1919-03-06

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Department of the Interior for the* year ended March 31, 1918.-Hon. Mr. Meighen.
First Annual Report of the Historical Documents Publication Board.-Hon. Mr. Rowell.
Final Report of the International Joint Commission on the delimitation of boundary waters.-Hon. Mr. Rowell.
Report of the Royal . Commission appointed to inquire into and report upon

the conditions in the pilotage districts of Miramichi, Sydney, Louisburg, S.t. John, Halifax, Montreal, Quebec, Vancouver, Victoria, Nanaimo and New Westminster.- Mr. Rowell.
Return showing reduction in price and remission of interest under section 88 of the Indian Act, Chap. 81, R.S.C., 1906.-Hon. Mr. Meighen.
Orders in Council which have been published in the Canada Gazette, between 16th March, 1918, and the 20th January, 1919, in accordance with the provisions of Section 77, Chapter 20, 7-8 Edward VII, " The Dominion Lands Act."-Hon. Mr. Meighen.
Orders in Council which have been published in the Canada Gazette between the 16th March, 1918 and the 20th January, 1919, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 47, 2 George V, entitled " The Railway 'Belt Water Act."-Hon. Mr. Meighen.
Orders in Council which have been published in the Canada Gazette and in the British Columbia Gazette, between 16th March, 1918, and the 20th January, 1919, in accordance with provisions of subsection (d) of Section 38 of the Regulations for the survey, administration, disposal and management of Dominion Lands within the 40-Mile Railway Belt in the province of British Columbia.-Hon. Mr. Meighen.
All Orders in Council passed under the provisions of Chapter 18, 7-8 George V. An Act respecting a certain convention, &c. known as " The Migratory Birds Convention Act."-Hon. Mr. Meighen.
Orders in Council which have been published in the Canada Gazette between the 16th March, 1918, and the 20th January, 1919, in accordance with the provisions of Section 19 of Chapter 10, 1-2 George V, "The Forest Reserves and Parks Act."-Hon. Mr. Meighen.
Orders in Council which have been published in the Canada Gazette between the 5th April, 1918, and the 20th February, 1919, in accordance with the provisions of Section 8, subsection 2 of Chapter 21, 7-8 George V, " The Soldiers' Settlement Act." -Hon. Mr. Meighen,
Annual Report of the Department of the Interior for year ended 30th March, 1918.- Hon. Mr. Meighen.


Sir THOMAS WHITE (Acting Prime Minister) :: I beg to lay on the table of the
House copies of the correspondence relating to the resignation from office of the Parliamentary Secretary of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment asked for by the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. }dcKenzie) yesterday.



ADJOURNMENT OVER ASH WEDNESDAY.

William Thomas White: That when this House adjourns on Tuesday the 4th day of March instant, it do stand adjourned until Thursday the 6th day of March instant, at Three o'clock p.m.
He said: The occasion for this motion is the fact that to-morrow will be Ash Wednesday.


Mr. SPEAKER:: This motion can only be passed by unanimous consent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of Mr. D. L. Redman (Calgary East), for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session resumed from Monday, March 3rd.
Mr. ISAAC PEDLOW (South Renfrew):: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding with the discussion that is now before the House I might be permitted to pause for an instant to place on Hansard a verbal wreath from the electoral district of South Renfrew to the memory of our - distinguished leader, the late lamented Sir Wilfrid Laurier, whose empty chair is a daily reminder to the members of the House that this great, this grand old veteran statesman, is -with us no more. His Canadianism was in a class altogether by itself. It was of the purest type, moulded on the world's best standards of patriotism. He ranked while living with the world's greatest statesmen and now that he is no longer with us in the flesh we unconsciously associate his name with those most prominent in world history-with Macdonald in our Own land, with Gladstone arid Disraeli, as well as with a host of other great and shining lights who have graced

Mr. Pedlow's speech was interrupted by the entry to the Chamber of Col. C. W. Peck, V.C., D.S.O., member for Skeena, B.C., who had just returned from active service. The House paid a tribute to Col. Peck's distinguished war record by hon. members rising in their places and cheering as he took his seat.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: As a parenthesis in the remarks that I was proceeding to make when the distinguished officer,

the hon. member for Skeena, B.C., entered the Chamber, I pause to express our sense of the great honour that he has conferred not only on Canada but also on this House. He has, like many another soldier:
" Trod deadly road to deadly toil Thickly strewn with dead,
Where noon-day sun and midnight oil Light the soldiers' tread.
I am delighted to have the privilege of welcoming him to this House to-day, and I trust that his distinguished career will be continued, to the benefit of this country, for many years to come.
When the distinguished hon. member (Mr. Peck) entered the House, I was about to call attention to some of the qualities of our late lamented leader who has passed beyond that bourne from which no traveller returns, and I was associating his name with those of some of the men most prominent in the world's history-with Macdonald in our own land, with Gladstone, and Disraeli, as well -as a host of other great and shining lights who have graced the brightest pages of history, in Great Britain and on the continent of Europe, as well as of Lincoln and others in the great nation to the south of us, all stars of the first magnitude, as Laurier undoubtedly was. The late Sir Wilfrid Laurier's wonderful and many outstanding graces endeared him to all who had the pleasure of coming into his presence. To know him intimately was to love and admire our old chief beyond my power to express in words. Alas! this striking, unique personality will grace these halls no more in the flesh, that great masterly intellect is stilled for all time to come, but the work he was permitted, during his fifty odd years of political activities to do for his own beloved country will live forever more as an everlasting monument to his life and memory:
Short davs ago
He lived, felt dawn, saw sunsets glow,
Loved and was loved, but now he lies
In yonder fields.
To you from falling hands he threw The Torch-be yours to hold it high.
If you break faith with him who died He shall not sleep though roses grow
In yonder fields.
My next duty, Mr. Speaker, is to refer to the leader of our party who has been selected to occupy the place of our late lamented chief. While performing our duty to the memory of our late chief, we, on this side of the House at least, are not forgetful of our duty to his successor, and the loyalty we owe to him. It is with the very greatest of pleasure I assure him today publicly, as I have already assured 	I
him privately, of my loyalty in the very important position, both in the party and in the country, to which he has been elected, with so much unanimity by his fellow members in the House. His Majesty's loyal Opposition has at all times a very important part to play in the affairs of our nation-never greater than at the present moment, and the person filling the trying position of leader of the Opposition deserves, and will have, in order to induce good government, the united, wholehearted assistance of every one of his followers in this Parliament.
The entrance a moment ago to this deliberative assembly of the distinguished officer (Mr. Peck), to whom I made reference, reminds one forcibly of the fact that the war is over, and we thank God for it. After four long weary years of incessant appeal to the god of battles he has heard and answered our cry, and the prayer for peace is no longer heard in the land. In its place we have songs of praise out of grateful hearts, instead of the spirit of heaviness, for national salvation, and the greatest victory in freedom's cause ever fought and won, bringing in its train the dawn of a new era with such startling suddenness that we hardly knew how to give the thanks that we actually felt the occasion demanded of us. It is not with the slightest desire to dim the sword of Foch and his gallant fighting men, or to take from it the slightest touch of its power and glory, but I would say with him, and all the great commanders associated with him on both sea and land, in the words of Richelieu :
Let us own it; There is "one" above	

Sways the harmonious mystery of the world Even better than prime ministers.
Napoleon once claimed that the Lord was on the side of the cause with the greatest number of battalions, yet he, too, although almost a world conqueror, met his Waterloo. But with us the eternal question today is, how was the invader of Belgium held in check at Liege and in Northern France at Mons, and from' Mons to the Marne, until the cause of right was able to secure the greater weight of arms and men? Was the ability to struggle on against tremendously overwhelming odds simply and solely based on the dogged human pluck of men, -or was it not that there was something greater than mere material will power, something inspired? Was there not that something behind the arm speaking through the souls to the minds and muscles of the men? kitchener's little army of

contemptibles, in order -to stem the tide and onrush of the German hordes, fought every inch of the way from Mons to the Marne and buried themselves in everlasting glory by the thousand in France and Flanders' fields. And so, Mr. Speaker, let us to-day with a new vision repeat, once more, and with an added meaning, the prayer of Kipling's Recessional:
Lord God of Hosts be with us yet,
Lest we forget, lest we forget.
Now, Mr. Speaker, turning more particularly to the matter that is immediately before us on this occasion, the speech from the Throne, I have much pleasure, in common with all who have preceded me on both sides of the House, in tendering my hearty congratulations to the mover and seconder of the Address. The hon. member from Calgary East (Mr, Redman) certainly acquitted himself most excellently in the effort that he put forth on the occasion of his address, and as to the effort of the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion), nothing else was to be expected than the able and eloquent speech which we had the pleasure of listening to from him. I was Tather interested though in some of the remarks of these hon. gentlemen, and I feel satisfied, notwithstanding the fact that they acquitted themselves well, that there was something held back, something ,that they did not care to lay before the House as coming from them, notwithstanding the fact that they claim to be the representatives of the returning men, and all honour to them because they themselves are returned men, but a fellow-feeling should make them wondrous kind. And for some unknown reason these hon. gentlemen seemed to hold back the information that they possessed, and failed to name the conditions that they wished to present to the House. For instance, the hon. member for- Calgary East stated'that the returned soldiers should not be hampered and irritated by red tape and unnecessary rules. .That, Sir, indicated to my mind that the hon. gentleman from Calgary East knew more than he cared to put on the pages of Hansard. I have evidence here to prove that there is considerable red tape in connection with the return of our soldiers from overseas. There is much uneasiness in the minds of returned soldiers; they are not at all satisfied with their treatment on coming back to Canada, having in view the fact that before they left Canada for the front they were assured that nothing would be too good for them when they came back. We find that the conditions on some of the
transports which brought soldiers home were not any too good. We find also that when the men return here they do not receive at the hands of the Government the consideration that they deserve. I have in mind one case of a young man who a( the age of sixteen volunteered as of an older age to serve the British Empire in the South African war. Immediately on the outbreak of the war on August 4, 1914, that same boy, who was then an employee of the Government in Ottawa, volunteered for service overseas and spent three years of his life in the fighting line in France and Flanders. He returned to Canada and again took up a position in the department from which he had retired to go overseas.
I would expect' the member for Calgary East (Mr. Redman) and the member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Man-ion) to champion the cause of such men, but they did not rise to the occasion, although I feel sure that they had the evidence at hand. After spending three years overseas on military service, this young man finds himself out-distanced and outclassed by men who failed to volunteer for service and who have been holding down positions in the Civil Service of Canada during the war. This returned soldier is in receipt of a salary of $1,500, while those who were his juniors when he left for- overseas are receiving $1,900 and $2,000 for similar services. From the evidence which is placed in my hands from day to day, it seems to me that the returned soldier and the returning soldiers are not receiving at the hands of this Government the treatment that they were assured they would receive, not even the treatment that they deserve.
I have here a letter of another character.' Two boys of the same family volunteered for military service immediately on the outbreak of war in 1914, and both are still overseas. In the early months of the fighting one of them was taken prisoner and was in captivity in Germany for over three years. When the armistice was signed he was a prisoner in Holland. On November 22 he was returned to England, and since, that date he has been so moved about from pillar to post that he has become lost in the " machine " over there and we cannot find any trace of him. I will read a letter which he wrote to his mother, dated at London, February 3, in which he states:
I am back in London; it is not that I want to be here, but that X got frozen out ^ of the camps. I have been down at Witley since December 5th, trying to get sent home, without any success. They sent us from Witley to Sea-


Mr. A. L. DAVIDSON:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman is, I submit, not in order in discussing the subject matter of a motion which is on the Order Paper, and which will be discussed at a later stage of the session.


Mr. D. D. McKENZIE:: I think my hon. friend has finished discussing that matter.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: The point of order is well taken. The hon. .member for . South Renfrew- (Mr. Pedlow) is certainly anticipating the discussion of a motion which is on the -Order Paper. A passing reference might be allowed, but I trust he will refrain from discussing this matter further.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I bow to your ruling, Sir, but at some later date I shall certainly discuss this matter.
I should now like to place before the House the Liberal platform as enunciated at the Liberal convention held in the city of Ottawa on January 14th last'. It includes : Fair treatment for returned soldiers; generous care of the dependents of the fallen; restoration of the British preference to its pre-war status; reciprocity in food stuffs; gradual progress towards freer trade; the democratization of labour; the abolition of government by Order in Council; the repeal of the War-time Elections Act and support for a league of nations.
The achievements of the Liberal party when in power from 1896 to 1911 will be within the memory of some of the members of this House. They were briefly as follow's :
In 1897 there were 48 articles added to the free list and duties were reduced on 147-including farm implements.

In 1904 there were 14 more articles added to the free list and duties were reduced on 14
others.
In 1907 the duty on harvesters, mowers, reapers, and self-binders and binding attachments were reduced from 20 per cent to 17J per cent.
To Great Britain there was given a preference by way of deduction from the general tariff amounting to 33 4 per cent.	*
With the United States an agreement was effected in 1910 whereby the minimum tariff under the Payne-Aldrich Bill was applied to Canada while the maximum tariff under the same Bill was applied to other countries by the United States.
In 1911 the Liberal Government of the day negotiated a Reciprocal Tariff Agreement with the Government of the United States, under which when effective certain natural products were to be admitted free into both countries, and the duties on a limited number of other articles were to be reduced.	-
On submitting its policy to the people, the Liberal Government was defeated and was re' placed by a Conservative-Nationalist Administration under Sir Robert Borden.
After the Borden Administration attained office, the duties were increased on certain specified articles, and a further general increase of 71 per cent was placed in the Tariff on all commodities coming into Canada {rom outside Great Britain, and an increase of 5 per cent was placed on the .goods coming in from Great Britain.
Besides opposing the said Tariff increases of 71 per cent and 5 per cent respectively, the Liberal Opposition on different occasions since 1911, and more particularly on January 28th, 1914; on February 10th, 1914 ; on March 11th, 1914 ; on April 23rd, 1914; on April 28th, 1914; oit March 16th, 1915, and on February 23rd, 1916, moved in the House of Commons for reductions in the tariff on specified articles, and on each of the occasions mentioned their motions were defeated by the majority supporting Sir Robert Borden.
On May 23rd, 1917, the Liberal Opposition in the House of Commons moved an omnibus resolution embodying practically all the proposals for tariff reduction previously made by them in Parliament and defeated as in the next preceding paragraph mentioned.
The said omnibus resolution of May 23rd, 1917, was also opposed and defeated' by the Borden Administration.
The election manifesto issued in November, 1917 by Sir Wilfrid Laurier as the Leader of the Liberal Party, contained a declaration as Tariff Reform in these words:-
" In further mitigation of disadvantages to Agricultural production, I would immediately remove the duties on Agricultural Implements and' other essentials, as demanded hy the western farmers. A general well-considered reform of the Tariff for the purpose of helping Canadian production and relieving the Canadian consumer would also he an object of my administration."
Therefore he it resolved that in the opinion of this Association, not only should the said Tariff increases of 7 1-2 p.c. and 5 p.c. be immediately repealed, but that there should also be an immediate downward revision of the Tariff in accordance with the above mentioned omnibus resolution moved by the Liberal Opposition in the House of Commons on May 23rd, 1917, in these terms:-
"1. That wheat, wheat flour, and all other products of wheat be placed upon the free list.
" 2. That farm Implements and machinery, farm tractors, mining, flour and saw-mill machinery and repairs for same, rough and partly dressed lumber, illuminating, lubricating and fuel oils, cement and fertilizers be added to the free list.
" 3. That staple foods and food products (other than wheat flour), domestic animals and foods therefor be admitted Into Canada free of duty when coming from and being the product of any country admitting like Canadian articles into such country free of duty.
" 4. That substantial reductions be made in the general Tariff on all articles Imported into Canada, excepting luxuries.
"5. That the British Preference be increased to fifty per cent of the general tariff."
That is the platform on which the Liberal party stands four square at the present time. L make mention of it in order to show that it is in line with the demand of the community in general and especially of that portion of the community but feebly represented in this House at the present time-ll refer to the united farmers of this country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, having dealt at so great length with many questions, let me deal as briefly as possible with another- matter, one with which I am more familiar, perhaps, than with any other subject in the list; I refer to the matter of finance. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. iCarvell), on Wednesday evening last, sang a most doleful dirge over our federal finances, or at least his words certainly were not such as to make one very enthusiastic over the situation. He led us through an intricate maze of figures on into the slough of despond and left us there, without indicating how we were to make our way out-he left us to work out our own salvation in fear and trembling. His main query on the subject of Dominion finance was not exactly that made famous at one time in Ontario provincial politics, " Where " did " the money come from?"- but his query was;	" Where " will " the
money come from?" The position in which he landed this House on this question was enough to make pessimists of us all. To use an illustration that has been made famous, the hon. gentleman considered the doughnut and saw nothing but the hole-not a glimpse did he catch of the ring around the hole. He told us, among other things, that the public debt of this country in 1914 was $336,000,000, whereas it is now about $2,000,000,000. Rive years ago our interest charge on public debt was about $10,000,000 or $12,000,000, but now that charge has increased to the enormous sum of $110,000,000. This charge upon our resources, he tells us, will remain, if not forever, at least during our lifetime. Turning to the other side of the ledger he pointed out that our customs receipts would amount to $140,000,000; ex-



18, amounted to $2,054,915,245, and that manufacturers' exports, which included war material, during the same five-year period, amounted to only $1,499,020,143, showing a difference in favour of agriculture of $555,895,102, and proves conclusively that the agricultural community is the bone and sinew of this country, the foundation stone on which this country must build its future.
I find, also, from the Official Record- and, by the way, this is a paper that was established by Order in Council during the past year, I do not know for what purpose, the hon. member for Brorne ('Mr. McMas-ter) and myself hunted the library and reading room of this building a few days ago without succeeding in finding a copy of that publication; it was supposed to be established for the purpose of informing the public generally, but there was not a copy of it in either place mentioned, at least not then. However, I succeeded in obtaining a copy eventually, and from that publication I have taken these figures: Table I, National Wealth of Canada, $19,002,788,125. Of this total $5,216,117,000 is derived from agriculture, or over twenty-five per cent. I commend this fact to the notice of the House to establish further my contention that the agricultural section of our community is the foundation rock on which we must build the future progress of this country. We cannot, we must not, depend entirely on manufacturing concerns for our progress in the days to come, because these industries do not produce quite fifty per cent of as much of the wealth of the country as does the agricultural class. Now, the manufacturers claim that it is impossible to continue in business in this country and succeed, unless they are doing business behind the high tariff wall. If you continue building up this tariff wall you certainly will protect the manufacturers, but at the same time- you shut off the Customs revenue of the country. But let me give a case in point to explain my contention that it is not absolutely necessary that the manufacturers should receive the attention and consideration they demand. I have in mind an institution organized in the town of Renfrew for the manufacture of cream separators in the year 1910. I might just state that cream separators were placed on the free list in 1897. There were none made in Canada prior to 1897. A few only were assembled prior to that year, but not made in this country. The concern I refer to was established in 1900, that is the Renfrew Machinery Company. It has gone on successfully doing business in this country until its output covered the 
market from end to end of this Dominion. Not only that, Sir, but it has entered the United States, and is competing successfully for business with the best producers of cream separators in the United States and in the markets of the world.
There is another matter I would like to call attention to while I am on this subject, and that is the duty levied on motor cars.
A car costing $500 in the United States, costs, laid down here $712.50. A car costing $1,000 in the United States, costs laid down here $1,421. A car costing $1,500 in the United States, costs laid down here $2,137.50. To the Canadian price must Ipe added a duty of thirty-five per cent, plus seven and a half per cent, or forty-two and a half per cent in all.
Now, Sir, if you want to make the farmers satisfied with their lot in life, if you want to improve their surroundings, one of the best methods would be to supply them with motor cars at the lowest possible price. If you continue to collect the revenue that I have referred to on these necessary items for their service and use then, Sir, you will delay and retard the farmers in their operations and make them dissatisfied with their surroundings and life. Now what are we to have in Canada? Are we to have stable industries based on sound business principles, or are we to continue the maintenance of industries that require twenty-five, thirty-five or forty-two and a half per cent protection for ever more? I claim, Sir, that the time has arrived- nay, it is past due-for a revision of the tariff, and that it is not in the best interest of Canada that this House should pass over that important subject to a more convenient season. The country is up in arms against delay in the matter.
The Minister of Immigration the other night seemed to think that there was no need for alarm, but he certainly has not been studying the press of the country, especially the western press, or he would have a different opinion. I have heard of alarming conditions obtaining in the Western Provinces, on this subject-tariff reform-and I have read of extensive demands being made on representatives from western constituencies who are members of the Union Government. Such being the case I think the Government should address itself to the subject of tariff revision at the earliest possible moment.
Mr. Speaker I have transgressed at great length upon your patience, and the patience of the House, and I now beg to thank you for your kindness and your attention.

Lieut.-General Sir SAM HUGHES (Victoria) :	Mr. Speaker, I desire to congratulate the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) on succeeding to the seat so ably and so long occupied by the distinguished and worthy statesman who has recently departed this life. I think possibly the leader of the Opposition will be frank to admit that in years gone by your humble servant contributed a good deal towards placing him in the position he now occupies. We used to have great delight in the olden days in annoying the hon. member, getting him to display his talents and his ability, and in that way he became skilled and polished and has risen to the high position which he now holds. (May we promise him that we will endeavour to test his temper occasionally again? <1 am sure that discharging the high and distinguished duties which he is now called upon to discharge, he will not hesitate to respond as he used to in the olden days.
The mover and seconder of the Address have distinguished themselves, not only on the floor of the House but elsewhere. The mover of the Address (Mr. Redman) in his dogged, determined, fearless manner, gives the key to why the Canadian position stood at St. Julien, and held back twenty times their number of the enemy. He was one of the lads who won distinction there. He got knocked to pieces a bit, but he is still able to hold his seat in Parliament and to do nearly as well as those of the community who did not go to the front. As for the eloquent seconder of the Address, (Mr. Manion) I was thinking while he was speaking, Sir, that if he had not kissed the blarney stone himself, he had either followed in the footsteps of some person who had, ox-had been conveniently near to some pretty girl who had performed this picturesque feat.
His address was a model in many ways. But, Sir, lest the public should think that these are the only two members of the House who have been to the front, permit me to draw your attention to the fact that a distinguished soldier has taken his seat in the House to-day. I refer to Colonel Cyrus W. Peck, the member for Skeena, who has won the Distinguished Service Order, with a bar, and also the Victoria Cross, the coveted highest honour of the Empire.
I wish to take the liberty of giving the names of other distinguished soldiers who occupy seats in this House, as well as of members of the House who are the fathers of distinguished soldiers. The list which I am about to furnish may not be complete, and I shall be very glad to receive any
13i
additions that may be offered. I trust that there will be no opposition to adding to the Hansard record any odd name that may be left out, because I think it is important that the complete list should go down on the record.
First, I find the name of a gallant lad who went over to the front, young Andrews, of Winnipeg. His father is Major George William Andrews, member, for Winnipeg Centre. I remember one morning in the year 1915 when I was passing down the trenches-the German trenches were about 80 yards away-I came across the familiar face of my dear old friend Andrews. He had a rifle, over his arm and he looked just as he used to look in the old days at the Dominion of Canada Rifle matches when he and thousands of other Canadian boys learned the art of rifle shooting, which they so aptly applied on the Germans when it came to facing them at the front. I asked Major Andrews what he was doing and he said that he was instructing snipers. As I passed, however, one fellow whispered to me saying that Andrews himself had "picked out" five that morning. I think that five a day was about Andrews' average. Father and son did their duty at the front fearlessly and well.
Then, there is the name of Colonel James Arthurs, of Parry Sound, whose son also was at the front. Colonel Arthurs went over in command of his battalion, reverted, went to the front and fought in the trenches in a subordinate position.
Colonel C. C. Ballantyne, -a member of the Government, took his battalion over and did his duty fearlessly and well.
Another name on the list is that of Willis Keith Baldwin, member for Stanstead.
Robert James Ball, of Grey, has a son at the front.
I need not say that Hon. Dr. Beland spent long, weary months in prison in Germany. Two others, step-sons, fought in the Belgian service.
Dr. Matthew Robert Blake, of Winnipeg North, was in the Canadian Expeditionary Force, but he did not get across, through no fault of his; the fault was mine.
A case of distinguished service comes next. Mr. Ferris Bolton, member for Lisgar, had three sons who went overseas, and all three are to-day buried in Belgium,
Dr. Samuel Bonnell, of Kootenay, served at the front. Dr. John Wesley Brien, of South Essex, who had the distinguished honour of being born in the riding which I represent, also served faithfully and well at the front.

Our good friend, Mr. John Hampden Burnham, of West Peterborough, threw off his mufti, donned the uniform, took his training and went over to the front and did fearlessly and well his duty as he was called upon to do it.
Colonel Chabot was also in the Canadian Expeditionary Force, but owing to the condition of his health I did not feel that I should let him go to the front.
Dr. Michael Clark, of Red Deer, sent three sons to the front, one of whom fell. One of those boys went away with the Princess Pats. When I was over there in 1915, I called the regiment out and inspected it. I asked how many of the original regiment were there, and I found that there were only nineteen. Talking to the boys, [DOT]one after the other, of the original Pats, I .-came across a lad by the name of Clark. I looked at him and knew in a moiment that he came from Red Deer. I asked him what he was doing there, and he said that they were going over the top every time they were called on. The Officer Commanding told me that Clark was the only man in the entire battalion who had never missed once going over the top-a chip off the old block.
Hon. Frank Cochrane had two sons at the front, one of whom has since died.
Mr. William Foster Cockshutt of Brantford had three sons at the front. I think that two were wounded, and I believe that one of them was wounded twice.
Major Richard Clive Cooper, member for Vancouver South, served at the front and was severely wounded.
Mr. Walter Davy Cowan, of Regina, has a son at the front, and was himself on duty with the Canadian Expeditionary Force at Regina.	'
Major Hume Cronyn, of London, had two sons at the front.
Hon. Thomas Wilson Crothers had one son at the front.
Robert Cruise of Dauphin, has two sons at the front, one of whom, I believe, has fallen.
Colonel John A. Currie, member for North Simcoe, served at the front with distinction at the Battle of St. Julien. I want to point again that the name of Colonel John A. Currie has been confounded with that of another, and deeds have been attributed to him that have not been creditable and that have absolutely no connection whatever with Colonel John A. Currie.
Mr. Arthur L. Desaulniers, member for Champlain, has a son at the front.

Mr. James McCrie Douglas, of Strath-cona, served with the Canadian Expeditionary Force. He did not get to the front, but that was not his fault.
Dr. J. W. Edwards, member for Fronte-nac, has a son at the front.
Hpn. W. S. Fielding has one son, a very gallant young lad, who served at the front from the beginning.
Colonel Evan E. Fraser himself served at the front and also two of his sons.
Mr. Charles Arthur Gauvreau, member for Temiscouata, sent two sons to the front, one of whom is second in command of a torpedo boat destroyer and has been in active service for four years. He has been captured by a black-tyed Irish girl, but in spite of all drawbacks he has done magnificent service.
The daughter of Mr. Samuel Francis Glass is at the front as a nurse.
Mr. Robert Francis Green, of Kootenay, has a son at the front.
Mr. William A. Griesbach, member for Edmonton West, is a Brigadier-General. He went over in command of the 49th Battalion and has done splendid service. I regret that he is ill in hospital in England, and was not able to come home recently, as expected.
Hon. Hugh Guthrie has two sons at the front.
Mr. John Harold, member for Brant, has two sons at the front.
Mr. William B. R. Hepburn, familiarly known as " Barney," member for Prince Edward, went to the front and has been one of the surprises of the war. He has proved a most efficient officer, and has done his duty on every occasion to the entire satisfaction of all concerned. He has risen to the rank of Brigadier-General.
Mr. H. C. Hocken, of Toronto West, had one son at the front who fell at the battle of Cambrai. [DOT]
In my own case, I traversed the entire front from the North sea to Verdun in 1915 and 1916, and the only son I have served at the front four years.
Mr. Norman Lang, member for Humboldt, commanded a battalion, went over, reverted, and did splendid service in the trenches.
Mr. Auguste Theophile Leger, member for Kent, N.B., has two sons at the front.
Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux, had only one son. I remember the young lad very well when he was too young to go in for training. He got his training, however, went to the front, and fell. There is a little hard-

ship in connection with his service. He was in an attack and his company came out with very few remaining. His officer commanding told him that he would receive the coveted Military Cross. The next day when the remnant of the battalion were coming out and he was informed that his tour of duty was ended, he persisted in going in again because they were short of officers, and he fell.
Mr. Samuel Charters, of Peel, sent two sons to the front.
Colonel H. B. Tremain served himself and sent one son to the front.
Mr. William Stewart Loggie, member for Northumberland, N.B., is not a very warlike gentleman, but I can say I was never more proud of any man than I was of Mr. Loggie in the beginning of the war. Two of his sons and others of his family were only too-anxious to serve and did serve at the front.
Colonel Herbert .T. Mackie, member for North Renfrew, W'as not at the front fighting, but he was in military service testing Russian shells, and he did yeoman service during the war. I am particularly interested in this young man, because I had the honour of having him as a comrade during the South African compaign, when we rode many hundreds of miles together across the veldt. If he has any bad habits, I claim the credit for them.
Mr. Francis M. McCrea, member for Sherbrooke, had, I understand, two sons at the front.
Major Peter MoGibbon, member for Mus-koka, who delighted the House last night with his address, went overseas and joined the Berkshire regiment in England. In one of the earlier engagements, when they were shot to pieces, there was only one officer of the battalion left, and the little, nervous chap that we saw last night, when he came to face the Germans, did not hesitate to take charge of the battalion, and they drove the Germans completely out of the trenches.
Mr. Alexander McGregor, member for Pictou, has one son at the front.
Mr. D. D. McKenzie, leader of the Opposition, has a son at the front.
General Hugh Havelock McLean, member for Royal, was most anxious to go to the front, offering his services in every capacity; but he had at the front twp, if not three sons, besides a brother. One son is a member of the English House of Commons now, having fought through the war and been wounded, and he has proved himself a splendid soldier. Nothing is too good for that branch of the McLeans.
Colonel Harry Fulton McLeod, member for York-Sunbury, took his battalion over and did splendid service at the front,
Dr. Molloy, member for Provencher, lost a brother in battle.
Captain Robert J. Manion, member for Fort William and Rainy River, the gentleman who so ably seconded the Address, served with distinction at the front in both British and Canadian services, and has now returned none the worse for wear as we can all see. He has, if he remains in parliamentary life, a great future ahead of him.
I might mention that I am taking only this year's list. I might have referred to members of the last Parliament who fell for example, Colonel Harry Baker, whom all hon. members knew well and who distinguished himself in the affair at Zillibeke in June, 1916, where he fell with a great many of his men, having conducted himself as a true British soldier.
Mr. Joseph Edmond Marcile, member for Bagot, has two sons at the front.
Mr. J. A. Maharg et Moosejaw has a son at the front.
Thomas McNutt himself an old veteran, has a son at the front.
Major-General, the Hon. Sydney Mew-burn, Minister of Militia, lost his son doing his duty gallantly and well at the front.
Mr. H. B. Morphy, member for North Perth, had two sons at the front, one of whom made the supreme sacrifice.
Mr. Donald Nicholson, member for Queens, P.E.I., has one son and two daughters, nurses, at the front.
Mr. George B. Nicholson, member for East Algoma, who delighted the House yesterday with his charming address, lost his only son at the front just a day or two before the fighting was over.
Mr. William Folger Nickle, member for Kingston, might be expected, if he had a boy, to have him at the front. You could bet your bottom sixpence that Billy Nickle's boy would be at the front, and he had two sons there. One was wounded three times and the other once.
Colonel Cyrus Wesley Peck, member for Skeena, the worthy member who has just taken his seat to-day, was twice wounded at the front. He has won the Victoria Cross and the Distinguished Service Order with bar.
Mr. Edward Guss Porter, member for West Hastings, lost his only son, his only child, at the front.
Mr. Charles Gavan Power, member for South Quebec, not only was at the front himself and fought well with a good Toronto regiment-and he has had a liking for On-
COMMON!.
tario boys ever since that-and he had two, if not three of his brothers also fighting.
Major Daniel Lee Redman, member for East Calgary, who moved the Address, fought and fell at the battle of St. Julien and has risen again.
Mr. John Flaws Reid, member for Mackenzie, had one son in the overseas service
Mr. James Alexander Robb, member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon, Chief Whip of the Opposition, had at the front a young lad whom he raised.
Dr. Charles Sheard, member for South Toronto, tops the list with four sons, three of them overseas and one in the home service, all in the Canadian Expeditionary Force.
Mr. William Smith, member for South Ontario, was too old to go to the front himself-he wanted to go, but I would not let him-but his son, a gallant young lad, did his duty fearlessly and well.
Mr. Edgar Keith Spinney, member for Yarmouth and Clare, has one son in the overseas service.
Mi*. Frank Stacey, member for Westminster district, had at the front three sons, one of whom has made the supreme sacrifice.
Mr. Donald Sutherland, member for South Oxford, had one son at the front who served in France and Flanders, and later in Egypt and Mesopotamia. His son has done yeoman service in the Flying Corps as well as in the Engineers.
Mr. Alfred Thompson, member for the Yukon, served in the Canadian Expeditionary Force although he did not go overseas.
Mr. Levi Thomson, member for Qu'Ap-pelle, has one son at the front.
Mr. Simon Fraser Tolmie, member for Victoria city, has one son in the flying corps but he unfortunately contracted serious illness and was unable to take part in the fighting.
Our good-friend, Mr. 0. Turgeon, member for Gloucester, N.B., has a son at the front.
Major Thomas Vien, member for Lot-biniere, lost his brother who was killed at the front.
Major Thomas Wallace, member for West York, had three brothers at the front.
Dr. Howard Primrose Whidden, member for Brandon, had his son at the front doing his duty fearlessly and well.
I think I drew attention to the son of the Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux, did I not?


Some Hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Sir SAM HUGHES:: This is the list as far as I have been able to get it, and I

think it is proper that it should be placed on record. If there are any omissions, they are unintentional, and I am sure the House will permit me, if necessary, to amend it at any future time. I am very pleased to correct some omissions already.
Mr. E. W. Nesbitt, member for North Oxford, has his son at the front.
I am also told that Mr. W. D. Euler, member for North Waterloo, has a son at the front. I do not know whether Mr. Euler has German blood in his veins, but I am prepared to pay the very highest tribute to Canadians of German origin who went over with the first contingent and who fought as fearlessly and well as any of our men for Canada.
To these let me add the name of Col. Sam. Sharpe, who commanded the 116th Battalion at the front and rendered gallant service.
I had the honour, the same as many others, of being elected a member of this Parliament at the last general election. Long before Union Government was ever heard of, long before there was an election, I was pledged to. do my duty as in me lay for the upbuilding of the cause of human liberty and the over-throwing of autocracy in Germany, Austria or any other part of the world where it might raise its hydra head.


Mr. JACOBS:: The hon. gentleman has overlooked the Postmaster General (Mr. Blondin).


Samuel Hughes: I am dealing only with the Commons. I would be delighted to add his name. We have from the Cabinet the distinguished names of General Mewburn and Mr. Ballantyne, both of whom I regard as my boys. I am sorry, however, that the Cabinet is not better represented, however few of the ministers have sons of military age to send.
I was elected a member of Parliament to help win the war, and I pledged myself on the platform as well as in this House to support this Government or any other Government in power, in every effort that might be made towards the successful prosecution of the war. In the session previous to the last general election, the Military Service Act was passed. I did not publicly criticise the Act, but I did speak to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) and other members of the Cabinet about it. I pointed out the rocks that were ahead of them. That man certainly had very little political sagacity who did not see in the Military Service Act a first-class opportunity

for every man who wanted to stay at home to do so. That is what I pointed out to the Minister of Justice at the time, and 1 have never seen any reason to change my opinion of that Act since. I repeat, I was elected to support every measure for winning the war. I shall not here discuss whether the Government since the election has taken the action it should have taken towards winning the war, but I shall simply point out that I am not satisfied that they have done their best.
There are various forms of government, but to my mind there is only one form that should be encouraged in any country, aDd that is responsible government-government by the people, through the people, for the people. Under this form of government the leader of the party winning the election is chosen Prime Minister and selects his Cabinet, not from those pledged to oppose him, but from among those who travel along the same political lines as himself, and he stands or falls by his responsibility. In 1878 we had a Union Government in this country. It was not a machine-made affair, but went to the polls as a Union Government. The platforms of the opposing parties were laid before the people, and the Government of Sir John A. Macdonald was returned to power with a following thirty-five per cent of which was composed of former Liberals. That was a constitutional coalition. It was not a coalition of labels, but a coalition of ideas. In 1896 the Liberal party was returned to power by a large majority and twenty-five per cent of its following was composed of men from the Tory party, a great many of them being Orange-Tories who had been humbugged on the Manitoba school question. But whatever may have been the cause of that union, it was a legitimate coalition on constitutional lines. Then, in 1911, it is claimed there was a coalition between the Liberal-Conservative party and certain gentlemen in the province of Quebec who did not label themselves Liberal-Conservatives, to defeat the Liberal party in that election.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh!


Samuel Hughes: I am narrating history, not talking politics, although I am ready at any time to show that almost any coalition would be justified in uniting to defeat the Liberal party in the province of Quebec. The Nationalists in the election of 1911 simply took the speeches delivered by the old-time Liberals in days gone by, adapted them to suit the times, and used them against the Liberals.


Mr. MURPHY:: Plus the money for circulating Le Devoir.


Samuel Hughes: I understood that was my hon. friend's organ.


Mr. TOBIN:: The hon. member for St. Antoine (Sir Herbert Ames) will tell you about that.


Samuel Hughes: I shall deal with the coalition of 1917 at another time. There is no doubt whatever that in 1917 the great bulk of the Liberal party in many of the provinces would have cast in their lot with the great Liberal-Conservative party coalition or no coalition. I believe that every one of the former Liberal members of this House who have joined us on this side would have supported in any case the great Liberal-Conservative party at the last election. There would have been a natural coalition, instead of this patent machine-made affairs of Sir Joseph Flavelle, of the city of Toronto.
I have observed all the Orders in Council passed by the Government under the War Measures Act and I have yet ito see any necessity why the Government should have clothed themselves with these powers, except to guard themselves from the members of the House of Commons and from the people at large. I have yet to see any solitary Order in Council passed under the War Measures Act which has advanced the interests of the country in the slightest degree; I have said that before, and I now go further. I have yet to see where Ithe Pood Control Board was of any use to Canada, instead of being, as it was, a confounded nuisance to all the country. I have yet to see what good the Fuel Controller has done, except to add from two to five dollars per ton to the cost of coal. I have yet to see the necessity for any of these repressive commissions that have been set up under the War Measures Act. They were not necesisary in the administration of the affairs of this country and have done no good. I have not yet seen any justification for departing from the usual form of responsible government in war time. Any argument that can be used in support of all this repressive work in war time, to my mind, can be used with double force in peace time, 'and if we are going 'to have autocracy in time of war, let us have it in time of peace, too, and send for the Kaiser to run the country. I challenge any man in the Dominion of Canada to show me he necessity for one solitary act done under the War Measures Act.

There are a great many people who go around saying "I am not a politician. I take no stock in politics," and so on. I have never seen such a man who did not require careful watching. I can well remember the time when Sir Joseph Flavelle, the owner of this Government, delighted in pointing out that men in politics were quite unworthy of recognition, that one engaged in politics was to be loathed, or at least avoided, side-stepped. I have been a careful student of human nature all my life, and I say that I have never seen one of these gentlemen, whether preacher or citizen-well, I will not say preacher-who was not worth watching with both eyes open.
I am delighted to see such an independent House. There is a spirit of independence on this side, and I believe on the other side as well. I do not think for a moment that the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) can lead that array of talent, beauty and ability just ih the way he chooses or just in. the way that a caucus may decide. He will find a spirit of independence abroad in his following such as he has never found on that side before. And I know that I can speak for the leader of the Government when I say that the Government realize that they will have their hands full if they try to cajole, butter down, or side-track the gentlemen on this side of the House who have just causes of complaint to bring forward. This is not going to be the old-time patronage game. Those in authority are going to move, or the boys will know the reason why. I happened to be looking over an old magazine the other night and came across a picture of sturdy, staunch old John Bull, typical of British manhood. There was no camouflage about old John Bull, no particular attempt at courtesy, no preaching of "moderation" and all that sort of thing. Unfortunately the attempt is made to set up another type in place of the staunch old man, something of the Oscar Wilde type, the smooth, oily, pussy-footing type of statesman. But, thank God, the war has driven him out and reestablished plain, staunch John Bull as typical of British manhood. And Canada has been represented by the type of Jack Canuck, a stalwart young fellow-hat on, sleeves rolled up, collar open. I hope there will be no attempt made to replace him with the frock-coated, silk-hatted Jack Canuck as there seems to be some reason to dread in connection with Canadian public life today. I recall very clearly an expression I heard "years ago. A gentleman called at

our home, and when he had gone, my mother said, "Watch him; he is too smooth to be wholesome." Now, I do 5 p.m. not want any of the present Cabinet to take that to themselves-not necessarily.	Of course, if the
cap fits any of them they can put it on. I see two or three of them blushing. My good friend the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) is partly hidden behind the Minister of Militia (Major General Mewburn), but I can see the mantling blush steal over his features; while the acting leader of the Government (Sir Thomas White) is bland as ever, but his cheeks show slightly heightening colour. I do not wish these gentlemen to think that I mean them; but, as I say, if they think the cap fits them, they can put it on.
Now, let us pass along. The acting leader of the Government commends moderation. I am delighted at his change of manner. In 1914 I had the honour, as Minister of Militia to be raising the forces, at a time when consternation bordering almost on paralysis pervaded the land. A government and people inexperienced in the art of war were brought face to face with the gigantic struggle of the ages. There was wide-spread lack of confidence on the part of the people in their own powers. And let me say, Sir, that that was one of the great things I had to do-to get our boys to feel that they could measure up with these machine-trained Germans. I knew what our boys could do. I had marched for years beside the Germans in manoeuvres, and had studied them; and I felt that, old and awkward as I was, I could handle any dozen of them. And I knew what our stalwart young fellows at home, the free-born sons of Canada, could do, even though they lacked training. I knew that they could do just what they have done-trim the Germans to a finish every time they got the opportunity. That is the great thing I found necessary-to work up the confidence of the people in their own power to fight. You all remember that. There was dread of the very name of German-like the dread inspired in France in the old days by the name of "Malbrouk." The clank of the German sword sent a shiver through our people. But, thank God, there were hundreds of thousands of our boys for whom the clank and jangle of the German sword was a challenge that roused them to instant ac tion.
There was prejudice, and envy, and jealously, on the part of one or two of my colleagues and of some others. There were some few attempts at favouritism. There

was criticism and fault finding galore, but in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred when traced up it was found to come from interested sources. Then I had to contend with the general reverence for the British model. I had the honour of telling one of the most distinguished soldiers in the British army-and communicated the information to the Prime Minister of Canada (Sir Robert Borden) a few minutes afterwards- that the halo had gone off the British officer as a model many a long day ago, so far as I was concerned, and that the boys from Canada were going to be trained and managed according to modern ideas-my ideas. Then there was the other tradition that we must have men three years in training before they would be of any use in fighting. It was the old question:	Regular versus
irregular. But I realized what the French citizens had done in the revolution, when they defeated on many a hard-fought field the best professional soldiers of Europe- -machine trained soldiers. I had been an athlete and on many occasions I had met with my companions trained professional athletes, and I never knew an occasion when our amateurs could not work them off their feet without much trouble. I felt that the same' could be carried out in war. It was carried out in South Africa, and I took part in it. And in this war it has been carried out by soldiers not only from Canada but from New Zealand, from Australia, from South Africa, from Britain-these irregulars are able to hold their heads high in the company of the best British regulars. I do not wish to say a word to depreciate the British soldiers, the regulars. For next to the second battle of Ypres, which we call the battle of St. Julien, where our boys won a victory never to be forgotten, the first battle at that point, where Rawlinson's splendid corps held the position with only one man to the yard against twenty-five Germans to the yard and succeeded in defeating their foe, stands out in history as one of the great battles of ages.
Then, I had to maintain Canada's rights. Nearly every one thought our soldiers were merely British regulars. I had to fight that out single-handed. I am sorry to say, for the Canadian High Commissioner seemed to consider it his duty to thwart every move I made for the advancement of that cause. We had bad financial conditions in Canada -but of these I do not speak now. At that time, I regret to say, certain distinguished members of the Government were not moderate in their views or in their actions. Why, I have had ministers of the Crown
bombard me on behalf of different interests and in order to keep this business, that business and the other business from failing, from going to pieces, I was asked to buy a few hundred yards of cloth here, and a few hundred there. The Dominion of Canada was down to such a state in financial matters that we had to practically dole the contracts out, to give some business here, some there, and some elsewhere and this became a very serious drawback. But this matter will come up at some future time and I shall not go into details farther than to say that in 1914 the German propaganda was being put forward, peace was being talked all over the country and all of these matters were being raised in order to stop action on the part of the Government.
I found myself from the outset handicapped by the attacks of certain newspapers, the Montreal Daily Mail and Evening News, the Toronto Telegram, and another serious infamy was the course pursued by the London correspondent of the Toronto Telegram.. I was persistently maligned without the facts of the case being given and this course was pursued to the detriment of the Canadian service. The same gentleman who edited the Montreal Daily Mail and Evening News has been promoted and is now, I understand, head of the Canadian Official Record, I presume, as a reward for the attacks which he so persistently made upon me in the columns of the Daily Mail and Evening News. He has the honour of being a brother of the Minister of Finance.
I was in Toronto one evening away back in 1916 and I found that a number of the leading citizens-of course they were Tories -had been meeting at the hotel. They had been at the meeting, and they said there was a discussion as to the candidate in a certain division in Toronto and that some politicians not of their number would have to go to Ottawa to get a man with a special brand of politics to run in the constituency. There was a certain distinguished statesman rwhom it was desirable that they should get. But no one could be found to endorse the proposition. I was amazed. Next day I had the honour of speaking at the Empire Club. My staff officer, Col. Williams, came to me and said:	There is some mistake about
this because the distinguished statesman who was being reported last night as being unable to get a nomination in Toronto is in everybody's mouth here today as the man who should succeed Sir Robert Borden. They say that the Prime

Minister is a fishworm,-no backbone, not a strong enough man,-and that he must make way for this great statesman. I said: " That is very strange." I could not understand it. But I asked who was So-and-so, and I found that there were eight canvassers in the audience representing the various insurance companies, financial organizations and other business interests carried on under the auspices of Sir Joseph Flavelle who were busy passing through that audience, canvassing as far as they could against Sir Robert Borden as Prime Minister and demanding that he make way for another man. That opened my eyes.
I remember the conspiracy of 1915 to get rid of dear old General Bertram and Colonel David Carnegie, to whom the British Government and humanity owe much, who did such splendid work in connection with the production of munitions in this country. I remember that in 1915, in every restaurant, in every smoking compartment in a car, wherever one went, all over Canada, there was an agent of one kind or another, and when we came to trace that up we found that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred they were agents of this organization to which I am referring and they were canvassing against General Bertram and demanding that the Shell Committee should be reorganized. I remember that as part of the conspiracy.
Sir Joseph Flavelle became head of the Munitions Board, this work having been-transferred from the War Department in England to the Munitions Department. Then, following that, we find a certain distinguished citizen obtaining large contracts both in Canada and the United States for the supply of meats and meat products. We have had some evidence in Canada about meat profits, but we have only touched the fringe of it yet, and we have not got anything about what was going on in the United States. I am informed on very reliable authority that upwards of $5,000,000 monthly was handed over in the last three or four years in the United States under contracts with the British Government and other governments to this gentleman, apparently by reason of the position which he held as head of the Munitions Board, which gave him the prestige that enabled him to get all these things into his own hands, little by little, until the whole affair was brought in as an appendage to the business interests run by this Toronto organization. Its estimated profits will be upwards of $100,000,000 in the last four years on these commodities alone.

Then, having obtained control of the Munitions Board and having obtained large contracts, these gentlemen turned their attention to politics. Their political ambitions were as yet unsatisfied. I remember one Sunday morning entering a hotel and seeing seated at a table Sir Joseph Flavelle who had always tabooed politics, Mr. A. E. Ames of Toronto, who had never been a party man of any great standing, Mr. Bundle-I am not saying a word against these gentlemen; they are all very good fellows in their own way- Mr. Rundle of the National Trust, who succeeded the hon. the Finance Minister, Mr. Gundy, a nice little fellow who has evidently an eye to business whether it be in connection with the handling of munition contracts or the Victory Loan, at least these are the names given me-I found these gentlemen and some others'seated at a table. Probably Sir Joseph had obtained a respite from Gabriel during this short time on Sunday morning to talk matters over with these gentlemen. I do not know whether they had any other unction or not. But at all events it would not make any difference whether they had or not.
These gentlemen then proceeded to carry on their work of saving Canada. They went to the residence of Sir Wilfrid Laurier by arrangement at 12 o'clock and I understand that the luncheon was very fine. They stayed there until four and they tried to induce this worthy old statesman to join in a Union Government with them. They were going to be content with Sir Wilfrid Laurier remaining Prime Minister for six or nine months, or a year, then he was to make way and was to be succeeded by one of their friends not a thousand miles away from the seat occupied by the Finance Minister to-day. The wily old statesman sent them away and they returned to the hotel to consult some of the lesser lights of the Liberal party. An arrangement was made, I understand, that a meeting of the warriors of the Liberal party should be held the next afternoon. The Premier of Quebec happened in and I do not know whether it was a patriotic reason or not that brought the hon. gentleman who is now the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) but he also blew into the city on that day. I do not know whether he figured as the second lieutenant or as the first lieutenant. I could not say what part he played, but he was in town. Nothing came of it. At all events the result was that the

wily old statesman declined to have anything to do with it.
Let me recall the circumstanct s to you. Let me recall to your minds what had happened. There was a speech made in Ottawa some time before that in which the statement was made by Sir Joseph Flavelle that whatever government was formed the French element must be dominant in it, must have a voice in it-in fact, all the peculiar elements in Canada must be represented in that great Cabinet. The following Monday, I understand, there was to be a speech delivered in Toronto by the hon. the Finance Minister (Sir Thomas White). It had been placarded, and thousands- some say tens of thousands-of cards of invitation had been sent out by friends in the city of Toronto to come and hear this address, that there was to be a very important message delivered. But the awful correspondent of the Toronto Globe in Ottawa happened to send a despatch that night showing what the game was-that Borden was to be thrown out, or disposed of in some way. He and Bennett were away on a junketing trip in the West at this time, but Borden was to be thrown out, and the mantle was to fall on the shoulders of the young gallant and handsome Finance Minister. Whatever happened, the important message was never delivered. A wet blanket fell on the meeting, and it was said that it was one of the deadest shows that ever took place in the city of Toronto, excepting the meeting addressed by the Prime Minister and Mr. Bennett later on, the following month, when they had to hustle down three battalions of soldiers from the Fort in order to make an audience at all for them. Well, Sir, a change of scene occurred a little later, when, failing to wheedle Sir Wilfrid Laurier into the leadership of this new party, they turned around and the cry became very vociferous to condemn Quebec. She must be ostracised, and all the enemies of Canada and of the Empire must be disfranchised in the coming election.
We were asked sometimes by people in our ridings what this Government had done. Well, to make as nice a story as I could, I always told them: "They have appointed, the Knights of Columbus have appointed, somebody to some job in the riding, and things are going on very nicely; I am relieved of patronage, and I have no more to say in matters of government, but they are getting on very nicely." One of the questioners came to me one night, and said: "They are adopting high-handed methods
by the suppression of free speech, they are shutting out all criticism. Knowing a young gentleman who was to speak in the city of Winnipeg, but was held up as if he had been worse than a German, I can speak in the interests of Canada. They are trying to build up an oligarchy in Canada, and the Government is being run by orders in council." He said further: " The Acting Prime Minister may as well take a packet of poker chips in his pocket and let the rest of you all go home."
Now let me deal with certain measures that have been enacted. The Dominion Registration Act, one of the most infamous laws ever enforced, has been borne by the people with more than patience. In other words, we are in thorough training for Kaiserism. The Military Service Act, and the Registration Act, I shall not discuss here, nor the provost marshal and military police work. All this, and the detective work in connection with this class of thing, is contrary to the dictates and wishes of a free people. The press, by means of sweetening, and also by censors, has been worked with conspicuous zeal. In the shape of sweetening we find that $50,000 was given the Canadian press for wiring intelligence from coast to coast, although I do not object to that at all. But there was the fixing of the price of news print at $50 a ton on November 19, 1918. That was extended to January 14, until after the elections had taken place, when the price was placed at $69. Then there is the cost of advertising the Victory Loan, and the advertising connected with registration and repatriation. The Government has been very good in buying 250,000 copies of The Veteran, the organ of the veterans, to send to the boys. Again there is the cost connected with maintaining the Director of Public Information and the Canadian Official Record to be added to the expenditures which I have enumerated-in other words, the sweetening of the press. That is very nice and I suppose the press is supposed to be paid for all this propaganda and camouflage work, and so on, of the various ministers. Let me refer in this connection to certain very interesting procedure which took place. It seems that one of the ministers was getting too much prominence on the front page of this Canadian Official Record every week. A solemn protest was accordingly entered on behalf of the other ministers by a certain gentleman, and it seems to have been heeded, because if you look at the Canadian Official Record now you will see that f ormerly the Minister of Finance was given front page recognition for weeks

in succession, and it was too much for the other ministers. Now one week attention is paid to the Acting Minister of Justice and the Minister of the Interior. Another week it is the President of the Privy Council, and so on. They are distributing the moneys, these gentlemen who are running neck and neck, for publication purposes, and that gets them notoriety before the public. If you watch it, you will see the official organ going out along these lines regularly now. I do not know whether it does any good or not, but that is neither here nor there.
Now, Sir, the Dominion of Canada trained an army of free men. That army has distinguished itself, and it needs no commendation here or elsewhere. I challenge the world to show where any soldiers in the world have conducted themselves better as soldiers than the men who composed this army. They spent months and months training in Canada, they went to the front absolutely under control, absolutely well trained, absolutely the best shots that could be found, and in no solitary instance, barring one or two affairs of liquor, has there been a solitary case that would be worthy of police court record in the whole Dominion of Canada. The force sent overseas by Canada is something that any country might be proud of. I therefore feel more or less out of touch with the ordinary feeling that is expressed in this House and the country about these soldiers, as to what we must do for them when they return, and how we must coddle them up. I do not think, Sir, that that is the right attitude to take at all. What should be done I will deal with in a few minutes when I come to the question of demobilization and re-establishment. What I want to point out is this: I recommended, while in office, to the British Government and to the Canadian authorities, certain suggestions with regard to the composition of our forces. After building up one division, we had two divisions formed. After creating two divisions, we had four divisions formed, and that made a corps. I wanted to have three divisions in a corps, and three brigades in a division, with an extra battalion in each brigade, besides the divisional corps. The plan was adopted in Germany, it was adopted by the British, but it was not adopted by the Canadians at the front. The obstacles to the adoption of that policy I shall not discuss here further than to say that the two Ministers of Militia-the gentleman here and the gentleman in London-ran foul of each other.

There was no co-ordination between the two departments, there was no co-ordination between the Militia Department in the Old Country and the High Commissioner's Office-one seemed to be thwarting the other. They tried to thwart them then as they tried to thwart matters in my time. There was a vendetta practically between the boys in England and the boys at 'the front, there was Government favouritism, and interference, and unworthy ambition on each side of the Atlantic. This handicapped the thousands and thousands of gallant fellows who were anxious to do their duty. However, this little intrigue went on until 1919. My information, which has been borne out by every man who has returned from the front, was such that I wrote to Sir Robeift Borden on January 14, 1918, as follows:
Ottawa, Ontario, January 14, 1918.
Dear Sir Robert,-There are a number of important matters1-now that the elections are over-which I think should be laid before you for consideration and action, and it has occurred to me that it would he advisable to talk these matters over first before they would be placed in concrete form in detail, or brought up in the House.
They concern such matters as,
1-Six divisions and two corps instead of four divisions and one corps.
2.	Little intrigue regarding the supplanting of
Haig by Byng, and the action of certain Canadians therein.
3.	Appointment of senior officers.
4.	Potent influences affecting senior promotions and appointments in the Canadian army.
5.	Lens, and somewhat similar massacresand the object in each.
6.	Condition of AFFAIRS IN BRITAIN, and
the causes thereof.	[DOT]
Will you please address your reply to Lindsay as I am leaving for home to-night.
Faithfully,
(Signed) SAM HUGHES. The Right Honourable,
Sir Robert L. Borden, G.C.M.G.,
Prime Minister of Canada, Ottawa.
In reply he told me that he hoped to meet me towards the end of the month, and I came back on three different occasions. On two of them I could not see him; the third time he was away. Following that came the great disaster at St. Quentin. On March 25, 1918, the Prime Minister said in the House of Commons-page 116 of Hansard-after reading the reports from the front:
So far as one can judge, the Germans are undoubtedly throwing absolutely their full force into this attack. It seems to have been met with great success as was anticipated from the first. It is beyond question that very much depends

upon the issue; and I know the heart of the people of the whole country will be lifted up in intercession that the right may prevail.
I then said:
Intercession is very proper, but with the view in a slight degree possibly of helping on the cause I desire to ask the Prime Minister the following questions :
1.	Inasmuch as Canadians are engaged in the titanic struggle now going on for the preservation of human liberty, is the Government taking necessary steps to maintain to the highest degree the pride, the courage, the resolution, the steadfastness and the confidence of the splendid and gallant soldiers of Canada, as well as of the Empire at large in this struggle?
2.	Have the Government taken precautions in the management of the forces, the appointment and the promotion of officers therein and the granting of honour, awards and decorations thereto, that favour from female society, creed or other undue influences, shall not prevail, but that all shall be awarded on the one basis of merit and fitness alone?
3.	Does the Government purpose doing anything to prevent panicky and sensational despatches which merely cause nervous excitement among soldiers and population in Canada and overseas, from being issued by a few mentally epileptic newspaper reporters from overseas?
4.	Has the Government any explanation of why the allied forces, splendidly armed and equipped, and in chosen positions of their own, made up of the best men in the world, and numbering from seven to ten men per yard of front-/
It is estimated that I was considerably [DOT]under the proper number. (Reading):
-recently gave way before an enemy not their equal in manhood nor superior in armament, even though they numbered thirty men to a yard of front in attack?
Then came the secret session. Without divulging anything that happened at that marvellous, blue-ruin session, I may (joint out that my attitude was this: Although we occupied the lowlands, there was nothing to prevent our defeating the enemy with the greatest of ease provided we had the heart, the resolution, the courage, and the organization. We had better men, we had better armament, and our cause was just. I pointed out on that occasion what Rawlinson had done and what the Canadians had done at St. Julien, and contended that with the necessary degree of resolution restored to the British forces, before many months they would be doing exactly what they did do-driving the Germans back over the same ground from which our forces had retired a few days previously.
A short time after this the Prime Minister suggested that I talk over with him some of the matters that I had referred to. I pointed out, however, that the blow which I had sought to avert had fallen, and that it was therefore useless to discuss the matter. On the last clay of the session the Prime Minister sent for me and asked me
to communicate to him any suggestions that I had to make as he was leaving for England. I pointed out to him that I was not any longer his adviser, and he repeated the question, but I declined to comply with his suggestion. I gave as my reason the fact that the gentlemen with whom he was associated in the Old Country would undo whatever he might of himself be willing to do; that the officer in command of the Canadian forces in the field and the Canadian High Commissioner, who has exercised a malign influence on the Prime Minister ever since the formation of this Government, and others in the old land would exercise this malign influence over him and that it would be useless for me to do what he suggested. He then asked me to give him the names of any Canadian officers whom he might consult. I asked him what his object was; whether it was to have certain gentlemen still further hunted, driven from the forces and ruined, as had happened to every man who was known to be a friend of mine in connection with the service. So I declined. I did speak to the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Hon. J. A. Calder) who, 1 was confident, would keep his mouth shut unless it -was advisable to give out the facts. I did give him a few pointers, hut I did not feel that I was called upon to give them anywhere else. Every pointer that I gave turned out to be absolutely correct.
However, on February 25,	1919, Sir
Thomas White said-p. 33 of Hansard:
It will be an eternal source of pride to the people of this country that the first troops to enter Cambrai, which was the 'great bastion of German defence on the West, wore the uniform of Canada. It will also he a source of noble pride to the people of this country that on the last day of the war Canadian troops entered Mons, from which the British forces at the beginning of the war had been driven by overwhelming enemy forces.
Well, Sir, from the outset of this war I am on record as standing for the saving of tiie lives of our boys unless it was absolutely necessary that they should be sacrificed. This wasting of gallant lives went so far that on one occasion I notified the 'British Government through' Field-Marshal Sir John French that this petty nibbling, these foolish attacks-"stunts," they called them-should cease, and that if these movements were to be carried on, the Canadian forces would lose hundreds of men with no possible advantage as a result. They fought the battle of St. Julien without having gone through any of these stunts for training purposes, and they had smashed the German forces to a finish.

charged, fill these places up with slackers. I saw by the papers the other night that that was being done in Ottawa. I am not blaming the Government, as this may be due to some sub-agent or heeler, but the Government must assume the responsibility. I have no use for Civil Service Commissions for the purpose of filling jobs. I have every faith in the Civil Service Commission for the duty for which it was constituted. But, in years of service in this House, I stand now next to my good old friend the hon. member for Grenville (Hon. J. D. Reid), I have never dodged my responsibility. I have always held that the member or the defeated candidate should be responsible for the patronage of his riding, because some one must be the responsible head in every riding to look after the patronage. I have never evaded my responsibility, and in my county I have never made an appointment with which any fault was found. Under this Government, we cannot assume the responsibility and this dodging, pussyfooting and side-stepping must cease. This is a democratic Government, a responsible Government; and as a member for a constituency, occupying a seat in this House, I shall insist on the responsibility being exercised by some one other than irregular organizations such as the Knights of Columbus and associations of that kind in the riding that I have the honour to represent.


Edmund William Tobin: The hon. member may leave the Knights of Columbus alone.


Samuel Hughes: Oh, no, I treat all just as they come. In regard to demobilization, the first thing is to get population. I like to look back on the development of the Great Northwest. I see gentlemen occupying seats in this House who will remember the days long ago when one would travel hundreds of miles throughout the Northwest without coming across a house. In 1895 I had the honour of drawing Sir Clifford Sifton's attention to the fact that those places were fit for settlement. Sir Clifford Sifton pushed the roads through, and great credit is due to him for developing that part of Canada. He may not have done it to suit everybody, but he has done it well. The men from the Northwest have been a credit to the British Empire and a credit to Canada.
First of all, get population; get people with money. Develop the country. Build railways and get people to settle on the land and produce, and then you will have banks and churches and schools and lawyers' offices and every other kind of activity. There are hon. members of this House from
[Sir Sam Hughes.!
the Northwest who remember when they went in there ten or fifteen years ago the country was unsettled; but to-day it is all settled, and thirty years from now the portions of the great Northwest that are unsettled to-day will be dotted with cities and towns that are now never dreamt of. I would build railways to new sections opening up. I would give the people drainage facilities. The hon. member for Regina (Mr. Cowan) said the other evening that upwards of a million people could be settled in a certain district out west if they had proper railway facilities. I would build wagon roads alongside new railways. 1 would also build river bridges. I would build coal roads from the Rocky Mountains to the city of Winnipeg, and on to Ontario, Quebec and from Nova Scotia. I would use four roads for this purpose from the Rocky Mountains to Winnipeg so that every section could be served, and I would have the tracks so arranged and the cars so constructed that one engine could haul as big a trainload as the ordinary steamer. I would develop the fish industry, by providing trawlers, ocean cold storage for fish, refrigerator cars, cold storage houses, and utilize fish offal. The fish industry has great possibilities. I would also develop our timber, both hard and soft, and develop water-powers. I would have central municipal coal yards with control over distribution and prices. I would develop the minerals from the Mackenzie river to Ungava, and would have harbours on the new coast. I would build a railway to the Klondyke. and buy a sea coast strip from the United States. I would have a study made of the chemistry of natural and other products. I would settle the soldiers on the land as far as possible, and afterwards sell land to settlers other than soldiers. We shall need millions of men, instead of a few hundred thousand. These soldiers returning to Canada will not be content with second-rate Civil Service jobs. It has been my privilege to look in the faces of thousands of our boys. I saw in Detroit not long ago a man with a cork leg walk five miles without a whimper. These men do not want coddling. They will tell you themselves "For God's sake, get them to let up on this coddling business." What we want is an opportunity to earn a living. Give us that opportunity, and we will not pester you for elevator and post office jobs." Give the boys a chance to open up new country, and you gentlemen sitting around me who went to the Northwest ten or fifteen years ago not so wealthy as you are to-day will find your success duplicated by our

soldier boys in the years to come. The soldiers are the best men we can get. Physically, some of the poor fellows are not what they should be, but mentally they are better than they ever were. They are more stern, more serious than they were. The war has added twenty years to their lives. As an illustration, I would point to the Mowat family. Sir Oliver Mowat's father was an old soldier. Sir David Mac-Pherson was also an old soldier. In fact, the ancestors of most of the big men of a decade ago were old soldiers who had had stern training and brought discipline and seriousness into their home life. This same serious spirit will be carried into the homes of our soldiers. An odd soldier here and there will go wrong, but so does an odd preacher; but why blame the soldier any more than any one else? Why cannot a soldier have a good time once in a while if he wants it? I am not here to defend that sort of thing, but humanity is the same the world over. But that is no reason for coddling the soldier. Give the boys a chance. They have conducted themselves nobly as soldiers, and before they went overseas and will do so in the future. I do not share the fears of the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder), who the other evening seemed to apprehend some sort of danger from these returned soldiers. I have not yet found one of them who was not a law-abiding and thoroughly good citizen. I know that there has been trouble in Toronto over aliens, and in my riding also, where some aliens have as much as six or seven thousand dollars in the bank and a big roll in their pockets. When our boys come home, practically incapacitated many of them, and see that sort of thing ana the alien wanting to hold on to his job they do not like it. In my riding we have taken precautions to make the employers understand they had better get a move on. I understand that one minister of the Crown has been told to get rid of the aliens at his factory in Toronto and give the returned soldiers a fair show. The soldiers do not want to be coddled; they want an opportunity. Let us give them the opportunity to create new cities and towns and homes and farms, and they will gladly accept it in preference to a second or third class job in the Civil Service. If given the opportunity, our soldiers will prove themselves fit for the very highest jobs in the land.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at. eight o'clock.
Lieut.-General SIR SAM HUGHES (resuming) : Before the House rose I was discussing the question of re-establishment. But during the recess my attention has been drawn to the fact that a number of the officers of the House and the men who formerly occupied places in the Press Gallery left their positions and marched with the boys to the front. Some of them have fallen, and all have done uniformly good work. I pay tribute to such of these men by name. Here is the honour roll:
Major Bowie, Sergeant-at-Arms.
Major John Lewis, Montreal Star, killed in action.
Captain Ernest Cinq Mars, Croix de Guerre, La Presse.
Captain Maurice Arby, Le Temps.
Private Renfe Chevassu, Le Canada.
Lieut. John MacCormac, The Gazette, Montreal.
Corporal Charles Gauthier, Le Droit.
Lieut. Rodolphe Girard, Croix de Guerre, Le Temps.
Major John Bassett, A.D.C., Montreal Gazette.
Private Vincent Pask, Ottawa Free Press.
Captain Charles Askwith, Ottawa Journal.
Captain Clem King, Military Cross.
Sergeant Benson Guest, Montreal Mail.
Private Allan B. Hobbs, Ottawa Journal.
Private J. W. Gibson, page, from 1908 to 1915.
Captain Irwin B. Johnston, Canadian Daily Record.
Captain James Hanratty, Canadian Daily Record.
Lieut. Charles Cavers, Toronto World.
Captain William Wallace, Military Cross.
I hurried in the hope of finishing my address before six o'clock, and in my haste I did nbt say fully what I wished to say on one point about the returned soldiers. We need not have any fear whatever of the returned soldiers, if they are anything like properly used. Otherwise it is hard to say what we may look for. I anticipate-and I think the future records of this country, when they are written, will bear me out-that our returning soldiers, four hundred thousand or five hundred thousand are going to be the greatest thinking and acting asset of the Dominion of Canada in the years to come. Like all old soldiers they will be steady, hard men. I believe that the history of all the victorious and Allied countries will show that we are entering upon the Periclean, the Augustine



Age, the Renaissance, the Elizabethan period, the Reformation period, of our time, to be marked by a great outburst of literature, art, and general progress.
Now, I will only take a few minutes to touch upon an aspect of the case more practical than theoretical-the financial aspect. I would refer hon. members to the report of the Department of the Treasury in Washington, of 2nd December, 1918, the report of Secretary McAdoo to the House of Representatives. I have here the official document, but I read from copies that have been made. He refers to the raising of great loans and the advancing to allied countries of a sum upwards of $9,000,000,000 in cash. He said:
The fundamental fact underlying these great economic achievements has been the inflexible spirit and purpose of America to secure for the world the blessings of that kind of liberty and Justice in which America was conceived, and without which neither America nor civilization can exist.
Speaking of the third Liberty Loan he said:
(1) With the bonds of previous loans selling below par and industrial and other securities yielding a return much in excess of the interest rate on Government bonds, the question of the rate of interest on the new bonds became acute. It was the general banking opinion that the rate should be 4J per cent and few believed that it would be possible to sell the necessary large amount of bonds at a lesser rate. The Treasury on the other hand stood firm In the belief that,
1-	The rate of interest would not of itself maintain Liberty bonds at par in the financial market.
2-	That the price of Liberty bonds, even though quoted at less than par on the exchanges, would) not deter the American people from buying at par the same bonds when offered by their Government to secure the necessary funds to carry on the war.
In other words, they would show themselves patriots, not grafters.
3-	That the patriotism of .the American people was not measured by interest rates nor determined by the fluctuations in the market prices of Government bonds on stock exchanges.
, The situation was very complex. There could be no denying the fact that existing issues were selling below par, nor could there be any refutation of the claim, except by actual experiment, that the investing public would not buy the new issue at par when the same bonds could be bought in the open market below par. The Treasury felt, however, that to raise the interest rate to 4J per cent would mean a corresponding' increase in the cost of the war and force still higher interest rates on future issues of industrial and other securities as well as further to depress the price of existing long term bonds. On the other hand, it seemed clear that the time had arrived when every effort should he made to stabilize the interest rate on Government bonds and to reach a point where there would no longer be expectation of further Increases in rates.
It was decided, therefore, to recommend that the Congress authorize the issue of a ii per cent nonconvertible bond or an increase in the interest rate of one-fourth of 1 per cent instead of an increase of one-half of 1 per cent. Such a bond, it was believed, would result in accomplishing two things1,
1-The stabilization of the interest rate as far as it was possible to stabilize it in the extraordinary circumstances then existing.
and,
2'-The elimination of the conversion privilege, which had become no longer necessary for the sale of the bonds and which in itself had a tendency to create a demand for a constantly rising rate of interest on successive issues.
Speaking of the fourth Liberty Loan Secretary McAdoo said:
I have sought to avoid the issue of bonds at such a -rate and upon such terms as might result ultimately, when the war is won, in the accumulation of great wealth in the hands of a relatively small proportion of our population, carrying interest at a high rate and exempt from taxes.
The oversubscription of this largest of all loans was the greatest financial achievement in all history and a wonderful manifestation of the strength and purpose of the American people.
The loans made to foreign governments as shown by this report were as follows:



RE LOANS TO FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS.

[Stage Direction]
Country.	Credits established.	Cash advances.Belgium	$ 173,380,000 10,000,000 1.970.000.	000 3.696.000.	000
F ranee				9 44?>
non nnn	
Great Britain	 Greece		3,945,000,000	
		1,051,000,000
Liberia		5,000,000	
Rumania	 	 					
Russia				187,729,750 10,605,000
Serbia		12,000,000	
		
Total		$8,171,970,660	$7,098,714,750
[Stage Direction]
:il_
These amounts were advanced by the people of the United States through their Government by way of loan.
Regarding these loans, there are two viewpoints: One is that of the country, ,the people; the other is that of the broker or the investor. It depends on the viewpoint how you are going to regard it. One distinguished member of this House said of the $75,000,000 New York loan:	"Just
look at the most sucessful loan in history; it went up to 103." It was sold at $94.94 or practically 95 and because it went up to 103 it was regarded as the greatest issue in history. If he was a buyer he could afford to cheer but I do not see how the people of Canada, who were losing $8 per $100, could be interested in any such deal as that. The great trouble in connection with that loan is that the Government fixed both the buying and selling price; that is they fixed both the rate of interest and what they would get for the bonds. I have no hesitation in saying that had the Finance Minister gone to New York with that $75,000,000 loan and said: "Gentlemen, here is a loan; I am paying 5 or 5| per cent interest on it; what will you give me for it?"-he would have had an offer of 102 quicker than lightning. As it was he said: "I am going to fix the price of $25,000,000 worth at 99 and something and $25,000,000 at something else and the price of long term, or the gilt-edged, part shall be $94.94, practically 95." Of course, it went up. The question that the people are asking themselves is: Who were the underwriters that-got the difference in the price at which it was issued through Morgan & Company and the price of 103 to which it rose? Who got that $8 out of every $100 is something that the people of this country are interested in knowing. From the investor's viewpoint it may have been a successful loan if $8 out of every $100 went to the broker or speculator. From the people's viewpoint they were robbed of $8 out of every $100. If the interest had been higher, of course, the price would still have been higher. It is a very convenient way of estimating a loan.
If the Federal Government advance the rates of interest, the people of the province, the municipality, the business man, the farmer, Have to pay correspondingly higher rates with the result that this burden will affect every business transaction in the country. As pointed out by my hon. friend from Muskoka (Mr. McGibbon), at the outset Canada had lying idle and drawing no
interest whatever, or very small rates of from 3 to 31 per cent, two' billions of dollars in the savings banks and banking institutions of this country which could have been made available. Why then, when these loans were made, did not the people grab their money and invest it in Government bonds bearing 5 and 51 per cent, especially when the conditions of the loans carried the exemption clause? Why did every one keep his money at 3 and 31 per cent with no tax exemp, tion instead of investing at 51 per cent with exemption? Canada's loans since 1915 have all been issued at from 5 to 51 per cent. The total loans aggregate upwards of $1,500,000,000, and the issue prices have been from 94.94 to par.
The difficulty of locating the amounts paid for commissions is made greater by the fact that one cannot get the actual figures for anything except three of the loans. The Auditor General's Report and the Public Accounts are not printed yet for this year. I have been unable to get anything except the figures for three of these loans which are found in the Auditor General's Report for last year. The con- ' version privileges are very valuable. The Minister of Finance, in answer to a question of mine last year agreed that there would be $150,000,000 conversion on one loan. Then, as has been pointed out on many occasions, these bonds have been sold as low as 91, 92, 921, 93, 94 and 95 all over the country. They had undoubtedly been picked up by brokers who evidently knew what was coming; they picked these up and transferred them, having purchased them at lower rates, for 971, or par, and they got the accrued interest upon them. In that transfer they made from $6,000,000 to $9,000,000 on that $150,000,000 transaction alone. That was not allowed in the United States Liberty Bond issues.
In regard to the exemption of Canadian loans I have a statement issued by a firm-
I think-Daly and Company of Toronto. On $1,000,000 there is an exemption of $499,157 and on $1,500,000 there is an exemption of $863,000 and so on right down. The exemption amounts to a very large sum. 'The cost of the first year's administration of these Canadian loans runs from $113.50 to $111.75 exclusive of the last two loans for which figures cannot be definitely had. The Auditor General's Report gives the figures for three loans, that is the 5 per cent Public Service Loan, 1916, the Dominion of Canada War Loan, 1915, and the 5 per cent Dominion of Canada War Loan, December, 1916.
[Stage Direction]
The figures are startling. They are as follows :
''5 per cent Public Service Loan"
in New York, 1916	 $ 75,000,000
Cost, $4,098,580, or $5.46 per $100.
The "Dominion of Canada War
Loan," 1915	 $100,000,000
Cost, $3,408,358, or $3.41 per $100.
The "5 per cent Dominion of Canada War Loan," October, 1916. $100,000,000 Cost, $3,539,410, or $3.54 per $100.
These figures are taken from the Auditor General's Report. 'Thus, for $275,000,000 the Dominion of Canada has paid upwards of $11,000,000.
Let us turn to the United States and see how they have dealt with their Liberty Loans. The cost of these loans has been as follows:
First Liberty Loan, 1917, two billions of dollars, rate 3J per cent interest, cost, $2,762,536, or 13%o cents per $100.
Second Liberty Loan, 1917,	$3,808,766,150,
rate 4 per cent interest, cost $5,539,062, or 14|io cents per $100,
"Third Liberty Loan, 1918, $4,176,516,850, rate ii per cent interest, cost $8,293,519, or 19 cents per $100. _
Fourth' Liberty Loan, September, 1918, $6,989,047,000, rate 4| per cent interest, cost $8,727,658.
The final figures for this loan are not to hand, but an estimate can easily be made of what it will amount to, 19 or 20 cents, the same as for the other loans.
-Mark you, Sir, this-and I have the detailed reports here if any hon. members wish to see them-this cost includes about eleven millions of dollars of allotments to Federal Reserve Banks, for which no accounts have been rendered, or if rendered have not been examined, classified and approved. There will be a great many of these accounts which will undoubtedly be rejected, but I am putting them all in, and it makes a total United States loan of $16,974,330,000 at a cost of $25,322,775, or 15 cents per $100, as against $275,000,000 Canadian loan at a cost of $11,000,000.
The thing, Sir, is unreasonable. It is incomprehensible how so much money has been spent on the Canadian loans as has been. Contrast 13 cents per $100 with $5.46 for $100. Contrast 3 per cent to 4J per cent Liberty Loan with from 5 per cent to 51 per cent Canadian loans. Why have the Canadian loans cost from thirty to fifty times as much as the United States loans? You can say they are a more highly developed country, they are a larger country. Consider that 21,000,000, nearly 22,000,000 of people in the United States of America-that is one out of about every five-subscribed dollars and cents to their
[Sir Sam Hughes,!
last Liberty Loan, knowing that it would go below par, knowing they would lose interest on it, knowing they would only get 41 per cent-and yet that number of people subscribed to these bonds. That, Sir, is patriotism. There was no organization in every polling subdivision, in every district all over the country-possibly for future political purposes; there were no agents, or friends of the Government there to organize and collect subscriptions, or a whole body of sellers on commission, such as there were in the case of these Canadian loans. Last year the Acting Finance Minister admitted that the 1917 December loan would cost upwards of five millions of dollars. Now I have never yet got the figures. I have tried, and I have inquired dozens of times from the Finance Department and the Auditor-General's Department, from all the departments interested, and I have not got the figures yet, but there is a report that the figures will be nearer seven millions of dollars than five when they are all in, and that will not include the cost of administration, which, of course, is very heavy, as you all know, solicitors and clerks having to be employed in this work. This loan is for $398,000,000; the United States Liberty loan for ten times the amount, cost only $5,539,000. ! Canada has raised for war purposes about $1,500,000,000. This was drawing, we will say, from 2 to 35 per cent interest without exemption. Much of it is drawing nothing at all. The average interest will now be nearly 5 to 5J per cent. The Government should have issued the loan, seeing that these moneys were not drawing anything higher, at from 3 to 31 per cent. Thus, an annual saving of 2 per cent, or $30,000,000 on the investment would have been the result to the people of Canada. And the people who have had their money invested, if they had been patriotic, should have been satisfied with the same interest as they were getting. They would have had the same security as they already had, and would have been that much money in pocket. That way, some $30,000,000 would have been saved to the country. The annual interest on $1,500,000,000 at an average of 5 to 55 per cent will be $75,000,000 to $80,000,000. This sum is exempt under the income tax rule, viz.: The exemption clauses prevent any revenue from interest on this sum. Thus fully twenty millions more are lost, or a grand total of about fifty millions of dollars annually added to the people's burden for the benefit of the speculator. The war profits tax, and high rates of interest inworking out, will counter-balance the or-

dinary rate and will amount to at least twenty to thirty millions more, which means a total of forty to fifty million dollars that this country could have been in pocket if proper financing had been indulged in. Indirectly, the province, municipality, the business man, the farmer, will all pay correspondingly higher rates. One dollar now thus investe'd in fifteen years becomes two dollars. The purchasing power of one dollar now will equal two dollars in a few years. Therefore, one dollar now of this money will equal four dollars, as far as the purchasing power of it is concerned.
Who are the real profiteers, Sir? Much has been said against profiteers in this country. I want to say here that I had a good deal to do with the munition makers in the early stages of the war and I think I kept my eyes fairly wide open in the latter stages of it. As 1 figure it, about twenty-five per cent^of them made money, fifty per cent broke even, and twenty-five per cent of them lost nearly all they put in, and yet you will find the people going up and down the country condemning the munition makers. The munition maker that went into this business on his own responsibility and took the risk is entitled to all the credit that can possibly be given him. They are the men who saved Canada from bankruptcy, and put bread and butter into the mouths of hundreds of our people, people who in the early stages of the war were practically starving. They are the men who re-filled the coffers of the country, and practically made Canada able to carry on the war. They are the men, too, Sir, who made the shells that at the battle of St. Julien-where our good friend, the mover of the (Address, and others, were bowled out-were obtained from a station ten or fifteen miles back and brought into action, and helped to stand off the advancing German hordes at the crucial moment. These very shells helped to win the war in Europe, and I say that the munition makers who went into the business on an even field and a fair footing deserve every credit. The munition makers who went into the business on a speculative basis deserve no credit. Hike the gentleman I have referred to, in selling goods to the Old Country, they were guaranteed against loss and were not interfered with in their profits. I would like, before people too widely condemn the munition workers as profiteers, to consider the case, and find out whether these gentlemen stepped in at the proper time, at a time when it was essential to get the industry started, and what did they make. There are institutions, however, in close
connection with the gentleman who headed the Munitions Board, in which millions and millions of dollars have been made, and the strange part of the business is that other men in the industry at the same time were getting such prices that they were unable to carry on.
There is another thing I would like to point out:	When the United States came
into the war, no matter how, their Government and people wanted to get shells made in Canada. The Munitions Board of Canada objected to their being made in Canada, and let me point out here, there has not been one shell, not one hit of munition work made in Canada for a long time that could not have been made in England just as well. Britain gave the orders to Canada in order to preserve her credit, keep times, good, and help things on here, the condition being that Canada should put up the-money and it would be counted as collateral on advances made. Therefore, the manufacture of munitions for Britain could have been stopped because Britain had the factories to make them, lots of them. We-could have taken the manufacture of American munitions, and I have no hesitation in saying we could have had two billions, if not three billions of American work by merely asking for it. However, permission was refused to make American munitions here.
They were refused permission to manufacture here. The contractors in Canada were not allowed to take these contracts, so they sought to move their machinery to the United States and manufacture there. The Munitions Board interfered and stopped that, and it was only after a number of us had painted the atmosphere a vermilion colour that we got action taken to permit the manufacture of Yankee shells in this country. Had this thing been properly looked after, 'had a business-likg policy been followed in the matter, instead of our having an adverse rate of exchange and trade balance with the United States, these would have been largely in our favour, and the credit to us would have been upwards of a billion dollars rather than Canada being debtor to the United States. These things are worth noting in passing.
I do not know how many similar cases there are, but I know of one case where a gentleman had $5,000 to invest. A friend came to him and said: I want you to invest your $5,000 in Victory bonds. Oh, said the other. I am going to invest that in my business. But, said his friend this will not interfere with your business at all. You can invest in Victory bonds and we will
[Stage Direction]
take the bond as collateral and advance you all the money you want to carry on your business. So he said:	All right, I will
take $5,000 in Victory bonds. Said his friend: Oh, no you will take $100,000. "But I can never pay for it," said the prospective investor. "That is all right," said the other; "the Government guarantees the bank, and the bank will carry you." So the gentleman takes $100,000 in bonds. The Government puts up the money, the 5J per cent bond interest balancing the 51 per cent interest on the loan, as I am informed, and the gentleman is guaranteed that at the <end of the year this long term Victory bond -will sell at 105 or 107. At all events, I understand that he can sell to-day at .nearly 103, make $3,000 on his investment and still have $5,000 to the good. If it goes up to 107 he makes $7,000 in selling the bond, and if he keeps it until the end of the term the chances are that he will be able to pay off the $100,000 and have the bond for himself. In short, there' is a general opinion abroad among those who look into the matter that this Victory bond issue is for the benefit of the speculator, and not for patriotic purposes. Five and one-half per cent is a little high for patriotism on loans of this description, with the exemption clauses as they are here stated.
Now, Sir, I want to support this Government. I have not opposed them yet. I am only stirring them up a little now. I am drawing aside that camouflage veil to let a little light in on them, and I can assure them that more than the veil will be thrown aside later unless these gentlemen get a move on and see that this sort of speculation does not go on under the name of Victory. Imagine . the absurdity of the placards that were distributed about the country: "Help our boys in the trenches," when there *is hardly a man 'of them who has a son in the trenches. The thing is absurd on the face of it. It is camouflage; it is propaganda; it is deceiving the public, and so far as I am concerned I shall not be a party to it.
In connection with the re-establishment of the returned soldier, it is up to the Government to create good times, to create opportunities, to get population in here, to get money in from the United States. It is up to the Government to sell land to returned soldiers and let them bring their families in; it will build up cities, it will build up railways and canals and open up new avenues of life not only to the 400,000 soldiers who are returning, but to ten times 400,000 in the very near future.
fSir Sam Hughes.]
Mr. JOSEPH READ (Prince, P.E.I.):: Mr. Speaker, I am like Othello; my occupation is gone. The ex-Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes) had the temerity to stand up and say, in so many words, that he would support a Government which he has shown to be the most contemptible Government that ever administered the affairs of Canada. A more terrible indictment of any government in this country has never been delivered from the Opposition benches, much less from the side of the House on which the members of the Government sit. If I did not know my hon. friend to be an honest man, I would have commenced my diseours.e by saying that " when thieves fall out, honest men come by their own." But the hon. gentleman will have to be replied to from his own side of the House, and from the front benches of his own side of the House.
Unfortunately for Canada, unfortunately for the soldiers, particularly, the indictment that my hon. friend has made of the Government is only too true. It is lamentable. One of the last things that he pointed out was that in the floating of the Victory loans $50,000,000 were loslt to the revenues of Canada. Any one who will analyse the negotiations in connection with the Victory Loan and the other war loans of Canada, and who will look at the success of the United States people in negotiating their war loans, cannot help coming to the same conclusion as that which my hon. friend has reached. Whom does this $50,000,000 fall upon? It falls upon our soldiers, those men over whom hon. gentlemen on the other side and some hon. gentlemen on this side of the House have been slobbering for the last four or five months. People have been saying what they were going to do for our brave boys when they came home; but upon whom are these terrible war taxes going to fall more than upon anybody else in this country? Upon our soldiers. When our soldiers come home and settle down they are the nucleus of future Canada; 500,000 men who, by reason of their youth, possess the generative forces of future Canada in a very much greater degree than all the rest of us put together. They, then, are to be the future people of Canada on whom this great debt will ultimately fall. When we are talking about what we are going to do for the dear soldiers, the best thing we can do for them is to stop this terrible expenditure, this throwing away of the people's money, the public money of the country. There never has been a grosser or a more scandalous piece of mal-

administration in the history of any country than there has been in Canada during the last four years.
The revelations of the hon. member are simply marvellous, and I want, on behalf of the honest people of Canada and the honest members of this Parliament, to thank the honourable gentleman for having the courage of his convictions in standing up on his own side of the House, because those revelations will have a more far-reaching effect than if they had come from me, as in that case motives, political or otherwise, would be imputed.
I was astonished yesterday or the day before to hear an honourable gentleman opposite state that this was one of the greatest Governments that we had ever had in Canada. He made that statement in the first part of his speech, but he had not got very far before I saw he perceived the mermaid's head, although he did not see the dragon's tail. He was telling us about the great necessity there was in the Dominion of Canada for a Health Department, and he discovered before he got through that more than one person was looking for the job of head of that department.
One of the most terrible revelations that my hon. friend (Sir Sam Hughes) gave to the House and to the country is something that will come out directly in history. I refer to the terrible sacrifice in Canadian life that has taken place in France and Flanders for the glory of certain individuals over there. That is something that is coming across only in little drib-drabs through the returned soldiers, but when we get it from the ex-Minister of Militia, who knows the circumstances, it is one of the most terrible indictments that was ever made in any parliament on the character of the men who were supposed to be looking after our military affairs.
We all knew that the Canadian boys were made the spearhead of the terrible offensives in France and Flanders. What do we find this Government doing now that the war is over? What gratitude has there been for Canada? The great altruistic, idealistic President of the United States had gone over to Europe and had mystified the European chancelleries with his high idealism. One would think it was the second coming of the great Nazarene to bring peace on earth, good will to men, coming to bring the millennium, producing the beautiful precept of the great Master: "If a man strikes you on one cheek, turn the other." That beautiful precept is, of course, meant for an ideal for people to
live up to, to strive for, but is quite impracticable. " Sell all you have and give it to the poor a beautiful ideal to be lived up to. Our great southern President,-I mean the President of the United States-was over there and was acting the part of the great idealist, but he kept gaard on his nose when he was showing first one cheek and then the other; he took mighty good care to guard his solar plexus. No sooner was the armistice signed than Mr. Hoover the Food Controller of the United States, was taken to Europe and he was put in charge of the feeding of the famine-stricken districts of Europe to fatten the larders of the people of the United States to the exclusion of Canada. What did we find in this country? We found that in the last week of January, the price of coarse grains, oats and barley, dropped, in a single week, twenty-five per cent, the result being that hundreds of hundreds of merchants throughout the country were ruined. What was our beautiful Government doing at that time? Where was our Food Controller? Instead of our Food Controller or some one else of some ability, some one who had enough business capacity to be able to buy and sell a cambric needle intelligently, being sent over, he was kept in Ottawa, and the result has been that we find some individual American firms getting $200,000,000 contracts while our people have been putting up money for some contracts down in the Balkan States which are still under blockade. That is the condition of things which we are up against. That is the satisfaction, that is the gratitude which Canada gets for being made the spearhead of the terrible offensives in Europe. It is enough to break a Canadian heart.
I want to say a few words about Union Government. Hon. gentlemen who . occupy tire front seats on the Opposition benches are, I believe, with a few exceptions, honest men.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Name the exceptions.


Joseph Read: But it is an unfortunate fact that the laws of nature have not provided for such a thing as Union Government unless it be for some single special purpose. When that single special purpose has been consummated, Union Government is an anachronism;, in the nature of things, it does not fit the times. If you superinduce magnetism at the one end of the needle, the opposite magnetism takes places at the other. There is, in nature, no such thing as half ness that has any good to it. All nature is double and

so is every one of its parts. You cannot have light if you have no darkness. You cannot have an "up" if you do not have a " down." You cannot have an attraction if you do not have a repulsion. If I went to pull my hon. friend, the Minister of Public Wqfks (Mr. Carvell) out of his chair, I would have to push as much with my feet as I pulled with my hands. I have said that all nature is double; and so is every one of its parts. A Union Government is an unnatural combination and comes into being only for a special purpose. But this country has more interests involved in its government than one. To win the war was one great purpose, and for a time overshadowed everything else. If the Union Government had been formed to win the war, and if the war was the only thing to which it was absolutely necessary for the people of Canada to apply themselves, then Union Government would be all right so long as that condition lasted. But the moment the armistice was signed and the war over Union Government was no longer fitted for the conduct of the affairs of this or any other country. Let me illustrate from history. The Province of Prince Edward Island has the second oldest responsible government of any community in North America. The local Government of Prince Edward Island is older than the American government, older than the governments of the Canadas, older than any other government in North America except Nova Scotia. Once, the province of Prince Edward Island had a coalition or union government on the school question. Hon. Sir Louis Davies, now Chief Justice of Canada, was premier of Prince Edward Island, and formed a coalition government on a fifty-fifty basis-not the promise of a fifty-fifty basis which was broken, but a real fifty-fifty. No sooner had this coalition government passed the legislation for which it was formed than a cleavage set in and the coalition ceased to exist almost immediately. Only one of the ministers of the Conservative persuasion changed his politics; the rest remained true to their old party. In the nature of things such a thing as a coalition government cannot exist. There is no co-ordination between our friends on the other side of the House, and it is no wonder they cannot do anything. The Government of this country has developed into an autocracy; there is no such thing as a democratic government in Canada to-day, and the most unfortunate thing about it is that we have got to keep this Government in power this session. So I was not at all astonished when I heard

the ex-Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes) say that he was still going to support this Government. I am going to support them too-that is, to the extent of giving them the best advice I can, and criticising them, of course, when I think they are wrong. But there is this to be said. We cannot have an election until the boys come home, so there is no use talking about turning this Government out yet. We have to submit to the inevitable; we have to submit to the results of the conspiracy of 1917-a conspiracy that will go down in history as one of the most diabolical acts of a class of people called politicians.
Now I am going to give my hon. friends on the other side of the House some advice. I shall give it in all sincerity and without the slightest tincture of either a partisan or a politician; I mean that kind of politician that gets glass eyes and seems to see the things that are not, which is Shakespeare's definition of a scurvy politician. My advice to the Government is this: Announce to the House on Thursday that at the end of this session this Parliament will be dissolved and a mandate sought from the people to conduct the Government of this country as a democracy, which we claim to be, and which we believed we were. That is the only way I see out of the terrible difficulty which the country is in at the present moment. With the House in session, and the suspension of Orders in Council in the interim, and the acceptance or rejection of Orders in Council that have already been passed, surely we can keep the Government going for this session, and when the session is over most of the soldiers will be home. In the meantime, I hope an amended Franchise Bill will have been passed, and I do also hope, in the interests of common decency and common honesty, that the Government will bring down such a Franchise Bill as will permit the electors of this country, men and women, to record their votes for their choice, instead of'mutilating their votes as the WarTime Elections Act did.
I should perhaps have begun my speech by congratulating the mover and the seconder of the Address. For young men, they certainly did credit to themselves and honour to the House, and I sincerely congratulate them. But I must take issue with them both on some of the statements they have made. Much of what they said was all right, but notwithstanding their splendid effort, in my judgment they both erred. The mover of the Address (Mr. Eedman) amongst other things talked about the de-

portation of alien enemies. Have we alien enemies in this country? If we have, they should have been deported long ago. But are the people whom we have subdued our enemies? Is that the spirit in our brave soldier boys who have brought honour to Canada and to the British name? Do our soldiers hold in their heart that terrible revenge that would jump upon a man when they have got him down? That is not what we in our part of the country consider bravery or justice or honour or anything that is good. I would ask hon. gentlemen who preach the doctrine that we ought to destroy these unfortunate people whom we have coaxed and cajoled to this country, and to whom we have given the right of citizenship, shall we be like the Prussian Kaiser and consider that citizenship a mere scrap of paper?
I would suggest to these gentlemen that they should be a - little careful; otherwise, perhaps they may run foul of the British Royal Family, for they are of German descent. Our great and good Queen Victoria was a beautiful German lady in her young days. Why, the very word "Anglo-Saxon," which to a great many people represents the ne plus ultra of race superiority, is taken right from the German. We are descendants of the German race, those of us who are of English descent, as I happen to be. But I thank Heaven I am a Canadian. My people for three hundred years have been born on this side of the water, and I am a typical Canadian. And for about three hundred years before me, my people have lived, and raised their families, and died under the British flag on this side of the water. As to these aliens, if there are disloyal people among them, send them home; they have no right here. But, if we have loyal German and loyal Austrians here, if we have loyal Turks here, let us make good citizens of them. For thirty years of my life I was " monarch of all I surveyed." During those years I was a commander of men-Canadians, Englishmen, Irishmen, Scotchmen, Greeks, Germans, Dagoes, Negroes, and all the rest oi them. I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that of all those classes of men the Canadian was at the top-he was the best man of the lot. But I found this, Sir, that the Canadian, after all, was only an improved Englishman, Irishman, Scotchman or German. And, travelling arpund the world I found that the people who most readily lent themselves to assimilation, who were most ready to establish themselves completely in their foster country, were the
Germans. I found this to be true whether they settled in Brazil among the Portuguese, in the Argentine Republic among the Spaniards, in the United States among the Anglo-Saxons-or Anglo-Celts if you like-or in Canada. And I would draw the attention of the House-and I do this simply because I can afford to do it; the hon. members from British Columbia or from some of the Western Provinces could not afford to do it for political reasons-to the fact that some of the worst characters we have in this country are old-country Englishmen.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Joseph Read: I hear a great deal of dissent. Mr. Speaker I know what I am saying to be a fact.


Mr. EDWARDS:: And some of the best.


Joseph Read: Sure ! I would go even further and say perhaps the best. They are so bad because they have the qualities to make them the best. And remember this, the best things on earth, the best things that God has given us, are those that can be most abused. Take a woman as an example. Take whiskey as an example. Take brain power and intelligence as an example. Why, Sir, the 'worst character we have in Canadian public life-the worst we ever have had-is a man who was once a member of this House, a man so able that there are few to equal him. I am not mentioning any names- everybody will recognize the portrait. Intellect, when debased, becomes the greatest curse we have. These Englishmen to whom I have referred as among the worst characters we have are dangerous for the very reason that they have ability -superability. They take hold of these western dagoes and western Germans, and lead them into all sorts of Bolshevism. They are the leaders of Bolshevism in British Columbia, for instance. On the other hand, as I have said, some of the beat men you have in this country are old-country Englishmen. There are good in all classes, and bad in all classes. It cannot be said of men, as the Scotchman said of whiskey,-he said that some whiskey was better than other whiskey, but all whiskey was good. All men are not good. Therefore, I urge these hon. gentlemen to whom I have referred not to discriminate against our citizens, no matter from .what nationality they have sprung. Be just and honest; do what is right; and do not let this war hysteria

longer permeate your hearts and brains. Get down to a reasonable basis and try to do some sane thinking and acting.
I want to pay my respects to the hon. Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder). I am sorry he is not in the House. The hon. gentleman the other day showed some signs of repentance. His claim to be a good Liberal is an outward acknowledgment of inward shame.
Hence I feel that he should be with us as it is only the hypocrite's tongue that speaks without the heart. I hope my hon. friend cannot be considered an incorrigible hypocrite. Repentance may avert evil. Repentance is accepted remorse. Repentance ends the suit which passion begins. Repentance should be accompanied by reparation and amendment; otherwise, it is like continually pumping an old ship without stopping the leak. I was going to tell my hon. friend that he was a deserter and that desertion is a disgraceful fault. The deserter has the spirit of a coward. He who at the approach of evil deserts his post is branded with cowardice. He who will desert a friend or cause for a price, be that price gold, place or power, will desert again when he gets a bigger price. So, I hope my hon. friend with proper purpose of amendment, can firmly force his jarring thought to peace as Burns has said in his beautiful epigram on Remorse which I quoted in the House last session.
I hope he may see his way clear to follow the light that my hon. friend the exMinister of Militia saw to-night when he was looking at the darkness on the other side because, after all, knowledge is relative. Where you see a dark, black cloud there is a silver side to it. There is the antithesis, the opposite, and consequently I can fancy that I hear my hon. friend singing "Lead Kindly Light."
There is just one more point I want to take up and that is with regard to our soldiers. I owe a duty to the soldiers perhaps more than a great many other hon. members of this House, a great many of whom have been soldiers themselves. During the voluntary campaign I went out through my part of the country and explained to the boys that this fight was our fight, and that it was for the maintenance of our present democracy and civilization.
I induced hundreds of those boys to go to the front as volunteers. I would not be discharging my duty to those boys, much less to all the soldier boys, if I did not give what appears to me to be the light that is in me to the Government and to the public generally.

In my opinion, the worst service that we can give our boys is to destroy their selfreliance, to destroy their character, to make them imagine that they are paupers, to make them think that they are the wards of the state, when, as a matter of fact, they are the state, and when, as I pointed out before, they^are the future fathers of the families of this country. As the exMinister of Militia pointed out, all they ask is fair play and a fair show. Of course there are those who have been lamed and maimed, those who have been damaged in one way and another and the state should make reparation to them. The resolutions that I have seen passed by the War Veterans' Associations say that they do not want any charity, that they are not looking for charity, that they do not want to be slobbered over and they do not want the caresses of the politician. What they are looking for is their just due and the best and noblest thing we can do for them is to curtail the expenses of this country as far as possible; that is to say, not to waste money by extravagant expenditure and not to waste it on non-productive employment.
I want to say a few words on the question of non-productive employment. It is an unfortunate thing, perhaps, that a great many people think that if a man is paid for doing a piece of work he is earning something. That is not always the case. You can pay a man to carry bricks from one side of the yard and put them over on the other side and you can pay him to carry them back. There is only one element of virtue in that, and that is the element that makes him imagine that he is earning something. But he is earning nothing. It is only taking money out of one man's pocket and putting it in another man's pocket. It is not increasing the wealth of the world or of the nation. If this Government undertake to construct any public work that is not productive they are wasting money just as much as if they threw it into the Rideau canal or the Ottawa river. Labour represents capital and every hour that a man puts in at labour on an unproductive work represents so much waste. The only virtue in paying him is to prevent him from feeling that he is a pauper. But, from the economic standpoint, it is absolutely extravagance and waste. As the ex-Minister of Militia has pointed out, there is any quantity of work in this country that is productive and will provide labour not only for the returned soldiers, but for as many more if the Government will be careful to find out what these things are and

put the men to work in these employments.
There are a lot of little iron trawlers that the Government used for patrol purposes during the war. I understand they put them up for tender a few days ago and that they have withdrawn the advertisement, very good; that is the proper thing to do if they see that they are not going to sell these vessels for nothing as they sold one the other day for $20,000 less than they could have got the day after.
If we took some of those trawlers, and hired, or chartered, them to some companies, or operated the vessels themselves under Government control, and employed some of the young fishermen who were volunteers, to catch fish in the gulf of St. Lawrence, and in the Atlantic ocean on the banks, that would be furnishing employment that would pay cent for cent. That would not only be productive employment, but yield a revenue in excess of that. Then too, men sent out to explore the country, as the hon. ex-Minister of Militia pointed out, could also be placed at productive work. That is to say any explorations of the north lands of this country, if they are carried out efficiently and intelligently, would more than likely pay cent per cent, and even more, as compared with the outlay that would be involved.
But, Sir, if the Government is going to build ships at $200 a ton, ships that cost in ante helium days $25 a ton, what will be the result? There is going to be a great deal of non-productive employment, because no ship costing $200 a ton can compete with a ship that costs $100 a ton. Let me draw the attention of my hon. friends on the Government benches to this fact with regard to ships, because I am now discussing a question that I know something about.	I have been to	sea
a long time, but I want to say that to-night I am more at sea than ever. Let me point out that the cost of a ship, other things being equal, has everything to do with the earning power, for this reason: we have got to insure a ship whether it costs $100 a ton or $200 a ton. They carry the same cargo, and if you insure a ship costing $200 you are out the insurance on $100 as compared with the vessel of cheaper cost. In other words, the one ship cannot compete with the other. The same thing is true with regard to the question of wear and tear, which is a very large-element in shipping, and is a percentage wear and tear. Consequently, you see that it is absolutely necessary, in order to have ships that pay, that they shall not cost
more than the ships they are competing with, otherwise they are bound to be a failure. I am not going to find fault with the Government for starting to build ships last year. When it undertook the construction of ships last year, it did not know that the war was going to end so suddenly. However, we want to get clear of these contracts just as soon as it is humanly possible to do so, and not give orders for the building of any more at these exorbitant prices. If you want to give occupation for the benefit of the men needing it, to prevent unemployment and unrest in this country, put them at works that are productive, and then nobody can find fault.
Now, Mr. Speaker, when my hon. friend on the other side of the House, to whom I have already referred, told us he was a Liberal I knew " the word was on the lip, but the'condition was in the soul." A man who says he is a 'Liberal is not one unless he acts as a Liberal. The man who last year voted, for instance, for the conferring of titles is not a Liberal, because every man in the House and in the country knows that the minute you confer a title on an ordinary individual he ceases to be a Liberal, he becomes an aristocrat, a plutocrat, he is no longer a democrat, and if he is not a democrat he cannot be a Liberal. Another thing that pained me: When my hon. friend the seconder of the resolution, which we are discussing to-night, made that splendid effort of his, and developed and discovered to the House his fine ability as a speaker, and as a thinker, I was sorry to recollect that he was one of the young men who did not-although he faced with all the courage of a Canadian the Hun gas and the Hun gun-have the courage of his own convictions, because last year he talked against titles and voted for them. It was a lamentable thing, but it was not half as bad as the case of the hon. gentleman who made the motion when the right hon. leader of the Government came in and offered what he called an amendment, but which was not an amendment, which actually nullified the original motion, because it accepted the original motion and added in substance after the word " Canada " the words, " except His Majesty shall resign or hand over his prerogative to a party politician in Canada." In other words the right hon. leader of the Government was usurping the power of the King in the conferring of titles, 'and the hon. gentleman to whom I refer did not have the courage to defend his own motion, but darted around behind one of the back pillars of this Chamber and dodged the vote. The exMinister of Militia, in the course of his

speech, spoke about the wonderful exhibition of independence there was in this House. I thought to myself, " If that is what you call independence, dodging a vote upon your own convictions, I do not know what the independence of Parliament means." There are a lot of hon. gentlemen in this House who, as I said last session, sit and listen to the front benches like a lot of young robins, or young crows, with their mouths open, ready to receive worms, shingle nails, or anything else they drop in. That is the kind of food they swallow, and the result is moral and political dyspepsia. But that is not independence. Each man ought to think for himself, and if you want to have good government in this country, I don't care what the question is before the House, every man ought to record his voice and his vote according to his honest conviction. Of course, compromises may be made, I understand that, and there may be cases where a man in order to retain his seat may have to vote for the Government whether he thinks right or not, but the doctrine I have laid down certainly should apply. But that certainly should not apply to the members who sit in this House apart from the Cabinet; it is questionable whether it is even good political morality on the part of members of the Government itself.
So much for independence. I now want to say a few words about this Victory Loan. Any one-I do not care who he is, even if he is a member of the Government-who voted for the exemption of the Victory Loan from taxation is not a Liberal; or if he is he is voting against his conscience. He may be considering that he is choosing the lesser of two evils; that is the only moral ground on which he could rest a vote of that kind. If any Liberal principle was violated more than any other in connection with the Victory Loan, it was the principle which was violated by that clause exempting the loan from taxation. What does that mean, Mr. Speaker? It means that you are exempting from taxation the millionaire, the man who has idle money, with the necessary result that the taxation that ought to be paid by the millionaires is going to fall upon the poor people, the working people. The men of business, the men of affairs, the men who are doing the work of the country, will have to pay the taxes while the big interests who contributed to the Victory Loan will draw their interest and sit like a bump on a log, doing nothing for the good of the country, living on their money and paying no taxes. Yet these
[Mr. Read.!
people will be protected in their life, in their property, in their liberty, by those who have to pay the taxes. That is not Liberalism. If a man stands up on the floor of this House and, while saying that he is a Liberal, votes for a thing like that, it may truly be said that the words are on the lip but the condition is in the soul-and it is not a Liberal condition.
Away back in 1326 or thereabouts our forefathers waded to their knees in blood in order to draw from old King John the Magna Charta of our liberties, the Habeas Corpus Act, the Bill of Rights that was handed down to us as the palladium of our liberties, and we were asked to guard it with our lives. But this Government, Sir, violated the Habeas Corpus Act. It is true that they got the Supreme Court to whitewash them-and they paid them well.
Men who have sat on the other side of the House, calling themselves Liberals, who have not repealed the 7J per cent war tax on goods,	are not Liberals,	becauseLiberalism	stands	for equal	rights.
Liberalism stands for freedom of trade and for opposition to the protecting of and catering to special privileges and the granting of special privileges. The only way my friends on the other side, who say that they are Liberals, can show that they are true Liberals, is to renounce their Toryism, repent and make reparation.
While the light holds out to burn,
The vilest sinner may return.
There is some talk about a new party, the Farmers' party. I want to say that the Farmers' party and the Liberal party are one and the same thing. It is not one name for different things, like the Union Government; it is two names for the same thing. I have here a letter from our great chieftain addressed to myself; probably one of the last letters that he wrote on a political question. I shall read a few words of it to show that the farmers and the Liberals are one and the same party. I had written to Sir Wilfrid Laurier to learn what his policy would be when he called the convention which was, as he said, to meet next summer. This is his reply:
Tou have noticed that in Wilson's fourteen conditions for peace the third provides for 'the removal so far as possible of economic barriers and the establishment of an equality of trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace and associating themselves for its maintenance.'
That was the third clause of President Wilson's conditions for peace. Sir Wilfrid's comment on these words was as follows:

This is in line with the accepted doctrine of the Liberal party and seems to me a condition sine qua non for the removal of war possibilities between the nations. In so far as we in Canada are concerned, the most essential policy would be the largest possible measure of free trade between us and the United States. Tou have seen that the Western farmers have put that plank in the forefront of their platform as recently formulated. It is simply a reiteration of their old policy which they have never ceased to advocate. This will be equally acceptable to you in Prince Edward Island.
I want to say that it is. To those gentlemen who come from the West, may I point out that while some of the western papers and some of the western members talk about the East being against them, so far as my province is concerned our interests are identical with those of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. We stand to a man for Liberal principles and free trade, and although I should hate to see my good friend over there beaten, we will send to the next parliament a solid phalanx of Liberals. With regard to the tariff, I want to say that, notwithstanding what Sir Wilfrid Laurier has said, namely, that we cannot settle finally the tariff question until peace is signed because the conditions of peace may make all the difference in the world, what we can do and ought to do at the first opportunity the Government can give to the matter is to accept in its entirety the reciprocity agreement that was offered to us by the United States in 1911. It is the more important that that should be done immediately because the Congressional elections in the United States last fall went Republican and Republicans are, as hon. members know, not overly enamoured of free trade principles. But if it is once upon their statute books and our statute books, after the way in which the Canadians have served the United States and the Empire so well in this great war, because we were fighting not only for the Empire but for them and ourselves, and for them particularly, because they were laggards in getting to work at the war, I do not believe they would have the temerity to change the reciprocity agreement, for that would be looked upon, at least by us, as an unfriendly act. Therefore, let the Government take the 7i per cent super-tax off at once; let them have the reciprocity agreement ratified immediately, and then at the next session of Parliament, which should be summoned as soon as possible, let them take up the question of the tariff. While I am sorry that this Government has been so prolific in its production of useless commissions-and I am told that the expenditure on them per day is about $8,000 for nothing-at the same
time I think the Government would be justified in creating a commission to take up the whole tariff question, such commission to be composed of equal numbers of Liberals and Conservatives, or, if you like, of high tariff men and low tariff men, men above reproach, men who cannot be bought, because unfortunately, in this country there are on the one side of this question the big interests and on the other side the poor unfortunate ratepayers. If you can get a commission that will give fair play, they can determine, in the meantime, what tariff reductions should be made and how far we can go with free trade without injuring the vested interests of anybody in this country. Somebody is bound to be hit in any change of tariff. You cannot make a change in the tariff without hitting somebody, and you are going to hit even people who will eventually be benefited, because in the readjustment that is bound to take place after the tariff is either lowered or raised, somebody has to suffer who may eventually benefit by the change that is made, either up or down.
Mr. HOWARD PRIMROSE WHIDDEN
(Brandon): Mr. Speaker, in rising to support the motion that is before the House, I find myself in somewhat of a predicament lest, after we have passed from rather dark tragedy to high comedy, there be a shading away into melodrama.
I wish to congratulate the mover and seconder of the motion that is before us, not in any formal or stock phrase, but because of a personal appreciation of the words uttered by those gentlemen as voicing the strong and sound sentiments entertained by them, sentiments which have grown out of experiences which many of us would have gladly shared along with them.
I would not be doing the thing that would express my deepest thought if I did not also pay a tribute of respect for and appreciation of the great leader of the Opposition party whose chair is vacant before us. It was my privilege, just before leaving home for this city, in standing before a group of young people, to speak with honest conviction of the worth and work of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. With all due respect to the consistency of the hon. member for Prince, P.E.I. (Mr. Jos. Read), I do not think the fallen chieftain was really the less a Liberal when he accepted his title.
My impression is that the Government has not in this debate so far suffered severely at the hands of the Opposition. In fact, the pin-pricks have been most mild,

and furthest from the presenting of anything in the way of a constructive contra, there has been hut the time worn attempt to belittle the things that in themselves may< or may not have been of conspicuous importance. I had hoped to pass on immediately to emphasize two or three things that appeal to me as being of outstanding value in the suggested programme as contained in the Address, but I must refer to one or two matters brought up partly this evening and partly on previous occasions by members of the Opposition.
The hon. member for Prince has, in my judgment, gone out of his way this evening to cater to the aliens.


Joseph Read: There are no aliens in my constituency.


Mr. WHIDDEN:: I am sure hon. members on this side of the House will take second place to none in our recognition of the genuine citizenship of foreign born people who have really been willing to be Canadianized.
But as to those who are not willing either outwardly or inwardly, save under the pressure of threatened penalty, to accept the Canadian standard and to believe in the things for which our nation stands, I am satisfied that we should be untrue to the men who have gone overseas to represent us and untrue to all of our gallant allies, if we were not willing now that the armistice has been signed to assume that attitude toward the alien enemy in our land-the man who is alien in spirit-which true freedom-loving Canadians have a right to assume, and a right to retain until the aliens change their, attitude or go home. There are still some alien enemies in Canada who are very much in the position of one of their number, who in a western city a few years ago in connection with the taking of some local census called at the door of a settlement worker of great intelligence and of fine patriotism and asked who resided there. On being told, he attempted to put the name down in his book and then asked what the householder's nationality was. This man with many United Empire Loyalist forebears drew himself up and sought to convey the idea in his soul to the little foreign Canadian in his presence. He used the word "Canadian" more than once in trying to explain what his nationality was and the census man said "Oh, Canadian, Canadian! not many of them people around here." We should all be Canadians around here.

Mr. Speaker, until the word "nationality" ceases to be used in the press and in the clubs and in private groups by men of foreign birth as applied to themselves and their own blood-immigrant groups- not until then will it be possible for us to accoid to them the welcome which the hon. member who has spoken before me (Mr. Read) seems so willing to extend to them. There is only one nation in' Canada. This is not an aggregation of British American Balkan states and please God it never will be. The attitude of the average man who has gone over and fought our battles, the man of the deep passion and also of the deep sense of the difference between right and wrong, as he represented it and as he found it over there, is having something to say to us to-day and will continue to have something to say to us on the question, what shall constitute Canadian citizenship? We shall hear his voice and in the main I am satisfied that he will speak the right word concerning the people within our borders of foreign birth. We welcome them to continue in our midst if they have caught the soul of Canada, if they are willing to try to understand the meaning of that soul as it has been newly fired and newly shaped during these epoch making days of the past four and a half years. I could not quite understand the combination on the opposite side of " our President " and the questionable fault finding of our gracious Majesty King George in his attempt to entertain " our President." This is surely a new combination for the floor of the Canadian Parliament.
Just a word with regard to "the light." It seems to be sinking lower. Whether the oil is failing or the wick is not being sufficiently eared for I am not prepared to say, but the light does not seem to have the charms that those who placed it in the win. dow seemed to think it would have. In fact I am inclined to believe that it serves more as a warning light in its spluttering and dying moments. There are no sinners on the Government side for whom we need to be ashamed. It is true that there may be need for a choir to chant the good old words " Lead Kindly Light," but pray Heaven may give us an angelic choir, and not the choir put up by the Opposition in the present Parliament.
The returning soldier i's not going to be patronized, coddled or paternalized by the present Government. The plans of this Government are fully as far advanced as those of any of the governments of the belligerent countries at the present time, and

in many respects they are further advanced than the plans of some of these countries.
I believe that one of the great things is for the people of Canada at large to understand the returned soldier's mind. No government can do all that needs to he done for those who have fought for us and are returning to their homes again. The people generally must recognize that the soldier is anxious to become a civilian as speedily as possible and I hope that the splendid officers who are now returning home after having served so gallantly in leading our troops overseas will help to show every private and noncommissioned officer once they have returned to civil life that we are a democratic people, that we are all one. The men who have fought and are returning home are equally worthy of our best recognition and regard. Let no distinctions be drawn; let there be no false ratings; let one and all be the men we know they are-our bravest and our best. The Government is planning for the returning soldiers courageously, thoughtfully and scientifically and these good soldiers will soon find that though some of their old places in the business world may have been filled up that there is still a large place for them, and that upon their soldiers here in the home land there will still rest obligations to live for Canada though they, first and best of all, were willing to die for Canada on foreign soil.
Among the many conspicuous items in the Address which suggest to us in the briefest possible way the Government s programme there are two or three that stand out above all others; and they are what might be called the human or social-agency elements. The war has caused confusion, but it has brought about also new alignments. Let there be no mistake, this is the natural outcome of such a period of conflict upon political affiliations in the best sense as well upon the thinking of intelligent citizens. As a result of what men have fought for there is the emergence of a new thinking, the evidence of a new emphasis, of willingness on the part of men and women the wide country through, and of our Government, that the things that count are the things to be legislated upon first while the things that concern the material can take second place. This has not been a battle for land, or for any material thing; as has so often been said in the press, on the platform and in Parliament, it has been a battle of ideas, it has been a conflict of the spirit-the spirit of the right against the spirit of the wrong.
And there is abundant evidence, to all eyes that are willing to see, in the programme which is suggestively set before us in the Address, of the recognition of the fact that the war has produced a greater willingness than ever before in the history of the country for government to legislate for the interests of all the people in building up a nation that will endure. I mention first, good housing. We may have our parish ideas about that. Some of us may naturally feel that we do not need any more good houses where we live, and that the Government is making a mistake. But then no one of us lives in all parts of the country at the same time. I suppose that even those who come from the West, if they were able to live longer in the East, might see some things here that it is hard for us to see on our hurried visits. And I am sure that if eastern Canadians were to spend more time in the West they too would find conditions other than they have supposed. The housing proposal of the Government is an evidence that the representatives of the Canadian people are keeping abreast of the other democratic members of the Allies- and they are all democratic.
The Government, wisely, and in due recognition of the sociological law and economic conditions, has proposed to bring down legislation to put into force for one year after peace is declared the terms of the Order in Council with regard to the prohibition of the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquor. Let none of our people in 'Canada be afraid that Canada is going to be a back number in this respect. The back numbers among the nations are those who ignore the demands of the best thinking, the highest conception of tha development of the life of the individual and of the state as a whole. And is our Government proposing to do anything that does not recognize to the fullest the right of every Canadian citizen to have a say in this matter? It is certainly intimated that after the soldiers are all home there shall be a vote taken on this question, that the Canadian people shall once more put themselves on record with regard to this important, this vital problem. And I trust when we do take up the proposed legislation in this Parliament, the Canadian people as a whole, while making use of the opportunity afforded in the publicity which may be induced, will not forget the fact that Canada stands next door to a very populous, prosperous and wealthy nation which has just taken a new stand, and that if we forget or ignore that condition it might mean that, instead of pros-

perity and individual freedom on a larger scale being ours, we should become the dumping ground of the worst elements and the worst type of business men that the North American continent could send through our open door.
The proposal for a Department of Public (Health has been received with some words of commendation and some words of criticism. There are undoubtedly in this House many who believe that it might be possible to broaden the scope by changing the word from "Health" to "Welfare." But, even if the term "Health" is retained, there still may be possible the co-ordinating of a great many, activities, agencies and officials to operate for the best interest of the people and the safeguarding of physical life in relation to coming demands to be made upon it. Let no hon. member of the Opposition imagine for one moment that some unpatriotic physician is looking for an easy task. I hope that some outstanding physician will have something very real to do with this Department when it is established. 1 am satisfied that the new department will benefit the little children and the older children as well, of our great cities and of all the districts of western [DOT]Canada. Canada peopled by a foreign population, who if they knew how and were placed under more advantageous domestic conditions would do better for the little ones that come to their home, that come to them ip such large numbers as a general thing.
If the schools of our country are to mean all that they should with regard to the mental development of the coming generation, the children of all the provinces of Canada need to be under the constant thought and regard of a great department which shall have a care for them and for all that concerns them as valuable assets of this country in the coming years.
Just a word as to the other social feature that stands out prominently in the Address-that is the proposed legislation in regard to vocational education. I am satisfied that a great deal needs to be done along this line for the young mechanics, and for the children of the older mechanics in our great industrial centres in connection with thoroughly modem and up-to-date instruction in night schools. I am satisfied that a million dollars a year or thereabouts will be a slight beginning in the right direction in order to meet the situation as it is today. We are already aiding agricultural education in a limited way. I venture to suggest, Sir, that at a very early date, possibly during this session, the Government

should consider the advisability of widening its interest in, and its contribution to, the work of education.
If our material resources are to be developed as they should be by our Canadian people themselves in relation to the building up of a future great and good country, we, as a Canadian people, must have more provided for us in the way of technical education generally. Is it not rather a shame, Mr. Speaker, that at the present time one technical institution across the line in the great republic to the south of us has a larger yearly budget than the combined budgets of all the technical departments of our Canadian universities and technical schools from coast to coast.
This is not a purely provincial matter and I for one do not believe that the members of this House or the Canadian people are going to be afraid of any difficulties in connection with the British North America Act in relation to it. Let us have the splendid beginning that it is proposed to make in the interest of vocational education this year and let that give place to a larger, and increasingly generous and important programme for technical work in order that our young men and young women may have placed within their reach the possibility of securing instruction along lines that have been so splendidly organized and provided in the Motherland and that we too must provide in the immediate future if we are to meet the demands that will be made upon us in the days of expansion ahead. Mr. Speaker, I have much pleasure in supporting the motion before the House and I am satisfied that the country will learn with satisfaction that measures are being introduced, and that legislation will be enacted, that are in the interests of the great body of returning heroes and in the interests of the people of Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
Mr. JOSEPH E. S. D'ANJOU (Rimouski.) (Translation) : Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to join the honourable members who have spoken before me, in expressing my humble but most earnest sympathy on the occasion of the demise of Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier, whose whole life was identified with the noblest traditions of his race and whose disappearance from the political arena of Canada is so deeply regretted, not only by the whole province of Quebec but by the whole Dominion. In fact, he was the idol not only of the French Canadians, who acknowledged him as their best friend and their most zealous vindicator, but also of the English-speaking Canadians, who admired his genius, the broadness of his views

and his spirit of justice towards all the races inhabiting our beloved country.
The Liberal party in Canada has just lost, in Sir Wilfrid Laurier. the most illustrious and most respected of its chieftains; the province of Quebec, the greater and most distinguished of her sons, and Canada, the man who converted this colony, small though it were before 1896. into a happy and prosperous nation. Therefore, scarcely had the eminent and regretted chief of the Liberal party breathed his last when the people began to talk of erecting monuments to his memory on our public squares. Surely a monument, will be erected in every part of the country to the memory of the man who was the greatest of us all. But at this very moment thousands and thousands of monuments are being erected in order to perpetuate the remembrance of the remarkable man who has been removed from our sight, and those monuments. Sir, are to be found in the heart of every Canadian worthy of the name and holding remembrance in veneration. Laurier is no more, but his shadow hovers forever in this House, whose chambers have so often resounded with his powerful and eloquent voice.
Laurier has not died entirely, his mind remains with us and will continue to inspire us so that we may always follow the path of honour and of justice from which he himself never deviated throughout his long and fruitful career. From beyond, our great fellow-citizen will keep his eyes on us, and will be pleased to witness that we are not giving up the good battles which he so gallantly fought during the whole of his life for the defence of the rights of the Canadian people, for, as it was written by Sully Prud-homme, "beyond the graves, the eyes which we have closed, do yet see."
The life of Laurier, made wholly of simplicity, honesty and untiring devotion to his country is, for us of the younger generation a model to 1>e followed. Let us love our country, let us work for our country as Laurier did and we may bear witness to ourselves that we have been useful to Canada, our common country.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the mover and seconder of the Address in reply to the speech from the Throne. They proved equal to the task and showed a spirit of true independence which bids well for the future. But while T am glad to congratulate the bon. members, I regret, ISir, not to be able to tender my compliments to the Government for having ignored the rights of His .Majesty the French language in the
present occurrence. Truly, there is no reason to justify their attitude and I protest with the utmost energy against such an outrage upon the rights of the French language in this House and in the Dominion. I may be told that there have been precedents. I care not. Precedents do not eliminate rights which were acquired and formally recognized and sanctioned. It is not a question of begging for justice, liberty and right, for the French language is one of the two official languages of this country, and as such must be respected. As the hon. Premier of Saskatchewan said in the course of a speech which he delivered before the legislative assembly of that province recently, the French language is the tongue which was used by the first inhabitants of this Dominion, by the missionaries who soaked its soil with their blood and opened this country to civilization and Christianity.
The Government had among its supporters a member who was perfectly qualified to second the Address in French. I mean the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Mac-kie), who would surely have appreciated tile honour and would have fulfilled tRe task successfully. The language which they persecute and wish to see eliminated from this Parliament is nevertheless the language spoken by the great Marshal Foeh and by the famous General Pau whom we had the privilege to greet here a few days ago, and by all the French poilus who, by their obstinate courage, have contributed more than any other to the . preservation of civilization and liberty. It is also the language spoken by the famous 22nd French Canadian Battalion which won eternal fame at the front and whose splendid achievements there are innumerable. Moreover it is the language spoken by nearly three million Canadians, the inhabitants of this country who, though loyal subjects of the British crown are first of all, primarily and always Canadians, following the motto of our late lamented leader, Sir Wilfrid Laurier. and respectful of the rights of other nationalities but mindful of their own, and ever ready to firmly require that they be recognized and respected.
While on this question, may I be permitted to read an extract from a letter addressed by one Mr. Phalen to the Ottawa Citizen recently, in which the writer made the following right observations on the failure of fanaticism:
No wonder the educated class in Great Britain has given up the narrow idea of " one flag, one language, one school." They are nearer the horrible demonstrations than we are. The



Poles, the Zecho-Slovaeks and the people of Alsace-Lorraine are not far from London ; and to bring us still nearer, the British Parliament, in July last, adopted the principle of bilingualism for Scotland-a victory for the beautiful old gaelic language.
It will not be long before Canada finds itself all alone still clinging to the discredited policy of unilingualism "One flag, one languageThis sounds well until the time when you remember that in all the countries where it was applied, the " one flag " has given way to several flags and the number of languages has remained the same.
Five years ago, there were two or three flags in Europe, the preservation of which based on the suppression of a dozen languages. The flags are gone, but the languages have remained.
I wish, Mr. Speaker, to call the attention of this House, and of those who are now listening to me, to the pitiable expression on the faces of the hon. members opposite the other day, when the hero of 1870, the renowned General Pau honoured us with his visit.
That was another illustration of the merits of bilingualism, but unfortunately our friends on the other side were unable, on account of their ignorance of the French language, to appreciate the eloquent remarks made by the hon. member for Two Mountains (Mr. Ethier) on that occasion. As they thought probably that the hon. member was resuming his criticism of the Government, they dared not applaud the w'ords of welcome addressed to the glorious wounded of 1870.
Once more, Mr. Speaker, as a member of this House and on behalf of the people whom I have the honour to represent here, I wish to be placed on record as protesting most energetically against the action of the Government, fvho, deliberately and without any justification renounced an old tradition and seriously impaired the rights of the French in this Parliament and the whole Dominion.
I do not intend to deal with all the matters mentioned in the Governor General's speech. For most of them were discussed on their merit and justly criticised.
However, I must say at once that I look askance at the new franchise measure enabling women to sit in Parliament. There may be found somewhere people who shall think that I am wanting in gallantry towards the ladies; that is of no consequence lo me and will not alter my views.
Last year, when the bill enfranchising women was discussed, I gave my opinion upon the principle of the Bill and you may rest assured, Sir, that I still hold the same opinion. To-day as yesterday, I am utterly opposed to any dabbling in politics by wo-

men. They do hot love their country those who invite them to exceed their attributes and who offer them an opportunity to enter the political arena. The passing of such a measure would necessarily and inevitably destroy harmony in Canadian homes. This is an unpatriotic measure and one detrimental to Canada, and I wish you to believe that I shall oppose it with all my might when it comes before the House for discussion.
The speech from the Throne is especially interesting on account of the matters which are not even mentioned. For instance, nothing is said concerning the policy of the Government as to the abolition of the censure which gags the press of this country. The retention of censure is a nameless outrage and the Government should not wait to be compelled to suppress it. In the name of outraged popular liberties and of all lovers of freedom, I beg the Government to do away at once with censure. With censure removed, we should also witness the ending of the shocking abuse of Orders in Council. For the present Government shall be known in after ages as having ruled by Orders in Council. During a single year, they have had the prodigious audacity to pass more Orders in Council than all the Governments who ruled the country since the time of Confederation up to 1916 had passed during that long period of time.
For more than four years they said war was waged in defence of democracy and freedom among nations. Canada also took part in that horrible struggle in order to ensure the victory of democracy against autocracy, of freedom against bondage, according to the disunion Government who rule the country by Orders in Council and through countless commissions. Notwithstanding which Sir, there is probably not a country in the world enjoying less freedom than Canada at the present time.
We have responsible* government no longer and the most sacred rights of the people are trampled upon by a combination of men reflecting the acme of fanaticism and having but one aim: to oppress the people and to get rich at their expense.
The present Government committed enough encroachments to stir up ten revolutions in our country.
To rule the country by means of Orders in Council is an intolerable and revolting policy. However, that is what the Government has been doing since the last elections. They even passed many of them when Parliament was sitting. Such conduct fully savours of Hun methods and

deserves the reprobation of every honest man, ol all those who are fond of freedom and would like to see it grow once more on Canadian soil.
I am desirous of calling attention to another encroachment, also a most serious oner the sending of our soldiers into the snow-bound mountains of Siberia. Have our present day potentates taken the advice of the people; have they consulted the Canadian Parliament before deciding upon such a course'r No. Sir. As they always do, they disregarded the rights of the people and added another outrage to their record, disreputable as it was. And who are those that were sent in the distant regions ol Siberia? Were volunteers enlisted for an expedition of that kind? No; poor conscripts were compelled to go 'to a place where the Military Service Act of 1917 was putting them under no obligation to go.
The conscription Act was passed in order to maintain our military strength at the front, that is in France. Consequently, the Government have no plausible reason to give in explanation of that silly military venture in Siberia. Such encroachments may involve the most serious consequences for our country. Surely the people will get tired at last and say at no distant date, appropriating to themselves the stinging reproach of Cicero to Catilina"How long, O! Borden, wilt thou take advantage of my forbearance?" Unfortunately, when we shall have reached that stage, it will he too late, and our self-styled Union Government having sown the wind will reap the tempest.
Among the hon. members who addressed this House, several raised the question of military defaulters. If you will permit me, Mr. Speaker, I shall say a few words on that very delicate matter.
If a few young men neglected to report for military duty, it is because they thought they would be more useful to their country and to the Allied cause in doing so. Most of them were farmers or sons of farmers. They believed it was better for them to remain here and work on the land, thus contributing to the success of the Allies in supplying them with food which they needed so much to feed their soldiers. The tillers of the soil played an important and praiseworthy part throughout that dreadful war which, thank God, culminated in a complete victory for our armies. Therefore the Government ought to show themselves more lenient toward the defaulters and pardon them all with a full amnesty. After all, these men were not altogether wrong in"
15J
remaining on the land to work, in order to supply the Allies with food, as the hon. Minister of Public Works stated in his speech on the Address that, in 1917, the transportation__of agricultural products was more useful than that of soldiers. These products were obtained through the exertions of these young men, who thought they were also helping the cause of the Allies in digging trenches in the ground to reap larger crops and prevent our soldiers from dying with hunger.
As a member of this House and representing a county, which supplied hundreds of volunteers, two of whom were awarded the Victoria Cross, I beg the Government to stop persecuting the defaulters and to grant them peace henceforth.
However, Mr. Speaker, there are people in this country whom the Government ought to punish, and their reason for abstaining is probably that they are nearly related to them. The men whom the Government ought to punish, either by a fine or imprisonment, are not the defaulters or deserters, but the profiteers, who enriched themselves here during the war, while our boys were giving their lives in Europe in defence of liberty and civilization. Those men like Flavelle and many others whose names I forget just now, were selling their "bacon" and all their goods at exorbitant prices, exploiting the people and reaping the profits, while, over there, our poor soldiers many a time were starving and giving their blood and making the supreme sacrifice for the triumph of civilization and democracy. I believe those are the individuals whom the Government ought to punish. Perhaps the jails would not be large enough to keep them all. Instead of obtaining titles and peerages for them, the Government should rather send them to the penitentiary for a few years at least, if not for the remainder of their lives.
The present Government assumes on all occasions the attitude of a benefactor, of a friend and a father to the soldiers, to those who went voluntarily and fought on the soil of France and shed their blood with the poilus to ensure the triumph of democracy over autocracy. This Government, while pretending to patronize the young men who, volutarily and without the need of a coercive measure, went and fought on the battle fields, either do not know what is going on, or theif organization is defective.
In the county of Rimouski, one of the counties which supplied the largest number of volunteers in the Quebec district, we glory in having two soldiers who fought

with such bravery that they were awarded the Victoria Cross. Among others in the city of Rimouski, there is a family which gave three sons voluntarily to the war. One of them was killed; the two others were wounded. One of the three is back from the front and the Government saw fit to give him some kind of a job. They appointed him caretaker of -the armoury at Rimousk-i. This man who is married and has one child gets a salary of $45 a month, along with a monthly pension of $5. Up to now, the young man did not complain, but to-day the Government informs him that if he does not carry on the work for $10 a month, the position will be .given to somebody else. However the brave boy is completely disabled and unable to earn a living as he used to do before enlisting.
I belive, Sir, that a Government who, as we know', secured power by exalting the patriotism of our soldiers, who promised everything to them, wTho used to say in this Parliament as well as on the hustings that there was nothing too good, and too fine for our returned soldiers, ought to care a little more now for these men who left voluntarily and did their utmost, many of whom have sacrificed their lives or have returned incapacitated forever, thus being unable to resume their pre-war activities.
The other day, the hon. Acting Prime Minister told us that the War-time Election Act may be expected to remain on our statute books. I t-ake it. Sir, that this Act is the most iniquitous piece of legislation that was ever imposed by a Government on any country in the world. It has enabled the Government and the party in office to steal the elections, and it is the most bare-faced robbery that was ever perpetrated or recorded in history. They have disfranchised Canadians who have been living in the country for fifteen or twenty years, who had been invited to this country by the former Government, who had been granted letters of naturalisation and upon whom had, at the same time, responsibilities and rights had been conferred. And not the least among the rights was the franchise. Those men had perhaps cast their votes at several elections, but because they were of German or Austrian extraction, and the Government thought they would record their vote for the Opposition, they have been disfranchised.
Now the war is over

perhaps too soon to the liking of our hon. friends on the other side who would have rather see it protracted-but, after all, it is an accomplished .fact; peace is about to be signed and this Government who were returned to

power only for the war, should repeal all the Acts passed for the duration of the wrar. I take it therefore that the 'Government is recreant to its duty in letting that Act remain on our statute books. -But what can we expect from a (Government composed of men who have banded together not for winning the war, but for winning the elections and making money. What else could be expected from a -Government who have climbed into office by the means we are all aware of and "Who will leave no stone unturned to get a new lease of power. Mr. Speaker, all the speeches we have listened to from the hon. gentlemen on the other side were so many appeals to union and harmony in this country. It is all very well to appeal to union but it would be still better to put it into practice, and if those hon. gentlemen are sincere in their professions and really wish peace, harmony and concord to revive here, let them take the means of realising it. Let us put a stop to that campaign of fanaticism and hatred that is being carried on in Canada; let the different ethnical elements of our population come to a better understanding, if we want peace to prevail in our Canadian homes. If we want the unrest referred to by the hon. Minister of Public Works which really exists in this country to disappear and -peace and quiet to be restored, let the Government give up administering the country by Order in Council. Let grievances be redressed and liberty have full sway, if we want our country to resume its march onward towards a bright future, and to work out its destinies and occupy the -place it is entitled to in the council of nations. That state of things should cease, and as the late hon. Mr. Mercier said: "Let us put a stop to our fratricidal wrangles," and we ought to remember that we are all Canadians, whatever may be our extraction. Loyal as we are to British institutions, we love above all Canada, and it is the duty of members of Parliament, of those who exercise some influence over their fellow countrymen to preach that doctrine and especially to put it into practice. And to the men who will have devoted themselves to that task the country will owe a debt of gratitude.
There are some Ontario people who understand us. There should be more. There are also some to be found in the other provinces, but let us all realise that before being French, English or Scotch, we are Caai-adiam, and that -through l-ove of our country it is our duty not to arouse religion or national animosities, and not to

revive the conflicts of the past by heated appeals to racial and creed prejudices. Let the policy of our revered chieftain who has passed away, a policy of peace and harmony which he advocated in his lifelong career, but which he did not. see brought to realization, triumph and be carried out.
Let us hope that in the great beyond he may see in a near future all the citizens of every race and religion joining together in an united effort, clasping hands and working together for the happiness and prosperity of our common country, Canada.
On motion of Mr. Michael Clark the debate was adjourned.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 11, respecting The Central Railway Company of Canada.-Mr. McMaster.
Bill No. 12, respecting W. C. Edwards & Company, Limited.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 13, respecting The Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada.-Mr. Morphy.
Bill No. 14, respecting The Lachine, Jacques Cartier and Maisonneuve Railway Company.-Mr. Lemieux.
Bill No. 15, respecting The Western Dominion Railway Company.-Mr. Morphy.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Burrell the House adjourned at 10.50 p.m. until Thursday.
Thursday, March 6, 1919.

The House met at Three o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
List of persons permitted to take intoxicating liquors into the Northwest Territory during the year ended December 31, 1918; Statement showing land sold by the Canadian Pacific Railway during the year ended 30th September, 1918; Annual report of the Department of Indian Affairs for the year ended March 31st, 1918.-Hon. Mr. Meighen.
Copy of correspondence between the Secretary of State for the Colonies and His Excellency the Governor-General relating to the. gift of two submarines to the Canadian Government.-Hon. Mr. Rowell.
Report of the Committee appointed under Order in Council to examine into the conditions of the Printing Bureau.-Hon. Mr. Burrell.

Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Solicitor General) :: Moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 18 respecting bankruptcy.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Hugh Guthrie: The principle of this Bill is embodied in a somewhat similar Bill introduced in this House last session. That Bill was referred to a Special Committee of members of the House, which Committee dealt with the subject somewhat exhaustively, and reported a measure to the House, but at a time when the session had so far advanced that it was impossible to make further progress. The present Bill embodies very largely the same principle which was contained in the former Bill, which in the interval has been pretty generally distributed among the various commercial and mercantile associations. There are one or two radical .changes in the present measure which I would like to have the opportunity of elaborating to the House when the Bill comes up for its second reading.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.



ON THE ORDERS OF THE DAY.


Charles Murphy: Preliminary to asking the Government a question I desire to draw attention to two cablegrams which appeared in the Montreal Star, the first in the issue of February 4, in these terms:
London, 'March 4.-Sir George Perley, at the luncheon inaugurating the tour of the Canadian officers to the industrial centres in England, organized by the Federation of British Industries, urged this most powerful Imperial commercial body to use its influence to obtain changes in trade restrictions in order to allow Canada equal opportunities with other nations.
He gave the impression that there was no intention on the part of the authorities to favour the United States or Japan. The regulations, however, were not working as expected, and many protests are now being made to bring about a speedy change.
The second cablegram appeared in the Montreal Star of March 5th in these terms:
London, March 5.-A deputation of British M.P.'s, members of the Unionist Business Committee, which influences about one hundred votes in the House of Commons, made strong representations yesterday to the president of the Board of Trade respecting practical discrimination against the Canadian manufacturers in the present working of the British import restrictions.
The deputation strongly emphasized that by granting import licenses to United States goods, which were denied the Canadian manufacturers, the British officials were running directly counter to the policy of Empire preference, as formerly adopted by the Imperial War Cabinet.
Lord Shaughnessy, who returns to Canada on Saturday, in discussing the question with the

Star representative, said he had no belief in a trade that comes as a result of sentiment. Canadians were ready to go into the open market and face competition. That is the only road to success.
But Canadians have the right to expect, all things being equal, that goods should be ordered by Britain from the Dominion overseas in preference to other countries. This was not asking favours, but fair play.
Lord Shaughnessy added that he had no knowledge of any strong reason in favour of the present practical discrimination. " The whole thoughts of the British people, in Parliament and outside, seem centred in home affairs, and fail utterly to grasp the existence of a great Empire and what it means," he concluded.
I desire to inquire whether the Government continues to be without information on the subject referred to in these two cablegrams, and, if not, whether such information as the Government has received will be imparted to the House.


William Thomas White: Mr. Speaker, when the matter referred to was first drawn to my attention on February 27, I despatched this cablegram to Sir George Perley:
"Despatch in yesterday's Montreal Gazette from London stating that Harris and Jones have protested to Lloyd George against discrimination by Great Britain against Canada in favour of United States and neutral countries. Please take up matter and cable me particulars of discrimination and what protest has been made and by whom."
To this the following reply has been received from Sir George Perley:
"Have telephoned Harris who knows nothing of interview. Jones is on the ocean. Harris wrote you fully February 14th regarding restrictions under license system."
As to information in the possession of the Government on this important matter, I desire to say-as I intimated, I think, upon the last occasion on which I spoke with respect to it in the House-that the Prime Minister, Sir George Foster, Minister of Trade and Commerce, and Mr. Lloyd Harris, have been in continuous touch with the heads of important departments, and the chairmen of important committee^, with regard to this general question of trade restrictions. As I stated the other day, it has not been intimated to me in the many communications which I have received, that there is any discrimination. Further than that I have no information. The question undoubtedly arises out of the system of restrictions of import licenses which Great Britain, for reasons which appeared wise, to her, has recently adopted, and which sometime ago were publicly announced. Should any further information bearing upon the subject come to my attention I [Mr. Murphy. 1
shall be glad to make communication to the House.



GOVERNMENT PRINTING BUREAU.

Hon. MARTIN BURRELL (Secretary of State):: I would like to refer to a matter of some importance connected with a document I have just laid on the Table, which is the report of a committee of experts appointed to inquire into the conditions of the Printing Bureau. I direct attention to this matter because this morning's paper contains nearly a couple of columns concerning a meeting held by the employees of the Bureau last night. I desire to say that there have been various matters under discussion between the employees of the Bureau and the Minister of the Department, which have been looked into from time to time, but which have not yet been dealt with in their entirety because a year ago last March an Order in Council was passed suggesting that the conditions at the Bureau were so complicated that it was deemed necessary in the interest of the country to have a committee of experts appointed to examine into those conditions with a view to efficiency and economy. That report was only recently received, and it was laid before the Government by the Civil Service Commission who were empowered to make the appointments. The report was placed in the hands of a sub-committee of the council, who now have it under consideration and the employees of the bureau were informed by the King's Printer of this. Having in view the nature of that report-which was to the effect that in various branches of the bureau there was such great inefficiency and such an amount of overmanning in the service, and that the cost of the whole operations of the bureau were so excessive-it seemed to me impossible, and I so directed the King's Printer to inform the men, that the minister could recommend to the Government, or that the Government could take any action at the present moment, in respect to either adjustments of wages, or hours of employment, or the settling of any grievances, until the report had been fully considered by the Government. The Government now has it under consideration; in the meantime, I have laid the report on the table of the House.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of Mr. D. L. Redman (Calgary East), for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General in

reply to his speech at the opening of the session resumed from Tuesday, March 4th.
Mr. MICHAEL CLARK (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I should satisfy neither my conscience nor my heart if I participated in this debate without at least a brief reference to the passing of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, notwithstanding the ample justice that has already been done to his memory.
Sir Wilfrid's position in the life of Canada was so unique and so unapproachable that the suddenness of his death struck the entire nation like a cataclysm of nature.
I have mourned in my time with two entire peoples. Nearly twenty years ago the people of the United Kingdom assembled day by day to sympathize at the bedside of William Ewart Gladstone during a lingering and painful illness. It is equally true that on that fateful 16th of February, just passed, the whole of Canada and millions beyond her bounds came by common consent to wait until the end, by the bedside of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Not since I saw Gladstone pass for the last time from Westminister Hall have I witnessed such a tribute as Canada paid a little over a week ago to her mighty dead, and I shall never look on such a spectacle again.
There were striking parallels between Gladstone and Laurier. Each was a remarkable man to look upon, and in both, external form bore an exact proportion to internal qualities. Each was the foremost orator of his nation,-one would not be far wrong, perhaps, if one said, of his time. Both had that which was so well characterized by the Acting Prime Minister (Sir Thomas White) as the indefinable something called personality. Both had a generous and unsurpassed general culture. Both had tremendous versatility of talents, and these various qualities gave to both in an unexampled degree the almost slavish loyalty of their followers and in an unexampled degree also the unstinted admiration of entire nations. Both were favoured by Heaven with the greatest of its gifts: a happy home life. While, of course, our sympathy goes out unstintedly to Lady Laurier, I am not at all sure, Sir, that she is not deserving of receiving equally our admiration for the magnificent courage with which she supported her helpmate in life throughout his entire activities and followed him to the last moment when she *could look upon what was left of him above the ground.
And so these men stand out before us and will stand out in history as the exemplars of a full-orbed manhood.
I will permit myself one word more about Sir Wilfrid. I do not think I should be far wrong, Sir, if I claimed that the remarkable attachment of his fellow-countrymen to him was produced more by his qualities of heart than by any other of his great achievements or characteristics. Some one has said that disposition is more than intellect. Burns states the same thought inimitably when he says:
The heart ay's the part ay
That makes us right or wrang.
And a higher authority than Burns tells us that "out of the heart are the issues of life." It was the characteristics of this great heart of a great man that attracted people to him. He had that simplicity of heart without which, Macaulay says in hii essay on Chatham, there can be no real, true greatness of character. That simplicity was nowhere more manifest than in his wonderful hospitality in his own house. I think he was a man possessed of the truest hospitality that I have ever met^the truest hospitality for this reason: that he possessed in a degree I cannot remember in any other man of his class the power of making the visitor feel as easy as that visitor would have felt if he had been in his own house. Sheer human kindness was the quality of his heart. I have seen him, Mr. Speaker, when he did not know a human eye was upon him, give a moment of the time of the Prime Minister of this great Dominion, which is as valuable as gold, to pat upon the head and suffuse with blushes and smiles the face of a little child, causing one to think that he could only do it because he had himself the heart of a little child.
And he had that great quality of heart, magnanimity. He once said to me: you cannot afford to have resentment in politics. The House will forgive me, perhaps, for mentioning that I myself had a touching evidence of the fact that he remembered his creed-when I had the misfortune, with thousands of others, of losing a son in the war last September, quite the kindest and most perfect letter I received amongst many soores of letters was written by Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
He is gone, and we in this House know, perhaps better than it can be known elsewhere, what a gap he has left. He was happier than Gladstone in the manner of his death. He died as he would have wished to die-quickly, suddenly. It was as if he marched up to the gates of the Beyond with the same stately tread with which he had

walked his whole pathway, and it requires no great amount of imagination to catch the voice coming to him: Enter, grand, old warrior, veteran of a hundred fights; good and faithful servant, as thou hast served most thy Crown will be of the brightest
lit is a relief to the mind to think with a feeling of profound thankfulness that we have, in the mover and the seconder of the Address, evidence that all that was best and brightest in Canada did not remain in France wild Flanders. Our losses there were very heavy. Fifty-five thousand young men taken from a country like Canada is a	terrific toll upon our much
needed	manhood.	We	should be
the more thankful that we have in the mover and the seconder representatives of that much larger body of Canadians who have come or are coming back, upon whom more than anybody else, perhaps, the Canada of the next generation depends. I join with the other members who have spoken in congratulating them upon their ability and also upon their achievements. It is pleasant to look on lives so full already of performance and so full of promise for the future.
It has, in the course of this debate, became a trite remark that we meet under different circumstances from those under which we met for the last session of Parliament. We have reached the end of the war-at least, it is hoped so. I do not see the possibilities of an immediate revival in . any of tne Central powers for war purposes. Now' that we have reached the end of the war, I want to claim for Union Government a place which I believe history will give it in increasing degree, and for the Govern-[DOT] ment that preceded the Union Government: that they knew from the beginning and until the end what their objective was; they knew the difficulties, and they did not shrink by one hair's breadth from the sacrifices that were necessary to reach that objective. When men go about an objective in that spirit, with the right cause and with the blessing of divine Providence, they are very likely to reach it. And it is a matter of profound congratulation that we, to-day, in Canada stand right abreast with the Allies, having reached our objective. How complete was the victory of the Allies is illustrated by two incidents. It was a remarkable spectacle, there has been no such spectacle, I think, in the history of the world as to see the Kaiser leaving his own country by the back-door, so to speak; to see him of the shining armour, him of the flaming sword, him of the mailed fist, going cap in hand for security and asylum to one 
of those little nations that just by accident escaped being one of the nations w'hich his great nation had crushed at the beginning of the war. That was, I think, a complete enough victory for the most revengeful of mankind. But if we needed more satisfaction for our feelings, I think it was afforded on that day when into a Scottish port- Scotland was sure to be around when there was anything to be picked up for nothing- there sailed, like a few summer canoes, all that remained of the German fleet, while every German on that fleet gave silent assent to the old song: Britannia Buies the Waves.
Canada's participation in the production of these results was early; it was ample; it was continuous, and it was there at the very end. The Princess Pat's were the first colonial regiment to put their foot upon the soil of France, and when they wanted troops to lay the foundations for the breaking of the Hindenburg line, they specially trained the Canadian troops for the purpose. And on that second of September-a date which some of us have good cause to remember- there could not be a Canadian heart that did not swell with pride when he read of the fight in which the Drocourt-Queant switch fell before the onslaught of a detachment of the British army which was composed largely of Canadians, and the Hindenburg line crumbled from that moment.
Beference has been made again and again to the fact that our men were in Mons at the end, recalling to us the fall of Mons early in the beginning of the war.
I should like, Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted, to offer every man in this House with French blood in his veins my gratu-lations that these magnificent results and achievements of the Allied armies were brought about under a commander who has added one more shining name to the long list of the illustrious marshals of France. I should like to point a moral which I think this circumstance is calculated to carry to the minds of all of us. If one compares Foch with Hindenburg, it is a case, almost, of comparing mind with matter. That comparison is sufficiently suggestive to remind us that after all the subtle and imponderable influences of mind and spirit, the powers behind right are greater in this world and surer to preyail than the forces behind mere physical power. I hope I have laid well to heart the philosophy of the lines:
The moving finger writes and, having writ,
Moves on ; nor all your piety nor wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a line,
Nor all your tears wash out a word of it.

There is little to be gained by fighting over again past political battles, but I want just at this point to claim that the con-scriptive draft which brought about such a change in the political condition in Canada, did three things for Canada and for the world.
In the first place, at a crucial moment in those fortunes and in the history of the war, the general election held on the draft was decided in such a way that Canada's voice went to the hearts of friends and foes alike as the voice of a people who knew what business they were about, knew its tragic and drastic nature, and knew how to stay with that business until the end.
In the second place, the draft enabled my hon. friend the Minister of Militia and Defence (Major-General Mewburn) to stand in the great heart of the Mother Country, in the city of London and tell our own people, as he told the people of the Old Country, that every Canadian battalion was going into those last fierce fights at full strength. That is not a thing for which Canada has any apologies to make or regret to express. There is not a man in this House who in his heart is not proud to join with me in congratulating the country and the Government that that was the case.
In the third place the draft to my knowledge enabled the Government to bring home earlier than they otherwise could have done numbers of weary, war-worn sons who had been in this fight since the very beginning, and who in other circumstances would have been nursed to go back to the fighting line when they were not fit for it. I am content to leave to history, just at that point, the political battles of Canada for the last few years.
And now we come to a new era. We come to what is being referred to almost ad nauseam as the period of reconstruction. Well, it would be impossible for me, Sir, to contemplate that period for a moment without remembering that I am one of those who are sometimes referred to as Liberal-Unionists, and who were referred to by my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) the other evening as "separated brethren." On this side of the House we have been content for a year and a half to know ourselves as Unionists. In fact we came very near being a united Canada a year ago last December. But I cannot overlook an invitation that was first extended to us by my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie), whom I congratulate upon an eminence to which he has attained by the possession of many excellent qualities- and perhaps a little by some even of his faults. I am nearly sure he looked straight
at me when he gave that invitation, and I should feel myself guilty of rudeness if 1 did not respond to it. At the same time, however, that we received an invitation to go, my hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) extended to us an invitation to stay. Well, this is extremely flattering, but slightly embarrassing. I am sure I do not look the part but I never felt so much like a coy young lady with two ardent suitors, and I think it is the part of the coy young lady in the meantime to continue for a little the double courtship, and not to run the risk of those who marry in haste of falling upon a swift and disastrous divorce.
There are several things implied in the invitation coming from the other side of the House. In the first place, it would seem to imply a belief on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite that we took the wrong road in our national history a year and a half ago. Well, we do not admit that. I associate myself most fully with my hon. friend the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Calder), who, in that excellent speech he delivered to the House the other day, said that he had always had the support of his conscience in what he had done, and he did not confess to being at all a sinner in the matter. We do not admit that we took the wrong road, and if hon. gentlemen opposite are suffering from a delusion of that kind I should just like to argue the point with them-and I never saw my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition in such a condition in this House that he was not prepared to argue any point on which he did not agree with me. I would argue it in tnis way: I would just put to them one simple and pointed question: If Great Britain, if France, if the United States, if Italy, had pursued the war by the .method which found favour on the benches opposite-I shall not characterize it otherwise-would it have-been over now? If it would not have been over, it would still be going on. My hon. friend the leader of the Opposition will not dispute that proposition. But then, if it had been going on because a wrong method of prosecuting it was followed, upon whose shoulders would have been the blame for the-extra loss of life and treasure? I always like to defend the course of my aotion on grounds of logic, and I take it that that is a fair attempt at logic anyhow. I am almost sorry that the leader of the Opposition has already spoken, because he always tries to be logical-whatever his success may be.
Now that is the first implication in the invitation of hon. gentlemen opposite, and what is their second? It is not only implied in this invitation that we took the-
\
234	COMMONS
wrong road, but it is very freely implied, and indeed it is stated, that we left Liberalism.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Michael Clark: I think I hear a mild "Hear, hear" from an hon. gentleman opposite. Well, if the point I have already made has anything in it, it would be so much the worse for Liberalism. But did we leave Liberalism? Whence have we to derive our Liberal traditions? It would be no use asking my hon. friend from Russell (Mr. Murphy), who takes an intimate and well-informed interest in old country politics, to derive any inspiration from Mr. Lloyd George, because I am quite sure that Mr. Lloyd George does not possess a particle of his confidence; but surely the case of Mr. Asquith is different with him, and Mr. Asquith was at the head of the Government in the old country which introduced compulsory military service there. I differed from my hon. friends opposite on the question of compulsory military service; I also differed from them, and was almost alone on that side of the House in that respect, on the question of the extension of Parliament. But Mr. Asquith was responsible for several extensions of Parliament in the old country.
He protested against an election up to the end of the war, and kept on protesting against an election even in the early days of reconstruction. So, after all, if I have fallen from the grace of Liberalism I have fallen in very good company, for I still have the company of Mr. Asquith and the entire Liberal party of Great Britain-and that is not a bad record for a Liberal who was raised in the atmosphere of British Liberalism. We do not admit that we left Liberalism-not for one moment.
There is a third thing implied in this invitation that has been extended to us from the opposite benches, and that is that we should turn to those on this side who were formerly known as Conservatives and say to them, at this moment in our country's history: We joined you amidst the storm, the strain and stress of a danger the most violent that ever threatened the world; we have weathered the storm with you; now that the sky is clearing and the sun is peeping out again, without a moment's hesitation or notice, we take leave of you. Would hon. gentlemen opposite respect us if we took that course at this moment? We are not built that way. We left our friends opposite for what we believed to be the national good, which the old poet Virgil

described as the noblest motive that could guide the citizens of any country. And when we make another alignment it will be because that same guiding star leads us. V e joined these others, and if w e can we will stay-if we cannot stay we will leave, but always for the good of our country. That is our Liberalism.
There is another implication-and it would be a most important one if there was anything in the invitation to go over-and that is that there is something to go over to.
Air. AlcMASTER: The portfolios are all on the other side.


Michael Clark: I did not catch my hon. friend's remark.
Air. AIcAIASTER: You say you have nothing to come over to. I say, the portfolios are all on the other side.


Michael Clark: I have no portfolio. And I did not say even that I have nothing to go to. I said there was an implication that there was something to go to -I was stating the opinion of my hon. friend, not my own. He had better not reply to mine until he hears it; he might show less temerity after hearing it. I have tried to image to myself that little home shack that my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition drew to our attention, with the latch, and the string, and the light. I followed the description, for I listened carefully to every word of my hon. friend's speech. I am bound to say, having regard to that speech from the point of view of constructive ideas or political policy, that I think he ought to have added to his figure -when he told us that the lamp was burning in the kitchen and the string was on the outside of the door, he ought to have added the warning: " Bring your own provisions."
Now, I ask any hon. gentleman on either side of this House to read the speech of my hon. friend if he has forgotten it and to find out what constructive planks of Liberalism were set forth in that speech. Why, Sir, there is far from being a fatted calf awaiting those who return.
Little Mary was rich by comparison, for she at least had a little lamb.
What was the main feature of my hon. friend's speech? It was: Why does not the Government do something? He seemed to find some complaining tones in the speeches of the mover and seconder of the Address, and he asked: Why does not the Government do something? That was not a new cry on his part. We on this side can remember him saying that same thing at

any time when it occurred to him while the war was on. He demanded to know why the former Minister of Labour (Mr. Crothers) did not do something. I suppose that hon. gentlemen pleased him in the end,-he left his portfolio to some one else. Why does not the Government do something, was his plaint during 1917. And the Government did something; they brought in the Military Service Act during that session. Then the hon. gentleman changed his question to; Why in the world did you do it? On this side of the House hon. gentlemen did not want to have an election; they thought it was not good for the country. I was alone on the benches opposite in supporting that view. The Conservatives on this side of the House were the true Liberals according to the Asquith view, for they did not want to distract the country with an election during war time. The hon. gentleman (Mr. McKenzie) said: Why don't you do something; have an election anyway. Well, he had his election, and no doubt while that election was going on, down on the rocky coast of Cape Breton he repeated his plaint to the sad sea waves: Why doesn't the Government do something? Surely, they did plenty during the election; I believe my hon. friend himself only held his seat by the skin of his teeth. And now we re-assemble in the second session of the new Parliament, and again he says: Why doesn't the Government do something? Why does not he tell the Government some of the things he would do? Has he done what every fair opponent should do-and I do not wish to attribute unfairness to my hon. friend; he has been extremely good-tempered and well-conditioned in his new position-has he informed himself of what the Government is doing? Was it nothing to do, as I have said, to stand by the Allied forces until the end? Do these hon. gentlemen opposite think that these shiploads of men are being brought with unexampled rapidity overseas, demobilized and sent to their homes, without the Government doing something? Is he informed as to what the Government are doing in the noble and God-like work of looking after the maimed and the blind, and fitting for new occupations many who can never work at their old trades again? I cannot recall that the hon. gentleman in his speech even gave us an opinion on what the Government proposes to do as outlined in the speech from the Throne. I may be doing him an injustice, but I cannot recall that he said a word about building ships, about constructing roads, about building houses for our people. I am not now either commending or condemning these various projects; but at least when the Government is taking these new departures in the life of the nation and making these proposals, it is not in order to come and say: Why does not the Government do something?
Now, my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster), who made an interruption just now the relevance of which I fail even yet to see, furnished us with a kind of plank. He made some considerable reference to the tariff, and indicated, what I am very glad to know-, that he has low-tariff ideas. Well, I will say to my hon. friend that, portfolio or no portfolio for me, or for h;m in the future, he had better get busy and instruct his own leader about the tariff. I have been in this House for ten years with the leader of the Opposition; I have listened to nearly all the speeches he ever made and I cannot remember ever having heard him say " tariff He probably has done so but this is a subject that he fought shy of. There is a reason and my hon. friend from Brome knows it. He will not get up in his place now and assert that there is quite the enthusiasm for tariff reform manifested in the speech of the leader of the Opposition that there was in his own speech. On the question of the tariff, in my humble judgment-and I have tried to inform myself-those who represent what was formerly the Liberal party occupy a less advanced position than did the whole Liberal party of a quarter of a century ago, so far as their policy has been stated up to the present time. What was the policy of the Liberal party oveT twenty years ago? I think I can state it from an authority that will not be disputed. I want to give a few extracts, if I am permitted, from some speeches delivered in the year 1893 or between 1893 and 1896, and that is just about a quarter of a century ago:
I submit to you that the ideal fiscal system is the British system of free trade.
That was a statement of the policy of the party 'that would at once have attracted all British Liberals under its banner.
"Let it be well understood that from this moment we have a distinct issue with the party in power. Their ideal is protection; our ideal is free trade.
"I come to expose to you the policy of the Liberal party. Let me tell you that the policy may be summed up in the good Saxon word 'Freedom,' in every sense of the term-freedom of speech, freedom of action, freedom of religious life and civil life, and last, not least, freedom in commercial life."

"I denounce to you the policy of protection as bondage; yes, bondage, and I refer to bondage in the same manner as American slavery was bondage; not in the same degree, perhaps, but in the same manner. In the same manner the people of this country, the inhabitants of the city of Winnipeg especially, are toiling for a master, who takes away, not every cent of profit, but a very large percentage, a very great portion of your earnings for which you toil and sweat."
That was the official statement of the policy of the Liberal party given more than twenty years ago by an authority that no one can dispute. Is that their policy to-day? My hon. friends opposite are silent. Is that the policy of the hon. member for Brome?
An hon. MEMBER; Yes.


Michael Clark: But my hon. friend (Mr. McMaster) said that he was in favour of tariff for revenue. He is a product not of a quarter of a century ago but of the intervening period when the policy which had formerly been enunciated was lost sight of or not pursued with any great degree of enthusiasm. Now, I mention this as showing that I was rightly informed when I stated that the invitation of hon. gentlemen opposite implied that there was something to come to.
As a matter of simple fact, Mr. Speaker- and this is a statement which I make very deliberately and of set purpose, and it is important that it should be made in this period of the history of Canada-the great majority of the people of that part of Canada from which I come have been able to see, in the history of the last twenty-five years, very little difference, if any, between the records and performances of the two parties. Difference in profession there has been but in performance there has been very little difference and the sooner that it is authoritatively stated, so far as I have the authority derived from constant observation to state it, the better. That is the view of a large majority of the people of western Canada.
Mr. MoMASTER:	What about recipro-.
city?


Michael Clark: My hon. friend, of course, and I, supported reciprocity. We did not get a chance of performing on it. But, has not the present Government performed on it; has it not given free wheat and free potatoes; so that, as I hinted, the profession was on the one side and the performance on the other.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: May I may be permitted to interrupt the hon. gentleman? I would like to know

	.


Michael Clark: My hon. friend has already spoken in this debate at considerable length. I listened to him for an hour and a quarter without interruption and I must ask him- although I do not want to be discourteous -to give me time to get out of the way for another fellow. I do not want to go at any great length, or at any length at all, into the programme which the Government has put before us. But I would like to be permitted to lay down what I conceive to be important principles that ought to guide us irrespective of all party names in the very serious work of trying to " reconstruct " Canada-if you will allow the word. Mr. Speaker, I am afraid, from the speeches to which I have just made reference, that hon. gentlemen opposite are more concerned about the reconstruction of a party than about the reconstruction of the country; I am afraid so. I wish I could think it otherwise, but there has been a good deal of .evidence that that is their frame of mind,: That was the meaning of the invitation to which I have referred at such great length.
We, on this side of the House I claim, are more concerned about the reconstruction of the country, and let me say to my hon. friends opposite that there is no earthly chance of their getting the high encomiums and support of the people of this country until they change their policy if I have rightly diagnosed and described it. In the months and years immediately ahead of us, the first principle of reconstruction that I would lay down is, that we ought to endeavour to keep up the same patriotic fervour as we displayed during the war. If it was then worth while getting fervid about sending our sons by the hundred thousands across the seas to fight for great principles and to fight for liberty, it is worth our while in Canada surely to be equally fervid about fighting and struggling for the good of our own country.
And, let me say at this point, that I think we ought to cultivate the sacrificial spirit of the men who went across the seas-we ought to cultivate the spirit of those men. Mr. Speaker, there is a frightful moral chasm between nearly all of us who stayed at home and enjoyed in varying degrees the prosperity of war times, and those boys who went across the seas to die, if need be, for $1.10 a day. They have done their work. It is now up to us, as civilians, to do ours; and if, for the rest of our lives, we have to make sacrifices in this country from the humblest workman to the richest plutocrat-if we have to make sacrifices of the very strongest and most drastic kinds-

our shrinking flesh should suffer all that is coming to us in that regard.
With that spirit of sacrifice should go the spirit of helpfulness, and here I would like to make an appeal to my hon. friends opposite. I do not intend to specify members, but there have been hon. members opposite who seemed to me to have pursued an unworthy line of talk in this House. One wonders what is their motive in saying words here wThich can possibly arouse discontent among our returned boys and their relatives. Some one talked about Canadians having been made a spearhead in the recent war. Why, Sir, that is surely an unworthy thing to suggest. I have met lots of men from the trenches, the best of the world's manhood, and I have not found that in the trenches there was the slightest jealousy, or envy, or rivalry between the sons of Canada, and the sons of Ireland, Scotland, and England. I have not found anything but unstinted praise on the part of Canadian soldiers for what Tommy Atkins did in the war, and I am perfectly sure that Tommy Atkins has been equally generous to Canadians. I should be glad for the sake of the fair name of our country, that there was no more oratory of that particular kind. I do not for a moment fear the political consequences of such talk, because no one will be quicker than our returned men to recognize that there might be just a shade of suspicion about such solicitude expressed in such terms by men, who, to say the least of it, were not too enthusiastic to keep these same men, when in the fighting line, from being overrun by the Huns. I do not think it will be easy to infuse a doubt into the minds of returned men as to the willingness of those for whom they voted in such numbers in the last election,-because they knew that they were behind them in this fight without a doubt, and to the finish-I do not think it will be easy to infuse a doubt into those minds as to who is willing to do the best, the very best that the country's resources will allow us to do, for these men now that they have come back to our shores.
Now, if I might, I would like td say to the Government, and to the members of this House, irrespective of the side upon which they sit, that I think those of, us who really want to face reconstruction intelligently and wisely, should be prepared to remind ourselves, and our entire people, that the great problem of reconstruction is a world in debt,-not a nation only, but a world in debt. That is the problem that to-day faces us and all the belligerent countries. And I think that if we can keep
that in mind it will modify the relationships between parties in this House, it will modify the asperity of the criticism which we might be inclined to heave at the heads of the Government when they are not doing what we think they ought to do. It will modify tlie attitude of the various classes of the community in presenting the claims of their particular class upon the Government and Parliament of the country; it will modify the strength of the application of men for an immediate raise in their salaries; it will help our national life all round, and will help to our higher and better citizenship if we can keep it continually in mind that the nation and the world are for the moment heavily in debt.
If I were to venture to undertake to say a word of advice to the Government, I should say that they would be wise if they avoided palliatives and half-measures; they would try as Parliament ought to help them to try, to get down to the roots of things, and to look for a period-which perhaps we have not quite arrived at yet,-when we shall undoubtedly have industrial depression and great economic and national difficulties to face. I do not think there is the remotest doubt about that. If we do not have it, Mr. Speaker, then history has taught me nothing about the economic consequences of war.
I am not going, as I said before, to mention in detail the measures referred to in the Speech, and I am at least to that extent following the example of my hon. friend, the leader of the Opposition. The legislation with respect to roads, and these other matters that I have spoken of, it will be the duty of this House to discuss; and so far as this side is concerned, I think I can guarantee my hon. friends opposite that all these measures will be discussed with a degree of independence that will surprise them, because we are not dominated by party spirit on this side. That does not mean, Mr. Speaker, that we are prepared at a moment's notice to vote this Government out of power until we see something to take its place-I put in that saving clause. So far as my hon. friend from Prince Edward Island (Mr. Joseph Read) is the particular spokesman of my hon. friends opposite, he declared the other night-contrary to the spirit of a year and a half ago-: "We cannot possibly have an election until the boys come back." So up to that extent, I take it, hon. gentlemen opposite are in absolute agreement with me. I do not want to go into these things in detail, but I might for the sake of illustra-

tion say, that, in my judgment, the making of roads is not a basic occupation. That is true of the building of houses, it is true even of shipbuilding: the basic, economic occupations of a country are those which go down into nature and take the wealth out of the soil, out of the timber, out of the rivers and the lakes, and the oceans; if you like, out of the mines. Those are the basic occupations of this, or any other lands.
There is another principle of reconstruction that I am sure we want to deal with in this House-I shall do so at any rate, and I think we all of us favour free discussion of public questions, and in this .respect I agree with my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) that this talk of shelving the'tariff, or not speaking of the tariff, can only be compared to the man who wTanted to build a house without discussing the materials of which he was going to build it. I am a hundred per cent with my hon. friend from Brome on that subject. I am not going to try to anticipate the Budget, but I am going to refer to some of the fundamentals of reconstruction, and to do so by the use of a few words which will suggest thoughts and show how absurd it is to think that for any length of time we can avoid the discussion of the tariff or any other subject.
Whether we are going to supply pensions and look after the sick and maimed and the injured^and mutilated, whether we are going to supply employment to all our people, I think it will be agreed that one of the things we must do in the face of our great national debt is to produce wealth in the country. Now, no one will have the temerity to say that the tariff has nothing to do with the production of wealth. We may take one view or another of what the effect of the tariff is upon the production of wealth, but that it has a bearing on the subject 'I think every one will agree who thinks about economic subjects at all. It is, of course, open to any hon. gentleman to argue that Great Britain in this war- and we must learn the lessons of the war- was a remarkable example of financial failure under free trade. I do not know that any one who would argue that would carry the mind of his hearers very far. It is equally open to anybody to argue that Germany was a remarkable example of financial success under protection. But whatever we may think about that point, I want to make it clear to the 'House that if we are to learn the lessons of the war we cannot postpone the discussion as to which view is right along those lines.

Allied to the question of wealth is surely the question of trade. .Now, our trade has been remarkable during the war. What is the lesson of the war on the question of our trade? What *was the economic cause of the extraordinary amount of trade we did during the war? It is possible to answer that question in one word: markets. We did the business because we had the markets. We produced to an extraordinary extent; we got the prices; we had safe customers in the shape of foreign governments; we had the markets, and we did the trade. I never could see it myself, but I suppose it is a debatable point whether you will do the most trade with obstacles or without obstacles. The member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) believes in the obstacles, to a certain extent; he believes in a tariff for revenue. Well, the tariff is an obstacle to trade whether it is for revenue or for any other purpose. I am one of those who is advanced much further than the member for Brome on the trade question. I am innocent enough to believe that you will trade better, just as you will run a race better, if you do not have obstacles. But whatever the views of other hon. gentlemen may be, we cannot avoid discussing that question.
Then, about the industries of the country. We have been told that tariffs are necessary to build up our manufacturing industries. Why, Sir, this war afforded the remarkable spectacle in Canada of industries turning their plants around to produce things that they had never produced before, producing them in enormous quantities, and selling them at tremendous and immediate profits. Why were we able to do that during the war? The answer is the same as I gave a moment ago in regard to our trade; we did it because we had the markets. That is to say, the exigencies and the pressure of the war overcame the obstacle, or any obstacle that there was in the way of the tariff. I take it that is the lesson of the war on this particular point.
The Government are interested in shipping. I do not blame them. We have to discuss shipping on the estimates of the Minister of Marine during this session, or on some other occasion. I have always believed that shipping is in the same position as these other matters to which I have referred. If you have a purely protectionist country, I think it must be evident to the most casual observer that you do not need any ships. If you have a perfect wall around your country and cut yourselves off

thoroughly from other nations, it is obvious that however you might need cathedrals or jails or anything of that kind, you would not need ships. Well, the converse also would seem to be true; if you want to have successful shipping you will not put up a wall of that kind. But this may be my insular stupidity which I have brought from England with me. It appears so simple to me that a child would accept it for the truth the moment it was presented to it. I wish hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House would, on this question as on the others to which I have referred, cultivate the teachable spirit of the child.
I suppose we shall have to discuss taxation, Mr. Speaker. I am afraid so; it will be a prominent subject of debate for many a long year. And it is absurd to talk about discussing taxation without gradually coming to discuss the tariff, because, for better or for worse, the tariff has been our main method of taxation in this country. We shall have to discuss tariffs when we come to taxation, or else we shall be parliamentary ostriches, and that would not be complimentary to us.
The cost of living is a question which this or any other government and this or any other parliament must tackle in the immediate future. Notwithstanding the large wages which have been prevailing in this country, I am afraid it is too true that a considerable number of our people have been living from hand to mouth in spite of the artificial good times that have been created by the war. If you cut down the cost of living, you would help conditions very much all round; you 'would lessen the rapacity of people for large profits and increased salaries. That question must be attended to; it is vital, and its solution would solve very much besides.
We are going to discuss the possibility of settling soldiers on the land. The tariff has a direct bearing on that question. It was argued by those who had carefully studied the question before the war that it was impossible to produce the splendid wheat that we produced in western Canada at a paying profit, at the price we were getting for it. Wheat in southern Alberta was then, I suppose, bringing about 65 cents a bushel, and having regard to the price of implements and the price of land, it was argued by many economists and men in the business that wheat could not be produced at that price to pay. If there be anything in that contention-I see that my hon. friend the President of the Grain Growers' Association of Manitoba approves of what I am
saying-then at the very threshold of land settlement for soldiers we are met with the question: Are you justified in putting soldiers on the land to produce wheat or to produce any other agricultural products under these conditions? _ We must not try to settle any of these problems on war conditions-and war conditions as to prices largely remain at the present lhoment-because it is impossible that war conditions in these regards are to continue.
I have mentioned these things just to indicate some of the questions that will be before us in this period and to try to guide the House, independent of any old party affiliations, to right lines of thought. I cannot forget, Mr. Speaker, that I come from western Canada It is impossible to hide from our eyes the fact that in western Canada at the present moment there is this remarkable state of opinion to which I have referred. A few days ago I had a letter from a valued constituent touching on many subjects. That letter began with the statement to me, for my guidance as his representative, that in. the part of the country in which he lived he rarely met a man who described himself either as a Liberal or as a Tory. That is a remarkable indication of the state of flux in which the opinions of men are in this country. The fact of the matter is that, perhaps, the most important thought for our guidance in this whole reconstruction period is this: that while it is a truism to say that the external forms of government and external conditions of countries have been tremendously affected by the war, it is quite as significant that everywhere men's thoughts are in a state of revolution; they are everywhere prepared to accept new ideas. And that is the frame of mind in which we should, either as members of the Government or as members of Parliament, approach public questions.
When I say that I am from the West, I want to add this: that I am no sectionalist. I could not be as a western man, if I wished at the present moment, because one of the most remarkable features of our internal politics just now is that the West is rapidly making converts to its views in the province of Ontario.
I notice that my friend from Prince, P.E.I. (Mr. Joseph Read) who has very large way of doing things, said the other night that there was no distinction between the farmers' movement and what he called the Liberal party. That is ndt my recollection. I think the hon. member was speaking outside the patent facts of comparatively

recent political history. Long before the reciprocity pact, the farmers of the West were asking for free agricultural implements, but the reciprocity pact, if I remember it correctly, proposed a reduction of 2h per cent on agricultural implements which would not have meant very much to anybody. There is a great difference between free implements and a reduction of 24 per cent from fifteen per cent, so I shall not allow my hon. friend to mop up, so to speak, this support of the farmers. It would be a very convenient way of doing party business, but my hon. friend says he is a patriot and stands for the nation first, and I am not sure that he was not thinking of a party when he made that statement, because it is not quite correct. I do not stand for any section in this country. Our boys fought for a united Canada and I believe in a united Canada. I believe in this nation from shore to shore, and I believe that we shall fight our difficulties as a united people just as our sons have fought the battles across the sea. But I think all the same that if I were in the cabinet, or even if I were an eastern manufacturer, I should keep a sharp outlook on what the West is doing.
I want on this head to make a special appeal to the Acting Prime Minister (Sir Thomas White). He knows I have a great affection for him, and when we sat on opposite sides of the House, I had such an affection for him that I undertook his tuition in economic affairs. And he is by far my most promising pupil. He is not only my most promising, but is my most influential pupil. I need scarcely tell him to keep a sharp lookout on the West because he has already shown in his brief but brilliant political career, that he does keep a sharp lookout everywhere and that he has a teachable mind on these economic matters. He is sometimes a very much 'traduced man. We hear it said sometimes that he is connected with corporations. I have known some of the people that threw these stones, and one would want to throw a good brick back at them one's self if one wanted to go into that kind of politics. I wish, however, to claim for my hon. friend (Sir Thomas White) that he has as free a mind as I have found anywhere in the public life of Canada, I have great pride in my pupil's mind. It is a penetrable mind, and it has been penetrable to western ideas. That is why I talk to him at this particular juncture. It would be no use my starting on a hard case like the leader of the Opposition (Mr. 
McKenzie). At the beginning oi the war, I myself, was responsible for bringing western economics into this House in a very pointed form, and I told my hon. friend (Sir Thomas White) to put on an income tax. That was new to my hon. friend and he did not see his way to do it, and he made some speeches, saying what was quite true, namely, that it was a difficult tax to collect and you could not jump at these things like a bull in a china shop. But my hon. friend came on, and he told us in several speeches that an income tax was, he feared, impracticable, but not impossible. Why, the fact now is that he remains a member of the Government which imposed an income tax, and the head of the department which did it, and I believe he is very proud of it now. I was, therefore, not wrong in describing the Acting Prime Minister as being a teachable and penetrable man and being my most hopeful pupil'. It is no discredit to him to change his mind. The man who, in the course of a great war, does not change his mind, has no mind to change. It is only hon. gentlemen opposite who held false ideas of Liberalism to the point at which they joined a choir with the hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) as choirmaster, and chanted "As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be." And they thought, when they were doing it, that they were Liberals. That is the chant of the oldest fashioned Tories.


Mr. McMASTER:: It is in the English church prayer-book.


Michael Clark: When Sir Robert Peel, one of the greatest financial leaders of the nineteenth century, was elected in England in 1341, he was elected to maintain the Corn laws. In 1846, without again going to the people, he abolished the Corn laws. Like a wise statesman, he saw the conditions changing, the country needing different things-just as those of us who left my hon. friends opposite saw what these hon. gentlemen could not see-and he abolished the Corn laws which he was elected to maintain. So my hon. friend (Sir Thomas White) is in apostolic succession to some of the greatest statesmen. Lord Beaconsfield, when Mr. Disraeli, was member of an administration which destroyed the Liberal Administration of that day on the question of franchise, and then within a year he came in and introduced a franchise more drastic than the franchise of the Government he had destroyed. Dis-

raeli changed even more rapidly than did Sir Robert Peel.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Pardon me, the hon. member is hardly right. He accepted an amendment proposed by John Bright. That is the way "he dished the Whig.s."


Michael Clark: My hon. friend is dealing with a later period in history than that with which I am dealing.


Andrew Ross McMaster: 1868.


Michael Clark: 1867. In 1868 there was a general election in which Mr. Gladstone was returned to power. My hon. friend must study history a little more before he is so cock-sure of himself. We will, however, accept the phrase and take our history as being roughly correct, and my hon. friend is not disputing that Disraeli did "dish the Whigs" and that he did change his mind. I am not scoring any arithmetical success, as two and two is four and one is five; I leave those phases of politics to my hon. friend.
Well, now, these changes of thought are not put down in history to the detriment of the reputation of the statesmen who changed their views. On the question of free wheat my hon. friend the Acting Prime Minister also showed that he had an open mind. He delivered a long speech in which he said that during the war he did not believe in giving free wheat; but he remained a member of the Government that did. I have very great hope that I do not appeal to him in vain to keep his mind still open. Let the western breezes blow through it; they will blow away some of the cobwebs he picks up in Toronto, and he will do clearer and better thinking and proceed to a position in Canadian statesmanship that he has not yet attained. I feel sure of it. I feel most hopeful of my hon. friend, for he is not only a statesman with a capacity for changing his mind. I cannot think he is absolutely impervious to political conditions. il am sure that every man in Government and Opposition circles must have regard to this fact about the people of the West; they can demonstrate on occasion their ability to stand as one man when the national good requires it. They stood as one man in December 1917, and if I were an eastern stateman or an eastern manufacturer I would say:	" These are people
that we had better keep our eye upon; they are worth watching; they are a faetor*of increasing numbers and increasing strength in the political life of Canada, and we must watch what they are doing."
There is another consideration about the West that I want to urge. The West wants no special favours whatsoever. We are asking for no special or class privileges. I hear people talking as if the farmers of the West were selfish men who wanted the Government to do something for their particular industry. On the contrary we are so confident of our ability to build up our own industries that we defy and challenge the world. We produce better wheat in western Canada than they can produce elsewhere in the world, and we are prepared to sell it against all comers. The same is true of our beef produce. Anything we do in the West we do well, and we defy competition. We want no special favours, and I take it that in that respect we are good Canadians. I do not understand the Canadian who says: I cannot compete. When I was quite a young man in the Old Country I remember a sculler named Edward Hanlan coming Over to England and beating the Englishmen so easily that he stopped in the middle of the race to scoop some water out of his boat. He did not say he could not compete! Did the men in the trenches in the recent fighting say they could not compete? They were never content unless they were right at the front. They did not complain of being made a spearhead. You could not help them being spearheads. That is the kind of Canadians I believe in, and that is the kind of goods we produce in western Canada. The Canadian who says, I cannot compete; I must have special help, special pap from the Government is a kind of Canadian that should be put in a glass case and exhibited in the British museum. He is not in full line with the manhood of Canada. I am sorry if that seems an extreme view, but after all it does not seem a very special request to make of a Parliament or Government to ask that we be put on exactly the same footing as others and that others be put on exactly the same footing as us.
And if I may speak for western Canada I of Canada will come to my views all at once. I have far too good an understanding of the difficulty of making progress to expect that, but I do say that I have brought before the House considerations which are well worth the attention of both parties in this House.
And if I may speak for wesern Canada I would say: Take off our shackles, and give us the freedom that our boys fought for. Our courage and our energies are as great as our prairies are wide, and we believe that our economic views are as clear as our atmosphere. Regardless of our political



future, when occasion required it we in the West stood as one man and voted as one man behind the men who stood in the breach for the world's liberty.
We are grateful that we share in Canada to-day, through the providence of the Almighty, the security and the freedom which has been purchased by blood. We want to go into the future animated by the same spirit that has animated us during the war, and we in western Canada will be found giving unstinted support to the men who are prepared with courage and with clear-sightedness to build an edifice of happiness, prosperity, and the highest manhood on the foundations laid at such tremendous cost.


Mr. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased indeed to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the Address on the ability and success with which they have accomplished their task. In this I only endorse the unanimous opinion of this House and of the press of the country.
I desire also that my first words should be words of thanks and congratulation to the brave soldiers of our Canadian army. I yield to no man, not even to my eloquent friend from Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark) in my admiration of the boys who have represented us at the front. In the terrific struggle which the victory of the Allied armies has now ended, our soldiers have heroically done their duty, and more than their duty. Always in the front line, amongst shells and bullets, amidst clouds of deadly gas, under a rain of iron and fire, they have unceasingly given to the Canadian nation and to the whole world numberless examples of collective and individual heroism. The gallantry, moral energy and physical courage of the Canadian soldiers have become a tradition in the Allied armies. Our soldiers have written a glorious page of history. To the families of those who have fallen on the field of honour 

and my hon. friend from Red Deer is the head of one of those families-let us extend our deep sympathy. Our dead heroes rest in a far-distant land, but we must not forget that they are not buried on foreign soil, for it has been well said that every man has two mother countries-his own, and France.
In order that the terrible sacrifices which have been made shall not be in vain, statesmen are now assembled at a Peace Conference to frame policies and devise means to prevent a recurrence of such a cataclysm as we have just passed through.

I am glad indeed that the speech from the Throne refers to the founding of a League of Nations, and that the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) has declared himself in favour of such a league. The democracy of the world is rallying behind President Wilson in support of that great project, and in some cases doing so despite rulers and kings, and compelling the doing away with the old order of things. The peace that is to be achieved must be a peace that regards the future instead of the past; it must not be only a lull in the storm, as was said by one of the Allied statesmen recently. This war, as we have often been told, was a war to end all wars, and wars cannot be ended unless the old system is changed. The mere fact that the Turkish state, a disgrace to civilization, had to be maintained to ensure what was called the balance of power is, to my mind, a sufficient reason to discredit the old system. Some fear that by entering a league, nations may lose part of their freedom and even their separate entity. They say that internationalism will replace nationalism. That is a mistake. You cannot be an internationalist unless you are a nationalist; there cannot be a League of Nations unless there are nations. The control of armaments will inevitably mean a certain limitation of national freedom of action. But where will be the change? Who shaped the British naval policy before the war? Sir, the naval programme of Britain was determined by the naval programme of Germany. The British tax payers had to submit to larger taxes at the whim of the Kaiser and Von Tirpitz. Likewise the military programme of France was dictated by the military programme of Germany.
The hon. Acting Prime Minister (Sir Thomas White) said that to assure the power of the league a military force will have to be maintained. I should have liked my hon. friend to be more expliicit. It will be a sad disappointment to many if military expenditures have to be maintained after this war. Sir, the people of the world are to govern themselves. For some of them the period of transition will be a period of struggle, of agitation, of chaotic disorder, but mey will adjust themselves to the new conditions, and order will ultimately prevail. Russia, Austria-Hungary, and Germany were the only remaining absolute monarchies in Europe. They lie in the ckust. Their disappearance makes international agreements possible between people and people, and the democracy of the world will see to it that no " scrap of paper "

shall again be torn. The peace of the world will be guaranteed, not by military power, not by naval power but, I hope, by the supreme moral power, which in democratic countries is public opinion. The evils of war are great enough to warrant great efforts to free the world from them.
The hon. Acting Prime Minister also stated that Germany must be compelled to pay the fullest indemnity, and he very properly referred to the fact that Canada did not desire the war, and that her war expenditures ought to be reimbursed by the German people. I should be glad indeed if the wishes of my hon. friend could be realized; but I cannot think that the Canadian people ought to rely too confidently on the payment of that indemnity. The indemnity as stipulated to be paid is not merely an arithmetical operation, it is not a mere arrangement of figures. A large indemnity such as that which Germany would have to pay if Canada's claim is to be considered-for we can only come after the devastated territory of France and Belgium have been repaired-cannot be paid in cash. Germany could only pay by producing and exporting goods that would otherwise have been produced by England, France, or some other country. Mr. Lloyd George said during the recent British elections that Germany must pay, but she must not be allowed to dump her goods upon England. But she must dump goods upon England or dump them upon neutral countries, and so displace the British goods, or the indemnity payments cannot be made.
The hon. gentleman said that the ablest statesmen of the world are assembled at the Peace Confeience. Let me here express regret for one thing and the sad circumstances under which we meet this session induce me to speak with the greatest moderation. There was a great Canadian statesman who should have been at the Peace Conference. Sir, President Wilson has amongst the members of his deputation there a political opponent. On the main committee the British Empire is represented by Sir John Simon who was defeated on December last as a political opponent of Mr. Asquith and who has been throughout the war a consistent opponent of conscription in Great Britain. But here of course we have a "union" Government, and only friends of that government were qualified. The fact lemains that minority parties, parties not actually in power, are part of a nation and should have a voice in decisions which will affect the rights of
16J	.	[DOT]
those nations for generations after their existing governments have given place to others.
While I believe that Canada has to be represented at the Peace Conference, I just as strongly believe that the Prime Minister of Canada should be at home now conducting the affairs of the country. The Prime Minister of a country is not an ambassador. Last year, Parliament had to be prorogued somewhat early to allow the Prime Minister and some of his colleagues to proceed to London for the Imperial Conference. We were told that there was urgent need of their immediate departure. Important business was hurried on in this House without due consideration, so much so that the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) had to register a vigorous protest. Our distinguished representative had to wait for weeks before the Conference actually met. True, the wires were kept busy recording their very strenuous work there for a time, especially that of my hon. friend the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) whom I see taking his seat. At times there was not much to report. We were told that the President of the Privy Council was getting older every day, and that the Prime Minister of Canada was impressing England by being favourable to that now almost extinct garment, the frock coat.
This year our representatives left Canada when the armistice was announced. I am not sure that the armistice was actually signed when they left. They were the first representatives to arrive, but their presence did not prevent Mr. Lloyd George from running an election campaign or the President of the United States from conducting public affairs at Washington for many weeks after our representatives had crossed the sea. The Prime Minister has had all the time and opportunity necessary to press his views on the Conference, and he should now come home to look after the tremendous task which confronts him. Surely, one of his colleagues might be left there to meet the Bolsheviki if the conference finally takes place. I would respectfully suggest that the hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Sifton) should have the appointment. He would be the best man to handle the situation if they tried to put up any raw deal over on him. The Montreal Star was telling its readers some time ago that the Prime Minister was coming home for a holiday. I hope his colleagues will persuade him to work here and go holidaying elsewhere.

This leads me to a subject with which I desire to deal bi'iefly. In the absence of the Prime Minister, the Acting Prime Minister should give us a full and comprehensive statement of the history of the constitutional changes which have been created by the formation of the Imperial War Cabinet and by the adoption of various policies formulated at the last Imperial Conference. The press of this country, .supporting the Government, is not in agreement as to the meaning and functions of the Imperial War Cabinet. The Toronto Globe, which has still a modicum of Canadianism left in it, contends that it is a mere consultive body and not at all an executive body. The Toronto News, the organ of Imperialism in Canada, states that it is an executive body. Speaking at London before the Imperial Parliamentary Association on June 21, 1918, the Prime Minister said:
A great step in the constitutional development ot the Empire was taken last year by the Prime Minister-
That is the Prime Minister of Great Britain.
-when he summoned the Prime Ministers of the Overseas Dominions to the Imperial War Cabinet.
Later on he said:
If I should attempt to describe it, I should say that it is a Cabinet of Governments.
I venture to believe, and I thus expressed myself last year, that in this may he found the genesis of a development in the constitutional relations of the Empire that will form the basis of its unity in the years to come.
Ambiguous as the language of the Prime Minister is it conveys the meaning that a constitutional change has effectively been made since he says that a great step in the constitutional development of the Empire was taken last year when the Prime Minister of Great Britain summoned the Prime Ministers of the Overseas Dominions to the Imperial War Cabinet. Furthermore, *we have been told that the functions of the War Cabinet would not cease with war but that this body would remain a part of the constitutional structure of the Empire. If that be so what right and what mandate had the Prime Minister of Canada to accede to this scheme? Canadian policies have been framed and decided upon in Canada since the days when responsible government was granted and they must continue to be framed and decided upon in Canada. Is it that Canada's policies are to be decided in London by a body of men in which Canada would have one representative out of twelve? True it is that the decisions arrived at would have to be rati, 
fled by the Canadian Parliament but that is a somewhat illusory safeguard as it would be open to the Prime Minister to use his influence to place the decisions of this body upon the Statute Book of Canada and he might always rely on his parliamentary majority to enable him to do so. The words of the Prime Minister that the new body upon the statute-book of Canada and loquent catch words, and nothing else. There' is no such thing as a cabinet of governments. According to strict constitutional rules and practice there cannot be a cabinet unless there be also a parliament to which that cabinet is directly responsible. I do not wonder that the Round Table should be delighted and should regard that new .scheme as a distinct advance, for they fully realize that an Imperial cabinet cannot exist without an Imperial Parliament and that is their ultimate game. Sir John Willison is a consistent advocate of Imperialism. The following quotation from a letter written by him is very significant.
My imperialism means equal citizenship for Canadians in the Empire. That we have' never had. That we have not yet secured. Nor do I believe that we can acquire such citizenship through War Cabinets or periodical Imperial Conferences. For the time these are useful as means to an end, hut we know that, after all, actual ultimate control over peace and war rests in the Imperial Parliament.
According to Sir John Willison the Imperial War Cabinet is a means to an end, namely, the creation of an Imperial federated parliament, of which Sir John Willison is a consistent advocate, a Federal Parliament in which Canadians would be in a small minority and which would levy taxation on Canadian citizens.
Sir, Canada is a nation and she will never become a province. At the Imperial Conference of 1917 a resolution had been adopted that all discussion and constitutional changes should be postponed until after the war when a conference for the purpose of considering these matters was to be called. I exceedingly regret that this resolution should not have been adhered to and that our Prime Minister should have agreed to a scheme which he has himself described as an important step in the constitutional development of the Empire. May I also point- out, and it will apply to other matters as well as to this-that'Confederation is an agreement. It was the result of the agreement of four colonies. It is in effect a treaty, and that treaty cannot be altered nor modified without the consent of all the contracting parties to it. The provinces have agreed to part with many of their rights, and to entrust them to the

Federal Parliament, but the Federal authority has no right to delegate any of its powers to another body without the consent of the parties to its original contract.
I now come to our internal affairs, and I have a word to say to my hoh. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) at the beginning. 1 have not much to criticise in his speech. Indeed, I congratulate him upon many things he said. His eulogy of his former leader was a masterpiece of eloquence such as I have seldom heard in this Chamber. But what I object to is the somewhat patronizing attitude that the hon. gentleman look ,a little later on. We, the Liberal parliamentary party, are a contemptible little army according to the Hindenburg of Red Deer. We all thought when he crossed the floor of the House that the heavy artillery was going, and I am sure he agrees with us on this. But, Sir, there is something we can say, with all modesty. We are not so numerous as the gentlemen on the other side, but we have some qualities. The first is that we are a united party. My hon. friend the leader of the Opposition can sit there with a sense of security which I am sure the Acting Prime Minister would like to enjoy. It is the sense of security which is produced by the certainty that nobody, either behind him or alongside of him, has a knife or a dagger. My hon. friend has declared himself as concerned about the Late of our party. Our future appears to him very dark. I thank him for his solicitude, but will he permit me to remind him that he may be mistaken. What has taken place in a constituency called Red Deer, very recently, might have taught my hon. friend the wisdom of modesty in prediction. I hope my hon. friend will not take these remarks otherwise than in good part. He knows that he and I have always been friends, he knows that I am a great admirer of his, in spite of the slight imperfections he may have. I will now proceed with my remarks.
I believe that the first war machinery that should be demobilized is the present Government. Self-destruction is a painful operation, but in the interest of the country my hon. friends ought to make the sacrifice and demobilize themselves. Theirs is an unnatural alliance at the present juncture. The doctrine that a political truce should exist during the period of reconstruction, and that the great questions of policy should be left aside and untouched, is sheer nonsense, and my friend from Red Deer demonstrated that himself in part of his remarks. We are not living in Utopia. The very fact that the resources
of Canada, as the result of our war effort, have been strained as they have been, compels us to face grave and great problems, and the two traditional opposite sides, which are the interests and democracy, cannot but face each other when the settlement is effected. One or the other must give way; it is impossible for gentlemen of different ideas on those problems to sit with each other, and be consistent with their ideals and principles. Principles are eternal, expedients are temporary. Burke has said that inconstancy is a sort of natural corrective to folly and ignorance. This, under ordinary circumstances, is not flattering, but it is still worse when inconstancy is forced upon unwilling people in order to allow them to perpetuate or prolong an equivocal situation. I agree with the Minister of Immigration and Colonization, that all citizens at this period must be animated by a spirit of pure patriotism, and adopt as their goal the welfare of the country; but in order to reach that desire they must strive to assure the success of the policies which they, in their conscience, deem to be the best to obtain that result. The idea of reconstruction means that a new order has to be created, and that changes have to be made to build up the country upon new and firmer foundations. How can it be done if the reformers and the progressives of the country stand pat and let the opportunity pass by? I fully understand that the reactionaries, the Tories, the protected monopolies-all those whose private interests lie in the perpetuation of the present order of things- should advocate political neutrality. Political neutrality means no change at a time when changes are possible and even necessary, when the democracy of a country asserts its right to shape the policy of government, when every nation is bent upon discarding the privileges of the few and safeguarding the interests of the many. But political neutrality on the part of a reformer is a crime against his country, and a betrayal of his principles.
The people whose voices are most loudly heard about reconstruction are those who do not want reconstruction at all. They claim that during the reconstruction period nothing should be done; things must not be disturbed; methods of business should not be changed; tariff policies should not even be discussed. They instinctively feel that the fewer innovations just now-with these people it is always " just now "-the better. They have mobilized under their banner all the appetites, and they masquerade as reconstructors. But, Sir, it is imperative that
*246

new policies should be devised. The Minister of Public Works (Hon. F- B. Carvell) *told us the other day that when all the revenues of the country shall have been used to meet the obligations of the present year, we shall still be short $100,000,000. Where shall we get the money to pay this enormous amount? Still, Canada must not be bankrupt and shall not be bankrupt. It is indeed unfortunate that to a large extent our financial situation is the result of extravagance and maladministration. I would need only to quote the speeches of the Minister of Public Works to show that for every dollar of legitimate war expenditure, another dollar has been given to graft and profiteering. Still, all our obligations must be met, and a new system of taxation must be devised.
Sir, a protective tariff ithat is so high as to prohibit goods from coming into this country is not a fair method of producing a revenue. I have a word to say here to the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Hon. J. A. Calder); I regret that he is not in his seat. He stated that there was a cleavage on the tariff as between the East and the West; that the two sections of the country were practically arrayed against each other. This I emphatically deny. Eastern Canada is not an adjunct of Toronto. The minister is very clever, but he cannot bind me with what he used to call the financial rings of Toronto. He cannot do it; he is bound with them, I am not. The voice of Toronto-I would like my friends from the West to put this into their minds-is not the voice of the East. Toronto is making a noise altogether out of proportion to its importance. The rural interests of .eastern Canada-and they constitute the great majority of the people,- are prepared and willing to work with the western farmers to obtain a lowering of the tariff. And, unless I am much mistaken, my fellow citizens of the prairies will not sacrifice their right of redress for the mess of pottage which the Minister of Colonization and a few others are enjoying in the Union Cabinet.
The tariff question must be settled now. I take this opportunity of asking certain members of the Government, those who have been called the " separated brethren," to apply to the consideration of this question that sort of mind described by Milton, namely: " A mind not to be changed by time or place."
There was a statement in the remarKS of the Minister of Immigration and Colonization with which I entirely agree. He said 
that Canada will never be a great country unless we put an end to national strifes and a better union of her citizens is secured. Every true, patriotic citizen of Canada realizes that national unity is indeed necessary. But such unity, Sir, cannot exist without liberty, without justice, without respect of the rights of all citizens. Let every Canadian respect his fellow citizen, whatever his race, creed or nationality may be. Let us do away with the spirit of race domination and national exclusiveness. Sir, the war should help the solution of that problem. Prussianism has been crushed in Germany; Prussianism should be crushed in all the countries of the world. Down with this Prussian spirit of domination ,n Europe; but down with it, too, in Canada. , Let us all do our share to accomplish the great work of national union and harmony. We who have had the privilege of learning our political doctrines under the guidance of the great statesman whose loss we mourn, shall endeavour to remain true to his teaching and inspiration. From the grave where he has been laid, Sir Wilfrid Laurier still leads us. We shall never forget his great lessons of tolerance, moderation and equal justice for all. " Live and let live" ought to be the standard principle of Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, one of the great reforms to be accomplished is the re-establishment of government of the people by the people and the full restoration of the rights of citizens. The press must be free; censorship must be done away with; freedom of speech must be revived. Certain restrictions were justifiable during the war, but the condition of war no longer exists, and I cannot conceive that any' democratic man in Canada would approve of such an act, for instance, as the imprisonment on the eve of Christmas day of a Canadian citizen for the crime of having in his possession an edition of Plato's Republic. Sir, this is an outrage to liberty and decency. The press should be free; the control of the mind of the whole people by way of censorship or otherwise is the very method, in all its purity, pursued by Prussia.
It is that nefarious system that has so moulded the conscience of her people as to produce that moral spirit which has startled the world. No such system should be tolerated in Canada, and the industry of shaping public opinion must be abolished. In that regard, I advocate the disappearance of the new national newspaper under the President of the Privy Council.
It is a useless waste of money and its existence creates a dangerous precedent. In this connection, let me say, not only for

this newspaper, but for all sources of information, that a lie is always a lie and never constitutes a truth even when it masquerades as propaganda. Moral unity and true progress cannot be brought about by arbitrary methods and compulsion. Liberty alone can achieve that result. In that respect I do not hesitate to say that in Canada as elsewhere, the strongest bulwark against Bolshevism is Liberalism and the principles for which it stands. Canadians who would spare their country the violence of revolutionary changes, that great mass of the people which is between the opposite sides, namely, the interests and Bolshevism, will wish God-speed to the forces of reorganized Liberalism which will ultimately unite for political action.
Having mentioned the word "Bolshevism," I wish to express my regret that speakers on the other side of the House should have seen fit to represent in a most unfair manner the remarks of the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) the other day. The methods of cheap political agitators and yellow journalism should not be emulated in this House. It is always their tactics to disqualify in advance the person they purpose attacking by branding their victim as a crook or a coward or a traitor. By abusing their opponents, they endeavour to prejudice the issue and close discussion. Profiteers, monopolists, trust magnates, the protected interests, have always tried to associate reform and progressiveness with revolution and crime.
I regret that some of my friends who still call themselves Liberals should have shown, to such a degree, the influence of their present association. That the Tories should adopt such methods, I do not wonder. It is the old game. The next election cannot, of course, be fought with the slogan "A vote for the Liberals is a vote for the Kaiser." That fellow is out of business now. A new cry must be found, and evidently it will be "A vote for McMaster is a vote for Lenine and Trotsky." Is it not possible to place Canadian politics upon a higher and moie honourable level?
There is another matter to which I wish to refer in connection with the Address. A new Franchise Bill is announced, and when it is brought down we shall discuss it. But I regret that the Government does not immediately repeal the War-times Election Act, that iniquitous legislation which will ever be a blot on the fair name of Canada. The late Government, before going to the country, ran away from the
judgment of those who had elected them and were their natural judges. They resorted to closure for the purpose of tampering with the electoral laws of the country and manipulating the franchise. In order to frustrate and thwart the will of the people, they proceeded to disfranchise Canadian citizens entitled to all the rights of British subjects in this country.	It
was merely an act of political gambling. All citizens must be equal before the law. Every citizen of a democratic country has a right to his proportion, an equal share in the Government of the country.	As
Jefferson said, "Governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed." Those are the principles of liberty and responsible government. And the Allies have proclaimed to the world that they have been fighting for the maintenance of those principles. When President Wilson, on April 2, 1917, made his famous speech before the two chambers of the United States Congress, requesting them to declare war on Germany, he uttered the following words:
But the right is more precious than peace, and we shall fight for the things we have always carried nearest our hearts-for democracy, for the right of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own Government, for the rights and liberties of small nations.*
And he added:
To such a task we can dedicate our lives and our fortunes.
But here in this country out Government had to be judged by a sort of family jury and citizens who did submit to authority were deprived of their rights and have no longer a voice in the Government of this country. They are not represented in this House, and nobody has a right to speak for them in the Parliament of Canada. This House is not the true expression of the popular will. I am speaking only of the principle of the legislation. In practice, it was a still more damnable machinery, and in point of fact citizens of friendly or neutral countries were, under that law, actually disfranchised and could not record their vote. That law was a crime against popular sovereignty. All Liberals resented and opposed it. The Toronto Globe and the Toronto Star fought a vigorous campaign against it. They said that it was most undemocratic, arbitrary and Prussian in its character. The Toronto Globe has for its motto those words of Junius;
The subject who is truly loyal to the chief magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures. [DOT]
But the Toronto Globe and its friends submitted to the arbitrary measure they

have condemned and they were quite willing to profit by that measure. It was most unfair to enact that legislation, but it is not any fairer for gentlemen who have denounced it as a fraud and a crime against liberty, to help carry out the very same legislation. And yet the good old Toronto Globe said after the election that the victory achieved with the help of that Prussian law, as the Globe itself styled it, was a victory for democracy. I urge the Government to repeal that law. Let us see it wiped off the statute-book this session.
There are other subjects I should like to discuss, but I shall have an opportunity later on. In conclusion, I would assure the Government that we on this side of the House are only too willing to co-operate with them and do all in our power to help solve the great problems that confront the country in this trying period. Our only aim is the good and prosperity of our common country, but we shall always follow the course which we conscientiously believe to be the best means to reach that happy end. We may not be successful, we may fail in our endeavour, but we are working not merely for political successes, but for the upholding of the great principles of Liberalism by which we shall always stand.


Mr. JAMES McISAAC (Kings, P.E.I.):: Mr. Speaker, J desire to add my humble tribute to the eulogies that have been passed on the late leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). I also desire to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the Address. It seemed fitting that both the mover and the seconder should have worn the khaki. Both had done good service for the country, both had fought the enemy, and were therefore peculiarly qualified to give expression to the desires and ideals of the returned soldier. At one time, when the 'Hun was pushing forward, liberty, civilization and everything we held dear trembled in the balance, but now the war is happily over. It is not necessary to dwell at any length upon the causes that have brought the war to a successful conclusion. We all realize the genius of Marshal Foch, and Marshal Haig and the ability'of the other Allied generals. It was, however, the hammer blows of the Allied armies that did the actual fighting, and in this the Canadian armies had their full share. The brave sons of Canada were in the van in all the big attacks, and wrote the name of Canada in letters of gold on all the battlefields of the great war.
Another factor without which victory could not have been achieved was the 
British Navy. W7e have all heard of the freedom of the seas. It was the navy's part to preserve the freedom of the seas both before and during the war, and we all know how well it accomplished that task, enabling the soldiers and the munitions of war to be safely transported from all parts of the world towards the places where they were required.
Important and onerous as were the duties cast upon this Government during the war, equally important and onerous are the problems that will have to be solved in the period of reconstruction, but we need have no fear that the Government which has conducted so well the affairs of the country and Canada's part in the war will not be equally successful in the work of demobilization, repatriation, and reconstruction. The period of reconstruction calls for the exercise of the greatest wisdom, prudence, and foresight, but the resources of.Canada are so ample that with wisdom and good judgment all the problems confronting us will be satisfactorily solved.
The war, and the conduct of Canada in the war, and the conditions arising out of the war, inaugurate a new departure. Canada has shown what she is able to accomplish by furnishing the best soldiers that took part in this world war. In consequence of the war, or at least concurrently with the war period, Canada has .risen to eminence and distinction so far as finances are concerned, and takes her place side by side with the Mother Country in the matter of furnishing the loans to government to carry on the public business. And now, while the subject of peace and of peace terms are considered, now that the Peace Conference is in session, the Prime Minister of Canada and his colleagues of the cabinet sit there with full powers as representatives of this country, side by side with the diplomats of the great nations of the world, negotiating a world peace. That surely is an advance, a marvellous advance for Canada. She has risen to new heights, to a new plane of importance. And these new conditions, this rising to new heights, involves equally new and great responsibilities. All this is a new departure and old ideas and old methods will have to give way. We must look to the future, and not to the past; we must consider the present, and take advantage of and exercise the privileges that are afforded us, while looking forward to even greater things. Not only did our soldiers, many of whom made the supreme sacrifice of life itself that we might enjoy liberty and freedom, not only did these men do nobly, but our civilians

as well, men and women, did their share nobly and well in supporting and carrying forward the necessary work for those who were fighting abroad.
The programme set forth in the speech from the Throne is varied and ample.
I have no intention to refer at any great length, even in my own humble way, to many of the matters in that programme. But I think we shall all agree that nothing too good can be done for the soldiers who have fought and bled and offered their lives for our liberty. Whatever measures the Government can devise within the bounds of the resources at their command,
I am sure, will meet with the full endorsement of all the members on this side of the House.
Then there is the question of alien enemies in Canada. I, for one, sincerely hope that the Government will exercise its utmost powers in carrying out whatever regulations may be enacted to drive these people out of the country. They have no right here, and they have done much harm; I hope the Government will leave nothing undone to suppress them. As to immigration, that is a very important question, and I am sure the Government will exercise the greatest possible care with regard to it. We want no immigrants in this country except the very best, and we want none here who are tinged with any ideas of the alien enemy, the Bolshevists or any of that description.
At a time like this, when there is so much to be done, when such great responsibilities rest upon the Government and Parliament of Canada, one might naturally expect our friends of the Opposition to assist in solving the problems that confront us, Brat they would be willing to lend their aid to bring about the best conditions, that they would throw out from time to time some hints, some elements of a platform that they would be willing to stand upon, and so assist the Government in carrying on their work. But, so far in this debate, I do not think anything of that kind has been offered. -It is true, one hon. gentleman made an apology for the Bolshevists, but I do not think that is a very encouraging or satisfactory means of assisting in the work of reconstruction in Canada. Another hon. gentleman thought well to sneer at the King, at the Prime Minister, and at everything pertaining to the Government of the Dominion. That is the second plank of a platform, so far as we have heard. And there has been another: my esteemed friend the hon, member for Prince (Mr. Joseph Read) last night seemed disposed to extend the friendly hand to the alien enemy. He expressed the wish that a warm place should be found in the hearts of the people of Canada for those who had done so much to injure our cause. These, as far as I have been able to observe, are the three planks of their platform as they have thus far been made known to us in this House.
I wish to say just a word more about my esteemed friend the Ron. member for Prince, he was prolific in his advice and he pronounced very strong censure upon those who had at some time sat upon the other side of the House but who had come over here. He thought that their conduct was somewhat inconsistent. You would almost imagine from the way he developed this feature of his speech that he himself had been most consistent in his political allegiance. No one would suspect from what he was saying that he had been boxing the political compass, that from being an ardent Conservative he, without very much notice, became a very extreme Liberal. It is said that it was no question of public policy that brought about this remarkably quick turn in his political affiliation. It was, as far as I can understand, a grievance regarding a damaged cargo of potatoes.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


James McIsaac: Mr. Speaker, when fhe House took recess at six o'clock I was, in my humble way, describing the position that Canada has taken in the world, not only in consequence of the great deeds of her soldier sons, not only because of her achievements in matters of finance, but now, by reason of her being represented at the Peace Congress, with the Prime Minister, Sir Robert Borden, and his associates of the Cabinet, sitting there side by side on an equal foot-, ing with the diplomatists of the great nations of the world. We, I think, have reason to thank the Prime Minister for the great part he has taken in bringing Canada to that proud position, and yet, Sir, from the Opposition side we constantly hear the remark made that the leader of the Government should be in Canada, instead of being in the Peace Congress doing the best he can to look after the interests of Canada. We may be sure that Sir Robert Borden is, and always will be, found, where he can accomplish the greatest good for Canada. Is there a man in this House possessing a spark of patriot-

ism who will deny that the place where the Prime Minister can accomplish most good dor Canada, where he can best advocate our rights, and where he can best discuss questions of paramount importance to this [DOT]country arising from the war, is in Paris with the diplomatists of the other Allied nations. That, Sir, is my honest and sincere conviction, and it is most extraordinary that hon. gentlemen opposite should indulge in such reflections rather than contribute to this debate something of a tangible and beneficial character. I am sure, the Government will be only too pleased to receive ideas from them-advice, if you will, or suggestions-as how best to carry on the onerous and responsible work that devolves upon it arising out of the war. But, Sir, one hon. gentleman after another rises on the other side of the House with no suggestion whatever of the nature of constructive statesmanship to offer, or anything that might in any way assist the Government in carrying on the great duties that devolve upon it. On the other hand, everything that can be resorted to is done to slight and belittle the Government, everything is said that might bring Canada and its Government into ridicule. For example, the hon. member for Prince, Prince Edward Island (Mr. Read) gets up and discusses by the hour things that have no relation whatever to the matters at issue. The hon. gentleman dwells in the briefest way upon the subjects enumerated in the speech from the Throne, but speaks at length about all other matters in the world, and describes his voyages all over the globe. He is a sea captain, he tells us; he has been meandering round the world, and he recalls his experiences on those travels for our benefit. That, I am sure, is a vast and important contribution to the constructive legislation that is necessary to help Canada along in this important juncture in her affairs.
We have heard too of a light that is in a window', and a certain latch-string that is on the outside of a door. My own opinion, Sir, is that that light shall flicker, waver, grow dim and die out, and that latchstring, exposed so long to the elements, shall bleach and wither and drop into decay before any hon.' gentleman on this side-who have come here, as I am convinced every one of them have done, to do their best in an honest way to assist the Government in carrying on the important affairs of the country-will so far forget themselves as to leave the substance for the shadow, and abandon the important business they have undertaken. In view of the 
exigencies of the situation why should hon. gentlemen on the Opposite side consume the time of the House in talking of matters that have no bearing at all upon the problems calling for solution, or upon the important and onerous business that the Parliament of Canada has been sent here to transact? There are many important questions dealt with in the speech from the Throne that merit' long and serious consideration. They will come up in due order when they will receive the attention they deserve. It is not necessary at this stage of the session to say very much more with respect to them, so far at least as I am concerned. There are questions perhaps of a more or less controversial character that will come before us, questions upon which possibly all the members on this side do not exactly agree; but hon. gentlemen supporting the Government have come here for a grave purpose, they have come here to carry on in a serious manner the business of the country. I am sure when they come to sit down and compare notes they will be able to arrive at a reasonable compromise even if upon some matters they cannot absolutely see eye to eye. That is my firm conviction.
In view of all the circumstances, why should not all the members of the House determine to join hands? ' Why not all determine that they will unite and exert their utmost endeavour to push forward the great work that Canada has to undertake, and do their best in a patriotic and generous way to assist this country to the proud position among the nations that she is destined to occupy.


Mr. A. B. McCOIG (Kent):: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to say in the first place that I join with the other gentlemen who have taken part in this debate in extending my congratulations to the mover and seconder of this motion. I must say that it is gratifying to know we have in this House two young men of such independent calibre, who have already rendered such great services to the country, as the hon. gentlemen who moved and seconded the adoption of the Address. And the plea which they have advanced for unity in this country is certainly commendable. I feel that not only will all members of this Parliament agree with them, but the large majority of the people of Canada will agree that it is high time, after the great services that have been rendered by our men at the Front, that unity should exist in this land, and words of strife among our people should cease forevermore. I am glad, Mr. Speaker, to say that I had the pleasure of listening

to a gentleman, who went overseas with the Essex Battalion, when he addressed a large gathering in the city of Chatham. That gentleman was of the same opinion as the two hon. gentlemen who moved and seconded this motion. He said on that occasion that it was gratifying to him- he being a former Presbyterian minister in the city of Windsor, in the person of Major Tolimie-on many different instances to see soldiers of all denominations and creeds worshipping in the same church on every Sunday morning, feeling that they were to give a good example to the people they had left at home.
I also wish to say that I join the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) in the splendid reference he has made to the late leader of the great Liberal party in this country. Very little further could I say in that regard beyond what has already been said by members of this House, except to add this: I believe it will be many a day before another man will be selected who will enjoy the same confidence and respect on the part of all classes of people in this country that the late leader did. I am glad to pay this slight tribute to that great statesman on behalf of my constituents and myself.
I am also glad to say, Sir, that representing, as I have the privilege of doing, possibly one of the largest urban and rural constituencies of Canada, I can join with the first portion of the remarks of the hon. member for Red Deer, in that the people of my constituency, irrespective of party, of creed or nationality, stood by every vote that I gave in this House in the interests of the prosecution of the war. I am glad to say that not one dissenting word has come from any of my constituents. At my convention they said to me: support any and all measures as far as the prosecution of the war is concerned, irrespective of what side of the House they may emanate from. This I have done since this Parliament was formed. But having done this, I come to the point where I differ from the hon. member for Red Deer, because I feel that he who sat on this side of the House for so many years and who advocated free trade as they have it in Great Britain, now is an advocate of free trade as they have it in the Union Government. It was very noticeable a few nights ago that the member for Red Deer sat with his colleague the member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt), and these two gentlemen whispered into each other's ears like bride and groom. When the member for Red Deer said this afternoon that he felt like the
young lady, then I thought that he must be the bride and that the member for Brantford must be the groom. It was also noticeable that on that same night, before going to his sweet slumbers, the member for Brantford consulted the member for Red Deer as to whether the latter was going to speak that night; for if he was, the member for Brantford would not be able to hear the sweet sound of his voice. The member for Red Deer, however, assured the member for Brantford that he would not speak until to-dav, and the member for Brantford went home and rested. It then dawned on me, Sir, that there might be something in the report of the last caucus of the followers of Union Government as given in the Toronto Globe of March- 2. The report says:
Even more remarkable was Mr. Cockshutt's remark at the Unionist caucus when he invited Dr. Michael Clark, one of the best-known Unionist Liberals from the West, to get up on the fence with him. "You get up on the fence from your side, and I'll get on it from mine, and we will straddle it," he is reported to have said.
If the member for Brantford and the member for Red Deer are straddling the fence on the tariff question, let me assure them that the old pos'ts of that fence are rotting, and before long it will topple over, carrying with it those members on the other side of the House who are upon it. The wave of public opinion will carry it away, and these hon. gentlemen will clamber over here for safety, and without looking for the key, will be ready to knock the hinges off the door in an attempt to get away from that wave of public opinion which is so strong against any straddling of the fence at this particular time.
The hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Mclsaac) wants to know where we stand on trade questions and on other questions in this Parliament, I will speak for myself. In the first place, I commend Government for the admission into this country of free farm tractors. The member for Red Deer will not deny that the first request for free tractors emanated from this side of the House and was turned down by the gentlemen with whom he is associating himself at the present time. But public opinion, Mr. Speaker, was so strong from one end of this country to the other that before Parliament could meet in 1918 the Government by Order in Council placed farm tractors on the free list. Will the hon. gentleman deny that? Will the ]ion. gentleman deny that the first request for free tractor ditchers, in order that the lands of the producers of foodstuffs in this

country should be properly drained, emanated from this side of the House? I believe that when he spoke on that occasion he supported the proposal; yet to-day he says that there is no difference between the policies of the two parties. You may call the parties whatever you like, but the voters of Canada, whether Liberals, Unionists, farmers, labourers, or whatever they are, will have something to say as to who will be their representatives and as to what is to be the policy of this Parliament on such matters. I take exception to the assertion of the member for Red Deer that there is no difference between the two parties on the trade question. Away back in 1897, when the Liberal party came into power, that question came up and the people were consulted in open meetings throughout this-country as to what the tariff should be. The member for Red Deer will not deny that many articles were put on the free list at that time; I remember two of them particularly, hinder twine and cream separators. Cream separators were put on the free list in 1897 or 1898, and I challenge any member of this House to deny that we now have a number of the very best cream separator manufacturers producing the very best article to be had. This article has been on the free list, unprotected, from that time to the present and it has practically not advanced one dollar in price from that day to this, notwithstanding the fact that it has competed with all the cream separators that have been supplied by the greatest manufacturers in the United States. If the manufacturers can produce cream separators in this way when materials put into thetn are advancing in price, is that not an argument in favour of our having free agricultural implements? I stand for free agricultural implements and am prepared to support that principle at any time. We have great food monopolies in this country, and the only way in which food can be produced more cheaply is by getting farm implements at as low a price as possible. The Minister of-Public Works (Hon. F. B. Oarvell) speaking in Hamilton a few nights ago said that the only way foodstuffs could be reduced was by pounding down the price of wheat, while right within his hearing, right within gunshot, was the International Harvester Company, which has doubled the price of agricultural implements since the war began. As a matter' of fact, they increased the price of them the very moment that the Conservative party came into power. Let me say to the Minister of Public Works that in order 
to have cheaper foodstuffs the people must be enabled to obtain more cheaply the articles with which they produce them.
I see the hon. member for Brantford here. Let me repeat what I said at the last session of this Parliament. We have in the city of St. Thomas a concern which produces agricultural implements-ploughs, harrows, rollers, and so on-I refer to the Erie Iron Works. This firm has produced these goods at prices 25 per cent less than the figures of the price list issued by the Cockshutt Plough Company, the International Harvester Company or the Massey Harris Company. These are facts which the ex-Minister of Labour (Hon. T. W. Crothers), who ought to be familiar with the facts, will not deny. If it is alleged that that is not true, all the Acting Prime Minister has to do is to ask for an investigation before a committee of this Parliament. Does the member for Red Deer know what he is doing when he stands up and connects himself with these high protectionists at this time? He is causing the returned soldiers who are taking up farming as a profession and borrowing $2,500 from the Government, to spend a large portion, of this in unnecessary profits which the implement manufacturers are receiving.
The hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) may smile. He can, as he did the other night, fill pages of Hansard with eulogies of what our boys did at the front -for what? To produce the very condition that is going to extract unfair profits for the manufacturers of the machinery with which our boys are going to till the soil in order to produce foodstuffs to prevent the people of this country from paying extravagant prices. I say, without fear of contradiction, that while this state of affairs lasts, the Government is neglecting its duty and is not doing as the Government of the Lfnited States has done. The Government of the United States, seeing that a ring was being formed by the International Harvest Machine Company and that there was not sufficient competition, appeals to the courts and has that combine dissolved, and in that country we have to-day competition so far as agricultural implements are concerned.
Will the hon. member say from his seat in this House that the prices which are sent out by the different concerns and which are exactly the same, are prepared in separate offices, when they come out in such form; or is it not true that the three different companies know just what the prices are going to be and that the prices are ad-

vanced from time to time to suit their own wishes? I challenge contradiction in this regard, and I challenge contradiction further when I state that, when steel and iron dropped in price last January and the farmers appealed for cheaper agricultural implements in this country, agricultural implements again took an advance of, I think, ten per cent. If we are going to give a square deal to the consumers, to the men whom we are trying to locate on farms, it is for the Government to see whether the statements I am now making are right or wrong and to see that the men are not robbed nor have their money unfairly extracted from them in paying large commissions on the implements which they require to till the soil. If the Government were right at the last session of Parliament in placing at the disposal of the people of Canada 1,000 tractors at wholesale prices, they are right and justified now in giving to the men who are locating on these lands, the returned soldiers in particular, the implements they require at the very first and lowest cost, and in preventing great profits being made out of those men.
So far as the Government policy of good roads and good housing is concerned, I am heartily in accord with the policy of having the best roads and the best housing that can be given to the people of this country; but we should take this matter up very seriously, because, as the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell) stated the other night, our debt now amounts to $2,000,000,000, and we must be very careful in approaching these matters. I am willing to give my support to these measures which, I believe, will be in the best interest of the country. In passing, however, I want to say that as far as the Daylight Saving Bill, which was prepared and put through this House at the last session, is concerned, it caused great hardship and inconvenience in this country. I was absolutely opposed to it then, and if the Bill is reintroduced at this session, I shall oppose it.
With regard to the different commissions and boards which have been appointed to look after work which the members of this Government and of this Parliament should do, I want to go on record as being absolutely opposed to them, because I do not think we have ever before had a greater demonstration in this country of the uselessness, extravagance and unfairness of such boards as the Canada Food Board. The report of the Canada Food Board was tabled last week, and during the period which it covered, namely, from February 1 to December 31, 1918, a period of eleven months,
the cost to the people of Canada by way of licenses and fees amounted to over $500,000. Out of that amount, how much do you suppose, Sir, went into the treasury of this country? $39,000, the balance being for salaries, railroad and other travelling expenses of the Canada Food Board and its officials. Is this the way in which the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) is going to justify his action in remaining on the other side of the House? Is he going to allow the people to have extracted from them $500,000, $39,000 of which goes into the treasury and the balance goes for salaries and travelling expenses. This board has passed regulations which are a source of injury to the people of this country and which the people oppose most bitterly. It has passed regulations that have caused more ill feeling against the present Government than anything else has done. Think of that board costing the country thousands of dollars in salaries and its officials touring the country in Pullman cars-for what purpose? To find out who were paying too much money for their foodstuffs? No. Let us see further what they did. They passed regulations which gave to the people of the country foodstuffs that were not wholesome and which should rather have been fed to the stock throughout Canada. I am not afraid to make the statement that this has caused many diseases to break out in different sections of the country. After those diseases broke out, what happened? This great board, when smallpox and "flu" and other kinds of contagious diseases were raging in different parts of Canada, at considerable expense sent out orders: Take back your flour over 25 pounds to the dealers from whom you got it; let them dump it into the barrel and let some other person who has no disease eat it along with the germs. Take the sugar in the same way. Take back your sugar, you people, whatever you have over a certain amount and let those great patriotic societies, such as the Daughters of the Empire and the Red Cross, that are sending over little parcels of sugar to the boys at the front, who are fighting our cause, send over that sugar, let our boys get some of those germs, and let those diseases break out, and possibly have the entire army laid up, in that way, playing into the hands of the Huns. This board went on with all their extravagance at the expense of the people of this country. Let me state, for the benefit of the high protectionists on the other side of the House that they did one great thing for which we must give them credit. I notice they went into the cook-

book business. Of the cook-books which they had prepared, they sold some $7,000 worth, but it cost them some $13,000 to get those cook-books. I suppose the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) will say that we should have had protection on the cook-books so that we might then have been able to break even. That is the Way in winch this Board carried on its work, and I want to enter my protest against this useless spending of money at a time when we need money so badly and require every dollar to be guarded with the greatest care.
With regard to the Civil Service, I will tell them where I stand. I believe that the Civil Service of this country should be reduced by one-third, and I think the Government will do well to appoint a committee to see that the Civil Service was reduced by at least that amount, thus saving hundreds of thousands of dollars that is at present expended unnecessarily. The men in the Civil Service who are rendering good service to the country could then be paid proper salaries and the committee would see that money was not thrown away unnecessarily. The saving in this regard would be sufficient to pay a large amount of the pensions that we hope will be paid to our returned soldiers; or the money could be expended in giving a better rural mail service throughout this country, and in giving the men who have rendered such service a fair day's pay for an honest day's work. If there is one department of the Government that is underpaid it is the mail service, and particularly the rural mail service, and I say it is a sin and a shame, particularly as in the future many of these positions will be held by returned soldiers. I urge the Government to see that these men receive fair and even good remuneration for the work they perform.
There is another matter. In camps all over this country there are men who have reached the military age within the last year or so, and who, if released, could secure positions that are waiting for them.
I believe every member of this House has received requests for the release of these men, but the Government will not let them go. Why hold these men when there are positions waiting for them in civil life? In the city of Chatham, whose chief engineer has been overseas and rendered good service at the front for two or three years, all public works have been held up pending his return. The city did not wish to fill his position, and did not like to entrust the construction of pavements, sewers and other public works to a temporary man. The city
I Mr. McColg.]	Li. 'r ,
council on January 1 requested the Government to release Major Adams so that the public works of the city could be gone on with and employment given to the men seeking work, but nothing was done. The Minister of Militia, I believe, replied that nothing could be done. It seems ridiculous that public works of this kind should be held up by the Government's retaining the services of these men.
In conclusion, I would say that I personally am prepared to support all measures introduced in this House which I think will be in the best interests of the returned soldiers. There is nothing that the Government can do for these men that will not receive the endorsation of the great majority of the people of this country, and it is up to the Government to do something for them. If they do not the blame will lie with them, because there will be very little opposition from this side.


John Wesley Edwards: (Fron tenac): Mr. Speaker, I desire first of all to add my congratulations to those which have already so fittingly been bestowed on the mover and the seconder of the Address. Seldom, if ever, in this House has that duly been so generally approved; seldom if ever has the approval been more merited. 1 note, however, that the efforts of the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Redman) did not commend themselves entirely to the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Ped-low) who had a somewhat serious complaint to make. His complaint was that the hon. member for Calgary East knew more than he had put on the pages of Hansard. As to that, what a striking contrast was presented by the hon. member for South Renfrew, who not only placed on Hansard all he knew but very much that he only thought he knew. In this connection, I might observe that the comic effects of many of the observations of the hon. member for South Renfrew are heightened by the self-sufficiency and conceit of the artist.
I also wish to add my congratulations to those which have been bestowed upon the hon. leader of the Opposition in winning the great Liberal Free-for-All and the $7,000 attached thereto. It is remarkable what speed and endurance an old race horse will develop if he is headed towards home and a good feed of oats. I need not remind you, Sir, that Scotchmen are partial to oats, and the hon. leader of the Opposition is Scotch-plain Scotch sometimes, for he is very blunt and direct in his remarks, and at other times, when his

remarks are interspersed with humour, Scotch and soda, sometimes more Scotch than soda, and sometimes more soda than Scotch. The hon. leader of the Opposition, however, is a very worthy type of a very gallant race, and the best wish I have for him is that he may continue to fill the position of leader of the Opposition for the rest of his natural life and that his years may be very, very long. I think in expressing that wish I am also expressing what is in the best interests of Canada.
The hon. leader of the Opposition assisted by a small choir composed of the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) and the hon. member for Antigonish and Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) held a sort of revival meeting on the other side of the House a few days ago. After a few words of prayer or rather a few quotations from Scripture, which fall very frequently from the lips of the leader of the Opposition, the choir sang that old hymn: Where is my wandering boy to-night? The leader of the Opposition then proceeded to notify hon. gentlemen on this side that there was a candle in the window and that the latch string was outside. He did not state what window the candle was in, but the omission was supplied by the hon. member for Antigonish and Guysborough, who said that it was in the kitchen window. When extending an invitation to members on this side of the House to return, one would have thought that they would have illuminated the front of the house and put a service flag in the window, or at all events given some manifestations of joy to encourage the wanderers to return home. But no. They told Liberal-Unionists on this side of the House that the only way they could get back home was around by the woodshed and through the back door. They had some veal there leaning against the back fence. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Crerar) would know at once that it was only a grade, and a mighty poor one at that. However, a very pathetic appeal was made by the leader of the Opposition, and a very urgent one by the hon. member for Brome. A still more urgent appeal was made by the hon. member for Antigonish and Guysborough, who told the Liberal-Unionists on this side of the House that if they did not hurry up they would not get any veal. I have as yet seen no indications on the part of Liberal-Unionists to accept the invitation and hurry to the other side.
As the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) very properly and pointedly said: What is there to go back to? If you are looking for a similarity of ideals,
whether on trade matters or other matters,
I do not see that there is anything to cause hon. members on this side of the House to go back to the other side. Certainly so far as the war and affairs arising out of the war are concerned, I am quite confident that the Liberal-Unionists on this sid'e will find themselves in more congenial company than they would if they were to cross to the other side of the House.
It has been said by some hon. gentlemen opposite that the War-time Elections Act was simply for the winning of the election, and that the Military Service Act was for the s6me purpose. Of course, hon. gentlemen on that side are actuated by pure motives at all times, and hon. members on this side have not been so actuated. I want to take a peep at history, and not very ancient history either. In August, 1917, there was a meeting of Liberals in the city of Toronto to talk over the political situation and discuss, the possibilities of coalition and that sort of thing. They spoke very candidly one to the other, and their proceedings were reported, though they did not intend that the public should be informed of what they said. One gentleman, speaking of the Liberals as a win-the-war party said:
Win-the-war party? This is not a win-the-war party. Every gentleman here says the whole aim is to win the election. That is the policy of the party.
Another gentleman, formerly a member of this House for Glengarry, said, that as he had in his constituency both Scotch and French, he had taken the course in this House of voting one time with the Government and another time against it, for the purpose of appealing to both these sections in his county. Hon. George P. Graham, in explanation of his position said that he voted and acted as he did in the House with the knowledge and approval of his leader. He stood on the floor of this House and said that he voted for conscription in July, 1917, and advocated it, on principle, and that he would advocate it again on principle. Fancy the position of the Liberal party as represented by that expression of opinion on the part of Hon. Mr. Graham. He was voting and acting in this House with the knowledge and consent of his leader, yet voting and acting in this House in a manner directly opposed to that taken by his leader at that time. We can only come to the conclusion that in Ontario Mr. Graham was acting with the knowledge and consent of his leader in supporting conscription, while

a different policy was being supported in Quebec.	.
Another gentleman present at that meeting now occupies a seat in this House, the hon. member for North Essex (Mr. Kennedy). He said:
Like other gentlemen who have spoken I regret the diversity of opinion that exists, and I am confused on account of it. In fact for a month or more past I have been like Eliza in Uncle Tom's Cabin, floating along jumping from one cake of ice to another, and now I want to strike shore somewhere, and I want to land soon.
Well, the hon. gentleman, judging from his remarks the other night, is still floating, and on thin ice, too, and on many questions still quite a way from shore. He found fault with the polling of the soldier vote in England. But there are only two gentlemen in this House who received a larger proportion of soldier votes in England than they received in Canada, and of whom it can be said, because of that larger proportion in England, that they gained an election which they would not otherwise have gained. That is: it is only fair to assume that the Union Government of Canada would have obtained as large a proportion of soldiers' votes overseas as they obtained in Canada. If you give to them only the same proportion of soldiers' votes overseas as they received of the soldiers' votes on this side, and hand the rest of the soldiers' votes over to their opponents, there are only two seats that could have been affected adversely to the hon. members now sitting in this House. So, I think Eliza will have to jump on another cake of ice so far as this point is concerned.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Kennedy) also referred to the franchise legislation. He said that franchise legislation should be fair and just. I presume we all agree to that as a statement of principle. The only question is what a man considers fair and just. Is it fair to give the franchise to the slacker, the defaulter, the alien enemy in this country? Is it fair to place these men in the same position as men who have done their duty throughout the four and a half years of war? Is it fair to recognize in the alien enemies of this country citizens on an equal plane with those who have loyally stood by the country in its hour of need? According to the hon. member for North Essex, and several others who have spoken on that side that would be a proper course to pursue. I take issue with them on that; I say that that sort of legislation would be simply putting a premium upon treason and cowardice, it would be unfair legislation-unfair to those in this country who

faced their responsibilities as citizens and were prepared to take all the chances that went with doing their duties as citizens.
The hon. member for North Essex and several other hon. members opposite,-the hon. member (Mr. McCoig) who has just taken his seat, I believe, is one-find fault with the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) because he is not in Canada at this time. They say that the Prime Minister should be in Canada now attending to tariff matters, attending to railway matters. The hon. member for North Essex said that Canada is not concerned with the settling of Balkan boundaries nor the policing of Constantinople. That seems a strange stand for a man to take in view; of what this country fought for through four and a half years of the most terrible war the world has ever known.
Canada is not concerned in the settlement of the boundaries of the Balkan States. Is it not true that that part of Europe was a seething bed of revolution and a serious trouble for years, and that that trouble arose very largely from the unsettled conditions of the people because the. boundaries were not properly arranged and certain races found themselves under the jurisdiction of other people and rebelled against that sort of thing? If Canada has any interest in world peace, it seems to me to require no argument that she is very much concerned in seeing that there shall be a rearrangement of the boundaries of these countries which will make it impossible, as far as we can do so, for such a war to take place again. Is Canada not concerned in policing Constantinople? Is it possible that any hon. gentleman will argue that we Canadians have no concern in the fact that the Turks have murdered in cold blood over a million Armenians whose only fault was that they had accepted the Christian faith? The hon. gentleman may argue that it is more important to us in Canada to settle at once our tariff differences than to endeavour to arrange matters over there and place Turkey in such a position that she cannot in the years to come murder and mutilate, as she has done, not only during this war but for years before this war?
Mr. Speaker, 1 think we in Canada should be proud of the fact that we have a Prime Minister who is recognized by the statesmen of Britain and France as a man of superior ability, as a man possessing talents which can be of the greatest assistance in bringing about a rearrangement to make impossible the state of things which has filled every honest and decent person with horror during the last four and a half

years. The Prime Minister is a man whose soul is sick with horror at what has taken place during the last four and a half years, a man whose vision is broader than the bounds of Canada, or of the British Empire, a man who feels himself to have an interest in the whole human race and what affects the whole human race, and who is playing his part and bringing honour to this country in trying to effect a settlement which will last for all time to come and which will place these countries where they properly belong. I think the expressions which have fallen from the lips of some hon. gentlemen opposite in regard to the absence of the Prime Minister at this time do very little credit to them. The tariff can wait for a few months if need be. The Prime Minister's place at the present time, I submit, is over in Paris, giving them there the benefit of his ability in the effort to effect a settlement of this great war and bring matters to a proper conclusion.
I shall not undertake to add to what has been said already in the way of paying tribute to the achievements of our soldiers overseas. I could not hope to say anything as eloquently and as well as it has been said by many hon. gentlemen who have referred to what our soldiers have done. We are face to face now with the problem of reconstruction and the soldier enters very largely into that problem. I think I am logical in saying that, so far as the soldier is concerned, the problem of reconstruction and repatriation is greater in the constituency which has a thousand soldiers returning to it than in a constituency which has only half a dozen soldiers returning to it. There are certain constituencies in Quebec, for instance, where it will not be any problem at all. If you can judge from the number of soldiers who went from these constituencies by the soldier vote polled, then I submit the problem of repatriation, as far as they are concerned, is no problem whatever. There are several constituencies in Quebec, according to the soldier vote polled in Canada and overseas, that have only three soldiers to repatriate. Things cannot be very much disturbed in a constituency where they only have to repatriate three soldiers supposing that they have all lived through the war and returned. In the constituency of Kamouraska, for instance, there were only 15 soldier votes polled on this side of the water and overseas. Things cannot be so terribly out of tune in that part of Canada in so far as the soldier or repatriation is concerned.
I propose to place on Hansard some figures showing what various parts of Canada have done in regard to sending soldiers in this war. That is something that has not been touched on as yet and I propose to place these figures on record now. The Military Service Act came in for considerable criticism in this House although it parsed with the approval of all the provinces of Canada except one. The Government tried honestly under that Military Service Act to keep faith with the men overseas and to keep faith with them by disturbing conditions in this country as little as possible. In order not to disturb conditions more than was absolutely necessary in this country, in order to leave to farming and industrial pursuits those men that could least easily be spared, provision was made in the Military Service Act for certain exemptions and exemption tribunals were appointed. As time went on it became very apparent that the very machinery of the Act which had been provided for the purpose of retaining here those men that could least be spared was being made use of to defeat the purpose of the Act which was to get the necessary number of men to go overseas.
In that connection I may say that out of 403,135 registrations in the Dominion of Canada all but 25,508 asked for exemptions and that was pretty general in all the military districts. But I wish to point out this, and it is exceedingly significant, that those military districts that asked for the lowest number of exemptions in proportion to registrations were those military districts that had already contributed the greatest number of men, and those districts which asked for the greatest number of exemptions were the ones that had already done little or nothing. For instance, in the district of Quebec 39,351 registered, and 39,072 asked for exemptions, and if you look at the figures in connection with the enlistments up to the time of the enforcement of the Military Service Act, the enlistments from that district were the lowest of any district in the Dominion of Canada.
Well, Sir, every person knows that as time went on the Germans made their attempt to break through on the Western Front. The French line was bent back towards Paris, that part of the line held by the British was bent back towards the channel ports, and things looked very dark indeed. The Government of this country, and the Government of Great Britain and the people of France saw that every man that foul possibly be spared must go to



the Front if we wore to save the situation, and steps were taken here to cancel all exemptions; it was absolutely necessary if we were going to keep faith with the men overseas that men should be sent to support them in their efforts to maintain the position on the Western Front. Great Britain had already been drained of almost every available man, and was short of food, yet she went out and took over thirty thousand off the farm, and there was not any kick or row in the Mother Country about it.
On March 31, 1918, the number of recruits obtained from the several provinces were as follows-I will give the number of recruits in March, 1918, and also on August 15, 1918, in order to show what was done here by the Militia Department in trying to obtain the necessary help for the boys overseas. Up to March 31st, 1918, Ontario had contributed 193,689 recruits, and up to August 15th, 1918, 235,925 recruits, an increase of 42,236. Quebec had contributed on March 31st,	1918,	55,206,
and on August 15th, 71,891, an increase of 16,685, that is for the whole province. Maritime Provinces on March 31st, 1918, 45,662, and on August 15th, 1918, 56,937, an increase of 11,275. Manitoba on March 31st, MS, 64,624, and on August 15th, 1918, 72,593, an increase of 7,969. Saskatchewan on March 31st, 1918, 28,540, and on August 15th, 1918, 36,980, an increase of 8,440. Alberta, on March 31st, 1918, 38,188, and on August 15th, .1918, 44,238, an increase of 6,050. British Columbia on March 31st, 1918, 46,895, and on August 15th, 1918, 51,947, an increase of 5,062. That is to say, on the 31st of March
1918, we had 482,806 recruits, and on the 15th of August, 1918, we had 570,521, or we had added in that time 97,717. II submit to you, Sir, that these figures are creditable to the Militia Department and to the efforts of the Government of this country.
I want to carry those figures a little bit further. I want to be perfectly fair to every part of the Dominion in regard to this matter, showing what each did towards helping to win this war. I want to place these figures on record because I think they have a very direct bearing upon the question of reconstruction in this country, and they should be taken into consideration by the Government when it is formulating its plan for the expenditure of money throughout the different parts of this Dominion. If we deduct from the population of each province all Europeans, Asiatics and foreign born, except those from Belgium, France, Italy and Rumania-and I except those because I think it is only right to assume that any residents of those countries in Canada would be willing to do their part with us, and to enlist as our men were enlisting to carry on the war-if we deduct those Germans and Austrians, and so on, from the populations of the various provinces I find that it gives us this result: That out of every one thousand recruits each province should have furnished in proportion to its population as follows: Ontario 368, Quebec 275, Maritime Provinces 138, Manitoba 67, Saskatchewan 59, Alberta 47, and British Columbia 46. That, Sir, is the proportion which each province should have contributed in proportion to its population. Now I wall place on Hansard what each province did contribute as against what they should have contributed
-	No. of Enlistments.	No. that should have enlisted in proportion to population.	No. above or below quota according to population that should have been furnished by each province.	241,258 80,097	217,330	23,928	(Excess).162,407	82,310	\Below)59,206 73,434 53,765 37,666	81,498	22,292	Manitoba	39,568 27,166	33,866 26,599	(Excess).34,843	2,823	it45,146	27,756	17,390	it
I might say that these figures take us right up to the 15th of November, 1918, and that in the case of British Columbia that province was pretty nearly one hundred per cent in excess of its fair quota or proportion of population.
I want to impress on the members of the House the fact, which cannot, I think, be controverted, that had each province enlisted men in proportion to its population, Quebec would have contributed 82,310 more men than it did, the Maritime Provinces

history of the party does not show that. What was the position taken in regard to agricultural implements in 1907, for instance? The member for Kent was supporting the Liberal party at that time, cheering and hurrahing for the Liberal platform. In 1907 the question of the duty on agricultural implements came up in this House. The member for Kent was not a member of the House at that time. He came into Parliament the next year, but he came in as a strong supporter of a party which had refused in 1907 the appeal of the 'Conservatives in this House for the reduction of the duty on agricultural implements from 17i to 10 per cent. When the Fielding tariff was brought in, in 1907, the proposal was to bring the duty down to 17J per cent, and Dr. Schaffner, now Senator Schaffner, then the member for Souris in this House, moved that the duty on agricultural implements be reduced to 10 per cent. Every Conservative member in the House at that time voted for Dr. Schaffner's resolution, and every Liberal voted against it. Therefore, in so far as the tariff on agricultural implements is concerned, I think I am quite reasonable when I say that past history would encourage the hon. member for Red Deer ((Mr. Michael Clark), or any other free trader, if there is any other out-and-out free trader in this House, to hope for more from the Conservative party or Unionist party than he could expect to get from the old Liberal party.
There is another matter to which I wish to refer for a few minutes. I am sorry to have to refer to it, but I do not think that I should take my seat without making some reference to Civil Service reform. The hon. member for West. Toronto (Mr. Hocken) a few days ago brought up in this House the matter of the Civil Service and offered some criticism. I was in the House during the whole time that the hon. member made his speech, and not only did I follow him very carefully in the House, but to make certain of what he said I very carefully read his speech as reported on Hansard. I could not, however, find in the hon. member's speech a single sentence, line or word which would justify any person of accusing him of religious bigotry. He presented the matter in a moderate and fair manner. Not once in the whole course of his speech did he mention the word " religion." And yet, because his criticism of the Civil Service affected the Secretary of the Civil Service Commission, Mr. Foran, that gentleman is reported in the press the next day as saying that the remarks of the 
hon. member for West Toronto against him were actuated by religious bigotry; that the hon. member for West Toronto assailed -him, Mr. Foran, because Mr. Foran was a Roman Catholic. I repeat that from begi i-ning to end of his speech, you cannot find one word to justify that accusation by the Secretary of the Civil Service Commission. Have we come, Sir, to a state in this country that an hon, member of this House cannot, from his seat, without being characterized in the press as a bigot, criticise a civil servant who happens to be a member of the Roman Catholic church? Is that the situation with which we are face to face in Canada to-day? It looks very much like it. Not only do I resent that accusation by Mr. Foran, the Secretary of the Commission, but I resent the editorial which appeared yesterday or this morning-I forget which-in the Ottawa Journal.
I am going to refer to a case which will throw some little light on this question. I understand from the press that one of the ministers is going to refer to the Civil Service, and I am very glad to speak before he does, because this is a matter which he can add to his list, and he can give us some explanation on this as well as on the matters on which the hon. member for West Toronto touched. There appeared in the Canada Gazette on December 28 this advertisement:-
A Publicity Agent to take charge of the publicity work of the Department of Immigration and Colonization at a salary of $4,000 per annum. Candidates should possess the following qualifications:-Ability to prepare and direct newspaper, magazine and farm journal advertising campaigns, both in Canada and elsewhere, in setting forth the settlement opportunities in Canada; knowledge and experience with (a) follow-up systems, (b) the production and circulation of motion pictures, and (c) the natural resources of Canada; ability to direct lecture campaigns; a personal acquaintance with writers, publicists and organizations now dealing with the opportunities and land settlement problems of Canada.
Application forms, properly filled in, must be filed in the office of the Civil Service Commission not later than the 24th day of January.
In answer to that advertisement, I desire to place on Hansard an application made by a gentleman who seems to me to possess the qualifications called for in the advertisement. He writes as follows:-
William Foran, Esq., Secretary,
Civil Service Commission,
Ottawa.
January 24, 1918.
Sir,-I have the honour to attach herewith formal application for the position of Publicity Agent of the Department of Immigration and Colonization.

I am at present in charge of the Publicity of the Vocational Branch of this department, which involves considerable research work, and feel that I have qualifications and experience which would fit me eminently for the vacant position.
In my late appointment (prior to the war) as manager of the Copy and Art Department of the Norris-Patterson Advertising Agency, I was brought in touch with many of the leading Canadian advertisers, the preparation of whose copy was ih my hands, and the continued success of these advertising campaigns is evidence of the quality of this copy. In many cases it has been my duty to advise on and instal follow-up systems, and especially in the preparation of catalogues and booklets, my experience has been very varied, embodying, as it does, a knowledge of the technicalities of the printing and engraving industries.
As regards the Farm Press, it has been my privilege to handle a number of advertising accounts of manufacturers, appealing particularly to the farmers of Canada, and this has involved a study of farm conditions which was essential before contact with this section of the community could be made.
For the International Varnishing Company, I prepared a lecture with over 200 slides describing the winning of the raw materials in different parts of the world that composed the varnish of commerce and of the processes and manufacture of this commodity-this lecture being part of an educational campaign, directed to the retail merchants of Canada. This is directly along the lines of Cinema Publicity.
I am considered a forceful public speaker, and have had not a little experience along this line, and could adequately plan and direct such campaigns as would be desirable.
In conclusion, I would direct your attention to the fact that I have a most intimate acquaintance with Publicity in all its forms, my work in my late position calling for the origination and design of advertising publicity of every kind. This work brought me in the closest touch with the newspapers and periodicals throughout Canada, and in a large degree with the Farm Press, and my position as Editor of "Economic Advertising" gave me extended acquaintance with leading Canadian, English and American writers and publicists.
I shall be happy to wait on you at your convenience,
I have the honour to he, Sir,.
Your obedient Servant,
(Signed) Donald Tuck.
I might add to that the following partial list of campaigns handled wholly or in part by Mr. Tuck:-
The Campaign (1913) for advertising the benefits of Advertising; the Convention Campaign (1914), of the Associated Advertising Clubs of the world, E. W. Gillett Co., Limited, Ames, Holden & McCready, Pedlar People, Limited, International Varnish Company, Cudahy Packing Company, B. Greening Wire Company, American Chiclet Company, H. R. Williams Machinery Company, Canadian Shredded Wheat Company, Gidley Boat Company, Monarch Knitting Company, Steele Briggs & Company, and many others.
Mr. Tuck was notified by the secretary of the commission on February 6 that the
position had been given to Mr. R. J. E. Stead of Calgary, as the best qualified candidate. He wrote asking for further particulars and for the names of the hoard of experts or examiners to whom the secretary of the commission had alluded. That information was given. The personnel of the board of examiners is as follows:
Sir John Willison, formerly editor of the Toronto Globe and Toronto News, now Canadian representative of the London Times; P. D. Ross, editor of the Ottawa Journal; Dr. George H. Locke, Librarian of the Toronto Public Library and Associate Director of Public Information. Dr. Locke, was, unfortunately, ill and was unable to attend the meeting and his place was taken by Dr. A. D. DeCelles, Librarian of Parliament. The .Department was represented by the Acting Deputy Minister, Mr W. W. Cory.
I have nothing to say with regard to the ability of the gentlemen who composed the board of examiners who no doubt are very able men but I would direct attention to the fact that they are writers and not men whom you would naturally regard as competent to select a publicity agent. Mr. Foran in one of his letters tells this gentleman that fifteen returned soldiers were among the applicants for the position. The gentleman whose application I have just read is also a returned soldier who had been in the service three and a half years and certainly possesses to my mind the qualifications which would entitle him at least to a personal interview by the Commission. Now, Sir. I make these points: Mr. Stead was appointed on December 19,1918 and drew the salary of the position from that date. Yet the vacancy was not advertised until December 28, 1918. Now get those dates right. I say that Mr. Stead was appointed on December 19, 1918 and the advertisement appeared in the Canada Gazette- on December 28, 1918. I say further that no opportunity was given to the candidates to appear in person before the Commissioners. I say also that despite the fact that fifteen returned soldiers had put in their applications, and that one in my judgment had every qualification for the position, the Civil Service Commission disregarded the stated policy of the Government and appointed a man who was not a returned soldier. I submit further that the Board of Examiners in this case did not possess the necessary qualifications to judge of a candidate's fitness for this position. The men composing the board were literary men with little or no publicity experience. I am told that Mr. Stead has not the very wide qualifications for a publicity man called for in the advertisement, that he is a story-writer and a poet. I

complain that no opportunity was given to candidates to submit to any written or oral test, and that competition was eliminated by the absence of such a test. Now, Sir, is not a member of this House justified in criticising such a state of affairs? Mr. Stead was selected by whom? By the Civil Service Commission? Not at all. They delegated their powers to the committee I have already named. Once more I call your attention to the fact that one of the members of that committee was Mr. P. D. Boss, editor of the Ottawa Journal, the gentleman, I suppose, who wrote the editorial criticising severely and unjustly the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken). It is all right for Mr. P.'D. Ross through the columns of his paper to criticise a member of this House for daring to offer any criticism of the Civil Service Commission, because he was one of the subcommittee appointed to select one of his friends for a Government position. You can see the Ethiopian in the wood-pile there, Mr. Speaker, and you don't have to put your glasses on to see him.
I 'have not one word of adverse criticism or disrespect to offer with regard to the members of the Civil Service Commission. Two of these gentlemen I know, and have known for a number of years, and I have the highest respect for them. The other member of the Commission I do not know, but I have no reason to consider him anything else but well qualified for his position, and a gentleman. It is not the Civil Service Commission that is to. blame for the conditions that exist to-day. Who is to blame? The members of this House are to blame because we placed upon the shoulders of the Civil Service Commission an amount of work which no Civil Service Commission under the canopy of heaven could possibly do. For proof of my statement I have only to go to the commissioners themselves, who have furnished the proof over and over again by delegating to subcommittees the work which they are supposed to do. For one position I am told there were 1,300 or 1,400 applications and that a thousand or more of the applications were thrown into the waste-paper basket without ever being looked at. A subcommittee pawed over the other three hundred and made a recommendation to the Civil Service Commission, who notified the appointee that he was the lucky man. There were 62 applications for the position of superintendent of penitentiaries, and another subcommittee was appointed to look over those applications and report to 
the Commission. A subcommittee was appointed to look over the applications for publicity agent, to which I have already referred. Yet Mr. P. D. Ross, the editor of the Ottawa Journal, says that me members of this House are angry because patronage has been taken away from them, that all that the members of this House exist for is the distribution of patronage, and that now that has been taken away from them they have nothing to do. So far as I am concerned, and I believe the majority of hon. members are in the same position, I have not recommended more than half a dozen men during the whole time I have been in this House. I say that it is as ridiculous a thing as can be imagined to place in the hands of three men at Ottawa the making of all appointments to the Outside Service throughout this country.
What in the name of Heaven does the Civil Service Commission here in Ottawa know of the qualifications of a man for a fifty-dollar post office in the county of Fron-tenac? There is only one person in the county who must not even express an opinion as to those qualifications, and that is the man who represents the people of the county and is responsible to them. To talk about responsible government and then have a condition of this kind seems to me absolutely silly, absolutely ridiculous.
The hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) called attention to the fact that there is a school here in Ottawa run by a gentleman who prepares candidates for the Civil Service. I am informed that he is an intimate friend of the Secretary of the Commission. He was formerly in the public employ under the Laurier Government, and, I believe, was dismissed from his position because he was carrying on this business of preparing candidates. Later he was reinstated, and now holds his position in the Civil Service and makes use of that position to canvass around the departments to get persons to attend his school where they are fitted for the Civil Service, and they never fail. I trust the gentleman will appreciate the ad. I am giving him here to-night. I submit that this is a state of affairs which justifies the hon. member for West Toronto in bringing the matter to the attention of the House. And once more I protest as a member of this House against the attitude of the Secretary of the Civil Service Commission in speaking as he did of the hon. member for West Toronto without any warrant for doing so. I want to express my disapproval of and resentment at the attitude of the Ottawa Journal in its editorial

columns, condemning every member of this House in regard to patronage, and particularly the hon. member for West Toronto, especially in view of the fact that the editor of the Journal was one of the men acting as a sub-committee in making these appointments of which we have just right to complain.
We have been told that old conditions have passed and that we enter now upon a new political era in the Dominion of Canada. I believe that to be true, and I believe that it is a good thing for Canada that it is true. Our politics, from Cbnfedera-tion down to the present time, have been largely a matter of man-worship. Canada had in its public life two of the most remarkable characters that ever graced the life of any country, Sir John Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier. These men by their personality added to their superior talents drew men to them; their word was law. I am free to confess that, as a lifelong Tory, I used to think that when Sir John Macdonald expressed an opinion on any subject, that settled it-it was no use to debate it further. And I venture to say that there are men in this House to-day whose regard for the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier was so great that they paid equal deference to his judgment. This had the effect of suppressing individuality. One of the things that will come out of this war for Canada is that men who sit in this House, from now on, are going to express more their individual opinion than they ever did before. And it is a good thing for the Dominion of Canada that it should be so. I hope to goodness we shall never again have in this Dominion men who are possessed of the wonderful magnetism possessed by the two great leaders who occupied the political stage in this Dominion for so many years. Whether hon. gentlemen opposite believe me or not, I think they will find that men not only in this House but throughout this country are supporting Union Government not only because Union Government has justified its existence, and justified it amply, but because they recognize in this Union Government and this Union party a breaking away from those hard and fast political lines with which, in their soul, they did not agree.
Now, I wish to say a word in regard to the tariff. I doubt very much if this is an opportune time for a thorough revision of the tariff. I stated in this House last session that I did not believe there was in Canada at that time a man who could state what the fiscal policy of this Dominion should be after the war; that after the war
we should have to arrange our fiscal policy to meet changed conditions. It seems to me that in the course of the next two or three months, or perhaps in less time than that, there will be such radical changes in transportation rates and in the prices of commodities that we shall be in a better position to form an opinion on tariff questions than we are now, when prices, transportation rates, and other elements in the problem are in a state of flux. Hon. gentlemen opposite seem to speak as if the one only thing upon which parties can be based in this House is the fiscal policy. I venture to suggest that there are problems facing this Dominion of far greater importance than the immediate arrangement of our fiscal policy. I have always been a strong protectionist. I have no apologies to make for that; whether I am right or whether I am wrong, I have been sincere and conscientious in my belief. But, speaking as an Ontario man and one who has been a strong protectionist, I am prepared to go a long wqy in revising my views on tariff matters if by so doing we can keep together the people of this country, who, it seems to me, have got to keep together if we are to solve the problems with which our country's future is bound up. If we can get together by a compromise on tariff matters, there are other matters, such as putting the foreigners of this country where they properly belong, which are more important, in my opinion, than the immediate fixing of the tariff and the settlement of the question whether the duty on a given article shall be fifteen per cent or seventeen and a half per cent.
Before taking my seat I want to say just a word in regard to defaulters and slackers, and the way they have been treated in this country. I have no sympathy to waste on the man who is behind prison bars to-day for being a deserter or defaulter under the Military Service Act. But, Mr. Speaker, I protest very strongly against an Ontario man who is charged with desertion, or being a defaulter under the Military Service Act, being condemned to imprisonment for one, two, three, four or five years, when a defaulter in Quebec gets off with a fine of $5, $25 or $50. In my judgment, the placing of these defaulters in the penitentiaries and jails of the country is a mistake. They should be punished, but it seems to me they should be placed in internment camps, and the form of punishment I would impose on them would be to take from them the franchise. If they have refused, as they have, to do their duty in the nation's crisis, they should not expect to exercise the

privilege of the franchise. I will tell you why I object to placing these men behind prison bars. They have been guilty of a breach of the Military Service Act. You take a man and place him in prison or in the penitentiary. Apart from the fact that he has not responded, as he should have responded, to the service of his country, he has shown no criminal instincts whatever. Is it a wise thing to take a man who has given no evidence of criminal instincts and put him in prison along with men steeped in crime? Is that wise from the national standpoint? What chance has that man to come out after two, or five years' incarceration alongside of the worst criminals the country may have produced and play the part of a man? For that reason, and not because I think they should be exempt from punishment, I believe it is a mistake to place these men behind prison bars in our penitentiaries and jails.
In conclusion, let me say that the men on this side of the House, whether Liberal or Conservative, in supporting Union Government, had to decide whether party or national interests should be paramount. There are plenty of big problems in this country to be solved. The motives that actuated the men on this side of the House in the last election should actuate them in the future, and their principal idea should he not the good of the party, whether Liberal, Unionist or whatever it may be, but the good of Canada. There should be sufficient independence and patriotism in every one of us to express his. honest convictions on the various matters that come before us and do his utmost to solve them in the best interests of the country. That should be the aim of each and all of us, and I am sure that it is the aim of most of the members, at least, of this House.


Mr. LUCIEN CANNON (Dorchester):: Mr. Speaker, nothing, I believe, can be added to the completeness, the nobleness or the unanimity of the tribute that has been rendered by the state, by the church, and by the people of this country to our revered leader, Sir Wilfrid Laurier. May I be permitted, nevertheless, to add a few words of loving admiration. It was my good fortune to know this great statesman in my boyhood days at Arthabaska. It was my good fortune to be brought up within the magnetic spell of his great personality. I have experienced the kindness of his heart, I have appreciated the loftiness of his mind, I have enjoyed the benefit of his paternal solicitude.

His life, Mr. Speaker, has been a striking example of disinterested patriotism. His career has been a continuous struggle towards national unity. His death is a great national loss and his memory will be, I am sure, a guidance and a comfort to all Canadians. May the people of this country never forget the ideals and the principles to which our great chieftain devoted the unceasing labour of his lifetime-liberty and freedom; respect for duly constituted authority; religious and racial tolerance among fellow-men ; generous co-operation of effort towards the welfare of our common country. May the sons of Canada reap the bountiful crop whicli the gifted, the great Canadian has sown among difficulties, among troubles and, very often, among bitter fights. There is an inspired legend of the Middle Ages which tells us that when great men pass away God makes their souls stars in the heavens. If that be true, very soon a new constellation will arise in our noithern sky shedding forth rays of golden hope on those whom the great Canadian that we loved so much has left behind to continue his noble work.
The hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) has made a speech which contains many good things and I wish particularly to congratulate him on the moderation of his feelings and sentiments to-night. The hon. gentleman has spoken of the Civil Service Commission. He has attacked the Government, he has attacked the commission, and he has complained of the secretary of the commission. I hold no brief to defend the Government or the commission, or the secretary.
I hope that some member of the Government will do that for me. The hon. member for Frontenac has spoken of defaulters, and according to him defaulters should not be sent to jail. I agree with this statement, and I think that any member in this House who wants to promote the welfare of this country, and to protect our young men, will also agree with the hon. gentleman. Mr. Speaker, in connection with this matter, the member for Frontenac went back to his old habits for a while, and complained that in the province of Quebec the defaulters were not dealt with as severely as they should be. Now, there occurred in the city of Quebec an incident in connection with trials of defaulters, and a long correspondence has appeared in the papers between Mr. Justice Langelier and the Deputy Minister of Justice, Mr. Newcombe. I wish to remind the House that in con-

nection with this incident and this correspondence it has been proven beyond a doubt that Judge Langelier acted according to the instructions he received from this Government. First, Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Minister of Justice attacked Mr. Justice Langelier and said that he had acted contrary to law, and, after an exchange of various telegrams and several letters, the former had to apologize to Judge Langelier. Therefore I wish to say to the hon. member for Frontenac that I do not wish to discuss whether a man should be fined $50, or $100, or $200. T wish to tell the hon. gentleman, who has more influence with the Government than I have: If you want to have justice given, as justice should be given, to the defaulters, do not have your Deputy Minister of Justice send down instructions, which afterwards have to be denied and annulled by Order in Council.
The hon. member for Frontenac made a comparison that he should not have made, if he is really animated by the sentiments that he expressed at the end of his speech, between the province of Quebec and the other provinces as to their contribution in men during the great war which has just ended. 'I do not know from where the hon. gentleman has taken his figures, I do not know if the figures which he quoted were given by the Bureau of Public Information, but if those .figures are as reliable as the other information given by that bureau they certainly do not show exactly what the different provinces of this Dominion have done. But, Mr. Speaker, is it not time for the men of this country, when they consider the problems awaiting to be dealt with, to lay aside their provincial outlook, to lay aside their provincial prejudice and to look at these questions from a national viewpoint. We in our province have never asked if the province of Ontario has done its duty, we have never asked if the province of Prince Edward Island has supplied a hundred or a thousand men, we have never asked if the province of British Columbia has done more than the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, but we do know that Canada has done nobly and we are proud of it. And moreover, Mr. Speaker, there are certain other things we do know in our province. We know that many homes are mourning for the loss of dear sons; we know that many women have become widows, and we know that many girls are mourning for boys to whom they were engaged. We know that many of our boys are maimed and crippled, and we know that our boys of the
22nd Battalion have done, if not better, at least as well as any other battalion in Canada. Mr. Speaker, in concluding these few remarks with reference to the speech of the hon. member for Frontenac, I wish to add this: Last year I expressed my opinion of discussions of that kind. I do not wish to reiterate what I then said, but may I ask that we once for all avoid these discussions that are of a nature calculated to lower the level of parliamentary debate and to shorten the radius of our political insight and perception. Let us be Canadians, let us according to the constitutional spirit of our institutions, represent not merely one county, not merely one province, but represent Canada from the Pacific to the Atlantic. Then on both sides of this House people will have understood their duty toward their common country. Ontario and Quebec will no more be separated, the provinces of Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia will no more be western and eastern provinces, but all the provinces will be component parts of a great whole, and Canada will have reached the stage which Sir Wilfrid Laurier worked to achieve and become a nation of free institutions and a nation proud of its Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, the speech from the Throne mentions different matters, and I think I can classify them under three heads: First, International; second, Imperial, and third, National. As regards International matters, my hon. friend from Kamouraska (Mr. E. Lapointe) to-day laid down principles of international policy that ought to be carried out by any government that wishes the improvement of our international relations. I will not repeat what the hon. member said; but may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if it is not time to-night for the members of this House to request the Government to state what our delegates and representatives at the Paris Conference are doing? What information have * we got, what reliable information have we received, since the Peace Conference was opened? We see by the papers one day that Sir Robert Borden has claimed for Canada the status of full nationhood. We see another day that Sir Robert Borden, from his seat at the Peace Conference has suggested that the Allies should enter into negotiations with' the various factions in Russia. We see again that Sir Robert Borden has been meeting the different trade commissions representing neutral and allied countries; but, Mr. Speaker, all the information we get is gathered from the newspapers, and I say that if this Par-

liament is a representative parliament, as it should be considered to be, we are entitled to be informed officially of what is transpiring, and not have to rely upon hearsay information taken from the press. The Acting Premier has mentioned that Canada should receive an indemnity. Well, that hon. gentleman is in a much better position than I am to deal with a question of such gravity and seriousness. But in view of what we hear and what we read, the Acting Prime Minister can hardly ask the people of this country to believe that an indemnity will be paid to Canada, for it seems to be settled that we are to receive no indemnity. Indemnity for what? Indemnity for the damage caused to our country by the war? That damage is very slight. Fortunately for us, the war has hut slightly affected our country so far as material damage is concerned. Shall we he paid back every cent that we spent on this war? We do not know. The Government has not said anything in connection with it; our Prime Minister has made no official declaration; we are in utter darkness in this matter as we are in all other matters connected with these conferences. Is this the way to treat Parliament in regard to problems of that character? I say, Mr. Speaker, that in this respect the Government is not treating the representatives of the people as they should be treated.
I saw the other day in one of the newspapers that it was intended to destroy the German fleet which had surrendered. In this connection I would offer a suggestion. If we are not to have a money indemnity; if we are not to be paid back any of the money which has been disbursed by Canada in connection with the war, why should Canada not receive a number of those ships? It is proposed that those ships shall be sunk in mid-ocean. I do not see why such action should be taken. Are the shipbuilding interests behind this move and behind the articles which have appeared in the press in this connection? I do not know, but I do think that it would be most unreasonable to sink all those ships and thus render them absolutely worthless. Is the Government going to take a stand on this question? If they do not, what will the Liberals say who fought for the Canadian navy advocated by the Liberal party in 1911? What will the present ministers who supported Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his naval policy say when the question comes up before Council? Will the Prime Minister approve the sinking of the ships so that we shall not have a Canadian navy for the de-
fence of our coasts? Because Sir Robert Borden was always opposed to such a navy; he thought it nobler for Canada to pay money than to build ships to defend her own coasts.
The member for Kamouraska (Mr. E. Lapointe) mentioned the proposed League of Nations. I do not wish to take up the time of the House in discussing that matter, but if Canada is to be a party to the League of Nations, Canada should enter that league as a nation. Can we be a party to the League of Nations; can we assume the obligations; can we bind ourselves to such a league, and yet not be absolutely free to decide our own policy in regard to international questions? Mr. Speaker, this is a very important matter, and I have no doubt that this Government has given to it the same consideration that it has given to all the matters connected with the Peace Conference at Paris.
As regards imperial matters, Sir Robert Borden left us last November. Last summer he went over to England, and the year previous he also went over. Since then we have been told that our status in the British Empire has undergone a considerable change. What that change is, what its nature or extent, we do not know. Again I say that this House is entitled to an explanation and to full information, and I hope thafr the Government will furnish it within .a very short time. But I think that both sides of the House will agree on one point in connection with imperial relations, and it is this: the old colonial days are gone. We are no more a colony. We can now say that we are a nation and as such have a right to conduct our affairs on an equal footing with the Mother Country, England. Of course, what I am saying now may be qualified as disloyal. I will remind the members of this House of what happened in 1867 at the meetings of the Canadian representatives in London before the drafting of the British North America Act. At that meeting Sir John A. Macdonald, the leader of the Tory party in Canada at that time, whose memory is rightly dear to every true Conservative in the country, suggested that Canada be described not as the Dominion of Canada, but. as the Kingdom of Canada. Mr. Speaker, if such was the opinion in 1867 of the man who was shortly to become Prime Minister of Canada, I think that all members of the House, especially the present Prime Minister, should hold the same opinion and see that we be no longer treated as an ordinary small colony and that we be given all the

rights and privileges of a nation. The British Empire, according to a happy expression that has been used of late, should be not only the Mother Country and her colonies, but a League of Nations in itself.
As regards our relation to England, I feel, representing a constituency in the province of Quebec, that it is good for the province of Quebec that Canada remain as it is to-day, a part of the British Empire, because the great protection that we have as a minority in this country is the protection of the British flag. If we cease to be a part of the British Empire, where shall we be? Shall we become independent? Independence is the dream of every young nation; but are we ready for independence? Could we carry the burdens of independence? Would our financial condition enable us to become an altogether free nation? I submit, Mr. Speaker, that Canada is not yet ripe for independence.
But another and much greater .danger than any other that has been mentioned in the press or in this House, is the danger of annexation to the United States. I am against, annexation to the United States, because I believe Canada should maintain her British institutions and also that the Canadian nation should remain a nation of itself. I call the attention of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) to what I am now going to say. His press agents, his censors, have been very busy reporting what the President of the Council has done in Great Britain or elsewhere. The Bureau of Public Information has also been very busy in telling us of different things that have been done by the Government or of different other things that might have been done or will be done by the Government. But instead of having a subsidized press for self-glorification, the Gov-enrment of this country ought to have a stricter and closer control of the moving pictures shown in this Country. If we go into moving picture theatres, we see nothing but American pictures, nothing but the glorification of the American flag. And if there is an ximerican feeling in this country, if there is a sentiment favourable to annexation, the Government of this country is partly responsible for it, because proper control and supervision are not exercised by the Government. I remember, during the war, the censors had cut from the newspapers insignificant bits of news; but if we go into a theatre in Ottawa, or Montreal, or Quebec, we shall see there pictures of such a nature as to make the young men of this country believe that the United States is by far superior to Canada
and a far greater country than England herself. The President of the Privy Council should be more loyal and patriotic and should attend to this.
I do not wish to detain the House very long; but, as a Liberal of old standing, I would like to say a few words in regard to the actual situation of affairs in Canada. When I arrived at the House of Commons last year, I was told by members sitting on the other side that we were not to discuss sucb and such a matter because the war was on. The boy's -were in the trenches, the country was in danger, and we had to keep silent and united. This year the war is over. This 'Government was made for the" sole purpose of winning the war, and I remember declarations of Liberal-Unionist members of the Cabinet to the effect that the very moment peace was declared, they would walk out of the Cabinet presided over by a leader in whom they said they had no confidence. To-day the war is over; the armistice is signed; hostilities have ceased; but I see with great amazement and surprise, my good friend, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) still sitting in this House as a Cabinet minister. What is the reason? " Win the war " was the slogan last year. This year it is " Reconstruct Canada."


Ernest Lapointe: By doing nothing.


Lucien Cannon: There is plenty of reconstruction to be done in Canada, because I must admit that this Government has done plenty of destruction. But in my own modest and limited experience, the man who has done the damage is' not as a rule the man to repair it. The argument brought forward this afternoon by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) would be good if the situation existing in the world to-day was new; but, there have been wars before, there have been reconstruction periods before, and history is there to show us what was done. The hon. ministers will be surprised to know that there was living in England a gentleman who was Prime Minister while England was fighting Napoleon. There was in those days no cry of win-the-war in order to form a Union Government and stifle freedom. Government was carried on according to the old constitution of England, according to the usual lines. The war was won; the reconstruction period ensued; party government was continued, and what happened? Was England ruined? No, England saw an era of development without any precedent. Not only that, but after those exhausting wars carried on by

Englancf* through a period of twenty-five years, party strife was kept up and political liberty flourished in England as never before. We saw, for instance, carried through the Houses of Parliament that great Bill of liberty and justice, the Bill of Catholic Emancipation. Later on-and this reminds me of what my hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) said a few minutes ago, namely, that the tariff should be left alone-after those wars, wars that had been fought by England with the energy which always belongs to England, tariff questions were brought to the front. We saw the Manchester school preaching free trade. The Corn Laws were repealed Free trade was established in England. Moreover, the whole basis of representation in Parliament was changed. The Reform Bill was passed. It was in the periods immediately following great wars that England went through that political development to which Englishmen owe to-day their prosperity, their liberty and the stability of their institutions.
But a more recent example may be quoted. I draw the attention of hon. members of tins House to the situation which existed in the United States after the Civil war. During the reconstruction period was there a cessation of political strife? No, government was carried on after the war as it had been carried on before and during the war. Party government was considered the best. In those days the man who had guided the neighbouring republic through the terrible war, was stricken down. Abraham Lincoln died [DOT] when his talents were most needed, but his party remained, his party carried on the Government of the United States, and the trouble that was experienced in the United States at that time was trouble caused by politicians who went into the Southern States and tried to do what this Government did last year, namely, to take away the franchise from citizens who were entitled to it. It was only when that exceptional condition of things was removed and the normal state of affairs was re-established in the Southern States that the real peace existed and has existed in the United States ever since. If England after the great war against France and the United States after the great Civil War were able to carry on party government, and carry it on successfully, history disproves the argument brought forward by my hon. friends opposite to the effect that reconstruction necessarily means a period when political hostilities should cease; their argument is not sound at all.

The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark), the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Galder), and other former Liberals now sitting on the other side of the House have told us they are still Liberals and we cannot put them out of the party. I would say to our friends opposite that I have not the authority or any intention of doing any such thing. Two years ago a great issue arose in this country. Many Liberals in all honesty left their old leader, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and supported the present Government. Some of them now sitting in the House often said last year: "We cannot vote against this Government. We have to support it because we want to win the war." That object has now been attained, and any Liberal on the other side of the House who wishes to remain a Liberal must now show that he is honestly supporting a Liberal policy and believes the policies he is supporting to be so.
I now come to the question, Is the present Government a Liberal Government? I answer without any hesitation whatsoever that not only is it not a Liberal Government, it is not even a Tory Government; it is worse than that; it is a mixture of both without being anything of either. The ministers call themselves members of a union or coalition Government. Coalition Government can only be had by compromise; it can only live by compromise, and it can only work through compromise. And what is compromise? Compromise is too often but the sickly offspring of ill-mated principles. That is the kind of government we have to-day, and I say to our Liberal friends on the other side: You may honestly and sincerely have supported that Government in order to win the war, but to-day, if you are Liberals, you cannot support it any longer.
This Government by its formation showed that it was a Tory Government, and a Tory of the worst kind. It was born of the union of three elements: first, materialism in its lowest form-Sir Joseph Flavelle, the bacon king; second, perverted spiritualism, professionalized religion, subsidized self-glorification, and, last, but believe me, Sir, not least, Sir Clifford Sifton, that brazen timeserver, whose political ancestors can be retraced only to the darkest recesses of the history of England when jobbery was an art and treason a career. The present Union Government is the union of these three elements, and I appeal to any honest Liberal in this country: Can you look upon the

product of such a union without disgust and repulsion?
What kind of administration has this Government given? The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell), who formerly led the Liberal party in the province of Ontario,-successor to Sir Oliver Mowat and that line of great Liberals in the province of Ontario who thought that in Canada the ideals of Liberalism should be followed and fought for,-this man now sits on the treasury benches, and what administration does he support? How can he claim to be a Liberal when he supports a Government that has taken away the freedom of the Press? I speak to-night in this House, and representatives of the newspapers are in the Press gallery listening to me, but to-morrow I am sure that no part of my speech will appear in the newspapers they represent. Why? Because most of those men are paid not to inform their readers, hut to misinform them, and they have been doing that for the last two years. They say that the President of the Privy Council looks after that, but I don't believe it. They have gone further, and taken away the freedom of the Bench. If there is one thing that the Liberal party have always fought for, it is honest justice, but this Government has tried to prostitute justice in this country. Courts have been given orders that if cases of such and such a nature come before them for decision, judgments are to be given in such and such a way, or else the judge was liable to fine or imprisonment. Are we living in Russia or in Prussia? The President of the Privy Council, a former leader of the Liberal party in Ontario, has travelled in Europe, so perhaps he will let me know. This Government have taken away the freedom of the Press, they have taken away the freedom of the Bench, but more than that, they have taken away the freedom of Parliament. The war is over now, and yet while this House is in session the Government is still taking advantage of the War Measures Act to pass Orders in Council against every principle of British justice.
I see the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) listening to my argument. He used to be a Liberal, an(d I hope he still is one. I am sure he was not present at the Council table when that Order in Council was passed, with retroactive effect, providing for the punishment of those who have already appeared before tribunals and been convicted or acquitted.
Do you know, Mr. Speaker, how far back we must go in the history of England to find an example of such behaviour? You have
to go away back to the time of Charles I, when the Earl of Strafford was beheaded by virtue of a law having retroactive effect as regards criminal offences. This Government has gone back three hundred years for its precedent. But there are " Liberals " in that Government who have declared that we cannot put them out of the party. It is not very hard to put out of the Liberal party men who have acted as these people have acted for the last year and a half.
I submit to the Liberals on the other side of the House that legislation by Order in Council, freedom taken from the press and the bench, the oppressive acts of labour- these are not acts of Liberalism. When the labouring people of this country are told by the Minister of Public Works that they cannot claim their just rights, but must choose between jail and a military uniform, where are we living? Is it Canada?
If the Liberals on the other side, including those in the Cabinet, claim that this Government should be-supported on its administration, what about the programme set forth in the speech from the Throne? All the great men who have been leaders of the Liberal party-Blake, Laurier and all the rest-have always fought for provincial rights. Liberalism has always respected the privileges and liberties of the provinces and insisted that they should be protected. But this Government, which has the support of some Liberals, is taking a position the very opposite to that supported by Liberals in the past. Education is a subject that is left to be managed by the provinces, but this Government announces Bills on the subject of technical education. As the ex-leader of the Liberals in the province of Ontario did not leave the Cabinet, I am not surprised that the speech from the Throne runs to war. Prohibition is another question on which the present Government is aiming at the destruction of provincial autonomy. My stand on this question is very simple. I say that this question should be settled by the provinces. But if the Federal Government wishes to pass legislation in connection with prohibition, let us have no hyprocrisy about it. In this country, in the province of Ontario, people now are not rated according to the money they have in the bank, but they say of a man, " He has so many cases of Scotch in his cellar." I tell the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) that this situation has to cease. If we are to have prohibition let us have a law of such a nature that every man must, within six months of the passing of the law, declare on oath what quantity of liquors he

may have in his house, so that we may know.
The speech from the Throne foreshadows another measure. Possibly we may find out once for all whether the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Crerar) is a Liberal or not, and whether the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark) is a Liberal or not. The Speech announces a Franchise Bill. Two years ago the elections of this country were stolen by means of a Franchise Bill put through this Parliament by the Borden Government. Are we going to have another steal? Will the Liberals who sit on that side of the House protest against such a measure, or will they accept it? The hon. Minister (Mr. A. K. Maclean) who represents the city of Halifax, a few years ago said that the Franchise Bill was a "nameless monster." That "nameless monster" brought him into this House. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell) said that it was " iniquitous legislation without precedent in any parliament." He was elected by acclamation. In this House what we want is justice. Let us have justice from the so-called Liberals if they are Liberals. If we are to have an election fight, let it be a real fight, and let not the Government steal the election as the last one was stolen. Speaking even more seripusly let me say this:	The
Minister of Public Works grew very indignant about Bolshevism. As Macaulay put it the only cure for the evils of newly-acquired freedom is freedom. I go further and say that what creates revolution is the love of liberty in the hearts of people who want to live freely and are denied that right. We of the Liberal party on this side of the House represent the men who built up Canada. If in this country we had had only Tories, Canada, politically speaking, would have been in the same state in which it was when the Family Compact ruled. Our forefathers fought and died for our constitutional liberties, and they secured those liberties for the people. Will their children to-day, through want of Liberalism, through want of courage, through want of national pride, cast off our common heritage?
Our boys fought at the front. They have written in the history of Canada the proudest pages that we can read. The name of Canada is known all over Europe, and when a battle had to be fought and the b'est soldiers were to be brought forward, the British command always thought that the honour of the Empire was in safe hands when entrusted to our soldiers. Will these soldiers who have fought on the other side, soldiers who have shed their blood, soldiers [Mr. Cannon.)
who have sacrificed everything that was dearest to them, come back to this country to find that Canada is deprived of the freedom that they have given to Europe? Let Canadians be true to the great leaders of the past, William Lyon Mackenzie, Papineau, Macdonald, Mowat, Laurier; let their spirit prevail in our council and then the living will be worthy of the illustrious dead.
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Maclean, the debate was adjourned.
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Maclean, the House adjourned at -10.55.
Friday, March 7, 1919.


[Stage Direction]
The House met at Three o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Report of the work of the Department ol Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment (Invalided Soldiers Commission) to March 31, 1918, with appendix to June 22, 1918.-Mr. Hugh Clark.
Orders in Council with reference to the work of the Department of Agriculture since the last session of Parliament.-Hon. Mr. Crerar.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I served notice upon the Acting Minister of Justice (Hon. Arthur Meighen) that I wished to bring a matter to his notice to-day. I shall read the following letter dated at Winnipeg on March 4th, 1919, a copy of which, I understand, has been sent to the Acting Prime Minister:
To Organized Labour, Greetings:
At the regular meeting of the party in session February 26th, the question of forbidden literature and the case of J. H. Lewis, in particular, under sentence at Prince Albert, was taken up and dealt with and the executive instructed to take immediate action and use every effort to bring about the release of all citizens sentenced, and prevent any further prosecutions under this Order in Council.
The following resolution has been wired to acting Premier Sir Thomas White:
Be it resolved that the Winnipeg and District Branch of the Dominion Labour Party unreservedly condemns the savage sentence imposed at Prince Albert on J. H. Lewis for having forbidden literature, and demands immediate abolition of laws and Orders in Council which make possible such outrages on personal freedom ; demands release of all citizens sentenced thereunder, and warns the Government that the persistence of such violations of democratic principles in face of repeated protests is provocative of violence. A prompt and specific statement of Government's intention in the matter is requested.

Be it resolved that a copy of this resolution, he sent to all branches of the party, also to the Winnipeg Trades and Labour Council with a request for co-operative action. That copies also be sent to the Minister of Justice and the Hon. 1). r>. McKenzie, leader of the Opposition; to the Saskatoon Trades and Labour Council, and to the three local daily newspapers and the Western Labour News.
That failing a satisfactory reply within seven days from the above date, the executive committee be called at once to take such steps as may appear necessary to carry out the instructions of the party as contained in the resolution passed at the last general meeting of the party.
Trusting this will meet with your immediate attention, on behalf of the party.
From Tours fraternally,
G. Barlow, Secretary.
A telegram to the same effect was also received to-day. This appears to be a serious matter, and I should like to know whether there is to be any immediate relief of the situation.


Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Acting Minister of Justice):: About a week ago J. H. Lewis,-of Saskatoon, I think, not Prince Albert,-was found guilty before Magistrates Smith and Elliot, of that city, of having in his possession banned literature, to wit, " War-What For," and " The Melting Pot," both of which publications are, under censorship regulations, prohibited. Lewis was, I am informed,-of this I am not sure, but I am tolerably certain,-at the time an employee of the Post Office Department. He pleaded guilty before those magistrates and, upon his own admission of guilt, was sentenced to a fine of $2,000, I think, and to three years' imprisonment, so the reports that reach us say. Application by telegram was sent on behalf of Lewis for clemency and new trial. Many telegrams have been received, some simply demanding a new trial, and only two, I think, asking for clemency. The powers of the Crown in this regard are, of course, ample so far as clemency is concerned, but as to a new trial, which is the chief demand, our powers are confined to the provisions of section 1022 of the Criminal Code, and may only under that section be exercised-when on a perusal of the case the Minister of Justice believes that the person should not have been convicted. In view of the fact that he pleaded guilty there would seem to be little prospect that that power could be exercised at law in this case. In so far as it is an application for clemency, it is at present under the consideration of the Solicitor General, who has charge of such matters. I believe at the moment that further particulars have been requested
from the solicitors acting for Lewis, and also fuller reports from the magistrates.



FURLOUGHS IN FRANCE FOR CANADIAN SOLDIERS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. A. T. LEGER (Kent, N.B.):: I desire to direct the attention of the Government to a matter of importance as set forth in a letter written by a Canadian soldier in England and published in L'Acadien, a French paper published in Moncton, N.B. I have translated the letter into English in order that it may be better understood, and I will read the translation.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Do I understand that the hon. member desires information from the Government on a matter of importance?


Auguste Théophile Léger: I desire to put a question to the Government on a matter of importance. The letter is as follows:
Knotz, Ash., Eng., February 15th, 1919.
*Ml-, the Editor of L'Acadien:-I do not believe I am a grumbler, but when it comes to injustice committed1 towards the French Canadian soldier, I cannot do otherwise than indicate the facts to L'Acadien which is ever ready to defend our rights. Perhaps I will be able to call the attention of some members of Parliament to the injustices which are done to us in the Canadian Army, and have them claim from the authorities the justice and British fair play for their fellow-countrymen.
I understand, by the English papers, that the Canadian troops in France have crossed to England where they will have a leave of eight days to visit their relatives and friends, before coming to Canada. But the French Canadian soldier who asks for transportation to see the land of his ancestors In France, to spend a few days with some friends he has known in his mother country, or even the Canadian soldier who has chosen a lifetime companion amongst the good girls of France, sees himself refused the privilege of going once more into the country for the defence of which he has sacrificed everything. It is said that the transportation is difficult.
Is that fair tpliay, especially when a great number offer to pay their expenses? There is an order according to the Canadian soldiers who have relatives in England, wives, mothers, daughters, the privilege of bringing to Canada the said relatives at the expense of the Canadian Government, the soldier having only to notify the military authorities of the fact. That is also very well. But why is it that the same privileges are being refused to the French Canadian soldiers who have relatives in France?
I know that my assertions are true, such privilege having been refused to a soldier.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. I am unable to follow the reading of the letter as carefully as I would wish, but I have followed it suf-

ficiently to be able to say that if any meaning is to be taken from it, it involves an attack on the Government for its policy in respect to the treatment of soldiers. In no case would that be permissible on the Orders of the Day. There is some question as to how far an hon. member should go in laying the ground for a question, but certainly the hon. member is not in order in reading a letter of that character which involves practically an attack upon the policy of the Government. If he wishes to direct a question to the Government, it seems to me he ought to be able to summarize the complaint or to put it in the form of a question.


Auguste Théophile Léger: My question is whether the Canadian soldier, before returning to Canada from England, has the privilege to go back to France on a visit.
Major-General MEWBURN (Minister of Militia):	I think I can answer the question of the hon. gentleman, and I wish to thank him for his courtesy in sending me a copy of the letter he has just read, which I got only a few moments ago. It appears to be a complaint from a young French-Canadian soldier who was in England, and I may say that I have every sympathy with this young man when he says in his letter that he desires to revisit France for the purpose of visiting the girl who is his choice amongst the good girls of France as his life-time companion.


Samuel Hughes: Send him back at once.
Major-General MEWBURN: In that letter he says that he understands the Canadian troops have returned to England. That is not quite correct. The Third Division has returned to England * and part of it is on the ocean now homeward bound. In the first instance, it was expected that the Canadian Corps would embark from a French port direct to Canada. That was found impossible for various reasons which I shall be glad to explain to the House later on. Since the armistice, I understand that as regards the troops in England, before embarkation, the men on application have been given a short furlough or leave. I know that the difficulties of transportation across the channel are very acute owing to demobilization and every discouragement is given to men wishing to return to France. This man does not say which unit he is with. If he was with the celebrated 22nd in France, as I presume he was, I understand certain leave was given to that unit in France, and I understand the 22nd Bat-

talion is still in France. I have no personal knowledge of men who have made application being refused permission to return to France on furlough; but if the hon. member so desires, I shall be very glad, if he will give us fuller particulars in regard to this young man and the unit he is with, to pass the information to the Overseas Minister.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of Mr. D. L. Redman (Calgary East), for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, resumed from Thursday, March 6.
Hon. A. K. MACLEAN:: Mr. Speaker, I intervene in this debate primarily for the purpose of making some observations in respect of the statements made a few days ago by the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) in reference to the Civil Service Commission and its work. This debate has been a very long and interesting one, interesting because of the many subjects dealt with by the various speakers and also because of the unfettered expression of the individual views of members of Parliament. As was suggested by an hon. member who spoke last night, I have no doubt that the war will affect our parliamentary institutions just as it affects many other things which concern us. As I listened to the concluding remarks of the hon. member from Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) last night, as he championed the cause of free speech, a free Parliament and an uncontrolled press, I could not but reflect upon the last ten days proceedings in the House and come to the conclusion that he was endeavouring to champion a cause whose victories were won many years ago and that all these matters are more strongly entrenched and rest upon stronger foundations to-day than ever before in the history of British representative institutions.
Before addressing myself to the subject of the Civil Service Commission and its operations, I wish to refer very briefly to one or two other matters. I would gather from the concluding remarks of the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. G. B. Nicholson) which I chanced to hear the other day, and from the remarks made yesterday by the hon. member from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards), that some hon. member had entered a protest against tRe visit of the Prime Minister and his colleagues to the Peace Conference at Paris. Protests of

this nature have, from time to time, appeared in the Canadian press. 1 am unable to understand how any Canadian could object to Canadian representation at the Peace Conference now sitting at Paris. Further, I do not believe such protests reflect in the slightest degree Canadian opinion. Every Allied nation is represented there; every portion of the British Empire is there represented. Upon what basis or reasoning it can be argued that Canada should not be there represented is something absolutely beyond my comprehension. This is the judgment day in the history of nations and institutions. The Peace Conference now sitting at Paris marks, probably, the greatest event in human history, and it would be a strange thing, indeed, if we, as a nation, were not permitted to participate in those proceedings.
Can it be rationally contended that Canada, which fought in this war to the end that some day a peace conference would be convened, shall be written down in history as an absentee from the conference? When we entered the war we had in mind that some day victory would be achieved and that a conference would be held in some part of the world to settle the terms of peace, and to provide, if possible, appropriate means to prevent the recurrence of such another war. That day has come, and it is suggested that Canada should not be represented at the conference. I must express my surprise that such a view should be taken by any hon. member or by anybody in Canada.
If Canada should not be represented, why should the United States? Our effort in man-power, in money, and in everything else, relatively equalled their effort, and I am unable to comprehend the process of reasoning which would lead anybody to the conclusion that the great nation to the south of us can with propriety be represented at that conference, but that Canada should not be represented. We fought as a nation. Our political sovereignty is almost as complete as that of any other nation which fought in this war. We are not a subject power. Our political status is not that of a colony or dependency, and I submit that it would be a great offence to'the spirit and pride of the people of this country if for a single moment it were seriously urged that we should not be represented at the Peace Conference as we are to-day. Speaking for myself, I should be ashamed of my country if at this period in her history and that of the British Empire our political status were such
that we could not with perfect propriety and as a matter of right sit side by side with every other nation which fought in the allied forces, in settling the terms of peace and the other questions arising out of the war.
It must be a matter of pride to us that we are able to take part in this great world constructive and reconstructive programme.
A new map of the world, and particularly of Europe, is being made to-day. New nationalities are being established, on the principles of self-determination or otherwise. New political systems are being framed and the old systems are being destroyed. The terms of peace with the enemy are being settled, and there is being organized a League of Nations which we trust will maintain the peace of the world for many, many years to come.
Furthermore, many material problems of inteiest to Canada and all parts of the world will be the subject of discussion at the conference. For instance, efforts are being made to solve labour problems upon an international basis. The conference is ' also considering questions affecting the distribution of shipping, of food supplies, of raw materials, as well as economic and financial questions of vital interest to every nation of the world. I cannot take the time to enumerate the different matters which will very naturally and very properly be the subject of consideration by the conference. In view of the world-wide importance of the questions that will be considered by the conference, I say that it is hardly proper to suggest that Canada should not be represented there. And if we are to be represented, what more appropriate than that the Prime Minister of this country and some of his colleagues should represent Canada? How else could we be represented? If anybody had a right to enter a protest, surely it would be the colleagues of the Prime Minister remaining here, upon whose shoulders further responsibilities have been cast in consequence of the absence of their colleagues.
The hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) argued last night that Canada is no longer in a position of political dependency, that it is not a colony in the sense in which it was some years ago. I thought he approached that question cautiously and with some reserve. He took a view which was quite correct and I thought he might have shown a little more confidence in his position. To suggest that the political status of this country to-day, politically or otherwise, is comparable to our position



fifty years ago would be to interpret wrongly the organization and constitution of the British Empire and of the several Dominions and to disregard recent political developments. I do not think it is worth my while to pursue the matter further. I merely wish to enter my solemn and emphatic protest against the proposition which has been made by some hon. members to the effect that the Prime Minister of Canada and his colleagues should be in Canada to-day, instead of representing Canada at the Peace Conference.
I wish to refer very briefly to a matter which was discussed on Tuesday last by the hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) in his remarks upon the Address. In discussing financial matters he particularly referred to the flotation cost of three different Canadian loans. The figures which he gave are so palpably in error and do so manifest an injustice to the Department of Finance and the (Government that I think a few words should be said upon that point. I shall not, however, refer to any other portion of his remarks. I have not the slightest doubt that the hon. member himself is anxious to have the exact facts.


Samuel Hughes: Did the hon. member say that my figures were in error?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: My figures were correct according to the Auditor General's Report.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think I shall be able to show that the hon. gentleman was in error in the statements which he made. He referred to the flotation costs of three public loans. First, in respect of the 5 per cent Public Service Loan in New York, in 1916, for $75,000,000, he stated that the cost of flotation was $4,098,580, or $5.46 per $100.
The fact is that the cost of that loan was $2.70 per $100, and not $5.46 as the hon. gentleman states. In calculating the cost of this loan, he permitted to enter into his calculation the discount of the bonds, amounting to $2,022,927, so that his calculations are obviously wrong by that very substantial amount.


Samuel Hughes: Will Canada have
to pay that amount of over $2,000,000?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Upon the maturity of the bonds they must be retired at cost. That is quite correct. But the hon. gentleman was discussing the cost actually paid for the flotation, and obviously and beyond dispute, the discount upon the bonds

should not be taken into account in calculating the expenses of the flotation itself. If the bonds were sold at a premium, my hon. friend, according to his method of calculating, would be driven to the conclusion that the loan had cost nothing- even less than nothing. That, certainly, would be a strange conclusion to reach.


Samuel Hughes: You must balance one account against another.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, because the hon. gentleman was discussing the cost of flotation. Of course, the discount on the bonds must be taken into consideration in the bookkeeping, and it of course represents the difference, between the par value of the bond and the issue price, but it has no reference whatever, I submit, to the cost or charges of the flotation. Again, the hon. gentlemen referring to the cost of the "Dominion of Canada war loan, 1915," states that the cost was $3,408,358, or almost $3.41 per $100. The fact is the loan was issued in Canada at the price of 97J. The total cash expenditure for remuneration of bankers and brokers, printing, advertising, salaries, contingencies was $425,677, so that the percentage of cost was 42J cents per $100, considerably less than one-half of one per cent. Now, my hon. friend, I know, will be one of the first to admit that there is a very substantial difference between a flotation cost of 42| cents per $100 and $3.41 per $100. Again the hon. gentleman referred to the " 5 per cent Dominion of Canada War Loan " of October, 1916, a loan of $100,000,000. He stated that the cost was $3,539,410, or $3.54 per $100. The fact is that this loan was issued in Canada at a price of 97i, and the total cash expenditure for remuneration of bankers and brokers, printing and other expenses was $797,468.27, a percentage cost $0,792 slightly over 79 cents per $100-less than four-fifths of one per cent.


Samuel Hughes: Will the hon. gentleman be good enough to read from the Auditor General's Report which he has before him the figures given for this loan?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: My hon. friend
made the mistake, quite unintentionally, of taking the statement as it appears in the Auditor General's Report without discriminating between the actual expenses in connection with the flotation of the loan and the discount upon the bonds. If he had merely subtracted from his figures the discount, he would have reached the cost of floating the loan. His remarks the other evening made it appear that the discount

upon the bonds was an actual expenditure of money.


Samuel Hughes: May I be pardoned another question? I am very dull witted, no doubt. Do I understand that we arc not to pay these discounts?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The 5-year term bonds of the 5 per cent Public Service Loan, 1915, were sold at 99.56, which represents the amount investors were willing to pay. The discount merely expresses the fact that investors wished a higher rate of interest than that offered for the bond at par. If the bonds are issued at five per cent and the investing public desire a higher yield of interest than that, they must offer a price below par. The hon. gentleman is perfectly right in saying that ultimately the bonds must be redeemed at par but that is another matter. At the same time I would impress upon him the fact that in his speech he was clearly discussing the cost of floating the loan and he calculated the discount upon the bonds as an expenditure in connection with the floating of the issue. It went into Hansard and to the press in that form, and I merely wish to make the correction so that there may be no misunderstanding on the part of the public as to the actual cost of floating these loans. When securities are offered the seller must accept the price offered by the market, or not dispose of the securities If less than par is offered and it is accepted, it means that par was not obtained for the bonds, but the difference between that and the issue price is not a charge or disbursements in connection with the flotation of the loan.


Samuel Hughes: Mr. Speaker, as I am drawn into this through no action on my own part, I ask permission to submit a question to the hon. gentleman. How can he get round the statement made in the Auditor General's Report, and also in the Public Accounts, where the figures are to be found exactly as I gave them and include all these items as part of the cost? He will surely admit that I am correct-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member is going beyond his privilege under the rule.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think I have
fully answered the question of my hon. friend. Upon reference to the Auditor General's Report it will be seen that the discount at which the bonds were sold is treated as discount, and not as a flotation charge or expense, whereas my hon. friend was confusing the discount with the costs
184 .
of flotation. That is the point I wish to make.
My hon. friend referred also to the fact that the 15-year bonds of the " Public Service Loan," which sold at the figure of 94.94, shortly after the issue went above par, and he infers that the bonds were sold at too low a rate. I would point out certain facts with reference to the money market at that time. The Government were unable to make this loan in Canada, at least it was not thought that a market existed here, and the Finance Minister was obliged to go to the only market then available in the world, New York. In that market Canada had no preference over any other country, and other countries were selling securities there at that time. Canada had to accept the best market price offered or not sell at all. The Anglo-French 5 per cent 5-year bonds had been marketed there about six months earlier. That was a five per cent bond and was offered to the public at 98, or to yield 5-45 per cent to the investor. The underwriting price was 96. This loan was not successful and had an adverse effect upon the market. When the Canadian loan was offered to the public it was selling at 95, yielding over 61 per cent. This, of course, affected the market for this particular Canadian issue.
My hon. friend thinks that because the ir>-year bond of this issue afterwards reached par and over, therefore, somebody made a great deal of money to the loss of the Canadian treasury. It is true that these bonds did reach par and over, but only for a short period. It is also true that very shortly afterwards they fell to 97. It is also true that in 1917 they were selling as low as 87J and my hon. friend might as well be solicitous about the people who lost when they fell to 87 as of those who profited when the price went above par.


Samuel Hughes: If the hon. gentleman wishes I can give him the explanation of that although I do not want to interrupt him.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not wish to engage in any very lengthy discussion about this particular matter. It was perhaps peculiar that a 15-year bond should sell at a lesser rate than a five or ten-year bond. The fact is that at this period the shortterm securities were more in demand by the investing public than the long-term bonds. Short term securities were at that time more popular with investors. But it appeared later, that the long-term bond

was more in favour and had a wider market than the short-term securities. But that was a condition which nobody could foresee at that particular time in the United States.
The Public Service loan of 1915 was sold at what was then regarded as very favourable terms. The results were highly spoken of by the financial journals in the United States, Canada and Great Britain and I do not think there is anything in connection with it that is open to criticism. The only reason I entered upon this subject was to emphasize the fact that my hon. friend the other evening, in stating the expense of floating these loans, was very grievously in error and represented it at a figure very much above; and in excess of the actual amount.


Samuel Hughes: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. In regard to the statement that I have been grievously in error, I would refer the hon. gentleman to page F-16 of the Auditor General's Report foT 1917, Volume 1, where he will find "Charges of Management, Loan Account." The identical figures that I gave are given on that page.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am contending that my hon. friend is wrong in his method of calculation and that he has improperly taken into his calculation the discount of the bonds in reaching the actual cost of floating the issue. He has treated the discount as an expenditure or outlay of money, and in doing so I say he was in error.


Samuel Hughes: I do not know about discount


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Now, I approach the subject for which I rose, namely, the statements made by the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) in respect to the Civil Service Commission and its work. The statements made by the hon, member for West Toronto on Tuesday last involved very serious charges against the Civil Service Commission and the gentlemen constituting that commission. I do not know that any more serious charges were ever levelled against any Government, any branch of the Government, or any individual connected with the public service of the country. His charges involve the perpetration practically of crimes. If they are true it is serious; if they are true they are worthy of further investigation; if they are true the hon. gentleman should repeat his statement formally and ask for an investigation. It is hardly fair to the public
IMr. A. K. Maclean!
service that charges of this nature and character should be made unless the hon. gentleman making them Is prepared to substantiate them. I want to say to him that if he believes in the statements he has made, if he thinks that they are well founded and can be proven and if he desires a parliamentary, or any other form of investigation the Government will gladly accede to his request if he formally makes the application.
I regret, however, to say that I have come to the conclusion that his statements are not well founded, and that in not one . single instance can they be established or proven. I regret that my hon. friend (Mr. Hocken) should have undertaken to make the statements he did concerning one of the important branches of the public service without first informing himself as to the facts. I do not question my hon. friend's motives. I know he is too honourable a gentleman to make these statements without believing that they could be supported by the facts but still I wish to say that in my judgment, after an investigation of them severally, they cannot be supported by the facts, that they are not well founded, and my hon. friend has done a grave injustice to the-public service, to that important body the Civil Service Commission, to the members of that commission and particularly to the . secretary of the Commission.
I wish to take these charges practically as they were made in the House the other evening, and I shall comment upon them as I go along. The first matter to which he refers is the appointment of the deputy postmaster in the city of Toronto, and I want to read to the House-and I would ask the House to carefully observe my reading of the statements made-so that my answer to those statements to-day will appear quite clear to hon. gentlemen. They will remember that the hon. member for West Toronto stated that the appointment of the present postmaster of the city of Toronto, in succession to his predecessor who had died early in the last year, was very properly made, and he commended the promotion of the then assistant to the position of chief postmaster of the city. He commended it further upon the ground that the appointee was the senior officer and was entitled to promotion under the principles of the Civil Service Act. He then proceeded to discuss the appointment made to the position of assistant postmaster which was rendered vacant by reason of the promotion of the then assistant to the position of postmaster. He made this statement-

My hon. friend from South Toronto (Mr. Sheard), In his speech the other day, approved of the appointments to the Toronto post office. I want to associate myself with him so far as the choice of postmaster is concerned ; the appointment was made promptly with the best man available. But when it came to the position of deputy postmaster, what happened? The postmaster, who had worked with the present deputy for twenty-five years, sent the recommendation to Ottawa for his appointment. That appointment was held up in this city for months. It was held up until I instituted inquiries to ascertain the reason for the delay, when I was told that it was due to the Civil Service Commission endeavouring to ascertain whether the official recommended was the senior man-. It was none of their business, Mr. Speaker, whether he was a senior man or not-he war! the one best qualified for the position. As it happened he was the senior official, but the commission refused to accept the recommendation of the postmaster, who knew all the men -that were available for the position, and spent some time before consenting to make the appointment. Why? Because the next man dn seniority was a friend of a friend of the Secretary of the Civil Service Commission.
That is the statement of the member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken). Now, what are the facts? They are as follows: That the appointment was not held up by the Civil Service Commission; that the man who eventually was appointed was not the next senior in the Toronto Post Office; that the Civil Service Commission did not refuse to accept the recommendation of anybody; that the Civil Service Commission does not know to-day, collectively or individually-or did not know until Wednesday last-the name of the man who was appointed. These are the facts and I propose to establish them. M3y. hon. friend says that the Civil Service Commission refused to make the appointment. Well, I will give him the reason why there was a delay in the appointment. He says that tEe Toronto Postmaster recommended, I think, Mr. Westman. The truth is that the Toronto Postmaster did not recommend Mr. Westman until months after the vacancy occurred. He recommended a man in Winnipeg whom he wanted transferred to Toronto. Now if the Postmaster in Toronto had his way, an official in Winnipeg would be the Assistant Postmaster in the former city instead of the one who was appointed, and my hon. friend might then have protested perhaps with some justice and some vehemence. I want to give the facts which relate to the delay in filling this position, and which are contained in a memorandum which I have received from the Deputy Postmaster General. Possibly I had better read from the memorandum
itself as it will present the circumstances to the House clearly and in order:
As regards the delay in the appointment of the Assistant Postmaster, Toronto, the following facts are submitted. The Postmaster of Toronto died on the 17th May, 1918, and the new Postmaster was appointed on the 15th June of the same year. As the Department expected the Postmaster to make a recommendation as to who his successor as Assistant Postmaster should be, no action was taken until the 3rd July, when the Postmaster was written to, asking for a recommendation in this respect. He replied on the 16th July recommending that Mr. Thomas T. Bower, Assistant Postmaster, Winnipeg, be appointed to the position, of Assistant Postmaster, Toronto. Nothing," further was done until the return of the Chief Post Office Superintendent, Mr. George Ross, who was absent overseas looking after the Postal Corps of the Canadian Expeditionary Force, and inquiring into grievances complained of in that Force, as it was considered necessary to have Mr. Ross' advice in regard to whether Mr. Bower should be removed from Winnipeg. Mr. Ross recommended strongly against the removal of Mr. Bower, in the interests of the Winnipeg Post Office, and on the 5th November, the Postmaster, Toronto, was-written to, that the Department could not see its way to approve of his recommendation to remove such an important officer from his position at that time, particularly in view of the disturbed condition of the West. The Postmaster was then asked for a further recommendation, and replied on the 18th November, recommending Mr. Eldon Westman. This recommendation was forwarded to the Commission on the 26th November, and on the 30th November the Commission wrote the Department asking to be furnished with a complete statement of the clerks senior to Mr. Westman,, also the date of examination, date of entering the service, present salary, and any other information the Department might think justified, ignoring seniority. This information had to be obtained from the Postmaster, Toronto, and the reply was given to the Commission on the 21st December, approved on the 28th December, and the certificate of promotion issued on the 16th January, 1919-the promotion to take effect from the 18th May, 1918, the date the vacancy occurred.
My hon. friend charged the Civil Service Commission with delay in the making of the appointment to the assistant postmastership of Toronto for many months. The fact is that the commission was not responsible for the delay. The hon. gentleman also stated that Mr. Westman was the senior in that post office. As a matter of fact he was not the senior. The Civil Service Commission was justified in inquiring whether Mr. Westman was the senior officer before making his promotion. The Commission was "well within the law, and well within good practice in making the inquiry it did. Every single statement which my hon. friend made in reference to this appointment are not founded upon fact, and they are unfair and unjust to the com-

mission in every single particular. Now eventually the appointment was made. The senior officer was not appointed, hut I believe the best man was chosen, and in that belief the hon. member and myself are in agreement. That was the view of the Civil Service Commission, but the Commission was not responsible for the delay. The delay was due to the postmaster of Toronto, who wanted to transfer from Winnipeg to Toronto the assistant postmaster of the formtr city. Why blame the Civil Service Commission then for anything in connection with this particular appointment? The Commission is as innocent of any wrongdoing in connection with this matter as are the mummies in the tombs of the Pharaohs. I repeat, that not in one single particular can my hon. friend justify the statements he has made, and there is not the shadow of a shade of a reason for the complaints which he brought against the Commission in respect of this particular appointment.
Now everybody does not think that the Civil Service Commission did right in appointing Mr. Westman to the office of assistant postmaster, and a protest has been made by the Postal Service Association, I think, against that appointment on the ground that the official in question was not the senior, and that statement is quite correct. There was at least one other official in the Toronto post office who was entitled to that position ahead of Mr. Westman upon the ground of seniority, but upon the grounds of capacity, ability and fitness for the position he was selected.
My hon. friend next referred to an appointment made to the Custom House in Toronto, and this is what he said in relation to that particular matter:
The same thing happened in regard to filling
a position in the Custom House at Toronto. A hardware appraiser was needed there, and the collector of the port forwarded three names from which to make a selection. But, Sir, these three names' were taken by an official in this city, and cast into the wastepaper basket, and the Civil Service Commission appointed a man in the cdty of Victoria, B.C., to come to Toronto to take the position of hardware appraiser.
That is the charge, but the fact is that the Civil Service Commission did not make the appointment at all; they were no more responsible for the transfer of that man from Victoria to Toronto than I was, or than was the member for West Toronto. Yet my hon. friend accuses the Commission of wrong-doing in connection with this particular appointment. I say with confidence that this accusation is not founded upon fact. Indeed, it is not founded upon any-

thing; it is a dream, a vision, on the part of somebody-I am sure not on the part of my hon. friend. The matter never came before the Civil Service Commission; I am sure that not one member of the Commission could give the name of the man who (was transferred from Victoria to Toronto. What more can I say about that charge?


Mr. CURRIE:: Why, then, was this man appointed?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Well, I am going to tell you. The transfer was made by the
Customs Department, and its authority for so doing was Section 17 of the Act, which reads, in part, as follows:
Subject to the provisions aforesaid and to the provisions of section 15, nothing in this section or in this Act shall prevent the deputy head from transferring any officer, clerk or employee from one part of his department to another.
It was under the authority of that section of the Civil Service Act that the Customs Department, not the Civil Service Commission, made the transfer in question.


John Allister Currie: Was it the deputy in that case?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not know,' it does not matter what he was. The official in question occupied the position of appraiser or valuator in the Customs Department at Victoria, and the Customs Department transferred him from Victoria to Toronto. It is a serious thing to charge the Civil Service Commission with the transfer of this man when they had nothing to do with it, never heard of it, and could not even give the name of the man who was so transferred. It is not humanly possible that they could know the name of that man, unless by virtue of the publicity which has been given to these matters during the past few days they had occasion to refer to some documents or were enabled to secure the information from some other source.
Now, if my hon. friend (Mr. Hocken) had attacked the practice of transferring officials he would have been upon safe ground, and he might have been justified in attacking that practice. Speaking for myself, I do think that the Customs Department were hardly justified in making that transfer. I do not think they were justified. They should have known that the doing of that thing would prejudice the Civil Service Act just at this particular stage when it is being tried and when it has many critics and few friends. I think that they are deserving of some castigation

on the part of members of Parliament for doing that. True, they were well within their powers, but I think they did not exercise a sound discretion.


Samuel Hughes: Who is ''they?'*


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Customs Department. I do not say that there are not occasions when it is good business and good practice in certain departments to transfer persons from one place to another. I have particularly in my mind at the moment the Customs Inspection Service. I think it would be perfectly justifiable practice to keep the Customs inspectors moving from one province to another. I believe that a Customs inspector should not long remain in one province. But that is a matter worthy of the consideration of hon. gentlemen. The practice I refer to might very well be attacked, but if it is wrong, if it is open to criticism, surely Parliament itself, not the Civil Service Commission, is to be blamed for it. But it is within our power and our jurisdiction to amend the Act so as to prevent transfers by any one department from one point to another, if we think that the practice is wrong. I do protest, however, against such a body as the Civil Service Commission being blamed for something for which they should not be blamed.	i
My hon. friend next referred to the matter of advertising for applicants for certain positions and the making of temporary appointments in the meanwhile; and he drew the conclusion that invariably the temporary appointee would secure the permanent appointment by virtue of the prestige given to him through his selection by the department. Again I say that this is a fair matter for discussion, but I protest against charging the Civil Service Commission with the building jup of this practice. They are in no way responsible for it; it is unfair to accuse them of it. I myself think that the several heads of the departments should resort to temporary appointments as little as they possibly can. Every minister and every deputy minister should anticipate his departmental needs in respeot to the appointment of officials, and only under circumstances of urgency and grave necessity should he recommend a temporary appointment to the Civil Service Commission and subsequently ask the Commission to advertise for applications to fill the vacancy. I say this because such a practice lays the whole Civil Service Act and the Civil Service Commission open to suspicion. In that
connection I am not disposed to be too censorious or too critical of the remarks of my hon. friend, because I can quite understand that in the multiplicity of temporary appointments followed by advertising, my hon. friend or 'any other hon. gentleman in the House might well become suspicious of the practice and might well conclude that improper influences were operating somewhere and at some times.
Now, what occurs? Why are temporary appointments made preceding the publication of advertisements calling for applications? It is invariably due to the fact that a department often requires men possessing special qualifications to discharge special departmental duties. Moreover, the Civil Service Commission has been in operation for such a short time that they have not been able as yet to build up an eligible list from which it can select temporary appointees to meet the needs of the several departments of Government. Therefore, when a vacancy occurs or a new office is to be created and the needs of the department are urgent and cannot wait, the practice is for the deputy minister to make a recommendation to the commission for a temporary appointment, and to ask them to approve temporarily of that appointment. The Commission is not to blame; it is unfair to cast that burden upon the Commission. If anybody is open to criticism, it is the minister or the deputy minister or some departmental head, and I repeat that my hon. friend, in his criticism in this connection against the 'Civil Service Commission and the Secretary of the Commission, was unfair and unjust to them.
Yesterday evening the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) referred to the appointment of a publicity agent required by the Department of Immigration and Colonization. He stated that Mr. Donald Tuck was an applicant for this position. In his application, Mr. Tuck set forth his qualifications and the hon. member thought that he was entitled to the office. Mr. Tuck's letter is used to support the complaint that the Civil Service Commission should not delegate its powers of appointment to a Board of Examiners. Mr. Tuck, however, was himself a beneficiary of this, because not very long ago he was an applicant for the position of head of the Publicity of the Vocational Branch of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, and his name went before a board of examiners and he was selected. He was, therefore, a beneficiary of the prevailing system, and if he

is to-day complaining of that system, I say that he cannot do so fairly. A publicity agent was required by the Department of Immigration and Colonization and the qualifications necessary were set forth in the remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. Edwards) last night, and I might read them:
A Publicity Agent to take charge of the Publicity work of the Department of Immigration and Colonization at a salary of $4,000 per annum. Candidates should possess the following qualifications:-Ability to prepare and direct newspaper, magazine and farm journal advertising campaigns, both in Canada and elsewhere, in setting forth the settlement opportunities in Canada; knowledge and experience with (a) follow-up systems, (b) the production and circulation of motion pictures, and (c) the natural resources of Canada; ability to direct lecture campaigns ; a personal acquaintance with writers, publicists and organizations now dealing with the opportunities and land settlement problems of Canada.
There were, I believe, some seventy-nine applicants for this position. The Civil Service Commission felt that they were hardly capable of deciding, amongst the seventy-nine applicants, who was the man most capable of doing the work. Accordingly they called to their assistance a board of examiners composed of Sir John Willi-son, of Toronto, Mr. P. D. Ross, of Ottawa and Mr. A. D. DeCelles, Librarian of Parliament. These gentlemen were called together and the applications were put before them. In the end they decided that a Mr. R. J. E. Stead, of Calgary, Alta., was the best qualified amongst the applicants. Will hon. gentlemen be disposed to say that the board of examiners selected were not honourable and capable men? Were they not just as capable of making the best selection as would be the Commissioners themselves if they undertook to make it? Further, the Civil Service Commission is not a board of examiners. Examinations are held on behalf of the Commission throughout Canada from coast to coast. They do not attend those examinations in the capacity of examiners, but examiners especially for that purpose are selected and appointed, and they take charge of the examinations. This was an examination. The statute permitted it. It need not necessarily have been a written or an oral examination ; it might be a competitive examination, if in the judgment of the Commission that was desirable. The board of examiners selected Mr. Stead. My hon. friend from Fron-tenac (Mr. Edwards) referred to the case of Mr. Tuck, a returned soldier, and he read his qualifications which are very good.
I think my hon friend thought they were
[Mr. A. K. Maclean.!
so good that he concluded that Mr. Tuck should have received the appointment. I do not say that Mr. Stead deserved the appointment, nor that Mr. Tuck did not deserve it. All I mean to say is this, that when you have seventy or eighty applications for a position, it is humanly impossible to determine with absolute accuracy that one man is much better than another, or that the man who eventually receives the appointment is actually stronger in his qualifications than the man who did not get it. It is difficult to determine matters of this kind to a nicety, and if in the end the Board of Examiners have made a wise and sound selection and have given to the public service a man who will discharge in a competent manner the duties and responsibilities attaching to that office then public interests have been fully met and no one having the public interest at heart can very well complain.


Samuel Hughes: Was Mr. Stead a returned soldier?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think not. Mr. Tuck was.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: How does this committee proceed in order to reach a conclusion? Did these men appear before the Board of Examiners?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I understand
they usually take the applications made by the several applicants and get from them the qualifications as told by each applicant. They also take all such other means as {hey consider wise and necessary to afford them information as to the qualifications of the several applicants. They can, if they see fit, bring before them such of the applicants as they think might be best fitted for the position.


Mr. NICKLE:: What is the alleged justification for overlooking the returned soldier if he possessed the minimum of requirements for the office?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not say that the returned soldier should not, in this case, have received the appointment. I am not undertaking to say that Mr. Stead should have received the appointment as he did. I am arguing to-day on behalf of the Commission and I am attempting to relieve them of the innuendoes and charges made against them the other day. I am more concerned about that than I am about the defence of the Government, of the departments, or of any system that has grown up or that prevails in the administration of the Civil Service Act. The question.

therefore, which my hon. friend raises, is hardly the one I am endeavouring to answer. But when the public service requires a man for a special duty, the Civil Service Commission is hound to secure for the public service the best man available. If that man can be found amongst returned soldiers, then he should have the preference.


Mr. STEVENS:: Did we not, in passing the Act last session, adopt the principle that where a returned soldier had reasonably good qualifications, that is, where he could qualify, it was not necessary for him to have the highest qualifications of all the applicants, and where he had those qualifications, he should get the appointment?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Substantially that is quite true. I agree with my hon. friend. That is the principle set forth in the Civil Service Act as enacted at the last session of Parliament, and I am not disputing that proposition at all. However, there must, in practice, be some qualification to that very general proposition. The Department of Immigration and Colonization required a man for the position which I have already mentioned, and, as I have said, Mr. Tuck was an applicant. He appears to have had considerable experience in advertising campaigns. In the second paragraph of his letter he says:
I am at present in charge of the Publicity of the Vocational Branch of this department which involves considerable research work and feel that I have qualifications and experience which would fit me eminently for the vacant position.
In my late appointment (prior to the war) as manager of the Copy and Art Department of The Norris-Patterson Advertising Agency I was brought in touch with many of the leading Canadian advertisers, the preparation of whose copy was in my hands, and the continued success of these advertising campaigns is evidence of the quality of this copy. In many cases it has been my duty to advise on and instal followup systems, and especially in the preparation of catalogues and booklets, my experience has been very varied, embodying, as it does, a knowledge of the technicalities of the printing and engraving industries."
Let hon. gentlemen remember that the Department of Immigration and Colonization wanted a publicity man in connection with immigration and colonization work. Let us now look at the qualifications of Mr. Stead. Remember, I am not arguing in defence of the appointment of Mr. Stead or attempting to detract in the slightest degree from the qualifications of Mr. Tuck. I simply want to place the facts before hon. members, and they can make their own deductions. I want to place the facts before
them in such a clear way that they will be able to visualize the difficulties of the commission in selecting a man of the qualifications required by the Department of Immigration and Colonization. I repeat that 1 am only interested in making what I think is a deserved defence of the Civil Service Commission.	;


Mr. HOCKEN:: Was Mr. Stead holding this position when the applications were considered?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think so. In fact, my hon. friend stated so the other evening. Upon the recommendation of the Department of Immigration and Colonization Mr. Stead was appointed temporarily early in January, and for that, of course, the Civil Service Commission is not responsible. I shall now read the qualifications of Mr. Stead:-
" Grew up on a homestead 120 miles from a railway, where he obtained first-hand knowledge and experience of the problems of pioneer life on the prairies, and personal knowledge of the practice of agriculture."
May I remark just here that a publicity man for the Department of Immigration and Colonization would naturally be expected to have a knowledge of the western country, where colonization is alone possible. To continue:-
"Was for 11 years a. newspaper editor in Manitoba, developing during that time a wide acquaintance with the problems of the West, and also with newspaper writers and editors. Experience includes the management of the advertising department of a paper, as well as its mechanical production, and the superintendence of a job printing department.
Was business manager of The Alberta Automobile Co., Ltd., from February, 1910, to November, 1912. During this period travelled many thousands of miles over the prairies increasing his knowledge of the Country's agricultural resources and business conditions.
In March, 1913, was appointed Assistant Publicity Agent of the C.P.R. Department of Natural Resources, and early in 1916 was placed in charge of all the advertising and publicity work of the C.P.R. relating to the colonization of its lands. Occupied this position until January 1, 1919, when he was appointed temporarily to position of Publicity Agent for Department of Immigration and Colonization. During employment with C.P.R., his duties included the preparation and direction of newspaper, magazine and farm journal advertising campaigns, both in Canada and elsewhere, setting forth the settlement opportunities In Canada. ; and the installation and1 direction of a follow-up system dealing with inquiries from prospective settlers."
The duties of the publicity agent required by the Department of Immigration and Colonization naturally had relation to the colonization of our western lands, and the

experience of Mr. Stead with the Canadian Pacific Railway was clearly in line with the duties of this new position. I repeat that the Civil Service Commission was in no way responsible for the temporary appointment of Mr. Stead. There was nothing else for them to do but issue a temporary certificate to him, as a request had been made by the department. Therefore, I say they are not chargeable with any recommendation. There were some seventy odd applicants for this position and the Civil Service Commission chose to establish a board of examiners composed of the persons I have named. The judgment of this Board was that Mr. Stead should be appointed. I have read both the qualifications of Mr. Tuck and the qualifications of Mr. Stead, and I leave it to hon. gentlemen to decide whether or not the Board of Examiners made a mistake. Perhaps they selected the very best man among the applicants; perhaps they did not. At all events, the qualifications of both Mr. Tuck and Mr. Stead were excellent, and I can quite understand how both would appeal to the board of examiners, and I think hon. gentlemen might very well forgive the board if they had selected either. However, they chose to select Mr. Stead, who had been in charge of the immigration and colonization work of the Canadian Pacific Railway-a man who was born and bred in the western country and who knew its needs and might, therefore, naturally be expected to make a very competent official in connection with the matters of immigration and colonization in the Prairie Provinces. That is all I have to say of that particular case.
As I said a moment ago, the establishment of a board of examiners may be open to criticism. But that system is used in Great Britain to-day and was frequently resorted to in the United States some years ago, although I understand they are gradually departing from this practice. I have discussed this matter in the last few days with the Civil Service Commission and they inform me that once they have perfected their organization and have a competent staff they hope, in cases of this kind, requiring technical qualifications, to be able to make the appointments themselves. I appeal to hon. gentlemen to extend to the Civil Service Commission an opportunity to build up an organization, and if this is extended to them I am sure the time is not far distant when they will be able to discharge their duties without deserving criticism on the part of the public. In the meantime, I do not know what else they
IMr. A. K. Maclean. I
can do. If the system is wrong, Parlia-can easily cure it by amending the Act.
Let me give another case. A few days ago, the Department of Public Works required a solicitor. Seventy-nine applications for this position were received from all over Canada and a committee of lawyers was appointed composed of Judge Audette, of the Exchequer Court, J. F. Orde and W. D. Hogg, of Ottawa, to consider the applications. These three men were all practicing barristers. Will any hon. gentlemen say that if he had been a member of the commission he might not possibly have resorted to the same method as the Commissioners adopted? No member of the Civil Service Commission is a lawyer and, therefore, they could not very well render sound judgment as to the ability of the several applicants for this position.


Mr. COPP:: Was the solicitor for the Public Works Department appointed temporarily?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, in that case no temporary appointment was made by the minister, and in that respect the case is different from some of the others we have been discussing. I ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hocken) how he can reasonably criticise the action of the Commission in creating a board of examiners to select from the applicants one to be appointed as solicitor for the Public Works Department? Were not those examiners better fitted to make a selection than the members of the Commission? What better method of selection could one suggest?	,
The hon. gentleman then referred to the appointment of a fruit inspector for western Ontario, and he made very serious statements in connection witji his appointment. He said:
The man chosen had been an American citizen before the last election in Canada and could not vote in that election. True, he was Canadian-born but he went across the line and was naturalized there.
This was .really irrelevant matter, and many inferences 'may be based upon what my hon. friend said, none of which, I am sure, he intended.	[DOT]
He returned to Canada, and was not entitled, as I say, to vote at the last election, but he happened to become naturalized here since. Then he takes precedence of men who have lived here and have been serving the country, men who never ran away and were naturalized in a foreign country. This person is placed over qualified men because he is a friend of the officials.
A friend of somebody in the Civil Service,
I suppose he means.

The understanding is that the late Mr. Johnson desired this man to he appointed. That is the way the Civil Service is operated.
The hon. gentleman says further:
His name is Mr. J. R. Hastings. We have over the signature of Mr. William Poran, the chief guide of the Civil Service Commission, the statement that when the limit for receiving applications has expired the applications will be submitted to a competent board of Judges who will select a man who is in their opinion best qualified for appointment. Is that the way, Mr. Speaker, we understood that this thing was to be worked out. Are these commissioners Civil Service Commissioners, or are they not?
Now, what are the facts in this case? Mr. Hastings was born in Scotland, fifty-four years ago, and came to Canada in 1882. Later, he went to the United States, as have many other Canadians from every province of the Dominion. He returned to Canada thirteen years ago and purchased an orchard at Winona where he has since been engaged in fruit growing. Nine years ago he became associated with the Winona Fruit Growers, Limited, and during the past seven years has acted as secretary and managing director of that organization. In 1917 he became a member of the Fruit and Vegetable Committee in the Food Controller's office, and later, at the request of the Fruit Inspector of the Department of Agriculture was temporarily appointed by the Civil Service Commission. Again, the Civil Service Commission were not responsible for the temporary appointment, and it is unfair and unjust to attempt to use it against them. If the temporary appointment should not have been made, the Department of Agriculture is to blame, and if accusations are to be made they should be made against that department. I understand that Mr. Hastings is a veiy capable man and well qualified for the position. There are members of this Parliament who say that he is better qualified for the position than any other man in Canada. Certain persons in Ontario sent petitions addressed to the Civil Service Commission recommending another person, whose name I cannot recall at the moment, for the position; but when they learned that Mr. Hastings was an applicant, they wrote to the Civil Service Commission explaining that they did not know that Mr. Hastings was an applicant and withdrawing their support from the man they had recommended. Mr. Hastings was appointed temporarily for six months, and at the end of that time the appointment was enlarged for another period of six months. Before that time ends applications will be received, and I understand it to be the intention of the Civil Service Cbmmission to appoint a board of examiners made up of three of the leading fruit growers of the province of Ontario, and with them will rest the recommending of an appointee to the Commission.


John Allister Currie: Will this board be responsible to Parliament? If not, to whom will it be responsible?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The board of examiners will make the selection from among the applicants and will recommend one person to the Civil Service Commission. The Commission will act upon that recommendation, or not, as they see fit.


John Allister Currie: To whom will they be responsible for the appointment?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The board of examiners will be responsible to the Civil Service Commission to whom they act in an advisory capacity. The Civil Service Commission will be responsible to Parliament and to the country for the appointment they make. I may state that when the Department of Agriculture required the services of Mr. Hastings they thought they had the right under section 15 of the Civil Service Act to take him into the service and made the endeavour to do so. But the Civil Service Commission intervened and said: You must not do that; we will appoint Mr. Hastings temporarily, and we will issue a certificate to that effect; but applicants must be publicly called for, and from among the applicants we will make the appointment. That is a small circumstance, but I merely mention it to show my hon. friend (Mr. Hocken) that he is not right in criticising on this ground the Civil Service Commission or its secretary. If anybody is open to criticism it is the Department of Agriculture. I do not say this department is open to criticism, but I do say, and with emphasis, that the Civil Service Commission are not in this regard subject to criticism.
The hon. gentleman next referred to a case which, I understand, has been the subject of a great deal of discussion outside; the appointment to the position of Superintendent of Penitentiaries. There has been a good deal of publicity about this matter, largely because one of the applicants, who was one of the Inspectors of Canadian Penitentiaries, belongs to a very distinguished family in this country; in fact he is a brother of the ex-Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes), and as gallant a soldier as is that hon. gentleman. My hon. friend from

West Toronto, in discussing this particular matter, said:
And this is the very principle that was adopted when a Superintendent of Penitentiaries was to be appointed. The Civil Service Commission had not the knowledge or the intelligence or the courage to make an appointment, and they selected three men to deal with it, at least one of whom was known to be hostile to the best qualified man in Canada for the position of Superintendent of Penitentiaries. What chance did he have? Among one hundred applicants his qualifications were the best; but this committee says: None of these candidates are quite satisfactory ; we throw them all out and we will advertise afresh. You see how they double-cross the soldier; how they whip-sawed a qualified man who is a returned soldier, who fought with the Canadian army at Courcellette, who was promoted on the field of battle to the rank of Brigadier-General and who had had twenty-six years of experience in the very work for which applications were being sought.
I would like to point out that my hon. friend has brought into the argument a great deal of irrelevant matter but which at the same time is calculated to prejudice many members of Parliament and a great number of people outside. If this evidence had been given in a court of law, I am afraid the court would have ruled that my hon. friend's testimony was not relevant and could not be accepted. But, anyway, it has been read into the record and you must deal with it as it is. At the last session of Parliament a statute was passed changing somewhat the administration of the penitentiaries of Canada. This was Chapter 36 of the Acts of the Parliament of Canada for the year 1918. Section 3 of the Act is as follows:
Sections fourteen to twenty-three both inclusive. are repealed' and the following are substituted therefor:-
"14.	(1) The Governor In Council may appoint a Superintendent of Penitentiaries, who shall be an officer of the Department of Justice, who shall, under the Minister, direct and superintend the administration and business of the penitentiaries, and perform such other duties as may from time to time be assigned to him by the Minister."
Then it is provided that:
"The Governor In Council may appoint not more than three inspectors of penitentiaries, who shall perform such of the duties by this Act required to be performed by an inspector as the Minister may assign to them respectively."
It is also to be observed that:
"(f) 'Penitentiaries' includes not only the penitentiaries hereinafter mentioned or described, but also such other prisons and public institutions as are from time to time designated for that purpose by the Governor in

Council by proclamation in the Canada Gazette."
In due course that Act was assented to by His Excellency the Governor General and became law. Later the Department of Justice were required to fill the position and they thought they should promote somebody in that department. The Civil Service Commission took the ground that there was nobody in the department who should be promoted as there was nobody engaged in that particular line of work, or in work which bore any resemblance to institutional work and they said that this position must be advertised. My hon. friends should not and, I believe, would not object to the course taken by the Commission. I am speaking on behalf of the Commisison this afternoon. The Commission are not open to criticism in reference to anything in connection with this particular matter at all. They deserve commendation for every step they have taken in the matter from beginning to end. In the end, an advertisement appeared in the public press asking for applicants for the position of Superintendent of Penitentiaries; a great many applications were received and later a committee was appointed to consider the applications. The members of the committee were as follows: Dr. C. K. Clarke of Toronto, late superintendent of Kockwood Asylum, Kingston, later superintendent of the Toronto General Hospital and, I am told, one of the best recognized authorities in Canada on institutional work; Mr. C. A. Magrath, of Ottawa; Mr. F. H. Chrysler, K.C., of Ottawa; General Fotheringham, of the Department of Militia and Defence, and Dr. Paget, of the Dominion Immigration service. This committee sat to consider the applications received. They concluded that the advertisement calling for applications stressed too much the business qualifications and did not give sufficient prominence to the technical qualifications. They were of the opinion that anybody responsible for the administration of the penitentiaries in Canada, and for any other institutional work that might later be placed under him, required certain technical qualifications. That was their view. It impressed the Commission and the Commission decided to readvertise, setting forth more clearly the technical requirements for the position.
It is a fact that the man who is in charge of penitentiaries, or who is responsible for the superintendence of penitentiaries in Canada, does require special technical

knowledge. The science of criminology in modern times is based upon the theory that all, or most, criminals are insane and that they require special treatment. The modern theory as to the care of these people is entirely different from what it was thirty, forty or fifty years ago. A new conception has arisen regarding the administration of institutions for the care of these unfortunate inmates. I am not going to decide whether the committee or the board of examiners were wrong in recommending that other applicants be advertised for and I am not going to decide whether General Hughes, as the hon. member for West Toronto says, is the best qualified man in all Canada.


Samuel Hughes: There are three of that brand; would you kindly be specific.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I can only refer
to the one who is the applicant for this position; I think he is William J. Hughes-


Samuel Hughes: No.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: William S.
Hughes. It is not my intention to decide whether or not he is the best qualified man in Canada, as my hon. friend says. He may be-I do not know-but I do say that, taking the course of action pursued by the Commission from beginning to end, it is hardly open to the very harsh criticism which it has been subjected to by the hon. member for West Toronto. I think the Commission were to be commended because they were perfectly right in saying that the position should be open to public competition and, in insisting upon that, they were perfectly right. There will be always be some doubt really as to who is the best man for this position. But the friends of General Hughes are not the only people in Canada who say that somebody is being railroaded into this position and that some improper influences are operating in this matter. I have a letter which was addressed to me the other day by a man whose name I cannot give, but I propose reading to you just a little portion of the letter.


Samuel Hughes: We will have to
get the whole of it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I will give it to my hon. friend privately.


Samuel Hughes: I do not want to
see it. I am not interested in the matter particularly. The only reason I asked for it was that I got into trouble by saying " Mr. Gundy " the other day. Every Gundy in Canada but the right fellow has protested.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: This letter was
addressed to me the other day from Montreal and attached to the letter was a little leaflet issued from the Grand Army Headquarters of Canada. I see on the first page of the leaflet, underscored in blue pencil: "We ask no favours from politicians; they need not expect any from us." That, however is by the way.


Mr. DEVLIN:: Does that refer to any particular politician?
Mr. A. II. MACLEAN: I do not know to whom it refers, and I am not going to give the name of the writer. I am reading this letter in order to indicate to the House that when these positions are thrown open to public competition every candidate thinks he is qualified, and his coterie of friends think his qualifications are the best. I do this' merely to point out to hon. gentlemen the difficulties confronting the Civil Service Commission in filling appointments which are thrown open to public competition. This letter is addressed to me, but personally I do not know the writer, and it is in part as follows:
Hon. anti Dear Sir,-With reference to the appointment of Superintendent of Penitentiaries, which, originally, was advertised on' November 14th, 1918, and for which appointment I am led to believe my application is still under consideration.
I beg to invite your attention to the following facts:-facts, concerning this appointment which you must admit has been kept open for the appointment of Brig.-General Wm. St. Pierre Hughes, following the resolution adopted by the G.W.V.A. Cornwall Branch.
This applicant is of the view that the Civil Service Commission is improperly manoeuvering in this matter so as to secure ultimately the appointment of Mr. Hughes. On the other hand, my hon. friend the member for West Toronto accuses the Civil Service Commission of attempting to relegate Mr. Hughes into the background. The letter proceeds:
The publicity given to this resolution is clearly a forerunner of coming events and an announcement to other applicants that the appointment has been now filled.
I do not dispute the right of any man, be h6 a private or a brigadier-general, to make application for any appointment if he is qualified to hold1 that appointment, but, as a returned soldier and also a member of the Great War Veterans' Association and the Grand Army of Canada, I do dispute the right of any association or society endeavouring to force the Government to place any of its members when the appointment is open to competition throughout the Dominion, and especially when the appointment is likely to be given to a returned soldier who has every qualification for the position.
My original application was submitted on November 18th, 1918, and my references were taken up by the Civil Service Commission, and X know for a fact that these references could not

be anything other than satisfactory as I am fully qualified to hold such an appointment and am without prejudice.


John Allister Currie: Will the hon. minister be good enough to state the name of the writer?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am not going to disclose who the letter is from.


John Allister Currie: It is the custom of the House to give that information when it is asked for.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is not the custom of the House when, as in this case, the document is not a public one, and furthermore it is not of very great interest.


John Allister Currie: I want to know to what Orange Lodge the writer belongs?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not know that he belongs to any Orange Lodge.


Andrew Ross McMaster: May I direct the attention of the hon. minister to the fact that it is with difficulty members on this side of the House are able to follow the interesting family quarrel going on on the other side.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There is no quarrel on this side of the House with reference to this matter and so my hon. friend opposite need not worry.


Andrew Ross McMaster: At all events we should like to hear what is being said.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I read that letter just to indicate to hon. gentlemen the difficulty which confronts the commission in making appointments of this kind, and in the circumstances I say it may well be justified in calling together a board of competent men and asking that board to recommend to them whom, in their judgment, among the seventy or eighty applicants is best qualified for the position. Whatever may be the merits or demerits of the system now prevailing in making appointments to the Civil Service, whatever may be wrong in the practice of the Civil Service Commission, I want to again say that in so far as this case is concerned the Commission has acted, in my opinion, with perfect propriety, and in an absolutely honourable manner from beginning to end, and in no respect do I think the Commission's conduct is open to adverse criticism.
Again, my hon. friend referred to the appointment of a Chief Clerk of Files. The Soldiers' Settlement Board required a Chief Clerk of Files, and in the advertisement calling for applications it was stated that candidates must have five or six years' ex-
perience with files and records in a Government department, and must be thoroughly familiar with such a system. The member for West Toronto in tliis connection spoke as follows:
I am informed, and I believe, that a man can begin and complete his studies in medicine in five years; that a man can begin and complete his studies for the Bar in four years; but to be an efficient and capable filing clerk, a man apparently requires five or six years' experience. Is there any intelligent man in this House who will say that that length of experience is requisite for that kind of position?
He proceeds to say there are young officers coming back so broken that it would be impossible for them to take up their former avocations, and that it is the business of the Government to see that they are offered opportunities of this kind. He goes on to say:
My deduction is, I think, reasonable, namely, that a man who is now in the Government service has been picked out for that position. The job is practically filled before the advertisement is put into the newspaper.
Later he states:
If we have a Civil Service Commission that is going to cut men out of all opportunity of obtaining such positions, what is the use of putting in the Act the statement that the returned soldiers shall be given a preference?
Such is the hon. gentleman's statement. What are the facts? The Soldiers' Settlement Board, which is administered by the Minister of the Interior, recently required a filing clerk and they were obliged to ask the Civil Service Commission to advertise for one. An experienced man was required, I am informed, for the reason that the Soldiers' Settlement Board is a new 5 p.m. branch of the public service. In the meantime, pending the receipt of applications in response to the advertisement, the Soldiers' Settlement Board recommended the appointment of a man temporarily.


Samuel Hughes: Did the advertisement call for five years' experience?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes, and the advertisement was prepared by the Soldiers' Settlement Board, not by the Commission. Again I say it was unfair to blame the Civil Service Commission for this advertisement. If there is any criticism to be made it should be directed against the proper body. I complain therefore of the generality, the vagueness, and the unfairness of the charges made by my hon. friend from West Toronto. Now, five or six years' experience as Chief Filing Clerk does seem a rather extended period of service to me. I would

be rather disposed to agree with the criticism of my hon. friend from West Toronto, but I do not know whether I would be right in so thinking. For the time being I would rather take the judgment of the Minister of the Interior and his officials who must have believed that they required a filing clerk of certain experience and ability, or else they would not have asked for a person possessing such qualifications and experience.


William Folger Nickle: Does not that blow the whole thing sky-high?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not think so. Now, what happened? As a matter of fact the person filling the position temporarily is a returned soldier who served three years overseas as a private, and who has had a son a prisoner in Germany since the beginning of the war.


Samuel Hughes: Hear, hear.
(Mr. A. K. MACLEAN: At one time he was in the public service, and had experience as a filing clerk, for I do not know how many years.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: He will have to get out then according to the advertisement?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not think
he will have to get out if he is competent, even though he did not have the five years' experience. I wish to impress upon hon. gentlemen that I am not taking the responsibility of saying it was proper to insist upon five years' experience.
I merely wish to insist that the Civil Service Commission be not held responsible for that portion of the advertisement, and that criticism, if any may justly be made, should be directed against i.he department responsible for the issuance of the advertisement. However, no injustice has been done to any one. In the meanwhile, the department have a man whom they consider quite capable of discharging the duties attaching to that particular office. Fortunately, it happens that he is a returned man. In due course his application, with many others, will be considered, and in any event the department is assured of having a competent man and one who is a returned soldier. Consequently, so far as this charge is concerned, every criticism which my hon. friend made falls to the ground.
Then, my hon. friend made reference to the appointment of a man named Michael Dryden to one of the employment bureaus at Halifax, stating that on February 3rd
Mr. Dryden was advised by a telegram from one W. B. McCoy, of Halifax, who is in the employ of the Industries Department of the Government of Nova Scotia, that he, Dryden, had been appointed to the office, whereas advertisements calling for applications had been inserted in the public press only on February 18th. I have made some inquiry into this matter, and again I find that in not a single particular is the statement of my hon. friend correct. Mr. Dryden was selected by a committee appointed as a Board of Examiners after advertisement. The names of the members of the board of examiners are:	Mr. Bryce M.
Stewart, editor of the Labour Gazette; Mr. G. C. McNeill, representative of the Great War Veterans' Association, and Mr. R. H. Coats, Dominion Statistician. After considering fully the applications, this Board of Examiners selected Mr. Dryden of Halifax.


Samuel Hughes: Who appointed the board?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: They were selected by the Civil Service Commission. I find also on inquiry that Mr. McCoy did not, on the 3rd day of February, wire Mr. Dryden that he had been appointed, but that he did, on the 23rd day of February, wire Mr. Dryden that he had been appointed, after he, Mr. McCoy, had been so advised by a representative of the Labour Department. The purpose of Mr. McCoy's telegram was to inquire when Mr. Dryden would report at Halifax to engage upon the duties of his office.


Mr. P. F. MARTIN:: What had McCoy to do with those duties at Halifax?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I did not carry
my investigation very far, but I understand that the provincial governments and the Labour Department are co-operating in the matter of the Labour Employment Bureaus which are being established throughout Canada and that Mr. McCoy is in the employ of the Industries Department of the government of Nova Scotia, and, I imagine, was being interviewed by the representatives of the Labour Department who were sent down there from Ottawa. Therefore I say that so far as this particular charge is concerned, the statement of my hon. friend falls absolutely to the ground.


Mr. McCURDY:: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? I am prompted to do so because I have received a letter from Nova Scotia stating that a roster of names was prepared by Mr. McCoy in January; that this list was forwarded by Mr. McCoy

for the guidance of the Civil Service Commission, and that Mr. McCoy's recommendations were approved by the commission and his nominees appointed. Has my hon, friend any information on that point?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I have absolutely no information on that point. Again I say that the only thing I am interested in this afternoon is that of making a proper defence of the Civil Service Commission in respect of the charges made against it the dther day. The Civil Service Commission made a selection from among all the applicants who responded to the advertisement. Evidently representatives of the Labour Department were in the Maritime Provinces prior to the making of the selection by the board of examiners. What they did or what they said I know not and I care not.
My hon. friend made some reference to schools which, he supposed, were specially created for the coaching of candidates for the Civil Service examinations. He said:
I am credibly informed that in this city of Ottawa there is a certain school. Nobody knows where this school is unless he is directed to it. It does not advertise; the name is not on the door, but candidates who are fortunate enough to be directed to this school are always able to pass with the highest marks. The system has been explained by one of the pupils, a young lady, in this way.
Then he proceeds further, but I shall not quote his remarks at greater length. The innuendo of that statement is that somewhere in this city, in some dark, hidden recess, there is, to the knowledge of the Civil Service Commission or its secretary, a school to which favoured and selected candidates are directed and at which they can be specially coached for approaching examinations. A species of nepotism and favouritism is suggested in this connection on the part of the commission.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Is that in my statement?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is not in my hon. friend's statement, but one cannot refrain from drawing inferences. I do not want to interpret wrongly my hon. friend's remarks; I do not want to read into them innuendos which he never intended. But, the effect of that statement upon the public is to give them the impression that in this city there are schools for the coaching of candidates for examinations, schools which are specially favoured by the Civil Service Commission, the students at which receive an advantage in one way or the other over other applicants for admission to the Civil

Service. Now, I hope that I do not wrongly interpret my hon. friend's remarks. That is a serious accusation to make against the Civil Service Commission or against anybody connected with it. If it is not true, it should not have been made; if it is true, my hon. friend should go further, should give to the House further facts and ask for a searching and thorough inquiry into the matter. Everybody knows that there are in Ottawa, and have been for years, schools specially organized for the instruction of candidates for Civil Service positions. I remember that six or seven years ago somebody in the Customs Department was dismissed from the service because he was conducting at night a Civil Service school, or a school for the preparation of candidates for Civil Service examinations. .1 should be surprised if there were not half a dozen such schools in Ottawa. Such schools are to be found in Cornwall, Brockville and Toronto; if they are not to be found in every city in Canada, they will inside of twelve months. There are scores of them in the United States. My hon. friend seems to think that in this particular school somebody knows the particular questions that are to be put to the candidates and the particular subjects upon which they are to be examined. Well, everybody in Canada knows the subjects upon which the candidates are to be examined. The curriculum is published and made known to the public; the subjects are set forth on the notices which are sent to the candidates giving the date of examination. The subjects are also mentioned in the regulations of the Commission.
Any one conducting a Civil Service school could go over the examination papers of the last ten years, and I suppose he could approximate any possible question which could be put by the examiners. Again I say, that was an unfair imputation to make against the Civil Service Commission. They are not responsible for Civil Service schools in Ottawa. Such schools may be here by the dozen. I have no doubt there is more than one here. They will grow up in every city and town in Canada from now on, just because there is a wi3e open opportunity to every boy and girl in Canada to enter as a competitor in the Civil Service examinations and aspire to an appointment in the Civil Service of this country. The Civil Service Commission are not responsible for such schools; they know nothing about them. No information reaches the persons who conduct these

schools as to the subjects. Such information is of a public nature. The subjects upon which candidates are to be examined are very few and everybody who wants to know the subjects, may know 'them. Therefore I say the accusation made in this respect against the Civil Service Commission is unjustified and unfair.
The last case to which I desire to refer is that in the concluding remarks of my honourable friend's speech, when he referred to the unfortunate theft of examination papers by some means or another. My hon. friend almost directly accuses the secretary of the Civil Service Commission for the fact that in some way or another these examination papers reached the hands of two or three candidates at an approaching examination. Why is the secretary of the Civil Service Commission blamed? Will any hon. gentleman answer that question? Why not blame any hon. gentleman in this House? Why not anybody else in the world? Perhaps it is a fair presumption to suspect some person connected with the Civil Service Commission rather than somebody unconnected with the Commission and whose work has no relation whatever to the work of the Commission. The secretary of the Commission never sees the examination papers. They are prepared by certain persons appointed by the Commission, and are educationists of some standing and repute.


Samuel Hughes: Will the Minister name them?
A. K. MACLEAN:	I am sorry I
cannot. Their names were given to me but I have not now their names before me. When the questions are set, the papers are put into the hands of the confidential printer of the Commission and they remain in his possession. My hon. friend says: Where are you going to place the responsibility for this? Surely it must be upon the secretary. Under the Statute and under the regulations the secretary is not charged with this responsibility. If he should be charged with the responsibility, then let us make him directly responsible by passing an amendment to the Act or by suggesting an amendment to the regulations; but do not let us make him responsible for this particular offence when he was not responsible. He is the chief executive officer of the Commission and not the custodian of the examination papers. Perhaps he should be. Perhaps the practice of making the confidential printer of the Commission responsible is wrong. I am prepared to hear an argument in support of that contention.
Perhaps it is too great a responsibility to leave upon one man, and I am inclined to think so. The member for West Toronto in this connection stated: " If there are clerks under him who are handing out these papers for consideration and they would hardly do it if there were no consideration-he is the man who must be held responsible. If in your business, Sir, you had a man whom you had placed in a chief position of responsibility with regard to a thing of this kind, would you go on down the line and pick out the office boy for dismissal, or would you pick out the man who is primarily responsible?" If my .hon. friend's argument is sound he would act as follows: If an employee in the post office committed theft he would say: dismiss the postmaster. If the teller in the bank stole money he would say: Let the bank manager be charged with the crime and dismissed from office. If a deacon of the church committed a sin he would banish the minister from the precincts of the congregation and rob him of his pulpit. Surely there is a great fallacy in the argument which my hon. friend makes in this connection. I am not going to say much about this particular incident. It was unfortunate, but, perhaps, it is fortunate in the sense that it will cause the Commission to take greater precautions in the future in the care of examination papers. These things have occurred in other countries, in connection with examinations of the Civil Service. The same thing occurred in Ottawa years ago, when examination papers were printed at the public Printing Bureau. Personations at Civil Service examinations occurred at Toronto some years ago, and this has also occurred at Montreal and other places in Canada. In connection with Civil Service examinations, it must be remembered that there will always be some persons doing their very best to obtain information about forthcoming examination papers, and personation will be frequently attempted, but, of course, it will be the duty of the Commission to prevent this as far as possible. In this particular case the Commission are doing everything they can to bring the culprits to justice. Already one man has been arrested and his trial is now in progress. The case is in the hands of the secret service and is under the control of the Department of Justice. Everything that should be done is being done, and I do not think any hon. gentleman could suggest that anything be done which is not being done in the case. My personal judgment is that these papers



were not stolen from the premises of the Civil Service Commission. The evidence indicates that they were abstracted from a postage parcel en route from the city of Ottawa to another place in Canada. I would like to give my hon. friend my personal view and judgment in this matter, namely, that no person in tne Civil Service Commission is responsible for this, and much less is the secretary responsible. I am very sorry that my hon. friend attempted to leave upon the House the impression which he did, particularly in reference to the secretary of the Civil Service Commission.
Just a few words of a general nature and I have done, and I am sorry to have detained the House so long.


Samuel Hughes: May I ask the minister a question?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Certainly, but I do not want to discuss discounts.


Samuel Hughes: I do not want to raise a question of privilege. The point is that I do not want to stand before this House and the country as having attempted to mislead the people, and I am not going to.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I did not say you did.


Samuel Hughes: I want to ask a question. If not, I will take the matter up with the question of privilege. It is to be found on page F-16 of the Charges of 'Management Loan Account, New York Loan, $4,098,580, but I want to know from my hon. friend if the Minister of Finance returned to Canada with the $75,000,000, less the Morgan's commission, or did he return with the $65,000,000, less the discount and the commission? Did we get $70,901,420 out of it, or did we get the $75,000,000?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: We received the latter amount.


Samuel Hughes: He came back with $70,901,420.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The difference represents the discount and all charges of selling the issue.


Samuel Hughes: I want to know how much money went into the Treasury of the Dominion of Canada.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: $75,000,000, less the cost of charges, less whatever the discount on the bonds was.


Samuel Hughes: $70,901,420. Then I was right.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It would have
been easy to receive $75,000,000 if the rate of interest had been about 6 per cent.


Samuel Hughes: The paint I make
is that I was charged with making a misstatement.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. gentleman is
not in order in entering into a discussion or argument. He would not be in order in rising to a question. of privilege even if he had one, because the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) has the floor. The hon. member's speech is on record and it is not competent for him to interrupt.


Samuel Hughes: It is competent for me to ask a question if the hon. member is willing.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: With the consent of
the hon. member.


Samuel Hughes: How much did the Dominion of Canada get from that loan? Was it $70,000,000 or $75,000,000?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Even if I answer that question it would not follow that my hon. friend's statement was correct.


Samuel Hughes: I got my figures
from the Auditor General's Report.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I understood my hon. friend to say that the loan cost a certain rate per $100 and I think I have demonstrated that his statement was not correct. My hon. friend does not desire to misrepresent the facts. I know he would like to have the figures correct, just as I would myself, and having that high regard for him I ventured to correct his statement.


Samuel Hughes: How much money
did we get?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


William Folger Nickle: Paragraph (2) of section
39 of chapter 12 of the statutes of last year reads as follows:
Immediately after each examination, a list of the successful competitors in the case of a competitive examination, and of the successful candidates in order of merit in other examinations shall be made out, and the list of successful competitors and1 candidates shall be published in the Canada Gazette.
(a) Provided, however, that in all examinations persons who have been on active service overseas on the military or naval forces of His Majesty or of any of the Allies of Hiis Majesty during the present war, who have left such service with an honourable record or who have been honourably discharged, and who obtained sufficient marks to pass such examination shall irrespective of the marks they have obtained be placed in the order of merit on the list of successful candidates above all other candidates.

What construction does the minister put upon that section?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think the proper construction is the obvious one, namely, that a preference is to be given to returned men, and I think that the Civil Service Commission are following out that policy. I have not followed the work of the Civil Service Commission very closely and am not in a position to discuss individual cases with my hon. friend. But if the Civil Service Commission are not observing this section of the Act they would of course be open to criticism.


William Folger Nickle: I understood my hon.
friend in answering my previous question to say that the returned soldier got no preference.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Oh! No. I did not mean to say that. What I meant to say was that in the case of a position where technical qualifications were absolutely necessary the iCivil Service Commission might select a man who was not a returned soldier if he alone possessed the proper qualifications. Reverting to my subject, the hon. member for West Toronto made very, very serious accusations against the Civil Service Commission. I do not believe that ever in the history of this Parliament has any man made more grave accusations against any Government bureau or government service than he made, and I doubt if ever in the history of the Canadian Parliament such serious charges were made against any one man as my hon. friend made against the Secretary of the Civil Service Commission. I have dealt with the cases specifically, and think I have demonstrated beyond controversy that the statements of my hon. friend were absolutely unfounded in every case and cannot be supported by the facts. In concluding his remarks my hon. friend from West Toronto said:
I have just one suggestion in closing, and that is that the Civil Service Act should be amended at a vital point. I would have every position in the Outside Service filled upon the recommendation of the man who sits for the constituency in which the appointment is to be made.
Mr. Speaker, I quite understand the opposition that exists on the part of some hon. members to the Civil Service Act. It was inevitable that there should be opposition, and I am not surprised in the slightest degree. There have been similar complaints in all countries which have taken the step that this Parliament decided to take at its last session. If the objection
19}
to the Act is that the recommending power has been taken away from members of Parliament and the appointive power placed in the hands of the Civil Service Commission, all right. That is a fair matter for debate in this Parliament, and if Parliament wishes to reverse the position it took last session, well and good. Nobody could complain about that because it would be the will of the people, as expressed through its representatives in Parliament, which mu3t ultimately prevail. But if that be the objection I do not think an hon. member should attack the Act through the Civil Service Commission. I think he should attack the Act itself, and on the floor of Parliament, and not make such serious charges as he has made against the commission and its secretary. Last session Parliament unanimously supported the principle of appointment by competition; and promotion by merit. I know the Act is unpopular in many parts of Canada. I have heard many of my political friends on the other side of the House say: This is not a Civil Service Act at all, because no Liberal ever gets a position. The only thing that will satisfy them, I assume, will be the filling of every office by a Liberal. On the other hand I have heard the same complaints from members of the Unionist party, some of whom are not satisfied unless every appointment goes to friends of the Government or of Government supporters. It might be well for us to appreciate that members of both political parties will not all be satisfied with the present system, and if this Act was accepted by Parliament upon the theory that the old conditions would still prevail, it might be well for us to consider at the earliest possible date the propriety of continuing this Act; but so long as it remains on the statute books I say it must be observed. The old conditions will not prevail so long as this Act remains in force. I can quite understand how representatives of Parliament find pressure from their constituents and political friends very embarrassing indeed with the present Civil Service Act in operation. I have sympathy for them. I have been embarrassed on that account myself. But the question is: Are we to have a different system from that which has prevailed in the past in making appointments to public office? Is it desirable in the interest of the public sendee that appointments to office be made on the recommendation of members of Parliament, or shall they be made by an independent tribunal such as the Civil Service Commission? I am very glad to

find so many members on both sides of this House approving, after all, of the principle and expressing their sympathy with the Act and their desire to see it continued. I believe it will only be a short time before every member of this Parliament, or of future Parliaments, will say that the present system is better than that which obtained in the past, and when every member, regardless of the name of the party with which he is affiliated or the constituency which he represents, will be anxious to preserve the principle of the Civil Service Act which leaves appointments in the Civil Service with an independent commission.
My own opinion is that it is by far the better system; fairer, more just, more democratic. It is hardly worth while to boast of democratic institutions unless you follow out the principles of democracy; and it is nothing but tyranny which gives to any party or to any member of Parliament the right to make recommendations to office which are virtually conclusive. I have made many recommendations to office myself during the many years in which I have been in public life, and I have seen the present Civil Service Act in operation; and I have no hesitation in saying that it is in the interest of the public service, it is in the interest of Canada, that the method of appointment which now prevails shall continue.
I trust this Parliament will never again revert to the old method of making appointments. I had intended to refer to the many anomalies and injustices which issue from the past system, but I shall not take up the time necessary to refer to these matters. I trust, however, that Parliament will continue to support, as sympathetically as it did last session, the principle of appointment to the public service by an independent commission.
Now, just a word or two as to the Commission. I have already said more than once that the criticism of the hon. member for West Toronto may have a very disastrous effect upon the work of the Commission and upon the progress and development of our public service under provisions of the Civil Service Act. I know that he did not intend to do injury to so important an institution as our Civil Service Commission, and it became necessary, therefore, for some member of the Government to speak in answer to the accusations he made and in defence of the work of the Commission. He has referred to the fact that the chairman of the Commission, Hon. Dr. Roche, is not a very strong man and has been more or less ill, and consequently 
has been unable to devote the time to the work that the work deserved. As a matter of fact, Dr. Roche has enjoyed better health during the last year than during many years previous. It is unfortunately true that Mr. Jameson has been seriously ill during the past few months. He became an influenza victim, in the month of November, I think, and has been obliged to spend the winter in the southern states. But, after all, the criticism which is made of the Commission was not directed, in the main, against the capacity, integrity and character of the Commissioners but rather against the work done by them as a body, and the suggestion was, not of incapacity or inability, but of something worse-a desire not to observe the provisions of the law or to carry out the Act honestly. I do not suggest that the Civil Service Commission must be free from criticism; but, I do state frankly that I think the work imposed upon the Commission is excessive, and that Parliament should consider the question of increasing the Commission during this Parliament. I know that the duties of the Commission are so onerous that much of their work must be neglected. They have not devoted sufficient time to the proper organization of the Commission as they should have done. But there was a reason for that. The statute passed last session imposed upon the Commission the duty of reclassifying all the Inside and Outside Service. In conjunction with a body of experts whom they brought to Ottawa they have been engaged in that work of reclassification ever since Parliament rose last year. I say on their behalf-for it should be said of them-that it has been impossible for them to discharge the duties pertaining to their office in the manner and with a despatch, which, I know, they would have desired. I am not pleading for mercy for the Commission, and I would be the last person to say that they should not be criticised. All I ask of Parliament is that fair play and ordinary justice be extended to the Commission and its members. I do not ask more on their behalf; they would not have me do it; they would not do it themselves.
I wish to say a word particularly as to the secretary of the Commission, because I feel that my hon. friend for West Toronto has done that gentleman a great injustice, unintentionally, I believe. The hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) speaking last evening objected to some statement made by Mr. Foran in commenting on the

statement made in Parliament by the hon. member for West Toronto. It is to be remembered that the accusation made against the Secretary of the Commission was a very, very serious one indeed-one who reads the hon. gentleman's speech carefully must be seized of the seriousness of his statements. Accusations made against any man, if the person accused believes them to be unfair, naturally provoke recrimination. In this particular case the recrimination has brought forth a reference to matters of religion and creed, which have nothing to do with the question of Civil Service-and I doubt if they have anything to do with Christianity. Perhaps the statement made by the secretary was unfortunate. I think the statement made by the hon. member for West Toronto will, some day, be regarded by himself as unfortunate. I think the secretary of the commission and the member for West Toronto will, some time, come to understand one another better with respect to these matters, and that each of them will forget some of the remarks that have been made.
My personal acquaintance with Mr. Foran is very limited indeed; in fact, I have never had the opportunity of meeting him in my life until the Civil Service Act was under consideration at the last session of Parliament. But, I do know that he is a strong friend of Civil Service reform and of an efficient public service. I do not believe there is a man in Canada who is so strong a friend of Civil Service reform, and of an efficient, capable public service, as Mr. Foran. He is so regarded by Civil Service reformers in the United States as well as by those in Canada who know him in connection with his work.
I must speak of him as I know him with my very limited experience. I have no hesitancy whatever in expressing to the House my own view, and that is, that he is a capable public official interested in building up a strong and efficient public service. I do not believe for one single moment that the secretary of the commission would be guilty of doing any of the acts which were charged, or suggested, against him in the remarks made a few days ago by the hon. member for West Toronto.
Mr. Foran has been in the public service for thirty years. He has been connected with the Civil Service Commission since 1908 and he was secretary of the Board of Civil Service Examiners from 1895 to 1908. Therefore, he has been intimately connected with, and has intimate knowledge of, everything that relates to the Civil Service of
Canada. I think he is trusted by all who know him. I believe his services to 'the public are appreciated by all who have had an opportunity of knowing him and I think I can safely commend him to Parliament, as a capable and trustworthy secretary of the Civil Service Commission.
I feel called upon in justice to say these few words for the secretary of the commission, and I do trust that the member for West Toronto will be able to revise his opinion of that gentleman and of the work of the commission, and that before this session closes we will have from him an admission that in regard to all, or practically all, of the statements which he made against the commission and its work the other evening, he, unfortunately, was misinformed. Having said these few words on behalf of the commission, the members of the commission, and its secretary, I finish.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. ARTHUR TRAHAN (Nicolet):: Mr. Speaker, I trust that you and the House will pardon me if, in the course of my remarks, I frequently refer to my notes. Wishing to be understood, and desiring to make a modest but active contribution to national harmony, I address the House in English, which is not my maternal tongue. For this reason I ask your indulgence.
I will make only a very brief answer to the speech which was delivered by the hon. minister representing the city of Halifax. First of all, I wish to assure the hon. gentleman that nobody on this side objects to Canada being represented at the Peace Conference. On the contrary, we say that Canada should be represented at the Paris Conference, but surely my hon. friend from Halifax will not support the idea that nearly one-third of the iCabinet should be overseas while there is so much to be done in Canada, and when ministers remaining here follow, according to the Globe, a policy of " putting off " concerning all important matters.	[DOT]
As to questions relating to the cost of war loans, and the conduct of the Civil Service Commission, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the debate, and I do not wish for the present to interfere in this family quarrel. I have only one word to say about the Civil Service Commission: I hope that the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) will take advantage of

the opportunity which has been given to hint by the Government, and ask for an investigation in order to prove the charges which he brought to the attention of the House the other day. Speaking for myself, having heard from the gentlemen opposite contradictory statements on the matter, I shall reserve my judgment until this investigation has taken place.
Mr. Speaker, it is stated in the speech from the Throne that " important measures, designed to promote the welfare and prosperity of the people in the new era of reconstruction, social as well as material, upon which the world has entered, will be recommended for our consideration." This paragraph is very general, indeed, and enunciates a very large programme of action. For my part, I would have preferred to the word " reconstruction " the words " readjustment," or " co-operation," which seem to be more applicable to our country. However it may be, the hon. Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) the other day exemplified this programme in a very magnificent, descriptive definition. He summed it all up in this telling sentence :-
Reconstruction means a going forward, not a standing still; it means progress, not stagnation.
Let us see, Sir, if the Government has realized such a definition. Is it true that by their actions they have justified the laudatory speech of the hon. minister? In answering this question I wish to be fair, and I will give the opinions of friends of the Government itself. The fact that the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. McCurdy), who was Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Department of Soldiers' Civil ReEstablishment, has resigned that position is very significant. Why did he resign? His motives were explained in a statement issued to the press and which has been already read to this House. It is a clear statement, and coming from such an authoritative source it proves conclusively that in matters of reconstruction the Government, completely and absolutely, lacked initiative, method and courage. Moreover, another good friend of the Government, Senator Nicholls, in a letter published by the Globe of December 4, 1918, said the following:-
The Government has been repeatedly warned to prepare for after-war conditions, but the war is over and little 6r nothing has been done, although every other civilized nation has been mobilized for trade purposes long since. Better late than never is an old proverb, but "a stitch in time saves nine," is a much better one.

These opinions are confirmed by the hon. Minister of Immigration and Colonization himself, who said the other day that " there was not very much talk at that time-that is to say, last July-about the preparations for after the war, and we must not be very much surprised in this country if in that respect the full duty of the Government was not completely performed." Then a little further on the hon. minister went on to say:-
We always understood that the war was going to end, that it would not last forever.
Again he said:-
We were not all adrift.
How can the hon. minister reconcile this last statement with the first one? I do not know, but what I do know and say is that the Government has failed in its duty regarding reconstruction.
They were repeatedly warned to prepare for after-the-war conditions, but when the armistice was signed, according to the Minister of Immigration (Hon. J. A. Calder) himself, little had been done. Surely this is not a progressive policy; it is rather Stagnation. Read carefully, Sir, the entire speech of the minister and you will see that while set phrases were coming forth fluently and eloquently, actual facts were standing still.
I will deal in the course of my remarks with three subjects: the returned soldiers, the labour question, and the tariff and agriculture.
As to the returned soldiers, many say to them that they are heroes. That is perfectly true. Many tell them also: we owe everything to you. Perhaps the desire is all right, but they speak from the generosity of their hearts, not with due regard to the financial possibilities of the country. Too many transient favours can only make sufferings more acute. Everything which is promised to our returned soldiers and not given to them will he considered by them as a robbery. The Government must take care not to make of each of those whom they help a kind of perpetual pensioner who may become all too easily a rebel or a beggar. On the contrary, it is our imperative duty to afford to these veterans an opportunity at the earliest possible moment and in the most extended manner of resuming their pre-war activities and acquiring, as a consequence, a greater dignity and the right to greater independence. To give to disabled soldiers artificial limbs is good, because you release their bodies of many hardships. But that is not enough. We must secure for them also calmness of heart and soul

and inspire in them a high idea of their dignity. Has the Government succeeded in this noble work of raising the morale of our returned soldiers? As you read the newspapers, Sir, you are obliged to confess that the numerous troubles caused by some returned soldiers in Toronto and in other western places seem to suggest a negative answer. This is a great source of regret to every law-abiding citizen, and I earnestly request the Government to adopt proper measures not only to assure material help to our heroes, but also to provide for their intellectual and moral welfare.
I truly believe, Sir, that the principle of granting pensions to returned soldiers according to their rank in the army and proportionately to the pay they were receiving as such is not just and fair. I do not advocate uniformity in the rate of pensions; I only submit that you must not create distinctions and privileged classes among the veterans. Moreover, the Pensions Board should not consider only the gravity of the injury, because the injury may not of necessity bring about a change in the earning power of the man. For instance, an accountant with a leg taken off at the thigh will be able, without suffering any decrease in his salary, to continue to do his book-keeping, while a pianist, deprived of the use of only one finger necessary to the exercise of his profession, may fall into poverty. Consequently, it is the relation between his infirmity and his ability to carry on the work or practise his profession which is the essential factor to be considered in determining the pension of the returned man. Each case, therefore, should be dealt with individually, separately, according to the particular circumstances, on its own merits, and not according to specific rules, rigid regulations, or the rank held by the man in the army.
The Minister of Immigration and Colonization told us the other day that we have, scattered throughout every province of Canada, something like 150 institutions for disabled soldiers. This is very well, but if these institutions are managed according to "the arrogant and insolent system" described by the Globe, "which regards the continued interest and concern of civilians in their sons and brothers after they hav.e become part of the military forces as presumptuous and calling for reprimand and punishment;" if the Administration maintains the conditions tnat-and here again I quote the Globe-"permitted Ottawa-behind the anonymity of which guilty officialdom now seeks to hide-to utilize a building"-the Base Hospital at Toronto- "which the Medical Officer of Health testified was in a disgraceful and unsafe condition, to house more than double the number of' patients it was properly capable of accommodating in a sound and safe condition;" if there is no better accommodation for soldiers in these institutions than in the Toronto, Montreal and other military hospitals; if, as asserts the Globe, of October 30th, 1918, Canada, in its fifth year of war has yet made no attempt "to provide adequate modern hospital accommodation and equipment for the men of Ontario's biggest military district;" and . if these conditions prevailed all over the country, well, Sir, to use the expression of the Minister of Colonization (Hon. J. A. Calder), we are nearly all adrift. I am afraid that our returned soldiers will not be cared for as they deserve, and the Government will be held responsible for this bad treatment.
We Liberals are true and sincere democrats, and as such are supporters of responsible government. We desire that the people should govern themselves in accordance with the Constitution, through the intermediary of their representatives. But a reasonable use of political rights demands a political formation, a political organization. How is it that to-day in our country a large number of citizens are sick of politics and apathetic to it? Evidently there is a close connection between this condition and Government by Orders in Council. It is not sufficient to say to the people: You are free according to the law; you are, by the universal franchise, the leading authority; by your vote you are the masters of the country. How can the people be sovereign when we are not permitted, in a meeting of free citizens, to speak freely on matters concerning the interests of the country? Do we sincerely desire to be a nation politically free? Do we sincerely desire that all classes of society, with diligence, energy and thoroughness, should take an active part in active political fights for the defence of their most sacred rights? We must immediately abrogate the Orders in Council repressing the freedom of speech and freedom of the press. These are political liberties for which our forefathers have fought, and I feel it is my imperative duty earnestly to urge the Government to repeal without delay all regulations encroaching upon that liberty, regulations which entail autocratic Prussianism in this Dominion. It is time,

Sir, to practise in our political life the democratic ideals which have triumphed on the battlefield.
There is now in our Dominion a general industrial unrest. Its principal sources are: the abuse of Orders in Council, the high cost of living, the scandalous war profits and the social strife between the different classes of the community. During the last four years and a half we have been the sorrowing witnesses of the most bloody war in the history of the world. In our country we have also had our internal difficulties. There has been a general struggle between manufacturers and labourers, between producers and consumers. The result has been the triumph of the powerful over the weak, of the unscrupulous man over the honest man. The rich have become richer and the poor poorer. What has the Government done to help the Canadian people to recover all the rights of which they have been deprived by capitalism under an economic sphere? Has the Government proved to the working people that not only do the labouring men work for a salary, hut they perform in our community functions of general interest for the accomplishment of which they have a right to gratitude? Has the Government been progressive in this matter? The strike of the postmen last July, the difficulties of the Government with the Civil Service, the strike of the employees of the Public Printing Bureau which began to-day, are good answers to this question. They prove conclusively that as regards labour the Government has been inconsistent, autocratic and stagnant.
Ministers of the Crown were responsible for this strike and postponed a decision until they were forced by public opinion to make one. Let me quote an article from the Globe under date of July 25, 1918, which explains the situation very well:
It is impossible to avoid accepting the verdict of the man on the street that responsibility for this dislocation of business rests primarily with the Government at Ottawa. The bonus passed to the letter carriers by Parliament has never been paid. The Government either neglected the repeated petitions of the men or refused to take them seriously. The Premier, the Postmaster General, and several members of the Cabinet were overseas. Those remaining at Ottawa followed a policy of " putting off." The result is the strike, the tying up of much important business, and general public inconvenience and loss.
The plain truth of the matter is that the Post Office Department has been practically neglected for months, while the'Labour Department, which should have properly also interested itself in the situation as it concerned the carriers, is headed with such hopeless inefficiency that nothing effective or business-like can be hoped for under existing conditions.
tMr. Trahan, f	'
If the Government acted in the same manner towards the Printing Bureau employees, they must bear their responsibility before public opinion. For this reason, I blame the Government for its prolonged delay in performing one of its principal duties, that is, to guarantee and favour the development of professional organizations. The ministers who occupy the Treasury benches must remember the very object of the State, namely, that its principal mission is to protect all rights without exception.
If common law justly prevents the abuses of the less disputed power, the paternal one, much more should it do so when it is a question of labour contracts. A minimum must be guaranteed to the weakest contracting party. Liberty alone is not sufficient to solve the serious social problems.
As part of its so called progressive policy, the Government intends to confer upon women the privilege of sitting in Parliament. This reform is not asked for by women, and in my opinion is mere camouflage. Women will not avail themselves of this privilege. In Great Britain at the last election there were only a few women candidates and only one was elected. Does the Government really believe that it will be otherwise in Canada? If not, this proposed legislation is useless. Moreover, it is not demanded by the women, who in general have never claimed political rights, but have always firmly demanded laws which would enable them to be victorious in their struggle for life. In our modern society, working women have been exploited by the manufacturers. They receive no protection and work hard till they are exhausted, and it is well known that they are not sufficiently paid. What they demand in the name of justice and humanity is a minimum wage and the Government would serve the interests of women better by passing a law fixing a minimum salary for working women throughout this Dominion, than by giving to women the privilege of sitting in Parliament. Legislation such as I have suggested has already beep proposed by the Government of the province of Quebec, and I urge this Government to follow along the same lines.
Inasmuch as the labour programme claims the possession by labourers, including farmers, of their essential rights, the legal, proportional and professional representation of their interests, the protection of their homes, a sufficient salary to insure a decent standard of living for themselves and their families, guarantees by way of state insurance against accidents, illness and unemployment, old age pensions, the privilege of participating in profits and
march 7, 1919
even, by means of co-operation, in the capital of the enterprises to whose success they contribute by their work, to that extent I approve of it. Why? Because the labouring men constitute an essential part of the community and because the Government must solve the problems of our social life. The question is, not merely to provide against poverty, but to guarantee social rights; it is not a question of charity, but a matter of justice. It is important to limit as much as possible that unhappy class of our people earning a precarious wage. Having first admitted that the labourer is entitled to a just salary in proportion to the efficiency of his work we must then grant to him additional remuneration by means of sharing in the profits of the enterprise in which he is engaged. This is the future form of salary and perhaps it will take a long time before the rights of the labourer in this respect is recognized. There will undoubtedly be much objection to it but we know that the principal has been already applied in some measure and with good results in the form of co-operative farming, in the form of distribution of dividends or bonuses and of pensions proportionate to the size of the family. Remedies must be applied if we are to check effectively the industrial unrest which at present makes our national outlook very gloomy. What remedies have the Government proposed? The Minister of Public Works made two suggestions. By the first he declined all responsibility on the part of the Government, and wanted the capitalists to spend their money in industrial enterprises regardless of consequences. To my mind that suggestion is impracticable, because in financial matters there is no sentiment. Secondly, he intimates that the Government will spend enormous sums of money on highways, railways, shipping, etc., but that in consequence we shall face a yearly deficit of from one hundred to one hundred and fifty millions of dollars. This second suggestion is not the proper remedy, and if it constitutes progress at all, it is an uninterrupted progress towards bankruptcy.
What else is the Government doing? We have ministers giving interviews-talking always talking, but doing nothing in the matter of social reform. If this Government progresses at all it progresses in stagnation.
Speaking on the Budget in the session of 1916, the Acting Prime Minister said:
"The future of Canada rests with the development of its great resources, of which the greatest and most fundamental is agriculture, and this development is in turn bound up with the question of increase in population of the productive sort and the facilities afforded It
for the application of its intelligence and industry. It is probable that in the straightened financial conditions which may prevail for some years forward, the question of capital for the development of agriculture may be of paramount importance, and it is our intention to inquire carefully during the coming recess into this most important subject	
It is always the same song, Sir; it was repeated the other day by the hon. Minister of Immigration, when he said:
"A good deal of thought and study has been given to many of the problems that would naturally come up when the war would close."
But where are the results? Has the Government created a system of rural credits as requested by the farmers for many years? Not yet, why? Because the Government always studies but never acts. Since 1913 they have had before them a Bill regarding rural credits, and after six years of study and thought, they have not yet adopted it. They are not following on this great question, the bold example of France, of Great Britain, and of the United States, all of which countries have passed, even during war, progressive legislation to efficiently promote rural credits. I hope, iSir, that there will be no more standing still on this question, but that in the interests of the farmer the Government will establish rural credits in Canada, so that the farmer may not be at the mercy of accumulated capital in merged banks, but may be able, by means of co-operation, to finance and develop their own industry, the basic industry of our Dominion. II make this suggestion, not only for the good of farmers, but in the interest of the whole country; because, if agriculture progresses, there will be a decrease in the cost of living, and with such a decrease industrial unrest will soon come to an end.
Is the Government more active and determined as regards free agricultural implements, free food stuffs, reciprocity with the United .States, and tariff questions in general? The Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) has admitted that " the Tariff forms a very essential part of the work of reconstruction." This opinion is general among the people; manufacturers await a decision on that important question, and are postponing improvements to their factories pending announcement by the Government of its policy. On this point I have only to read the circular of the Canadian Manufacturers Association, dated at Toronto, February 19, 1919, and numbered 174. It is entitled " New Factories and Additions," and says in part:
There is no doubt that a considerable amount of factory extension construction is held up

owing to the uncertainty prevailing in regard to what the Government may do with the tariff at the approaching session,

as a result of the demands of the Western Grain Growers and other farmers' organizations.
The demand for a decision by the Government on the tariff question comes not alone from the manufacturers of this country, but the Grain Growers, the United Farmers, the local legislatures of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and the rural population all over Canada, are unanimous in favour of an immediate and substantial reduction of the tariff. On the 4th of this month, Premier Norris, of Manitoba, according to a Canadian Press despatch published in the Citizen, expressed a strong opinion that never in the history of Canada was the time so opportune as now for a revision of the tariff on the lines of a substantial reduction. " The Government at Ottawa," said Premier Norris, " is not supposed to be a party Government, and should be in favour of dealing independently with the question."
Facing such a general demand for decision and action on the tariff question, what is the Government doing? Have they, as the hon. Minister of Immigration and Colonization said, " A true conception of what the people of this country demand in the way of progressive legislation?" No, Sir, they progress only in stagnation. They " wait and see." They should remember that this policy was disastrous in England, and that such standing still is against the public welfare and cannot be rightly supported. Allow me to quote on this subject the conclusion of a letter, dated Langvale, Manitoba, February 10, 1919, and published by the Financial Times, Montreal, of first March inst.
They argue for a "wait and see'' policy and for us to let this sacred national policy alone until they have had time to adjust themselves to peace conditions. What about time for us to adjust ourselves? Our point is that if the burden is not removed we farmers, on this drifting policy, will be, if not ruined, brought dangerously near that point. As I said before when wheat was too cheap years ago we were very near to a catastrophe. The life of Canada depends mainly on the basic industry of farming. Let them beware that they do not hill the goose that lays the golden egg. The manufacturers seem to see blue ruin ahead for them if Free Trade is adopted. This I do not credit, but I do know after thirty years' experience farming In Manitoba that if the burden is not eased the fa-rmwill be more and more forsaken, and I fail to see how we can possibly build up Canada fit for all classes without a prosperous farming community.
This statement is very accurate and I entirely concur in it. I said, last year, that I was in favour of free agricultural imple-

ments and free foodstuffs. May I add, Sir, that, following Liberal principles, I am a staunch supporter of the 1911 Reciprocity Agreement with the United States, of an increased British preference and of the immediate withdrawal of the war supertax. I greatly doubt that such an expression of opinion on my part can induce the Government to reach a conclusion on this question. They are too much inclined to stand still and stagnate in matters of progressive legislation.
We are jubilant. Sir, because the war ended with the triumph of liberty and civilization ; but we have another important duty to perform. Our delegates attend the Peace Conference. Let us pray the Almighty that their decisions be always and only guided by the eternal principles of justice and charity which have enlightened the world and which alone can ensure a lasting and profound peace for the universe. Let us learn the moral lessons of the war. Our gallant Canadian soldiers of all races and creeds have united their energies and thoughts, their experience and hearts, for the defence of a sacred cause. Let us imitate them and heartily practice for the progress and welfare of our beloved Canada the beautiful virtue of mutual toleration and the duty of national unity; let us be animated and inspired by the spirit of that illustrious and much regretted statesman, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who during his lifetime always had an undivided affection for Canada and liberty, a profound respect for human beings and who always advocated " welfare in harmony."


Mr. ALFRED THOMPSON (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a few observations in connection with the debate on the Address as the representative of the most northerly and most westerly territory of this great Dominion. The hon. gentleman who preceded me (Mr. Trahan) has paid some attention to some incidents that have occurred in the present session and, before addressing myself to the subject matters of the speech from the Throne, perhaps you will permit me, Mr. Speaker, to make a few references to some of the things that he has said. He refers to what he is pleased to call the family quarrel and I presume he has reference to what took place in the House this afternoon when the hon. the Minister (Mr. A. K. Maclean) referred to the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken). One of the hopeful things about this Union party to me is, Mr. Speaker, that when a man who sits on your right

has anything to say in regard to the conduct of affairs by the men who sit on the Treasury Benches, he is not afraid to get up and say it in Parliament, or in public, and to have it carried on the wings of the telegraph to the uttermost parts of this Dominion. That is, I consider, good policy. Publicity is one of the great safeguards of democracy and I think it is just as well that members should express themselves here where they can express themselves.
My hon. friend referred to the speech made by the hon. Minister of Colonization and Immigration (Mr. Calder) and particularly to his remark regarding reconstruction that not all had been done that he wished they could do. Is that not all right? I do not suppose there is any minister of the Crown sitting here who is able to do what he would like to do, but it is at least a confession of interest for a minister to get up and say that he has done certain things but there are other things * that he has not found himself in a position to do. He shows the Tight spirit at least when he takes that position rather than attempting to defend what it is impossible to defend. The world is in a very chaotic [DOT]condition and great changes have taken place all over.
My hon. friend also paid his respects to the method of governing which this Government used to a large extent during the war and when resort was had to Orders in Council. I have heard other hon. gentlemen speaking from the other side of the House and criticising the Orders in Council as well. They have found fault with the Government for using that method of giving [DOT]effect to the will of the people in carrying on the war. I do not think that criticism is well founded. In my judgment, Orders in Council are an indication of the flexibility of our constitution rather than a symptom of the autocratic methods which governments use in times of stress. Orders In Council have been used by the British Government for more than one century at least. They were in existence at the time of the Napoleonic wars, having been used by the British Government of that day. I do not remember what their origin was, but I know they existed then. They are not used, generally speaking, except in times of stress. Where did the Government get its authority to issue these Orders in Council? Perhaps the hon. gentleman who has just preceded me will be surprised 9 p.m. when I point out to him that the authority which is carried by these Orders in Council is derived from the
War Measures Act, an Act which was consented to unanimously by the members of this Parliament, and an Act which was supported by the distinguished gentleman whose spirit has passed beyond and who led the party of which my hon. friend is a member. Sir Wilfrid Laurier himself supported that measure. I wondered when I heard of these hon. gentlemen referring to these Orders in Council if they had just thought back far enough to realize where those Orders in Council had their source. In my hand is the Hansard for the special session of Parliament in those fateful days of August, 1914. Sir Wilfrid Laurier is speaking


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: Order.


Alfred Thompson: What does
my hon. friend say?


Joseph Archambault: I do not believe my hon. friend can read from Hansard.


Georges Henri Boivin: It is perfectly in order for an hon. member to read from the debates in Hansard provided they are not the debates of the present session.


Alfred Thompson: Is my hon. friend satisfied? In that case I may be permitted to read the quotation:
The gravity of the occasion which has called us together makes it incumbent upon us even to disregard the formalities and conventionalities which in ordinary times the rules of the House, written and unwritten, enjoin as a wise safeguard against precipitate action, but which, on such an occasion as this, might impede us in dealing with the momentous question before us. This session has been called for the purpose of giving the authority of Parliament and the sanction of the law to such measures as have already been taken by the Government, and any further measures that may be needed, to insure the defence of Canada and to give what aid may be in our power to the mother country in the stupendous struggle which now confronts her.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier quoted the War Measures Act from which these Orders in Council spring. The Government is not attempting to get from under any responsibility that they have in this matter. In the final analysis they have to depend on the War Measures Act, and we are told that only those Orders in Council which are necessary to be retained will be submitted to Parliament. They will be brought down and Parliament will be asked to approve or disapprove of them. I do not see why it is necessary to criticise the Government for using an Order in Council as a method of representing the people during the stress of war.

My hon. friend referred to the extension of the franchise to women and criticised that act of the Government. Sir, it is too late to criticise the giving of votes to women. If there was one thing which impressed itself upon my mind during the war, so far as the Canadian people are concerned, it was the degree of organizing ability which the 'women of this country displayed, to say nothing of their heroism and patriotism during the great struggle. For my part, Sir, I welcome the giving of votes to women, for I feel sure they have well deserved it, and if they are not as thoroughly versed in the arts of government as the male members of our population they will very quickly learn.
I would like, Sir, to offer my felicitations to the distinguished gentleman who now leads the Opposition, and upon whose shoulders the mantle of the late distinguished leader of the Liberal party has fallen. He is an old parliamentarian, and I am glad indeed to find that he was selected as the leader of his party.
I am pleased to find that the speech from the Throne promises constructive legislation which will require constructive statesmanship to carry into effect. Perhaps never in the history of our country do we need more than now such statesmanship and such legislation. Some of the hon. members of this House in their conversations with me rather indicate that they almost fear the return of our men to this country after the cessation of the war. What were we fighting for four years in the great war for? Was it not for a victorious peace, and have we not achieved that triumphant result? Why then should we fear the return of our men from the front, or fear lest a chaotic condition of mind ensue when they do come back? Are these men strangers to this country? Are we bringing back from Europe four or five hundred thousands of aliens? No, Sir, they are our own people who understand the meaning of representative government and what the possibilities of Canada are. They are coming back to their own people, coming back to their own homes, and I have no fear at all as to what their attitude will be. I welcome them back because they have a tremendous flood of energy which, if properly directed, will result in great good to this country of ours. They are coming back to take part in the political life of Canada, and unless my judgment is altogether wrong the men who will govern this country, provincially and federally for the next decade or two are in the Canadian Army. I have no doubt that the Prime Ministers of Canada even will

be recruited from that source if history repeats itself in our country, as it did in the United States. In the course of the next ten or fifteen, or perhaps twenty years I have no doubt that the men who fill these positions in front of me in this House, the men who represent the Crown in this country, will be chosen, to a very large extent, from the Canadian Army which has brought such glory to our common country. There is no fear in my mind about the ideas these gallant gentlemen will bring home with them, because they have fought the fight, they have kept the faith, and they are coming back to the country which they love and which they may call their own.
Amongst the constructive legislation promised in the speech from the Throne is a measure to assist in settling the soldiers on the land. I am a great believer, Sir, in having among our population people who have a stake in the soil. Canada is an agricultural country, but we have different resources from which we derive our national life. They are four in number, the farms, the fisheries, the mines, and the forests, but of these four the greatest of all is the farm. It employs the greatest number of our people, it furnishes the largest number of tons of freight to our railroads-in a word, farming is the backbone of Canada. But you cannot convert four or five hundred thousand soldiers immediately into farmers. There are certain things which must be done, and done in unison, before a soldier can be made into a successful farmer. These things are three in number. First, you must have land for the soldiers, and I am glad to find that the Government has undertaken to provide land for our soldiers when they return. But that is not enough. We must also provide the soldier with a certain amount of capital- not very much, but a certain amount-so that he will be able to make a proper start. But there is another thing that is almost equally as essential as land and capital, and that is some experience or some knowledge of agriculture. These are the three things that are necessary, in my judgment, to start a soldier who wants to go on the land and become a producer, as we all want him to do. To give him land and money without knowledge or experience is not of much use, failure is almost sure to result. But if you give him a certain amount of training, which can be done by putting him through a course in our agricultural institutions, then I think the chances of hijs success are very greatly enhanced.
Another matter referred to is the permitr ting of desirable immigration. If there is

one thing that we have learned in the recent war, it is to be careful about the character of the people we permit to come into this country, and I hope the Government will see to it that the immigrants permitted to enter Canada will be men upon whom we shall be able to rely in any great national crisis in future. If there is one important thing we have learned from the experience of the past it is the necessity of having in this country men who will defend it if necessary with their lives, and that democracy which we nil stand for, and which we all believe in, and I hope we all practice. To bring men to this country who have lived their lives under institutions foreign to our own, would be a very doubtful asset in time of peace, and a heavy liability in time of war, as we have already found out. So I hope that the Government will be most careful to see that any men they bring into this country will be such as our free institutions will appeal to, and such as will defend democracy with their lives. The assimilative power of the Anglo-Saxon race has been one of the wonders to men who have studied the question of the assimilative power of races, but even that great and inherent 'quality of our race has been over-taxed in this country. Therefore, I repeat, let us be careful in the future, and see that we get the right kind of immigration into Canada.
Another matter the Government has taken up, I am glad to say, is the matter of public health. Mr. Speaker, the greatest asset any state can have is the people that compose that state, and the stronger those people are in body and mind the more valuable that asset is. A health department is capable of doing wonders in strengthening our state. In the matter of tuberculosis alone a department of public health, with headquarters in Ottawa, and ramifications throughout the country, can assist in saving-and I speak from knowledge, for I have had some experience in this particular matter-seventy-five per cent of those people in this country who to-day are suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis, called consumption. Such a department can do more than that; it can convert those people into active citizens, who will be a great asset to the country. There is another way in which the Department of Public Health can help our country-I mean in the matter of sanitation, providing a pure water supply for our cities and seeing that our streets are kept clean. In a word a department of public health can do an infinite amount of good.
A Department of Public Health can carry on and develop methods of decreasing the number of typhoid cases. Typhoid, so recently as the South African War, killed more soldiers than did the bullets of the Boers, though in this greatest war of all times typhoid has been practically wiped out. A good, active Department of Public Health at Ottawa can do a great deal towards reducing the mortality from typhoid in this country. The same is true of .smallpox. The same is true of venereal diseases, always following in the wake of the armies.
A Department of Health at Ottawa can do * a great deal towards reducing that danger ' to a minimum. Take the great influenza epidemic which is sweeping over the world at the present time and which caused the death of thousands of Canadian people within the few months that it scourged and ravaged this country. We do not know yet what the cause of it is. The greatest bacteriologists in the world have devoted their best efforts to the solution of that problem, but the medical profession is not united as to what the cause of this disease is. There is a field for a Department of Health; there is an opportunity for scientists to investigate and inquire into the cause of that fatal scourge and try to secure a remedy. So it is with cholera, that seaborne disease; so it is with bubonic plague. Because of the situation of our country in relation to the ocean highways of the world, these diseases may invade us at any time. They have invaded us in the past. Bubonic plague has been in Canada; cholera has been in Canada; smallpox has been in Canada; typhoid has been in Canada. I think, therefore, we should have a Department of Health, and I should welcome it now.
The speech from the Throne referred to the export trade of Canada. For fifty years we have been devoting our energies to spending money in the development of interprovincial trade, in creating manufacturing industries, in building up our educational and commercial institutions, in constructing our transcontinental railways, in digging our canals, in lighting our coasts, in providing means of transport for this sparsely populated country stretching from ocean to ocean. We have built up in Canada a very considerable manufacturing business, but we have never had our fair share of export trade. During all these years we have been creating, creating, creating. Now is the time, when -our statesmen are at the Peace Conference, when commercial treaties are being revised, when the name of Canada stands



further north-that ships are taking to-day. And why? Because the northern route is the shorter route. Why did the old Spanish merchant ships going to Manilla sight the Aleutian islands? Because that was the shortest route. These airships will cross the very section of country to which I am asking the Government to afford transport facilities. They will seeft the line of the mountain range where the winds are not great; they will cross the great section of this country between the Alleghenies and the Rockies, this great central plain, they will sail across to the Rockies, north along that great chain and down the Yukon valley and across over the Aleutian islands and thence by way of Siberia and China to Japan. And on this route from the mainland of America to Yokohama, there is not a section of more than 150 miles, perhaps not more than 100 miles, over which they will have to fly over water.
Why should we do all this that I am asking? Because, Mr. Speaker, we are a progressive people who have led the world in great enterprises. The first ship that crossed the North Atlantic was built by Samuel Cunard, of Halifax, Nova Scotia after whom the great .Cunard line was named and through whose genius that great transportation system was developed. In the old House of Commons you will still find the brass plate near the Library which gives the history of the first ship that crossed the Atlantic under her own steam -a Canadian ship. When my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queens (Mr. Fielding) was Minister of Finance he did a notable thing. Senor Marconi came to America and tried to get the Newfoundland Government to assist him in erecting a wireless station. But the Newfoundland Government could not do as he requested because of a contract which had been made by them with a cable company, the name of which I have for the moment forgotten. Marconi came to Cape Breton. An officer of the Canadian Government, a member of the staff of the Post Oifice Department, Mr. William Smith, happened to be in St. John's, Newfoundland. He heard of Marconi's invention and of the difficulty that existed because of the contract with the cable company. He was enterprising and far-seeing enough to write to a gentleman here who told the hon. member for Shelburne and Queens about the matter. That hon. gentleman himself wrote and told Mr. Smith that the Government of Canada would be willing to assist Marconi. Marconi came to Ottawa, the Government did assist him with a grant, with conditions attached that the Canadian people should be given

low wireless rates for a certain length of time. The result was that Marconi towers were erected at Glace Bay and the wireless system became a fact-and perhaps there are few greater boons to the human race. To-day Canada has perhaps the finest wireless system in the world. And that reminds ' me that, under the scheme I am advocating, we could take the wireless plants that are being dismantled because of the cessation of war and place them at Hudson's Bay ports and other places in the north for the assistance of the enterprise.
Is there any other great enterprise in which we led the world? We built the first transcontinental road on this continent. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the first railway which connected tide-water on the Atlantic with tide-water on the Pacific, the first which ran from coast to coast, was built by the Canadian people, by the Canadian Government, namely the Canadian Pacific. There was no complete transcontinental road in the United States at that time-I do not know even that there is one to-day, and we have three of them.
We have never yet gone into any of these far-reaching enterprises without our action being justified by the result. You are aware, Mr. Speaker, that the great nickel and copper deposits of the Sudbury region were discovered by the engineers and contractors who built the Canadian Pacific railway. It was the building of the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway which made known the great mineral deposits of Cobalt and that whole region. That road was not built with a view to opening up a mineral country, but was built to reach farm land in the northern portion of the Lake Temiskaming country. The same is true of the Porcupine and other great mineral fields opened in Northern Ontario. The sending of a squadron of Northwest Mounted Police to the Klondike, before it was discovered or heard of, helped very largely in the discovery of the Klondike which resulted in giving $200,000,000 of wealth to the world.
Is there anything else in which we led the world? Yes, we were the first people in the British Empire to federate great states, when we created the Dominion of Canada and thus established the model upon which every federation in the Empire has been moulded. Seeing, then, that we have the genius, that we have the country, that we have the people, I trust that this Government, in its wisdom, will see fit to consider some of the suggestions I have made. If they do, I promise you, Mr. Speaker, I promise the Government and the people of Canada, that it will be the sowing

of fruitful seed which will yield a hundredfold.


Mr. ONESIPHORB TURGEON (Gloucester) :: Mr. Speaker, on rising to address the House for the first time during the present session, my first word must be of deep regret at the loss of our great and beloved leader. And I cannot resist the impulse to extend my thanks, as one of the humble followers of the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier, to the many hon. members on both sides of this House who have spoken in terms of eulogy of the life, character and achievements of that great Canadian. I must mention first, and with special appreciation the remarks of the acting leader of the Government (Sir Thomas White) on the second day of the present session.
I also express thanks to two other non. members on this side of the House. I must more particularly express my sincere thanks and appreciation for the eulogy pro-, nounced yesterday by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) in the speech delivered by him and in which the expressions of admiration and esteem for our revered leader reached a higher plane than has ever been attained in this House before. These remarks came from one who had been educated in the school of that great British statesman, Gladstone, who had dwelt with him in the city of London, who had heard him on many occasions and whose privilege it had been to listen to speeches delivered by him which had not only astounded his auditors but the whole world. I esteem particularly his likening of that great British statesman to Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I have always believed that it was the ambition of our Canadian statesman to follow in the steps of such a great British statesman as Gladstone. On many occasions when I desired to impress upon my people in New Brunswick the talents and position of our great leader I have deemed it appropriate to compare him to some of the great British statesmen and I have often designated him the Gladstone of Canada.
Being left in bereavement and without a leader at the opening of this House, the first duty of the Opposition was to look for another leader, either permanent or temporary. It having been decided by the Liberal party in this House that the choice of a permanent leader should be left to the consideration of a Liberal Convention to be held as soon as possible, the choice has been made, I believe, for the time being, of a member of this House and of the Liberal party well known to every hon. member on both sides and well known not
20i
only in his native province of Nova Scotia but throughout the other provinces of Canada. He is known as a result of the long years which he has given to his people in this Parliament, by his standing as a lawyer, by the ability with which he discharged the duties that devolved upon him while occupying a seat on the Bench and many other admirable qualities which make him most acceptable not only to the Liberal party in this House but, I am sure, to the Liberal party throughout Canada. He also possesses qualities, combined with his experience, which may be of great benefit to the Liberal party, and to Canada at any moment. The hon. the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) comes from a district where miners and steel workers are employed by the thousands in the great industries to be found in Cape Breton. His experience, as well as the place which he occupies in the confidence of those who know him best, give him the necessary qualifications to play an effective and useful part in the settlement of labour problems which this Parliament may have to solve before its prorogation. Therefore, he is well qualified for the position of leader of the Opposition in this House. The will of his people has guided every step of his career. He is an inhabitant of the ancient province of Nova Scotia where
10 p.m. the spirit of justice, liberty and harmony still prevails as it did in the days of Haliburton and Joseph Howe. He is imbued with that sense of British fair play and justice which he has displayed on every occasion in this Parliament.
Coming back to the debate on the Address, I cannot help but extend my sincere congratulations to the hon. the mover (Mr. Redman) and the hon. the seconder (Mr. Manion) of the Address. They are not in the House at this moment but I would point out that they have followed a direction new in this Parliament. They have not confined themselves to the old system by which it was considered the duty of the mover and seconder of the Address to speak to the House merely as supporters of the Government of the day. They have, in noble language spoken to us of the war and of the heroism, energy and valour of our Canadian soldiers. They have told us of the duty we owe to the returned soldier not only in the matter of increased pensions but in many other respects. I acknowledge the indebtedness of the House to them for the very admirable addresses with which they favoured the House in moving and seconding the motion.

Speaking of the valour of the Canadian soldier, I may say that he has not only done his duty but he has shown a spirit which elicited the admiration of every nation engaged in the war. He has won the respect and esteem not only of Canada but of the British Empire and the Allies by his valour and courage. At the very first of the war, on that great and critical occasion at the battle of Langemarck the Canadian soldiers displayed a superhuman courage and valour but for which the day would have been lost. With the knowledge that there was no possibility of reinforcements reaching them, rather than retreat they fought with splendid courage, the bodies of their dead comrades were used as a rampart against the enemy and whilst the souls of those who had fallen rose to heaven their surviving comrades rallied nobly, stopped the advance of the Hun to Calais and thus saved the Empire. In a great many other hard fought battles they distinguished themselves and brought glory to their native land. 'At St. Julien, St. Eloi and elsewhere their gallantry and courage brought victory to the Allies and on every occasion the Canadian soldier acquitted himself in such a way as to win the admiration of the civilized world. It remains for the Canadian people to show their gratitude to every one of those returned soldiers who fought for liberty, right and justice, for democracy and against autocracy.
Sir, I wish to be brief in my remarks with respect to the matters referred to in the speech from the Throne. The representatives of the allied nations, including the representatives of the British Dominions, are to-day assembled endeavouring to frame a treaty which we hope will ensure permanent peace to the world. Not only will that congress determine the amount of damages to be paid to the allied countries, but it will be its duty also to endeavour to see that we shall have peace for all time. Not only will that congress fix the indemnities to be paid, but it will endeavour to see that the German people shall divert the trend of the education of its youth from the muddied channel of arrogance, autocracy and Prussianism, to the limpid stream of fraternity and democracy, in the hope that that nation, after sincere repentance and enlightenment, will be able ultimately to join in the League of Nations and help to make the world immune from future wars. So long as Germany educates its youth along the lines which it has followed during so many years, so long will it remain a menace to the world, and the rest of the nations would have to continue the maintenance of

armaments, a thing which we would all deplore, and which it is certainly one of the chief aims of the League of Nations to put an end to.
I desire now to discuss more particularly the tariff question, and I am glad to see the Minister of Immigration and Colonization in his seat. That hon. gentleman the other day delivered a very remarkable speech, marked by some brilliant and patriotic features in discussing the intentions of the Government with respect to the returned soldier. But when my hon. friend came to consider the tariff question, he dropped to a lower level. In his opinion at the present time, when demobilization, reconstruction and re-establishment policies call for attention, we ought not to discuss the tariff question, but leave it in abeyance for some future time. Sir, in my humble judgment, the Government should have dealt with the tariff iquestion from the very first; but instead of that it pursued a policy of delay, and now calls upon us to wait a while longer. In my opinion, the very moment the armistice was signed the Government should have called Parliament together with a view to taking some action on this important question, which is the very foundation of our national prosperity, and yet even to-day we are not to see any action taken because of peace time conditions. My hon. friend declared the other day that he was now, and intended to remain, a Liberal. I believe I know my hon. friend as well as any member in this House, and I can bear testimony to his strong Liberal beliefs. I think he is still a Liberal, and I hope he will remain in that frame of mind, not so much from motives of expediency, but with a view to the application of Liberal principles in this great Canada of ours. Let me tell my hon. friend that the question of the tariff is the great overpowering question that a true Liberal of the English school should bear in mind, and therefore we cannot leave unconsidered the matter of tariff legislation, more particularly as we are in the transitionary period between war conditions and peace conditions. In my opinion, no reconstruction policy can bring this country safely from war conditions to peace conditions unless it is based on the economic principles held by the Liberal party. My hon. friend's uncertainty of mind on this subject is perhaps due to his failure up to now to convince his supporters on the Government side, and he, therefore, wishes more time to convince them. I maintain, Sir, that we cannot wait any longer. The people expected the Gov>
eminent to take action three or four years since, and not wait as it has done, and yet in the matter of the tariff it to-day appeals for further delay. My hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) yesterday gave the Government credit for having given a certain degree of reciprocity in the shape of free wheat and free potatoes. For six years my hon. friend had been lamenting the defeat of reciprocity and the loss of the advantage that would have resulted to the country had that policy been carried out. The same eloquent gentleman spoke of the efforts which he had been making for three years or so to induce the Government to have recourse to an income tax, and yet, after it has been so 'long urged when it comes to be introduced it is made as light as possible. But why stop there? My hon. friend the Minister of Immigration and Colonization always advocated Liberal principles until the day he joined the Union Government. I presume he entered the Cabinet from motives of conscience, and as to that I have nothing to say, but we on this side of the House also have a conscience which would not honestly permit us to cast in our lot with them. Instead of that we have remained true to our principles, to our policy, and to our revered leader. My hon. friend the Minister of Immigration and Colonization, in giving a reason for postponing the consideration of the tariff question, said, in eloquent terms:	"There is
a cleavage between the East and the West'.' I think I can convince my hon. friends that there is no cleavage between the East and the West; that the policy of the West is the policy of the East; that the people of the Maritime Provinces are in harmony with the people of the West in demanding that the principles embodied in the reciprocity pact of 1911 be re-affirmed by this Parliament. The whole population of the Maritime Provinces is in favour of that pact to-day, as it was in 1911. The province of Quebec also is in favour of the reciprocity pact now, as it was at that time. If there is a cleavage it is between the people of Canada and a few financiers of Ontario and Toronto. To prove that the people of the East are in harmony with the people of the West in this matter, I have only to direct attention to a number of resolutions which have been adopted in the Legislature of Saskatchewan, a body which only a few months ago the Minister of Immigration and Colonization adorned with his talent and his ability, as he had done for twelve or fifteen years. There he made fame for himself, and was often justly extolled by the people of his province for his advocacy
of the true principles of Liberalism. I will read that portion of these resolutions which relates to the general interests of the country, leaving aside that which is of particular interest only to the province. These resolutions are in the form of a petition to the Dominion Government and were adopted unanimously in the Legislature of Saskatchewan, being supported alike by Liberals and Conservatives. The resolutions read:-
The immediate adoption by the Federal Government of an efficient policy of soldiers' settlement which will ensure the immediate settlement of as great a number as possible of our returned soldiers upon lands in Saskatchewan within reasonable proximity of railway facilities and community centres.
An immediate and substantial all-round reduction of the customs tariff.
The reduction of the customs duty on goods imported from Great Britain to one-half the rates charged under the general tariff, and that further gradual uniform reductions be made of the remaining tariffs on British imports that will ensure complete free trade between Great Britain and Canada in five years.
The acceptance by the Parliament of Canada of the reciprocity agreement of 1911, which still remains on the United States statute books.
The placing- upon the free list of all foodstuffs not included in the reciprocity agreement.	.
The placing upon the free list of all agricultural implements, farm machinery, vehicles, fertilizers, coal, lumber, cement, illuminating fuel and lubricating oils and all raw materials and machinery used in their manufacture.
The immediate extension to Great Britain of all tariff concessions granted to other countries.
This is the view of the Legislature of iSas-katchewan; indeed, of the whole of the people of that province. Only last Tuesday the sentiments expressed in these resolutions were adopted in almost the same words by the Legislature of Manitoba, where they were approved by every Conservative as well as every Liberal member of the legislature. The Minister of Immigration and Colonization knows that at many conventions of farmers and grain growers in Alberta the same sentiments have been expressed. The people of the three prairie provinces are one in their demand for the restoration of the reciprocity treaty. Had not the American Congress and Senate given Canada free lumber in 1913 the lumber industry in New Brunswick would have become bankrupt at that time and would have remained so ever since. In expressing these views I am sure that I voice the sentiment of the people of the Maritime Provinces, including members representing those provinces in this House. I know that these views are shared by the leader of the Opposition as well as by every

other member from the Maritime Provinces and Quebec. I need not say that they are entertained by my most esteemed friend the member for Shelburne and Queen's (Hon. Mr. Fielding), who was a minister of the Crown at the time this reciprocity agreement was entered into in 1911. Fortunately, the mott6 " No truck or trade with the Yankees " was not adopted by the Mother Country. If the Mother Country had taken the same position as that adopted by the Conservatives in 1911 and lacked consideration for the great nation to the south of us, where would we have been in this war?
Of course, these resolutions of the Legislature of Saskatchewan at once attracted the attention of the manufacturers of Ontario, and immediately, through the organ of the President of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, they issued a statement of their position with regard to the matters dealt with in the resolutions. In their judgment the time had not come to consider the question of the tariff; it should be left over to the future. Here is what, on January 28, through their president, they say of these resolutions:-
Therefore, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association believes that the country should concentrate on the one main problem, with its attendant questions, and- leave the highly controversial problem of tariff revision to a time when it can be given the undivided attention it demands.
Of course, it demands attention. They give this reason why it demands attention:
It is a general and familiar law, that in any country, when fundamental tariff changes are anticipated, trade depression follows. During such periods of uncertainty, investment is curtailed, enterprise is limited, commerce lives from hand to mouth, consumers buy sparingly, and building languishes.
If it is a general and familiar law that when tariff changes are anticipated, trade depression follows, we should make haste and have the tariff revision made at once before trade depression takes place in this country. Now is the time to act. If we put the agricultural industry on a good footing, we shall be able to look after the returned soldiers. Agriculture is the basic industry of Canada. We want to sbnd the returned soldiers to the land. One hundred and fifty thousand of them have, expressed their willingness and their intention to go onto the land on their return. The Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) will, perhaps, tell me that the Government are going to be very generous to the returned soldier; that they will advance him a certain amount of money to pay for

the land he needs and also money to buy the implements he requires. At the same time, the soldier who wants to go onto the land, wants to see ahead of him a future livelihood. If the Government advance him money, he will have to make good every year the interest on that amount together with the annual instalment he will be called upon to pay. If he is discouraged and cannot meet his interest and instalments, his loan is bound to be forfeited. Unless he sees that he is really encouraged and gets everything he needs at the lowest possible price, he will certainly not go on to the land; or if he does, and is not able to get on, his land will be forfeited and will not be handed over to any returned soldier, but will likely go to some speculator in the West who is waiting for such opportunities. The time is most opportune for immediate revision of the tariff. The manufacturers of this country have, during the four years of this war, accumulated immense wealth through the tremendous profits on their operations. They are to-day in a better position than they have ever been before. They have to-day millions of dollars in the banks awaiting investment. They have millions of dollars worth of Victory Bonds at five and a half per cent interest, free of taxation. They are, therefore, in a position to face the situation to-day. They are in a position, not only to accept the situation, but to help the people of Canada and also to help the farmer to get what he wants so that he may increase the quantity of land under cultivation in this great country of ours. To-day, when I say that the East is in harmony with the West in their claim for reciprocity with the United States, -for free agricultural implements, and for having other articles put on the free list, it is because in the Maritime Provinces, as well as in Quebec, a new impetus has been given by the war to the industry of agriculture. Agriculture has doubled its production during the last four and a half years, and everyone of our farmers, with his son coming back from the war, is looking for the moment when he will again be able to increase his production. But to be able to do so he must be given every one of his implements at the lowest possible cost.
We have been informed by the acting leader of the Government (Sir Thomas White) that the Minister of Railways (Mr. J. D. Reid) contemplates spending during the coming year $35,000,000 on railway rolling stock and steel rails; $20,000,000 on

railway extensions, and $10,000,000 on betterments. We have also been told that $25,000,000 are to be spent on housing. This makes a total of over $80,000,000 which will be spent on railroads and housing in Canada and which will give a new impetus to the industries which our manufacturers are well prepared to take in hand. Now is the time for the Governnnjnt to act. The problem of the returned soldier must be solved. In my county there are several soldiers waiting to get land somewhere in the county or in the province to which they belong. Owing to the still indefinite state of affairs, we have not been able to locate any of them and they are still waiting. After a few months it will be too late; a year will be again lost for the farmers in the West as well as for the farmers in the East. Therefore, I repeat that now is the time for the Government to take the matter into consideration.
It is true that a compromise is asked for by the manufacturers. They are willing to compromise and they will, perhaps, be satisfied with the elimination of the war surtax imposed by the Government at the beginning of the war on all importations including raw material. It was my lot at the time, amongst other members of the Opposition, to oppose as strongly as possible the imposition of a surtax of 5 per cent against products coming from Great Britian and 7J per cent on products coming from other countries. The manufacturers will accept the elimination of that war surtax which will give them the raw material. I see in that no great advantage to the producer or the farmer, for I was opposed at the time to the taxation of raw material just because it was hampering external trade, which was of first necessity, more particularly in war time and just now, and because it would also have the effect, with the maintenance of the tariff, of permitting the manufacturer to have the advantage of the elimination of the tax on raw material without giving the Canadian consumer the benefit of it. As long as there is a duty on goods manufactured from imparted raw material such as woollen, or linen, or leather goods, the manufacturer will raise his price in accordance with the duty. There would, therefore, be no benefit to the consumer.
There was an offer of compromise with respect to another matter by an hon. member to whose speech I listened with great attention. He suggested that we should have a tariff commission, and I was amazed at his suggestion. Surely, we have had commissions enough during the war. For
the last four years we have been governed by Orders in Council and by commissions. The Government would take away from Parliament all of its responsibility. A tariff commission would take a year or two to take evidence from the friends of the manufacturers and the protectionists before it would make a report. During all that time the consumers of the country would have to wait. If there is one thing which should be left to Parliament, according to all British traditions, it is the tariff, which has a bearing on the happiness or otherwise of all the people. I certainly hope the Government will not entertain the suggestion for a Tariff Commission. I would urge my hon. friend the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) to take the tariff question in hand at once, and if he can possibly succeed in bringing his supporters round to the Liberal policy on that question I shall give him great credit for it. I would also ask the Minister of Immigration and Colonization to take up with his colleagues another matter of vital interest to this country-the War-Time Elections Act. To my mind that Act should be wiped off the Statute Books at once and if there is one member of the Government who should initiate a movement in that direction among his colleagues it is the Minister of Immigration. He comes from a province where for long years he has enjoyed the confidence of the people who have come to this country at his own invitation and enjoyed the freedom of Canadian citizenship, who, according to his own testimony, have been loyal citizens of Canada and have voted for him every time he offered himself for election in the province of Saskatchewan. Will he go back to those people and tell them that he is going to keep on the Statute Book the WarTime Elections Act which disfranchises good, honest citizens who came here years ago? Will he tell them they shall no longer have the freedom of the country to which they are entitled? Speaking of this Act on September 11, 1917, just one month before he joined the Union Government, my old esteemed colleague from the province of New Brunswick, now Minister of Public Works, said: "I cannot understand the Government thinking that a Bill of this revolutionary character, which violates every principle of that British fair play which we have bragged about in this country ever since I was a boy, is going to be railroaded through Parliament." That is the way he characterized the Act. I would ask these two hon. members to get their heads together and when they are in

Councils to-morrow ask their colleagues to delay no longer but to bring down on Monday afternoon a simple Bill repealing the War-Time Elections Act.
There is another question on which I shall say only a word or two, and that is the question of assistance in the building of highways. We are very pleased that the Government is going to assist the provincial governments in the building of roads, but we on this side of the House wish to put the Government on their guard, as we did a few years before the war when the Government introduced a Bill with similar objects but which encroached on provincial rights. On that occasion we on this side of the House, and particularly my hon. friend the present Minister of Public Works objected to the method under which this money was to he spent. If there was one gentleman who had strong views on that subject it was [DOT] the present Minister of Immigration and Colonization who, at that time, had a resolution passed in the Saskatchewan Legi_-lature upholding provincial rights and declaring he would not accept any money for the improvement of highways under the terms laid down by the Federal Government. I ask him to see that in the framing of the Bill there will be no encroachment this time on provincial rights, ll do not object to there being an understanding between the engineers of the local Governments and the Federal Government, but there should be no pressure brought to bear on the provinces in the expenditure of this money.
While the Minister of Militia and Defence (Major-General Mewburn) is here, I shall take the liberty of drawing his attention to one or two matters which I have been asked to bring before him. I understand that there is a small number of printers, pressmen, feeders and compositors working in the Militia Department for a pittance which, according to my informant, is not worthy of the department. Sixteen of those men are working at a salary of $66.75 per month, working 42 hours per week, and receiving no extra pay for overtime, although they are often called upon to work overtime on Sundays. I do not know the facts myself but I have every reason to believe that the information given me is correct. I might say that the stenographers in the Separation Allowance and Assigned Pay Branch also make the same complaint of long hours and inadequate pay.
They have to work long hours at rates of pay not adequate to the service rendered.
I know that the Minister of Militia will

inquire into these matters, and if he finds my statements to be correct, I am sure he will give consideration to these deserving officials.
I close my present remarks with the hope that the result of this war may be to bring lasting peace and harmony among the nations of the world. And may that harmony be reflected in the relation between the various nationalities in this Canada of ours. We all share the same sentiments, a love of democracy, of freedom and justice, and I trust that, having these glorious ideals in common we shall be united in our appreciation of one another's efforts to carry them into practice.
On the motion of Major General Mewburn, the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Burrell the House adjourned at 10.48 p.m.
Monday, March 10, 1919,


[Stage Direction]
The House met at Three o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Volume 3 of the Auditor General's Report for the year ended March 31, 1918.-Sir Thomas White.
Order in Council appointing the Minister of Railways and Canals Receiver for the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway System.-Sir Thomas White.
Orders in Council respecting pay and allowances to ex-soldiers receiving treatment and training under the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment.-Mr. Hugh Clark.
Orders in Council respecting pensions.- Mr. Hugh Clark.
Ninth Annual Report of the Commission of Conservation, 1918.-Hon. Mr. Rowell.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I would like to ask the Secretary of State if he has any information to communicate to the House in regard to the strike in the Printing Bureau and if he would tell us what progress is being made towards a settlement. I would also ask him if he would be good enough to lay upon the table of the House the report that I understand was made to the department by the men.


Martin Burrell: The report made by the committee

has already been laid on the Table. I have received no report from the men, although I understood that some report was to be made. As this is a matter of some public importance, perhaps I may be allowed briefly to explain the situation as it stands. The Bureau employees consist altogether of about twelve hundred. Of these the pressmen, comprising roughly about one hundred, have struck. The Act of Parliament lays down that current wages paid in commercial establishments shall form the basis of pay for similar work within the Printing Bureau, and it says: " For better guidance, the cities of Toronto and Montreal shall be taken, and those rates shall not be exceeded." The Act does not say that the highest amount payable in either Montreal or Toronto or in both of them may be taken, and the custom has been to take the average rate between Toronto and Montreal in commercial establishments. I might also state that the outside firms embody their rates in agreements which are entered into between the employers and the men. The present agreement, for instance, running until June 1, next. I might also point out that some outside firms, notwithstanding the fact that they lay down a rate to be followed in regard to the wages to be paid to the various services in their establishments, exceed that rate in the case of especially skilled workmen and in respect of various trades in those establishments. It has been contended by the Bureau employees that in fixing the rates for the Bureau, this excess rate for efficient employees in various outside establishments should be taken into consideration in applying a flat rate to all the employees in the Bureau. This, of course notwitstanding the fact, which will not be denied by any one, either employers or men, that the' efficiency of the Bureau is away below the efficiency of outside establishments. Indeed, the committee itself says that work in outside establishments is from ten to fifty per cent better than work in the Printing Bureau and the cost of production in the Bureau is unquestionably greater.
As the agreements were to expire next June and fresh agreements were to be made, and as we would then have to adjust the rates, it seemed best to the Government to leave all questions in dispute until those agreements expired and fresh ones were made. The question of a bonus also came up. As hon. members in this House know, the Civil Service were being given certain bonuses. It was thought by the Government-and I do not think it will be disputed by any one-that as a matter of fact or
right, the mechanical forces of the Bureau, which were paid according to outside schedules, could manifestly not participate in the advantages of an Inside Service, and that the bonus would not apply to them. But as some outside firms had paid a bonus, and as these differences of opinion did obtain amongst the Bureau employees and the minister, we concluded to pay a bonus, and accordingly a bonus of $2 a week was given to all the men in the mechanical forces and one dollar a week to the women in the bindery establishment. This applied to all of them and left the weekly pay received by the Bureau employees unquestionably somewhat higher than the average weekly pay received in all outside establishments. Moreover, this does not take into consideration, what the committee took into consideration, namely the question of holidays, for which they are paid $112 a year or $2 a week more, when outside establishments are not. This is all set forth in the committee's report. And whatever differences of opinion there might be in the employees' minds or in the mind of any hon. member in this House as to the accuracy of the various details of this report, I do not think that the substantial accuracy of this report will be disputed, and I think no member of this House will dispute that the closing words of the report must be accepted by all. They are:
We are firmly of the opinion that if our recommendations, arriving at a greatly reduced wage cost through the elimination of unnecessary labour and higher standards of efficiency are not adopted, the only recourse in the public interest is to close the Bureau.
In view of this report and in view of the obvious necessity of some reorganization of a government department which is running in this way, it was thought that as during this fiscal year anyway the Government Bureau employees, were in regard to their total weekly receipts, whether you call that bonus or wages, placed in certainly as good, if not in a better position, than all outside employees, they might very well wait until this report was considered before any increase of wages or new schedules in regard to hours were taken up. That was our position. That position was practically stated to the employees, that the matter should rest, as they were provided for fully, until the dispute was adjusted later on and the report was considered. I think it is the wish of the Government, as I am sure it is the wish of the members of this House that nothing less than justice should be done to the employees, common justice to the ratepayers of this country being kept in view. In the face of that report and my letter to

the mechanical department that the matter should be allowed to stand until the Government could consider the report, the pressmen, numbering about 101, have struck, while the rest of the mechanical forces have not struck.


Charles Murphy: May I preface a question that I desire to ask the minister, by pointing out to him that there is in the public mind some doubt as to the application of the concluding words of the report which he has just read, and there is general uncertainty as to whether the closing of the Bureau would be as much in the public interest as in the interest of certain outside printing concerns which, like Oliver Twist, have been clamorous for more pap. However, we will not discuss that now. Did I understand my hon. friend to say that when he receives the statement of the men's case he will bring down a copy for the information of hon. members?


Martin Burrell: I do not wish to enter into a discussion as to the accuracy of the report, but if I may be allowed to say one word in reply, my hon. friend who had charge of the Bureau for some years, will admit that unless there is a greatly reduced cost in running the Bureau, eliminating all unnecessary expense, and releasing on just terms those who are notoriously inefficient, nobody can justify the continuation of the Bureau.


Charles Murphy: These inefficient men should not have been put in the Bureau since 1911.


Mr. J. D. REID:: They were put in before 1911.



ALLEGED TRADE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST CANADA.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Charles Murphy: The Acting Prime Minister will have read in the newspapers of Saturday last an interview with Mr. F. P. Jones, from which 1 shall quote one or two extracts, upon which to base an inquiry:
Mr. F. P. Jones of Montreal, who has just returned from England and France, where he acted in an advisory capacity to Sir Robert Borden, says that the import licenses as they are administered in Great Britain discriminate against Canada and all countries that went to war in 1914.
Then comes the text of the interview, from which I quote these sentences:
The general election, followed by the Peace Conference, continued to occupy the minds of

the heads of the Lloyd George Administration, and evidently purely commercial affairs have been left to the Board of Trade. Now that the Canadian Mission in London have repeatedly and forcibly brought the matter to the attention of the British Government and also to the attention of our Canadian Ministers, in Paris, I feel confident the discrimination which does exist will be done away with.
Then, in the Evening Citizen of March 7th there appeared a further despatch on the same subject, purporting to give a summary of a discussion in the British House of Commons in these terms:
In the course of a speech in the House of Commons, Lord Wolmer informed the president of the Board of Trade that considerable feeling existed in Canada as a consequence of the policy of licensing prohibited imports. He asked whether licenses had been issued for imports from neutral Allied countries of goods which had been refused from Canada.
Under-secretary Bridgeman replied that it was true that, owing to their geographical position and to the difficulties of shortage of tonnage, a policy had been adopted respecting import restrictions which had had the undesired effect of discriminating against colonial goods. Now that the tonnage question was easier, he hoped that it would be possible to avoid this discrimination. The question was being considered and an announcement would be made shortly.
I desire to ask my hon. friend if he has any information as to the removal of the discrimination, and if not, whether he has any information in his possession to impart to the House.


William Thomas White: I am glad to say that I am able to set at rest any apprehensions my hon. friend may have with regard to discrimination, especially intentional discrimination, against Canadian trade by Great Britain. I have received two cables to-day on this matter. The first is from Mr. Lloyd Harris, of the Canadian Trade Mission overseas, in which he says:
In reply to question in House, this afternoon's Parliament, Secretary Board of Trade says:
The Government has decided no import restrictions shall be or continue to be imposed on goods coming from any part of the Empire without the assent of the Cabinet, which shall not be given unless some unforeseen necessity arises. It is not possible at present to remove all restrictions on imports from foreign countries because of the state of the exchange, but all raw materials will be free from import restrictions.
The other cable is from the Canadian Trade Mission in London to the Canadian Trade Mission here, as follows:
Board of Trade announced yesterday removal of all restrictions on imports from British Empire.



10, 19X9 RIOTS AT KINMEL CAMP.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Charles Murphy: Can the Government give the House any information regarding the cable reports of riots among the Canadian troops at Rhyl? Has there been any loss of life?
Major-General MEWBURN (Minister of Militia and Defence): Late on Friday evening I was informed that there had been some trouble in one of the camps in England and I immediately cabled the Overseas Minister of Militia for full information. My cable was crossed by his report on the matter, and which appeared in the Ottawa Evening Citizen of March 8th, as follows: (Reads official statement appearing in Ottawa Citizen, March 8th).
"Official statement of the disturbance at Kin-mel Camp. In view of the splendid discipline and record uniformly maintained by the Canadian troops since the beginning of the war, in England and Prance, the incident at Kinmel Camp is very deeply regretted at the headquarters of the Overseas Military Forces of Canada. It is considered that in comparison with others the discipline among Canadian troops has been of high order.
"It is greatly regretted that some of the reports of the incident have been exaggerated.
"Immediately after the armistice had been signed, Kinmel Park was secured as a concentration area, through which Canadian troops passed on their way to Canada, being situated convenient to Liverpool, their embarkation port. There all documentation is completed and troops sorted into drafts according to their destination in Canada.
"Considering the shortage of shipping, the Canadian authorities have congratulated themselves upon the splendid record which has been made, on the whole, as despatching troops to Canada in the month of February. However, the ministry of shipping were unable to furnish sufficient ships to carry out the programme, as promised to the Canadians. Owing to this, in ' February and early March the shipments of troops having fallen short by fully one-third, there occurred a backing-up from Kinmel Camp through the areas in England and through them to France.
"This has caused very great disappointment to Canadian soldiers who have been overseas for periods ranging up to four years or more without leave to their homes. The withdrawal of some ships and the postponement of sailings of others from time to time, particularly after soldiers had been documented and medically boarded in numbers based on the shipping allocated, has been very trying to the drafts, and this is what it is considered led chiefly to the disturbance.
"Immediately upon the matter being reported to the chief of the general staff, Lieut.-General Sir Richard Turner, V.C., K.C.B., he went to Kinmel Camp and addressed the men in fifteen different places. They seemed to appreciate his explanations and there are not likely to be any further disturbances.
"There are at Kinmel Camp approximately 15,000' troops, all ranks, who have been despatched there as being the last step before boarding ship for Canada. Had the number of men been able to embark in February according to the programme which it was confidently thought could be carried out, the trouble would not have occurred, but the shipping situation, owing to strikes and for other reasons, is admitted to be an extremely difficult matter to control. However, it is hoped by the Canadian authorities that there will not be a recurrence of the delays which have hitherto taken place.
"It is ifot attempted in the slightest degree to excuse the conduct of the men who took part in the disturbance. Many of the offenders have already been placed under arrest, who, with others involved will be rigorously dealt with.
"During the disturbance there was a certain amount of damage done and it was discovered that civilians were concerned. Up to the present time twelve of these civilians have been arrested and handed over to the civil authorities.
"During the disturbance there were killed three rioters and two men on picket duty. There were twenty-one wounded, of whom two were officers. There is no foundation for the report that a major who is a V.C. has been either killed or iniured.
" The troops at Kinmel Park are concentrated in wings representing the military districts in Canada to which they will proceed. They are not in their original units, these wings being composite formations consisting of personnel belonging to many different units. This sorting out is done in deference to the authorities in Canada to avoid delay when the men reach the Dominion. There has been some alleged dissatisfaction because of troops drawn from Canada under the Military Service Act getting priority over those who have seen longer service.
The troops who were in the Canadian corps at the time of the armistice are being returned to Canada by units in the formations that then existed, the first to return being a small number which were embarked on March 1. Soldiers not in the corps such as casualties, railway and forestry troops and others, where available, are demobilized on the principle of the longest service first demobilized, married men having the preference.
A court of inquiry has been convened to make a thorough investigation into all the circumstances in connection with the disturbance, of which Brig.-Gen. J. H. MacBrien C.B., C.M.G., D.S.A., is the president.
That is the official cable. I sent a furthei cable to the overseas Minister of Militia asking him to furnish us, at the earliest date, with any information he possibly can. He cabled:
All information that can be given out re Kinmel Park disturbance until court inquiry makes report contained in despatch to Government.
The moment that report is received the House will be advised. Later, if I may have permission, I will explain some of the problems of demobilization.


Charles Murphy: Does the minister know
if all the casualties are Canadians?

IMajor-General MEWBURN: That is not stated in the cable. I have cabled and asked for a complete list of the casualties.
Lieut.-General Sir SAM HUGHES:	1
was informed by an officer who has been at Kinmel camp that there was lack of fuel, lack of warmth, for the men there. I would ask the Minister of Militia to inquire into that. If there be any truth in it, why cannot Canadian coal ije sent in ballast in our ships to be furnished to the camp to keep the men warm?



GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RECEIVERSHIP.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
William Thomas White: Before the Orders of the Day are called, II desire to make a statement as to important action just taken by the Government respecting the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway system upon which I think it desirable the House should have immediate information. The facts are fully set forth in certain correspondence which I shall read to the House, and an Order in Council which I have laid upon the Table, and which, as it is somewhat lengthy I shall summarize.
Under date of 25th February last, Mr. Frank Scott, Vice-President and Treasurer of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company wrote me as follows:
Montreal, February 25, 1919. Hon. Sir Thomas White,
Minister of Finance, Ottawa.
Dear Sir Thomas,-Referring to our recent conversations.
I am in receipt of a cable from Mr. Smithers, stating that in the anticipation of receiving the balance of the appropriation of $7,500,000, viz.: $951,911.33, to apply for interest on Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Debenture Stock due March 1st, payment was duly advertised. In consequence, however, of the remittance being coupled with the condition that it is to be used only for operating obligations, the company will be unable to meet the interest due on the first proximo, and serious situation will result.
I respectfully beg to direct your attention to the matter in order that the actual position, and possible consequences may be fully appreciated.
Yours very truly,
Frank Scott,
Vice President and Treasurer.
To this I replied:
Ottawa, February, 28, 1919.
Dear Mr. Scott,-I beg to formally acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 25th instant which you personally handed to me at my office here. I note what Mr. Smithers states in his

cable as to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company being unable to meet the interest due upon its securities on March 1st. With reference to the balance of the appropriation of the vote of $7,500,000 by Parliament, the sum of $923,311.26 was paid to your company on your certificate No. 10 dated January 28, 1919, duly approved by the Acting Deputy Minister of the Department of Railways and Canals. This certificate expressly states that this sum Is on "account of a cash deficit in the operation of the company from April 1st to November 30th, 1918, inclusive," and "is required to enable the company to meet its operating obligations." The small balance of the vote amounting to about $28,000 will, I understand, he required for the same purpose. There seems no doubt that the deficit in operation should have priority over all other charges.
I have already informed Mr. Kelley, President of the Company, and yourself that it is not the intention of the Government to ask Parliament to provide a further vote for the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company while our negotiations with the Grand Trunk Railway Company remain in their present unsatisfactory condition. As I indicated to you, it will be for the Board of Directors of the Grand Trunk Railway Company to determine the question of their responsibility in respect of the interest maturing tomorrow upon securities guaranteed by their Company.
Yours very truly,
W. T. White.
Frank Scott, Esq.,
Vice-President and Treasurer,
Grand Trunk Pacific Railway,
Montreal.
Subsequently I received the following:
Montreal, March 4th, 1919. Hon. Sir Thomas White, K.C.M.G.,
Minister of Finance, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir Thomas,-I am instructed to inform the Government that in view of the fact that the increased rates applicable to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway have not been sufficient to meet the increased operating expenses, it will not be possible for that Company to continue its operations when the present funds have been exhausted, which will be about the 10th inst.
May I ask you to he so good as to acknowledge receipt of this letter.
Yours very truly,
Frank Scott,
Vice-President.
I acknowledged that letter in these terms:
Ottawa, March 5, 1919.
Dear Sir,-I beg to acknowledge receipt of yours of the 4th instant informing me of the intention of your company to discontinue operations about the 10th instant.
Yours truly,
W. T. White.
Frank Scott, Esq.,
Vice-President and Treasurer,
Grand Trunk Pacific Railway,
Montreal.
Under existing legislation it is not possible, except under proceedings for foreclosure or sale, to have a receiver appointed' for a system such as the Grand Trunk Pacific. The Government, therefore, was

confronted with what we regarded as imperative necessity in the national interest of providing for the uninterrupted operation of the system. It was found that the War Measures Act gave the Government a complete jurisdiction for the action which it took, viz:	by Order in Council to appoint the hon. the Minister of Railways and Canals as receiver for the system. I have made a summary of the provisions of the Order in Council as follows:
Re___Grand Trunk Receivership.
Provisions of Order in Council.
<1) Order recites that the continued operation of the G.T.P. System is essential in the present position of Canada resulting from the war, especially in connection with the tr^ns" port of returning Canadian troops and or supplies, equipment and freight, and that the duty of continuing such operation is thrown upon the Government of Canada inasmuch as there are no effective provisions in the existing laws whereby such continued operation could be otherwise secured and that therefore immediate action is imperative.
<21 Order applies to Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and the other companies embraced in its system.
<3) The Minister of Railways is appointed Receiver with all the powers and duties of a Receiver under the Exchequer Court Act.
(4) The Exchequer Court is authorized to make such orders respecting the Receiver and his powers and duties and the carrying out thereof as the Court may deem necessary or expedient in the public interest.
<5) Provides for taking possession by Receiver.	.
<6) Orders the several Companies embraced in the system and their officers to facilitate the carrying out of the powers and duties of the Receiver and the delivery to him of books and papers and personal property of the various companies.
<7) Provides that nothing in the Order contained shall render the Government or the Receiver liable to the Grand Trunk Railway Company or any Company included in the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway system or to any creditor or holder of any bonds, debentures, debenture stock or other securities of the said Companies or any of them for any claim by reason of the making of the order or anything done under the authority or under the authority of the Government Receiver or of the Exchequer Court, nor shall afford any defence to, nor prejudice any claim, action or proceeding of the Government of Canada which the Government might lawfully make or take had the Order not been made.
(8) All Officers of the System to continue to discharge their duties under the Reoeiver so that no interruption in operation may occur.
<9) Nothing in the Order shall prejudice the exercise by the Exchequer Court or by any Court of any Province of Canada of its present jurisdiction to appoint a Receiver or to order a sale of foreclosure of any railway orsection thereof or other property affected by the Order, provided that notice of any application for the purposes mentioned1 shall be given to the Minister of Railways and that he and Counsel for him shall be heard on the application and that the Court in granting.
refusing or postponing the application shall take into consideration the public interests involved and shall make such order as shall in the opinion of the Court protect the public interest.
(10) Provision is made whereby the Governor in Council may from time to time and upon the security of Receivers' certificates or otherwise, advance to the Receiver such sums as may be required to enable him to exercise his powers and perform his duties as Receiver.
While, under the War Measures Act, that Order in Council has the full effect of a statute, as Parliament is sitting, it is manifestly desirable that the Government should introduce legislation validating and confirming the Order in Council and sanctioning what the Government has done. Within a day or so, I shall introduce the necessary resolution to that end. There are two further letters which I desire to read. I am making, as I stated, a statement of the facts only. I received on Saturday a letter containing a cable from Mr. Smithers which refers to a statement made in one of the letters which I have read to the House. It is as follows:
Montreal, March 7, 1919. Hon. Sir Thomas White, K.C.M.G.,
Minister of Finance,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,
I have been instructed by Mr. Smitners to forward the following cable message to you as from him:

"Mr. Howard G. Kelley has handed me cable message from Mr. Frank Scott containing extract from your letter to him, as follows:- ' That it is not intention of the Government to ask Parliament to provide further vote for Grand Trunk Pacific Railway while our negotiations with Grand Trunk remain in their present unsatisfactory condition. I beg to recall, when Ministers came over last summer, it was stated in Parliament negotiations would be resumed in London. I accordingly saw Ministers, with members of Board several times and at last was told that Ministers could make no advance in their original offer without consent of full Cabinet in Ottawa. In these circumstances progress in negotiations was impossible, but with a view to facilitating matters, just before the Prime Minister left for Canada, a committee of the Board and myself, saw him. with two of his colleagues, and made a fresh proposal involving very big reduction on our first offer. This offer was not accepted, but on the 5th November High Commissioner of Canada sent for me and said he had message from the Prime Minister asking me if we wished to continue negotiations, and if so, he thought I should go to Canada. I told High Commissioner of Canada, looking to the faot that the Government had given no sign of any intention of departing from their original offer, I thought it was useless going out, unless 1 had some further explanation, or assurance as to Government's intentions. To this we have had no reply, and I really fail to see how the company can be held responsible for the unsatisfactory condition of our negotiations. Mr. Howard G.

Kelley is returning in a few days and I think it would be advantageous if you could cable any reply you may wish to make to this communication before he leaves. S'mithers.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) Frank Scott, Vice-President and Treasurer."
To which I replied as follows:
"Replying to your cable received through Mr. Scott:	Government considers unsatisfactory
condition of negotiations due to Board of Directors of Grand Trunk Railway Company entirely failing to appreciate its responsibilities towards the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway undertaking and the bearing of its liabilities in respect thereto upon the question of the net earning power and value of the Grand Trunk Railway System. In November last the Prime Minister cabled to Sir George Perley to suggest to you that if your company desired further negotiations, the Government would he glad to see you in Canada as soon as convenient. He pointed out that it did not seem useful to continue discussion by correspondence. He also suggested that if you came you should be invested with ample powers to conclude an arrangement if one could be reached. Your attitude towards the reasonable suggestion contained in the Prime Minister's communication seemed clearly to indicate indifference towards the continuance of negotiations. Confirmatory of this i# the peremptory notification on Thursday last to the Government, without previous intimation, or discussion, that the Grand Trunk Pacific would, on March 10th, discontinue operations, entirely regardless of consequences to Canada through interruption of traffic over a ssytem so extensive and important.
(Sgd.) W. T. White,
Acting Prime Minister."


Me CAHILL:: I wish to ask the Government if it is their intention to continue governing this country by Orders in Council and then merely bringing in their Orders in Council for the approval of Parliament. If so, why was Parliament called?


William Thomas White: If an answer is necessary I would point out that, if the Government had not the powers under the War Measures Act, and the Grand Trunk Pacific had carried out its expressed intention of discontinuing to-day, the entire system of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway company, embracing all the subsidiary companies, would have been at a standstill with consequences which, I am sure, my hon. friend will appreciate.


Mr. CAHILL:: There is no evidence of the Grand Trunk Pacific having made default.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Mr. RICHARDSON:: May I ask the hon. the Acting Prime Minister if he is in a position to tell us what the obligations of the Grand Trunk Pacific are for which the Grand Trunk is responsible?
L'Sir Thomas White.l


William Thomas White: I would suggest to my hon. friend that, as I am, within a day or so, to introduce a resolution looking to legislation, he defer his question until that matter is under discussion in the House. I shall then be glad to bring down full information respecting what my hon. friend desires to know as well as other information that, I think, will be regarded as necessary to a proper discussion of the question by the House.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Is the Grand Trunk Pacific actually in default now?


William Thomas White: I think not actually in default, but the notification we received was that they would discontinue operations.



READING ROOM OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the day:
Mr. JULES EDOUARD PREVOST (Terrebonne) :: (Translation) Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called, may I inquire why there are no longer to be found in the reading room of the House of Commons any more French publications such as " L'lllustration," " Le Monde Illus-tre," "Le Journal des Debats," "Le Matin," and a few others. Neither do we find any more " Le Courrier des Etats Unis," and " The Canadian Record," which were previously on file.
I hope the Government will see to it that the subscriptions are renewed.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The question
that is being submitted by the hon. member (Mr. Prevost) is not one of such importance as to warrant taking up the time of the House on the Orders of the Day. He should place his question on the Order Paper in the ordinary course. I might say that I think every reasonable latitude should be allowed hon. members in putting questions on the Orders of the Day if they have reference to important matters of policy but this privilege should not apply to questions of minor importance which can receive consideration in the ordinary course by being placed on the Order Paper.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of Mr. D. L. Redman (Calgary East) for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session resumed from Friday, March 7.

Major-General MEWBURN (Minister of Militia and Defence): Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to have taken part in the present debate, but during its progress several questions pertaining to matters that are of present importance have been raised, so that I feel it incumbent upon me to make a statement regarding two or three subjects that I think would be in the interest of members.
First, may I be permitted to say one or two words with reference to the sad event which occurred immediately prior to the House convening. It has been my privilege, and the privilege of other hon. members, to listen to the wonderfully eulogistic statements made concerning the late lamented leader of the Opposition, that great Canadian statesman and courteous gentleman. It would be folly for me to attempt to add anything to what has been already so well said, except to briefly state that I sincerely and honestly concur in everything that has been uttered regarding the deceased gentleman.
May I also be permitted, Sir, to extend my congratulations to the two gentlemen who moved and seconded the Address in reply to the speech from the Throne-two gentlemen who have served their country with distinction at the front. What impressed me, Sir, was the high tone and the high note which characterized their speeches; and I have also been impressed by the high tone that has permeated the speeches delivered during the past ten days, together with the apparent sincere desire by members on both sides of the House and their hope and trust that henceforward unity and harmony will prevail in this country. In this hope I entirely concur. I trust, Sir, that the remarks made along this line will not fall on deaf ears. I hope they will sink deep into the hearts of the members of the Government, that they may profit by them, and that the great national work to be undertaken will be carried out in the spirit of several of these speeches to which I have referred.
As I have already stated, there are one or two matters that I would like to touch on, Sir, and relying on the courtesy of the House I may have to refer to a few notes and statistics in doing so. First, I would like to explain to the House the object and reason of the Siberian Expedition. Certain hon. members mentioned the other day that a statement as to this expedition should be made, and this I am now glad to give to the best of my ability.
In order to understand the origin of the Siberian Expedition, one must cast his mind
back to the spring of 1918, and in these days of victory it is difficult to do so. In order to properly appreciate the circumstances connected with that expedition one must recall the situation at that time and the gloomy outlook which prevailed. The danger which then prevailed was of a two-fold character. The enemy at that moment appeared to be very strong, and it was necessary to try and reduce his strength and to deprive him of the goal he was after. The second great feature had reference to the Czecho-Slovak race, who had been loyal and faithful to the Allied cause. They were in dire need of help, and the Allies had undertaken to come to their asistance. Had the Allies failed to do so, it would have been at the expense of their honour, to say nothing of the risk of creating additional danger to the Allied cause. During the early period of the war, as is well known, Russia engaged a large number of German and Austrian troops. In 1914, when the war broke out, Germany rather ignored Russia and threw her full weight against France, which accounted for some of the early Allied losses of that period. Now let us follow the course of events down to the fall of 1917, when the Bolsheviks got control of Russia, and made it their business to sue for peace with Germany. This was a deadly blow to the Allies, because it enabled the German military machine to transport from the Eastern to the Western Front over a million men, with a very large mass of artillery and other war material. That great accession of strength enabled the German army to make a tremendous offensive in March, 1918, and to continue the attack during that year. If in 1919 the Allies could in any way reconstitute the Eastern Front, and thereby deprive Germany of the tremendous resources of Russia and compel her to detach troops from the Western Front and despatch them to the Eastern Front, it was worth trying. The Czecho-Slovaks, to whom I have already referred, were friends of the Allies. They had been conscripted into the Austrian army, but deserted in large numbers; some three hundred thousand surrendered to Russia, some thirty-five thousand to Serbia, and twenty-five thousand to Italy. Subsequently, they were recognised and fought with distinction for the Allies on the Russian Front. Then came the revolution in Russia. The Czecho-Slovaks endeavoured, and partially succeeded in crossing Russia and reaching Siberia with the ultimate intention of obtaining transportation across the Pacific and joining the British and French troops
[Stage Direction]
in the fight on the Western Front, The Allies had promised to come to their assistance, and the question was, were the Allies going to desert them? While the Czechoslovaks were crossing Russia there fell into their hands a very interesting document which was dated 28th April, 1918. The document in question, which was signed by both the German and Austrian Emperors of that time, was directed to all the subjects of Germany and Austria that were prisoners of war in Russia, and instructed them to endeavour to return home. If that was not practicable, they were to join the Bolsheviki army, as being most harmful to Russia and the Allied cause. The document further set out that everybody complying with the order would be considered as serving his country, and would be rewarded on his return homei Finding it impossible to comply with the first direction, and being directed in that event to unite with the party most harmful to Russia and the Allied cause, these prisoners joined the Bolsheviki, and I may say that from the documents received, these men were all trained soldiers and constituted a yery formidable accession to the Bolshevik army. At that time in Eastern Siberia the Bolshevik army numbered thirty-six thousand men, twenty thousand of whom were German and Austrian prisoners. The Czecho-Slovaks were now in dire distress.
The Allies agreed to come to their assistance, and here I would like to point out the feeling which prevailed among the Allied War Commission in the spring of 1918. In June and July of that year, the Supreme' War Council held that there was not the smallest chance of an Allied victory on the Western Front until 1919, if even then, unless the Eastern Front could be re-constituted. In the middle of June, 1918, the British General Staff viewed the whole situation, and took a decidedly gloomy view of the outlook. The most favourable outcome that they ventured to hope for was that the French and British armies should hold fast until the campaigning weather of 1918, and in 1919 it was then apprehended that the Germans would be able to concentrate at least one hundred and eighty divisions against one hundred and fifty French, British, and American divisions on the Western Front.
They also held that there was a real possibility of the Germans breaking through the Allied lines, forcing the British back upon the sea coast or across the Somme and inflicting a decisive victory on the French army. That was the feeling in the spring of 1918. About the end of June or
[Major-General Mewtmrn.]
early in July, 1918, the Prime Minister was in England; I myself had the privilege of being there subsequently, in July. The Imperial War Cabinet discussed the situation with the Canadian ministers who were then there, pointed out the whole of the difficulties and the problems which had to be faced and urged that Canada should assist Great Britain in the organization of a small force to go to Siberia. An arrangement had been made with all the other Allies in the matter of sending a small force to Siberia, not to become engaged in any great military operation, but for the purpose of endeavouring to reorganize the loyal Russian army and to render assistance to the Czecho-Slovaks. It was agreed that Japan should send a force there, and Japan did send some 70,000 men. The United States sent nearly 10,000 men; 1 think the actual number was 8,500. France and Italy sent from 1,000 to 2,000 men. It was absolutely essential that all the Allies should be represented there. Great Britain was unable to withdraw any of her forces from the western front. All she had available at that time was one British regiment, the 25th Middlesex, stationed at Hong Kong, which was immediately sent to Vladivostok; and it pas expected that another battalion would be available later. The matter was very carefully considered and all the phases of the situation duly weighed, and it was felt that Canada could not very well refuse to go to the assistance of Great Britain at that period. It was agreed, therefore, that a force of Canadian troops not to exceed 5,000, would joe raised for the purpose of proceeding to Siberia, this being done on the distinct understanding that such action would in no way interfere with the flow of reinforcements to the western front.
Samuel Hughes: Is this force under the Minister of Militia in Canada or the Minister of Militia in England?
Major-General MEWBURN: Under the Minister of Militia in Canada. The reasons why this force was raised may be summarized as follows: First, to help the Russian people throw off the German yoke; second, to prevent Germany from exploiting in her own interests Russia's vast resources, military and economic; third, to prevent Germany from moving troops to the western front from the eastern theatre, and even to compel her, by despatching troops to the eastern theatre, to weaken herself in France and Flanders; fourth, to shorten the war by re-establishing an eastern front; fifth, to deny Germany access to supplies

and stores collected in Siberia, of which there was a very large amount; sixth, to help the Czecho-Slovaks, who had made great sacrifices and on whose existence as an independent nation much will hereafter depend.
I should like to state the composition of the force that was sent to Siberia from Canada, in order that the House will have full knowledge and information respecting it. It consisted of small Headquarters, one Cavalry Squadron-Royal Northwest Mounted Police; one Field Battery, one Field Company of Engineers, one Signal Company of Engineers, two Infantry Battalions, one Machine Gun Company, one Field Ambulance, one Stationary Hospital, one Army Service Corps unit-transport and supply; one Sanitary Section, one Ammunition Column for Battery and Small Arm Ammunition; one Mobile Veterinary Section, two Depot Units of Supply, one Bakery Section, one Butchery Squad, half an Ordnance Company, Pay Office, and General Base Depot and Base Guard.
It was arranged and agreed upon that the British force that went to 'Siberia, plus any others that proceeded there for military operations would be under a Canadian officer. That Canadian officer was Major General J. H. Elmsley, C.M.G., D.S.O., who had proved his worth with great distinction at the front, a man of high standing and high military attainments, a man well thought of in the War Office. General Elmsley proceeded overseas and arrived at Vladivostok with the first detachment about ithe end of October, 1918.
Then came the armistice, and the question was, should we send the balance of the force? Urgent cables came from the Imperial Government requesting that the balance of this force should proceed, otherwise a very embarrassing situation for the British Government would be created. The matter was given careful consideration, and the greater portion of the balance of the force proceeded. The -total number of Canadian troops in Siberia now
4 p.m. amounts to 4,434. It was decided not to send the remainder of the troops that were in British Columbia; most of them have been demobilized and those remaining are being demobilized immediately. Canada is responsible only for the pay of these troops in Siberia; all other expenses are borne by the Imperial Government out of Imperial funds. A very large amount of the supplies that have been shipped forward to Siberia have been purchased in Canada and paid out of Imperial funds.
The majority of the troops now in Siberia will be returned at a very convenient date. I am not at liberty to give that date, but it will not be very far distant, and any who remain in Siberia after that date will remain there voluntarily.
Now, one hon. gentleman has remarked that the Siberian force should not have been sent without the consent of Parliament. In this connection I should like to refer to the wonderful special session of Parliament that was called in August, 1914, and at which what was considered to be Canada's duty was laid down. The late leader of the Opposition, Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier, during the course of a very impressive address, said:-
It is our duty, more pressing upon us than all other duties, at once, on this first day of this extraordinary session of the Canadian Parliament, to let Great Britain know, and to let the friends and foes of Great Britain know, that there is in Canada hut one mind and one heart, and that all Canadians stand behind the mother country, conscious and proud that she has engaged in this war, not from any selfish motive, for any purpose of aggrandisement, hut to maintain untarnished the honour of her name, to fulfil her obligations to her allies, to maintain her treaty obligations, and to save civilization from the unbridled lust of conquest and domination.
He said further::-
More than once I have declared that if England were ever in danger,-nay, not only in danger, but if she were ever engaged in such a contest as would put her strength to the test- then it would be the duty of Canada to assist the motherland to the utmost of Canada's ability.
The British Government urged that that force should go, and the decision to send it was arrived at in the spirit which is manifested in the remarks which I have just read. I think that no hon. member of this House, or no citizen of Canada, would for one moment say that it was our duty to refuse to carry out the wishes of the British authorities at that time. Our withdrawal when the armistice came would have been an undying discredit to Canada, having regard to her splendid effort in the war.


Samuel Hughes: Were there any " draftees " amongst the soldiers who went to Siberia?


Major General MEWBURN:: Some men who were obtained under the Military Service Act went with the Siberian expedition. The Siberian expedition was originally



started on a voluntary basis, because we did not want to take any chances on disturbing the flow of reinforcements to the western front. As time went on, there were not enough to fill up this expedition. We had then more than satisfied the demands of the overseas requirements in certain branches. For instance, a large number of men who were, really liable under the Military Service Act, but who had come in and reported prior to the proclamation calling them out, were given the option of going into any of the various branches of the service, such as the artillery, and so on. As I understand the Military Service Act, they were enlisted, for this war, no matter where it was. These men were given the option of going to France or to Siberia, and the units that went to Siberia volunteered to go there instead of going to France.
Another matter which I would like to touch upon more particularly is the present question of demobilization, and I shall be glad to give hori. members what information I can regarding that. The problem of demobilization is on the minds of everybody to-day. The first question is: Was the Government, on the date of the armistice, prepared for demobilization? I think the Government and the Department of Militia took every precaution and endeavoured to the best of their ability to make all necessary arrangements. As far back as 1916, this matter was given most serious consideration by the Department of Militia and Defence. A considerable quantity of data was prepared and, as time went on, the whole problem of the war, which was ever increasing in difficulty, occupied almost the entire attention of the department. This big problem of demobilization was not, however, overlooked. On the 24th of June, 1916, because this all touches on demobilization, the first thing that was considered on a big programme was hospitalization, because at that period we were getting back to Canada a considerable number of casualties; that is, men who had been wounded or injured were from time to time being returned to Canada for hospital treatment. On that date, one of the celebrated Orders in Council was passed, constituting the Military Hospitals' Commission, which was authorized to take charge of and look after those returned soldiers who were wounded.


Samuel Hughes: Under the Militia Department?
[Major-General Mewburn.]


Major General MEWBUBN:: No, not under the Militia Department; it was not even an adjunct of the Militia Department. The Military Hospitals' Commission was authorized and organized and operated until February, 1918. It was considered-and I think finally admitted-that as long as a soldier was a soldier he must be treated by the army as a soldier; that a civilian organization could not very well deal with a soldier while he was a soldier. That I think will be admitted by everybody. That attitude has been approved by every country in the world. The functions of the Military Hospitals' Commission were carried out -with great vigour and ability until the 21st of February, 1918, when it was decided that it was not feasible that they should look after men prior to discharge. At that time another Order in Council was passed bringing into being the Department of Soldiers' Civil Ee-eetablishment and the Militia Department took over the control and hospitalization and medical care of the soldier until the period at which he was fit to discharge. As a necessary corollary the Military Hospitals Commission Command ceased to exist, it being amalgamated with the District Casualty Units in District Depots. Details of all this are very fully set out in what is known as memorandum No. 5, which I have had prepared and which will be laid on the table of the House in a few days. It is a very complete document giving the whole work and machinery of the Militia Department, covering the period from last session to date. I need not bother giving the details of it now. At the time the Militia Department took over the care of the soldier previous to discharge, the Soldiers' Civil Be-estab-lishment Department was organized-I will deal with it later-to take care of the man after he was discharged, that is, when he became a civilian.
Let me now deal with the military side of demobilization. For some time past and prior to the armistice men were constantly coming back from overseas as individuals. They were not coming back in any distinctive unit, but, coming back as individuals. They were, immediately on their return to Canada, sent to one of the various military districts, the headquarters from which they originally came. They were then boarded, all their documents completed, and if they were for discharge, and not requiring medical treatment, their discharges were carried out and the men were allowed to go to their homes. In the spring of 1918, the

(Militia Department published what was known as the " Returned Soldiers' Handbook," which was sent overseas and distributed to every man who was returning to Canada. That handbook set forth in detail everything the returned soldier required to know about himself Until he became a civilian, and also gave information regarding pensions and so forth so that each individual man had full information.
Demobilization has both a military and a civil side. The first includes transportation to Canada and the steps necessary to carry out discharges from the Canadian Expeditionary Force. The second comprises all measures possible towards returning the man to civil life under the most favourable conditions. I would like to point this out, to show what the Government have been doing prior to that period as to demobilization. In April, 1917, the then acting overseas minister appointed a committee in England to deal with this problem. That committee consisted of Hugh A. Allan, chairman; J. H. Plummer, Brig-General W. St. P. Hughes, Lieut.-Col. J. H. D. Hulme, Lieut.jCol. J. L. McKinnon, Major 'George Whitmore and Lieut.-Col. Arthur Sullivan.


Samuel Hughes: You mean Sir
Montagu Allan?
Major-General MEW BURN:	The information I have is Hugh A. Allan. That committee proceeded to work and spent a long time working in conjunction with the overseas authorities, the corps, and also the war office. Subsequently, a report was sent back to the Militia Department and an Order in Council was passed in 1917 dealing with that problem. Subsequently in 1917 another report was made and further interim reports were published from time to time and sent to the department here, dealing with the whole problem and laying down certain schemes and suggestions that would be carried out when the day of demobilization came. That was followed down until 1918. That committee has been at work from time to time compiling information, working in conjunction with the war office on the general demobilization scheme. In April, 1918, we had an officer overseas who was working in conjunction with the overseas authorities who had been in consultation with General Currie, and all the brigadiers and corps commanders in France. Subsequently, another committee was appointed on which was a representative from Canada, the overseas authorities, and also the representatives of the
21 i
corps. The report was finally completed in July, 1918, and that report was approved by the Prime Minister when he was in England. It sets forth in detail all the organization, and the suggestions made. While I wish to take all the responsibility that is coining to me in the matter, still I should like to point out to the House that the demobilization overseas is entirely under the control of the overseas authorities, and the responsibility is laid down in the following memorandum
The responsibility for carrying out the demobilization of the Overseas Military Forces of Canada up to and including the arrival, but not the debarkation of the troops in Canada, shall rest with the Headquarters, Overseas Military Forces of Canada, in London, who will issue all necessary instructions and be responsible to the Overseas Minister.
At that time the whole scheme of demobilization had been worked out, but it was realized that changes would have to be made from time to time.
I should like to point out what else the Government have done for the soldiers. An Order in Council was passed dealing with pensions for soldiers, and the Pension Commission was established. A Select Committee of this House dealt with the question of pensions last year, and I understand that a Bill will be brought down this session, but I shall not deal with that here as the matter comes under another department and will be fully explained to the House in due course.
Then, provision has been made for settling soldiers on the land, through the Soldiers' Settlement Board. This legislation was approved by Parliament in August, 1917. I have no doubt that the Minister of the Interior will make a full explanation of the work the board' is doing. The Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment deals with the soldier only after his discharge. Our full duty to the soldier is certainly not done when he has been discharged from the army. Even those who have not been disabled in any way should be given all possible assistance to fit themselves for a higher walk in life if they should so desire. This department deals with vocational training for the soldier after his discharge and there are many men who wish to get on in life who are being trained by the department in some particular line.
With regard to demobilization, the question, of course, was to get the men back from overseas and get them discharged. We were ready here in Canada to meet the

situation but the question was how rapidly could we get the men back. Ihe original scheme, which I think was sound, provided that the men should be returned according to length of service, married men being given the preference. We were at once confronted by the most urgent solicitation from the corps, who were most desirous that the corps should be returned in complete units. This proposal received our very sympathetic consideration, but the question was how to accomplish it. We must remember how the corps were constituted at the date of the signing of the armistice. Each corps consisted of so many battalions, batteries, and other units, composed of men from all over Canada. The 16th Battalion which originally came from British Columbia, is to-day a Manitoba battalion. Would it be right to take these men out to British Columbia, disperse them there and then bring them back to their respective homes? Another battalion which was raised in Winnipeg is to-day a New Brunswick battalion, and there is hardly a battalion or unit at the front today that is composed of men from one particular locality in Canada. It was, therefore, decided that the units would have to be re-constituted in some way, and it was settled, and received the approval of everybody, that the Dominion should be divided into dispersal areas. The number today is twenty-one. A postal guide was issued and sent overseas for distribution to all ranks, so that men who otherwise would not know in which dispersal area their home was could tell by consulting the guide, which showed the location of all the dispersal areas, it also included a map of Canada and enabled them to choose which dispersal area they wanted. iA soldier could get this information by merely looking up his post office address. There are a large number of men from iPrince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Quebec, and Ontario, who have enlisted in western battalions, and it was thought to be only fair that they should have the privilege of being dispersed in their home area so that they could go and see their people. The units are, therefore, being re-constituted on that basis
Then came the question of the documentation of the men, and I should like to explain some of the difficulties in connection with this matter. Every man must be dealt with individually. His pay book has to be made up. His discharge certificate prepared and cheques issued both for clothing
[Major-General Mewbum.]
allowance and the first instalment of his war-service gratuity. Finally, but most important, his medical history sheet has to be prepared. It is absolutely essential in the interest of the men and of the nation that a man's state of health should be determined at the time of his discharge. All these things take time. Under the new system of dispersal areas at least five hundred men can be cleared at an area in one day. Men may come to Ottawa who do not live in Ottawa, but in the area in which Ottawa is the dispersal station. A man can get his cheques for the money to which he is entitled, get his transportation to his home, and his discharge certificate easily within one day.
The chief difficulty we had was to get ships and railway transportation. Immediately after the armistice I had a conference with the Minister of Railways and the presidents of the Canadian Pacific, the Grand Trunk and the Canadian National railways to find out how best to cope with the situation and get the men back as quickly as possible. These railway experts decided that the very best the railways, with their combined rolling stock could do was to handle not more than thirty thousand men per month from the ports of St. John and Halifax. A committee was formed of representatives from the three railroads, whose chairman was selected by the three companies themselves, and ever since the signing of the armistice this committee has been sitting in Montreal looking after the routing, and transportation questions generally. The moment we get information of the sailing qf a ship the Department of Militia and Defence notifies the chairman of this committee, who makes all arrangements for the routing of the soldiers. One suggestion that came from overseas was that we should open a camp in Canada, but I think most people will agree that to open a camp in winter at Valcartier or some other such place to handle ten or fifteen thousand men would lead to far more trouble than is being experienced in England to-day.
We decided, and it was agreed to overseas, that the proper way was to bring out the men in such numbers that on the disembarkation of a shipload at any port, it would be possible to move them rapidly to their homes. And we are insisting that these men shall be distributed equitably all over Canada. That is, we will not bring out, say, about ten thousand men to be dumped in Montreal at once, but we bring out a proportionate number to be distributed

among the several provinces. That has been done and the machinery is running, I think, fairly smoothly. For instance, in the case of a ship disembarking troops at Halifax to-day we are able to get every one of those troops out of Halifax before nightfall.
The question was, how could we speed that up? We consulted with the railway companies on that point. It was decided that, when-navigation opens and we nan use the ports of Quebec and Montreal in addition to those we have, then by using day coaches we can accommodate a great many more. It would be no great hardship, for instance, for the (Maritime Province troops to use day coaches. The troops for west of the (Great Lakes can disembark at Quebec and be carried in colonist sleepers, while those for Ontario and Quebec, except those for the city of Quebec, would disembark at Montreal and go in day coaches to their points of destination. In that way, we can speed up about 45,000 men a month, and with any sort of luck we oan have every one of the Canadian troops, except some hospital cases, demobilized and back in Canada by the end of August.
One of the great problems which has confronted us and which touches another department, is the question of soldiers' dependents. That is a problem by itself. It is a well known fact-it has been reported in the public press-that there have been about 25,000 marriages among the Canadian troops in England and on the Continent. There are at the present time about 40,000 dependents to be brought back. In the early stages of the armistice, with the natural desire of these dependents to come to Canada as soon as possible, a lot of them were put on the troopships. This created a most embarrassing situation. We had our troop trains made up to accommodate 500 men, and fitted up with a commissariat car. You can conceive how embarrassing it was when large numbers of the dependents of soldiers desired to go on these troop trains. The situation became almost impossible. A new arrangement has been made under which those soldiers overseas who have dependents desirous of coming to Canada would come on a special boat carrying only soldiers and their dependents, and now, under the Department of Immigration we are dealing with that matter in conjunction with the overseas representative of immigration. We co-operate in every way, supplying the medical staff, nursing sisters and other facilities, and have set apart a hospital in St. John to receive cases that need treatment. Owing to the epidemic of influenza in England we have found the situation a very difficult one, many women returning who are ill, and who are taken seriously ill after disembarkation.
Mr. PECK, V.C.: I would ask the minister if the plan of Sir Arthur Currie for demobilization was ever laid before the cabinet, or was it settled by the overseas minister?
Major-General MEWBURN: Demobilization by units?
Mr. PECK, V.C.: Yes.
Major-General MEWBURN:	I stated
that the first idea was that the men should be brought back according to length of service, married men first. Subsequently Sir Arthur Currie proposed that they should be brought back by units. Subsequently he proceeded to England and discussed the whole problem. His complete plan was never submitted here, I never saw it; but many communications, letters and cables passed; and the scheme I have spoken of was concurred in by Sir Arthur Currie.
Mr. PECK, V.C.:	That was not the
original plan?
Major-General MEWBURN: No, because we thought it was not possible to work it out. Several members have asked me how it was that the Third Division came first- how the First Division did not come first. I had a good deal of correspondence with Sir Arthur Currie and other members of the corps at the Front, and a short time ago I had a letter from Sir Arthur Currie giving an explanation of why it was that the First Division did not come first. I think it will interest the House if I read a portion of that letter:
After the signing of the armistice the first intimation that we received as to our future movements was to the effect that the whole Corps would move to the Rhine and I had made arrangements for the First and Second Divisions to leave, my intention being that as they would be the first to be demobilized by moving men first they would cross the Rhine in that order. After a time there they could be shipped by train to the Base, to get ready for demobilization, their places being taken at the Rhine by the Third and Fourth Divisions.
He gives in some detail the reasons why they could not all get through, and only two divisions went. He goes on:
Shortly after the first intimation we were told that only two divisions of Canadians were to go, and I allowed the First and Second to proceed, my intention being that after they spent a short period holding the bridgehead I would endeavour to get them to the Base or

somewhere near there, and replace them at the bridgehead by the Third and Fourth Divisions, thus giving all divisions an opportunity of seeing something of Germany.
I may say that the first intimation was for our second and fourth army to proceed to Germany, we to be part of the second army. This was later changed and the second army alone went back, and with it 11 divisions, so that for us to furnish two divisions was giving us a very high percentage; the actual bridgehead was held by 4 divisions so that the Canadian Corps holds half.
On top of all this I know there is an intense desire to get back to Canada. 1 know the pressure that is being brought to bear on you to see that this is carried out. Our people in England have been pressing the War Office who have been brought to release two Canadian Divisions for demobilization, the first of which is to sail for Canada about March. As it was impossible owing to transportation difficulties, namely, supply of cars, etc., to get the First Division back in time to sail for home first, it became necessary for me to nominate either the Third or the Fourth, and because it was raised first I nominated the Third. A few days ago it began its march westward to a point from which it will be shipped by rail as cars become available to the Base.
By the time it is ready to embark we hope to be able to follow it by the First, then by the Second and finally by the Fourth.
As hon. members are aware, the Third Division has reached England and a part of it has come to Canada. As I have already stated, there are other departments of the Government dealing with the problem of demobilization. It touches the Departments of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, Pensions, Labour, Agriculture, and Trade and Commerce, all of which are working in conjunction with what is known as the Repatriation Committee, whose work is to bring into co-operation in this service all branches of the Government so as to prevent overlapping and promote efficiency, and which, so far as I have seen, is doing great work.
Regarding the whole problem of bringing the men back, it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that no one branch or department of the Government, no one organization can successfully cope with this big problem, but that the nation as a whole, both collectively and individually, must cooperate, must put their shoulders to this enormous problem in order to make our solution of it a success. Through all these serious problems of the war since 1914, when the flow was io the objective on the western front, the greatest enthusiasm existed amongst all the people of the country. I cannot understand why, then, on the signing of the armistice, there should be a kind of backing up on the part of individuals.
It seems to me that if ever in the history of Canada co-operation and friendly assist-
[Major-General Mewburn.]
ance were needed, it is to-day, and until that need is met in the proper spirit this great problem before us cannot be successfully solved. If everybody will co-operate and try to assist the individual men as they come back and take their places in individual communities, I think we need have no fear of trouble in the future.
A great deal has been said about looking after the men. From what I have seen, the men do not want to be pampered. They do not want charity. They want to come back, and, as far as possible, take their places in the community and be absorbed into the national life of the country. The difficulty is that when an individual has been overseas for years, and when he has been trained with one object in view-the object of killing-his mentality is such that it is hard for us to conceive his viewpoint. Whether that man was in an office, a workshop or a bank, his mind has been centred on one object and it is not human nature to expect that that man can come back and immediately take up his old job, or a new job, and get down to normal conditions the same as the man working beside him who has never been at the war. I feel confident that the employers of labour and the citizens of Canada will give the returned soldier every consideration. But, they have to go farther than that. They have to look after the men. I do not mean to pamper them or to follow them around like detectives but they must see that each man gets an opportunity to adjust himself and to do his best. If that spirit is not manifested I am satisfied that from time to time men will become disgusted with their work and will want to chuck it up and leave the job. The superintendents of large manufacturing concerns must show sympathy towards these returned men and I am satisfied that if that spirit prevails we will have no trouble whatever. To give approximate figures, on the 30th November the troops overseas were as follows:
England	 123,024
France	<. .. 152,264
Total .. ,	 275,288
From that date to the 28th February we have brought back and demobilized 51,765 and in addition we have got rid of and demobilized something like another 50,000 in Canada; so that, since the 30th November and up to the 8th March, including troops in Canada, we have demobilized about 100,000 C.E.F. troops.

The movement of these troops is an enormous problem on the part of the railway companies but I think they are meeting the situation creditably and efficiently.
I realize, and can sympathize with, the desire of the men to get back at as early a date as possible.
I would like ito refer here, for the information of members of the House, to the question of priority of return. I am satisfied there is not a member of this House who has not been requested, or approached, to try and get back certain individuals from overseas. On the signing of the armistice, I was simply swamped and overwhelmed with letters, telegrams and requests asking me to bring back individuals. I took the matter up with the overseas authorities and corps commanders. I had explained to hon. members to the best of my ability the difficulty caused by the effort to secure priority of return. I have endeavoured to cope with the situation as best I could and I think that hon. members will realize the difficulties and the problems created by a request for the priority of return of certain individuals. This question, I am satisfied, is one of the causes of the trouble at Kinmel to-day. In the early stages in the British Army the principle of demobilization according to trades and occupations was adopted. That was found in the British Army to be an impossible principle to work upon. It created trouble not only in the British Army but in the Navy. I have had many requests from relations and friends to bring back certain officers from the front. It was said that there were jobs waiting for them or that their business interests required that they should return immediately. I cannot conceive why any individual officer who has the honour of having a commission in His Majesty's Forces should dream of having priority and of coming back and leaving the men whom he has had under his control there behind him. I think the officer is the last man who should expect to return. I have never had any applications from officers themselves but they have come from relatives and friends. I have had many applications myself from members of Parliament. I have, to the best of my ability, tried to meet the situation and the policy was finally determined upon that priority of return would only be granted upon compassionate grounds, such as where some financial or business matter was at stake, or where there was serious illness in a family-a man's wife or children dependent on him. In
every case coming within this category we have -cabled and a request under such circumstances has been acted upon promptly.
In other cases that 'have come before me,
I -have sent the information over to the overseas ministry pointing out the request and endeavouring to see what could be done about it. But, where you have a thousand men in a unit and one man, say, John Smith, or a particular officer, is brought
hack in priority you can well see how a______
feeling of resentment would grow up in those who were left behind.
We have also the demobilization question in Canada. We are 'to-day confronting what might be called liquidation. Prior to the armistice we had at our various depots, or in the various military districts, battalions waiting to go overseas. When the armistice was announced we immediately started to clean house in Canada. A great deal of work is yet to be done. Each of the depots had to be wound up, discharges of personnel had to be carried out, ordnance stores and equipment had to be turned in and accounts had to be audited. All the hospitals have 'to be maintained. The various dispersal camps must be maintained and certain depots must be retained in order -to carry on the demobilization until it is completed. I wish to assure the House that this liquidation is going on as rapidly as possible. There is also the liquidation of the war stores. Immediately the armistice was signed contracts were cancelled, stock is now being taken and steps are being taken to dispose of all surplus supplies to the best advantage and for the good of the country. I presume that in the final liquidation there will not be a very large dividend declared among the shareholders .-the people of Canada. But, we are doing the best we can.
There are just one or two other matters that I would like to explain to the House. Questions have arisen as to service, war service badges, orders and decorations and medals, and I submit the following memo as to that subject:
War Service Badges, Orders, Decorations and Medals:
It is evident from correspondence in the Militia Department that there is much confusion in the public mind regarding War Service Badges or buttons, orders, decorations and medals.
War Service Badges. I have mentioned these first, although they are possibly least

in importance, but as they have been issued in large numbers and are generally worn by soldiers discharged, it is well that the House and the country should understand what their significance is. From time immemorial it has been the custom after military campaigns to award orders and decorations for distinguished service and medals signifying the service rendered by a soldier. Of this I will speak a little later but before doing so I wish to explain that War Service badges are a quite recent innovation.
In Great Britain His Majesty during the currency of this great war authorized the issue of what is known as the Imperial Silver Badge. This was to be given to officers, non-commissioned officers and men who had served and had been retired or discharged as no longer fit for military service by reason of old age, wounds or sickness. The idea was that this badge should be worn with civilian clothing to indicate that the man had done his duty, or, in other words, was not a slacker. There was compulsory military service in Great Britain and all men of military age who had served and had been discharged by reason of permanent disability, should have a badge which was at once a recognition of their service and an indication that they had done their duty and were no longer liable for service.
Since the Armistice, amended regulations have been published providing that such men as are unfit by reason of service when demobilized are to be issued with this badge.
In Canada, we have adopted a somewhat different course, in that we have issued three classes of these badges. An amended Order in Council is now in course of preparation making certain changes which are necessary by reason of new conditions. Without troubling the House at great length it will be sufficient to say that there are three classes of badges.
Class "A" designating men who have seen active service at the front in the present war.
Class "B" (Imperial Silver Badge) designating men who have served overseas (either in England or at the front) and who on discharge were unfit by reason of old age, wounds or sickness, but under similar regulations granted by the Imperial Government and issued by us.
Class "C" designating men who have rendered honourable service but who are not eligible for Classes "A" or "B".
[Major-General Mewburn.]
In view of the fact that the Imperial Silver Badge was made available for the Canadian soldier, it is proposed that the Canadian badges "A" and "C" shall be awarded to any member of the British Expeditionary Force as well as members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force (even though he may not have served in the Canadian Expeditionary Force) who complies with the conditions, and who (a) was a resident in Canada on or before August 4, 1914, and (b) has returned to take up his residence in Canada.
So much for badges. We now come to the question of medals. Of these I cannot speak with absolute definiteness. No final announcement has been made but despatches so far received indicate that as regards the army, it is generally agreeed that two medals should be issued, one being an international medal for all troops engaged in theatres of war, and the other a British medal for all troops serving at home and in garrisons. Troops serving in theatres of war would also be entitled to the British medal. Without being able to make a positive statement I assume that with the international medal there will be issued appropriate clasps, indicating either calendar years or different theatres of operations.
Apart from the foregoing two other decorations have been definitely decided upon (A) the "1914 star" commonly called the "Mons Star." Army Order No. 350 dated 24-11-17, stated that "His Majesty the King had been graciously pleased to signify his pleasure to recognize, by the grant of a distinctive decoration, the services rendered by His Majesty's Military Forces under the command of Field Marshal Sir J. D. P. French in France and Belgium during the earlier phases of the war in 1914 up to midnight of the 22nd-23rd November, 1914." The decoration will be a star in bronze; the riband will be red, white and blue, shrded and watered.
The House will be interested to know that a small number of Canadians are entitled to this decoration, principally, 1 think, members of the Medical Services who proceeded to Belgium or France before the date mentioned.
(B) " 1914-15 Star." This decoration is referred to in Army Order No. 20, dated 23-12-18. It will be awarded to those who served in theatres of war between August 5th, 1914, and December 31st, 1915, both dates inclusive. Those entitled to the 1914 Star already mentioned will not be eligible

for the new decoration. The Army Order referred to defines in detail the various theatres of war. This decoration will also be a star in bronze, riband will he red, white and blue shaded and watered. A large number of Canadian troops are eligible for this decoration, including the 1st, 2nd and part of the 3rd Divisions.
In connection with these two decorations it is interesting to note that the issue of the Mons Star led to a proposal on the part of the Governments of Australia and New Zealand to issue a special decoration for the operations in Galipoli. This in turn suggested similar proposals with respect to other theatres of war, and the matter became so complicated it was referred to a committee of which General Seely was chairman, and as a result of its deliberations the 1914-1915 Star was authorized by His Majesty.
In illustration of the difficulties attending the issue of medals in such a war as this, it is estimated that from 12 to 15 million medals will have to he struck by the British Government.
In addition to the foregoing there have been, as the House is aware, a large number of awards for special gallantry to individuals of the Canadian forces. To this must be added a further number of special awards to Canadian soldiers by the Allied Governments.
The latest list of awards to Canadian soldiers which I have includes the following:
Victoria Cross 

	61
Distinguished Service Order -	-	605
Military Cross 

 2,312
Distinguished Conduct Medal - - 1,453 Military Medal 

 7,785
One hon. member in his remarks during the present debate' referred to the desirability of the issue by the Canadian Government of a special medal for Canadian soldiers. Without expressing any adverse opinion on this proposal, I suggest that its consideration might well be left till the Canadian troops have returned home when the matter can be given due consideration perhaps after consultation with members of the Canadian Army Corps. In view of what I have said about the number of medals already decided upon, the difficulties in connection with design, manufacture, and distribution are formidable, and no harm will result from deferring decision on this point until a little later.
I may inform the House in this connection that apart from badges, decorations and medals there are other issues already
decided upon which call for a vast amount of work by administrative departments. Among these are the following: (a) King's certificate on discharge. This is a special certificate issued by His Majesty to members of the British forces, including C.E.F., who have been retired or discharged on account of wounds, ill health, or disability caused or aggravated by service, (b) A memorial plaque, to be presented by His Majesty to the next of kin of those members of His Majesty's forces who have fallen in the war. This is to be of circular form, five inches in diameter. It bears an emblematic design with the inscription " He died for freedom and honour," and will have inserted in the field (by an ingenious method of casting) a raised tablet enclosing the name of the person commemorated. The design was a matter of open competition and the selection was made from more than 800 models which were submitted. Each plaque will be accompanied by a scroll with a suitable inscription surmounted by a special device, including the Royal Arms in colour with the initials of His Majesty the King, (c) The Canadian Government proposes to commemorate our soldiers who have fallen in a somewhat similar way by the use of a cross, the cross of sacrifice, to be worn by mothers and wives of those soldiers who have died for the country's cause. Designs have been submitted and it is hoped that it may be possible to arrange for the manufacture and distribution of these crosses at a comparatively early date.


Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (Oxford South):: Have not Distinguished Conduct awards been made to the Royal Flying Corps?
Major-General MEWBURN: There is one other subject I would like to refer to while considering the question of medals, il have suggested it for the consideration of the Government, and I think the suggestion is one the Government might well act upon. It is that the Government should issue to the mothers, or wives of any Canadian soldier who has fallen in action a silver cross, which may be known as "The Cross of Sacrifice." While the idea is sentimental, I think it would be desirable; it would be a silent memento to be cherished by these gallant women who have suffered so much.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
Major-General MEWBURN: Now, as regards war records, trophies and memorials. This is a subject which might well be dealt

with in a separate speech, and I can only touch on it briefly here.
War records and documents. These may be divided roughly into administrative and historical documents. It is sometimes said that a modern war is fought on paper, and the House may be inclined to share this opinion when I state that, apart from the vast number of current documents in the Militia Department, it is estimated that some 600 tons of files will be returned from overseas. These are of priceless value both for present use and future reference. The housing, indexing and preservation of these, and the consolidation of files made overseas with those in Canada dealing with the same subject, or kindred subjects, is a problem of first magnitude.


Samuel Hughes: May I ask the minister a question now which I should have put at an earlier period: Will Canadian who are serving in the Imperial Forces -such as our Flying Corps boys, like the son of the hon. gentleman who interrogated the minister a few minutes ago-be recognized in a similar way to our lads who served in the Canadian Forces?
Major-General MEWBURN: The soldiers to whom the hon. gentleman refers will be treated identically the same as members of the Canadian Expeditionary Forces in connection with gratuity and similar matters. Where a Canadian' soldier is drawing a gratuity or emolument from the Imperial Government, if it is less than the Canadian, the difference will be made up. In the matter of decorations, medals and awards, they will be treated the same as the others.
Historical documents, which include war diaries, and all other written records of the operations of the Canadian troops, are of inestimable value. They will be a priceless possession in the archives of Canada for many generations yet unborn. It has been truthfully remarked "that the care which a nation devotes to the preservation of the monuments of its past may serve as a true measure of the degree of civilization to which it has attained. The chief monument of a nation is its documentary records, the preservation of which is recognized in all civilized countries as a natural and proper function in Government."
The value of these documentary records from a business standpoint cannot be overestimated. They are essential for immediate use, and in many cases have constituted the chief, if not the only, protection of the state against ill founded claims. They cannot be adequately protected by insur-
[(Major-General Mewburn.]
ance, as they can never be replaced. Their destruction would involve loss beyond calculation. For this reason I have recommended to the Government the immediate provision of suitable fireproof structures in which these records can be housed.
By authority of the Privy Council, a com: mission on war records and war trophies, composed of Sir Edmund Walker, C.V.O., Toronto, and Brigadier-General E. A. Cruikshank, of the Militia Department, was constituted, and has submitted a valuable report which will be the basis of necessary action.
One of the most interesting things that could be imagined is the Canadian war records. I think I am safe in saying that the collection brought together embraces some of the most wonderful war records and photographs the world has ever known. I understand these will comprise some five or six hundred works of art, and it will readily be seen, therefore, how necessary it is that a suitable building- should be erected for their proper housing.
There will also be a building erected for the custody of war trophies. In addition a large number of trophies will be distributed to different communities throughout Canada who desire and will require the same. Dr. Doughty, who has been overseas, but I understand is on his way back, is dealing with them. A large number of trophies after demobilization will be returned, and I hope that this commission or committee will be able to distribute them in an equitable way throughout Canada. I am satisfied the Government will desire that these records and trophies should be preserved for all generations.
The last subject on which I shall dwell is that of soldiers' graves, a sad but serious one. I need not remind the House that the graves of those Canadian soldiers who sleep in Great Britain, Belgium and France will be properly cared for. The question has been discussed in the press as to the burial of some of our men in Germany, and in this connection I received a few days ago a cable stating that arrangements have been made whereby the bodies of all Canadian soldiers who were interred in Germany will be removed into the boundaries of France before the Canadian corps leave Europe. In view of the fact that this matter is one of great concern to the Canadian people, I should like to explain that this whole question has been given the most earnest consideration for a long time. At the beginning of the war a department was

created to care for and preserve the identity of the graves of British officers and men overseas., The officers of this department were directly responsible to the Director of Graves Registration and Inquiries. Graves registration units were formed to register the position of graves and see that they were marked with durable wooden crosses bearing a metal inscription giving the name, number, rank, regiment and date of death. At a later date a report was received from the High Commissioner in connection with the provision by the Imperial Government, with the co-operation of the French Government, for the registration and care of graves and the creation of a permanent organization in which the Dominion Government is represented. That organization is now in operation and is doing wonderful work. The following despatch was sent by the Colonial Secretary to His Excellency the Governor General in connection with this matter:
His Majesty's Government have decided that all Dominion officers and men dying in this country should be buried at the expense of the Imperial Government in single graves. The land required for that purpose will be acquired in perpetuity at cost of Imperial Army Funds, and all possible care taken of graves. I am confident that it will be the unanimous wish of every one in this country that His Majesty's Government should be privileged to undertake this charge and insure that the last resting place of these Dominion soldiers may not be unworthy of their sacrifice and of the cause for which they gave their lives.
This despatch was duly published, and-I have no doubt that the terms in which it was couched were a source of comfort and consolation to those of our Canadian people who had lost loved ones in the course of the war.
The Imperial War Graves Commission, as it is now called, has recently issued a report made to it by Lieut-Col. Sir Frederick Kenyon, K.C.B., Director of the British Museum, in which is outlined the manner in which the cemeteries abroad will be designed. The plans include regimental patterns of headstones, central monuments in each cemetery in commemoration of the fallen, and horticultural features of beauty and interest. Similar steps have been taken with respect to graves in England, varied to meet local conditions.
In the result, perpetual care, and, what is more, perpetual honour, is guaranteed for the resting places overseas of our Bead. It is natural that parents of boys who have fallen on the fields of battle should desire to have lull information, and when further information in available I shall be only too
glad ito give it. Some people feel that the bodies of those who fell should not be left there. I appreciate their feeling, but the gratitude for and pride in our victory will centre in those graveyards abroad. They will be the real, the most precious monuments of all; for my part, it seems a great, if sad, privilege to be represented there.
Mr. DuTREMBLAY: Will the minister tell the House why a Canadian brigade composed of men and officers speaking the French language was not organized last year?
Major-General MEWBTJRN: I remember that during last session my hon. friend urged the formation of a French Canadian brigade. I pointed out at that time the many difficulties that would be encountered in carrying out that suggestion. However, I took the matter up when I was overseas, and when I was in France I spoke with French Canadian officers in command of the training camps there, as I did also in England. It was not considered practicable that these units should be withdrawn from the corps- for the purpose of creating a separate and distinct brigade. The matter was taken up very fully with the overseas authorities, and they gave it very sympathetic consideration. At the time of the armistice I do not think there were sufficient troops to organize a complete, individual French Canadian brigade. It was arranged, however, that all these men who went from the province of Quebec to training camps should be drafted not only into the 22nd Battalion, which was 5 p.m. a French Canadian unit, but also into other units of the same brigade. If the war had gone on long enough-thank God, it did not-eventually these battalions might have become entirely composed of French Canadians and become part of a division and a complete French Canadian brigade. But I laid the request of the hon. member before the overseas authorities, as did the Prime Min- -ister.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Why are soldiers now being kept at the different military districts? Some two or three hundred men are being detained at St. John and at Halifax; why is that necessary?
Major-General MEWBURN: I referred in my statement to the fact that in the various military districts a certain number of men were required to carry out the work of demobilization. We are also maintaining in each military district very small forces known as Garrison regiments, not ex-

ceeding 200 or possibly 250. It is considered wise and in the interests of the country that there should be a very small military force in each military district in order to carry out whatever work may be necessary in connection with the military organization within that district. The demobilization is being effected as speedly as possible. The men are not kept there for any special purpose, but it was considered advisable, as I have said, to retain these small forces.


Samuel Hughes: I wish to draw the attention of the minister to the report that the United States authorities are bringing back the bodies of the United States soldiers who fell in France. I would ask him to give this matter consideration in regard to the bodies of Canadians who fell. I know that it would be a very heavy job, but the United States authorities are said to be doing it and a great many Canadians are urging that it be done here.
Mr. PECK, V.C.:	The German armies
have advanced over nearly all the Canadian grave yards. I noticed that a lot of the crosses marking the graves of soldiers had sunk into the sand and that the names were gradually fading away; in other cases the tops of the crosses had been knocked off. May I inquire whether anything is being done with regard to this? It is a very important matter.
Major-General MEWBURN:	I have no
personal knowledge of that. I have noticed a report that the Imperial Graves Commission has organized a large corps to go over all the battlefields of France and Flanders with a view to looking after this matter. I am personally interested in this because my own boy was left on the Somme battlefield and there is nothing to mark the spot where he fell or where he lies.


Mr. WILLIS KEITH BALDWIN (Stans-stead):: own his own home. In the United States, industries have been started out in the country, and land that was purchased for a few thousand dollars is sub-divided into homes for the people who are operating the industry. One minister has told us that the Government is going on with its housing scheme to keep Bolshevism down. I want to tell the Government that the land on which these houses will be built will cost more than both the land and the house could be purchased for in the rural sections. Land could be bought in the country, accessible to the city by trolley lines, and the homes could have every modern convenience, and no one is so happy as when he is in his own shebang. I think that would be one of the finest things we could do in this reconstruction period. Last night at the Forum in Ottawa, the spokesman of the great Methodist Church said: " We are ready to join with the masses, not the classes." We certainly welcome that church with joy to the great family of democracy. That is only one of the great bodies in Canada to-day that says we must have a united people and that this must be attained by taking a practical interest in the common people. But we can never do this unless the cabinet undoes some of the things it has done by Order in Council. That notorious War-Time Elections Act should have been repealed long ago, as well as other legislation that has been passed by this Government. Unless we have good government in this country we cannot expect people to be attracted to it. I would urge the Government in framing a new Election Act not to disfranchise any nationality. Let them disfranchise the people who make disloyal speeches or commit acts of violence against the State, but do not disfranchise a man simply because he comes from Germany or Austria-Hungary, because many of these people have left those countries simply because they were dissatisfied with conditions there and were told there was a democratic government in this country. There are whole communities of these so-called aliens who have helped to build up Canada, especially in the middle West, and I have great respect for these people. An hon. member opposite said the other day that the population of this country will have doubled in a decade. I would ask him, if we are going to handpick the immigrants, where is this population to come from when they know we have an undemocratic and unbusinesslike government here and an enormous national debt? All laws should be enacted by Parliament not by Council.

I wish to take issue with the statement of the Minister of Militia and Defence who said he did not know of any soldier in Siberia who was not a volunteer. I know that lots of men have been sent to Siberia after the armistice was signed who have protested every inch of the way they have been forced to go. Only six weeks ago some of the men were in Japan; they had not reached Siberia then. What right has this country, with its enormous debt, to protect the interests of the United States, Great Britain or France in Siberia? We have no trouble with the people over there. I noticed by the press that the Bolshevik were dropping bombs from aeroplanes on the Americans near Archangel the other day. Why should this country spend money on an expeditionary force to Siberia? There are a great many other things we could better spend our money on. Only the fringe of our resources has yet been developed and we must dig deep if we are to get something worth while from the bowels of this earth that will help to pay our national debt.
I have one or two charges to make against this Government. The Act for raising revenue by means of stamps on matches, powder puffs, perfume, toilet articles and patent medicines is a good one, and in view of the financial state of this country we could do with more taxes of this nature. But I want to protest against the way some of the officers of the Government enforce this Act. With the exception of toilet articles and patent medicines the manufacturers themselves affix the stamps on the articles I have mentioned. I remember well the hon. member for Bellechase (Mr. Fournier) condemning this Government last year for allowing-I do not know whether he called them " hounds "-but at all events, for allowing these " specials " to travel around the country and drop on some poor woman running a store, who may not have five hundred dollars worth of merchandise in the whole place, While the store owner was at lunch, a little child took charge of the shop and the "special" came in. He bought a certain article and as the child could not reach it, the "special" took it from off the shelf. Very shortly afterwards the woman received a visit from the high sheriff of the district, and she was fined $50 and costs; and 'as the costs always equal the fine in these cases, the woman had to pay $100. These "specials" have invaded practically every constituency in the Dominion. In the name of common sense, cannot we remedy this state of affairs? The concoctor of vile nostrums who

spills enough printer's ink may start out with a basket and become a millionaire in twenty years.
Why not have the manufacturers of patent medicines, perfumes, and toilet articles put on the stamps in their own factories? The Government gets a revenue of $196,000 from this tax, and it is a tax on every soul in Canada, and yet it does not pay the expense of its own collection. Fifteen years ago, when the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) was Minister of Finance they had a Stamp Act imposing a tax upon patent medicines. Notice was given to every dealer to estimate the stock in hand of patent medicines, and the stamps were sent to be affixed. It was a tax of only 1 per cent, instead of 4, and 4 is not too much. But it made unnecessary the operation of these special agents and obviated the necessity of these trials and fines. It was a measure decidedly in the public interest. One of these agents came into my county and got cases against two dealers who are by no means among the rich men of the county. I was discussing this matter the other day with a member representing a New Brunswick constituency. He told me that in his county a local druggist was running a little ice cream concern as a part of his business. For a time the person in charge of the drug department was absent and one of these specials-probably knowing the circumstances-dropped in. The girl serving the ice cream counter was asked by him for a package of talcum powder. She said she knew nothing about it, did not even know the price. He said, "That is no matter ; it is never more than twenty-five cents." He put down the price, took the package and went away. That cost the proprietor of that store $50, and I never knew a case where the expense of the suit was not equal to the fine. That is simply robbing the dealers of .this country to enrich the manufacturers who compound these nostrums, and we know that some of these are worth their millions, made out of the people by the lavish use of printers' ink which almost forces the people to buy these medicines. I asked the Finance Minister to reform this condition. Surely it can only be by oversight that it has been allowed to continue.
I have another charge to make. The farmers, who are the very backbone of Canada, whose work is the foundation of our wealth, upon whom we depend most to pay our enormous debt and who work, many of them, a hundred hours a week,
are not fairly treated. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) said he asked no favours for the farmers, nor do I, but I do ask for them justice. The farmers were told to raise hogs for bacon. They went at it, and paid as high as $90 per ton for corn. Yet the Government did not guarantee the price of their produce as was guaranteed to the flour miller. But the flour miller makes twelve and fifteen per cent. By the time the farmer had his pork fattened, corn was selling at $70 per ton. Then, again, the Canada Food Board would not allow the farmer to export his cream. All the butter of this country was commandeered, and the farmer could not even eat his own butter, unless it were produced in his own house-he could not take it from the creamery. It was commandeered at 42 cents a pound, and was held by the commission merchants until they got 48 cents a pound, a nice profit for them of six cents. The profit went to the big men who could afford to do something to keep the Government wheels running. In January last butter was 72 cents in New York, and in Montreal 62 cents. A farmer on the border wrote the Food Controller in Ottawa for permission to send his milk into the United States, which would have made an advance in his receipts of about $100 a month. But the answer was, "No." The rich Americans could take out the cream and milk and make a big profit on it. Is not that suggestive again that there is a nigger in the fence? I do not accuse the Government, but we know that the people who enjoy the benefits of this arrangement are Americans . I do not care to name them, but if anybody twants them he can have them. In this as in other matters the Government is for the big interests, while the welfare of the people is not considered.
It has been proposed that we should have a Department of Health. One department that we could do away with is the Department of Trade and Commerce. Last session, the minister of that department, who is one of the oldest men in this House, spent a week talking about eggs and the quality of eggs, and I presume how many there were in a dozen. He talked also of hay and the quality of hay, and about cement, and the quantity that should be put into a bag. But, as Hansard shows, he could not answer one practical question. Instead of the Department of Trade and Commerce, we need a Department of Industry, with a broad gauge man of energy and big ideas, at its head, a man
3S6

who knows the practical affairs of Canada and of the world. I am not personally-acquainted with all the ministers and possibly they have among them a man of the calibre I have indicated. If so they should form a Department of Industry and put him at its head.
I wish to say a few words on this question of public health. It is a fact that, notwithstanding the almost inconceivable sins that are committed to prevent it, there is a pretty fair crop of babies arrive in this country every year. The lamentable fact is that only two-fifths of these live to the age of three years. Every one loves the soul of a child. I believe that this would be the prerogative of women if they ever turn their attention to Parliament. We all believe in the conservation of humanity to the fullest extent but we want to have fewer departments instead of more. I think that all hon. gentlemen on the other side will agree with me in that. As for adults, I would say: Stand straight, breathe deep, live temperately and you will live longer and more happily than you otherwise would. I said in my campaign that if I was elected to this Parliament I would not speak when opportunity offered, but when duty demanded it. I was a very close listener last session, as I hope to be this session.


Mr. RICHARD CLIVE COOPER (South Vancouver):: Mr. Speaker, before dealing
with the matters that I wish to take up in connection with the debate on the Address in reply to the speech from the Throne, I desire to refer at some length to the remarks made by the hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes). I am glad to state that a better man than I will take this matter up and will deal with the Cambrai and Mons battles from personal knowledge of these great events. I allude to Col. Peck, V.C. The hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton has given us an honour roll of the members of this House. We find that it is very inaccurate and incomplete and that the recapitulation of services given by that hon. member ds not actually in accord with events as they occurred. In dealing with one hon. member of this House, the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Currie), the hon. member for Victoria takes occasion to defend his own action, as well as the action of the hon. member for Simcoe, at the battle of St. Julien in 1915.
I have nothing to say in regard to the hon. member for Simcoe, but as the insinuation is made that the only man who could be confused with him is Brigadier-General A.

W. Currie of the 2nd Infantry Brigade as he was then, I venture to take up the cudgels on his behalf. We find that the hon. member for Victoria is ubiquitous. There seemed to be some system of telepathy existing between him and the hon. member for Simcoe. We find that every movement of this particular officer during the battle of St. Julien was known to the then Minister of Militia sitting safely at home in Ottawa. I do not intend to enter into any discussion as regards where Col. Currie was at the battle of St. Julien but I will say that for the first time in my life, between six a.m. and seven a.m. on April 24, 1915,
I saw Col. J. A. Currie of the 15th Battalion and spoke to him. I did not see him again until I came here last session. In the latter part of 1915 I was in England and I read * with extreme disgust the remarks made by the then Minister of Militia and Defence in defence of this particular officer. As I before stated, it is only because of my intention to clear the name of our greatest Canadian soldier from any stigma that I am making these remarks.
On the evening of the 22nd April, 1915, I was, with part of my company, within 200 yards of the village of St. Julien and Gen. Currie was at Brigade Battle headquarters at Fortuin and there I received certain orders from him. It was at this time that the gas came over, the Turcos came streaming back while St. Julien was being laid flat. I moved out to the fields. It was wise. I met Gen. Currie and he said:	" Cooper,
come along over to Brigade Headquarters until we see what is going to be done." We got orders to move up in support of the 8th Battalion. 1 did not see General Currie again until the night of the 23rd'April, 1915, when he came out to see how we were getting on at the Kerrselaere cross-roads. On the 24th April I spoke to General Currie about five o'clock in the afternoon at For- * tuin. Subsequently, during the night he took the remnants of two battalions of his brigade on to the Gra-venstafel ridge. The remnants consisted of my own battalion, the 7th, and the 10th, Western Canadians. General Currie placed us in position and told us what he knew of the situation in front of us. Then he went to headquarters of the 8th and 5th Battalions who were on our right flank. The next occasion on which I saw General Currie was on the early morning of the 26th when we rejoined the remnants of our brigade at St. Jean. General Currie then led the brigade composed of the remnants of the 5th, 7th, 8th and 10th Battalions up to a line in advance of Fortuin and the Hannabeke, where we re-

mained until the Tuesday night, he establishing his brigade headquarters alongside of us and personally went around to cheer up the men of the brigade. On leaving the salient on the night of the 28th April, General Currie was the last man out. I would further refer to the hon. member's remark.
Well, Sir, frpm the outset of this war I am on record as standing for the saving of the lives of our boys unless it was absolutely necessary that they should be sacrificed.
'Having placed this on record in Hansard, I may ask if he gave this matter the consideration he states when he forced the Ross rifle on the 2nd and subsequent divisions of Canadian troops. The hon. member speaks of Cambrai in the following terms:
I know Cambrai well. General Mewburn has seen Cambrai.
And so on. He says he knows Cambrai. So do I, but only on the map, and I venture to suggest that that is the fullest knowledge the hon. member also has of it. The hon. gentleman quoted from a letter written by him to the Right Hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) which, in Hansard is undated and which says in part:
Any ass can sit back and simply order battalion after battalion to go forward to certain death. General Foch does hot want that sort of thing, neither do the people of Canada.
His remark. is only to true, but also is it true of those who stand hack 3,500 milles and, without full information to guide them, undertake to criticise.
For the information of the hon. member I would draw his attention to the result of the Cambrai battle. Official information shows us that the Canadian Artillery fired 7,000 tons of ammunition against visible targets of troops. In close formation our heavy artillery engaged two hundred such targets. We captured more than seven thousand prisoners and two hundred pieces of heavy and field artillery. Our total captures from the 8th of August until the 1st October amounted to twenty-eight thousand prisoners, five hundred guns, over three thousand machine guns, and an immense quantity of stores. The battle of Cambrai was the deciding one of this period of the war. It broke the great Hindenburg line, and left an open country with only natural obstacles for our troops to fight over in front of them. In giving this information, Sir, I am quoting from official sources. The hon. member spoke of Cambrai as though it were a tragedy. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that far from being a tragedy, it presents
material for an epic, worthy to rank with those written of the " contemptibles " and our own First Division; at the second battle of Ypres.
Now let me refer to the capture of Mons. Official information shows us that on the 9th November, 1918, the Huns were in full retreat along the whole front of the British armies; that Maubeuge was occupied by the guards and the 62nd Division, with the Canadian Corps approaching Mons. Five British armies, with cavalry and cyclists operating in advance of the infantry, were making a steady forward movement; only in the neighbourhood of Mons was any determined opposition met with. Here we find the Canadians advancing towards the town from the south and west, and working round it on the north. Our Third Division captured Mons in the early morning of the 11th of November, killing, wounding, or taking prisoner all the German garrison. The total casualty list shows seventy-five of all ranks, while they took over a hundred unwounded prisoners. This battle, fought on the holy ground that their glorious predecessors, " the old contemptibles," had to retire from against overwhelming odds in 1914, must surely remain indelibly impressed on the memory of the splendid men who were privileged to take part in this action, and on the people of Canada as a fitting culmination to the great work of our corps.	\
The hon. member spoke as follows about the Mons battle:-
I have just this to say about Mons. Were I in authority the officer who, four hours before the armistice was signed, although he had been notified beforehand that the armistice was to begin at eleven o'clock, ordered the attack on Mons, thus needlessly sacrificing the lives of Canadian soldiers, would be tried summarily by court martial and punished so far as the law would allow. There was no glory to be gained, and you cannot find one Canadian soldier returning from France who will not curse the name of the officer who ordered the attack on Mons.
The suggestion made there by the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton, and given broadcast to the fathers, mothers, wives and children of Canadian soldiers, is that General Currie, for his own glorification, deliberately gave the order to capture Mons on the morning of the armistice. A graver indictment of a man I have never heard; in effect, the indictment is wholesale murder. Now, I want to protect General Currie's name to the utmost that an humble member of the army, like myself, can. A little later I will endeavour to explain the chain of authority that exists in



the British army, and you will then see that whoever may have been responsible for the order for the attack on Mons, General Currie and the Canadian Corps were just a " cog in the wheel." The hon. member has, I believe, some claim to distinction in regard to winning the South African War. He is an honorary Lieutenant-General in the Service, and for this reason he should at least be as au fait with matters of a military nature as a sergeant. But a sergeant would know all about the chain of - authority in the army and would not have made such a foolish statement as the hon. member made here. At the time of the armistice, on November 11, 1918, we find that the Huns were still an unbeaten force. We find that they still occupied entrenchments behind barbed wire, with their guns, ammunition, and units practically intact. They were still an efficient fighting force. Now, I would like to put the situation to the House in this way: Probably all of you, at one time or another, have seen, if not a prize fight, then a boxing match. I would suggest that the position the Allied armies were in on the morning of the 11th November is somewhat the same as a man who is boxing another, and has his opponent almost down and out. The winner knows that the bell is going to ring in about fifteen seconds, but from some notion of chivalry-doubtless a foolish sentiment-he does not knock his opponent out. That is the position of the Allied army before the Huns on the date mentioned. They had no guarantee that the armistice was going to be signed; they had to hammer the brute to be certain that he would sign it.'
I would now like to deal with the chain of authority in the army, and I promise not to detain the House unduly in doing so.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Richard Clive Cooper: Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock I was proceeding to detail the chain of authority as it existed in the British Army. As is well known to most people in Canada and the civilized world, Allied operations from last spring were in the hands of Marshal Foch, assisted by an Allied staff. Marshal Foch, assisted by his staff, was responsible for the plan of campaign in all theatres of war in Europe. He, therefore, laid out his plan of campaign, dealing more particularly with the western front. On forming his

campaign he called together the leaders of the various Allied armies in France, explained what he wanted done, and gave them their part in the operation. These Allied Commanders in their turn called in the general officers-in our own case- commanding the British armies and allotted them their part in the operations to take place. The General Officer Commanding the army, in his turn, calls on the General Officers Commanding the army corps and allots them their portion of the scheme inside of his army. The Army Corps commanders then call the divisional commanders together, wrho are allotted their portion of the work inside of the Army Corps. The divisional commanders call the brigade commanders together and allot them their portion of the work inside of the divisional part of the operation. The brigade commanders call the battalion commanders together and allot them their part of the work inside of the brigade. The battalion commanders then collect the company commanders and company officers and explain the work in so far as it is necessary for these officers to know it, and they in their turn go back to the companies and tell the non-commissioned officers and men what is expected of them. In dealing, therefore, with the suggestion that has been advanced that General Currie was responsible for unnecessary loss of life in the Canadian Corps at Cambrai and Mons, it will easily be seen that General Currie was just one small cog in a very large wheel. His was the part that the Allied staff had allotted to him and, just as in the days of the old Light Brigade, " His not to reason why "; he simply carried out orders.
I turn now to another portion of the hon. gentleman's remarks, not made, in this House. I regret that the hon. gentleman is not in his chair, as I hate to hit a man behind his back. Here, however, is a point that I feel very strongly upon and about which I should like to speak.
We understand, Sir, that we are entitled to criticise our own people; but we of the Canadian Army resent very strongly a criticism of the British Army by a man who was not there. I turn to a cutting from a newspaper report of a speech delivered by the hon. member at London, Ontario. He says:
They stood their ground while the Yorks and Durhams threw away their Lee-Enfields and ran because they had "bum" ammunition. On the third day some of the Canadians got some of this ammunition themselves.

Sir, the hon. member rises to a wonderful defamatory height in this connection; his egotism and his dogmatism are absolutely inimitable. But I submit to you, Sir, and to the people of Canada that Canadian brothers in arms will not stand for one moment any reflection being cast upon our Imperial brothers. He referred to two regiments; I shall speak of one of which I know. The Durham Light Infantry came in across the Zonnebeke front and took over part of the trenches of the 8th Battalion, the " Little Black Devils ", and they subsequently vacated their trenches during the afternoon of Sunday, the twenty-fifth of April, 1915. The hon. member has quite omitted to mention that these battalions were part of a Northumbrian division which had been less than two days in France, and were hurled into that hell of gas and high explosive and machine gun fire. He says they ran away. As far as the Durhams are concerned, that is not true; the Durhams retired in perfect order-too perfect order, Sir-they retired in platoons, and. I saw them cut to pieces, leaving their dead behind in swathes. It is a pity that the license of this House is not better taken care of. Free speech is well in its way, but speech that is too free is very bad.
I turn for a moment to go one further than the Minister of Militia did'this afternoon, and when I have gone that one further I think that every Canadian will thrill with pride. I have taken the trouble to work out a little bit of detail as regards our Canadian decorations. I find that 418,052 men went overseas and that 15,750 won decorations and mentions, of which 3,333 were mentions and 443 one bar or more to decorations. The Minister mentioned that this afternoon, but the point I would like to make is that if one decoration had been given to one man instead of one man earning two or more decorations, one man in approximately twenty-seven of the Canadians who went overseas to fight would have been decorated. I think that is a wonderful record. The tale is not yet told, of course, of decorations; we may find three or four hundred more going to our splendid men.
I quote from the Toronto Globe of the sixth of this month, and I feel sure that many thousands of the people of Canada will re-echo the sentiment contained therein:
The terrors of the war have been great and manifold for our gallant men in Prance, but Sir Sam Hughes is a greater than any of them. The enemy never dealt a fouler blow than that
22i
directed by Sir Sam Hughes against the leaders of the Canadian Army still in the field and unable to defend themselves.
I turn now to a matter that I conceive it to be my duty-rightly or wrongly, I do not know, rightly, I believe,-to touch upon. I have the honour to suggest to the Government that they make General Sir Arthur Currie, K.C.B., some monetary grant of generous proportions as a recognition of his wonderful service in command of the Canadian Corps. It has been the custom in the Empire to reward our great men in a like manner and we here at home should not fail in this regard. We find that our great leader comes back with all the honours in the shape of decorations that a grateful home Government can bestow upon him, and we, in our turn, must do something worthy of the glory which he has brought to us. I am proud to say- this is reflected glory, of course-that I knew General Currie before the war in Victoria, B.C. I enlisted at the same time as he did and I served in the same brigade. Without a tinge of envy, I congratulate him on his work. Victoria congratulates her citizen, and Canada will congratulate her son.
Let me now discuss a few subjects that are of general interest to Canada as a whole, and possibly more especially to my own part of the world. In passing, I would like to refer to the two officers, members of this House, who moved and seconded the Address. They did well-"but then, they are Canadian soldiers."
The sudden transition from war to peace has, I believe, found us, to a certain extent, unprepared. I believe that we are better prepared than any other of our Allies, and I feel confident that if we all work together to help the schemes that, the Government is now putting into operation, Canada will not suffer in any great degree, in the near future.
I should like to allude, for a moment, to the visits of our Cabinet Ministers to the West. There is only one way in which our country can be held together. It is vast; it has diverse nationalities; it has many diverse problems, and the only way for the Government to know the feeling of each portion is for the members of this Government to travel. I will welcome, as every man in my own province will welcome, the visit of any member of the Government at any time he can come.
As a comparatively new comer to Canada and as a new member of this House, it may seem presumption that I should refer to the late great leader of the Opposition.

I followed the late, great leader's career long before I came to Canada. I remember him as an outstanding figure in the Diamond Jubilee, although I was not at that time in England. Canada has suffered a great loss. The Empire has suffered a loss. I trust that Canada will rise to greater heights by reason of the example that he has left us.
I turn now to something that may be new to this House, and this may even not be the proper place in which to bring this matter up. In my notes, I have this headed "War Memorials." People's thoughts are now turning to memorials to perpetuate the memory of our fallen, but unfortunately, their thoughts are turning to stone and iron to perpetuate flesh and blood. That is wrong. It is not worthy of the men who gave their lives that we might be free. I suggest that there is a greater, nobler, finer memorial to be erected to our fallen. 1 suggest that education is the only possible, adequate method of perpetuating the memory of the "immortals." Before I came to Canada, I spent some eleven years of my life in South Africa and some eight years of that in Rhodesia. During that time, on three occasions, I was with the late Rt. Hon. Cecil Rhodes, in three of his trips into the south Gazaland country. On two occasions before the South African war, and the last time was a few months before he died. At that time, he was working out his scheme of scholarships. I was a youngstei then and did not take very much interest in it. He often said to me: " Cooper, education is the greatest factor on earth." I said, " Yes." I did not think much about it. He said that he was going to establish a scheme that would reach into every country in the world, and he did so. 1 suggest that this country can perpetuate the memory of her immortals in no better way than by founding scholarships along the same lines, with such amendments to the Rhodes' Scholarships as may be necessary. These scholarships, I would suggest, would go, in the first instance, to those young men who, when the war began, were in the transition period between school and business life and who, owing to the war have lost one or more years of their lives. They should be the first to be considered. Needless to say, there would have to be some kind of educational test. The scheme would not be practical without it. The second people to be considered would be the children of our soldiers, not only oi those who have fallen, but of those who are still living. At the end of a certain term 
of years, these scholarships could be turned over at large to the children of this country. There would be no question of creed. All would be on an equal basis. The scheme, endorsed by the Federal Government and supported by every provincial and municipal Government interested and given to the people of Canada to subscribe a capital sum, would, I have not the least doubt, bring from the people of Canada alone a sum amounting to twenty or more million dollars. Such a sum would be adequate for between one thousand to fifteen hundred children a year. Work that out in percentage of our population and see what it means in ten, fifteen or twenty years. I do not see any reason for the scheme not succeeding. I feel that the wealthy men in Canada will give freely; that those who have lost their sons or their husbands will give freely for other people's sons or husbands; that the poor people who cannot afford much, will, seeing so much likely to be offered for their children in the future, also make an effort to subscribe. So I think there is very little doubt that the money could be subscribed, and the scheme would be limited only by the amount subscribed.
There is another point. Our desire for the future is to receive such a class of immigrant that we will never think of turning him out. Our eyes naturally turn to the Mother Country, and I submit that if the many hard-working people *who are anxious to emigrate, for many reasons, one of which is education, see the advantages that Canada offers to her children, they will come to this country. I notice in a cutting from the London Daily Mail of February 3 that two hundred Canadian fighting men are to be selected from students in the overseas forces for British university training while they are awaiting demobilization. One hundred are to be chosen from the men in France and the other hundred from the men in England, but only those students who have completed their second year in medicine, theology, agriculture, engineering, law, etc., in some Canadian university are eligible. That is good, Sir, but it does not go far enough. This scheme may seem somewhat Utopian, but I really do not see any reason why it cannot be made a reality if the Government will appoint the right men to foster the idea.
There is a matter of importance which I have not yet heard discussed in this House.
I refer to national service. We have just . concluded a great war which has taught us, if anything, one great lesson, and that is to be ready. I do not purpose to enter into

details of any particular scheme. I only say that now, with the ending of a great war, it is our duty to prepare for future wars. The training of our children should be carefully gone into in the schools so that if we are at any time confronted with another war our children will be ready to step into arms without any loss of time. If we had been prepared in 1914 it is more than likely this war would not have been fought. If it had been fought, and we had been prepared, it would have been ended very much sooner, with a huge saving of blood, misery and treasure. It is our duty then to provide properly organized units with proper leaders. I have talked with many officers coming back from France who have compared the men who enlisted under the Military Service Act with the volunteer, and not a single one will give the same credit to a draftee that he will give to a volunteer. There is not a volunteer that can possibly fight on equal terms with a draftee. It is our duty then to do away with such unfortunate things. Let us make every one serve the country. It should be the pride of every man, woman and child to serve the country that gave him or her birth. Further, Sir, it should be the duty of the 'Government to see that its people are ready.
I turn to another subject-one that has occasioned intense bitterness not alone in Government circles-I am not alluding to Ottawa, though I know it is rife in Ottawa -but in other parts of the country, and particularly in Vancouver. In the Government service there are employed very many women who need not of necessity earn their living. These women have, in most cases, got there, not by competence, but by influence, and I say it is unfair competition against their more needy sisters. I think the Government should take a hand in this matter and clean up the Government services as far as they possibly can. I know that a great many women worked during the war for patriotic reasons, but there were a large number also who worked for patriotic reasons plus salary.
I now come to the question of our natural resources, and one in particular I wish to mention. It seems to me the natural resources of our country have been the plaything of political parties. They have been handed out for services rendered; the nature of the service need not be specified. But now the time has come for that to cease. For the future we must as far as in our power lies conserve the natural resources of Canada for the British. One industry in particular-the fishing industry in British Columbia, with which I am more familiar than any other-is packed full of all kinds of aliens who only became naturalized for the sole purpose of exploiting the fisheries of British Columbia. They gave us no service in the war; in fact, in many cases they were openly hostile to the cause of the Allies. The smaller kinds of licenses, such as the gill-net and the purse-seine were granted largely as political favours and in a great many cases, particular^ as regards the canneries, a virtual monoply has been created for a favoured few. I submit that in this particular industry very careful revision should be made of the licenses issued, and those who have not given service should be passed over in favour of those who have. At all events, those who have served should be given the preference. I find. that last year there were 5,288 gill-net licenses issued in the province of British Columbia, of which 700 were held by Britishers, which includes natural born-Canadians and men from all parts of the British Empire; Indians, the indigenous natives of British Columbia, 1,130; Japanese, 2,620, or 49.70 per cent; 'Swedes, 105, or 2 per cent, and iSwedes in many cases were nearly as bad as the Huns; Finns, who are closely allied to the Swedes, 106, or 3.70 per cent; Norwegians, who are slightly better than the previous two, 220 or 4.20 per cent; Greeks, 59; Austrian, 32; Spanish, 25; German, 21, and other nationalities, 170. Of course, these are all naturalized British subjects. I am not dealing with the other and more valuable types of licenses, because I cannot obtain the figures from the department, but, what I want the House to note carefully is, that outside the Indians, the British born have 13.23 per cent gill-net licenses in British Columbia waters, the balance going to aliens.
I find a lesolution standing in the name of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Clements), dealing with the subject of enemy aliens. Should I be in order, Mr. Speaker, in discussing that matter now?


Georges Henri Boivin: I think the hon. member could discuss the matter generally, but he would not be in order in referring particularly to that resolution.


Richard Clive Cooper: The province of British Columbia is concerned in having large government works undertaken at once, and wherever it is possible that a return may be had, even if not for years to come. In British Columbia we have not the industries of the older provinces, and we must necessarily have public works to carry us through this transition period. I congratu-

late the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell) on the policy of public works which he has launched. I would point out in that connection that in our province we must re-absorb the 51,000 men'-less casualties-whom we sent to the war, and many more besides. I am told that the wonderful climate of British Columbia attracts many, and I understand that we are getting some 35,000 more people. We have not work for them at this time, and the only way to absorb them at present is by starting public works.
I trust the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) will go carefully with immigration. Let him bear in mind the large number that are coming back, for whom it will not be easy immediately to find places. I further hope that the policy followed by previous party governments will not., be followed by this administration but the future interests of our country will be considered-we do not hold our country for ourselves, we hold it for the future.
Amongst the Orders in Council brought down is No. 179, which deals with the payment of passage to the dependents of soldiers being brought back to Canada or who were never in Canada before. I wish to tell the Minister of Immigration and Colonization that that Order in Council is rank discrimination, that njany of the women and children whose passages back to Canada are being paid by the Government, are people who remained in the Old Country and ate the Old Country's much-needed bread against the wishes of that government, with these people it was purely a matter of selfishness. One cannot condemn them, of course, because their nearest and dearest were there. But the majority should have been considered. I think that, if it is the intention of the Government to pay the passages of these people, then it is its duty to pay also the passages of those who came back to Canada prior to November 11, 1918.
The War Service gratuity is a method of covering the transition period between doffing the uniform and putting on the mufti. It is not the best way out, in my opinion; I am afraid it will cost the country much unnecessary money. But it is good. Yet here again we have discrimination; the Order in Council was not properly thought out. I want to bring to the attention of the. Government a very just claim in connection with this war service gratuity, the claim of the Imperial reservist who lived in Canada prior to the war and who, when
IMr. Cooper.]
the war started, rushed home to join the colours. He went home and served for 1 s. 1 d. a day-say twenty-seven cents a day. Our Canadian soldiers got 31.10 a day. The Imperial soldier had no reason to complain because the Patriotic Fund came forward generously and augmented his pay to approximately the same as that of the Canadian soldier. But, while they are grateful for that, they are slightly discriminated against by this Order in Council dealing with the war service gratuity. I understand that that is not our business, but I submit to you that these men gave just as efficient service to Canada and to the Empire as did the Canadian soldiers. They have come back to their homes in Canada and have to live under Canadian conditions, and therefore they are entitled to the same war gratuity as are the Canadian soldiers. The Imperial Government has issued a war service gratuity, but no distinction is made between single and married men. Therefore, the private soldier with war service from 1914 up to the present time, if a single man, would receive approximately $200 less than his more fortunate Canadian brother, while the married man would receive approximately $450 less than the married soldier in a Canadian unit. I trust the Government will look into this matter; I sincerely believe that these men have a just claim.
Now, I turn to consider very briefly the case of the man who served in Canada. That man, metaphorically speaking, has been hooted by every Tom, Dick and Harry in the country, he has been called a slacker and other opprobrious names, in many cases without any justification whatever.
There are many splendid men in the service in Canada who have eaten their hearts out to go to the front but who have been discriminated against. We find that the man who had given service in Canada, and was demobilized prior to the 11th November, 1918, does not benefit under the terms of the war service gratuity. It is unintentional discrimination perhaps but it is certainly discrimination.
The Order in Council dealing with clothing allowance gives the first men to come back $8 to $13 and they had to hand in their uniform. 'This was subsequently increased to $35 but was not made retroactive. I can readily understand that the departments concerned in this matter would have to work possibly until the [judgment day in dealing with these retroactive measures, but, in all fairness, I think something should be done to meet the many justifiable com-

plaints that are received from all over the country in connection with this matter.
In the clothing allowance, as in war service gratuity, the draftee benefits at the expense of his volunteer brother. This is hardly fair. I want to take up the case of the officers for one moment because they are not allowed to speak for themselves. I want to deal with the $100 that was given to the officers in England last year. We find that an officer who went to England and never got any farther than England, on August 1, 1918, was entitled to an extra $100 clothing allowance, making in a year or fifteen months $350. We have against that an officer who served overseas and in Canada since September, 1914, and who had to do with the inadequate allowance of $250.
I do not believe that there is a single officer in Canada who would make any complaint except for what appears to be discrimination. I submit that men who have given good service in Canada, but who have not gone to England or Prance, should have been given this extra allowance, not because they desired it but in order to equalize matters.
The Minister of Militia this afternoon mentioned the War Service Button. We have been very generous in our distribution of War Service Buttons but there is a class of men that we have overlooked. There are many thousands of men who, with the best intentions in the world, joined up to go and have a smack at the Huns but who, for some reason or other, were disqualified and never got there. Many of these young men looking physically fit have had the finger of scorn pointed at them as they walked down the street. Is it not possible to give them some badge by which they could show their fellow men that they had tried to go?
The Land Settlement Act is an excellent piece of legislation. I would like to see it put into force, just as quickly as ever the Government can, but I should like to see the matter dealt with according to various provincial problems and conditions. What might be adequate provision for a Prairie Province is not adequate for a province like British Columbia, we will say. I would like to see the measure very much increased in its scope. I think it desirable that men who have given good service in Canada should benefit by its provisions. I need hardly point out to the House that every man we can send to the land, who proves to be an efficient farmer, is a national asset, and that every man we can drag away from the city is a. saving in labour unrest. A large amount of labour unrest comes in the winter months when we have men from
the prairie, farms, bush, and fisheries flocking into town, some with a little money and who, when they have no money left and no work, sit around and make mischief.
Pensions are, in my opinion, inadequate. They are unequal in the way they are determined. I do not think that the method of determining pensions is the right one. I believe that better service could be given if a board were provided in each province, or, where provinces are alike in conditions, in two or more provinces, to deal with peculiar provincial matters. I believe also it would be a wise provision, or until conditions are stabilized, to look at this question of pensions from the rural or city standpoint. It is' unquestionably a fact that a person cannot live, in a city in the same way that he can out on a farm, and where a person of necessity must live in the city, that fact should be considered. I would suggest that pensions err on the side of generosity consistent with our financial strength.
Prohibition is a very vexed question. I will stand behind the Government, in so far as I am personally concerned, for total prohibition for one year from date. I believe it will be in the best interests of the country that liquor should not find its way freely into the hands of the people until our conditions are stabilized. After that time it should go to the people of the country to decide. I will not say what they should decide for.
In thinking out new taxes to meet the interest on our huge outlay during the war, I sincerely trust my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) will not overlook the very large number of people who to-day do not come within the provisions of the present income tax. I allude to single men earning from $800 to $1,100 a year and who might very well pay a small amount into the Government's coffers.
I will ask the Government to go a little farther in the matter of vocational training. It has been found in many cases that the term allowed for the learning of a certain industry or profession is not adequate. It would be an act of kindness to many young men who are in the transition period if an extra fortnight-in some cases a month, in other cases possibly as high as six months,-were allowed so that they could complete their course and become useful citizens of the country.
Further, I would ask the Government to enlarge the scope of the vocational training, whereby it could embrace the young man who went overseas under age, and whose return was asked by his parents on thr t

score, but who is now debarred from the benefits of the vocational training.
I congratulate the Government on its wisdom in placing the Royal North West Mounted Police in the Western Provinces, because I think it is really the only way whereby Federal legislation will be properly administered.
I have never been a party man, for I have always felt that the cult of party led to a neglect of national ideals, and that the country always suffered from it. I was glad when ip December, 1917, so many men from the other side of the House joined up with those that were on this side, and made a strong party with a united front to face the problems of the future. I trust that hon. gentlemen will not be too exacting in their demands from the Government, but will help it in all reasonable ways in their power, in order to get the country back into a real stable condition.
One more remark and I shall close. It amused me intensely to listen to the wild poetic flights that some hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House
9 p.m. indulged in. There was a delightful parody, for example, by the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff). I cannot at the moment recall it, but if I remember rightly, it was plagiarized from a hymn book. That hon. gentleman enjoys a Scotch name, and must surely be familiar with Bobbie Burns. I will therefore quote from the words of the immortal Bobbie, in answer to the hon. gentleman's eulogy of the leader of the Opposition :
Oh, wad some power the giftie gie U3 To see ourselves as others see us!
It would from many a blunder free us, And foolish notion.
Mr. JOSEPH M. DEMERS (St. Johns and Iberville) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, at first I wish to refer to the renowned and _ well beloved leader of the Liberal party whose sudden death has so brutally robbed his fellow citizens of their affection and admiration.
I shall not venture to even attempt to add to the remarkable tributes which have been successively paid to his memory by religious and lay orators in most eloquent sermons and speeches, as well as by journalists in writings that are wonderful in style and inspiration.
I simply wish to lay quietly the tribute of my grief on the grave barely closed of this great man, who personified so well the
CMr. Cooler. ]
noblest and best qualities of his race, which is also mine.
I do not intend to prolong this debate, I am usually brief and so shall be to-day. But I thought it was my duty to address this House on this occasion, as I believe there cannot be a more favourable one for a member to express his views and make his observations on the political condition such as he sees it.
From the beginning of this debate we have heard of re-adjustment and reconstruction. Under ordinary circumstances, there would be not any question of re-adjustment or re-construction before we had made our inventory, so as to realize to what extent we were disorganized. However we find ourselves under such exceptional circumstances that we need not take stock, for the disorganization is complete, general, manifest and admitted by all.
We are politically, socially and economically disorganized. Such is the condition, Mr. Speaker, in which we find our country after the war. Before the war, we had a constitutional and democratic government, now we have but a dictatorship; we had a Parliament and this Parliament has been ignored by the Government during and after the war and now perhaps more than ever before. The representatives of the people were left aside, and instead opthe guarantee of a parliamentary legislation, we were swamped by Orders in Council, thus doing away with our constitutional guarantees.
If the Government intend to carry on a work of reconstruction, first of all, they must' re-establish democracy in this country, namely the government of the people through their representatives.
Before the war, Canada had the reputation of being above all a land of liberty. The Government has changed it all and individual liberty, the freedom of speech and of the press were abolished and replaced by coercion and intimidation.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, if we wish to reconstruct, we must re-establish freedom in this country; we must abolish the censorship immediately, for there is no reason now to maintain it and we must let the people absolutely at liberty to express freely their opinion.
Before the war we had an Election Act based upon principles of justice and fair play, but it was replaced by a system of selection.
That Act is a blot on our statute books, which it will be difficult to fully obliterate. That legislation was an Act of cowardice on the part of the Government and a flagrant

breach of the right inherent in British citizenship. None could have been more detrimental to our country.
At home, it proved loathsome to a great many people, and should such disgust be too often provoked through cynical and arbitrary legislation like the War-time Elections Act, peace would very likely be imperilled in this country.
Abroad, that law has put the fair name of our political institutions in jeopardy, and should Canada ever want to secure foreign labour in the future for the development of our immense resources, I am very much afraid that the War-time Elections Act will show that it has caused our country an irreparable prejudice, as it seejns hard to con-conceive that foreigners will be very anxious to come to this country, when they know how Canada treated her alien population during the elections of 1917.
The great majority of those who came into Canada did so, because they wanted to avoid persecution at the hands of the autocratic governments of Europe and because they thought they were coming into a free country. They were attracted and almost carried here by lecturers and agents who had exalted the humanity of our laws, who had promised they would be granted and enjoy equal rights. And then, all of a sudden, they must realize that after they had been persuaded to abandon their nationality, they were made practically homeless, that is men without a country. What a splendid advertisement for Canada to have it spread abroad, how the foreign element was treated in this country ! We had not long to wait to see the results, as it was reported in the press a short time ago that immigrants whom we had brought here at considerable expense, were withdrawing their deposits from the banks to go back to their native countries, notwithstanding the bad conditions that obtain throughout Europe. Evidently these people are absolutely disappointed; they did not find here that which they were looking for and which they had been promised to secure. They will now go back to Europe and advertise Canada in their own way, according to the treatment they have been submitted to here.
We heard-and I don't know whether it were not repeated in this House-that the Government should frame a policy with regard to aliens. Well, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that if the Government wish to adopt some policy to that effect, they should exercise great care and fully consider what may be the future needs of this country as regards immigration, because the policy thus adopted will surely have a considerable influence and will be an important factor in the foreigner's appreciation of this country's opportunities, in case they intend to come here and seek a fortune.
At any rate, Mr. Speaker, there is one thing which we need not think over very long, that is to repeal the War-Times Elections Act as soon as possible. I believe it is easy to do it. The war is over and there are members of the Government who were shocked by that legislation even in war time. Knowing as we do the earnestness of their convictions, we can easily imagine the efforts they must bring to bear upon their colleagues to induce them to repeal that evil and fatal legislation.
Then, Mr. Speaker, once we have carried out that work of clearing our statutes, let us enact such a law, that the people will be satisfied that the Government had not in view a political machine but a desire to secure the full and free experiment of public Opinion. I hope that this new Act will be framed on the underlying principles of the Act which was in force before the war, particularly as concerns the making out of the rolls. I trust that the system of having these rolls made out by municipal councils will be maintained as. much as possible, that is almost everywhere in Canada. And I also hope, Mr. Speaker, that we shall never see any more government appointed commissioners entrusted with that work.
The hon. gentlemen recall the Dominion Elections Act of 1896, the enforcement of which resulted in such crying abuses that the Liberal party made the repeal of that famous legislation a special plank of their platform.
The making out of the lists of voters by commissioners appointed by the Government looked to me in my youth and would look to me yet like a board of arbitrators all the members of which would be appointed by one single party.
Now, Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to refer briefly to another very important issue which was dealt with by hon. members who spoke before me and more particularly by the hon. member for Dorchester, in the beautiful address with which he favoured this House the other evening. I refer to the question of the independence of the judiciary. I regret to charge this Government with having more than.once infringed upon the independence and sullied the fair name of the judiciary, through their untimely interference with their duties. There was some serious clashing recently between the Department of Justice and some of the judges, and I regret to say that the Depart-

ment of Justice did not always emerge with credit.
For a Government to question the integrity, competence or wisdom of our judges and entertain ails'- distrust for them is tantamount to shaking the confidence of the people in an institution which we always considered as being a guarantee of social order and the safeguard of the liberties and rights of the people. A Government who do not respect the independence of magistrates make an exceptionally serious mistake, for which we must call them to account, for it means the sapping of the foundation of our social structure.
I promised I would be brief, Mr. Speaker, and I shall pass on to another subject without any oratorical precautions.
Let me refer to the way of dealing with the defaulters. I believe this is a very important matter for this country at the present moment. I must say right now that I agree with hon. members who advocated a general amnesty, and here are some of the reasons which make me think so.
I was informed that there were 40,000 defaulters in the country, the majority of whom are among the rural population. In all, 100,000 young men answered the call under the Military Service Act, which meant that the Government has hit the mark and if all those who were called had reported, about 40,000 would have been left aside; but I will not use this as an argument.
The principal reason for which I favour a general amnesty is that I am convinced that this Government is responsible to a large extent for the passive resistance which was manifested.
Our people were not prepared for conscription which was repugnant to them, because militarism was unknown in America. Not only were they not prepared, but this Government exerted themselves in letting the people believe that conscription would never be established.
I refer you to the statement made by the Prime Minister himself within and without this House in 1916, and I ask hon. members to remember what occurred in the election of Dorchester in February 1917, when a Cabinet Minister was re-elected as an anti-conscriptionist and supported by another member of the Government who expressed similar views. Was that what you would call preparing public opinion for conscription?
Two months after the Dorchester election in which the young men were told how easy it would be for them to cross over the border if need be, this Government submitted their Compulsory Military Service CM. Demers.]
Act. Then the elections came. What did they say to the people during the campaign? They said that the farmers and their sons would not be called upon to serve in the army, and it is through such false representations that they succeeded in securing the great majority of the votes in the rural constituencies throughout the Dominion, except in the province of Quebec. Furthermore, in order to countenance the statements made by the Unionist speakers during the elections in 1917, this Government passed an Order in Council providing for the exemption of farm labourers from military service. Is that what you would call preparing the people for the enforcement of conscription? And after that you are surprised that there were some refractory ones. It is under such circumstances that we are asked to deal rigorously with people who unfortunately were so candid as to believe in the sincerity of those who solicited their votes and the very men who benefited by such trickery and false representations would now like to enact legislation with a view to apprehending their victims !
Well, Mr. Speaker, I say: That is enough cynicism.
There is another consideration, namely that no good can come out of any harsh measures that may be taken regarding the defaulters. They say there are 40,000. If we decide to deal with them, we must deal with them all. How many millions shall we have to spend in our endeavour to detect them all? We shall be compelled to use an army for that purpose and then to apprehend them; we shall have to build jails to put them in and spend millions to feed them during their detention. When you consider that most of these defaulters are farmers, you will realize what waste of time and disorganization in labour it would represent.
Let those who expect any good out of such harsh treatment be undeceived. We shall only succeed in bringing shame upon 40,000 young men, who, under the present circumstances, represent not only an important, but also a necessary asset, and most of whom belong to respectable families who have assisted one way or another in carrying on the war. We would only discourage and demoralize an army of workers who could prove very useful to the country.
The Government, in spite of the elementary principles of any democratic system, recently passed an ukase imposing a penalty of from $250 to $5,000 or $10,000 upon defaulters, which means that only the poor will go to jail; the others who have means will, for a money consideration, continue to enjoy their freedom. Indeed, this is a nice

way to ajsply the principles of equal rights, but the same thing can be said of the selective Conscription Act which allowed the rich to take advantage of every kind of jurisdiction to avoid enlistment, while the poor were compelled to submit to this condition and enlist.
Therefore we should not be surprised that the workers are avowed enemies of militarism. They are so instinctively, because they know what is good or bad for them and history has taught them long ago that every time a war breaks out they, the poor, have to pay the greatest tribute of blood.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, I submit that this Government, instead of collecting fines from defaulters, should remember the enormous and absolutely useless expenses to which the conscripts and their families were put. I would like this Government to recall the fickleness which they showed in the enforcing of the Military Service Act, which fickleness caused the conscripts and their families to spend millions, for we have not forgotten that after they had established exemption tribunals, the Government capriciously abolished all exemptions that had been granted, thus putting the conscripts to considerable expense.
I think the Military Service Act has cost everybody enough up to now and that this Government should not further burden the people of this country. Moreover, they would reap no benefit by being too severe. They would only cause a considerable discontent throughout this country which would impede the work of re-construction that we must soon undertake, as we would create much unwillingness among our people.
We fought to secure a world peace. Let us have it first at home. I believe there is enough unrest everywhere without making it any worse. This Government should not only use leniency, but, in all justice, pardon those boys whose education they neglected and perverted, inasmuch as the purpose referred to was concerned.
There are many more matters upon which it is worth while calling public attention at the present time and which must be considered immediately by all those who are interested in the welfare of our country. There is the question of autonomy.
Since I have uttered the word " autonomy," though it was not intended to come within the scope of my remarks, I feel that all I need to say is that this question of the autonomy of Canada is causing much interest throughout this country at the present time. Public opinion feels anxious and uneasy over what is going on to-day in Great Britain regarding the Dominions. As
far as I am concerned-I regret to say it, but 1 do so because I feel it is necessary-I have no confidence in the ability of the Prime Minister in defending and safeguarding Canada's autonomy; I do not believe in his patriotism as a Canadian because I look upon him as an Imperialist first and always.
At the present time, the status of our Dominion is undetermined, unsettled and uncertain; the press reports are contradictory; we do not know whereat we stand. They have talked about the creation of an Imperial Council in which all the Dominions will be represented. Well, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the creation of any Imperial body in which all Dominions should be represented, would mean the complete surrender of the autonomy of these Dominions. But I hope, Mr. Speaker, that we have not fallen so low that the status of Canada can be modified without the representatives of the people being consulted, and I trust that if ever a change is made, it will be made by those who received the proper authority from the hands of the people.
There are many other questions which were discussed in this House and which will come up again before us, such as the cost of living, a most important problem at th^ present time; the tariff; the civil re-establishment of returned soldiers; the labour question and the special attention which we are called upon to give to what I shall call the great industry of the country, I mean agriculture, every one of these problems is of vital interest to the future of Canada and I intend to deal with them later during the present session, but, on this occasion, I thought I should limit my remarks to what I consider the first step in the work of re-construction.
After we have re-established a constitutional and democratic government and freedom in this country, when we have a Franchise Act based upon principles of justice, when the Government realize the importance of the sacredness of the prestige and dignity of the judiciary, when the sword of Damocles that is held oyer the head of many of our fellow-citizens is taken down, then, Sir, we shall have established a solid foundation upon which we may confidently build up our national fabric.


Mr. HENRY ARTHUR MACKIE (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to
address the House this evening, I feel somewhat subdued. Last summer I read in one of the magazines published in Canada that this House was composed of mediocrities, and that we looked the part. As for your humble servant, he was described

as the Italian poet who came to this House without originality, and, withal, described as having ready-made clothes-or readymade speeches; you can draw whatever inference you like. I do not know whether one mediocrity is capable of passing judgment upon another, but if I am not wrong, the mover (Mr. Redman) and the seconder (Mr. Manion) of the Address in reply to the speech from the Throne demonstrated rare ability and a clear conception of the conditions of a new era brought about by the war. If, perchance, my appreciation of these two gentlemen is wrong, I know that I am right in saying that whilst our literary genius was being safeguarded at home, meanwhile writing his own persiflage, these Wo mediocrities were not such inferior individuals but that they found their place in the front line of battle. As for your Italian poet, he is before you once more, again with ready-made clothes. And let us hope that they will be more pleasing to our friend, J. K. Munro, who has condescended to become the parliamentary fool. Every court has had its' clown; why not Parliament?
As I have listened to the speeches on the motion for an Address in reply to the speech from the Throne, I have classified them under two headings. On the Government side the position may be summarized quite briefly as this: we have been subjected to a storm, tossed about by the sea, and at times the sun has disappeared almost entirely behind a lowering sky. The sea has grown calmer, the sun has re-appeared and the sailors have fixed their latitude so as to be able to guide their ship safely to destination. In other words, the Government has been subjected to a storm, the ship of State is riding a calmer sea and the ministers have a clear conception of the new conditions brought about by the war and are meeting them in a well defined programme.	__
Let me digress for a moment, Mr. Speaker, before I pass to the attitude which I think the Opposition has taken in this matter, to say a few words about the League of Nations, which has been touched upon by the member for Kamouraska (Mr. E. Lapointe), the member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon), and slightly by the member for St. lohns (Mr. Demers). In this connection the speech from the Throne is somewhat positive in its nature. It says:
And effectually promote the formation of a League of Nations which will ensure for all time the peace of the world.
A wave of fraternity is passing over the world. Many believe that it will carry away

the ativic passions and that regenerated nations will live side by side in a friendly rivalry. It is audacious on my part even to express a doubt. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, incorporated this idea in his " City of God," a most marvellous work for that time. He speaks of the Christian universe as being under the crook of the one shepherd. The bishop, having become pope, crystallized this idea and formed a league of nations of which he was the head, and the expression of its creation was given in the following sentence:
Roma locuta est;
Causa finit.a est.
The papacy developed the spiritual rather than the material side; otherwise, individualism in the world would have been seriously threatened. The church, being afraid of shedding blood, chose the holy Roman Empire as its secular arm, and that settled the fate of the society of nations. From arbiters the Popes became partisans, and the princes were not docile sons of the Church. The Holy Roman Empire was incapable of enforcing its decisions, and you have the reason therein for the bankruptcy of the League of Nations under the tutelage of the papacy, a most extraordinary power which could reach the todies and the souls and whose sanctions pursued man beyond the grave. The unbridled Ego of the Renaissance and of the Reformation is as strong to-day as it was then. Peace can reside only in an agreement of interest and can be maintained only by an equitable distribution of the forces at play, and never by the magic virtue of an abstract ideal. The new social order is, as we are informed, to be based, not on fighting, but on fraternity, not on a competitive struggle for mere existence, but on a deliberately planned co-operation in production for the benefit of all who participate by hand and by brain. The labourer demands an equal shaie of enjoyment, or, at worst, equality in misery.
Let me pass a few centuries in one bound and, following the example of the hon. member for St. Johns and Iberville (Mr. Demers) be brief, and let me quote to you our lamented Sir Wilfrid Laurier who, on the 12th day of May, 1911, when speaking on the security of Canada and Imperialism, said:
"We shall not allow ourselves to be detracted from duty to worship Utopias."
At the time of the Coronation of Edward the Seventh, he stated that he "believed in a Parliament of Great Britain but not in a Parliament for humanity."

I should like also to call your attention, Sir, to an article in the Devoir of the 31st day of January, 1919. It is a resume of an address given by Monseigneur L. A. Paquette, and I desire to say that the Rev. Bishop is one of the leading philosophers in America. He refers to the league of nations, about which I have said a few words and which was intended to bring about a Christian universe. This is what he says in part:
It was therefore a veritable society of nations organized over the principles of Christianity, placed under the tutelage of the Church and submitted to the law of Christ, the law of equal justice, of charity, of fidelity, the law of peace and of freedom. It is the rock upon which the intellectuals and the politicians have perished. It is the problem upon which the most stubborn and self-willed have spent themselves uselessly.
I leave it to you, Sir, as to whether we should keep our powder dry. Whilst speaking of the League of Nations, may I incidentally pursue my digression by referring to something that was said by the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) the other night? He said: We are a nation, and we should be treated equally with England; that is, Canada should be on the same footing as England. I do not agree that Canada is a nation. The position which has been given to Canada overseas to-day is due entirely to its splendid participation, not by reason of its status as a nation. Even if we had a status as a nation, we are in Canada a federation of provinces, and I would still deny that we are essentially a nation. A nation is an agglomeration of people who have the same love and the same hate, who have tasted the same joys and undergone the same reversals, who revere the same great historical figures, who salute the same flag, interpreting its meaning in the same way, because they received in the same school the same mentality. In a word, it is an agglomeration of people whose intellectual, moral and political formation is the same. This is not the case of Canada. Let me prove it to you, Sir, in three instances alone, which I choose amongst others. In 1884, at the time of the Soudan war, the flag meant one thing to the French and another thing to the English. In 1899, the same thing occurred again. In 1914, for the third time, the message of the flag was heard with the result which you know as well as I do.
May I, in passing, touch upon a few remarks made by the hon. member for St. Johns and Iberville (Mr. Demers) in this respect? He does not attempt to excuse
entirely the position of Quebec in this matter, but places the blame upon the Administration then in power, if results have not been handsomer than the actual facts show the case to be. Conscription, he says, was not popular. Our people were not accustomed to the word, nor even to the measure, and above all, we had been promised that there should be no conscription. To me that argument can have absolutely no weight, because a people will fight only upon the patriotism that resides within them, and when that patriotism fails then there is no other way than to impose conscription upon them, and it is quite evident that not only in Quebec, but in Ontario as well, the patriotism was not as great as it was in some of the western provinces. Therefore, the reasons given by the hon. member for St. Johns cannot be accepted by me at all events as being sound for excusing the position which his province has taken.
I wish to come back to the appreciation of the speeches made on the opposite side in this debate. I believe I may summarize them as follows and briefly: Come to us, come to liberty, freedom and low tariff. I would say: Liberty, freedom, advocated low tariff, maintained high protection. Come to a state of contradictions, but come anyhow. The question of tariff has been more or less mooted in this House, and we are told that an amendment is coming that is intended to bring about a decision on that question. I am afraid the members of the Opposition will be disappointed in that respect. We shall wait until we have a decision from this side of the House, and the advice given to the Prime Minister the other day by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) was well directed, and I can do no better than to endorse his position in that respect.
Those who hesitate to deal with a question of this sort are neither frank with themselves not true to their country. The question must come up. This Administration may or may not continue to exist; that makes no difference; the present membership must necessarily leave it to the people finally to decide what shall be done in this country. "When our friends opposite endeavour to allure us to their side by speaking of a low tariff I would say to them: Come to us with a well-defined programme. Tell us what commodities you intend to subject to low tariff, and how low. Tell us what commodities you intend to subject to protection, and how high. Not only that, but they must argue their case and show conclusively what will be

the effect upon the country if the changes they propose are adopted. Furthermore, in view of the changes they would propose they must show how they would raise the revenue. Until then without offence intended; I say that historically; what they have done they have done by stealth and the rest is on record.
I wish to take up the other invitation passed acrofes the floor of the House with reference to liberty and freedom, which I heard mentioned several times to-night by the hon. member for St. Johns and Iberville (Mr. Demers). Liberty is defined as follows:
Liberty is freedom for crowds to dominate individuals. It is collective thought, collective emotion. It is the reverse of freedom.
Let me give a few examples. A member of a union may not agree in every respect with the policy of the union, but if he wishes to remain a member of that union he must subscribe to the general policy. Otherwise, he will be thrown out. If a man is a member of a certain church he must subscribe to the tenets of that church, or be excommunicated. The member of a political party-I believe there is a party on the other side, but there is none on this, although one may be growing up-must accept the general policy of his party, otherwise, he will be read out of his party, as happened to an hon. gentleman who sits beside me. Liberty, then, is that circumscribed freedom which the collective body is willing to give to the individual. Freedom is defined in this way "Each individual is free to do and live as he pleases, so far as he does not interfere with the coi responding freedom of other individuals." I do not wish it to be understood that these words have any importance in political issues in Canada to-day. My only reason in referring to them is that I wish the Opposition to know they cannot allure us by catch words or catch phrases. They must convince us.
The balance of my appreciation of the speeches is that there has been a little constructive criticism and much destructive criticism. There has been a great deal of talk by hon. gentlemen opposite of ministers on this side of the House abandoned to all sense of virtue and honour, because they happened to be at one time Liberals-and I believe some of them say they still are. I think I am better justified than they when I talk of the anti-ministers and moek patriots whose whole course of opposition is motived so far as I can see by envy and resentment because the ministers have not complied entirely with all

their wishes. Am I right in saying that the dart of 1917 still rankles in their side?
Let me give an illustration of the destructive criticism that has been offered without any justification whatsoever by the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Uaunon) and the hon. member for St. Johns and Iberville. According to the hon. member for Dorchester we have lost three freedoms: the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, and the freedom or dignity of the Bench, and these freedoms have been lost, he says, through the action of this Government, once democratic, but now autocratic. As to the freedom of the press, if the press of this country has been bought as suggested by the hon. member for Dorchester, or if as might reasonably be inferred from his speech, the press has been muzzled by Order in Council, let me tell him that there has been no censorship on the press of the Dominion of Canada except in matters which might affect the war. And if my hon. friend complains of the lack of publicity which the Canadian press has given him he should remember that he has not been neglected by the German press if I can believe Canadian press reports on that matter. Would my hon. friend have the press used by a certain class of people for the purpose of fomenting insurrection in this country in time of war or now when conditions in Canada have not yet become stabilized? Is that what he desires? As to the freedom of speech, I have been almost from one end of the country to the other and I have heard and read that men can say what they like, and do as a matter of fact. I do not care how many Orders in Council have been passed nor what control of the press there may be by this Government; there never has been any hesitancy on the part of the editor of the Bulletin in the town in which I live to give full vent to his feelings and sentiments. Freedom of speech has not been curtailed so far as I can judge. If the hon. member for Dorchester means that certain radical elements of our population who advocate the use of force to bring about the conditions they desire should be allowed full scope to create trouble in Canada, I take direct issue with him there. What is the other freedom that has gone? The freedom or the dignity of the Bench. Judge Lange-lier has been referred to. Let tne tell my hon. friend that he is no more a judge than I am, but a Justice of the Peace, liable to be discharged like any other civil servant; and he ought to be discharged. ,
The hon. member for St. Johns and Iberville said in his speech this evening that

we ought not to take such severe measures against absentees and defaulters. The weight of the measures which are being enacted to-day, he says, will bear most heavily on the poor people because they are unable to pay the fines imposed. He argues, in effect, that we have no business to impose fines under the Criminal Code, and he would not have us imprison these defaulters.
The general result of his argument is-if a man has committed an offence against his country and the Criminal Code provides that he shall be punished for it by imprisonment or by a fine, if he has the alternative of going to jail, he ought to have the alternative of paying a fine. I cannot understand my hon. friend from St. Johns and Iberville when he says that this Government has acted unreasonably with regard to men charged as defaulters under the Military Service Act. If the law were less strictly enforced, what would the soldiers say, what would the reasonable, thinking people of Canada say after they have made their respective sacrifices-the soldiers by risking their lives, and the civil population by performing the duties incumbent upon them? What would be the result if these gentlemen were given carte blanche in this matter? The only difficulty as a matter of fact, is that the Government has not been more stringent, long before. I say the dignity of the bench is curtailed when you find a magistrate-or .a justice of the peace not a judge-who takes for his guide a letter addressed to a police officer, and governs himself accordingly in imposing fines or fixing terms of imprisonment. It is time that this Government should at least speak to such a man to let him know that he has a duty to perform, and that he shall perform it even if it is absolutely necessary for this Government to intervene. If the man were a judge I would be the first to impeach him. But he is a magistrate, a justice of the peace, and the province of Quebec should see to it that he is discharged at once. It is not the business of this Government to educate justices of the peace to conduct themselves properly in the administration of the law, but if it becomes necessary to do so this Government will not fail in its duty.
There is another instance of destructive criticism: Sir Robert Borden, Prime Minister of this country should be here in his place in Parliament. I remember that the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. E. Lapointe) said that it must be regretted that the late lamented Sir Wilfrid Laurier was not invited to attend the Peace Conference.
Assuming that, if Sir Wilfrid Laurier were alive to-day, and assuming that he had been invited to attend the Peace Conference, would these hon. gentlemen say he should be in attendance at that conference?
If so, then it amounts to this: That Sir Wilfrid Laurier's place was at the Peace Conference, but the place of the Prime Minister is in this House. Are these gentlemen sincere when they take that position? I go further. What would be the criticism uttered by these hon. gentlemen if Sir Robert Borden were in his place in this House to-day? Only last session, my first session in Parliament, I heard the Opposition members state that the interests of Canada had been sacrificed at all times by Great Britain more particularly in the matter of boundaries, but to-day they would have the leader of the Government remain in his seat in Parliament to conduct affairs which, I think, are well conducted by the ministers who are here, and neglect this very question of boundary which is certain to be discussed overseas.
It is said that the Government are not making efforts to secure for Canada indemnity for her war expenditure. But Great Britain says that the colonies will receive pro rata, on the amount paid to Great Britain, and all who read the papers must have noticed that announcement. But I go further and say, that even if there is not one cent coming to Canada by way of indemnity, yet the honour of this nation having been maintained, and the security of its people guarded as a result of this war, the price paid is not excessive.
We are told that the Dominion of Canada is encroaching on provincial rights in the matter of education. True, in a general way, education is a function, of the province. But it is the duty of the Federal Government to protect person and property, and there is no better way to protect person and property than by education. In the olden days, you had the stocks, the whipping post, the treadmill, the penal colony; and to-day we still have the state provided with expensive machinery to punish men, but not one cent for education. "Educate the people," was the admonition of Penn. "Educate the people," was the advice of Washington. "Educate the people" was the exhortation of Jefferson. But the Government of Canada to-day is nothing else but a hangman.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Mr. MACKIE (Edmonton):: I am glad
these hon. gentlemen realize it, and it is too bad 'Some of them cannot be reached by

the tentacles of the law. If they will repeat outside of Parliament what they say here, they will come under the admonition of the law. We lock up, we hang, we strangle to prevent crime, and judges impose long terms of imprisonment on persons to give an example to others. That is a queer way to form character. The Government of the country should see to the education of the common people just as it does to its national defence, and as it sees to the rewarding of the soldier, so it should see to rewarding the teacher who forms the character of the people. We spend millions in bonusing railways, in assisting agriculture, in teaching people how to grow wheat and cattle, but we do not spend a cent in teaching people how to grow up to be men and women. We spend a dollar in education and five dollars in prosecution. We make the calling of the teacher degrading, and pay instead the police magistrate and the judge. We are anxious to bestow extended franchise upon the people and to make them all-powerful, but we withhold from them the instruction without which that power becomes a curse. It is time the Dominion Government took notice of education in this country, and if necessary amendments should be made to our Constitution to meet the case.
I say that the criticism by hon. gentlemen opposite has been destructive in the main. I do not blame my hon. friends opposite. I wish they were more constructive, but there is a reason for their attitude, and that reason is that we are a democracy. The hon. member for St. Johns and Iberville says that we are an autocracy. If we have had criticism it is due to the fact that we are a democracy, and I intend to prove it. We must not lose ourselves in details lest we may imagine that by showing here and there some imperfections or defects inherent to democracy, we aim a mortal blow at the system itself. History, the educator of statesmen, teaches us that by following the same methods we have in the past undergone the same reverses with the same final achievement of success.
In 1754, at the beginning of the Seven Years War, what was the political system in New France and New England? In the case of the former it was political absolutism, parental government, military discipline. There was a chief to whom all subordinates were ready and willing to render blind obedience. It was governmental and military discipline in all its perfection. If the chief said "Advance" no subordinate would ever have dreamed of saying " Retreat." Montcalm, the mili-

tary expert, was the one chief whose orders suffered no contradiction.
In New England a contrary system held sway. Everybody had the right to express his opinion. There was no Louis XIV, nor a Pompadour. When the New Englander left the Mother Country, she wished him good luck, never intending to follow him to the shores of the Atlantic or impose upon him an Intendant Talon. In other words, they were masters of themselves, and when New Prance advanced upon their frontiers they found the New Englanders engaged in private quarrels. There were wranglings with the Mother Country about the supreme command, and the desire to secure ranks of less importance was the cause of much dispute amongst the colonists. On all sides there were wranglings as to the quota of men and money, and there were those, even the Quakers, who, on principle, were unwilling to fight. But pressure on the farmer and his sons actually set the powder on fire. What was the result? There were humiliating defeats, that of Monongahela amongst others, whilst new friends, thanks to its unity of purpose and action, crushed Montgomery at Carillon. Does this prove that autocracy is superior to democracy? By no means. When, after a time, education had taught the New Englander what the object of the war was he realized that the political absolutism of New France intended to drive him and his democratic ideas into the sea, then the Dutch of New York,_ the English, the Scotch, the Irish Colonists, the Catholics of Maryland, and the Quakers of Pennsylvania, rose as one man ready and willing to shed their blood in the dethronement of political absolutism which meant the triumph of democracy. Has not history repeated itself. The same causes produce the same results. Canada is a democracy where everybody takes advantage of the right of expressing his views on public matters, and it is on that account we find so many Zoilians who find time to criticise the Government in military matters and even in their efforts at reconstruction. All the imperfections they point out are inherent to the democratic system, and with the great Corneille I believe that the most difficult state to govern, especially in war time, is a democratic state.
Clinton was a great patriot and he desired to serve his country well. He proved to be a great organizer, yet he suffered reverses which would have disheartened a man less great than he. But he lived long enough to see the supporters of political absolutism depart for France, and twenty-five years afterwards receive from Madame

Guillotine the reward of their stubborn resistance in the acceptance of the new conditions in a new political era. In this war, as in the Seven Years' War, neither England nor France has escaped entirely the more or less serious discords in its political, social and economic sphere. But did they allow these minor quarrels to minimize their effort in the war? Nor will minor quarrels minimize the united effort of these two countries in peace. Nor did they consider these minor quarrels as serious attacks upon their governments. It is only in Canada that you will find so-called-statesmen so famished for power that they are ready and willing to sacrifice the good name of democracy to the exigencies of their own ambition, which under present circumstances is misplaced; for it neither corresponds with their ability and talents, nor with the unbounded devotion which they ought to have for democratic institutions. In the twentieth century, as in the eighteenth, democracy at times advanced imperceptibly, yet surely. To-day it goes forth like that army in array mentioned in Scriptures, acies ordinata. This last victory of democracy, let us hope, will silence forever the detractors of these methods in war time.
Mr. HER,MAS DESLAURI.ERS (St. Mary) (Translation):	Mr. Speaker, I wish to
tender my congratulations to the mover and seconder of the Address for the ability displayed in presenting the policy of this Government in showing the spirit in which it is intended to conduct public affairs in the future.
They said that during the last four years the millionaires stood side by side with the workers. I do not intend to deny that, but I believe my hon. friend from Calgary should have told this House the actual and foremost reason for that combination, which was great. No doubt he overlooked this detail, but those who, like myself, on account of their position or profession, are in continuous contact with the working people, are in a position to state that on every occasion the millionaires, specially in the industrial field, never failed to show in a most peculiar manner their interested patriotism.
In many industries the workers were treated as so many tools, even exacting from women and young girls certain kinds of work which require the strength of a man. This was done by day and night, holidays and Sundays without any rest, and on pain of losing their job, while the profiteers, under the protection of the Government. were raising the prices of commodities to prohibitive rates. For that reason, how many healthy bodies, how many fathers or others with dependents were taken to the cemeteries, while our millionaires, by the side of the workers, were getting more and more numerous under the cover of patriotism. The difference that exists between these two classes of citizens is that those who are the majority have met their death and the few others have become happy and prosperous. I will not insist. It was the period of destruction. This Government had made up their minds to destroy everything in order to save the Empire and re-establish civilization overseas. We must admit that unfortunatly they were very successful. Now, that the war is over, there is no reason why this destruction should go on. So they announce a period of re-construction. Eet us hope that our millionaires and their kin the Trust magnates will carry their gun on the other shoulder for the greatest good of Society and that they will do their duty.
According to my hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. Redman)-and I am with him in this -the soldiers should be absorbed into our civilian life. That is meet and just, but where I differ from him is in the manner of that absorption. To my mind, what would be desirable, what the Government should try to do, would be to re-establish the social order as it existed before the war, when the people on this soil of America led a happy and contented life.
As a consequence every soldier back from the front should have the right to resume the position he held before the war and the duty of the Government should be to oblige the employer to reinstate the man. In this way, Mr. Speaker, we should see the bookkeeper going back to his desk, the machinist to his shop, the shoe worker to his factory, the bank clerk to his bank, and all with the most perfect order. But I strongly condemn what is being done in Montreal and probably elsewhere, a state of things which seems to be approved of by the Government, judging by the remarks of my hon. friend from Calgary, namely that the civilian should be thrown out without pity in order to make room for the soldier. That denotes a sad lack of justice and of fairness towards the man who has done his duty; it disorganizes society; it is anti-humanitarian; it will bring wretchedness and misery to the people; it is a school for the Bolshevism which seems to make the Government so anxious. To place signs outside and inside industrial establishments admonishing all comers to "Make way for the Soldier "



is to bar out any other person who is in need of earning food for himself and family. Allowing the soldiers to step into any place they choose, without regard to their qualifications or their past experience in civil life paralizes industry and throws out of employment faithful workers who from ujv-on will find it very difficult indeed to earn a livelihood; and in certain cases it helps, towards promotion a forger or an embezzler, who enlisted to escape sentence.
That is going a little too far. It indicates approval of what is going on in numbers of our shops where soldiers, about 97 per cent I am told, go from shop to shop, working two or three days here and there, after having caused the dismissal of those who supported them during the war. Why do these things happen? Because there is no effort at regulation. I find this method decidedly unjust. It is a very bad policy, to my mind, and the Government should lose no time in setting up some sort of regulation of these things so that each and every man should be treated according to his deserts.
I wish to point out to the Government that if, at a certain period, ships were more necessary than men, on the other hand, production, to provide for our warriors on the battlefields, is most assuredly the essential factor in warfare; that the soldier be kept in proper fighting trim.
The finest proof we have of this is in the forty years of preparation undertaken by Germany so that when war did come she could call upon her immense reserves of production. Tn the same way, during four years, our workers have laboured to the very utmost so as to uphold those who, on the other side, were sacrificing their lives, having willingly offered themselves up on the altar of Civilization and Freedom. It would be not just that those who for so long upheld our fighters should to-day have only poverty in return. I believe that, without in the least working any harm to the reestablishment of our soldiers, the Government could give a square deal to our civilian population.
I perceive, moreover, that the immigration problem demands the very special attention of the Government this session. This question is decidedly one of capital importance; but for us, of the old French province, faithful to our traditions and to our faith, and who are following in the footsteps of our ancestors, the problem is not quite so acute. However, we admit that, for other provinces, for which we entertain the highest consideration, when the women will have been completely emanci-
[Mr. Deslauriers.}
pated, thanks to the ballot and to their introduction into Parliament, I admit, I say, that the problem will then constitute for our province an equation in the second degree rather difficult of solution. Still, since we have a Unionist Administration which on more than one occasion, has shown its liking for force, I have no hesitation in believing that it will see to it that some sort of selection is exercised in the choice of the immigrants who sooner or later will honour its memory. At all events, in the public interest we reserve the privilege of expressing our humble opinion on this subject.
Now I come to a far more serious problem brought up by the mover and the seconder of the Address:	I mean, Bolshevism in
Canada, the natural consequence of the policy of a Government which is much too inclined to use force. This is certainly one of the most serious political problems that the Union Gevernment was justified in mentioning in the speech from the Throne. There is decidedly something to stir up an Administration if the news we get from Red Russia be true and they will likely be confirmed by our soldiers who were sent to this territory through force, always for the defence of our borders.
While we are speaking of Russia I recall an incident or rather an echo of this afternoon, when the Minister of Militia spoke about the Canadian Expedition to Siberia. I must tell the House that I am far from looking upon the action of the Government in this matter from the same angle as the hon. Minister of Militia. I believe his information to be more or less trustworthy. 1 do not know where he found the explanations he gave us, but what I can affirm here to-night is that this expedition, from beginning to end, was never done under the volunteer system. And I have in mind just now an instance of the absolutely Prussian brutality with which the military authorities forcefully withdrew 70 recruits from their battalion, the C.O.T.C., Laval, Montreal. Following the custom of the Iroquois the chiefs had notified the officers of this battalion that they required 70 heads and during the night the choice was made, not by vote, but according to the officers' whims, of the young men who were to sacrifice themselves to go and fight in a territory which is decidedly not our boundary line.
And besides I am not of one opinion with the hon. Minister of Militia who claims that the Government accomplished a very worthy deed on this occasion; I would rather share the opinion of Mr. W. L. Smith, a regular contributor to the Toronto "Sun"

v/ho calls this expedition to Siberia the "Siberian Crime." Those are the terms he rises to qualify this shipping off to Siberia of Canadian conscripts drafted unwillingly into the expeditionary corps on the way to Vladivostok:
"Canada committed a national crime in sending to 'Russia, to participate in a domestic quarrel, men who had no business to interfere with this country's striving after freedom, no matter how blind its efforts may be. The crime is doubly heinous when you think that men who refused to go were nevertheless forced to embark for Siberia. It is a flagrant violation of the law of the country which allows men to be sent beyond the borders of Canada "for the defence of Canada" only. No matter what distortion is made of the phraseology of this clause it can never he claimed that men sent to Siberia to interfere in the quarrels of factions at war with one another are fighting "for the defence of Canada." All these men can do is to implant throughout Russia the hatred of everything Canadian, thus endangering Canada's . future welfare in ways that we have not space to dwell on. Every Canadian citizen is a party to this crime so long as he does not protest against what is taking place. The crime is more than all on the head of N. W. Rowell. Yes, the President of the Privy Council is the only one among the ministers who was so hold as to not only defend what is being done but further to try and get some kudos out of it. On the Judgment Day I prefer to be in the place of the last Publican, of the greatest sinner rather than in that of the "First Layman" of a great church, a man whose hands will be red with the blood of his fellow-citizens sacrificed in a nameless quarrel."
It goes without saying that the terms are perhaps a little overdone, but I believe that in the matter of this expedition we can find more in the nature of a crime than we can of a worthy deed for which we deserve congratulation.
The Government must keep an observant eye on this pagan, this savage organization which strives to overthrow everything in its passage, and by any means that offer. If Bolshevism has become a burning question we must believe that it exists in certain parts of the Dominion. For my part, representing as I do a riding in the largest city of the Dominion (Sainte-Marie, Montreal), with a population of nearly 65,000 souls, I feel bound to assure my hon. colleagues on the other side of this House that there is no danger of this national calamity
"4	l. , , IN
getting a foothold in Montreal, that our soil is not favourable to the growth of this disloyal plant. Of course, a short while ago, we had two or three spouters, who looked like Bolsheviki, bob up on the scene, but the folks felt they were related to "Ti Noir" Desjardins and his silent partners of unholy memory. Their arrest had no effect whatever and they are awaiting the return of the hon. Minister of Justice to receive like "Ti Noir" Desjardins a generous cheque to pay them for their trouble and lost time. It is said that in the days of "Ti Noir" the' motive behind the affair was to apply martial law to the peaceful city of Montreal. To-day people are wondering if the Government is not working along the same lines so as to establish a Mounted Military Police Force throughout the Dominion, similar to the North West Mounted; and this very plan was put forth some time ago by iSir John Willison in the Star of Lord AtholstaiL still all a-tremble from his dynamiting at Cartierville by his friends. There you have what is being said in Montreal, despite all the unfair things and all the silly prattle that is being dished up to us daily by a certain part of the press. I must assure the party now in power that the character of Quebec province does not lend itself to this sort of violence but, if I am to believe my own eyes, things do not look so reassuring in other parts.
Listen to this Bolshevik propaganda, copies of which were distributed by the thousand around the chief industrial centres in Toronto, Niagara Falls and Hamilton- who would ever believe it? Why, to believe certain newspapers, all these places have a monopoly of loyalty to the end of all time:
"After more than four years of massacre, famine and poverty for the workers of the entire world the rival factions of the Capitalists have come to an understanding. Fifteen million workers have given up their lives to decide what gang of exploiters will fleece the workers of the world. Millions of women and children have died of hunger while capitalists were living in luxury. During the war the workers were told repeatedly that they must save the Empire. Working men, you have played the game of your masters. Victory, for you, means only hopeless toil from day to day, mean food, shabby clothing, a hovel for a home, death after a little while. Wake up! Do not let your souls be the souls of slaves. Away with the Capitalist classes. Make the Proletariat supreme. Strive with all your might to establish national institutions in which the workers will possess and control

all the means of production and distribution. You have to choose between revolution for the establishment of 'Socialism, and degradation and poverty.
*'You must follow the example of the workers who have founded Red Russia. You have shed your blood for the benefit of your masters. Surely you are ready to take decisive measures for your own good. Set up councils to administer the affairs of the country. Take hold of the industries. Establish military discipline. Crush the Capitalists as they have crushed you since you were born. You must do this if you no longer wish to be cannon-fodder in time of war and beasts of burden in time of peace.
That is what is being distributed in the centres which are fondly believed to be imbedded in loyalty for all eternity. And I really believe that this manifesto was distributed. And what further strengthens my belief in the existence of this state of things is the speech, delivered by the hon. Minister of Militia on the 13th of December, 1917, before a large gathering in the county which he has the honour to represent, East Hamilton. He was speaking to his constituents:
"In the name of God what possible reason can the people have for supporting the Labour Party. This Party sold us soldiers for an immediate gain just as they did to obtain better wages while the soldiers at the Front were going 'over the top' with fixed bayonets to meet the Teuton hordes. I emphatically warn alderman Halarow (the Labour candidate in East Hamilton) that he is taking a very grave attitude at this time. A day will come when he will be called upon to give an account of his deeds. All the backing he has comes from the yellow dogs who are seeking to evade conscription."
Well, I do not know whether it was really Providence that protected our hon. friend the Minister of Militia, chief representative of our gracious Sovereign George V, or whether the yellow dogs shrank away before his literary broadside, at any rate we have the honour to have him with us in this Parliament. I wonder whether this is not an opportune time to call back Sir Robert Borden from his jaunt to Prince's Island so as to lead the Government in putting down Bolshevism. Anyway, it appears to me that nothing should be dearer to the Prime Minister of a country than to work for the good of his own country before trying to settle matters in other countries.
One thing is certain: the Government was justified in putting this item into the speech from the Throne. Bolshevism certainly has

taken deep root in this country and the situation is serious, since this doctrine is growing in a very dangerous part of the country: an ultra-loyalist section. I hope that under the circumstances the Government will show itself worthy of their position.
History tells us that every time a handful of men have arrogated to themselves the right to do as they please, to disregard the rights of the people and the laws of the country, to gag the people's representatives and the Press and muzzle Public Opinion, without advice and without reason, as the present Government has done and is still doing-and I fail to see why this policy is still continued-we must not be surprised if what is happening elsewhere should be seen in Canada, for in Canada, as elsewhere, there is a limit to patience, and the awakening of the people is often horrible to witness.
I do not think that the theories of the views of Sir John Willison would prove an efficient method of holding in check or rather of putting down this class of people or rather this despicable organization: Bolshevism. I must say that this plan of Sir John Willison was the establishing of a Mounted Police Force throughout the Dominion, similar to the Mounted Police in the Northwest Teritories, with a head-office at Ottawa, and holding priority over all the forces already in existence, municipal, provincial or federal; and this, in all the provinces, even in those where there is no call for such a thing. .
I believe that the Government could find a much wiser way of coping with this serious problem. I sincerely believe that should the Government stop administering Canada in an autocratic manner, by Orders in Council; should they repeal those nefarious laws which are their offspring; and start to forget, before asking others to do likewise; should they permit to breathe the air of freedom those who crossed the seas for the defence of this same freedom, I believe that Bolshevism would hold no menace for this country, and that the general feeling of unrest which we find throughout the Dominion would disappear.
Another way of solving all these questions, without omitting a single one, would be to hold a just and fair general election and give once more the place of honour to British fair play.
We can say now that we have undergone a period of destruction in a frightful manner, that we are going through the period of

reconstruction in a guilty manner and that all that remains for the people to do is to make the Government suffer a period of destruction in a pitiless manner.
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Rowell the debate was adjourned.
On the motion of Hop. Mr. Maclean the House adjourned at 10.50.
Tuesday, March 11. 1919.