700 years of coercion in Ireland has effected anything to bring Ireland more into line to 'help Great Britain and the Allies in the present war. I appeal to the verdict of history. We have seen Poland persecuted, its nationality lost, its religion taken away, but Poland after 200 years is still Poland and the people still long to breathe the breath of Polish freedom. We have also seen Alsace-Lorraine torn away from Mother France, and still, forty-four years afterwards, Alsace-Lorraine is one of the reasons which brought about tbe bloody conflict in Europe to-day. Should, Mr. Speaker, coercion be applied, as it is evident that the hon. gentlemen opposite wish to apply it, should our laws be set aside, should tbe civil laws of the province be set aside-laws guaranteed by treaty and sanctified by tradition-and everything that we consider just, fair, and honourable in the province of Quebec, be set aside,
I aim sorry to say that I do not expect it will profit hon. gentlemen opposite in any degree. As one who is for the fullest participation in this war T am sorry to say, considering those whose spirit has been outraged and whose better feelings have all been disgusted by the treatment of tbe Government, that it will be impossible for us, if we have to use two men for every man we get, it will be impossible for ug to put tbe same force on the battlefields of Europe that I think we should place there. For as long as the feeling of hon. gentlemen opposite is as it is, you will have to maintain a garrison in the city of Quebec, and the effort of taking the men you need will be difficult beyond measure.
(Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


An hon. MEMBER:: 
Charles Gavan Power: 1 am, as I have already said, for the fullest participation in the war. Too many of my dearest, truest and best comrades, the truest and best comrades that a man could have, now lie buried in the ground trodden by tbe sacreligious foot of the Hun, and I am sure they never will rest until Canada puts forth its best efforts to wrest from the Hun the land in which they now lie.


Mr. J. W. EDWABDS (Frontenac):: It is not my intention to occupy very many minutes of the time of the House at this late hour. I wish, however, to say a word or two on this subject which I consider is of very great importance, not only to the Canada of the present day, but the Canada of the future. We owe a duty to our Canadian boys who have already gone overseas, as well as to those who have enlisted and have yet to go. We also owe a duty to the generations yet to come in this country, and it is our place, as public men occupying a responsible position, to do what we can to relieve isuch situations, and prevent the occurrences of such acts as have taken place recently in the city of Quebec. I am in entire accord with the leader of the Opposition when he says that the law must be obeyed in this country, that property must be respected and peace preserved. I am .also in entire accord with the expressions of certain gentlemen who have preceded me on this .side of the House, who have uttered the desire-an earnest desire, if I may judge from their words-that we may ultimately get peace and concord, and unity, in t'he Dominion of Canada. I do not think, however, that the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Lapointe) was very happy in his speech if he desired to bring about peace and concord in Canada. True, the hon. gentleman was reading from a manuscript which he had doubtless prepared some time ago, no doubt thinking that some mud would be slung from this side of the House, or some insults indulged in, but notwithstanding the fact that there was nothing of the kind, he had, of course, to follow his manuscript and got it off his chest, and I presume he is quite happy now. The hon. gentleman from Kaimouraska (Mr. Lapointe) paid his respects to certain of the press of Ontario, and particularly did he pay his respects to a certain newspaper called the Orange Sentinel, remarking that he would venture to read that paper if he were provided with a gag mask. It does seem to me, having witnessed the efforts of the hon. member in this House on a great many different occasions1, that that hon. gentleman should he immune from gas of any hind. I was under the impression that he was1 not. susceptible to gas attacks, inasmuch as he has manufactured so much gas himself that I am sure he would long ago have been asphyxiated if gas would do the job.
The hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Parent), in speaking on this motion, said that the French Canadian had a good deal

of imagination, and he proceeded to convince us of that fact !by giving us a demonstration of French Canadian imagination. In the course 'of his remarks., on several occasions, he had to be corrected and. facts substituted in place of imagination by the hon. member from Victoria (Sir Saim Hughes). But the efforts of the horn, member for Quebec West along imaginative lines are nothing as compared with those of the hon. gentleman from Quebec South (Mr. Power). I venture to siay that, if the French Canadian, is possessed, of a vivid imagination, the hon. member for Quebec South deserves to take rank as the leader and chief of all the imaginative people of the province from which he comes. He drew on his imagination very largely, starting out with a statement which I do not think he should havie made-which I know h& should not have made, and which he had no warrant for making-charging the Minister of Militia with a desire to get rid .of the people of Quebec as fast as possible by sending them to the war. Never in this House has a more unworthy sentiment fallen from the lips of any member of this assembly. According to the rules of the House I cannot use words which would express imy feelings with regard to that statement as I think they should 'be expressed. But that is the sort of thing which, to my mind, indicates the real kernel of the trouble-which occurred in. the city of Quebec. If a portion of that city will send as its representative to this House a gentleman who will go so far .as to make a statement such as the hon. member for Quebec South has made, I think I can find in that some ground for tlhe cause of the trouble in the city of Quebec. I could not help but ask myself, when he made that and several other statements of a very extravagant character, how much did this hon. gentleman do to prevent these riots in tlhe city of Quebec. It is quite evident from his own remarks that he was on the scene a good part of the time. He has described to us the course -of events from hour to hour; he has told us that he w.as right there looking on when the Biot Act was read, and -he saw many of the acts which were committed. What did the hon. gentleman do to try to calm the people, and to get them, some his own constituents, to go home and .behave themselves .as tihey should? I wonder what the hon. member has ever done to teach the people of his part of the country what their duties and responsibilities were with respect to this war?


An hon. MEMBER:: He went to the
front.


William Cameron Edwards: That is all very well, and that makes it all the more strange to me why an hon. gentleman who has been over to the front, and who knows the needs of our men, should assume the attitude which he ihas in this House to-night, when he made the charge which he has made against the Minister of Militia. 1 think that is exceedingly strange coming from a gentleman who has ihad on the King's uniform.
The right hon. leader of the Opposition, in the course of his remarks, stated that a more peaceable and law abiding community could not be found in the Dominion of Canada than that of the city of Quebec. Tibat may be so. The hon. leader of the Opposition has represented that constituency for, a great many years, and he ought to know it intimately. It occurs to me that they chose a rather peculiar way of showing their peaceable intentions. I am also struck with this fact: The leader of tlhe Opposition has told us that it was not the people from the city of Quebec who were the ringleaders in the riot; no, they came from the city of Montreal. He is unloading his sinners off onto another constituency in the province of Quebec. And who are they? Ex-convicts, thugs, scoundrels of the worst type. And these strangers came to the city of Quebec, which has been represented for some forty years by the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition. Though it has been represented by the right hon. gentleman, and has had the advantage of his intimate knowledge and his ideas of peace, love and harmony, and should consequently excel in those virtues, we find that city departing from or forgetting the teachings which, I assume, the right hon gentleman has given to the people all these years, suddenly forsaking the doctrines of peace, love, harmony and unity preached to them for forty years, and being carried away by the leadership of four or five ex-convicts, thugs and scoundrels from the city of Montreal. That may be the case, hut it does seem strange to me.
There was one course taken by all the hon. gentlemen, including the right hon. gentleman himself, in regard to this trouble: they laid the blame on the Military 'Service Act and the administration of that Act. The right hon. gentleman went into particulars in regard to the man Belanger, who was a boxer, a fighter and a man of muscle, and another man, associated with him as one of the Dominion police, was also of not very good character. He told us that they stopped a young man
named (Merrier and asked him to produce his papers. This young man said: "I have not the papers with me, they are at my house." They refused to allow him to telephone for them, and the right hon. gentleman thought that that was a crime on their part. As I understand it, these Dominion police are appointed to perform certain duties. They know what their duties were, and it is not included in these duties that they are to allow men to telephone or to make other excuses for non-presentation of their'papers. I also understand from the Act that men of military age are supposed to carry their papers with them, and I can readily understand 'that. There have been hundreds and thousands of cases throughout the country in other provinces where men have not had their papers at the time they were asked for them, and where they had to go with the-officers until such time as they produced their papers. The right hon. gentleman takes the stand that the authorities who were enforcing the Act were to blame because they did not allow this man to telephone to his house requesting that his papers be sent down; and that the Government is censurable because men who, according to the right hon. gentleman, did not appear to be of the best character were appointed to assist in carrying out the provisions of the Act. Well, what does the right hon. gentleman want in the administration of this law in the province of Quebec? When a man is appointed a Dominion policeman for this purpose, must he show hie pedigree? Must he pin on his person in. a conspicuous place a list of this ancestors for several generations back? When he calls upon a man to show his papers, must he put on kid gloves? Why do hon. gentlemen opposite demand for the province of Quebec a different procedure from that asked by the people of any other province? 'They tell us that the people of Quebec, especially those of Quebec city, are of a very sensitive nature. Well, that may be; they seem to think more of their _ own feelings than of the feelings of others. The member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) has informed us of what took place in connection with these disturbances. The mob threw pieces of snow and chunks of ice; and the hon. gentleman congratulates the troops on the way they stood these attacks.
I am sure that the troops, when they read his words in Hansard, will be delighted to know that they have his congratulations; it is about all they get from him. The troops, then, are to be congratulated because they allowed the mob to throw bricks and chunks of ice at them. This happened

on tiwo or three occasions. On the first occasion they show a good deal of forbearance. It happens again, and there is more forbearance. More congratulations from the member for Quebec South, more ice and snow and 'bricks and stones from the mob. A splendid spirit on the part of the troops; a magnificent spirit, I suppose, on the part of the mob in the city of Quebec. 'So this goes on, until not content with throwing stones and ice, breaking into and tearing down buildings and nearly murdering a couple of men; not content with all that, the mob get out their revolvers and shotguns and undertake to shoot up the soldiers. And now the hon. gentleman complains because Queibec was put under martial law; because the military took charge of the situation and intend to round these fellows up and send them overseas so that they may exercise their fighting propensities on the Huns instead of against the boys on this side who want to go over and fight our common enemy.
I am not in sympathy with those who have criticised the administration of the Military Service Act. I was one of the members of the House who voted for and helped to pass that Act, and when I gave it my support I supported those clauses which provided for tribunals, appeal judges, and so on. As we have provided this machinery for carrying out the law, the people of Quebec as well as of the other provinces should have the right to exercise their full powers under the Act. Why has there been so much delay in the province of Quebec as compared with other provinces? Hon. gentlemen have called attention to the number of exemptions and the number of appeals, but they have not taken into consideration also the enlistments from the other provinces, which they should do in order to give the figures fairly. However, I pass that by. In Quebec, then, they were merely exercising their right in appealing against the decisions of tribunals. There were more appeals in Quebec because there were more men in the province eligible under the Military Service Act, and there were more men eligible because fewer men had gone from the province to fight overseas under the voluntary system. This meant congestion in the hearing of appeals. The appeals have not gone forward as rapidly as they have in the other provinces-and why? Simply because the sentiment behind the Act in the province of Quebec was different from the sentiment behind the Act in the other provinces. What are the underlying causes of the disturbances which have taken place in Quebec city and in other parts

of the province of Quebec? About eight years ago, speaking in this House, I made the statement that there was in the province of Quebec an antiBritish or anti-imperial sentiment. I was severely taken to task by hon. members on both sides of the House for having so expressed myself, but within the last few years, since the war started, the conduct of the province of Queibec has thoroughly justified my statement of seven or eight years ago. If there is such a sentiment in the province of Quebec, why does it exist? I believe that it does exist, although I am sorry to hold that belief. I think the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Maokie) struck the nail squarely on the head this evening in the excellent speech he made when he said that in that province they have different ideals, and that there has'been wrong teaching. Wrong teaching by whom? Mr. Speaker, I do not want to go into details, or to go back into the history of this country, but were I so disposed I could quote different utterances of the leader of the Opposition which, in imy judgment, have not been conducive to cementing the relations between Queibec and the other provinces of the Dominion and the Mother Country. I could, if I so desired, quote many utterances of the right hon. gentleman which have furnished an excuse to those in the province of Queibec who desire an excuse for evading military service. I have them under my hand; I could give them to the House; I have done so on more occasions than one. Moreover, I have done so in the presence of the right horn, leader of the Opposition; so that I cannot be accused of saying in his absence what I would not say in his presence. I regret it as much as any man who wishes to see this country what I believe it was intended to be, a great country, and what it can only be if we have a united people. Those of the province of Queibec who have enlisted and gone to the front have proved themselves as courageous and as 'brave as any men who have left the shores of Canada; I have that from personal conversation with different officers who have stood with these men over there, and. I cannot think that these men who have gone overseas and helped to make the record that Canada has achieved are different from the great majority of the people of the province of Quebec; but there are certain elements in the province of Quebec which have kept those people from doing their duty, and I propose to state in just a few words what those elements are.
First of all, I say that one of the causes for the sentiment which exists in that prov-

inee-and this is hack of the rioting which has taken place there recently, and back of the hostility to the Military Service Act,- is men like Bourassa and Lavergne who have misled the people of that province, and inasmuch as Bourassa and Lavergne repeat in their speeches statements which have fallen from the lips of the right hon. leader of the Opposition I hold him primarily responsible as the original teacher of those false doctrines, and he must bear his share of the responsibility. There is a way of dealing with men like Bourassa and Lavergne-a way which I suggested in this House a couple of years ago, on more than one occasion. Lavergne should have been stripped of his rank as colonel long ago, because he is a disgrace to the rank he holds; that also should have been done out of regard to the men who were in khaki and are in khaki at the present time. It is all nonsense to say that if you do that, you will place him on a pedestal as a martyr, which' is just what he wants. I do not believe it for a moment. You put a man like Lavergne or Bourassa behind the bars for treasonable or seditious utterance, and do you think he will boast of the fact that he is behind the bars? Not on your life. He will whine like the cur he is. That is one way of dealing with that sort of people.
Another thing that should be done is to suppress, and suppress immediately, papers like Le Devoir which have not scrupled to scatter their seditious doctrines throughout Quebec and so influence the minds of the people. We are in a state of war and these matters should not be handled with kid gloves. It is either right for a paper to be allowed to circulate that publishes seditious language, or it is wrong, and I do not think there is a man in this House who thinks it is right that such a paper should circulate, and it seems to me,, then that the only thing we have to ask ourselves is: Has this paper circulated seditious utterances, and does it continue to do so? If so, our course of action is clear; there is only one thing to do.
There is another cause for all the trouble in Quebec, and I will refer toi it in just a word. I have said that I believe that one of the causes of the trouble is wrong teaching by such men as I have referred to. Another cause for this wrong attitude and mistaken sentiment on the part of the majority of the people in the province of Quebec is the attitude of the Roman Catholic church in that province. For some reason or other, the attitude of the great majority of the Roman Catholic clergy of that province is opposed to the Military Service Act, and opposed to this country taking its part in the war which we in Ontario and other provinces think it should take. 1 have never in my life uttered one word derogatory of the religion of -any -man,, and I hope I never shall. It is not my purpose to discuss the .rights and wrongs of this or that religious belief. I wi-^h every man, no matter what his religious belief may be, Godspeed on his journey as he sees it through lif-e, and I hope he will succeed in getting to -the proper place when he leaves this world. But while I h-ave no word of. criticism in regard to the Roman Catholic religion, I -say that when -a church, be it Roman (Catholic, Presbyterian or any other denomination, enters -the domain of politics and takes -an active -and influencing part in directing the -destinies of this country, and tells the people what to do in a great crisis such a-s this, I have a perfect right to discuss the matter with them. II do not attack their right to express their views; lif they wish to enter the arena and place th-ei-r reasons before the public they have a perfect right to do so; but I trust th-at no person will then find fault with me if -I pass my opinion upon -their views.
I do not intend to state here why the attitude of -the Roman Ca-tholi-c church in the province of. Quebec is what I believe it t-o be, but I d-o- say that in those two reasons- the hostility of the majority of the clergy of that province to the Military Service Act and to full participation by Canada in the war, and -secondly, to. wrong teaching by such -men a-s I have alluded to-you have the -causes leading up to- the -disturbances which took place in- the city of Quebec last week.


Mr. LUCIEN CANNON (Dorchester):: Mr. Speaker, when I was elected to represent in this House of Commons of Canada the constituency of Dorchester, I was under the impression that I would be called here to give, according to the very modest experience which I possess, my views on the legislation which would be submitted for consideration. I have been here now ten days, and I have listened very attentively to the discussions which have taken place. I have had two surprises already, and perhaps I shall have more before the session is ended, Last year, the whole press of this country, Liberal and Tory, proclaimed to the country that a Union Government had been formed, composed of the best elements of our population, to help Canada take her part in the war. But since the session

commenced, we have seen just what kind of Union Government it was that, 'was formed at Ottawa. Last week my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce introduced a Bill, and hon. members on his own side of the House took occasion to make a very violent attack on the minister.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: On the Bill.


Lucien Cannon: The minister was behind the Bill, or the Bill was in front of the minister. I think the minister was more badly hit than the Bill because the Bill passed. When I left Quebec a day or so ago, I * looked into the faces of women who had lived hours of tragedy and of drama. We had soldiers in our streets of Quebec by the thousands. Every street corner wais guarded with machine iguns. Quebec was practically under martial law. We were experiencing all the difficulties and troubles of actual war. Nevertheless hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House take the occasion of these troubles to bring on a debate, and not to remedy the conditions, not to suggest measures which would bring peace to the people in Quebec and throughout the rest of [DOT]the Dominion. When the hon. member for North Simeoe (Mr. Currie) rose in this House, he rose, not as a patriot, not as a Canadian, thinking only of Canada, but he was thinking of his own petty and mean interests as a local provincial and parochial politician from Ontario.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think the hon. gentleman should qualify his language. He should withdraw the words "mean," "politician." They 'are hardly parliamentary.


Lucien Cannon: I bow to your decision. 1 withdraw the words which are not parliamentary. I only wanted to point out to the House that I thought is was very unfortunate that an event of the importance and of the gravity of that which happened in Quebec should be taken as the occasion of such a debate as we have heard in the House to-day. Have we spoken, Mr. Speaker, of the riots in Quebec? Have the members on the other side of the House suggested remedies? I was sorry to hear the hon. member for Fronteruac (Mr. Edwards) making an attack on the Roman Catholic clergy. I have heard members on the other side making attacks on the right hon. leader of the Opposition. I have heard them making attacks on the French Canadians as a race. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. I thought in this House of 'Commons of Canada that, no mat-

ter what province you came from, no matter what nationality you belonged to, no matter what creed you believed in, there was one ideal which was common to everybody-the love of our common country. I do not think, Sir, that discussions like that which took place to-day will help Canada to become the big, prosperous and great nation she should become. Hon. members on the other side of the House have been very wide in their remarks. The scope of* their speeches has extended over the whole political situation in Canada. They have pointed out different reasons for the situation which exists in Quebec to-day. Will you let me say that the members of the Government are responsible for the situation in Quebec to-day, on account of the policy which they have followed, on account of the policy which they persist in, unfortunately, to-day, of coercing the province.
I do not wish to say that the ministers have bad intentions; I do not wish to say the Government is doing it with the object of arousing ill-feeling in the province of Quebec. But I say that the attitude of the Government for the last four or-five years has been of such a nature that ill-feeling has been aroused, and that the Government ought to take measures to appease the people of Quebec. What happened, Mr. Speaker? We have heard the member for North Simeoe (Mr. Currie), the member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) and the ex-Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes) talking about Mr. Bourassa, talking about Mr. Armand Lavergne and saying that Bourassa and Armand Lavergne were the real cause of the whole trouble. I .am not here to defend Bourassa. I have never been a political supporter of Mr. Bourassa, and never endorsed his political ideas. On the contrary, I have .always fought his candidates. I was a candidate in 1911 in the county of Charlevoix. I stood there as a Liberal candidate, supporting the policy of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I stood for the Naval Bill introduced by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and I stood for participation by Canada in Imperial wars. But at that time Mr. Bourassa was not denounced by the member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards), nor by the member for North Simeoe (Mr. Currie), as a cause of danger or as a reason for sedition in the province of Quebec. Bourassa was brought by the friends of the hon. members in the province of Ontario, and he spoke to the people of Ontario in order to defeat the hon. leader of the Opposition. What was the programme of Mr. Bourassa at that time? I do not wish to insist on

this point., but I only want to point out that in 1911 Bourassa and his school, supported, financed, paid' and organized by the Tory party, went through the province of Quebec, and said that we did not owe anything to England, and they were applauded by members of the Tory party who -afterwards became members of the Borden Government. Mr. Speaker, I wish to remind the House of one incident. In the byelection in 1910, in the county of Drummond and Arthabaska, I supported the policy of the right hon. leader of the Opposition, who was leading the fight against the Conservative candidate. Mr. Monk was a minister in the Borden Cabinet. Mr. Sevigny, Mr. Blondin and Mr. Lavergne were there. And who was supplying the money to beat the Liberal candidate? The Montreal organization, backed and inspired by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), if my information is reliable. That night, when the result of the election in Drummond-Arthabaska was announced- the hon. Minister of Railways laughs. He may laugh, but I am quite convinced he knows what I am saying now is true.
An ihon. MEMBER: You have got the wrong minister.


Lucien Cannon: On election night, when the Liberal candidate was defeated, when the Nationalist doctrine in Quebec received its first support and triumph, a member of the present Government telegraphed Ar-mand Lavergne and said: "Anything to beat Laurier." The hon. member for North Simcoe, this afternoon rose in this House to inquire about the reason of the riots in Quebec. I will give the real reasons. I have given the first, and I will give later the proximate reason of these riots. Let us go further, and examine the history of the last five years. When the elections of 1911 were held in Ontario,the Tory organization, led by the then Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Cochrane), waved the British flag, and said that in the province of Quebec everybody was disloyal and everybody was a traitor, whereas in the same province, Armand Lavergne, Henri Bourassa and all that crowd were fighting the fight of the Tory party.
You succeeded1. The Tory party came into power. Those who had promised in the counties of Ontario, and ini the counties of the English provinces, to save the British Empire, were the first to give the fattest portfolios to their new Nationalist friends to reward them for their share in the victory. Canada had thiis extraordinary and
remarkable spectacle of an ultra loyalist like the hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) sitting close: to Mr. Monk, who would not fight for England. That is the second causie of the riots in Quebec. It was the want of sincerity on the part of our public men when the Cabinet was formed.
Let us go farther. A gentleman who is still a member of the Cabinet, although he is not a member of this House or a member of the Senate, a man who is kept in this Cabinet against every principle'of constitutional law, a man who has no right to sit in the Cabinet because he has no responsibility towards the people, a man who bored holes in the British flag in many counties in Quebec, has been drawing ?7,000 from the Crown since my right hon. friend has been the Prime Minister of this country. Third reason for the riots in Quebec.
My hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) wants to know why the people of Quebec are displeased. I will tell him. Do you think, Mr. Speaker, that a province IiKe the province of Quebec, which has been the pioneer province of this country, a province that has sent to this Parliament the brightest men that Canadian politics had known, will consent to be represented by a mian who has lost his deposit in one constituency and who lias been beaten in another 'by 2,000 votes? French Canadians may have defects, tout they have one quality, and that is the quality of self-respect. When a race has self-respect that race has the right to be respected by the Government of the country. Fourth reason for the riots in Quebec.
My hon. friend from Frontenae (Mr. Edwards) claims that Le Devoir ought to be suppressed. I am also of that opinion. Suppress it. But I am sure of one thing, and that is that the Government has not the courage to do it. It is no use coming . before this House to lie to the country. What we want are the facts and nothing else. Le Devoir is a menace; suppress it. Orders in Council are easily passed. Why will not Le Devoir be suppressed? I will tell you-because it is financed by Tory money. The hon. member for St. Antoine (Sir Herbert Ames) is the man who financed Le Devoir in 1911 so as to beat my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition. The hon. member for St. Antoine isi not in the House. I am sorry. If he were here I would say just the same thing.


An hon. MEMBER:: And he would not deny it.


Lucien Cannon: The money that was
given to Le Devoir to preach this doctrine of sedition, this unpatriotic principle of nonparticipation 'by Canada in Imperial wars, came from the Tory party. Every word which was- printed, every eheet that was distributed in Quebec was paid for with Tory money-
An hon. MEM-BEE: The country's money.


Lucien Cannon: And probably the country's money. How is that money being reimbursed to the hon. member for St. Antoine?-boot contracts for the troops over in Europe. Mr. Speaker, that is the fifth reason for the riots in Quebec.
I wish to congratulate my hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Currie) on the very moderate speech which he has made. I have had very bad information about the hon. member. I understand that last year there was a certain discussion into which my humble personality was mixed and certain things that were said were reported to me. I am quite sure that my hon. friend from Simcoe was not in as good humour then as he was to-day. I congratulate him and I also congratulate the hon. the ex-Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Sam Hughes). I can tell my hon. friend that in Quebec there are some people who do not like him. Why, I do not know. If my hon. friend would go to Quebec oftener and speak the way he has spoken to-night everybody'would like him. -The unfortunate side of the situation between Ontario and Quebec is that the people of Ontario do not travel often enough in Quefbec. If the tw-o peoples w-ould meet, if the two populations would mix, all this friction would soon disappear and this trouble would be a thing of -the past.
I am quite sure, Sir, that you have heard it said in the House that I was a rebel. It has been said. It was said, I understand, last year that if I was elected to this House, I would not be allowed to take my seat because I was worse than Louis Riel.


Jacques Bureau: Who said that?


Lucien Cannon: I forget who said it. I
am very charitable and even if I did remember who said it I would pretend that I did not remember. But I can tell this House that I am no rebel, that I am a plain, simple, good-intentioned Liberal.


Avard Longley Davidson: Very simple.
Mr. 'CANNON: I may be very simple but I will try to be complex -as fast as -I can. This afternoon I heard certain hon. members talking about the riots in Quebec. I

was present. I had gone there to spend the week-end with my family and that is no sin. These troubles, ;I understand, were not serious at the outset. As a matter of fact, nobody considered them very serious. Who is responsible for the occurrence on Monday night I do not know and it does not belong to me to lay the blame on any shoulders. Col. Machin came to take charge of the situation and, as representative of the Federal Government, what did he say and what did he do?
He was then, mind you, representing the Government. He put the whole -situation into the hands of one man, who has been denounced by every speaker on the other side of the House this afternoon. I refer to Col. Armand Lavergne. The Prime Minister has mentioned statements from 'Col. Machin and Mr. Taschereau. The statements referred to have not been read, but with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will read you an affidavit or sworn declaration that I have received from Mr. Lavergne. The papers in Ottawa were kind enough to say that that affidavit had -been handed to me -by my friend, Mr. Lavergne. I do not deny that Mr. Lavergne is- a friend of mine socially. Politically, -we have never been friends, but I do not believe in beating a man when he is down, and if the Government has committed a blunder of putting the situation into the hands of Armand Lavergne, I think it is my duty as a member of -the House to acquaint the public with the facts. That is why I am going to read -Col. Lavergne's affidavit:
I,	Armand Lavergne, of the City of Quebec, advocate, being duly sworn upon the Holy Evangelists, DOTH SAY AND DECLARE:-
1.	Sunday the Thirty-first of March, about 6.45 p.m., -at my house where I was confined -by a slight attack of grippe, I was called to the phone by Mr. Alleyn Taschereau, Public Representative of the Minister of Justice for District E, under the Military Service Act.
I understand that since this affidavit has been sworn to Mr. Taschereau's- position has been changed, and instead of being simply the representative of the Department of Justice in the -city of Quebec, he is the registrar of the whole district. Therefore, there is no doubt whatsoever as to his official status and standing.
2.	Mr. Taschereau, who has been for long a personal friend of mine, requested me to go over immediately to the Chateau Frontenac, and meet him at Room 301, stating that he had something very important and urgent to talk to me about;
3.	When I got there, about a quarter past seven, I was introduced to Col. Machin, and another gentleman by the name of Carruthers, Captain or Colonel;

I do not know who the Mr. Carruthers referred to is, but perhaps some member of the Cabinet will give us that information.
4.	After a few friendly words, Colonel Machin asked me what I thought of the present situation in Quebec City, how it 'was caused and the best means to face it;
5.	I told Col. Machin that in my humble opinion the situation had ibeen brought about by the choice and lack of tact of the Government federal detectives charged with enforcing the Military Service Act. On this point we all agreed ;
6.	I then said that my impression was that the whole thing could be stopped if anybody was willing to go and meet the rioters, speak to them, tell them that those detectives which are known in the city as very low characters, would not have anything more to
[DOT] do with the enforcing of the Act, and that the troops who were patrolling the streets would be returned to barracks. If that were done all the trouble would soon end ;
7.	Colonel Machin, or one of the other parties-present, informed me that we should try to avoid bloodshed, as the troops that night were going to fire;
8.	To this I agreed willingly. As Colonel Machin, myself, and others present, were desirous to bring the thing to an end as soon as possible, with the least serious consequences. I suggested sending anybody, and said that as far as I was concerned, I was willing to do it if I could state the above-mentioned conditions, namely, the removal of objectionable detectives and retirement of troops ;
9.	Colonel Machin told me that he had not the necessary authority to assure me of that, but that he would do his best to have those things accepted in Ottawa, and he thanked me for my willingness as to the best means to end the trouble ;
10.	He then asked me to dine with him-
That would have been a rather funny dinner.
-twhich I refused, saying, that I was going to try immediately, to which he consented, and wished me Godspeed ;
11.	I left the Chateau Frontenac and went down to headquarters, where I saw General Landry, Officer Commanding Military Division No. 5. I told General Landry that I had seen Colonel Machin, and what I proposed to do. He told me it was the best service I could do them, and the City, under the circumstances. I then asked him where he expected the most serious trouble to break out that night. General Landry told me the rioters had just burnt the store of Martineau on St. Joseph Street, and he was informed they were coming to Lower Town to the Mechanics' Supply, via St. Paul Street, and asked me to go 'down that way and meet them ;
12.	I then left and went down alone by Mountain Hill, St. Peter and St. Paul Streets. Opposite the Mechanics' Supply I met two municipal policemen, and asked them for any sign of rioters, which they told me they had not yet. I then walked out St. Paul Street and met a small group opposite the C. P. R. Station, composed of about thirty, which group came to my notice as they were walking on the sidewalk, by some whistles being blown, and some of them yelling "Let us go down
28*
(en >bas)''. I made a sign to them with my hand to stop and asked them where they were going. Their welcome to my question was very equivocal, so I said to them "You know who I am", gave them my name, and told them that if they went further they would be mowed down by the troops; that, on the other hand, I was the bearer of a message of peace if they would stop trouble. After some discussion, their number had then increased around me to about three or four hundred, who could hear what I was saying, I made them the above proposals, and a few of them suggested my addressing them to the whole crowd, which might number one thousand or fifteen hundred. I got up on a Ford automobile, which was there, and repeated what I had said, and asked them to disperse, stating that the military authorities would rely on their honour to keep quiet, and that they in their turn could rely on the honour of the military authorities to have things in the City restored to their normal state the next day if they would be peaceful that night, and if the military authorities kept their word, to pledge themselves (the rioters) to create no further disturbance on any of the following days. To this they agreed in great majority enthusiastically, although I had to meet objections and insults from a very few scattered individuals ;
13.	After that someone suggested that a great crowd was assembled on the Jacques Cartier Market Place, and1 to prevent any trouble from them that I should go and repeat my remarks there, to which I agreed;
14.	The crowd was swung back, and we walked back to the Jacques Market Place, where I repeated practically the above remarks before an audience of five or six thousand persons. The people then again pledged themselves to keep peace, and the propositions I was bearer of were greeted with enthusiasm, except from the same few scattered voices;
15.	After that, they requested me to let them accompany me to the Chateau, but I begged them to disperse and go home immediately. I boarded a street car, came up to the Chateau, and reported to Col. Machin, who thanked me for what I had done, and I told them that although I understood that the troops had to be kept in readiness, if they were taken away from public view I felt assured perfect quiet would reign in the city. He agreed with me, and said he would report same to General Lessard. I then reported by telephone to General Landry, stating the same opinion, and also personally, to General Lessard, who appeared at the Chateau a few minutes later. I just say that of all the people I saw last night in the crowd of rioters, I knew nobody personally except one man, to whom I had not spoken for the last five years. When I went home about one o'clock, practically all the troops had gone back to headquarters, and no trouble had been reported since.
I also want to state further that if it had not been for Colonel Machin's earnest request and sincere desire for peace, I would not have take any action in the matter, and I have signed:
Armand Lavergne.
Sworn before me in Quebec this First day of April, 1918.
H. E. Lavigueur,
Maire de Quebec.
I think that, in justice to Mt. Lavergne, and in order that the House may have a

complete story of the facte as they happened in Quebec, it is very important that that affidavit should have been read.
I do not wish to prolong these remarks. I only wish to say that when this Government introduced conscription the feeling in Quebec was very adverse. As a matter of fact, I have been a candidate against conscription, and I am not afraid to repeat that I have not changed my attitude, and I am still opposed to conscription. I am not against it because I am against the 'British Empire; T am not against conscription because I do not wish to help the British armies in this war, but il am against it because I think that conscription is not the best means to help the British Empire. And one of the main reasons 'for that belief is that it has divided our country; and as was said many years ago, a nation divided against itself must perish. But conscription passed, and passed with most extraordinary and exception methods. I have no right to judge those methods, but what happened later was also a cause of the riots in Quebec. The Government did something which is not usually done. It announced, before the elections were even announced, that the elections were going to be won. And why? Because they had deprived part of the population of their vote. And I admired this afternoon the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) when he frankly admitted that if it had not been for the Franchise Act the Government would have been beaten. I do not think that the province of Quebec was well pleased to see this Government elected by the means chosen.
Now, a few very brief remarks as to the application of the law itself. After the elections were over, the people of Quebec, after fighting the Government and being defeated, took their medicine like men. They obeyed the law, they registered, there was no trouble; everything went fine. When did the real trouble start? When the Government, against the constitutional rights of this country, started amending the Military Service Act by Order in Council. That Act was passed last year and is the law of our country. We have to obey the law, and every citizen has to abide by the law of hie country. But I maintain that no Government no matter how strong it may be, has a right to tear up the British Constitution and enact laws by Order in Council without consulting Parliament. A few days' ago the Military Service Council sent the members of this House a pamphlet entitled " The Military Service Act, 1917, Manual," and 
also giving particulars as to the regulations. A few months ago I received another pamphlet bearing exactly the same title, but if you read the two pamphlets you will see a difference. The Military Service Act has been changed in its essentials without the people or Parliament being consulted. In what sense? My hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) is a man whose legal experience I admire. He has been a member of the judiciary of our province, and is at the head of the Justice Department. I may tell him that I do not believe one word of what hon. gentlemen opposite said this afternoon about the administration of his department. I have confidence in the Minister of Justice, and, although he has been attacked by his own friends, I tell him that my confidence in him is not shaken. Has the hon. Minister of Justice advised his confreres that such change should be made in the law? It was changed in three ways. First, the man who was before a court had the right, according to the law and the existing regulations', to adduce medical evidence as to his present condition, whether he was Al, or B, C, D or E. Under this regulation doctors were brought into court, and family doctors a'nd physicians were examined. The Government has passed a new regulation, putting in the hands of three doctors .forming or composing a board of revision the final decision a.s to the physical capacity of the conscript, without the right of appeal to the judge. The judge cannot change that decision. Since when- and I appeal to the Minister of Justice-has a judge been bound by the decision of an expert? It is against every principle of common law in this country. May I add that as far as the city of Quebec is concerned, I do not know if the Government acted with bad intentions, but when that board of revision was formed, instead of choosing in the city of Quebec physicians and doctors who were fully competent, they chose, I do not say doctors who were not competent, but doctors who did not belong to that city or to our province, who did not talk the language of the people who were brought before them, and who asked for information and when the conscript gave it the doctors did not understand it. Is that a fit condition of things? I am quite sure that the minister did not know things like that were happening in Quebec, because if lie did there would have been a change.
Another change has been made. The regulations enacted were to the effect that the military authorities or the conscript himself had twenty days in which to appeal and not a day more. Therefore, if,

after a man had received a favourable decision, twenty days had expired, the man could go home according to law and say: " My case is settled, I will not be worried any more." But on account of the incom-peteney of the officials in Quebec, appeals have not been taken. within the twenty days. And what did the people of Quebec hear ten days ago? That this Government, without consulting the representatives of the people in Parliament assembled, had provided that the military authorities could appeal whenever they wished, whereas the conscript had not more than: twenty days within which to appeal, as under the old regulations. Is that fair? A man goes before a tribunal, he is exempted, and then, three, four, or six months later, he may be dragged again before the court and have his case reopened. That is not British justice; that is not British law. I .am sure that a law of that kind would never have passed in England, and if any Government had dared to pass it, they would not have lasted twenty-four hours afterward. The people of the province of Quebec do not want privileges; we do not want favours; we want justice and nothing else. This is a third change in the law that the Government had no right to make, having regard to constitutional authority and precedent. An hon. gentleman smiles; but I tell him that I know what I am talking about. According to constitutional usage in England and in Canada this Military Service Act cannot be amended except by Parliament itself. The Prime Minister this afternoon talked about the War Measures Act. If the War Measures Act is a war measure, wide enough,in its scope to change .the character and the essence of the constitution, it has no binding effect upon the people. Not even the Parliament of Canada has the right to change o.r alter the (constitution of the country. But, Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple and elementary question. Two years ago the gentlemen then sitting on the treasury benches thought that it would be good for their political health if they took steps to extend the term of Parliament. It was a matter of less consequence than amending the Military Service Act or than changing a law which calls people from their homes and occupations and business to do military service on the other side of the water. Did they pass an Order in Council? Did they use the War Measures Act? They could not; they had no right to do. iso. Why? Because the extension of the parliamentary term meant an amendment to our constitution, and the
only power that can amend our constitution is the Imperial Parliament. Since when has our constitution provided that the representatives of the Canadian people shall no longer be consulted on matters of this kind? Why are we here, Mr. Speaker?


John Allister Currie: Because we are here.


Lucien Cannon: It may be that the hon. gentleman does not know, but I do know. Why are we here? To pass Daylight Saving Bills? To be consulted on petty and mean measures? To deal with what the member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) the other day called fads and freaks? But when it is proposed to suspend the common law of our country, ta close the courts of our provinces, to deprive the population of liberty and freedom and constitutional privileges, we, the representatives of the people, are not consulted. Mr. Speaker, your parliamentary experience is very wide, but I should be surprised if you could quote a precedent from British, Canadian or American constitutional history-I shall not say similar, but even a slightly analogous instance-to justify the step which the Prime Minister of Canada has taken to-day. Motions are called, and without giving us the right to discuss the matter the Prime Minister lays on the Table an Order in Council destroying every constitutional guarantee that we in the province of Quebec and you in the other provinces have. Is that fair? Is that the proper way to govern this country? I say that it is not. What are the aims and objects of the allied nations in the great war which is now being fought? It is that of maintaining liberty and freedom for the universe and for humanity.
An hon. MIEMIBER:	Hear, hear.


Lucien Cannon: I hear an hon. gentleman .say " hear, hear." I believe it is an hon. gentleman who has fought for liberty and freedom in Flanders, and I congratulate him on having done so. I would ask him, however, to put the same energy into fighting in this country for the preservation and maintenance of the freedom of his own people. The House of Commons of Canada has today witnessed as sad a spectacle as ever w.as witnessed by any Parliament in the British Empire. Why so? Because, first, this Order in Council has destroyed every constitutional guarantee; and, second, in this country there should be no question of coercion. We should be united. Why is it that in the city of Ottawa, at the Chateau Laurier, on the street, when members of the House of Commons meet, they

exchange a friendly handshake and friend-' ly views, but the moment they enter the House they -seem to forget their friendliness and their common united interests? No matter what may have been said, the province of Quebec is very useful to the rest of the Dominion and has done much to build iup our country. Quebec has produced great statesmen; I have only to point to my right hon. leader, (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) who is certainly the most distinguished man that Canadian politics has produced. The (people of Quebec want to live 'in peace with the other provinces, hut how can we live in peace unless the attitude maintained at present by certain elements of the population ceases? The Solicitor General in the present Government (Mr. Guthrie), for instance, addressing a public meeting in the province of Ontario, narrows his mind to such an extent as to declare that, luckily for Australia, it has no province of Quebec. How can you have union in this country, how can you have harmony in this country when the president of the Council makes such declarations as he did during the last election campaign? How can you have union and concord in this country when a man like the Hon. G. H. Ferguson declares on the floor of the Ontario Legislature that French Canadians are no more needed in the province of Ontario than Germans or Austrians? How can you have union in this country when you have -the press of this country insulting Quebec every day? The Orange Sentinel is a sheet whicli ought to be suppressed. The hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) has declared that Le Devoir ought to be suppressed. I agree with him, but he ought also to agree with me in asking for the suppression of the Orange Sentinel for the same reason. Much to my surprise and astonishment the Prime Minister of this country announced this afternoon that there was a revolution and sedition in Quebec. For a definition of sedition, Mr. Speaker, I would refer you to Article 132 of the Criminal Code, and the decision given by Lord Haisbury in England. If the Prime Minister is sincere in his desire for union and peace among the peoples of this country, let him suppress the Orange Sentinel and have its editor arrested, just as Le Devoir ought to be suppressed -and its editor arrested. What is bad in Quebec is no better in Ontario. Let us hope that better days are coming. Let us hope that in the English provinces there will arise a man of the broadninded-ness of the former leaders of the parties in [Mb Cannon.]
this country. Let us 

hope that Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Oliver Mowat will have worthy successors. Let us hope that once	more from	Ontario Liberalismwill	be heard.	Let us hope thatonce	more from	Ontario a voicewill	speak as	the old Liberalsused	to speak in this Canada of
ours when- we used to fight for liberty and freedom. Let us hope the spirit of Lyou Mackenzie, of Mo-wat, Blake, Bose and Macdonald is- not dead. Let us hope that Ontario will again do something for liberal i'in in 'Canada. When we have real liberal-minded people in the English-speaking provinces, if they iwill come to our province, they will be welcomed, because in the province of Quebec there is no narrowmindedness; we are broadminded. We have sent to- this House fifteen English-speaking members elected- by fifteen French-speaking constituencies; I -should like to know w-hat county in Ontario, with an English-speaking population, would elect a French-speaking candidate. What is the use of wasting out time as we have been doing this afternoon talking about Quebec and Ontario-. There should not be any Quebec or Ontario-; it should be Canada. So- far as I am concerned, in my personal business, I do not ask whether 'a man comes from Nova Scotia or Saskatchewan, whether he is Irish, Scotch or English; as long as he lie an honest respectable Canadian, that is good enough for me. I regret that we in this country have nevieT well understood Cana-dianism. Yiou may love England. England is the mother country of the vast majority of the people of this country, and it is only natural that English-speaking people should love England. England is^ovable on acount of its- great institutions -and its great history. But why did our -forefathers come to this country? They oa-me to settle in a new country, where we could be loyal British subjects in being loyal Canadians, and I think that the moment that the people of this- country realize this truth all these small, petty, mean provincial troubles will disappear.


Mr. JAMES ARTHURS (Parry Sound):: I have- no desire at this time of the morning to take up the time of the House, but I believe this- is- a -subject- which interests people in Canada at this time more than any other. The people of Canada are anxious to know the reason for the recent disturbances in thei city of Quebec, and I have listened with a -great deal of attention and interest to the reasons put forth by the speakers -on the o-the-r side of the House. The

last speaker, the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) asked a very pertinent question towards the dose of his remarks. He asked why we were here. He did not give an answer but I will give one. The majority of the members of this House are here to see that our men overseas get proper reinforcements, to see that eveTy part of Canada, so far as we can make laws to accomplish that purpose, shall provide an equal and fair proportion of those reinforcements. A great many reasons or excuses have been given to-day for the disturbance in Quebec. The reason put forth by the leader of the Opposition was that a certain officer employed by the Department of Justice asked a young man in a very uncivil manner to show his exemption papers, and when he could not do so, arrested him. Cbnse-quently, there was a riot, which I believe cost the lives of many innocent citizens. For the benefit of those members who do not understand the circumstances in other provinces, I may say we have exactly the same thing to contend with in Ontario and every other part of Canada. I know one point within a short distance of where I [DOT] reside where a man may be called upon to show his papers ten times a day. If he boards a train, he has to show them, most assuredly, and show them again before he gets off, and if it is a junction point he may have to show them five or six times in one afternoon; but there are no riots up there; we have killed nobody; we have not had to dig 'any one out of the snow. The hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power), who was on the ground at the time, gave a variety of reasons for the disturbances and incidentally I suppose rehearsed some of his election speech. He! said the reason the Military Service Act was enforced upon this country was in order to get rid of the poor habitant of Quebec, send him over to France and get rid of him as soon as possible. If that were our object, we have not been very successful.	A few minutes later the hon.
gentleman said that there were twenty-five to fifty thousand men on the fields of Picardy to-day from the province of Quebec. I venture to say, and I believe I can! say it without danger of successful contradiction, that there has never been in any part of France, 5,000 French Canadians at any one time. It is all right enough to' praise the 22nd Battalion, and we do it. We give the French Canadian soldier every credit, and he deserves it, but unfortunately the only infrantry battalion from Quebec which
has ever seen France is the 22nd, or about 1,000 men, We know these facts. And as a matter of fact hundreds of men were taken from Alberta and other provinces to reinforce that one single battalion, which is at the front at the present time, and these men were not even French Canadian by origin, but men speaking the English language. The hon. gentleman goes on to tell us that this Act is applied differently-or he infers that this Act is applied differently-in the province of Quebec, and that is the real cause for the riots. He does not say for an instant, that he, as .a member of this House, did anything to stop the riots-, or counsel these men in a. better way, or to lead them in the right way. We have every reason to suppose from his own words that he did nothing to counteract the trouble in Quebec.
Then we come to the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon). He has a different version, although he says he was present at the time, and he goes very far afield when giving the reasons for the riot in Quebec. But he went into the matter very carefully and he gave the reasons, first, second, third and fourth, and what do you suppose were the reasons which he gave? 1st he says that there was an election in the county of Drummond-Arthabaska, .and that the Grit representative was not elected That is reason number one-a Liberal candidate in the Drummond-Arthabaska election in 1910 was defeated. Reason number two is that during the election of 1911, only seven years ago, there was an unholy alliance between the Tories of that time, or some of them, and the Nationalists of Quebec. I do not intend .to take the time of this House with the discussion of a matter of this kind. We .all know it is absolutely beside the question of the present time, and it is only done for the purpose of camouflaging the real issue as it stands to-day. Reason number three was that the present Postmaster General ihad been or was drawing a salary of $7,000, and he is not' at the present time a member of the House, having been defeated in 1911.
The fourth reason was that Le Devoir had not been suppressed. I think it is idle even to discuss matters of this kind. This gentleman knows perfectly well that the only reason which can be given which will hold good in the matter of the disturbances in the province of Quebec is that these poor misguided men have been deliberately misled by the leaders in the province in which they reside. We know perfectly well that these men of themselves are peaceful, law-

abiding citizens, but they have been badly led from time to time, and they have been persuaded that if they would raise certain disturbances, or take certain action, this Government would (be weak enough, or supine enough, to allow them to get off, and permit the Act to fall into disuse.


Jacques Bureau: That is absolutely false.


James Arthurs: The hon. gentleman says that is absolutely untrue.


Jacques Bureau: I do.


James Arthurs: In the riding which I had the honour to represent in the last election this argument was used openly from the platform in places where there were French Canadian voters. It was represented to the voters that if they voted for the candidate supported by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the leader of the Opposition, he would secure for them immunity so far as military service is concerned, and personally I have not the slightest doubt that was done in every constituency in Canada where it was necessary to get the French Canadian vote.


Jacques Bureau: Who was the French
Canadian leader who stated that- in the hon. gentleman's riding?


James Arthurs: I am not talking about French Canadian leaders, but I refer to the man who opposed me, and his statements were on a parity with the statements of all the French Canadian leaders, and I know the statement was made throughout Ontario.


Jacques Bureau: The hon. gentleman said Quebec just now.


James Arthurs: I believe it was made in Quebec in exactly the same way.


Jacques Bureau: It was not.


James Arthurs: Another complaint made by the hon. gentleman from Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) was that this Government had got in, and this Act was being enforced- why? Because the late Government had deprived certain citizens of the country of the right to vote; or in other words, that had we given a vote to the alien, the men who had no interest in the country, who knew nothing about our interests, whose interests and leaning and longings were all for the old land of Germariy or Austria from which they came, the result would have been different. He suggested that if we had allow these three or four hundred thousand aliens to swamp the vote of the Canadians in this country his party would have been *successful, and there would have been no

riot in Quebec. I honestly believe that statement is true, but the people of Canada were not, so inclined, and at the election on the 17th of December they not only gave this Government a mandate to enforce the Military Service Act, to take the necessary number of men for the reinforcements at the front, but they said that this Act which deprived these Germans of the right to vote as British citizens was absolutely to their liking and was good common sense.


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Shelburne and Queens):: Members of the Cabinet said quite the contrary, and yet the Cabinet has been sustained. The War-time Elections Act was not the policy of the present Government, it was the policy of the preceding Government; and many of the men who sit in the' Cabinet to-day denounced it, and -quite properly so.


James Arthurs: I think, Mr. Speaker,
that one member to-day, the hon. member for North Simcoe has very properly said that the members behind the Government on this occasion are not rubber stamps, that we have minds of our own, and that we say exactly what we think. If I am asked what I think about that particular measure I will say this:	That if the present Government are not in favour of it their judgment is not as good as the judgment of the late Government, because the late Government were absolutely right in passing a measure of that kind. So far as I am personally concerned I believe the verdict of the people on the 17th of December last, means one thing, if no other, namely that the people of Canada gave to this Government, whether they are Unionist or Conservative or whatever they may be, the mandate to support the boys who so sorely need that support to-day. They gave them the right to take, not 100,000 or 200,000, or whatever men were necessary for reinforcements, but they gave their mandate that, so far as humanly possible, every part of Canada should do its share in supplying men. I think it is idle to give excuses. I think the representatives of Quebec would employ their time far better if they would apologize for the occurrences in Quebec, instead of trying to defend them.


Mr. T. VIEN (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, your French Canadian colleagues, and especially the residents of the city of Quebec, who are members of this House, have a special interest in the subject-matter of the present debate. 'In both of these capacities, I feel that it is my duty not to remain silent. No doubt we are

passing through a serious stage. Overseas millions of men are engaged in the fight, and we are proud indeed that in this battle for the supremacy of civilization and democracy, we count hundreds of thousands of our compatriots. Two weeks ago the struggle entered upon what many believe to be its final stage. I think, as has been pointed out by the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden), it is beyond question that very much depends upon the issue, and the hearts of the people of the whole country are lifted up in intercession that the right may prevail. It is therefore deplorable beyond expression that at such a time as this an ugly outbreak and disturbance of the peace should occur, in this country. For us Quebeckers and French Canadians it is sickening end almost unbelievable to think that such shocking incidents should take place' in our dear, old, peaceful city of Quebec. Nobody resents it more than we do. For the outsider the incident will have only ah historic importance. Many will come to Quebec to visit the spot where it occurred, to see the places where the machine guns were laid on the mob and to see the streets where the men fell. But we Quebeckers who live there shall constantly have a remembrance of the disgrace that took place last week.
By what I have been able to gather, from what has been said by hon. members on the other side of the House, the necessity for the drastic enactments contained in the Orders in Council laid on the table of the House was due to the lack of response on the part of the French Canadians to the appeal to them to willingly enlist, either under the system of voluntary recruiting or since the Compulsory Military Service Act was brought into force.
Sir, allow me to take exception to that statement. There is no lack of ideals on the part of the French Canadians. The ideals of the French Canadians are not emotions and passions, as was stated a few moments ago. The patriotism of the French Canadians of the province of Quebec lies in a clear comprehension of the true interests of this country. This clear comprehension, Sir, is not alone the heritage or the property of the French Canadians. The clear comprehension of the interests of every country has been the decisive motive that has led every country and dictated the action of every country in this war. What did the English statesmen consider before they decided to enter the war on the side of France and the other Allies? A few days before the declaration of war the French Ambassador at Petrograd, in consultation with
his Russian colleague, tried to induce the English Ambassador to make a formal declaration that England would be on the side of France and Russia if war broke out. What did Sir Edward Grey instruct his ambassador to respond? He said that England would not side in the war with France and Russia unless British interests required it. That is contained clearly in the diplomatic papers. The French Ambassador urged England to declare that .she would be on the side of France and Russia, and he went so far as to say that if such a declaration were made war would not be declared by Germany. Notwithstanding that, English diplomacy stood by the contention that England would not enter the war unless British interests required it. While Sir Edward Grey was declaring, that unless British interests would lead England into the war


John Allister Currie: Mr. Speaker,


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order.


John Allister Currie: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but I was held down pretty closely to the rules and I would suggest to you that the hon. member is travelling pretty far from the question before the House.


Thomas Vien: I understand the point of the order raised, but I made an assertion, and what I am saying is preliminary to establishing it. I made the assertion that the French Canadians in the province of Quebec comprehended the interests of this, country, and that in looking at the situation, purely from- the point of view of Canadian interests, they are acting in the same way as the British diplomats did. I do not blame England for having considered British interests before committing the country to war. We considered that Canadian interests were at stake and we looked at that directly. A few. months after the declaration of war a message of the President of the United States was issued urging the people of that country to stay neutral because that was in the interest of the United States. Only after three years had passed did the United States enter the war. Did they enter the war when Belgium was invaded, when France was attacked and invaded? No, Sir, during those three years the United States, following the same course, doing business as usual, were trading with Germany and Austria, were supplying the enemies of the Allies with munitions, food and weapons to invade Belgium and France, But one day German submarines came across the

ocean, American ships were sunk and American lives were lost. One day the Lusitania was sunk and hundreds of Americans perished. Then the United States entered the war because American interests were at stake. 'I say, Sir, that true Canadian patriotism must not be carried off its feet simply by the fixed idea that the war can be run only with men, that the war can be won only through the instrumentality of the Military Service Act, and that even if we take another standpoint we are not patriots and true Canadians.
Sir, it has been stated to-day that we did not respond to the Military Service Act, and that has aroused the sentiment of the population of the other provinces against the province of Quebec. We have sent four hundred thousand men overseas, we have spent almost two thousand million dollars, and we now stand alongside the United States, who, for three years, have enriched themselves with the millions derived from trading with Germany, and who during that period did not send a single man overseas. If we are allied in this war we are partners in the same enterprise and to the same end; but in a partnership every partner must do his duty. What would you think of two merchants, partners in a store if one would go in the morning and open the store, sell to customers the whole day long and put money in the cash box when it was empty, and the other would go at nine o'clock, smoke a cigar, simply chat with the customers, take one half of the earnings when he required it, and walk away at night? Such a partnership would not be fair, and would not long continue. Sir, if we are partners in the war the' United States must do their share, and they have the men to enable them to do so. It is useless to contend that Canada must send one hundred thousand men more to win the war; the men are not required. The men are required only for the political , purposes of those who apply the Military Service Act. Why do the Americans refrain from sending men to the front? Their contention is that they have no ships. How is it, then, that after sending overseas four hundred thousand men we have the vessels wherewith to send one hundred thousand more, and yet the Americans have no ships for the transportation of their soldiers?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Where does the hon. gentleman get the information that no American troops have been sent overseas?

Mr. VIEN': I do not say that no American troops have been sent, but I take the declaration of the United States Minister of War for anything I say in this regard. A certain number of American troops have gone overseas, but there are two million men now available in the United States. Why do not the United States send those two million men across the ocean? Because they say, they have no ships with which to transport them.


John Allister Currie: Is the hon. gentleman
trying to make the argument that Canada should not reinforce her men at the front, but leave them to die like rats in the trenches until such time as two million Americans were sent over? If so what has that got to do with the resolution before the House?


Thomas Vien: I was coming to that point. I am trying to make that point clear to the minds of my English-speaking friends. I have often discussed the matter with them, and I have met with the same objection that the hon. member for North Simcoe has now raised. I say that the contention of the Government is simply a matter of pride, a matter of fulfilling a promise which was certainly made without due consideration. Why should we keep five divisions, or four divisions, or two divisions at the front? If, Sir, we have sufficient men to maintain two divisions at the front and two divisions in the rear, let us keep two divisions in the rear. Sir, we must not forget-and this is an answer to my hon. friend, the	contradictor,-that France
handed over a portion of its front to England, that England assigned a portion of its front to Canada. Why should not Canada to-day hand over a portion of its front to the United States? We have for three years during the war done our duty. Why should we not now, when we are called upon to make a greater effort, allow our partners in the war to do, not better than we have done, but just as much. Sir, this is the point of view of many French Canadians. They look at the matter from a purely Canadian point of view, because it will not be in the interests of Canada to ruin the human, the vital force of the Dominion, and ruin its credit.
In so far as the. sending of 100,000 men overseas is essential to the winning of the war, if it were so, I would immediately approve of it, hut I say that it is not essential, because if a hundred thousand Canadians were kept here, a hundred thousand Americans could be sent overseas to do their

duty and take their .share, and in that light we view the true interest of the Canadian people. We are not in Canada for one year or for twenty-{five years; we must foresee the after-the-war conditions, and in so doing must 'consider to wlhat extent our effort financially, and in so far as man power is concerned, must go.
'Mr. MORPHY: Will the hon. gentleman allow -me a question? 'There are, I believe 4,000 odd French Canadians fighting bravely at the front. Does the argument of the hon. gentleman mean that no further French Canadians should go to support them, and that we should depend upon Americans to support those brave French Canadians at the front?


Mr.   WEN@: That is not at all my argument. I take a much wider, a Canadian, point of view. I am' not making any discrimination or undue distinction between any portion o'f 'the elements of Canada in the Tanks of our troops overseas, and in so far as that is concerned, to answer my hon. friend, I might point out what I heard said in a speech at Niagara. When British-born citizens came to settle in Canada before the war, I learn from reliable sources, there was a certain appellation applied to them.. They were called " English sparrows " in some circles here, because the English sparrow has,, had the bad characteristic of going to its neighbour's nest and eating the eggs. When the war broke out, what occurred? The province of Ontario was glad to rank and to number among her sons 60,000 of these " English sparrows," who were not Canadian-born. We bad no " English sparrows " in the province of Quebec. The men who have been sent overseas from our stock are Canadian-horn citizens.
Mr. LEM1IETJX:	And many more than
four thousand.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The number is 4,826.


Rodolphe Lemieux: No, Sir, I have it from a chaplain who was there from the beginning. There are over twenty thousand French Canadians at the front, and the hon. gentleman knows it.


Thomas Vien: I want to make this argument to show that the population of the province of Quebec were not carried away by simple emotion and passion. They are directed in their conduct during the war by a true understanding of the real interest of Canada and they are foreseeing post bellum conditions.
I have answered the hon. gentleman who said that we were carried away simply by emotion and passion. Let us come now to the sad events which have occurred in Quebec. A complete statement of the facts is now in the possession of the House, and they have been ably narrated by hon. members who have already spoken. I do not wish to cover the ground again, but I think that too great stress cannot be placed upon the fact that among the population of the province of Quebec the disturbance has received the unreserved condemnation of the great mass of all classes. The churches, the liberal professions, the industrial commercial and labor leaders, and the local press have unanimously joined in reprobating it. To hear me out in that statement, and to leave no doubt whatever in the minds of hon. gentlemen, allow me to invoke the unimpeachable testimony of Major General Lessard himself. On the 3rd April, in his statement to the press, as I read it in the five o'clock edition of the Ottawa Journal, he qualifies the whole incident as "the disgraceful conduct of a small number indeed of irresponsible persons inspired and directed by ontside agents." I have cited his words textually. That fact was absolutely evident to everybody down there. I was in Quebec on Thursday, Friday and Saturday, and although not an eyewitness of everything that oeeured, I have made it a point to collect reliable information right at the scene of the disturbance. On the 2nd of April, the Prime Minister made a statement to this House which appears on page 250 of the unrevised Hansard. I cannot agree with my right hon. friend in so far as his appreciation of the action of the local police is concerned, but in the main his statement is corroborated by the subsequent reports laiid on the Table. Allow me to make a very brief summary of what took place and of what the Prime Minister said.
The incidents commenced on Thursday evening. On that evening some Dominion officers were pursued and sustained some injuries from the handling to which they were subjected, but nothing more of importance-I cite the very words of the Prime Minister-seems to have occurred that evening. On Friday an attack was made on the registry office which was ransacked, but very little loss of important documents occurred. The same evening two newspaper offices were attacked and damaged, but there was no great material loss, and there was no bloodshed. On Saturday evening

there was some disorder, the mob appeared very unruly, and military patrols of the local garrison were ordered out, but still there was no bloodshed. That is all that occurred before the active intervention of the military, according to the Prime Minister's own statement, and as supplemented by the reports published in Hansard. It is greatly to be regretted that the newspapers were at first supplied by the Canadian Press with grossly erroneous and exaggerated reports.
The Canadian Press was most unfortunate indeed in the choice of its local representative; or else if the events were correctly reported, and afterwards viciously exaggerated before they were communicated to the newspapers, that is tantamount to an odious conspiracy, and the public has the right to know what influences were brought to bear on the official of the Canadian press and for what purpose this course was taken.
As soon as the disorder broke out, with an apparently commanded unanimity, the press interpreted it as a general loosening of a previously determined and well-organized opposition on the part of the population of the whole province against the application of the Military Service Act. As if to excite a still greater animosity against Quebec, the first disturbance, which now boils down to a simple row, was greatly exaggerated. Belanger, the Government spotter, was reported dying in a hospital, whereas he had simply been blackeyed and had returned home unmolested during the day. Those who have visited the auditorium since the occurrence know that the fire damaged only a few rooms. The breaking of a few windows in the auditorium annex and the .commencement, of fire, easily extinguished, were reported 'as the complete wrecking of the whole auditorium and its-destruction by fire. What the Prime Minister sums up as a very small loss of important records-Hansard page 250-was reported to be the destruction of all the records absolutely essential to the successful application of the Act in Quebec. Immediately after, again with an apparently commanded unanimity, the press intoned a hymn of hate against the oldest province of the Dominion, against one third of the population of this country. This was the prelude to an equally unanimous appeal to the Government for a sturdy treatment of Quebec, which course the Prime Minister later announced and which we now know has been followed. The conduct of the Canadian Press was in the first place,

extremely dangerous, as likely to inflame against each other, as it did, the already excited minds of English and Frenchspeaking people, and as likely to drive the rioters to further excesses. Secondly, it created in the minds of the people the impression that the population of the city and the province at large were backing the disturbance, whmh, we know, was contrary to the fact. I am pleased to see that as soon as the various newspapers had time to send a special representative to the scene, they immediately .proclaimed that the great mass of the population disapproved the movement. As General Les-sard puts it, the whole affair was the result of the disgraceful conduct of a small number indeed of irresponsible persons, inspired and directed by outside aid. But the harm was done, and a thorough investigation should be made to place the responsibility where it should lie. The press is a power in this country, but the essential condition of the-privileges and liberties which it enjoys is that it should not become mischievous and a danger to public peace. On the other hand, the newspapers which in good faith published reports received from the Canadian press should see that they are not deceived in future, and that the offenders are punished. Before long it is not improbable that we shall know what influence was brought to bear on the official of the Canadian press to cause it to give out isuch grossly exaggerated reports.
Bet us now consider the intervention of the military, and whether it was justified by the facts. All members of the House will agree that in such a riot or outbreak the first consideration of the officers should be that of preventing bloodshed. Bloodshed is the most regrettable incident of the whole affair. On the first evening some Dominion officers suffered injury through the handling to which they were subjected. On the second evening the registry office was ransacked, but little loss of important records occurred. The newspaper offices were wrecked, but there was no bloodshed, and the mayor thought that he could deal with the situation; that military assistance was not required. But by reference to Hansard, page 300, it will be seen that the Government intervened; they sent to Quebec a Toronto regiment, which paraded the streets with .machine guns; and'then the bloodshed took place. Happily the situation is now well under control. To many the action of the Government in causing the military to intervene in the Quebec trouble will appear to be a strong and commend-

able move. I ishall agree with them if such a course was, first, in conformity with the cardinal principles of British Government; second, in conformity with the law of this country; third, justified by the facts; fourth, prudently carried out. We all agree that peace and good order must prevail; their maintenance is the very object of the existence of public institutions. Strong action on the part of the public authority in its proper sphere is desirable. The aid of the military and the civil power in some circumstances is also desirable, and it is especially provided for by the law. But, on the other hand, it has always been a cardinal principle of British government that the military power should be the servant, not the master, of the civil authority. Our compatriots the Orangemen-I shall call them my compatriots, for they are Canadians and so am I-my compatriots, the Orangemen of this country, still gloriously celebrate on the 12th July the Battle of the Boyne. But the Battle of the Boyne was the final incident of a big revolution. The real results ojf the revolution had been previously embodied in 1639 in the Bill of Rights which supplemented the Magna Charta. Among other things laid down in the Bill of Rights was the denial of the two things against which we are now fighting-the Divine right of Kings or Kaiserism-and secondly, militarism. To deny the Divine right of Kings, the Bill of Rights provided that the civil list which up to that time it had been customary to vote for life on the accession of each sovereign would in future be voted yearly. To safeguard against militarism and to prevent the Army from being controlled by the King, the Bill provided that the Army Act should also be voted yearly. King William III, one of the greatest soldiers who ever sat upon the British throne, only came to the throne by solemnly abjuring the exaltation of the military over the civil power. These principles are the rock bottom upon which is based the British Constitution, and they constantly receive the wholehearted support of every true Englishman.	.
These principles have received constant application, in Great Britain, the United States and Canada. The United States went so far as to wage the War of Independence to guard against the enforcement of an obnoxious tax by armed force. In Canada this Parliament has restricted by statute the interference of the military power in civil affairs, even for the maintenance of
peace and good order. Our Militia Act not only specifies the case in which the militia can be called out in aid of the civil power, but carefully prescribes the procedure, which is supplemented by the King's Regulations. It will be illuminating at this moment to read the provisions of the Militia Act, contained in section 80 and the following sections of chapter 41 of the Revised Statutes of Canada.
SO. The Active Militia, or any corps thereof, shall be liable to be called out, within or without the municipality in which such corps is raised or organized, for active service, with their arms and ammunition, in aid of the civil power, in any case in which a riot or disturbance of the peace requiring such service occurs, or is, in the opinion of the civil authority hereinafter designated in that behalf, anticipated as likely to occur, and, in either case, beyond the powers of the civil authorities to suppress, or to prevent or deal with.
81. The district officer commanding in any locality, if he is present in the locality and able to act, or if he is not so present, or from sickness or other cause is unable to act, the senior officer of the Active Militia in any locality, not from sickness or other cause unable to act, shall call out the Active Militia, or such portion thereof as he considers necessary for the .purpose of preventing or suppressing any such actual or anticipated riot or disturbance, when thereunto required in writing by the civil authority hereinafter designated in that behalf:	Provided that so far as the
Permanent Force is available, a sufficient number of the Force is to be employed upon the duty of preventing or suppressing such actual or anticipated riot or disturbance before recourse is had to other militia corps, and shall replace such other militia corps if so called out upon duty so soon as and to the extent the Permanent Force shall thereafter become avail-
The Act specifically provides that the active militia shall not be called out on active service unless required, in writing, by the civil authority. We have also the British North America Act, which entrusts the provincial legislatures with the maintenance of peace and good order, with authority to enact police regulations. In this country, as well as in England and the United States, the police organizations are essentially municipal, and everything pertaining to municipal matters comes under the jurisdiction of the provincial authority. (British North America Act, section 92, pp. 8 and 16.) These principles have been upheld time and again by the Privy Council. Thus, in British institutions the military power is made the servant of the civil authority. Our Constitution leaves to the province the maintenance of peace and good order in all municipal affairs. Even in the administration of justice the provincial Attorney General is the proper authority. The Militia Act limits to very specific cases the

intervention of the military power, in aid and upon the request of the civil authorities.
Let us now come back to the complete facts of this case. The disturbance of the peace was local in character. At first there was no bloodshed, but some government policemen were roughly handled, a few windows were broken, some documents der stroyed and building set on fire. The police could not prevent everything, but they did prevent bloodshed. The general officer commanding assures the mayor that military assistance is available, but the mayor declares that he can deal with the situation, that military assistance is not required, and that he is aJble to cope alone with any outbreak. This is contained in the statement laid on the Table by the Prime Minister himself, and reported on page 300 of Hansard. In such a case was- the Government justified in calling on the military to intervene? No, Sir. The cardinal principles of British government, the constitutional laws of this country, the special Act provided to govern the militia, condemn the Government -and the military authorities. Until then no bloodshed had taken place. It was only when the Government had chosen to reinforce the -garrison at Quebec, and bring into action all the military machinery, that blood was shed. Was that course justified? The Prime Minister himself has taken the trouble to give evidence to the country. (Hansard, page 250.) An adequate effort by -the local authority would have put down the disturbance. Then, surely in the case of failure by the municipal authorities, an appeal from them to the local garrison would have been amply sufficient.
The mayor was in conference with the general officer commanding and was supplied by him with a copy of the Riot Act. He proceeded to the place of the disturbance and succeeded in reducing the effect of the disturbance, the result being that while some windows were smashed, there was very little loss of property. Without authority and without necessity, the federal authority inflamed the smouldering embers by bringing to Quebec a Toronto regiment. Other cities in the past have been the theatre of such deplorable incidents, but the military authorities never intervened before being called upon to lend assistance to the civil powers, as provided by law. What would the good people of Toronto say if,.in order to quell a disturbance in that city, a Quebec regiment were sent there with machine guns. They would pelt with rocks and stones the damned Frenchmen from Quebec. Excuse 
the expression, but I want to be accurate -they would shoot at them with firearms of various kinds. This is what was done in Quebec. (See Prime Minister's speech, Hansard page 251). The facts narrated by the Prime Minister would never justify such an outrageous intervention by the militia. This was a gross and most imprudent transgression of the law. This incident exemplifies the soundness of the principles laid down by the right hon. leader of the Opposition; that is to say, the desirability of at all times following the law. The fact that one illegality will lead to another and as a logical consequence-


John Allister Currie: I rise to a point of order. We are starting a new Parliament. I am quite willing the leader of the House should -make a statement from written notes, but I think it is time we drew the line at these long drawn speeches being read off by members of the House.


Thomas Vien: I understand the point of Older, and I am willing to submit to it. 1 will explain the reason of it before the ruling is - given. It was simply to get through more rapidly and save the time of the House.


John Allister Currie: Take it as read.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The Tule of the House is very explicit that written speeches may not be used.


Thomas Vien: As a consequence of this
transgression of the law by the Government, and the outrage on the people of Quebec by calling Toronto regiments to parade in their streets with machine guns-


John Allister Currie: I again call attention to the fact that the hon. gentleman has not obeyed the rule.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. gentleman from West Simeo-e rises again to a point of order, and says that the hon. gentleman is not obeying the rule, but that he persists in reading the speech.


Thomas Vien: I will abide by your ruling, but I think -that my hon. friend is very severe, indeed, in the application of the rule, on this side of the House, but he himself was called to order many times by the Chair when he delivered his own address. He is very severe indeed towards a new member of this House delivering a speech in a tongue not his own. If my ihon, friend were to deliver a -speech in French he might be obliged to use some notes, and to read them, and I am paying to- the majority

of this House the compliment of speaking in their own tongue, although the French is an official language in this country. It seems tO' me that I am badly repaid for my goodwill. I will simply have to take a little more time, because the rule which prevents me reading my notes does not prevent me from consulting them. I said, Sir, that, as a consequence of this transgression, and of the outrage to the people ofi Quebec by calling Toronto regiments to Quebec to march through their streets with machine guns, the excitement of the mob naturally greatly increased, and then only did bloodshed ocur. The Prime Minister has endeavoured to shirk responsibility from his shoulders, and to very generously shift it to the municipal authorities of Quebec, stating, and I might be allowed to use this note to quote, textually, the words of the Prime Minister, so that my hon. friend might not take exception to it. At page 251 ie said:
The disturbance might have been put down without much difficulty, if proper effort had been made by civic authorities.
The Prime Minister, to my mind, only succeeded in clearly establishing that the affair was a purely local one, such as occasionally occurs in every city, and nothing warranted the nation-wide importance which was given to it by the press and by the Government. The Government which so forcibly declared its intention to see that the law is strictly adhered to gave us a very poor example of obedience to the law. As wrong is ordinarily followed by wrong, and as one illegality leads to another, the military intervention has caused serious bloodshed, the responsibility for which lies exclusively with the Government. The Prime Minister's insinuation that the local authorities were not disposed to observe public order is not worthy of his high office. (Page 251 of Hansard). No statement is less warranted by the facts. In the state of excitement of the mob, the police did very well, indeed, to prevent bloodshed and limit the effect of the disturbance to rough handling of some undiscriminating Government spotters. The breaking of a few windows and a little loss of important records were all that occurred. The disorder, Sir, would surely have died away with no other consequences, had not the Government been guilty of a very unwise, ill-timed, unlawful and outrageous intervention. During this occurrence, the local authorities showed great wisdom and consideration, and knowledge of the character of the population. The Government, if not actuated by political motives, have not shown justifiable grounds for their action and their intervention. The Orders in Council which have been laid on the Table of the House involve a serious departure from the ordinary course of constitutional law in England. Disturbances more serious than the riots at Quebec have occurred in England and Ireland and the Government of England did not see fit to suspend the constitution of the country. Might I cite one instance in which the Government of Great Britain might have been justified in taking drastic steps?. Will my friends the Orangemen of this country kindly remember what occurred when King Carson organized an army of 60,000 men to resist the application of Home Rule? He armed these men with the outspoken intention of resisting the application of the law. Did the British Government suspend the constitution? Did the British Government recall the Magna Charta or the Bill of Rights? No such thing was done. British institutions were strictly adhered to. What did England itself do in Ireland during this war? A Military Service Act was enacted in England. Was it applied to Ireland? No. Why? Because the Irish people did not want it.


Mr. BOYCE:: What have we to do with Ireland? The hon. gentleman has travelled all over the world.


Thomas Vien: I am citing these instances
to show that the Government, on the present occasion, put aside the constitution of the country, that they were not justified by the circumstances and that they will find no precedent to sustain their conduct in this- regard. They will not find any precedent in England, in 'Ireland, in Australia, in America or any place in the world.


Joseph Read: Except Germany.


Thomas Vien: Except Germany, and I was coming to that. We are fighting against Kaiserism, against bossism, against Prus-sianism. What are these appellations? What do they mean? They mean the encroachment of an organized military Government against the freedom of modern democracy. If we want to make the world free for democracy, which is stated to be the intention of the allied countries, we must not follow the same path that the Kaiser has followed on the other side. We must not introduce into this country Prus-sianism and Kaiserism with their results.
Canadian' blood has been shed in Quebec. A few years ago a great strike broke out in France. The employees of the various public utilities quit work. The telegraphers and

the railway, employees left their employment. They organized themselves to prevent others from working in connection with fee Public utilities. The Prime Minister y France then took the necessary steps to put down the disturbance land after having used all his power to accomplish that result he was.able to go to the French. Parliament and to shoiw 'to the whole world that his hands were clean of French 'blood. I very much regret indeed to say that after the repression of the Quebec riot the Prime Minister of this country is not able to say to this country that in suppressing that local disturbance hds hands are clean of Canadian 'blood.


Joseph Read: Yes, and innocent blood.
Mr. VilEN:	And innocent blood. It is
a most regrettable incident. It is a most unfortunate feature o.f that incident that it should have 'been given such grossly exaggerated proportions, that it -should, have caused the [Government to set aside the principles Of British. Government. There is an incipient apprehension in this -country and in this House when we see the constant trend in the .political movement in the direction of superseding the civil" power by the military power. What is the real effect of the Orders in Council which have been laid on the Table of the House? The real -effect, 'Sir, is to take away the judicial *power from the properly constituted authority, and to vest and merge it in the executive power. This has never been done under the British flag since the Bill of Rights. It is n-ow twenty minutes after two, and I will no longer occupy the attention [DOT]of the House.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear .


Thomas Vien: Some of my friends on the other side appear to think that I have taken too much time already.
Some hon, GENTLEMEN: Go on.


Thomas Vien: We will certainly not he afraid of whatever threat the Government of Canada choose to hold out to the French Canadian element, or to the province of Quebec. We are law-abiding citizens. We were equally so under voluntary enlistment law, because there was no compulsion then. We are still law-abiding citizens when we take advantage of the provisions of the Act to enforce our civil rights, and I think it is a vicious insinuation to characterize the action of the French Canadians in that respect as absolutely unpatriotic, as was done this afternoon. I think that if a better un-derfMr. Vien.l
standing of t'he French Canadian point of view were arrived at by the English-speaking side of the House no such thing would be possible. I think that through a more intimate intercourse we could come to understand each other's point of view more intelligently and more closely. We do not criticize the English-speaking element of Canada, neither do we want to impo&e our views on them. We do not wish to enact laws to govern them, our desire is that they shall be free to do as they please under the British flag. But, at the same time, Sir, we ol-aim the same privileges for ourselves. If this is a free country, and we are to continue to enjoy the liberty to which we are entitled, all will be well. But I say that the provisions contained in the Order in Council laid on the Table to-day are opposed to that liberty, and if they are put into force I am afraid this beautiful Canada of ours will not be a happy country to live in. I am afraid that grave danger of disruption is impending, and that the Government is not taking the necessary steps to eliminate that danger in the future. As I have already said, we are law-abiding citizens, and we will continue to he so, but there is not the slightest reason why a vicious reflection should be made on the character of a whole population because of the occurrence of a riot of a merely local character.


Mr. D. L. REDMAN (Calgary, E.):: Mr. Speaker, I feel that I would be doing very much less than my duty to my constituents who elected me to Parliament on the 17th of December last, to say nothing of ignoring my own very strong feelings on the subject, were I to remain silent and not to express my views on the subject under discussion. I come not from Ontario, nor from any part of Quebec, where possibly historic conditions may be responsible for local feeling or prejudices, but from western Canada, where I can assure you there is no feeling or prejudice against any nationality or any special race. I,n the West we regard ourselves as Canadians and we think that answers all requirements. For us there are no especially favoured communities ; and we feel that as Canadians, as members of a free community of the British Empire we have very great rights and privileges, and that it is our duty now, and whenever occasion may demand, to fight as fuliy as may be in our power for those rights and privileges. I do ncvt think I am taking an unreasonable view in expressing the belief that the willingness to fight for the rights and privileges we enjoy should be coexistent with their enjoyment. I am absolutely free, as I

believe the people generally in our province are absolutely free, from any prejudice. But we do feel, for two reasons- first, (that we need the men, and secondly, because the province from which I come, and perhaps other parts of Canada have done more towards sending men overseas than have been done in the province of Quebec- that more men should be sent to the firing line from that province. The mandate which was given to me, equally, I believe, with the mandate which was given to other members who sit on your right, Mr. Speaker, on the 17th of December last, was that we should come to Ottawa and do our utmost to enforce the Military Service Act, not only in a similar manner in each province, but also that like results should be obtained from one end of Canada to the other. That, I feel, is the reason that I was sent here by my constituents, and, to be frank, I have grave doubts as to whether I was sent here for any other reason. Such being the case and such being my own personal belief and feeling, I intend to do what little I can here to see that the Act in question is carried out absolutely and entirely.
As regards the riots that have taken place in Quebec, I do not think the Government have gone too far in'the way in which they have attempted, and have to some extent succeeded in enforcing this Act in that province. The previous enlistments in the province of Quebec for service overseas were not nearly as great as in other parts of Canada, and while, under the Military Service Act, one hundred and seventeen thousand, men have registered-there are still a great many who have not done so-the province of Quebec has sent overseas only some three thousand, or less. Under the circumstances it seems to me that we have a right to demand that more men shall be obtained from that province. I believe that the enforcement of the Military Service Act up to date in the province of Quebec has not been successful. Therefore, it is necessary for such changes to be made in the Act as will ensure a greater degree of success. I wish to congratulate the Government on the Orders in Council deailing with this subject which they have brought down. I believe that each and every one of them will make the Military Service Act more successful, and our opinion is that the changes necessary to render the Act more successful must be made.
I feel that if it is not made successful, and that if we do not obtain, and obtain speedily, from the province of Quebec as many soldiers to go overseas as the rest
of Canada has furnished, each and every one of us who have come here with very, very clear orders given on the 17th day of December, will have failed to do our duty in carrying out our instructions, and that we are not worthy to represent the people who have sent us here.
I have listened to-day to various speeches by hon. gentlemen on the opposite side, in which they have professed a willingness to obey the law, and to participate, as far as Canada is concerned, fairly and equally in this war. I am not going to say what may be the actual beliefs or feelings of those hon. gentlemen, but it does occur to me, afteT listening to their speeches, that the result of their words cannot in any sense be calculated to cause those who follow them to be more anxious or more likely to obey the law; nor do I think that the consequence or effect of their words will in any way increase recruiting. By the plainest of logic, and the use of the most ordinary commonsense, one cannot come to the conclusion that these hon. gentlemen are very anxious to assist recruiting or exceedingly anxious that the law should be obeyed. I would not care to be in the position of those hon. gentlemen, who can exercise influence over their people to the proper end, and who have influenced them in the manner which they have taken here to-day. Various arguments have been put up, the usual arguments we have heard before, that these men should be retained at home for food production. Food production and other industries are all very fine. But men are needed at the front, and when men go overseas, very often they get killed, and each part of Canada should bear its share of that risk. I know of no reason why that should not be.
I would remind hon. gentlemen that they are here to-day enjoying the rights and privileges of British citizenship, and while they are right in protecting those rights and privileges, if we do not send men overseas, and if we do not do our part, and others do not do theirs, we shall see such a sweeping away of British rights and privileges that there will be none left. I have seen the work of the Germans. I have been overseas and have seen them doing their work. And we on this side are doing what should be done in this country to preserve these various rights and privileges, about which we have heard so much talk.
Another point which is very significant to me ie that these riots have (broken out at the exact period when overseas we can almost see the fate: of our country and of

Lord Elgin is speaking himself; this was in 1849.
When I left the House of Parliament, I was received with mingled cheers and hootings hy a crowd by no means numerous, which surrounded the entrance of the building. A small knot of individuals consisting, it has since been ascertained, of persons of a respectable class in society, pelted the carriage with missiles which they must have brought with them for the purpose.
The article continues:
The "missiles" which could not be picked up in the street were rotten eggs. One of them struck Lord Elgin in the face. That was the Canadian method of expressing disapproval of a governor general for acting in strict accordance with the principles of responsible government. But this was only part of the price he had to pay for doing right. Worse was to follow.
Immediately after this outrage a notice was issued from one of the newspapers calling an open-air meeting in the Champ de Mars. Towards evening the excitement increased, and the fire-bells jangled a tocsin to call the people into the streets. The Champ de Mars soon filled with a tumultous mob, roaring its approbation of wild speeches which denounced the "tyranny " of the governor general and the Reformers. A cry arose, "To the Parliament House!" and the mob streamed westward, wrecking in its passage the office of Hincks's paper the Pilot. The House was In session, and though warned by Sir Allan MacNab that a riot was in progress, it hesitated to take the extreme step of calling out the military to protect its dignity. At this time the whole police force of the city numbered only seventy-two men, and, in emergencies, law and order were maintained with the aid of the regiments
29*	1	, i
in garrison, or by a force of special constables. Soon the House found that Sir Allan's warning was against no imaginary danger.	Volleys of stones suddenly crashed
through the	lighted windows, and the
members fled for their lives. The rabble flowed into the building andi took possession of the Assembly hall. Here they broke in pieces the furniture, the fittings, the chandeliers. One of the rioters, a man with a broken nose, seated himself in the Speaker's chair and' shouted, "I dissolve this House." It seems like a scene from a Paris Smeute rather than an actual event in a staid Canadian city. Soon a cry was heard. "The Parliament House is on *fire." Another band of rioters had set the western wing alight, and, in a quarter of an hour, the whole building was a mass of flames. Although the firemen turned out promptly, they were forcibly prevented' by the mob from doing their duty, until' the soldiers came to their support, and then it was too late to save the building. Next day only the ruined walls were standing. The Library of Parliament was burned in spite of efforts to save it, and the student of Canadian history will always mourn the loss of irreplaceable records and' manuscripts in that tragic blaze.
Now, what was the reason tor this affray? Was it because the lives of the Englishspeaking citizens were endangered, was it because their institutions or their religion were threatened? Had there been any violence or exactions? No, the reason was that the Governor General had sanctioned a Bill passed by -a Parliament with a majority of English-speaking citizens to indemnify those who had not taken part in the Rebellion of 1837, and whose property had been wantonly damaged. The law did not attack the lives of these most loyal citizens, but their pockets, and it was more important than their own lives and the blood of their fellow citizens. Mr.. Speaker, I relate these facts not to excuse what happened at Quebec, but to show what might have happened if conscription had been voted down by Ontario and enforced hy the Government. I am not 'au fait' of .provocating acts in Quebec, but I know what happened in Montreal. Men were arrested even when they had their exemption papers in their possession. Their papers were taken away from them and the men put in jail until writs of habeas corpus were taken in the courts of Montreal.
It might be interesting if I informed the House how many writs of habeas corpus have been taken in Montreal from the 27 th February, 1918, until to-day. There were thirteen. One was taken by P. L. Charre on February 27, the next day the military authorities through Colonel Hibbard, declared that the man was wrongfully arrested and did not oppose the writ. On the 1st March, E. St. Denis made a petition, and was liberated

for the same reason on March 16. On the 4th of March, D. Giaconimi made a petition and was liberated the next day. On the 9th, E. Ciamarro made the same petition and was liberated on the 12th of March. On the 11th, Joseph Fortin made the same petition and was liberated on the 14th, On the 21st, H. W. Dodd, made the same petition and was liberated two days after. On the 23rd, J. Paulicci made the same petition and was liberated three days after; and so on. The names, of the other men who made the same petition and were declared to have been wrongfully arrested were A. J. Villeneuve, J. Romani, Henri Fugere, Louis Paquette, Charles Dube.
I have here an affidavit in the case of Henry W. Dodd, who was arrested on the 21st of March, and liberated on the 23rd.
That your Petitioner, on the 29th day of November, filed in the hands of the Registrar, 

nder the Military Service Act, for the District of Montreal, an Appeal from the decision of the local tribunal, which Appeal, the Registrar acknowledged having received on the 3rd day of December;
That your Petitioner was summoned to appear on the 21st December before Honourable Mr. Justice Duclos on his claim for exemption, and his case was continued until the 7th of January, 1918, in order that he may be examined by the Revisory Board in the meanwhile ;	,	,,
That on the 24th day of December, the Military Medical Revisory Board declared that your Petitioner was of category "E", and therefore on the 7th day of January, 1918, Honourable Mr. Justice Duclos rendered judgment accordingly, allowing the Appeal, the Appellant having been placed in Class "E" ;
That, nevertheless, on the 4th day of March, 1918 your Petitioner while at work in his office was informed that one Major McKenzie wanted him at the Military Headquarters;
That on the said date your Petitioner, although having produced his papers, showing that he had been placed in Category "E", and that, consequently, he was permanently exempted from all Military Service, was lodged in the military prison in the Guy Street Bar-
That the said Major McKenzie pretended that your Petitioner having been placed in Category A2 on the 12th of October by the military doctors had to undergo another examination and to follow a treatment at the Montreal General Hospital;
That on the 5th day of March your Petitioner was taken under guard from the Guy Street Barracks to the Montreal General Hospital where he was detained until the 11th day of March, during which time he was guarded day and night;
That on the 11th day of March your Petitioner was removed from the hospital and was again confined in the Military Prison at the Guy Street Barracks, and had to suffer the most ignominious and injurious treatment, as if he had been serving a sentence;
That on the 15th day of March he was put in uniform and permanently attached to the 1st Quebec Regiment under the orders of
[Mr. Archambault.j
Major General E, W. Wilson and Lt.-Colonel Pichd;
That your Petitioner, has, on many occasions, prayed the Respondent to see that his liberty be given him, stating that he had been exempted from Service by judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice Duclos on the 7th day of January, 1918, and had been placed in Category "E" by the Medical Advisory Board ;
That the papers which he had in his possession on the 4th day of March were taken from him;
That the Respondents have always refused to grant to your Petitioner his liberty;
Mr. Speaker, I "was present on the morning when the petition was presented before the Hon. GMr. Justice Lamothe in Montreal, and Lieut. Col. Hibbard, who represented the military authorities; stated that the facts mentioned in this petition were true and the man w.as liberated. This is one of the reasons-T do not say it is an excuse- why riots occurred in Quebec. If the law had been applied in the same way in Quebec as it has been in Montreal, if men had Ibeen robbed of their exemption papers, confined in prison and only released by the arm of the civil law by habeas corpus proceedings there is no wonder the people are excited, and resort to serious measures, and no wonder these regrettable incidents occurred in Quebec.
In closing, I wish to answer the remark made by my hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. Currie), who asserted that Le Devoir had published seditious1 articles, and that Henri Bourassa ought to he interned. It is not my duty, nor my intention to defend Bourassa in this House. He is well able to defend himself; hut if I judge the knowledge of French of the hon. member for North Simcoe by his love for it, he certainly has not read those seditious articles in French. If he has read a translation, and the translation was made, as they generally are, for the sole purpose of creating racial and religious feeling, I submit that the hon. member for North Simcoe, before rendering judgment on those articles, ought to take a special course in French. French is like good music and it might have a good effect on him. "La musique adoucit les moeurs."
Mr. E. D'ANJOU (Rimouski) ('translation) ; Mr. Speaker, since the hour is late I will be brief, and as the point at issue has, till now, been argued in English I will pay a tribute of homage to Her Majesty in the French tongue by using it to convey the few remarks I wish to make anent the important question which forms the subject matter of the present debate.
First of all, I. believe it my duty to reply to the attacks 'directed against the clergy

of the province of Quebec by the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards). The hon. member-it is, moreover, a habit with him, -did not miss this opportunity to criticize the French Canadian clergy of my province. According to him, it is the clergy who have instilled into our people their present state of mind, and what is happening to-day is due to their influence.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we have in nowise to blush for the actions of our dlergy, and that, under all circumstances the wisdom of their guidance has led us through the paths of right, of honour and of duty. If the hon. member for Frontenac has the least knowledge of Canadian history he cannot ignore the fact that at the time of the war which resulted in American independence it was the clergy of the province of Quebec who advised the French Canadians to refuse the advantages offered them by the Americans who sought to enlist the aid of the Canadians in the struggle for independence.
Neither is. anybody ignorant of the fact that when the Government, last year, inaugurated national registration by means of cards called national service cards, the clergy took upon themselves as a duty to exhort the people to obey the law. Always, the clergy have shown themselves worthy of their high position and it truly is a matter for regret that we should have in this House members who never allow an occasion to pass when they can throw insults in the face of the clergy of the province of Quebec, in particular, of the Catholic clergy as a whole. Let us remember that at this moment thousands of French priests and monjts are shedding their blood on the soil of France for the cause of liberty and civilization.
Such attacks are unjustifiable and I do not see how I, the representative of a county both French Canadian and Catholic, could let them pass without a reply.
To my mind, the question of the Quebec riot has been debated with such forcible arguments that I have no intention of recurring to all the points discussed; but, Mr. Speaker, one thing is certain: if this riot in the city of Quebec has taken place, it is because the people of Quebec were provoked and, Mr. 'Speaker, it is not solely in the application of the Conscription Act that we meet this provocation.
I represent the county of Rimouski, and in the parish of Mont Joli, barely a few weeks ago, a trainload of soldiers, coming from Ontario or from the western provinces -I do not know which-stopped at Mont
. -i*9
Joli. The soldiers left the train, and proceeded to storm the drug-store, breaking down the doors in order to procure whisky; then they went to the restaurants and insulted the young waitresses there; in a word, they aroused the entire population of Mont Joli who are peaceful folk but who, as our expression has, willl not allow their feet to be trod upon.
It is just such deeds that bring on riots. What happened at Quebec, therefore, is not a matter for surprise.
There is no doubt that the same gang who operated at Montreal was behind the Quebec affair, and perhaps the hon. Minister of Justice will be obliged, before long, to hand over another $10,000 bail in order to get one of these individuals out from behind the bars.
The application of this Act was put into the hands of irresponsible people, most of the time, ne'er-do-wells, individuals totally devoid of discretion, and of judgment, who hie themselves to street corners and there insult peaceful folks, men whose very aspect is a certificate of exemption. For instance, you might have noticed in the papers that the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Fournier) was arrested at Quebec. He was asked to produce his exemption certificate; was it not ridiculous to make such a demand upon a man whose hair is sufficient witness to his age? In a way, of course, it was flattering for him, but on the other hand, it was pretty insulting to have some nondescript of a policeman lay hands upon him, without cause or justification.
Mr. Speaker, feeling' in the province of Quebec is against conscription; there can be no doubt on that score. For my part, I was elected in Rimouski county as an anti-conscriptionist; I was opposed to conscription before it was voted ; I was opposed to it during the elections and I am against it still. I have not changed my conviction, because I believe that this conscription law is inopportune, that it is opposed to the best interests of our country and that it is not a help to the British Empire.
I was saying a moment ago that there had been provocation; well, if there was provocation, there was more than that. Certain high-falutin' personages in the Government of this country came, one day, to give advice to the voters of the province of Quebec, during that notorious election in Dorchester, when Mr. Blondin, the musical-comedy colonel, caane to Dorchester to assist Mr. Sevigny in the contest, and that your humble servant had the advantage of

meeting with him at iSte. Rose de Dorchester.
Mr. Blondin, while I was telling the voters that conscription was on the way, spoke in this vein: "You people here in Ste. Rose; if conscription were to become law in Canada, you are near the American frontier; all you have to do is to escape."
When a man of Mr. Blondin's position comes to the people of St. Rose and says: "If conscription comes to Canada you can escape to the United States," how can you expect the people of the province to submit to this law; to submit, after that sort of advice coming from such an important figure in Canadian politics?
I say that the Government was ill-advised when it passed this conscription law. It seems to me that it would be better under the circumstances to withdraw the law so that, peace of mind may reign once more in all Canadian homes.
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to engage the attention of this House too long, but I wanted to express my opinion before this debate had ended. I received from the voters of the county which did me the honour of sending .me to this House a very definite .mandate: I was elected as an anti-conscriptionist; I aim to-day, and I will remain an anti-conscriptionist.


Mr. C. A. FOURNIER (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, as this is my first utterance in the House I crave the indulgence of hon. members. I have been very much impressed with what has been said upon this subject during the course of the debate. What impressed me the most was the position taken by the hon. member for Fron-tenac (Mr. Edwards). The very moment he rose to his feet he reached deep into the well of his feelings and hurled his anathemas at the province of Quebec. I regretted his words very much, and especially those in which he launched an attack upon the Catholic clergy of that province. I regretted it on his own account as much as for myself. The province of Quebec is accused always in the same old way. All through the campaign the province was subjected to attack, and I was accused of upholding a doctrine antagonistic to the interests of the Empire. I hope I shall have an opportunity of stating the position which I took during that campaign and I am not ashamed to state it here. -I did not preach cowardice, but on the contrary I maintained that we should do our duty to France which gives us our intellectual life and that we should also do our duty to the British Government which has preserved

the liberty that we have thus far enjoyed here on this Canadian soil. I took that position, Sir, and I am doing business at the old stand still. I regret that hon. members on the other side of the House who have been elected as Unionists should feel called upon to east reflections on the province of Quebec because we differ in opinion with them on certain questions. I took the stand that my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) took and the stand that Mr. Lloyd George himself, the Prime Minister of England, has taken. He has said that what we want is ships, ships, and more ships, to carry the last bag of wheat to feed the Allies. I trust that I may say without any discourtesy to the hon. member for Fron-tenac that the word of Mr. Lloyd George is as good as that of the hon. member for Frontenac. I heard the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Mackie) speak about the ambition, the passion and the philosophy of nations. I confess that I. want none of his philosophy of nations or his ambitions. I am a Canadian enjoying the liberty here that the British Government has established and I wish to continue to enjoy it. He said that it was independence that we were searching for; at least that is what I understood him to say although I could not understand him very well. He also mentioned annexation. I have lived under the Stars and Stripes and ll say, I hope without reproach, that I want to enjoy British liberty. We appear now to be a financial dependency of the United States. In connection with every measure that is adopted the United States is mentioned. What I said a moment ago I will always maintain. I repeat that I want to enjoy British liberty. My hon friend from Parry Sound (Mr. Artnurs) said that his opponent had stated during the campaign that if my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition came into power all the soldiers would be liberated. I could not quite catch all of his remarks hut I think he said something of that kind. Probably that would take place in the trenches because that is where the promise was given. All through the campaign I did not go -farther than my right hon. leader. I took a stand against conscription because I believe that in this country where we want production, you cannot have both soldiers and production and if you drain the country of man power production will be very much diminished. Of course, we must be careful not to compromise the action of the Allies and that is why I took the stand I did. If you want production you must allow the

farmer to remain a farmer. You cannot make him a soldier and a farmer at the same time. It was stated at the beginning of the war by the greatest economists of the world that in this conflict famine might perhaps have the last word. I believe we are all verging on famine and that Canada will pass through a great financial crisis. I believe that this country has great resources but we must husband them and we must conduct our affairs in accordance with the principles of economy or else the future will he compromised. We must be careful that we do not allow the tendency towards militarism in this country to compromise our future or interfere with the success of the Allies.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to prolong this debate. I had sent word to the Speaker earlier in the evening that although I intended to say a few words I would refrain from doing so out of regard to the lateness of the h'our and the number of speakers. But I just wish to say one word. Whether one is moved by emotion or passion I do not know and whether it be a crime I am not prepared to say. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Fournier) who has just taken his seat. He has moved me by the strong British sentiments which he has expresesd to rise to my feet and tell him, an hon. member of French origin from the province of Quebec, the pleasure it gave me to note the splendid, sterling, British ring of the utterances with which he has favoured the House.
I liked his speech so much that that is my excuse for saying a word or two in this debate; it was in marked contrast to the speech of the hon. member from, I think, Montmagny-


Thomas Vien: Lotbiniere.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: -to whom I listened to-night with feelings of great regret. I acknowledge the hon. gentleman's earnestness,-his ability, and his out-spokenness, and I was rather pleased in one way to hear him address the House as he did, although I totally disagree with the sentiments which he uttered. I have been told, Mr. Speaker, and it has been commonly said, that the ideals of the province of Quebec, -as a part of the Canadian confederation, were based largely upon thoughts such as were expressed by the hon. member for Lotbiniere in his observations to-night. What were they? Without going into details I hope the hon. gentleman will pardon me when I state in an abstract way
what I gathered from his remarks, viz.- that his ideal of life and liberty was limited to Canada entirely. He had not, like the hon. member for Bellechasse, who has just spoken, the same high ideal of the liberties we enjoy, and have enjoyed under the aegis of the British Empire. He seemed to forget, Mr. Speaker, that these liberties have been preserved to us by the great British Empire. I am sorry to say it, but in this, the greatest stress of the world's life, in this the greatest crisis in the history of the world, in this day When the British Empire-and what ought to be his beloved France but which apparently is not-when these two great empires are struggling against the power and might of the vandal Hun, it is a travesty upon the life of any part of the civilized world that in the Parliament of Canada a member could be so recreant to hi.s duty as to stand up and condemn those of us who think differently from him, because we say that we have a duty to perform to the man-power that is gone to fight the battles of liberty, not only from the provinces outside of Quebec, but from that province itself.


Thomas Vien: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to say this: I may not have proven to him what I intended to prove through lack of fluency in his language, but what I intended to say is this: That we believe in maintaining in this country British institutions, but we claim that the best way to help the Empire is not merely by sending men. We can help the Empire otherwise and at the same time foresee the after conditions of the war for Canada.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I do not wish to get into a discussion particularly about it, nor do I desire exactly to accept the statement the hon. gentleman now makes, or to withdraw anything which I have said. I am endeavouring to give to this House the full effect and meaning of the words that the hon. gentleman uttered in as good English as any man who has spoken in this debate. The hon. gentleman, beyond peradventure, gave the House to understand that he was prepared to-day to stop the sending of any more men overseas from this country, and he gave as the reason that the United States should send men, that Canada had done enough.


Thomas Vien: Absolutely.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Am I wrong, Mr. Speaker, when I so construe the hon. gentleman's remarks? If the hon. gentleman said that, and he did so, and I do not think he will deny saying so, I maintain that such an

utterance was the most pusillanimous utterance that was ever made on the floor of this House during the six or seven years that I have had the honour of being a member of it. I have been told, but did not believe, that the ideals that the hon. gentleman has set forth here to-night were the ideals of the province of Quebec. It has 'remained for him to prove that there is one county at least represented by a member who cherishes those ideals. We from Ontario sit still under the accusations of lacking friendship to Quebec, of wanting to domineer over Quebec, of wanting to impress the power of Ontario upon Quebec. These gentlemen, Mr. Speaker, who deal in that kind of recrimination, who set up those men of straw for the purpose of knocking them down, do not know the people of Ontario. I have stood here to-night and listened to all the unpleasant things that could be said about the Orangemen of Ontario. I happen to be a member of the Orange order, and I am very proud of it, because, I want to tell the hon. gentleman, in the Dominion of Canada, nay, in the world, there is no Order that has gone to the front as loyally and patriotically as the members of the Orange Order in Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific.


Thomas Vien: Is the hon. gentleman referring to my speech?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: No.


Thomas Vien: Because I do not think that I said anything against the Orange Order.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. member 'for North Perth has the floor, and it is only with his permission that any other hon. gentleman may make interruptions.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I do not know the names of the hon. gentlemen who made the remarks to (which I refer, because the House is more or less new to me; tout it is within the knowledge of all of us that such language was used toy several hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House. The Orange Order in Canada needs no apology. Its motto is a splendid one: Fear God, love the Brotherhood and honour the King. They are not the fanatics they are painted; the constitution of the Orange Order assures the same liberty to hon. gentlemen from the province of Quebec as they claim for themselves. I wish the hon. gentlemen to understand that we are not the "Orangiste fanatiques" that we hear so much about; we are merely men of flesh and blood and kindly instincts. That sort of remark thrown across the floor of the House is done, to my mind, for a

purpose, and what good purpose can be served by it is very difficult to say; but it ill behooves men sitting upon the other side of the House, who preach against fanaticism in such a way as to antagonize, while at the same time praying for a consensus of opinion and for union, to throw these taunts across the floor.
There have been something like 75,000 Orangemen who have gone to this war, not a mean number. Are they to be condemn-d because they are fighting for our liberties and yours? What is there about the Order that it should 'be made the butt of and subjected to such attacks? It would be better for hon. gentlemen to look at home for the reasons for the trouble.


Mr.   D@: Can the hon. gentleman state what attack was made on the Orangemen by hon. members on this side?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I did not take note of it, as it was not a matter that I had intended to speak about. But hon. gentlemen heard it to-night. The attack upon the Sentinel.


Mr.   D@: That is not the Order.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I will quote it to the hon. gentleman from Hansard when it is printed. I w.as going to say, Mr. Speaker, that hon. gentlemen should look closer at home for the cause of the trouble. We are discussing the cause of the riots in Quebec. I won't deal with the mixture that I have heard from the statements of hon. members opposite, but in the abstract I have noticed, while sitting here, one hon. member on the other side state that the trouble did not come from people in the city of Quebec, but that it was caused by outsiders. A little later the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) said that it did come from the people * of Quebec, but he did not know them, that they came from the parish of St. Roch's. The hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) said that the trouble did come from the people of Quebec city, and he gave five reasons why they engaged in riotous conduct.


Lucien Cannon: May I ask the hon. gentleman in what part of my speech did I say that these troubles were caused by these people? I remember my speech perfectly, and I did not say that.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: It was the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) I referred to. But it was the hon. member for Dorchester who gave five reasons why the people rioted.


Lucien Cannon: I could have given many others.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Which further emphasizes and clinches my point. Outsiders would not go to Quebec for grievances held by the people of Quebec. The people there resented for five different reasons the action of Col. Blondin, the action of the Government, the action of the Dominion police, and so on. The resentment was not against outsiders, it was the people who were annoyed, and so we have this contradiction of speeches discussing the matter from all points of the compass, crisscrossing each other, and defeating the arguments advanced in turn. Let us see what was the cause. I am more convinced than ever that the cause was mentioned by the hon. member from Lotbin-ifere (Mr. Vien). From the nature of his remarks, the hon. gentleman shows how he has been educated. The right hon. leader of the Opposition ('Sir Wilfrid Laurier) to my mind, is more to blame for the views held in the province of Quebec than any other man. He has always been a man who was against the Empire and in favour of the provincial idea.


An hon. MEMBER:: The Canadian idea.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Not even the Canadian idea. And the proper Canadian idea is British, and British to the core, and ready to help France as well.


Mr. ARCH  AMBAULT@: And France is
helping England, too, in this war.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: And Quebec did not help France.


Thomas Vien: Did the hon. gentleman grasp that what we meant was simply a difference of views in the methods of helping the Empire?


John Allister Currie: Do not start to apologize now.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The hon. gentleman's
question is a subterfuge, Mr. Speaker. To say that every man in the province of Quebec is a farmer is too absurd to be considered for a moment. There are thousands of young men there who are seeking to evade military service. The hon. gentleman will not deny that. There are thousands going to the bowling alleys and billiard rooms.


Mr. CAHILL:: I represent a Quebec constituency, and I would like the hon. gentleman to make good his remarks, and the Government of the day to make good their remarks, that there are thousands of eligible young men in Quebec who wish to evade the Military Service Act. It is
either a reflection on the Government, or the hon. gentleman is mistaken in his statements.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I am not mistaken at all. The press and the figures show clearly that there are thousands in Montreal alone-


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: Where did the
hon. gentleman get those figures?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: They come from the daily press, the Montreal press.


Joseph Archambault: Is the daily press the source of your official information?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: It is quite sufficient for my purpose to-night. The hon. gentleman can use any kind of figures he chooses, but we know that is the fact in this country, and we know that was part of the trouble in the province of Quebec. I was going to say that hon. gentlemen should look closer home to the leader they have. I made the statement that the right hon. leader of the Opposition had been more provincial than Imperialist. Why did I say that? All his history shows that he backed away from any great movement of Empire. At the time of the Boer war, his attitude was: Not a man, not a dollar. Public opinion became so strong that he was forced to allow men to go, but he let the English Government pay them. At the time of the Riel Rebellion, he was going to shoulder his musket to fight in favour of insurrection and rebellion.


An hon. MEMBER:: And for the navy.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: There are lots of things to talk about. In his Boston speech, Canada was ultimately to fall from the Empire as the ripe fruit drops from the parent tree. He preferred the Yankee dollar to a British shilling. Any one would prefer a dollar to a shilling but the sting is in the placing of the Yankee against the British. These things have sunk into the minds of the people of Quebec. Ar-mand Lavergne gives twenty-two reasons why he is a Nationalist all taken from the speeches of the right hon. leader of the Opposition. He is the godfather of Messrs. Bourassa and Lavergne. They have adopted his doctrines. Armand Lavergne has been quoted in the press as saying: "I am right; Sir Wilfrid has left me; he has gone back on the doctrine he taught me." There we have the situation, and it is to be deplored, and is most deplorable, and yet logical, that when a serious outbreak did come it came in the constituency of the right hon. gentleman.

Who better than his constituents knew what he would like? Disruption against authorized law and constitutional authority. Did he appeal to them after the outbreak? No-. And you ask me what is 'the cause of the riots in Quebec. The trouble was brewing there; did the leader of the Opposition go to Quebec and say to his people:, take counsel with me? No, he contents himself in the House with saying that before anything happened he had told the House that bis people would obey the law. The point is that the has failed to intervene and to make any attempt to pour oil on the troubled waters and prevent riot and insurrection. It is quite logical, I say, that an outbreak of that kind should, under t'he circumstances, occur in his constituency. How deplorable tit is that innocent wayfarers, passers-by, should be the mark for the guns of the militiamen. The blood of these innpcent people has been -shed .because of an insurrection in the constitnency of the leader of the Opposition, while men higher up have escaped. There are men in this House who will .some day have to take the responsibility for the wanton attacks made in this House to-day against established law -and order. In my constituency dozens of men have been improperly apprehended; is that a cause for rebellion or riot? No., thank God; there are no agitators amongst them to set them on, and to encourage them. When I heard a member to-day say that he saw the mob going upstairs to destroy the .records of the Government and virtually admit that he stood there and let them pursue their nefarious work without taking sufficient interest in it to find out their names or to call a policeman and intercept them, I thought what a travesty it was on public life that members of Parliament could stand by and see a crime of that kind committed without taking any action. It is a hollow sham, Mr. Speaker; clever men of that kind would know who did it, and it does not do to pretend to an intelligent House that they do not know, because they could easily have found out.
A while ago we had in this neighbourhood an agitation about language. The "Orange-istes " of Ontario, the "Bosches" of Ontario, were depriving the people of French origin in Ontario of certain Tights which they claimed to possess. This Parliament building was surrounded by hundreds of school children, a resolution was introduced in the House, which admittedly had no jurisdiction over matters affecting education in the provinces. The member for Karnouraska (Mr. E. Lapointe) in one of the ablest speeches I ever heard him or any

one else deliver, presented his case fairly. His address was of a very high standard. But the matter should not have been thrown into Parliament; the discussion tended to intensify and aggravate a situation then pressing very heavily on the Ontario Government, and had the effect of injuring the school population in many .parts of Ontario. But during all this agitation, which was the main source whence this troulble in Quebec sprang, the leader of the Opposition stood by and lent a hand to the member for Karnouraska; never once went out with an apjieal to his people to stop their agitation. Subsequently the language question which was the subject of the resolution at that time was considered by the Privy Council and a decision given absolutely against the claims of our French compatriots in Ontario. They did not themselves raise the agitation; it was raised by the people who came from the other side of the Ottawa river. To my mind, Sir, that was the proximate cause of the trouble in Quebec. It was the proximate cause that resulted in young and middle-aged men tearing down recruiting stands and signs on the streets of Montreal and assaulting men. who were endeavouring honestly, openly and publicly to interest the bright youth of French and other extraction in the cause of the Allies. The mob came down, so the paper reports say -I do not know the facts, because I was not there-many students of Laval University were among them, and when the police came they took refuge in the sanctity of a church. We are asked to consider the causes of these disturbances. Hon. gentle-[DOT] men opposite tell us that because an officer made a mistake, all this trouble ensued. Nobody in Canada will believe that. There was a deeper cause, and it is based on the same principle on which i'S based the attitude of the people of the south of Ireland-a cause that makes for disunion and for the weakening of bonds of empire, for the lessening of the power of the Allies. Let ns divide the forces, these people say, for paltry political effect, so that Laurier will carry a solid Quebec. This feeling is what helped to cause the riots in Quebec. Well, I thank iGod, Mr. Speaker, that as a Canadian-and 1 am proud to be a Canadian, within the Empire-I cannot be charged with being a party to any -cause that would tend to weaken the arm of the Empire at this time. When I look at the difference between the north and the south of Ireland; when I see the Ulster Presbyterians by the thousands going to the front -and many of them did go from the south

of Ireland-when I see these Ulster Presbyterians, ninety-five per cent of them Orangemen, walking into the trenches and giving their lives for their country .and for the Empire, it makes me feel that hon. gentlemen opposite should he chary indeed about reviling anybody because he happens to be of that particular faith, denomination or order. It is not worth while; you cannot get liberty and union in any such -way. Did our friends from Quebec feel that politics were more important than the cause of Empire? It is for them to say, in their hearts and liouls. It looks to me as if that was their main, object. Was it a worthy object? I submit not. The time was too critical; politics is one thing, and war another. Have hon. members opposite helped to create the right atmosphere? The member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) has, to his credit be it said. He has a son who loyally went forward; and he himself has done more in the way of recruiting than most people I know. Why can we not all do these things? What is the matter with us? Is this Parliament so narrow that we cannot- get down to a common basis? As the member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) pleaded to-night, let us forget animosity. I am willing to forget the nasty things, said over there; you be willing to forget the nasty things said over here.
There is this difference that I see, and I have seen, it coming for many years, and have been sorry to see it. When we people of English extraction sing " God Save the King" we are answered by "0 Canada " from the other side1. There is the line of demarcation, the line of cleavage. Does any man on the other side of the House think he is a better Canadian than I am because I am of English extraction. Let French-Canadians remember that there are other Canadians, and that English-speaking Canadians, while we do not boast of our superiority, do not relish any attack upon us as being inferior beings'. That is another line that is worth while wiping out and putting a carpet over.
Another thing that differentiates us and ought to be considered is this: Up where 1 live and all over the West, everywhere in Canada, in fact, except Quebec, the country is ringing with loyal .and patriotic war songs. " We will never let the Old Flag Fall " has resounded from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Do they know the song in Quebec? Has- it been sung in their fields', has it been shouted from their house-tops? One gentleman has spoken of patriotism tonight. To my mind there is a great difference between loyalty and patriotism.
Loyalty is love of country, a sentiment purely. Patriotism is more than loyalty. It extends 'beyond it, enfolds it, brings it into itself, covers it over. Patriotism is much more and much greater than loyalty, because it means loyalty plus something else-action, something must be done. A man can sing " We will never let the Old Flag Fall " for a thousand years, but if he does not do something to keep the old flag flying, he may be loyal, but he is not patriotic. Action-something to 'be done, that is what is wanted. Quebec can do a great deal if its men with right instincts will stand up and take their place. I make this appeal at this early hour in the morning to the few who .are here, and I would urge in all candour, and with reasonable hope, that we get together and that soon we will coalesce, and there will be more cooperation and less party politics- and less bitterness.
May I digress for a moment to say that there has been more party politics, more bitterness in this debate, than during all the sessions since the war started. Why is it? Is that the spirit in which men have come from their constituencies? I hope not, but that is the situation.
I am sorry I have talked so long, but I feel very, very keenly about this matter, not for Britain alone, but for Canada as well. We have sent 400,000 boys over there, and when they pledged themselves not to let the old flag fa'll, we pledged ourselves to "keep the home fires burning." That is a song that has swept over Canada, but do they sing it in Quebec? Answer me, somebody. Apparently not. Instead of keeping the home fires burning, we have had a small incipient blaze of the red fire of revolution and anarchy-'a shame and disgrace to any civilized people in the world who pretend to enjoy the liberties the Empire gives us. But what, oh what, of noble France, whose chivalry shines brighter today than ever in the past? French Canadians may say, "I want the language of France," then I say "Do you love France, and will you fight for her? If you do not fight for France you cannot love her, and you are not worthy to enjoy her language." France lies bleeding to-day, the wonder and the admiration of the world, and as an English-speaking Canadian, I express my pride in the most glorious country on the battlefield to-day, for the honours she has won and the shining armour she has put on, of truth and nobility that is the envy and pride of the civilized world. Let us English-speaking people plead with our fellow-members from Quebec to enjoy the privilege

of going to their counties and getting the men to help France; put new blood into her veins and help her win this fight. This is a fight in which your liberty and mine is in jeopardy, and the man or the province or the colony or the Dominion that does not take its place to-day in this the greatest Armageddon of the world will hang his head in shame for all time to come. I hope and pray that this Parliament may through mutual co-operation, careful judgment, and unity of thought so propel the measures before it that all individual likes and dislikes and political bickerings may be forgotten, that we may join together in one common purpose, that this country as a part of the Empire and as a part of the Allies, with France, may as the poet said:
Strike till the last armed foe expires,
Strike for our altars and our fires,
Strike for the green graves of our sires, God and our native land!
And may Canada as a result be prosperous and happy, ready-for the period of reconstruction after the war, where all shall be one, and that one for the Empire and the Allies.


Joseph Read: I have the honour to-night to represent a whole province. There has been a good deal of talk about Quebec, and it would appear, listening to hon. gentlemen opposite, that Quebec was the only delinquent in this matter of supporting the so-called Union Government ; I will give it 'its proper name and call it a mongrel Government. I see two hon. gentlemen over there from my province, and they are here by reason of the soldiers' vote. I happen to be in the fortunate position of representing a whole province on this side of the House, because the only other Liberal member who has been declared elected has not arrived yet. I want particularly to draw the attention of hon. gentlemen >on the other slide, and especially of the gentlemen who belong to the same cult as the hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Morphy) to the fact that our province has already learnt the lesson that will unite Canada eventually, and which if it had been learnt by the great province of Ontario would have prevented all this trouble and all this debate. I would advise the people of Ontario to learn the lesson as soon as possible, and I say this with all earnestness and sincerity of purpose. I am an old man, and have no politics to bother about. I do not ever expect to run in an election again, and if I should I do not care if I am elected or defeated, anyway.
. 
I tell the people of Ontario to get nonsectarian schools, and I would advise the people of Quebec to do the same as soon as they can. They would then be in the same position as Prince Edward Island, which is the provincial leader in all the political advantages and all the political advancement which has been made in the last century. We have led the Dominion of Canada in temperance legislation. We were the only British community, up to a few weeks ago, that had adopted prohibition, in the whole of the British Empire. Away back in 1852 we were the first British people, I think perhaps the very first people, to adopt the free school system-that is to say, to pay for the schools out of the public treasury, and not impose upon the people taxes for school purposes. We made the schools absolutely free, and later on we made them non-sectarian. The result is that we have done away with bigotry and intolerance, that accursed viper that is gnawing at the vitals of Canada to-day. Bigotry and intolerance are the cause of the riots in Quebec. My hon. friend talks about Orange lodges. We have Orange lodges in our province. The best and most manly supporters I had were sound educated Orangemen, not those narrow people who subscribe to the Orange Sentinel. It is true they sent a lot of Sentinels down there to try to debauch our people, hut. they said: " This is only a Tory organ, and a reactionary organ at that." The biggest joke of the whole campaign in my county occurred when they sent a big bundle of them up to be distributed in a certain Orange constituency, and by some mistake, which perhaps was not a mistake, the driver, instead of taking them over to the Orange constituency, took them to the Roman Catholic constituency, and they did some good down there. What do we find in Prince Edward Island? With a majority of Protestants, they have a good Roman Catholic premier, and a Tory at that. That is how broad they are. I have absolutely no hesitation in saying that if the people of Canada are going to get together, they must eliminate this foolish division and this foolish irritation between these two big provinces. My province has been sacrificed for 40 years, and for what? To help these two big provinces to get together, keep together and abstain from fighting one another. Prince Edward Island is the cradle of Confederation. Are hon. gentlemen aware that the first conference that was held to confederate the provinces of Canada was held in the city of Charlottetown in 1864?

The intention was simply to unify the three maritime provinces into a maritime union. Quebec and Ontario at that time, as at present,.were at one another's throats, like the Kilkenny cats. Hon. gentlemen know that they tied together the tails of the Kilkenny cats, and threw them over a clothesline, and they fought until they killed one another. That was the condition of affairs in Ontario and Quebec. When they found we were going to form a maritime union, the big men of the two big provinces, men like Sir Wilfrid Laurier on the one side and Sir Sam Hughes on the other, got together, and asked if they could be represented; at (the convention. Our people said, "Come along boys, and if we can do anything to help you out we will be pleased." So they came down there and formed the conference, and while our people did not go into Confederation at that time, for a very good reason, 'because of our smallness, and because the people felt that in place of being-


An hon. MEMBER:: I rise to a point of order.


Joseph Read: I am speaking to the point. I want to show the cause of the Quebec riots. There is no use diagnosing a case unless you can indicate the medicine. I will not go into the story of Confederation; it would take too long. I desire to say a word about annexation. Some hon. gentlemen expressed the fear that Canada might be annexed to the United States. Let me assure hon. members of the House that Canada will never be annexed to the United States. No politician or no party could ever annex Canada to the United States. I am a believer in natural law, and natural law itself would prevent unification of Canada with the United States. Drive out nature with a fork she comes running back. Canada runs along east and west lines, and there has never been a country on the face of the earth that ran along north and south lines involving climatic changes. .Every nation must be homogeneous in order to be a stable nation, and you could not make Canada part of the United States if all the Lauriers and Bordens and the rest of them were to try for centuries. The United States would not take Canada to-morrow. The betterthinking people of the United States know very well that if Canada were added to the States it would break up the balance of power. The very thing that produced the Civil War in the United States in 1860 was the fact that they were adding Kansas, as a slave state, or a free state, to one or other
of the two halves, which would break up the influence of the other half. Why does the United States not take Mexico? Simply because it would break up the balance of power. They do not want Mexico, so put that foolish idea out of your heads. The Military Service Act has been placed on the statute-book, and must be obeyed, as long as it is the law, and I am satisfied it will be obeyed in Quebec as in the other provinces. At the same time, while it is the law on the statute-books it was the enactment of that law primarily that caused the riots in Quebec. When I started my campaign down in the little province one of the open statements I made over my own signature was that, in my judgment, the Conscription Bill in its conception

not conscription itself, but the conception of the Conscription Bill- at that time was a paramount crime and, secondly, a political crime- in every way. Why do I say that? Not because I am not in favour of conscription. One hon. gentleman whom I interrupted indicated that conscription was an autocratic institution. Conscription is a democratic institution. We have on the statute books of Canada already a conscription bill-the Militia Act. That is perfectly and absolutely democratic. What is the principle of true democracy? It is that we work together for the common good of all hands. The state undertakes to guarantee the safety, liberty and protection of her citizens and as a quid pro quo the citizen is in duty bound to render national service to the state. Consequently, universal military service for every man and universal national service for every woman are absolutely democratic institutions.' But, the Conscription Bill in its conception was a political bill intended not to win the war but to win an election. Many perhaps did not know enough to see the dragon's tail. They might have seen a mermaid's head but they could not see the dragon's tail. The right hon. leader of the Government to-day when- he brought that Order in Council down, stated that voluntary enlistments in July and August amounted to some 3,000. The wonder is that there were any at all. How was it in May when they came down to this House and announced that -they were going to inaugurate the principle of conscription? For that month and ten months previous the average was 6,500 per month. That was the average rate of recruiting by voluntary effort alone. Volunteers were coming in at this rate against the wish of some of the members of the Government, if we are to believe the evidence of the ex-Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Sam Hughes).


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. I have been trying to be very tolerant to the hon. member, and 'a great deal of latitude has been given during the debate to-day, but I really must rule that the remarks which are now being made have no bearing at all upon the cause or the cure of the Quebec riots.


Joseph Read: Very well, Mr. Speaker, I bow to your ruling, but I want to make this statement, and I make it without fear of successful contradiction, and because 1 know that the people of Canada can. get together: this country to-day is in a state almost of disruption, and it is because of that disruption that we have had these riots in the province of Quebec. I know that the conflicting elements of the population can get together because I know what other countries have done in that regard. I know that people can live together in harmony, each worshipping under his own vine and fig-tree. I know that people can be educated so that they will not take any more notice of a man's religious opinion than they do of the colour of his hair, because he is just as much responsible for the one as he is for the other.
I entirely agree with the mover of this resolution in one statement which he made, and that is that we should have to-day in khaki, not forty thousand, but two hundred thousand men. The hon. member for

Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) also was right when he stood up in his place in this House over a year ago and advised the Prime Minister to put the Militia Act into force. That Act could have (been enforced in such a way that we could have raised two hum dred thousand men- without injuring the industries of the country, and without interfering with the farmers of this country. The men could have been called out in classes and sub-classes, and they need not necessarily have been sent across to fight in the fields of Flanders; they could be ready tor any emergency. The time when we will	want men most is
when the terms of peace is being negotiated. We shall want a persuader then. How did Disraeli and Salisbury do in 1878 when they were going to negotiate a treaty with the Germans and the Russians at Berlin? They sent to India for twenty thousand 'Sepoys, Sikhs and Ghur-kas, and placed them on t.he Island of Malta. Great Britain was not at war with anybody, but her statesmen mobilized the fleet and placed a military force as stated. Then they went over and negotiated the celebrated Berlin Treaty, that Billy the Bold called a scrap of paper and tore up the other day. Why did they put the troops there? In order to have a persuader. The British ministers at that time * negotiated a remarkable set of treaties, and on returning from Berlin the first thing that Disraeli said as he stepped from his ship, was, " I have brought back peace with honour ". One of the things which this Government ought to do is to get as many men as possible into khaki, not necessarily to send to the front, but to be available in case, we want them. - We never know what is going to happen. We do not want to lose the fruits of victory if we win, and we do not want to make a humiliating peace as poor Russia did if we lose.


John Allister Currie: My object, which was to secure a full and open discussion, having been obtained, I now beg to withdraw the motion.
Motion withdrawn.



WAR GRANT $500,000,000.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of the Hon. J. D. Reid the House went into Committee on the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, That it is expedient to provide that a sum not exceeding five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000) be granted to His Majesty towards defraying any expenses that may be incurred by or under the authority of the Governor in Council, during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1919, for:-
(a)	The defence and security of Canada;
(b)	The conduct of naval or military operations in and beyond Canada;
(c)	Promoting the continuance of trade, industry and business communications, whether by means of insurance or indemnity against war risk or otherwise;
(d)	The carrying out of any measures deemed necessary or advisable by the Governor in Council in consequence of the existence of a state of war; and
(e)	Payments made for the said purposes during the fiscal year ending the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and eighteen, in excess of the amounts authorized by The Appropriation Act, 1917.
2.	That the Governor in Council 'be empowered to raise by way of loan, temporary or otherwise, such sums of money as are required for the purpose of making any payment authorized by any Act founded on these Resolutions.
3.	That the principal raised by way of loan under this Act and the interest thereon shall be chargeable on the Consolidated Revenue Fund.-Sir Robert Borden.
Hon. J. D. REID:: I may say that an understanding was arrived at between the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition to the effect that the statement which is necessary to be made in connection with this resolution should be made on the second reading of the Bill. It was decided between them that this resolution should be allowed to go through and a Bill founded upon it introduced.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is my understanding-	.


Jacques Bureau: May I ask if on the
second reading we shall get all the information that we could have obtained had we been able to put questions in Committee?


John Dowsley Reid: That is the understanding.
Mr. FRANK S. CAHILL (Pontiac): There was an unfortunate misunderstanding a few days ago in Tegard to a certain Bill which was apparently put through under a somewhat similar arrangement as that just announced, and which arrangement debarred members from exercising the same freedom which they would otherwise have enjoyed. I hope the understanding in this case is quite clear, and that no question will arise on the second reading as to our freedom to question the Ministry and obtain all the information that we deem neoessary.


John Dowsley Reid: The Prime Minister wrote a note to the leader of the Opposition, and the understanding between them has been reduced to writing.


Frank S. Cahill: I would like to know what the understanding is.

Hon. J. I). REID: The understanding is that on second reading, or in Committee, all necessary information will be given.


Frank S. Cahill: The same as if it were on the first reading?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes
Resolution reported, read the first and second time and concurred in.
Hon. J. D. REID thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 38, for granting to His Majesty aid for Military and Naval Defence.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Reid the House adjourned at 4.40 a.m. (Saturday).
Monday, April 8, 1918.