1919-03-14

OFFICIALS OF THE- HOUSE.


Sir THOMAS WHITE moved:: That the recommendation of His Honour, the Speaker, laid on the table of the House on the 3rd instant, respecting the appointment of Mr. Lionel Dansereau to the position of Clerk of French Journals, Votes and Proceedings and Orders of the House of Commons be concurred in.


Mr. D. D. McKENZIE:: I have been requested to ask that this motion might be allowed to stand for a few days as some hon. members who wish to speak on it are now absent.


William Thomas White: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I request that the motion be allowed to stand.
Motion stands.



RAILWAY ACT CONSOLIDATION.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. J. D. Reid (Minister of Railways and Canals) Bill No. 19 to consolidate and amend the Railway Act was introduced and read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. CHARLES MURPHY (Russell):: May I direct the attention of the Government to a cable despatch from its special correspondent published in to-day's Montreal Gazette, relating to the Kinmel riots, in which it is stated:
Responsibility for this distressing affair must rest primarily on the Overseas Administration. There was lack of frankness in dealing with the men in Rhyl Camp. The staff in command of the camp knew of the unrest among the men over the delay in getting home-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. The hon. member is not in order at this stage in introducing any matter of a controversial nature reflecting upon the administration of
the Government or of any of its departments ; and the reading of that despatch undoubtedly would have that effect. It is in order for the hon. member to submit any question with respect to the riot, but not to read a despatch'of that character.


Charles Murphy: If you will permit me, Sir, just to finish the sentence I was reading-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There is a very important point involved in the reading of a despatch of that character upon the Orders of the Day being called. There being no subject before the House, strictly speaking, no proceeding whatsoever can be had, but it has been the custom to allow questions touching matters of principle or of grave national import with respect to the administration of the Government. Under no circumstances can matter of a controversial nature be introduced which reflects upon the Government or upon any minister or any department of the Government.


Charles Murphy: I bow to your ruling, Sir. I think I have already read sufficient of the despatch to acquaint the Acting Prime Minister with its general purport. Still following your ruling, Sir, I submit that this is a matter of very grave national importance, and I would ask the Government if they can give the House and country any information regarding responsibility for this unfortunate affair, and what steps have been taken to remedy the undoubted evils complained of at Kinmel Park.


William Thomas White: The Minister of Militia and
Defence (Major-General Mewburn) has already announced to the House, I believe, that a board of inquiry has been constituted to ascertain the facts in connection with this matter. Pending the finding of that board it would seem inadvisable, upon the imperfect information contained in newspaper reports, to make this matter the subject of discussion in this House. As soon as the Government have any further official information I shall be glad to communicate it to the House and the country.


Charles Murphy: Orders in Council will be the death of this country. May I ask what information my hon. friend has with regard to the reported riots at Witley [DOT]amp?


William Thomas White: I understand we have no official information as to reported riots at Witley camp.



LIEUTENANT-COLONEL JENKINS' REPORT ON THE C.A.M.C.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Charles Murphy: I have received a communication to the effect that in July, 1918, Lieutenant-Colonel Jenkins of the Canadian Army Medical Corps was appointed by Sir Edward Kemp to investigate and to make a report upon the. financial affairs of that branch of the service overseas, and that a full report was submitted in November, 1918. May I ask if the report in question will be brought down to the House, and if so, when?
Major-General MEWBURN (Minister of Militia and Defence): I have no information with regard to that report. The matter has never come before me, but I will have inquiries made immediately.



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 Monday, March 10.
Hon. NEWTON W. ROWELL (Piesident of the Privy Council):	Mr. Speaker, in
resuming the debate on the motion for the adoption of the Address, it is not my intention to discuss or even to refer to the important measures foreshadowed in the speech from the Throne. These will come up for consideration when presented to the House. Nor is it my intention to-day to refer to the important questions of domestic policy within the Dominion of Canada relating to demobilization and reconstruction. These have been discussed and dealt with ably and effectively by my colleagues and members on both sides of the House.
What I desire to address myself to for a short time might be described as Canada's external relations, or to be more specific, the effect of the war upon Canada's status as one of the nations in the British commonwealth, and upon her status among the nations of the world; and if time permits, to give some information on the situation in Russia, so far as the information is in possession of the Government. I am sure all must recognize that the situation in Russia to-day is one of the gravest problems with which the Peace Conference will be called upon to deal, and constitutes one of the greatest perils to the future of our civilization.

The question of the status of Canada within the Empire has already been mentioned in two or three of the addresses, and was discussed particularly by my lion, friend from Kamouraska (Mr. Lapointe) in a very interesting and able address with much of which I found myself in hearty agreement, although to some of his propositions and statements I could not give my assent.
It is not without interest, in speaking of Canada's status to recall the fact, Mr. Speaker, that the German Confederation, which shortly thereafter developed into the German empire, and the Canadian Confederation started on their national existence on the same day, the 1st of July, 1867. Germany, not extensive in territory but having a large population, was founded not on a democratic constitution -with the assent of the governed, but with a government established on the basis of an autocracy supported by military power. The German people devoted their thought and attention to the development of a material civilization and to the strengthening of the militaiy power of the State. Probably in no other country in the history of the world was such great - progress made during a period of fifty years in material development or in the perfecting of a military machine. When the time arrived that Germany's material civilization or her industrial development had reached a point where she had penetrated all the markets of the world, and her military machine had reached such a degree of perfection that she believed she could safely challenge all the democracies of the world for world supremacy, she started the -war which set the world aflame. The result we know to-day. A civilization based absolutely upon material progress and military strength has collapsed in conflict with the moral forces of the world and with the free, democratic peoples who joined in waging war against it. Canada, large in territory but small in population, travelled a different road. With a democratic constitution under which government was carried on by consent of the governed, the people of Canada, loving liberty and cherishing worthy ideals, devoted themselves to the task of subduing nature within their own borders and establishing an ordered democratic civilization upon this north half of the North American continent. Fifty years have passed, and during that period we have developed in Canada such initiative, such courage and such resource on the part of our people, such a love for liberty and for

true democratic ideals, that when Germany started this war Canada, without hesitation and without delay, by the spontaneous action of the people, and with the unanimous consent of Parliament, ranged herself side by side with the Mother Country to wage war upon the most powerful military autocracy that the world has ever seen. To-day we know the result. Canada, entering this war strong in her determination to stand by the Mother Country, yet not fully conscious of her own strength or of the extent of her own resources, or of the full possibilities of her own efforts, has emerged from the war one of the really effective powers of the world; whereas Germany, who has always occupied a prominent place in the councils of Europe and at the various peace conferences for more than two hundred years, is not to-day represented at the Peace Conference. Canada is there for the first time, and her voice is heard effectively in re-establishing peace .and ordered government throughout the world.
The German people, living under a government which was maintained by military force, could not understand a government based on any other principle; and when the war broke out the people of Germany confidently anticipated that the British Empire would fall to pieces, for they knew that the Mother Country would be engaged in a bitter struggle in Europe. They fondly imagined that the Dominions would take advantage of the opportunity to break away from England and declare their independence. The German mind did not understand the principle of liberty and the loyalty that is born of liberty. During the past fifty years, as the power of self-government, the power to manage our own affairs has been extended, the loyalty of the Canadian people has grown stronger and stronger; and we emerged from this war with the ties that bind |Canada to the Motherland and the sister dominions [DOT]stronger than at any period in our history. 'We draw this lesson from the history of these two countries, that the larger the liberty consistent with unity, the stronger the loyalty, the greater chance of the permanency of the Empire of which we form a part.
In his address in this debate my hon. friend from Kamouraska (Mr. E. Lapointe) drew attention to the fact that in the Imperial War Conference of 1917 a resolution had been passed to the effect that the question of any permanent change in the relations of the different parts of the Empire
should stand in abeyance until after the war. He then went on to suggest that, by reason of some action taken at the Imperial War Cabinet or the Imperial War Conference last year, that resolution had been departed from, that some action had been taken which impaired the autonomy or freedom of Canada. And he went on to suggest that matters relating to Canada should be settled in Ottawa and not in London.
An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Mr. ROWELL:: My hon. friend says "hear, hear," and we all agree cordially with that sentiment. But my hon. friend from Kamouraska was wrong in his supposition that the affairs of Canada were being settled anywhere else than in Ottawa. Let me recall the situation with reference to the various meetings of the Imperial Conference and the Imperial War Cabinet.
At the Conference held in 1897, the first conference attended by the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, whose loss we all lament, he took the position that Canada was a nation, that the people of Canada should recognize that fact and claim the status of a nation, and the people of the Motherland should recognize this claim and concede to us the status of a nation. I venture to think that in no act in the life of Sir Wilfrid Laurier did he more correctly interpret the situation or more accurately forecast the future which lies before the Dominion of Canada than in the position he then took. It may be that he was somewhat in advance of his time, but certainly he rightly interpreted our position. For I am sure we all agree that there can be no permanent unity among the nations that compose the British Empire except upon a basis of the equality of those nations. That position Sir Wilfrid Laurier maintained throughout the period of his Prime Ministership, and that position has been maintained with equal strength under the Prime Minister who succeeded him and who is at the head of the present Government.


Sir SAM HUGHES:: Has there ever been a period in the history of Canada, since 1840, when any other contention was held?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I can only say that, apparently, there was in the minds of many people-I should think in the minds of most of the people in the early days-the thought that Canada wras a colony, a dependency of Great Britain; that we did not occupy the position of a nation,

Let me turn to even a comparatively recent page in our history to show the contrast. At the Imperial Conference of 1911, for the first time in the history of the Empire, the statesmen of the dominions were admitted into the inner councils of the Empire and listened to a review of the foreign affairs of Great Britain. That statement appears so remarkable in the light of present day events may I be pardoned for quoting a paragraph from the address of Mr. Asquith at the close of that Conference:
Gentlemen, I again advert to a matter which has been referred1 to by Mr. Fisher and Sir Joseph Ward', that this is the first time-and this conference will be significant in memory in that respect-when, in IMr. Fisher's happy phrase, the representatives of the Dominions have been admitted, as it were, into the interior, into the innermost parts of the Imperial household ; what in the old classical phrase were called the " arcana Imperii " have been laid bare to you without any kind of reservation or qualification.
Those, gentlemen, are matters as to which we cannot take the world into our confidence; we cannot even take our own fellow subjects and our fellow citizens into our confidence in the full sense of the term, but we who have gone into it with the frankness which such confidential discussions admit of, will agree that, even if the Conference had done no more than that, it would have been a land mark in the development of what I may call our Imperial constitutional history.
So recently as 1911, and for the first time in the history of the Empire, the Dominions were permitted to have a full knowledge of the foreign affairs of the Empire. While we were asserting that Canada was a nation and that thought had been taking possession of the minds of the Canadian people, while the British people were gradually coming to recognize that Canada was a nation, yet during all that period we had no voice whatever in questions relating to foreign affairs or to anything that had to do with determining the issues of peace and war. I repeat, in 1911, for the first time, Canada and the other Dominions were admitted to-an intimate knowledge of foreign affairs. The Imperial Conference had decided that meetings should be held every four years. The conference would have resumed in 1915 had not war broken out. Personally, I think it was a misfortune that they did not hold the Imperial War Conference in 1915 so that the world might have witnessed the spectacle of the unity of the Empire, of its statesmen coming from all portions of the Empire, meeting in London, and devising means as a united Empire to defeat the German forces in the field.
Mr. Lloyd George, who became the Prime Minister of Great Britain in December, 1915, had the imagination to see that

no act on his part could have greater significance for the Empire than that he should invite the statesmen from all the Overseas Dominions to meet the statesmen of the Motherland to confer upon the war, its progress, the terms of peace, and upon after-war problems. Therefore, the Imperial War Conference of the spring of 1917 was convened. The overseas ministers met with the members of the British Cabinet, ail'd from that meeting has issued what has been defined as the Imperial War Cabinet. What is the Imperial War Cabinet? Let me summarize the position. As a full statement already appears in Hansard, and which was made by the Right Hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) in June, - 1917. The Imperial War Cabinet consists of the Prime Minister of Great Britain and of the ministers who are in charge of the departments dealing with Imperial Affairs-the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary for War, the Secretary of State for India, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and probably the Secretary for the Navy, and the Prime Ministers of the Overseas Dominions. They met together and discussed matters affect- ~ ing the whole Empire, more particularly those relating to the conduct of the war.
It is of interest, in considering the constitutional position which was thus brought about, to note, as was pointed out by the Prime Minister in 1917, that the Crown acts throughout the whole Empire. The Crown acts in Great Britain on the advice of the advisers there; the Crown acts in Canada, and in the other Dominions, on the advice of the Dominion ministers; in the provinces on the advice of the ministers of the province ; so that, throughout the Dominions and States of the Empire, the Crown acts upon the advice of its constitutional advisers, having regard to the particular subjects that come up for consideration. It was pointed out in reference to the Imperial War Cabinet that there were two cabinets sitting in London. The British War Cabinet which advised the Crown on matters relating to Great Britain, and the Imperial War Cabinet which advised the Crown on matters relating to the Empire as a whole.
Some one said that it was not a Cabinet, that the name was altogether inappropriate, that you cannot have a Cabinet unless it is responsible to a particular parliament.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The hon. gentleman say9 " Hear, hear I am not going to quarrel with a name; you may call it a Council if you think it is any better, tut what I

shall point out to my hon. friend is that the Cabinet has no existence in any written constitution. My hon. friend knows that the Cabinet, like so many other British institutions, was developed to meet the exigencies of the situation, to have the advisers of the Crown responsible to Parliament Here we have another Cabinet which has grown up out of the exigencies of a new situation, to meet new conditions. It is a characteristic development of our British constitution and which, as the Prime Minister said in London last summer, and as he said in this House, is a Cabinet differing from the others in that it is a Cabinet of governments. It is composed of men responsible to different Parliaments and each one responsible to his own Parliament for the advice that he gives, each being under the necessity of justifying that advice before Parliament, just as any other Cabinet or Prime Minister must do.
There are several hon. members who were not here in 1917 and for their benefit particularly may I read a statement which was made by Mr. Lloyd George in the British House of Commons and which was read in this House during the session of 1917 with regard to the creation of the Imperial War Cabinet, so that the members of the House may know just what the constitutional position is as outlined by Mr. Lloyd George:
The Prime Minister (Mr. Lloyd George) : I think that I ought to report to the House a very important decision that was arrived at as a sequel to the recent meetings of the Imperial War Cabinet. It is desirable that Parliament should be officially and formally acquainted with an event that will constitute a memorable landmark in the Constitutional History of the British Empire. The House will remember that in December last His Majesty's Government invited the Prime Ministers or leading statesmen of the Overseas Dominions and of India to attend the sittings both of the Cabinet and of an Imperial War Conference to be held in this country. It is to the former body which assembled in March, and held fourteen sittings before separating, that I desire to refer. The British Cabinet became for the time being an Imperial War Cabinet. While it was in session, its overseas members had access to all the information which was at the disposal of His Majesty's Government, and occupied a status of absolute equality with that of the members of the British War Cabinet. It had prolonged discussions on all the-most vital aspects of Imperial policy, and came to important decisions in regard to them-decisions which will enable us to prosecute the war with increased unity and vigour, and which will be of the greatest value when it comes to the negotiations of peace. I should like to add on behalf of the Government that the fresh minds and new points of view which our colleagues from over the seas have brought to bear upon the problems with which we have been so long engrossed, has been an immense help to us all. So far as we are concerned we can say with confidence that the experiment has been a complete success.
The conclusions of the Imperial War Cabinet are of necessity secret, but there is one aspect of them which we feel ought to be communicated to the House without delay. The Imperial War Cabinet was unanimous that the new ^procedure had been of such service, not only to all its members, but to the Empire, that it ought not to be allowed to fall into desuetude. Accordingly, at the last session, 1 proposed formally on behalf of the British Government that meetings of an Imperial Cabinet should be held annually or at any intermediate time when matters of urgent Imperial concern require to be settled, and that the Imperial Cabinet should consist of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and such of his colleagues as deal specially with Imperial affairs; of the Prime Minister of each of the Dominions or some specially accredited alternate possessed of equal authority; and of a representative of the Indian people to be appointed by the Government of India. This proposal met with the cordial approval of the overseas representatives and we hope that the holding of an annual Imperial Cabinet to discuss foreign affairs and other aspects of Imperial policy, will become an accepted convention of the British Constitution.
My hon. friends who are interested in the constitutional aspects of this matter might very profitably peruse the statements of the Right Hon. the Prime Minister, and the late Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier in dealing with the question in this House in 1917.
This is the statement of Sir Robert Borden in reference to the constitutional change:
"Therefore the future of this proposal will be a cabinet of governments rather than of ministers, a cabinet in which the government of the United Kingdom, the governments of the Dominions, and the government of India will be represented. Having regard to the declarations of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and his colleagues, the proposal will carry with it much of advantage to the Overseas Dominions. I say that for this reason: It is not proposed that the Government of the United Kingdom shall in foreign affairs, act first and consult us afterwards: The principle has been definitely and finally laid down that in these matters the Dominions shall be consulted before the Empire is committed to any important policy which might involve the issues of peace or war. The language in which the Prime Minister of Great Britain conveyed his proposal to the ministers from the Dominions made that abundantly clear. So, as I understand the proposal, and I think I understand it correctly, the British Cabinet shall continue to discharge its functions in respect to all matters relating to the United Kingdom, but there shall be also an Imperial Cabinet in which not only the United Kingdom, but all the Overseas Dominions shall be represented by their governments."


Samuel Hughes: King George is the Crown. How then does the hon. member reconcile the Crown in this case, which is the Crown of Great Britain only, with the


functions which it is intended to convey by this new cabinet council where His Majesty will represent the Crown in all colonies? May I make myself a little more clear:	Canada and the other Dominions
will sit in a war council under the Crown which is solely the Crown of Great Britain and Ireland?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The hon. gentleman
is wrong in his statement of the facts. King George is not only the King of Great Britain and Ireland, but of the British Dominions beyond the seas.


Samuel Hughes: Might I suggest
to my hon. friend-I am very much obliged to him for his data, which, of course, I never heard of before-that the Crown is represented in Canada by a Governor, and not by King George. Perhaps that is news to my hon. friend.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I cannot give any
further answer than the one I have already given, which I think is sufficient-that King George is King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and of the British Dominions beyond the seas, and Emperor of India, so that the Crown is the head, the real constitutional bond of unity between the Motherland and all portions of the Empire, the representatives of which come together in this Imperial Cabinet to advise His Majesty on matters of importance to the whole Empire.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. gentleman has not met the question that I raised: Is the King of England appointed by the Empire, or by the Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland?


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend knows
that the descent in Great Britain under the Act under which the present reigning house came to the throne, is by heredity -it descends.


Samuel Hughes: Bylaw?


Newton Wesley Rowell: When the Crown was
settled upon the present reigning house it applied to the whole Empire as it existed at the time that settlement was made.
The Prime Minister stated the situation further in this language.
They go there as the representatives of autonomous governments, each responsible to an independent parliament. They meet there for the purpose of consultation, co-operation, and united action, but that action can be taken only with the sanction and authority of the representatives of the various nations of the Empire assembled in their own parliaments. Therefore, there is no sacrifice of any existing power of self-government. There is, on the

other hand, opportunity for consultation, cooperation and united action, "which I venture to think will prove of great advantage to the Empire as a whole.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have quoted these statements for two reasons: First, because these statements were made to the House of Commons in the year 1917, and because the constitutional position was not challenged by any member. Sir Wilrifd Lau-rier did question the use of the word " cabinet " and suggested that " council " was more suitable, but no member of the House challenged the constitutional position as outlined by the Prime Minister at that lime.
Mr. Speaker, neither this Government nor its predecessor has undertaken to change the existing constitutional relations , without the consent of the Parliament of Canada, Parliament by failing to dissent, by failing to offer any criticism, did accept that statement at that time as defining our proper constitutional relationship and since then the people at the general election have given their ratification-at least I have never heard that there was any real dissent in the general election to that proposition. So that whatever may be the constitutional relationship arising out of the presence of representatives of Canada in the Imperial War Cabinet that relationship has the assent of the Canadian Parliament and the Canadian people. I venture to think this development is a matter of very great importance to the people of this country-it is not the curtailment of our autonomy, it is an enlargement of our powers of selfgovernment. The Imperial War Cabinet does not deal with a single question which in the past has been dealt with by the Parliament of Canada.


Air. DUNCAN ROSS:: Does the hon. gentleman seriously say that this question was an issue before the people at the last general election?


Newton Wesley Rowell: What I said was that the general election had since been held, but 1 did not hear of any dissent during the election to that proposition.


Duncan Campbell Ross: Did you hear the matter mentioned at all during the election?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No, I did not hear it mentioned, and for this very good reason:
It so commended itself to the judgment of the whole of the people that nobody thought an issue could-be made of it. It must also,
I think, commend itself to all hon. gentlemen if they take time to consider the situation. What is the situation, Air. Speaker?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Before the President of the Council leaves the constitutional phase of the subject, I would like to put a question to him. The hon. member says that this Council, or Cabinet, of which he speaks, is constitutional and based on constitutional principles. Will the hon. member explain where he finds any basi3 for such an arrangement in the constitution of Canada, for instance?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I said it was a development of the British constitution, like so many others, to meet the exigencies of the situation, and that is the way all the great developments in the British constitution have been made. In that respect the British people have differed from most other nations under free and democratic governments. The majority of nations have prescribed for themselves a written constitution, and they must act within the terms, or the limits of that constitution. The British people, on the other hand, have had confidence in their ability to meet any situation when it arose, and they have adopted their constitutional procedure to meet the exigency of the case. That is the way this Imperial War Cabinet developed.
When my hon. friend asked his question,
I was pointing out that the Imperial. War Cabinet does not deal with any matter with which the Parliament of Canada previously dealt, or over which it had jurisdiction. There was always an area of sovereignty oveT which we had no jurisdiction, such as foreign affairs and matters relating to the issues of peace or war. Over these Canada had ho control except in so far as she might make representations to the Imperial Government which dealt with these matters. Now, Mr. Speaker, the development is this: Our autonomy has been enlarged, our selfgovernment has been enlarged, Canada has reached the status of a nation, not in name but in fact. Canada now has her voice heard in that area of sovereignty over which she previously had no jurisdiction. The representatives of Canada meet with the representatives of the other Dominions and the Mother Country to determine these questions of foreign policy-the issues of peace or war. There has been no curtailment of our sovereignty. On the other hand, there has been an extension of sovereignty, or self-government, to the people of Canada.


Mr. E. LAPOINTE:: Ordinarily, when a member of a Cabinet disagrees with his colleagues on a question of policy, the
course for him to follow is to resign from the Cabinet. Will my hon. friend say whether this course will be followed by a member of the Imperial War Cabinet if he disagrees with other members of the Cabinet on any question of policy brought before it?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The answer to my hon. friend's question is this: where the Cabinet, as in the past, is responsible to a particular parliament, that has been the constitutional procedure. But this is not a cabinet like any other cabinet.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Newton Wesley Rowell: It is, as the Prime Minister has said, a cabinet of governments in which the heads of governments represent their own peoples. You may call it a council, if you will; I will not quarrel over the term. But it is an assembly, an organ of government, a place where the representatives of the Mother Country and of all the Dominions and of India meet together to discuss matters of common concern and to agree on lines of co-operation affecting the whole Empire.


Duncan Campbell Ross: My hon friend has not
answered the question of the member for Kamouraska.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The question is answered. The difficulty with my hon. friend on the other side is that while he professes to be a Liberal, he cannot readily change. There should be a readiness to change to meet new situations and new developments; there should be new machinery of government to meet new exigencies.


Duncan Campbell Ross: I admit I cannot change just as quickly as my hon. friend.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I have not changed; I
have stood for compulsory military service and the backing up of our boys at the front.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend (Mr. Ross) should not get nervous when he does not have his own way.
Let me come back to the question we were discussing. What is to be the future relation of Canada to Great Britain and to the other Dominions of the Empire? Are we to continue in a position where we have no voice in questions of foreign policy or the issues of peace or war? That is inconceivable on the part of a nation such as

ours, which has taken such a part in this great struggle. It is inconceivable that Canada should be content to occupy a subordinate position in the Empire; to have the issues that affect the lives and welfare of her families, and citizens determined by men living elsewhere, and to have no voice whatever in their determination. There are only two ways in which Canada can have a voice in foreign policy. She can have it as an independent nation, or by co-operation with the nations that now form part of the British Empire. Here again I have not changed; I believe that the future of Canada is inseparably associated with that of the Mother Country and the other nations of the Empire. Canada s future is to be found in association with these nations.


Samuel Hughes: I am very glad that the hon. gentleman is coming to the right line. Now, would he kindly tell us where the question of responsibility for the colonies-I use the term in a broad sense- comes in?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Responsibility for the colonies?


Samuel Hughes: Responsibility under the new form. There must be responsibility in all governments, or there should be.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I will come to that point in a moment.


Samuel Hughes: Well, I have a fad of my own.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I think I have given
my hon. friend a good deal of information and light so far, but I will tell him this: the Imperial War Cabinet, as was announced by Mr. Lloyd George and Sir Robert Borden, was a creation for the purposes of the war. The question of the permanent constitutional relationship is to be settled at a conference to be called after the war, and all these other questions will come up then when the permanent constitutional relationships are being settled.
May I point out the contrast between 1911 and 1917? In 1911 the statesmen of the overseas Dominions were admitted for the first time and on one occasion to a review of foreign policy-in 1917 and 1918 the statesmen of the overseas Dominions and of India meet around a common council table with the statesmen of the Mother Country, there to consider together these very questions for the benefit of the whole Empire.


Mr. NESBITT:: If a representative of
this Dominion did not agree with the other 
members of the War Cabinet, would it not be his duty to report back to this Parliament and to get its approval or otherwise of his position?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Absolutely. Nobody can be bound except by the assent of his own Government, and his own Parliament. That is clearly set forth in the statement of Sir Robert Borden which I read to the House.


Samuel Hughes: Am T to understand- Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.
'Sir SAM HUGHES:	If you gentlemen
will kindly keep yourselves in place, I shall-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Samuel Hughes: Does the minister
mean to say that at that conference in 1911 there was no consultation with or asking of the opinion of ministers and others concerned? Because I can tell him to the contrary that there was.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I did not say anything
of the kind, Mr. Speaker; I quoted Mr. Asquith and I said that that was the first occasion upon which the statesmen of the Empire had been admitted into the secrets of British foreign policy.
Now, let me come back to the point that I was discussing. Perhaps I could make my statement clearer to the House if my hon. friend (Sir Sam Hughes) would permit me to proceed without interruption. Most of the questions he has in mind may be answered by what I have to say.
While we have been claiming the status of a nation within the Empire since 1897, we did not get the status of a nation until 1917, when the statesmen of Canada and of the other Dominions met with the statesmen of the Mother Country around a common council board to determine questions of common interest relating to the whole Empire. So that during the period of the war there has been a remarkable development in our constitutional position, not by way of a curtailment of our rights or powers, but by way of a great expansion and enlargement of those rights and powers.
Now, my hon. friend from Kamouraska quoted from an address of the Prime Minister in London in June last in reference to the change, in our constitutional position and he suggested that we had departed from the resolution passed at the meeting of the Imperial War Conference on April 16, 1917. Let me read that resolution:
The Imperial War Conference are of opinion that the readjustment of the constitutional relations of the component parts of the Empire is too important and intricate a subject to be

dealt with during the war, and that it should form the subject of a special Imperial Conference to be summoned as soon as possible after the cessation of hostilities. They deem it their duty, however, to place on record their view that any such readjustment, while thoroughly preserving all existing powers of self-government and complete control of domestic affairs, should be based on a full recognition of the Dominions as autonomous nations of an Imperial commonwealth and of India as an important portion of the same, should recognize the right of the Dominions and of India to an adequate voice in foreign policy and in foreign relations, should provide effective arrangements for continuous consultation in all important matters of common Imperial concern, and for such necessary concerted action founded on consultation as the several governments may determine.
There has been no departure from the position defined in that resolution. You ask what of the action which was taken last year, and to which my hon. friend referred? Under our constitution, under the constitution of all the Dominions, the Governor General occupies a dual position, which has grown out of the old colonial status. The Governor General, under our constitution, is the representative of His Majesty in Canada. He acts upon the advice of his constitutional advisers, and in that respect occupies exactly the same position as does His Majesty the King to his constitutional advisers in Great Britain. But the Governor General has another function in Canada; so has the Governor General in each of the Dominions, a function that is a survival of the old colonial days. The Governor General was the representative in Canada of the Colonial Office, the high official in Canada of the Colonial Office to receive communications from the Government of Canada. Therefore, if the Prime Minister of Canada wished to communicate with the Prime Minister of Great Britain, the message went to the Governor General of Canada; he communicated it to the Colonial Office, and the Colonial Office communicated it to the Prime Minister of Great Britain. When the Imperial Conference met this year, it was the view of the statesmen, not only of one Dominion but of all the Dominions and of India as well, that the time for that process of circumlocution had passed. It was a relic of the old colonial days. If the Prime Minister of Canada could discuss matters with the Prime Minister of Great Britain around the Council table face to face, when they separated and the Prime Minister of Canada came back home, why should he not communicate directly with the Prime Minister of Great Britain instead of through the Governor General and the Colonial Office as in the old colonial days.
That was the view at the Imperial Conference, and a resolution was passed that there should be a change in such channels of communication. Let me read to the House the resolution, moved by Mr. Hughes, Prime Minister of Australia, seconded by the Prime Minister of Canada, and unanimously adopted:
1.	That this Conference is of the opinion that the development which has taken place in the relations between the United Kingdom and the Dominions necessitates such a change in administrative arrangements and in the channels of communication between their Governments as will bring them more directly in touch with each other.
2.	That the Imperial War Cabinet be invited to give immediate consideration to the creation of suitable machinery for this purpose.
This was not the first Imperial Conference at which this question had come up. It had been raised by the Prime Minister of Australia in 1907. 'It had been raised by General Botha, Prime Minister of South Africa, at the Conference of 1911. They suggested at both of those conferences that the communications in reference to Dominion affairs should be direct to the Prime Minister of Great Britain himself. The Prime Minister of Great Britain in 1907 and in 1911 took the ground that the burdens and responsibilities of his office were so great that he could not undertake the additional work involved , in receiving communications from the Dominions. Therefore the change was not made, but a permanent secretarial was established in connection with the Imperial Conference. The resolution I have read of July last was passed on to the Imperial War Cabinet. The Prime Minister of Great Britain at the present time felt very much as the prime ministers did in 1907 and 1911. He did not wish to be burdened with the additional administrative duties that would be involved in his receiving all these communications but he recognized the justice of the contentions of the dominions and this resolution was agreed upon at the Imperial War Cabinet on the 30th of July last:
1.	The Prime Ministers of the Dominions, as members of the Imperial War Cabinet, have the right of direct communication with the Prime Minister of Great Britain and vice versa.
That was the establishment of the principle for which the dominions were contending.
2.	Such communication should be confined to questions of Cabinet importance. The Prime Ministers themselves are the judges of such questions.
3.	Telegraphic communications between the Prime Minister should, as a rule, be conducted through the Colonial Office machinery, but this

*will not exclude the adoption of more direct means of communication in exceptional circumstances.
The principle is now firmly established that in all matters of Imperial Cabinet con-eern the prime ministers of the dominions may communicate direct with 4 p.m. the Prime Minister of Great Britain and vice versa. This new procedure was put into effect when the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) returned. Communications passed directly between Mr. Lloyd George, Prime Minister of Great Britain, and Sir Robert Borden, Prime Minister of Canada in reference to the terms of the Armistice and the terms of peace and also in reference to attending the Peace Conference. This is another evidence of the equal status of Canada with the Mother Country and the other nations of the Empire. This further clause was passed and formed part of the resolution:
In order to secure continuity in the work of the Imperial War Cabinet, and a permanent means of consultation during the War on the more important questions of common interest, the Prime Minister of each Dominion has the right to nominate a Cabinet Minister, either as a resident or visitor in London, to represent him at meetings of the Imperial War Cabinet to be held regularly between the plenary sessions.
The Prime Minister of Canada did not avail himself of the power of nominating a cabinet minister, as he returned to England shortly after to attend the Peace Conference. I should think it would be a matter of pride and satisfaction to every Canadian that Canada, not only in theory,- but in fact, has reached the status of a nation, one of the free nations of the British Commonwealth; that on these vital matters affecting foreign policy and peace and war we have a right to be heard, and the means is provided whereby our voice can be heard in determining these questions so vital to our future. This result has been brought about during the war.
Our constitutional position has puzzled some of the statesmen at the Peace Conference. They could not understand an empire made up of autonomous nations, each having a parliament of its own largely determining its own policy. As a matter of fact, in all history there is no political organization like the British Empire. There is no state with which you can compare it. Never before has there been an empire composed of autonomous nations owing allegiance to a common Sovereign, and each exercising control of its own affairs. It is the greatest experiment in free democratic government which this world has ever seen.
	i
I venture to think that just as the Anglo-Saxon people have been pioneers in the development of constitutional, democratic government in the world and their example has been followed by other nations-and they have been not only pioneers, but successful pioneers-so in this new and greatest experiment in democratic government, involving more than 400,000,000 human beings, more than one-fourth of the whole human race, living on all the continents and many of the islands of the seas, they will be successful; that this League of Nations which we call the British Commonwealth may prove to be the crowning triumph of the-Anglo-Saxon genius for government.


Mr. H. A. MACKIE:: In connection with Canada's status as a nation, may I ask whether Sir Robert Borden will be at liberty to affix his signature to any treaty drawn up in Europe at the Conference?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I have been dealing
with Canada's status as one of the nations within the Empire, and I now come to discuss the question of Canada's status among the nations of the world. My hon. friend's question-


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend has said that another conference will be called for the purpose of discussing the changes in the constitutional relations of the Empire. Will the Parliament of Canada be consulted as to the stand our delegates should take at that conference?


Newton Wesley Rowell: While I have no
authority to speak for more than one member of the present Government, I would unhesitatingly say, Yes. That is my own view, because I believe it is a matter of the deepest concern to the whole people of Canada and the Parliament of Canada is entitled to express its views on the matter. Coming now to the question of the Peace Conference my hon. friend referred the other day to the fact that Sir Robert Borden and his colleagues left Canada before the armistice was actually signed, and he offered some criticism, or at all events comment by way of criticism, as I understood him, upon that fact. He thought the Prime Minister and his colleagues had been over there a very long time, probably an unnecessarily long time. Why did Sir Robert Borden leave Canada with his colleagues at the time he did? I will tell my hon. friend. The moment it appeared reasonably clear that a Peace Conference would be held in the not distant future, the Government of Canada through its Prime Minister took the position that in view of the part Canada

had taken in this war, of the service and sacrifice of her troops in the common cause, and in view of the status of Canada as one of the nations of the Empire, she was entitled to be represented at the Peace Conference. One can at once recognize that that involved most serious constitutional questions, for while, within the family of nations that make up the Empire, we had reached that stage where all were prepared to agree that the Empire was a league of nations each of equal status, the other nations of the world had not yet been asked to agree to that position and it was entirely a different question to secure their assent to the new and unique position of the British Empire. When this contention was pressed by Sir Robert Borden upon Mr. Lloyd George it had his hearty sympathy, and-he was of the opinion that if this new position of the British Empire was to be recognized, it was absolutely necessary for Sir Robert Borden, who had been so influential in bringing about this new and changed relation, to go overseas immediately to take up the question of the representation of the Dominions at the Peace Conference. It was because of this request and for this purpose that the Prime Minister left at the early date he did. The Prime Minister of Canada,
I say, took the position that Canada was entitled to be represented at the Conference. The negotiations were protracted. First, the assent of the British Government must be secured. They did assent and the Imperial War Cabinet approved. The matter was then taken up with Allied Governments. I imagine it is quite true that at first the United States offered some objection, because they did not understand or appreciate our changed status, but I am glad to say when they did understand and recognize it they withdrew all objection.
You ask, what is Canada's status at the Conference? The Conference is composed of the five great powers, and other nations which are called secondary powers. Each of the great powers is entitled to five representatives, and the secondary powers are entitled to three, two, or one, according to their varying positions in the war and other considerations which entered into the determination of representation. What is Canada's representation? First of all, there are five representatives of the British Empire, one of the five great powers. Three or four of those representatives, I believe, are permanent members of the Conference. The other representatives are drawn from a panel which includes the statesmen of the overseas Dominions. At all plenary sessions of
the Conference, therefore, there are a certain number of representatives of Great Britain and one or two representatives drawn from the panel composed of the statesmen of the whole British Empire, representing Great Britain and the Empire at large as one of the great powers. A representative of Canada, therefore, as part of the British Empire delegation, may be present at the plenary sessions of the Conference. In addition, the Overseas Dominions have the status of secondary powers at the conference and Canada is entitled to be represented, as a secondary power, at all plenary sessions and at all meetings where her interests are specially affected, by two representatives. The other dominions, Australia and South Africa, are also entitled to two representatives each, New Zealand to one, and India to two. The result is that at all plenary sessions of the conference there are five delegates representing the British Empire as a whole, one of whom is chosen from the Dominion's delegates, and nine other delegates representing the British Dominions and India, making a possibility of fourteen in all. At the first plenary session of the conference Canada had three representatives, two representing Canada and one serving on the British Empire panel. Canada has also had three representatives at other important sessions of the conference. The hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Mackie) has asked whether Canada will sign any peace treaty. The question has not yet come up for consideration, but my own personal opinion is that in view of Canada's status at the conference she undoubtedly would sign. I should think the British Foreign Secretary or Prime Minister would sign on behalf of Great Britain and the Empire at large, and the Prime Minister of Canada would sign as one of the secondary powers.
I come now to the constitution of the League of Nations, which is probably one of the most momentous documents that has ever been penned. It is too early to discuss its terms; they have not yet been discussed at the Peace Conference itself; the committee has simply presented its report. The covenant, however, makes express provision for the representation of the Dominions, and I venture to believe that when this covenant is signed the name of Canada will appear as one of the charter members of the league, as one of the nations of the British Empire. Hon gentlemen will recall that the direction of the affairs of the League of Nations is entrusted to a council of the league composed

of representatives of signatories to the covenant, and Canada as one of the secondary-powers will undoubtedly have representatives on the general council of the league. Each nation may have not more than three representatives but only one vote. The executive of the league is composed of nine members, one representing each of the five great powers, the other four to be chosen by the general council of the league as they may hereafter determine. The management of the affairs of the league is vested in this general council and this executive committee.
I shall not enter upon the discussion of the terms of the covenant of the League of Nations, but in order to emphasize its importance, I would point out one or two of the matters covered by it. Not only is the object of the league to preserve the peace of the world-but to guarantee the territorial integrity of the different nations that are signatories of the covenant as against outside aggression. I will not go into the procedure provided to ensure that territorial integrity, but it means that every nation that signs the covenant of the league pledges itself to maintain the territorial integrity of the others, as against outside aggression. When a league is being formed under which not only our territorial integrity but that of the Empire is guaranteed, a league which will affect our whole future and obligate us to adopt the measures called for by the covenant of the league, then surely we have before us one of the most momentous questions to which the statesmen of this country can devote their attention. In view of the character of this document and of the issues involved at the Peace Conference, I am sure the Parliament and people of Canada will recognize that the place of the Prime Minister at this particular time is overseas looking after this [DOT] country's interest. (My hon. friend will remember that the peace treaty is to be based upon the negotiations that took place prior to the signing of the armistice and which formed part of its terms. These negotiations embodied President Wilson's fourteen points, one of these relates to the economic relations between the nations parties to the league and the enemy nations. Is it conceivable that negotiations should be going on in Paris touching questions of economic policy that will affect Canada as one of the signatories to the league and Canada not be represented or her interests safeguarded?
I venture to say that no hon. member will say that Canada should not be represented.
It is a great honour to Canada that she should be represented at this conference. 
It is an immeasurably more important conference than that of 1814,-that was a conference only of the nations of Europe. This is a conference not only of the nations of Europe, but of the nations of Asia, Africa, America, and of the islands of the sea; some thirty distinct nations are there represented. It means the redrawing of the maps of Europe, Asia and Africa, and determining the form of government of many of the islands of the sea. It means arriving at decisions that will affect the whole course of human history in the days that lie before us. No conference could gather whose decisions would have more weight, or in which it is more important that Canada should be represented. Canada should be just as influential in the settling of the terms of peace as she was in bringing the war to a victorious conclusion.
I mentioned a moment ago the situation in Russia. A veil of mystery appears to cover that great country, and no one can predict with certainty what the outcome will be. But there are one or two facts of which we here should not be ignorant. Some discussion has taken place in this House in reference to Bolshevism and what it means. I hold in my hand the fundamental law of the Russian Socialist Federal Soviet Republic, and I think the members of the House will be glad to know some of the fundamental laws upon which the Bolshevik government is founded. When the Bolsheviki came into power the Constituent Assembly was about to meet, an assembly that had been elected on a democratic basis representing the whole people of Russia. When the Bolsheviki found that the Assembly would not carry out their views and probably would not maintain them in power, they immediately dissolved the Assembly. Some of its members who were not prepared to consent to the dissolution of the Assembly fled for their lives, and some were killed on the spot. The Bolsheviki followed this up by providing for the disarmament of all people in Russia, other than their own followers, under the most severe penalty. On the other hand they armed their own followers. So the position was that the partisans of the Bolsheviki had arms and the others had not. Now, what is the object of this government? Article 9 provides:
" The principal aim of the Constitution of the Russian Socialist Federal Soviet Republic in the. present transitory period is to establish the dictatorship of the city and rural proletariat and of the poorest elements of the peasantry in the form of a powerful All-Russian Soviet government for the purpose of completely suppressing the capitalist class, of abolishing the exploits-

tion of man by man and of establishing Socialism, under which there will be no division of society, into classes, nor any power of state.
This is a frank declaration that their object is to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat. Under this term they include only those who work with their hands, all other classes are absolutely excluded from participation in the government. The farmer who employs even one man in order to make profit out of his work is looked upon as belonging to the capitalist class and is excluded. It is simply the old autocracy inverted-it was a government by bureaucrats, it is now a government by a different class. It denies the fundamental principle of democracy that every citizen is entitled to a voice in the government of his country. They have confiscated all the land, without compensation, and turned it over to the workingmen and tillers of the soil, each man being limited to the area he could actually work. They confiscated all furniture, agricultural implements and farm stock. They took all factories out of the hands of their owners and turned them over to the workmen and soldiers. They repudiated the national debt, due not only foreign powers but even loans made by their own people. They do not believe in capital, and so do not recognize obligations to any person who has loaned money to their government. If they had a victory loan in Russia even the holders of these bonds would find the debt repudiated.
Mr. Speaker, it will be of interest to the people of Canada to know that one of their first acts was the establishment of compulsory military service throughout the whole of the Russian Empire. They established universal, obligatory, military service and they say that the honourable privilege of defending the revolution is reserved for the toilers while upon the nonworking elements other military duties are imposed. They impose compulsory military service and the only men who 'are permitted to bear arms tire the workers while the others must perform other military service. They also established obligatory labour service. You may say there is something to be said in favour of that. They suppressed, and took over, the whole of the press of the country.
Some hon. MEMBERS Oh, oh.
Mr, ROWELL: My hon. friends seem to be very anxious to get the press. Evidently they have not received as much support from the press as they desire But, Mr. Speaker, it is hardly necessary to go
farther to point out the character of the Government which has been established and the principles upon which it is based. They have abolished all private ownership of property. They have abolished the right of a man to own his own home, the home is the basis upon which our Anglo-Saxon civilization rests. What is much more serious is that they have treated woman as a chattel. They have permitted divorce on any terms; a man can turn away his wife for any reason and for no reason, and power has been officially granted to the local Soviets to deal with the relations of the sexes. In many of the Soviets in Russia and some in Siberia they have nationalized woman and she is the common property of any man, or men who wish to take advantage of this provision of the law. It is this uprooting of civilization, this desecration and defilement of womanhood, this confiscation of property that is developing in Russia to-day.
If the Russian people wish that form of government in preference to the old autocracy and if they confine their operations to the limits of their own territory possibly it would not be open to us to object. But they do not confine their operations to their own country. They boldly proclaim that the faith they are preaching must prevail throughout the world. They are seeking to spread this propaganda among all the nations of the world and they boldly tell us that the time will come when Bolshevism will be universally accepted. That is the gravest menace to the world's peace and ordered civilization that we face today.
Undoubtedly this is one of the reasons why it is most important to expedite the closing of the Peace Conference, in order that there may be an established government in Germany with which to conclude peace and in order that there may be a government in Germany, after peace is concluded, that may combat Bolshevism. If the dykes between Germany and Russia are broken down, if Bolshevism spreads through Germany it may sweep through Europe as the Tartars overran Europe in the Middle Ages. Who knows whether it will stop there or whether it will not cross the Atlantic? That is one of the gravest problems which the Peace Conference must face. It is to be earnestly hoped that some solution will be found at the Peace Conference which will avert this menace to our humanity.
One word more and I shall conclude. It was my privilege last summer to visit



our troops at the front and see something of the courage and the achievements of these brave men. I would not be true to myself this afternoon if I did not as a layman pay my humble tribute to that great Canadian, and gallant soldier, Lieut.-General Sir Arthur Currie, under whose leadership the Canadian corps won such imperishable glory and struck great blows for liberty and peace. I shall not discuss the events of the past summer, but I want to say-and I am sure that my colleagues who were with me will join me in saying it,-that we never met a man who was more deeply concerned about the welfare of his men than was General Sir Arthur Currie. We never met a man who took greater precautions for the protection and safety of his troops. They were always expected to attain the objective that they were asked to attain, but he took all precautions to see that they did it with the least possible loss of life. This can be said for the Canadian corps under General Currie: They took every objective they were asked to take, and they took some of these objectives when others had failed. In August they drove through the German lines in front of Amiens and turned the Germans back toward the Rhine. The German High Command knew that they might be compelled to retire behind the Hindenburg line, hut they were confident that once they were behind this system of defence no Allied force could break through and no Allied foot would stand within those impregnable defences. It was General Currie and his men who pierced the Drocourt-Queant switch of the Hindenburg line, and the Canadian soldiers stood upon the soil which Germany had considered inviolate. The piercing of this line gave to our war-weary humanity the hope that the war might really end this year, and that peace might speedily come to this war-cursed world. They fought their way through to Mons in a succession of victories unsurpassed in the history of the war.
The Canadian people will never he able to repay the lasting debt of gratitude that they owe to that brave Canadian soldier, untrained in the arts of war, who stood side by side with the best generals of Europe against the most powerful military machine that the human mind has conceived, or that the human hand has constructed, and under whose leadership the enemy were always driven back. We pay our tribute of respect to that gallant soldier, and we hope he may speedily finish the work committed to his care and return with his brave troops to Canada. The Canadian people eagerly

await their coming, and we will give them the whole-hearted welcome their courage, their sacrifice and their achievements so richly deserve.
Mr. WILLIAM D. EULER (North Waterloo) : Mr. Speaker, although much has been said, and eloquently said, of the life and achievements of the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier, I desire to pay my modest tribute to the great Canadian. The outstanding feature of his remarkable personality was his ardent desire for national unity and his effort to weld the Canadian people together and to inspire in them a national consciousness that will have no regard for race or creed. Coming as I do from a constituency which is populated very largely by those who, like his own people, are not of the predominating majority in this country, I appreciate with peculiar feeling his broad tolerance and his generous conception of what constitutes Canadianism. That, I think, will be the most enduring monument to the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
I desire to congratulate the hon. gentleman who has been chosen to succeed him. Sir, I think that his Scottish parents must have had some prevision of the honour which was to come to their son when they named him, and I trust that he may prove another Daniel come to judgment.
I also desire to thank the ex-Minister of Militia for the kind words which he uttered of the German-C'anadian boys who fought in the war. When he said that those lads fought just as courageously as did those of any other racial origin, I knew that what he said was true, but I received his words with a depth of gratitude which he perhaps cannot appreciate, and for this reason:	A racial prejudice has been allowed to grow up amongst us in this country, which is not what we were accustomed to, and which is not consistent with the spirit of British fair play which always prevailed heretofore. I would further say with regard to the acts of the ex-Minister of Militia that whereas he has his faults, as we all have, and is perhaps not a diplomat, he did after all, at one time in this country, in the early history of the war provide the driving force which I think no other man could have displayed in the same degree as he did. 1 further say that if he had not been interfered with by the Prime Minister of this country in the matter of recruiting, conscription would never have been thought of.
I listened, Mr. Speaker, with a great deal of interest to the address of the President of the Privy Council. It was a very learned discourse, and parts of it, perhaps, some

of us followed with difficulty, but, judging from the questions which were put to him, I think that possibly there is just a little misgiving on the part of members of the House as to whether Canada will properly retain her autonomy in the scheme which he has outlined. He laid considerable stress on one feature which did not appeal very strongly to me, and that was that it was rather epoch-making to find that the Prime Minister of 'Canada may in future be able to communicate direct with the Prime Minister of England instead of through the Colonial Office. Surely that is is a matter of mere detail. I am reminded of the time when, in my own city of Kitchener, or, as it was at that time, the city of Berlin, we did not have free mail delivery; we had to go to the post office to obtain our mail, which was a roundaboutway of getting it. Now it is carried to our doors. It is just a matter of greater convenience but brings about exactly the same result.
Since the Union Government has come into existence, a good many of us have been curious as to what model they have taken for some of the legislation which they have enacted. Since the President of the Privy Council has read from a booklet, the Constitution of the Bolsheviki, which I understand, is forbidden by Order in Council, our eyes have been opened. First of all he read that the Bolsheviki had compulsory military service just like the Union Government. He went on to say that they had obligatory labour laws, and I wonder whether that is the origin of the Order in Council " Work or fight." The press, he likewise stated, was suppressed, and I could not but feel that we could draw a parallel between some of the enactments of the Bolsheviki and the War-time Elections Act. The President of the Privy Council stated that the Bolsheviki gave guns only to their own people, just as the Union Government, or the Borden Administration gave the ballots to its own supporters through the War-time Elections Act.
I listened to the speech of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) who spoke of the light in the window and the latch on the outside of the door. For my part I think I would use that lamp in the window for the proper purpose for which lamps are intended. Personally I would take that lamp out of the window. Those who may have strayed away from the house, T think, know the way back very well, and may be left to find it for themselves at the proper time. But the hon. member for Red DeeT did not like the metaphor of the
lamp and the latch-string. He rather fancied himself as a young lady who was receiving the attentions of two ardent swains. He rather enjoyed the experience, and thought he would wait for some time until he should finally make up his mind. There is an old saying in another language, which I cannot repeat in the vernacular, that under conditions of this kind the young lady may say at the outset, " Which one shall I take?" but overnight the question may revert to, " Which one will take me?" Further, Mr. Speaker, in these practical times, even young ladies have an eye to the main chance, and it may be that sometimes they postpone their decision in order that they may seize the opportunity of taking a peep into Duns or Bradstreets, to find out which of the two suitors can give her the best of the things of this world. Now, Mr. Speaker, I would not for one moment suggest that the hon. member for Red Deer was not entirely sincere when he stated that his reason for remaining on the other side of the House is entirely that of the national interest. I do not say so, and I believe that he was just as sincere when he made the statement in question as when he pronounced that magnificent and eloquent eulogy upon his old friend our late leader, the Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier. But if it were otherwise we on this side, would admit at once that we cannot compete with the other side at all. We have very little to give, so that perhaps after all the young lady from Red Deer might as well make her decision at once, place her reluctant hand in that of the hon. gentleman from Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt), and getting off that picket fence-which must be very uncomfortable and which they are said to be straddling together-might say to him in the words of Ruth:
Whither thou goest I will go, thy people shall be my people, thy God, my God. Where thou diest I will die and there will I be buried.
I heard also the other day the hon. Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder). He appeared perfectly sincere in every way, and I for one would say nothing whatever in criticism of a man who feels that his national duty keeps him on the other side of the House. But I would say to him that if he feels, as he apparently does, that he should keep his former Liberal principles in cold storage for another season, that he"be very, very careful that they do not perish in the rarified atmosphere in which they are now living.
The hon. minister invites suggestions,criticism and some indications as to the tem-

per of the people throughout this country. If he is absolutely sincere, and I do not doubt that he is, and if the Government desire to get information as to the temper of the people, of Canada, I have a suggestion to make:	There is in this country, a
constituency known as North Ontario. There is another known as Glengarry, there is another known as Assiniboia, and unfortunately another in the city of Quebec. Two of these constituencies have been disfranchised for almost a year. I would suggest to the Government, through you, Mr. Speaker, that they bring on the by-elections in these constituencies, and I think they will get some indication as to what the people think.
Moreover, this House has not met for a period of nine months. That is altogether too long an interval between sessions of Parliament in a country that claims to have democratic institutions. I believe that, especially in war time, the members of this Parliament should be more frequently called together in order that they may give to the members of the Government the benefit of their views and advice. A fabled character of old received renewed strength whenever he touched earth; so might the Government of this country more accurately determine the wishes and the feelings of the people whose servants they are supposed to be by calling together in Parliament the representatives of those people.
I was interested a few evenings ago in reading upon the screen in a theatre in this city these words: "In days long ago, when men wore long hair, narrow trousers and narrower minds, there were placed upon the statute books many laws which have never been repealed." I thought to myself: surely history repeats itself. They must have had a Union Government in those days, because, Sir, we have laws on the statute book, placed there by virtue of Orders in Council, which, at least four months after the termination of the war, ought to be repealed. They are now obsolete; there is no longer any occasion for them. In fact, this Parliament might very well consider the repealing of the law which gave those powers to the Government, the War Measures Act.
What I am now going to speak of has been already dealt with at length, but it is something that should be mentioned again and again, because eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. That is the return of responsible government. We have a shackled press. Even Parliament can be gagged, because there was an Order in Council-I do not know whether or not it 
has bene repealed-under which the Speaker of the House might strike out of Hansard anything which he did not desire to have inserted in that publication. I am quite sure that our Speaker would do nothing of that kind, but the power is there, and it should not be there.
An innumerable number of publications, indiscriminately selected, -were banned by Order in Council. I know whereof I speak, because I made inquiries in the matter and some of those of whom I inquired did not even know the nature of the publications which had been placed upon the proscribed list. Men were forbidden to use that strongest weapon which they have for their own protection, the privilege of striking. Free speech was not permitted at public meetings.
Another thing that I would like to mention, which, perhaps, will not meet with the approval of the House, is this: I am not a socialist, but I do not believe that it was either wise or fair to restrict socialist publications and the right of free speech as they were restricted, so long as the members of the organizations in question confined their discussion and propaganda to constitutional means and deprecated the use of violence in bringing about that which they desired to obtain. I do not think that that is wise. You cannot cure a sore merely by covering it; you simply drive the infection farther in, the whole system is poisoned, and the trouble will re-appear in aggravated form later cn. If these men were allowed to meet and conduct their activities in a proper way, surely the Canadian people would see any fallacies if any characterized their views, and the evil would correct itself. If, on the contrary, they are suppressed, the result is what has often happened before; suppression merely aggravates the evil; it does not cure it.
Some of our magistrates-this may not be the direct result of Orders in Council, but I believe it is the direct result of the spirit that has been engendered throughout Canada by the arbitrary action of the Union Government-have convicted innocent men -I have called them "two-by-four magistrates"-absolutely without evidence and without giving them an opportunity of defending themselves or being represented by counsel. May I also express the view-it may not meet with favour on all sides, but I believe it to be the correct one-that there should be no law now, and never should have been, under which the man who obeyed his conscience so far as military service was concerned was sentenced to a long term of imprisonment. I do not see

what possible good could come from it. They are not criminals, but by associating them with criminals for a year or two or three years we simply destroy what is good in those men, who, after all, were trying to do their duty as they saw it. Any conscientious objectors who are still confined in prison-I know there are some-should be released at once. I agree with the member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) that a much better method of dealing with military defaulters might be found than b* confining them in the jails of this country.
We have to face three particularly great problems, and I shall give them in the reverse order, as I see it, of their difficulty of solution. The first is reconstruction; the second is the enormous debt which we have to carry; the third is the problem of allaying the unrest that prevails throughout Canada. Reconstruction I have placed first; I do not believe that that should be a very difficult matter to deal with. Surely every one will agree that the returned men, the maimed men, should be generously 'provided for. All others who by reason of their being away have lost opportunities, should have that made up to them. I do not think it should be a very difficult matter to provide for the assimilation of the 250,000 or
300.000	men that are to return to this country. In the years gone by, when immigration was at its height, Canada assimilated from
200.000	to 300,000 men who were not conversant with our conditions and who had to be assimilated into something entirely new to them. That is not the case with the returned soldiers.
The Minister of Public Works (Hon. F. B. Carvell) told us the other evening that the debt of Canada is now $2,000,000,000, which represents a financial burden Of something like $250 to be carried by each man, woman and child in the country. We have to deal with that. In passing I would like to draw the attention of the House to what I felt at the time was a tremendous waste not omy of money, Dui or patriotic feeling. The Government expended hundreds of thousands of dollars during the last Victory Loan campaign in newspaper advertising in endeavouring to induce the people to realize that they had a patriotic duty to perform in buying Victory Bonds. When they had accomplished their purpose and the people came with open hands offering of their substance to the country, the Government instead of making use of that opportunity, threw it away and made of it merely a cold financial proposition. They made the bonds tax free. I do not
think that that appealed to one man out of twenty of the ordinary working people of Canada. Indeed, they hardly knew what tax free bonds meant. The exemption from taxation feature did not mean very much to them, anyway,; nor did these * people care particularly.
I think those bonds might have been issued at par at 5 per cent interest. In the fervour of their patriotic feelings, I believe the people would have bought bonds issued at 5 per cent. They were not in a' calculating mood; they were in a patriotic mood, and if those bonds had been placed at 5 per cent, and this one-half per cent had been saved, this country would have saved for a generation or two at least $10,000,000 a year in interest.
There is waste in the public service. I have made some inquiries, and I am told that this Government has followed the Biblical injunction, and has made two civil servants flourish where one grew before. To bear this out, we have had the report in connection with the Printing Bureau. I should like to say that I think the report with regard to the Printing Bureau ought to be a hint to the members of the Government to make a like investigation into all the other departments, and they will probably find something of a similar nature.
The other evening the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell) made a suggestion with which I could not agree. He stated that in order to make up the deficit of $125,000,000 with which we are faced, the Income Tax should operate on higher levels 7 and also on lower levels. I quite agree with him in his first suggestion, that the Income Tax on the higher incomes must be raised, but when he states that the Income Tax should be applied to incomes of $1,000, and perhaps less, I do not agree with him at all. An income of $1,000 is not equivalent to more than $500 a few years ago. If a working man gets a thousand dollars a year, what surplus has he, if he has five or six growing children to support under the present conditions of the high cost of food, clothing, rent and everything else in proportion? When the minister said that he proposed to tax these people in order that they might feel that they were helping to pay the taxes, I had no sympathy whatever with that. The workingman of this country has a very heavy load to bear now, and he is to-day bearing more than his share of the taxes. Last year this Parliament adopted what I thought was a picayune policy of placing a tax on matches and tobacco and some other commodi-

ties. That tax on matches and tobacco was the essence of inefficiency because for every dollar that was taken from the purchaser, only fifty cents reached the national treasury. A box of matches that cost five cents a package now sells for fifteen cents, and of the increase of ten cents,' the Government obtains only five cents. But that tax is paid largely by the workingman. He is also taxed whenever he patronizes that one little luxury he has, the moving picture theatre. He i3 taxed when he buys medicine in the drug store, and the Government makes the druggist its collector by compelling him to affix a stamp every time a bottle of medicine is sold. What is the reward that is given to him by the Government? The druggist is rewarded by having spotters placed upon his trail, and whenever perhaps an inexperienced clerk fails to put a stamp upon a 5 p.m. bit of camphorated chalk, or something like that, he is haled to the court and fined fifty dollars. If that method of taxation must be continued, I would suggest that the onus be placed upon the manufacturer of affixing the stamp to the article, thus saving a good deal of trouble and inconvenience.
All of us, no matter what walk of life we may be in, have to lick stamps. A stamp has to be affixed to every cheque, note or draft, or any other kind of commercial paper which is used in this country. While I realize that a very large revenue is probably obtained from that source, I believe it is a primitive method of taxation, something like the window tax in the old days. I am sure, if men could express their views, they would much prefer that some other direct form of taxation be adopted that would not vex and worry them at every turn.
The other day the hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) made 'a peculiar remark. He stated that a certain titled gentleman from Toronto owns the Union Government. I did not believe that, and as that gentleman has since denied the charge-
,Mr. MdMASTEE:	His offspring.


Mr. EULER:: -'denied his offspring, if you like, and as no denial of the charge has come from the other side of the bargain, perhaps we may assume that the statement is only partially true and that only one-half of the Government are owned by the gentleman from Toronto. If that be true, the suggestion that I am about to make will not meet the approval of the Government. Sir Joseph Flavelle, it was stated, had made $100,000,000 during the war. He

has since denied that. But no man, no matter how able he may be, can earn $100,000,000, or $50,000,000, or $10,000,000, or $1,000,000. If he happens to accumulate that much money, he is simply appropriating the product of the labour of others. The suggestion I was going to make is that the Government might very well consider the imposition of a very heavy succession tax. That is not a new idea, and I know the province of Ontario is imposing a succession tax, although not a heavy one. I submit there would be no injustice under a law whereby the State would take a substantial part of large fortunes upon the death of the owner, leaving a reasonable amount for the surviving members of the family. Thus the people would receive back their own, that which is really the product of their own labour.
Thus when the time comes for this titled gentleman from Toronto to be gathered to his fathers, I believe the people of Canada, from coast to coast would approve if some seventy-five or eighty million dollars were restored to the people who created it in the first instance. That is a practical suggestion for the consideration of the Government.
The other day the Acting Prime Minister (Sir Thomas White) made a statement with which I entirely agree and in which there is a world of truth. He stated that wars will never cease until the ethical influences operate in the hearts of men of all races. I believe that to be absolutely true. That can be applied also to what is to-day after all the greatest question that we have to settle in Canada or in any other country. I refer to the matter of the existing unrest throughout this country and the rest of the world. When you analyse conditions and the causes of things, you will find that there is one great cause for wars, and for restlessness of all kinds. It is the quality of human selfishness. That is all. That is the quality that permeates all classes and races of men and brings about wars, disagreements and troubles. Under the conditions under which we live, selfishness is the absolutely logical result. Where men do not know what the future will bring forth, whether they will have enough to subsist on in the years to come, there is only one thing for them to do, and that is to grasp as much as each one can, and " The devil take the hindmost." That is the condition in wdiich we live to-day.
That cannot be overcome except by long years of ethical training. In the meantime the Government can certainly do something

to bring about the desired result. One broad principle may be laid down. Labour must receive a greater portion of that which it produces. Consciously or unconsciously, Labour demands, I think, three things: First, personal and individual liberty, and it is going to get that if it has to fight for it. Secondly, a comfortable living, and surely it is entitled to that. Canada is rich enough to keep all in comfort, and 1 think that an eight-hour day is long enough, if the working man uses those eight hours to good advantage. Third, it desires some sort of security for the future. Is it too much to expect the Government to remove from the minds of everybody, and particularly from the minds of the working people, that great haunting fear of the future? I am certain that in the minds of all there is a fear that they may not be able to produce enough to maintain themselves and their dependents in the coming years. If this means the introduction of old age pensions, pensions for unemployment, and pensions for widows and mothers, I for one am ready to support any legislation in that direction. It is necessary also that men should be educated and the right men fitted to the right jobs.
In conclusion, I am going to refer to a matter which has been touched on by some hon. members, notably by those of the city of Toronto. I refer to the alien question. I am sure that even a number of enemy aliens in this country have received less than justice at times. I shall take the liberty of reading a short extract on this question from a Conservative newspaper that supported the Union Government in the last election. It embodies my view:
Summed up, the matter of the alien citizens stands: We induced them to come here and wield our picks and shovels ; we allowed them to live how and where they pleased; we made no attempt to prepare them for the duties and responsibilities of citizenship and since the war, have accentuated rather than relieved the disabilities under which they are labouring.
We in effect say: "You cannot now become a naturalized citizen and where you have been, we suspend your rights, duties and privileges; we pass laws which declare that if you are under 60 years of age you either must work or go to jail; when you are industrious, we regret exempting you from military service and envy the wages you draw. If you show signs of prosperity and live in Toronto you are likely to have your places of business raided and your property destroyed, and take a long chance of being able to collect any damages, because you were born in an alien land.
There is not one alien among a thousand, unless he live in Toronto, who would return of his own accord, to Europe. They came to Canada to work, to make a home and rear a family in a land where liberty, justice and opportunity are said to exist and may be shared in by whomsoever will.
There probably is not one alien in ten thousand, who has livftd here long enough to get a hair cut, and who having come from an enemy country several years before the war, would knowingly do anything to aid or comfort the enemy.
This paper holds the opinion that every alien who ts industrious and law-abiding should be given a square deal and assisted to become a Canadian citizen. The Allies generally have adopted President Wilson's slogan: "Make the world safe for democracy." In its application is it to be confined to Europe or will Canadians take some of their own medicine?
Even the Yanks can set us a good example in the treatment of aliens matter. They are naturalizing them on every hand and opening schools for instruction in English and the inculcation of the principles of American citizenship.
I now pass to another phase of this question. There are men in Canada to-day who are called aliens who, to all intents and purposes, are good citizens, but technically have no country at all. In the county of Waterloo, the northern riding of which I have the honour to represent, and also in Perth, Huron, Renfrew and perhaps elsewhere there are living many people who came from Germany from twenty-five to fifty years ago. Many of them have taken the oath of allegiance and have always regarded themselves as citizens. Unfortunately, however,, many of them have not taken out naturalization papers, which it is necessary for them to do in order to become full-fledged British subjects and Canadian citizens. This difficulty has been aggravated, in our riding at all events, by the fact that in past elections neither of the two political parties has challenged the voter on the score of nationality; there was a sort of compact in regard to that. When the war came these people who had lived in Canada many years and considered themselves British subjects found themselves denied the right of protection which citizenship ought to give. The matter was brought up in the House of Commons in 1917 and Sir Robert Borden recognized the justice of their claim for naturalization. On that occasion he stated in the House that an Order in Council had been passed under which those people could be naturalized during the war under certain conditions. I quote fiom the Order in Council:
The Minister observes further that many persons of alien enemy origin who came to Canada many years ago, during infancy, and have grown up believing themselves to be British subjects, now that questions of nationality are being carefully scrutinized, find it impossible to show that they have become British subjects although they have voted and held municipal positions for many years. Many others believe that they became British subjects through naturalization of their parents, but they are unable to prove it because the records are not available.

The Prime Minister stated that the Order in Council empowered the Secretary of State to issue naturalization certificates to people who complied witlr its terms. The election came immediately afterwards and nothing then was done in this matter. Immediately after the election, early in 1918, some ninety-three residents of the city of Kitchener made application for naturalization under the terms of this Order in Council. They presented their case through the proper channels, and in all cases recommendation was made by the local judge that they were worthy of receiving naturalization, but this 'was refused by th.e Government at Ottawa.


Charles Murphy: The election was over then.


William Daum Euler: Yes, but I should make one exception. Although these people who had been in the country from twenty-five to fifty years and had all voted were denied naturalization, one man received naturalization who was an alien enemy. This man, living in the city of Kitchener, came directly to this country from Germany fifteen years ago, and he applied for, and received naturalization on January 12th of last year although he did not . come under the terms of the Order in Council at all. He knew he was not a Canadian. There was no possibility of a misconception in his case.
He had not lived here very long. He had had opportunities to become naturalized, but had not taken advantage of them. That man who had been here fifteen years and did not come under the terms of the Order in Council was given naturalization by the Union Government, and all the others, many of whom had lived in Canada 50 years, did not receive it.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why?


William Daum Euler: I was just going to mention that. The reason was-that the recommendation made by the one who was responsible stated that he was a good supporter of the Union Government. While this discrimination has been practised against the people of Kitchener, I find in the annual report of the Secretary of State a list of all who were naturalized during the year 1917, and among them there were 471 Austrians, 4.3 Germans, and 2 Turks. Nobody from the riding I have the honour to represent is included, unless he stated that he had supported the Union Government. Surely these men ought to be given naturalization.
I had not intended to make any personal reference, but a remark made by the hon. 
member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) must be my excuse for the statement I am about to make. In giving the names of members of this House who had sons at the front, he gave my own, and in his remarks he said that he did not know whether Mr. Euler had German blood in his veins or not. Mr. Speaker, I have only contempt for the men who will deny his father, or his racial origin. I want to say that the. blood that flows in my veins is exactly the same kind of blood that courses in the veins of every other hon. member in this House. It is not English, it is not French, it is not German; it is Canadian. Now, I want to speak so plainly that there can be no misapprehension. The man who is my father came from Germany at the age of two and a half years, long before Confederation, and has lived in this country for nearly seventy-five years, and, what is much more important, he is to-day just as good a Canadian as is his grandson, who is still carrying arms overseas.


An hon. MEMBER:: A volunteer.


William Daum Euler: Yes, he was not conscripted. I make this personal reference only for one reason-to give force to my plea for men, who, I think, have not been given justice such as we are accustomed to. We have here people without a country, and in order to express what I mean with regard to them I will read what I wrote to the Secretary of State in connection with this matter, which never received any consideration at the hands of the Union Government:-
I would like to ask on behalf of these men careful re-consideration. They are in a most unfortunate position through no fault of their own. To-day with the loyal desire to be technically as well as morally, citizens of Canada they have no country and no legal claim to the protection which citizenship ought to provide. Let the Government make all diligent investigation, before granting naturalization, and they will find that the large majority of these men are thoroughly worthy. Recognition of that fact will make for harmony and for the loyalty and true national feeling which a government should make easy rather than difficult.


Mr. R. L. RICHARDSON (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, when I decided to intervene in this discussion it was at a very much earlier stage of the debate, and there were many things I had in mind to refer to which have since been dealt with by other speakers. There still remain, however, a few things which I would like to deal with briefly. I was struck with the chorus of approval which met the words of the mover and the seconder of the Address, and it occurred to me when I listened to the high tone of their speeches that the people of

[DOT]377
Canada are much more to be congratulated than are these young men themselves. As one who has observed the trend of parliamentary life for the last thirty years or more, formerly in the Press gallery, I recall the nature of the speeches usually delivered by movers and seconders of the Address in the old days. I am obliged to confess that they were characterized by an obsequiousness and laudation of the Government that was almost nauseating. Now, as a result of the abolition in this country of party politics and the bitter partisanship which means division among the people, we hear a chorus of applause when young men like the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Redman) and the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) speak of service to their country and indulge in sentiments honourable alike to themselves, to this House, and to Canada. I repeat, it is a matter for congratulation to the country that we have come to a time when utterances of such character are recognized and applauded as they deserve to be.
I think it is only fair to say that the new sentiment that has arisen in Canada is due to the fact that we have abolished the old partisan lines which divided this country for forty or fifty years. While this change was brought about primarily by the war, it has been made more complete by the coalition of leaders on both sides, representatives of the old Liberal and Conservative parties joining together to accomplish a great object for the country's good. This cannot fail to have an important effect upon the people, and indeed that effect is already apparent. While much criticism has been indulged in at the expense of this Government as to the results of food control and matters of that kind which are not really fundamental, it is my deliberate conviction that the great body of the people have become possessed of the idea that they will have nothing to do with the old partisan ideals, and shibboleths which have been such a curse to the country in the past, I participated in a function in Winnipeg quite recently which was attended by prominent representatives of. the old political parties. As I listened to the Tuppers, the Ashdownes, the Isaac Campbells, the Macdonalds, the Bullmans, and the Fowlers, one after the other, expressing great regret for what had occurred in the past and expatiating upon the evils which had come to this country by virtue of the old partisanship, I was obliged to raise my eyes like the patriarch of old and say: " Lord, now lettest thou Thy servant depart in peace, for mine eyes have seen Thy salvation."
That is the spirit of the Canadian people at the present time. Although Union Government cannot go on forever, like Tennyson's brook, one must believe that it is a Government which will live. In my judgment, it will live. I believe that a strong party will be evolved from it which will continue to influence the destinies of the country. The death knell of partisanship as practised by the old parties has been sounded. Partisanship, in my judgment, is as dead as Julius Caesar. We can raise our eyes to heaven and thank God for that.
I have been a student of politics in Canada for the last thirty or forty years, and I have endeavoured to study the two parties. I co-operated with the Liberal party in the old days. I learned my Liberalism at the feet of George Brown,. Alexander Mackenzie, Mowat, Blake, and other great Liberal leaders. I also was much impressed by the career of Sir John Thompson, who, although he was not a Liberal, was a great man. As I say, I cooperated with the Liberal party. As the publisher of a newspaper it kept me busy keeping out of the clutches of the law denouncing the old Tory crown and their iniquities in the old days. I was perfectly sincere about it.
I would like to pay tribute to the work of the old Liberals, Baldwin, Lafontaine,. Papineau and William Lyon Mackenzie, whose name I always take upon my lips with reverence. We know the fight these men had for responsible government, for the abolition of the clergy reserves, for representation by population, and we know that Lyon Mackenzie was exiled from his country for years and that he spent many weeks with scarcely a bite to eat because he suffered for his principles. We know that when amnesty was proclaimed he crept back to his country a broken old man and was allowed to die in obscurity. When we i'jtudy the history of our public men and of our politics we must remember the name of William Lyon Mackenzie with reverence. We must understand that we owe a great debt of gratitude to him. The Liberals of the olden days had in their ranks some great men whose patriotism is to be admired.
I had the impression that when theii successors in the Liberal party of Canada came into office in 1896 that the ills under which the country was suffering would be cured and that the millennium would be ushered in. I felt that Canada's face would be turned towards paradise and that the long

promised reign of righteousness would be brought into existence. I had learned at the feet of those Liberal statesmen to believe that the tariff was bleeding the people until they were white. Indeed, I had listened to the declarations of all the Liberal leaders on this question in the old days. I had seen the blue blood course through the bald head of Sir Richard Cartwright as I was sitting in the Press gallery listening to his denunciation of a total annual expenditure by the Dominion of $37,000,000 as a shame and a disgrace. He said it meant the ruin of the people. The first year of the so called Liberal Administration the expenditure for civil government was increased to the enormous sum of eighty millions. I had heard the appointment of members of Parliament to office denounced as an outrage. I had heard the Senate cursed from Dan to Beersheba, and we were told that if we put the Liberals in office all these things woidd be corrected. But they were not. I remember going to one of the leaders of the party who had taught me the principles of Liberalism, and I remember protesting to him with great earnestness as a young man that the policy and platform of the Liberal party should be adhered to. I remember saying to him in my childish way-because I was quite young then-that Providence had raised him up to be a great leader in the Liberal party so that he might have' it in his power to do a good turn to the people of Canada and set a new ideal before them. I said to him:	I have a desire to assist you in
carrying out your programme and doing some good to the people of Canada; if you will do this, you will have my devoted assistance, not only in everything that my paper can do in helping you along the line of lifting the people out of the slough of political despond in which they have been wallowing for all these years, but my personal help also. What do you suppose was the answer to me, and I have often wondered if the same answer had been given to my young friends from Calgary and Fort William, what they would have thought. This leader of the Liberal party looked at me and said: " Bob, you are too good for this world." I never had any idea that I had a passport for Paradise or that I had all the virtues that- would put me there by Limited Express but I had the old-fashioned notion that a platform that was made to get in on should be a platfrom that was made to stand on.
Let us just look for a moment at what the promise was in regard to the tariff. My respected friend from Red Deer (Mr. [Mr. Richardson.1
Clark) quoted it the other night. I shall take the opportunity of repeating it:
I submit to you that the ideal fiscal system is the British system of free trade.
Bet 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.
Under the administration of the Conservative party that sponsored the National Policy, the average tariff was about 35 per cent. Sir Clifford -Sifton and other leaders had gone into the West for years and declared to the farmers that if they understood the iniquity of this thing they never would stand it for a moment. They said: Let us have some other policy. Well, Sir, the tariff was revised in 1897 and what do you suppose, Mr. Speaker, was the reduction? I just put it to you. You are a successful and a wise man and I would like to get an expression of opinion from you privately as to what you really thought of it. I am pleased to see the prophet from Brome (Mr. McMaster) in his place and listening to what I am saying. The old Tory tariff was 35 per cent on the average and the total reduction made by the Liberal Government, according to the hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) who was the financial critic for the Conservatives at that time, and whose statement I have never heard challenged, was seventy-one one-hundred-ths of one per cent.
Now it is true-my hon. friend opposite would interrupt me but I will anticipate him-we had also the British preference.
I will give the Liberal government all credit for everything they did; we had the British preference, but 71/100 of one per cent was the reduction in the tariff.
I think I could have stood it, I think, perhaps, I could have borne with Christian fortitude the situation, only my friends the Liberals expected me to be pleased about it, to giggle, as it were, over the fact that their pledges had been redeemed. I was perfectly willing to bear with equanimity the situation, but I will be hanged if I was able to laugh over it. I did considerable squirming, and when the Opposition introduced their catch-votes, to catch some of us new members, I naturally, was terrifically uneasy, and I was shooting around trying to get my bearings, but old Doctor Landerkin, a fine old chap, would say: "Oh, stand by your party, R. L. stand by your party; this is the usual thing, just vote it down, and never mind what anybody says." But an agricultural implement resolution was brought up, and inasmuch as I had stumped Lisgar on free implements and the

coal oil issue, promising free coal oil, and inasmuch as 1 had pledged myself to the hilt that if my leader did not cut out every whit of protection from the tariff I would resign, I voted for one of these catch resolutions, and I found myself in a very awkward position. I was practically tabooed. The Whips, Sir, went about and asked my friends-you know I am a sort of companionable fellow and love friends and fellowship-they asked my friends not to be seen talking to me. They said: "We will have to teach this kind of man a lesson." I went to Sir Richard Cartwright, and he said: "Never mind, my boy, you just go ahead; there will be no reading you out of the Liberal party, you can read us all out of the Liberal party if you choose." I mention this for the benefit of my friend the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Calder), with whom I expect to deal later on when I get time. Sir Richard said to me: "There will be no reading you out of the Liberal party." Well, I was not read out of the Liberal party, but I was dynamited out of the party. That is about what happened to me. Talk about a separated brother. There is a church expression about withdrawing communion from a brother, that is if you stray, some of the churches will withdraw communion from you. Well, Sir, they certainly withdrew communion from me. My friends were -warned not to be seen with me at all, and I found myself in an exceedingly uncomfortable position. The hon. member for Prince (Mr. Read) referred to an un-named man who had been such an evil influence in this country. I would not like to be the man that was referred to in this way, but this is the man who sent his emissary to me to warn me that if I didn't follow the party I could expect no quarter-neither nomination, nor patronage. Thank God, I had the independence to tell him to go to a much warmer place than I would like to mention this afternoon. I did not ask for their patronage, and I did not ask for the nomination. However, I got a nomination which carried me into Parliament the next time. I dislike to refer to these matters, and I shall only do so very briefly. Although I was elected by a large majority in old constituency, and although I took the Old Bible in my hand and swore that my entire expenses in that riding-and it was about a hundred and fifty miles long by fifty or sixty wide-were within $500, I was the only man elected in the Dominion of Canada that was unseated for bribery and corruption. Men who co-operated with me were given jobs, and hired to give testimony
that teams had been hired in my election. Of course, it was a bit of a conspiracy to drive out of public life a man who had dared to call a spade, a spade. I go over these particulars because I want to draw a parallel between the old days, when I am told that even caucus was a mutual admiration society. When the ministers came into caucus, I am told, they were applauded, applauded, and applauded, and that caucus largely consisted in applause by obsequious members of the ministers of the Crown.
The scene has changed, the young men who rose to move and second this Address, and gave expression to the highest ideals, are the young men who to-day are applauded in this House, and who \yill be loudly applauded in the country. I only refer to my own experience to illustrate the change that has taken place. You ste you could not grow public men in thi3 country under such a system. Blake, Mackenzie, and Mowat, they were only oc-casionals, they were not the regular annual product at all. The political soil in Canada made it impossible to grow statesmen here. After the lesson that had been taught R. L. Richardson no one, for a long time, undertook to exhibit much independence in this House. I was the awful example. I would like to add, that while the judges were considering the verdict on the election petition against me, the organ of the man to whom the member for Prince (Mr. Read) referred the other night, announced that one was to be transferred to the Supreme Court in Ottawa, and the other to be made the Chief Justice in Manitoba. The verdict was given against me, Mr. Speaker, and one man was transferred to the Supreme Court of Canada, and the other received the Chief Justiceship of Manitoba. I hope that in the sphere in which they find themselves at this present hour, they will enjoy the reward of their infamy. For it was infamy to drive out of public life a man who desired to do his duty by the people.
I never could conceive, it passes my comprehension, that public men would enter public life for the purpose of making money and graft out of office. Surely the highest recognition that any man can receive, is the reward of a good conscience in having rendered decent and faithful service to his country. I offer no apology for that declaration. It is the only conclusion that any man who has considered the philosophy of life and who has thought over the goal to which we are all hastening, can come to.

Now, let me return to the Liberal platform. I remember, in addition to the tariff how the appointment of members of Parliament to office was denounced. It was one of the iniquities of the old Tory party, and I thought- when the Liberals got into office, "Now everything is pure, everything is correct." Would you believe it, Mr. Speaker,-and I am going to ask you to tell me your opinion privately, because I have a high estimate of your character-would you believe it that in eight years-I have the figures here but I will speak subject to correction-the so-called Liberal Government appointed more members of Parliament to office than their predecessors, whom they so roundly denounced, appointed during their entire administration.
Now, I have referred to the public expenditure, and I have referred to the appointment of members of Parliament to office, and I now come to the Senate. The Senate had been cursed by the Liberals in opposition as a body of old 'women, as a graveyard, as a political excrescence on the body politic, until there seemed to be nothing left to be said against them. Indeed, on the hustings Liberal speakers exhausted themselves in denouncing the Senate. They would have a girl or a woman at the meeting with an accordion and when the speaker came to speak of the Senate she would sing " They are going down the valley." Of course, they were going down the valley; the Senate was to be either abolished or reformed. But the Senate was continued identically along the same lines by the Liberal Government. When our old friend Bob Watson, of ancient memory, used to stalk about the constituencies in the West and tell the people what the Government had done after the Liberals came into office, somebody would put the question to him: " Say, Bob, tell us about the Senate; what did you do with that?" " Oh," says Bob, with his thumbs under his suspenders, " we have reformed the Senate all right; I am in it "-and that was regarded as the reformation of the Senate.
I could go on indefinitely in this vein, but I am sure that I have gone sufficiently far to convince this House and the country that there is a great deal of difference between a party in opposition and a party in power.
Lest my friends on the other side, and particularly the prophet from Brome (Mr. McMaster) might think I am unduly hard and critical and unfair to the Liberals, let me say this: I have come to the deliberate conviction, after thirty-five years' study,

*
that the difference between the two political parties which held sway in this country is the difference between tweedledum and tweedledee. There never was any difference between them, and that is why I want to quarrel publicly with my friend the Minister of Immigration and Cblonization (Hon. J. A. Calder), who talked about being read out of the Liberal party. My dear sir, there is not any Liberal party. Yes, there is " the " Liberal party, but there is not " a " Liberal party. Mark the distinction. They have the trademark all- right, but I have demonstrated to this House what the practices of that party have been. I think that the member for Brome is perfectly sincere -a great many of them are-and honestly thinks that if his party got into office they would reform the tariff; that they would wipe out every vestige of protection. Not so, my good friend. You have associated with you the Clifford Siftons, the L. M. Joneses and the Billy Patersons and a lot of the people who live, move and have their being in protection-and you just try it some day. When I came down here to Parliament after one election, having stumped the country on a coal oil can, I thought that we would get free coal oil. I used to tell the farmers that the ties of bondage were gone, that they would get their agricultural implements free of duty. And do you know what I found? I found that the question was not whether the duty should be wiped off agricultural implements, but how much it should be increased. L. M. Jones-" old slippery L. M." we used to call him out in Manitoba-was the head of the combine in Canada, and he spent almost an entire Sabbath with me pleading with me to agree to have the duty increased. Now, L. M. is gone; he is not here to offer any defence, and I shall not repeat the conversation; I shall let it go with that statement. Well, I forget what was really done with the duty, but it was left practically as it was, and L. M. Jones was singled out for distinction by the Liberal party; he was made a knight, forsooth, a Knight Commander of the Bath, and died as such.
This is a kind of experience meeting Mr. Speaker and I am putting the cards on the table. II do not want any Liberal to be fooled as I was. I want to be the beacon light-not the one that the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) referred to- to warn any simpletons who may think that they can get all they want in reference to the tariff from the Liberal party; and that is why I am taking the position that I do this afternoon.

[DOT]331
After the failure to revise the tariff in 1896 save to the extent of seventy-one-one hundredths of one per cent, one would have thought that there would have been an outcry from the Atlantic to the Pacific over the apostacy of the Liberal party -it was not, "a" Liberal party; it was the Liberal party.	Let me
tell you, Sir, that only a handful from one end of this country to the other offered any protest. In fact, they continued to worship Baal, the same God that my friend the prophet from Brome referred to the other evening. I am going to take my friend up to Mount Carmel to-night, if he will come with me, and we shall have a good time offering burnt sacrifices there. Well, had there been any repudiation of the course followed at that time there might have been some hope for the Liberal party. Repudiation-after the tariff had been revised? What do you suppose our friend the master of the Administration, Clifford Sifton, did? He went up to my old town of Perth, a place near which I was born more years ago than I care to confess, and he made a speech in the course of which he said;
The tariff issue has been solved by the Liberal Government.. It has been taken out of the list of issues as between the parties, because . the present tariff Is one which our opponents would not change much if they were in a position to do so.
Seventy-one-one hundredths of one per cent-and the tariff issue had been solved, taken out of the list of issues; no further quarrelling as between the parties on the ^ tariff issue! As I say, one would have expected an outcry from the Atlantic to the Pacific. But I do not recall that my friend the prophet from Brome took the platform and denounced it. I do not recall that any of my friends who sat on the other side offered one word of protest. The idea, ISir, was to " stand pat," if you will allow me to use the language of the street, and to carry out the apostacy; to destroy or bludgeon any one whose voice was raised against it in this country. It is a reflection upon the people of Canada that that policy was largely carried out.
The Liberal party-I speak of what is left of it, because really the Liberal party is over here. How proud I was, as an old Liberal, to listen to the magnificent speech of the President of the Privy Council (Hon. N. W. Rowell) this afternnon. How pleased we all were to listen to the able deliverance of the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Hon. J. A. iCalder) a few evenings ago. Those of us who came over here for a principle, to which I hope to
allude later, feel that we, in duty to ourselves and to our country, must stand for that principle until it is finally carried out. We are all proud to know that men of the type that I have just mentioned, old Liberals, are happy in this camp-not because it is a Tory cginp, because it is not a Tory camp. There is really no essential difference fundamentally between men.
I have co-operated with members on both sides of the House, and I find the same kindness, the same generosity, the same views pretty generally when you get close to men, whether on one side or on the other. Therefore the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) may set his mind at rest, because he will never be read out of a Liberal party. The hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) spoke of keeping his Liberal principles in cold storage.
I could not understand what he meant, and I will warrant you, Sir, that if he was put to it he could no more tell what Liberal principles are than he could fly to the moon. The trouble is that, so far as I can see, very few have ever stopped to analyse what Liberalism and Liberal principles are. They talk glibly about them, but they never stop to think. If I were asked what Liberalism meant, I would say that it meant freedom in trade, liberty in religion, and equality in civil rights. We all profess that, and inasmuch as the party on the other side, even led by the prophet from Brome (Mr. McMaster) will not be able to carry out the ideas that he has, he may just as well possess his soul in patience, and he will find it far better quietly and conscientiously to support the good things that the party on this side of the House are giving them because if the men on this side are not able, with the combination that I have dsecribed, to manage the affairs of the country at this critical time-and it is a mighty critical time-no other combination in Canada will be able to do so. There is no doubt about that. My hon. friends opposite would not take office if they could get it. They have nobody to go in with them. The light is in the window on this side, and my hon. friends opposite may all have to flock to it after a little.
The war is over. May we hope that for Heaven's sake the racial and religious cry will be dropped for good! I look fondly for the time when the province of Quebec will be represented as it should be in the Government of this country, and we shall not gain anything by calling each other names. Let us, however, be perfectly candid with each other; state the facts exactly as they are, and when we find a eombina-

tion of men willing to do their best to administer the affairs of this country at the critical stage that we are now at, let us give them every assistance we can. I have passed the stage when I regard all or most men with suspicion. It is only the odd man who is to be suspected. Most men are, in my judgment, endeavouring to do the best they can under Heaven, and the Lord knows it is a man's job being a minister of the Crown. He can hardly call his soul his own, let alone his time. The marvel is that men choose such slavery, but they seem to do it. The responsibility is on the country to give the men who are willing to serve the country a fair chance. Let us not treat them with suspicion. Let us not misinterpret their motives and suspect unjustly that their motives are corrupt and not decent. It is that sort of thing that keeps good men out of public life. Self-respecting men will not pay the price of the sacrifice of their self-respect in order to enter the public life of this country, and I do not blame them.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the adjournment at six o'clock gave me an opportunity of glancing over some notes I had made. It is usually my practice to make elaborate notes and then condense them on an envelope, and then forget all about them until I have finished speaking, and I see that I omitted one or two points this afternoon. I have spoken about the partisan soil of Canada being unable to produce statesmen. I dwelt at considerable length on that very important fact, and I want to emphasize it once more. It is my deliberate conviction, born of close observation, that owing to the partisan feeling, the absolutely silly partisan feeling that passes all understanding which has prevailed in this country for the last thirty or forty years, it has been almost impossible to raise a statesman in this country. If one "happened" it was merely the result of fortuitous circumstance, and if such a one attempted to preach the gospel of service to his country and to take high ground generally, he was usually regarded as a crank and a dangerous man, and promptly relegated to oblivion. Take the case of the Hon. Edward Blake who, in my judgment, is the greatest son Canada ever had. He knocked at the door of his country offering his splendid

services for a quarter of a century, and yet, notwithstanding his magnificent ability, notwithstanding his Liberalism and desire for service, the deliberate verdict of this country time after time was "Give us rather Barrabas," and this country has had to some extent a Barrabas after Barrabas, figuratively speaking. Consider for a moment the colossal mistakes that have been made in this country-the hundreds of millions, for instance, that have been poured into the lap of railway exploiters, until to-day we have on our hands an appalling mess which, unless we sail very carefully, may drag the country down. I shall not take the time to-night to recount the tremendous mistakes that have been made. One unfortunate thing is that the moment a man gets a position in this country, whether he be a great man or not, the people of this country place a halo about his head and our newspapers break into fulsome adulation. And yet, men are very much alike. With the exception of yourself, Sir, and a few others that I might name, there are really no great men in Canada to-day. Men are just mediocre, and fulsome adulation simply destroys them. It simply raises opposition against them, and encourages those disposed to criticise to criticise too harshly.
Now that I am on my feet I should like to say a word or two to the Canadian people. I should like them to get rid of the idea that two or three or a dozen men embody all the wisdom of the country. Why, in my judgment, the very best irien of the country are excluded from office. They would not pay the price, would not consent to the sacrifice of self-respect, in order to attain a position in public life. You, Sir, I suppose, have been a candidate in many elections, and must have some idea of the methods that have been employed in the past. If you have not, I am sure hon. gentlemen opposite have. Who could get an Edward Blake to run around shaking hands with his constituents and singing such songs as "For you I am praying," accompanying himself on the melodeon as certain hon. gentlemen have done who have gained seats in this House in past years. The methods that have hud to be employed, and which I assume are employed to some extent to-day, to get a seat in this House are such as would entirely turn the stomach of the average man, and that is why good men have been excluded from the service of their country. Mackenzie, for instance. How sweet the name Mackenzie sounds in every

Liberal's ear! I do not refer to my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition. His name may sound very sweet in the ears of the average Liberal, but if he ever gets over to this side of ithe House-which Heaven forfend>-he will probably discover that his name does not sound so sweet to the average Liberal, and particularly so if he shows any tendency to emulate the example of his noble predecessor, the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie, and carries his principles into operation. When I came to this Parliament, an unsophisticated young Liberal, brought up at the feet of Hon. George Brown and Alexander Mackenzie, about twenty-two or twenty-three years ago, I held Alexander Mackenzie in the utmost reverence, and yet I learned that Alexander Mackenzie was really side-tracked by the Liberals. The name Mackenzie did not sound so sweet in the ears of Liberals of those days. The slogan among the Liberals when the Government was organized in 1896 and when we met here was, " For Heaven's sake let us not make the mistakes that Mackenzie made." I am not making a political speech, but just giving historical facts. I am spilling the beans right on the table beside the Mace so that all within hearing may understand the facts. The " mistakes " that Mackenzie made-I will put quotation marks on the word mistakes- were that he stood strictly to his principles. Mackenzie believed as my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) believes, and as I believe, that a party which goes to the country on a platform is in duty bound morally bound, bound in every honourable way-to stand by that platform. Mackenzie believed in low tariff, and staked his political existence on low tariff. He was willing to go down to defeat on low tariff. Like that candidate for the Presidency of the United States, he would sooner be right than be Prime Minister. And let me tell my separated brethren on the other side of the House that the chief heritage which the Liberal party-not " a " Liberal party, but " the " Liberal party-enjoys to-day is that which was bequeathed to them by the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie, who stood to his principles. That is their noblest heritage.
Now, a word on the necessity of cultivating the soil that produces statesmen, who are truly servants of the people. For, after all, there is something worth while in being a public man and serving the State. But, if men who attempt to serve the State are
ridiculed out of existence, if communion is withdrawn from them, if they are treated as, in the humble instance of myself I described this afternoon, then you will not raise that type of men in the country. Men will not serve the people if they know that they will be politically destroyed for so doing. I remember in my early days reading an essay by a great historian and philosopher. He was describing a hero, a man who had rendered great service to his country, both in the field of war and in the field of politics, for a period of thirty or forty years, and was recognized and acclaimed for what he had accomplished for the country. And the historian, in summing up his life, said:	the great achievement-now,
mark the words, for this is worth while- the great achievement of that country was to have produced such a hero, and woe to that country that fails to recognize its heroes, for after a time no hero will appear, nay, no hero will even be born. This, in my judgment, indicates the reason why Canada has not produced the type of men it should have produced for the public life of the country. Frequently I have listened to deliverances by able men who have declared that what Canada needs is a leader, a Joshua, fl am looking at my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie), though I have not him in mind.] What Canada needs, they tell us, is a Joshua who will take us out of the wilderness and into the promised land. Now, if the philosophers, or so-called philosophers, had stopped to think for a moment they would have known that it is impossible, and has been for thirty years, for Canada to produce a leader, a Joshua. Your public men are no better, and of necessity cannot be better, than the people. That is why it is so desirable to cultivate ideals, and to cultivate especially the ideal of service. That is why I have been glad to say an encouraging word to the two young men, one of whom moved and the other seconded the Address. I said this afternoon, and I repeat, it is a good sign to see member after member on both sides of the House congratulate these young men upon the noble, patriotic sentiments expressed in their speeches. This laudation of ideals augurs well for the future of the country.
In speaking this afternoon, and making a personal reference to the difficulties I encountered as a Liberal who made an attempt, however feeble, to stand by his ideals, I neglected to say what I never had opportunity to say before, but which I am glad to say now. I take advantage of this

opportunity to bear testimony to the kindness that was shown to me by the late Dalton McCarthy, and the late Hon. N. Clarke Wallace, who wrote an open letter on my behalf to the people of Canada. I wanted to pay that tribute, and I think it only right that I should do so.
Let me offer a word of advice to my friends of the so-called Liberal party on the other side. If they seriously think of obtaining office, if they have any serious notion that the people of Canada will be willing to place the administration of public affairs in their hands, I would suggest that they join heartily in assisting the powers that be to carry out all measures that make for the good of the country. The responsibility of citizenship is something, I think, the people of Canada are apt to lose sight of. It is all very well to say that we have a Government, that the Government has the responsibility and must do the work and supply the ideas. As I pointed out before, no government embraces all the wisdom, or even a great portion of the wisdom of the people. The members of the Government do what they can, but think of the collossal tasks that lie before the Administration, think of the dreadful responsibilities that rest, not on the Government but on the people. For, after all, the people must bear the responsibility. There is no use in expecting the Government to do all. Take the Minister of Public \\ orks (Mr. Carvell) for instance.
I suppose no man in Canada is besieged as he has been and is at this time-all clamouring for the expenditure of money in their several localities. The idea must be. given to the people of Canada that they have the responsibility on their shoulders. It is useless to blame the Government if everything is not right; let the people get right themselves, and that will help to make the Government right. With the enormous problems of the returned soldiers and reconstruction to be dealt with, the Government will be absolutely powerless unless it has the sympathy and support of the people in so far as it is doing right. And, of course, it is quite absurd to suppose that the average Government does not want to do right. It may not be composed of the wisest or the greatest men, but these men according to their lights are usually trying to do the best they can, and in that they are entitled to the support and sympathy of the people. Carrying out the simile of the wilderness and the promised land, I would say to hon. gentlemen opposite that if they want to inspire the confidence of the country, they must get in line and assist in the measure's TMr. Richardson.J
that make for the country's good, or if they do not, the fate that overtook the children of Israel will overtake them-yes, and even worse, for not even a Joshua or a Caleb among them will enter the promised land. They will remain in the wilderness until they all die out, and only their successors who learn the lesson of service will be able to enter the promised land and partake of the milk and honey.
This afternoon I discussed to some extent the subject of party. I did not go as fully into the idea as I had intended to and I think it is particularly important in this country, and especially at this juncture, that there shall be a very clear conception on the part of the hon. members of this House and on the part of the people at large in regard to "party." I read an address made by an hon. member of this House recently at a function in Toronto, in reference to party. He evidently had it in his mind that Union Government was not a party and he appealed to history to show that they wrere sure to degenerate into a faction. My hon. friend entirely misreads history in regard to that. Party came into existence in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. Before that, in the Roman Empire, they had a sort of municipal government, but, inasmuch as it was impossible to take a vote for the entire Roman Empire, and a vote could only be taken in Rome or at some other place, the system fell by the wayside and degenerated into a military dictatorship led by Caesar. That is why Caesar was assassinated. Perhaps some of my good friends do not know that but it was because Caesar lent himself to the idea of a military despotism that he lost his life. Henceforth Csesarism prevailed and the world lay prostrate at the feet of a military despot. I rather think that Caesar deserved to lose his life under these circumstances, but I am not going to go over the history of the world from the time of the dissolution of the Roman Empire down to the organization of the British nation.
Party, as I say, came into existence in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. It was the strong, independent spirit of Puritanism standing out in protest against the exercise of the Royal prerogative in matters of Church and State that produced the first party. The development of party government is a very interesting study. Parties were organized for the purpose of accomplishing a reform. The Puritans organized, increased their strength and finally were able to challenge the prerogative of the King. In order to lay my founda-

tion properly I might be permitted to read a sentence or two from Sir Erskine May's Constitutional History of England. Sir Erskine May says:
Party has guided and controlled and often dominated over the ostensible authorities of the State: It has supported the Crown and aristocracy against the people; it has trampled upon public liberty; it has dethroned and coerced kings, overthrown their ministers in parliament, humbled the nobles, and established popular rights. But it has protected the fabric of the Government from shocks which threatened its very foundations. The annals of party embrace a large portion of the History of England. The parties in which the British people have associated at different times and under various names have represented cardinal principles of Government authority on one side, and popular rights and privileges on the other.
The former principle pressed to extremes would tend to absolutism, the latter to a republic, but controlled within proper limits they are both necessary for the safe working of a balanced constitution.
When parties have lost sight of these principles in pursuit of objects less worthy, they have degenerated into faction.
That is what my hon. friend to whom I referred had in his mind but he lost sight of principles. That applies to the old Liberal party. I think I demonstrated this afternoon to the satisfaction of every person within hearing of my voice that that party was organized upon certain principles, that it adopted a certain platform and that it failed to carry out that platform. If the administration of the Government of the country becomes a case of the "ins" and the "outs," if that is the only issue as between parties then party degenerates, as Sir Erskine May says, into faction. That is not the case with Union Government, founded as this Government has been on a great principle, for the purpose of carrying out a great object, one of the greatest that human history has ever recorded. This is not a faction; it is a party organized for a great purpose. It is not going too far to say that this party which was organized for a purpose has stood loyally by that purpose. It was surely worth while bringing into existence for that purpose.
But something almost as good has been accomplished. Men, hundreds of them, from the different sides of politics, have mingled for the first time with their fellow Canadians on this side of the House and they have learned that after all there are very trifling differences between them. They have learned that there is not as much dividing them as they thought. Let me give an illustration as to parties. What makes a man a Presbyterian? Is it not
belief in and practice of the doctrines of
the Westminster Confession? What makes a man an Anglican? Is it not belief in and practice of the doctrines of the Thirty Nine Articles? What makes a man a Roman Catholic? Is it not belief in and practice of the doctrines and tenets of the Roman Catholic church? If a man calls himself a Roman Catholic and yet believes in the Thirty Nine Articles, or the doctrine of the Presbyterian church, is he a Roman Catholic? Certainly not. Therefore I contend that when a man calls himself a Liberal, and if the platform of Liberalism is free trade and if that man practises protection to the hilt, appoints Bob Watson to the (Senate, and appoints more members of Parliament to office than his predecessors ever thought of doing, he is not a Liberal at all. He may think he is but thinking that he is does not alter the case. He is what he does and what he practises. Is the point clear, Mr. Speaker? If it is not I have abundance of other evidence.
I have always contended that one of the very worst features in our system of Government is that the followers of the Government are bound by some act of the Government. (For instance, the Government introduce say, a Daylight Saving Bill. I hope to the Lord they will not introduce it again this year because we members representing rural constituencies feel that our political lives are at stake if we support daylight saving. And yet, unless we vote for the Government, the Government fails.
Now that is one of the most vicious features of our party Government. I like very much better the French system, and I am going to appeal to the Acting Prime Minister, and to his colleagues, to see if it would not be possible to introduce the French system into this House. As I understand it, all measures Introduced into the French Chambre des Communes are thrown open for action on the part of the members regardless of party. How absurd has been the spectacle in Canada for the last forty or fifty years-ever since I can remember, ever since Confederation-of a Parliament of about three hundred supposedly sensible men sitting some to the right and some to the left of the Speaker, and yet in the case of every measure that has been introduced in this House, with rare exceptions, for forty or fifty years, if it was introduced by the Government, the men to the right of the Speaker have voted yea, and the men to the left of the Speaker have voted nay, utterly regardless of the merits of the Bill, and utterly regardless



of the effects of the Bill upon their constituencies. It passes comprehension that such a system should be continued. It may be said that we follow precedent, but what do we need to care about precedents In God's name, let us get on with the business of the country, and do that business as it should be done, regardless of party. Under the French system, when a Bill is introduced the members vote for it according to their best judgment. It may be introduced by the Government, it might be introduced by any particular member, or any particular party in. the Chambre des Communes The measure is discussed on its merits, and even if introduced by the Government, if the majority of the Chamber think it should not become law, the majority vote against it and it falls. The existence of the Government is hinged upon a vote of confidence, or a vote of want of confidence. The Government might introduce what they thought an important measure, and be defeated root and branch, the members exercising their God-given intelligence. Why, if the majority of that House think that that Government, generally speaking, is the best Government for France, somebody submits a vote of confidence in it, and if the motion carries the Government remains in office. There, it is on the Government's general policy, and on the Government's service for the State, that its existence hinges. In our country it is entirely different. Surely, we could break away from precedent and adopt the French system, which I feel sure would be a good thing for the Dominion of Canada.
Now the British system of party government-and it is a fine tribute to the old British race-developed over a thousand years, evolved out of great hardship, great worries and great troubles, but the party system has been deliberately adopted by all free peoples over the earth. So much for the British system. If we follow the British ideals and use parties for the purpose of accomplishing. great reforms, then we are following along the right line. Let us glance at the agitation for the abolition of the Com laws fifty or sixty years ago. John Bright, Richard Cobden, and other able men, whose hearts beat in unison and sympathy^ for the people, realized that protection was an evil in the land. Hundreds, and thousands, nay, tens of thousands, were almost starving for the want of something to eat, and these great men-men whose hearts beat for the people-saw that in order to work a reform, it was desirable, nay necessary, to get rid of protection. They began their agitation in the House. They secured re-tMr. Richardson.]
cruits in the House and out of it, and they worked along for years propagating their theories and pointing out to the people of Great Britain a remedy for the evils that existed, until finally they succeeded in persuading the people and organizing a party in the House of Commons that resulted in the abolition of the Corn laws. That was a great triumph, a great achievement for party! That is what party should be used for, and that should be its only purpose. To merely call ourselves parties, and divide into two factions will never help the country, and, as I pointed out several times, it has resulted in almost destroying our public life. We want to get away from factions, we want to form an idea of what the country's interests are, we want to devote ourselves to the service of the country and carry out what the country needs. In a word, let us serve the country and not serve party.
I want to refer briefly to the speech of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell). I have already alluded to the task which he has in hand at the present time. He has spoken with great frankness, and there has been very little criticism of his statements. Occasionally you hear the speech referred to as a pessimistic statement, but I say all honour to the responsible minister of the Crown who tells Parliament, and through Parliament the people of the country, exactly what the position of affairs is. He tells us that we will probably be faced with a deficit-after providing for pensions, for the carrying on of the affairs of the country, and paying the interest on the war debt

of one hundred millions dollars, -and yet the clamour for public works, and the clamour for expenditures goes on apace. Members of this House, and the people of this country, are faced with a serious situation. It is not fair, Sir, to badger our ministers for lavish expenditures, perhaps unreasonable expenditures, without considering from what source the money is to come. The Dominion has great natural resources, but the prospect of realizing on them is rather limited as we see them at present. Will the Dominion be able to meet that vast expenditure? There is no use blaming the Government. The Government did not bring on the war, and only incidentally incurred the necessary expenditure. The country clamoured for the sending of our soldiers to the front; we all held up our hands for it, and are grateful for the deeds of heroism that our soldiers have achieved and for the glory they have reflected on this Dominion. But the Government are not specially re-

sponsible; they are charged with the function of trying to provide the necessary means to provide the necessary money. But this Parliament and the people of this country have the responsibility. The words of the Minister of Public Works should sink deep into the hearts of the Canadiar people, and they should not divesit themselves, as indeed they cannot divest themselves-of responsibility in connection with the management of our public affairs. I was struck very recently with an expression used by an ex-minister of the Crown. In talking with me he said that thrift has apparently become a vice or a crime in the country. The people seem to have the idea that the golden stream should pour not only from the spigot, but from the bung-hole as well. Is thrift a crime?
Let us look at the developments in connection with the Printing Bureau. As chairman of the Debates Committee it has been my duty to visit the Printing Bureau on different occasions, and I came to the conviction that of all the patronage cesspools out of Hades, the Printing Bureau was the worst. It so sickened me that I thought; how can Canada ever succeed if that sort of thing goes on? Perhaps I will be pardoned for saying that last session I went to the Prime Minister and told him about the state of affairs at the Bureau. He was pretty busy at the time, but he gave me a moment or two, and I said to him; "If you, Sir Robert, will place me in charge of the Printing Bureau for one year and give me a free hand, I will promise to cut the expenditure in two and I shall not charge the country one farthing for my services." Sir Robert did not give me a direct answer; he asked me to confer with another member of the Cabinet. Of course, I did not do so, but I thought it was a rare opportunity for a reformer-I call myself a reformer-just to give one object lesson as to what could be done at the Printing Bureau. The mess has been exposed, and a sickening mess it is. I do not blame the present Government, although they have been in office over a year and might have taken some radical action to cure the evil. But it has been the result of the political partisan system practised by both parties for the last twenty-five or thirty years, and both are responsible.
Now, what has happened in the Printing Bureau has, in my judgment, happened before and is happening, though perhaps not to the same disgusting extent, all over the Civil Service of the country. I have not time to tell all the things that have 25J
come under my observation; I should not like to tire the House by relating all these particular cases. But it is my deliberate judgment that from the Atlantic to the Pacific things exist in the public service of Canada, and have existed under all Governments for thirty, forty, or fifty years that are a disgrace to the country and that, if not corrected, will sap the life-blood of the country. You cannot allow a cancer or sore like that to exist on the body politic for an indefinite time and expect that body politic to he healthy or to survive. Unless it is cured, it will eat the vitals of the country ultimately, as the cancer will eat the body of the man who contracts it. Would to Heaven that this Government would let me name one commission. I am not very favourable to commissions. We have had a great many of them, but I should like to be able to name one commission that would go from the Atlantic to the Pacific and carve this cancer out. Let us get rid of the barnacles, the thousands who have fastened themselves on the body politic and are eating its vitals out. We had better put our cards on the table in reference to this Civil Service. The Printing Bureau is not the only place; let us clean the whole thing out from stem to gudgeon. It is a big task, a tremendous task; it will require men of firmness, men of courage, men careful of the public interest. Such men are to be found in this country, and if they were given a fair opportunity I believe that this Civil Service could be cleaned up. And the time to do that is when the Union Government is in office; when the Liberals of this country have united with the Conservatives for the purpose of grappling with the vast problems that confront Canada at the present time. That is the only time in which this work can be properly and effectively done, and in God's name, let it be done, Mr. Speaker.
Let me give you a little instance of what I found when I was a member of the Debates Committee twenty odd years ago. We discovered that a number of the translators were drawing large pay and were farming the jobs out to girls at one-fourth or one-fifth the amount they were receiving from the country. I had a notion, in my own foolish little way, that when a thing like that was discovered it could be corrected, and I moved that these men be dismissed. Remember, I was a supporter-at least I thought I was-of the Liberal Government.
I moved that these men be dismissed. What do you suppose happened? The Chairman, who came from the province of Quebec-I shall not mention his name-refused to put

ment that I received from high quarters to the effect that France, even heroic France, was ready to quit. It looked at one time as if the channel ports and Paris were gone. The statesmen of Great Britain were considering very seriously what to do. I am not saying that they thought of striking their colours or proposing peace, but the situation was undoubtedly grave and the public men of Great Britain were in a very serious mood. I have this to say: In my judgment no man from the Overseas Dominions exercised such a powerful influence as did the Prime Minister of this country in bucking up, to use a street term, the British Government. I heard Sir Robert Borden speak at the great Mansion House dinner and he was the leading figure there, and there were many great figures present. Sir Robert Borden, in season and out of season, exercised a very important influence in the counsels of the British nation in regard to the war. I hold no brief for him, but I think it is only just that I should pay him this tribute.
I am sure the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) made it abundantly clear in his speech this afternoon that it was the duty of Sir Robert Borden to be present at the Peace Conference. If he were not there we should certainly hear the cry from the other side of the House: Why is the Prime Minister not in France looking after our interests? Sometimes this criticism reminds me of the old couplet:-
You shall and you shan't, you will and you won't,
You will be damned if you do, and be damned if you don't.
So, no matter what position Sir Robert Borden took, there would sure to be criticism. After all, the creation of the Imperial Cabinet is simply carrying out the same idea as the League of Nations, to which we look for the solution of so many problems.
And now I am going to invite my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) to come up to Mount Carmel with me. I rather like the hon. member. He has a frank, open face and a generous way with him. He speaks his mind loudly and bluntly. I have had the pleasure of his acquaintance for many years, and I certainly should not like to say anything to offend him, and I am sure I shall not. Some day he may be Finance Minister in some government or other, but it must be a long way off, for I cannot see it yet with a telescope. But when that day comes I shall be delighted to extend congratulations to him. In his speech the other evening he said:

I say to my separated brethren: Go to the Acting-Prime Minister, who is also the Finance Minister, place the Hansard containing my few humble remarks. before him and say to him [DOT] Now, Sir, are you willing to go as far as the Grits will go? Then govern yourselves accordingly.
You would think from that statement that the hon. member could do exactly what he liked with the party over there. Perhaps he thinks he could. Perhaps he thinks his party sound on the tariff question. But just let him try the experiment as I did twenty years ago, and he will find how mistaken he is. The " L. M. Jones's," the " Billy Pattersons" and all the manufacturers from Dan to Beersheba who have been identified with their party will have something to say when he starts anything of that kind. If the hon. member was able to organize an . efficient government based upon the ideal of free trade which would wipe out the element of protection from the tariff and include in its platform all the reforms which the Liberal party advocated twenty years ago-if he could organize such a government as that I would follow him and be delighted to do so, but I know positively that he cannot make good in any such attempt, because there are just as many, or almost as many, protectionists in the rank and file of the Liberal party as in the rank and file of the other party. I am not even sure that his leader would follow him on a free trade platform; I do not know just what his position is with regard to the tariff, and I am just drawing a bow at a venture. Is the hon. member for Brome satisfied that the great majority of his friends on the other side of the House would follow him on such a platform? If he is not, he must agree to the inutility of a*ny members on this side identifying themselves with him or accepting his challenge. If you review the fiscal history of this country-(I reiterate the statement of my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark)-the impartial historian will find, and will say, that in actual reductions in the tariff-apart from preference and reciprocity which, no doubt my hon. friend will shoot at me in a minute if I do not anticipate him-the reductions made under Conservative rule have been greater than those made by the other side. They brought down the duty on agricultural implements from 35 per cent to, I think, I7J per cent, and made other reductions as well. It would not be wise, in my judgment, for us to follow the lure of the light in the shack window on the other side, and leave the friends here, because we believe, most of us, that we can so appeal to this Union Government that we shall get, perhaps, a

larger measure of fiscal justice-I speak as one from the West-than we could hope for if the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) were installed as Prime Minister of this country. My hon. friend went on:
Do you remember that old story in ancient writ of how the prophets of Baal and Elijah worked together on Mount Carmel? You .remember how Elijah said, " If Baal be the Lord, serve him, and if Jehovah be the Lord, serve him." If your principles are for liberty and low tariff you know on which side of the House you should' sit. If protection and high tariff be your god, then stay where you are.
This is throwing down a challenge with a vengeance. The hon. gentleman quotes that beautiful story that is told in the first book of Kings, of Elijah the Tishbite. Now, Elijah was a hairy man, and if my hon. friend from Brome wishes to imitate him, when he marches to Mount Carmel with me, he had better let his whiskers grow, and also the hair on his head, and he had better gird up his loins. Elijah asked the momentous question which the prophet of Brome asks, " How long halt ye between two opinions? If the Lord be God follow Him; hut if Baal, then follow him." On Mount Carmel if the hon. gentleman would imitate Elijah he must build an altar. Elijah built his altar of twelve stones, representing the twelve tribes of Israel. I would suggest that my hon. friend take twelve representatives from the old Liberal party-twelve disciples as it were-and of these build his altar. I would suggest these names: George P. Graham, Israel Tarte, Clifford Sifton, Billy Patterson, Billy Gibson, Bob Watson, Jim Sutherland, Senator Edwards, Dr. Lan-derkin, Jim MkMullen, Jim Somerville, and-yes, I think Aleck Smith might be thrown in there.


Mr. McMASTER:: A great number of
these gentlemen are dead, while others are supporting Union Government.


Robert Lorne Richardson: That cuts no ice
with the prophet; as the late John Henry Pope would have said, "There hain t nothin' to it." I think it would be a pity to omit dear old Aleck Smith. He has stood true to the party through good and evil report, and I think he ought to have a place among those stones. After Elijah had built the altar, he dug trenches into which his servants poured four barrels of water. I would suggest to my hon. friend the prophet from Brome that instead of pouring water over these old-timers, he pour kerosine, for without that I cannot conceive of any fire from Heaven or any place else that would burn that crowd. Then, as to the burnt offering, our friend
the prophet from Brome, with his loins girded and his whiskers any old length, must be careful about the selection. Elijah selected a bullock, I would suggest that the hon. gentleman drop the last three letters of the word "bullock." Also, as to how the animal should be slaughtered, I think that in view of the machine gun practice of many of these hon. gentlemen in the constituencies for the last twenty-five years, they should shoot the animal. And after these details are attended to it will be interesting to stand by and observe which god he will invoke to get his sacrifice consumed. Will he call upon Jehovah whom he would regard as the god of free-trade, or upon Baal, the reputed god of protection? He will be obliged to gash his flesh much worse than did the prophets of Baal, and cry much louder than they, in order to be heard. And is there not a danger, if he calls on the god of free trade, that he will be reminded of the 1893 platform and the seventy-one-one-hundredths of one per cent? Then, of course, whether or not he is answered by fire he is up against the proposition of imitating the example of Elijah and taking the four hundred and fifty prophets of Baal and slaughtering them. In order to secure that number he will have to strike without discrimination. He will have to have recourse to both parties, and probably he will find that when he has slaughtered all the prophets of Baal on his own side he has hardly a sufficient number left for a quorum in caucus. Then after the slaughter, he must in imitation of the prophet retire to the wilderness and sit down under a juniper tree and ask the Lord to take away his life, as - he, only he, is left of all Israel who have not bowed the knee to Baal. But against this I think I hear the stentorian voice of the stalwart member for Red Deer declaring that not seven thousand only, but seventy times seven thousand free traders stand fast to free trade in this country, and I think I hear him suggesting also to my hon. friend from Brome to have recourse to the only acceptable sacrifice, a broken and a contrite heart.
I r?ant to say a few words in regard to the tariff. It is bound to loom up at the present session. When the Union Government was organized there seemed to be an understanding that the tariff would not he discussed at least for a short time. At the present session it is not unlikely that the tariff will be discussed. It is a live issue. In order that this country and its industries may succeed, it is desirable that

there should be stability in regard to the tariff. I represent a rural constituency in the West. Let me say to this House that the West is in desperate earnest in regard to the tariff. In the old days when the National Policy was formulated there was practically no West and no population in that country. There is now a large population .in Western Canada and the people there feel that they have carried the burden as long as they feel they can afford to carry it. They feel that they must have relief and that they must be placed in as good a position as the farmers of the Western States in order that the country may succeed.
Let me say to you, Sir, and to the members of the Government, that there are no politics in the West. The West is not playing politics. I find that my. old Tory friends in the West, now that partisanship has been set aside, are heartily in favour of low tariff. In the old days, because of party feeling, they co-operated with their party, but now that there is no longer party Government, but Union /Government, they say: We are with you; take the tariff off. The West is united. I was delighted to hear the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Lapointe), for whom I have very great respect, tell this House the other evening that the province of Quebec is low tariff, or is willing to join in any effort to reduce the tariff. He spoke of Toronto as being the home of protection. I was wondering if Montreal is not almost as bad in that respect. I do not know what the feeling in Quebec is. I take it for granted that the hon. gentleman would not misinform the House-I am quite sure he would not knowingly do so-and that when he stated, as he did the other night, that there is a large section of the people in Quebec in favour of low tariff he believed it to be the fact.
In the three western provinces there is absolute unanimity in regard to lowering the tariff. Let me say in all seriousness to my hon. friend the Acting Prime Minister that I hop'e he will give earnest consideration to this question. I appeal to him-he is an old Liberal. The right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) is an old Liberal; they at least have no prejudice against low tariff. They, and the Government, are'in a position to solve this very important problem, or to help to solve it, perhaps at the present time or in the near future. Let me tell the Acting Prime Minister, the Government, and this House that the people of the West are not playing politics. They care absolutely nothing about politics. They are heart sick of par-fWr. Richardson.]
tisanship but they are resolved on one thing and that is that the tariff must come down. Members who represent the West in this House, mostly behind the Union Government, I think I can fairly say, are reasonable men. They are not going to put a pistol at the head of the Government or at the head of the leader of the Government and say: "Stand and Deliver." If I interpret the feelings of my colleagues from the West accurately, and I think I do, individually and collectively, rather than do that they would prefer to efface themselves and retire from Parliament. We from the West are so obsessed with the problems that face this Union Government, with the colossal task that is before them in connection with reconstruction, that we would go a long way not to embarrass the Government, but on the contrary we would desire to assist the Government. But, the members from the West have not the say. I tell the Acting Prime Minister that I think he can deal on favourable and just grounds with the representatives from the West. But if the Government does not deal with the representatives from the West, who are reasonable, and who realize the gravity of the problem, then the Government must deal with the people of the West and the people of the West are agreed as one man and they are in no very friendly mood at the present time. They think that they have been made a football of between the parties for all these years and, if the resolutions they have passed and their deliberations indicate what their mind is, they purpose having justice.
In the name of Union, in the name of the unity of the country, I appeal to my hon. friend the acting leader of the Government and to the members of the Government, to weigh this matter seriously, to weigh it gravely in order to avert trouble and what may prove a division in the country, and to bring about a reconciliation as between the various elements in the country.
I said this afternoon, and I want to reiterate it here that the time has come when the people of this country, the different races and elements, must forget their differences. The war is over. I do not suppose it will ever be necessary again to resort to conscription. Perhaps happily there may be no great questions which will in the future divide the peoples of the country. I have every respect for the great province of Quebec. I know something of the French Canadian people, something of their kindness of heart, their chivalry, their magnanimity, and I believe now that the

clouds are disappearing an effort ought to be made to unite all the people. The great province of Quebec ought to be represented and speedily in the Government of this country. I hope the time is not far distant when our good friends from Quebec will see the reasonableness of the situation and realize the logic of events. Let them yield a point and let the people on this side yield a point in order that harmony and real union may prevail, and so that wa may be able in this country to build up a great people.
We have wonderful, magnificent resources. All we have to do is to tickle the soil and tap those resources in order to make this country what it should be, the home of a united and happy people. Let the clouds roll by, let us have union, and if the Government is able to meet the wishes of the West, or reasonably so, on this tariff question, it will go a long way towards cementing East and West.
In conclusion I wish to say that it is my desire, as I believe it is the desire of the people of Canada, to see a great party built up in this country that will serve the public. The people are sick of the partisan cries and the partisan shibboleths. Let us go in for Service from now on. Surely a party like this, which was founded for the purpose of carrying on a great work, founded on a great principle, and sanctified, as one hon. member said the other day, by the blood of sixty thousand of the noblest sons of the Dominion, must and should develop into an agency which will be able to guard and protect the best interests of Canada.
Mr. F. J. 'PELLETIER (Matane) (translation) : Mr. Speaker, when we were apprised of the fact that the most complete and most glorious victory had brought to the Allies the assurance of a peace founded on justice and right, our hearts were filled with deep joy and we said to ourselves that the session which was about to open would rank among the brightest and the most fruitful. Unfortunately, as hon. members have already remarked, in spite of universal jubilation, it was amidst most profound mourning and most sincere grief that this House did open, this year, just after the disappearance of one of the most brilliant men who ever were within these precincts. The voice of 'Sir Wilfrid Laurier, a voice so eloquent, has been silenced forever, and it seems as though the walls of this House were yet resounding with its accents, so
closely was the life of that man identified with the life of the country.
However, notwithstanding the fact that our chief is no more and that, as a consequence of his sudden demise, our organization has been perturbed, it is by no means our intention to lose our interest in the affairs of the country; on the contrary, we shall follow the example of that illustrious man, trying to make up, to the full extent of our limited possibilities, for the great worth which he represented and to which the whole country did such a telling hom-mage on the occasion of his demise;, we shall try, in every possible way, to help the work of reconstruction which now lies at our door after the four years of warfare just elapsed, and we shall do so by our most earnest co-operation and our most practical suggestions, so that the Government may fulfil, if they wish so to do, the arduous task incumbent upon them, under the circumstances.
The measures outlined in the Speech from the Throne, this year, are numerous, but if they are to be realized to any advantage, they must be considered in their true light and be rightly interpreted, whatever the preferences of the majority and the settled views of certain elements.
Be the good will of the Governement as it may, Mr. Speaker, all their efforts will be useless if they remain blind to the real conditions under which the country is now labouring and if they fancy that they can mould public opinion as they like, independently of the mighty currents apparent in every country since the evolutions, not to say the revolutions, which have taken place almost everywhere.
Conditions in the old countries of Europe are now being completely upset. A new power has asserted itself, and that power which has overturned everything in certain countries will soon make its influence felt in Canada. It (would be an irretrievable mistake to believe that it may be possible to stop this rising tide, to dam this rushing stream. What we want is to guide this new power, to subdue it, to make it instrumental in doing great work for the reconstruction of the country and in view of the transition from war conditions to peace conditions.
This new power is that of the immense army of workmen and of the select battalion of farmers. Those two classes, upon which the prosperity and the future of every country are presumed to rest, realize the importance of the part they are now playing, and they have resolved on asserting their rights and enforcing respect of such rights.

In certain countries, Mr. Speaker, efforts were made to crush this new-born power, with the result that the masses revolted and that all barriers were overthrown. All kinds of unsound doctrines were instilled in the minds of the people by unscrupulous agitators, with the result that the advent of the working class was that of anarchy and disorganization.
It is not to be feared that the new countries of America, should we remain in different, may suffer in the same way? Is it not to be feared, that, through our carelessness, the labouring classes, whether they belong to industry or to agriculture, may become the prey of dangerous agitators? It is with a view to avoiding such misfortune, that I would like the Government of this country to become particularly interested in the condition of the working classes. Owing to certain influences well known to us all and which the Government did not try to do away with, the cost of staple goods in Canada has increased beyond proportion. True it is that the salaries of the workingmen have increased also, but this increase is far from representing a due compensation for the voluntary or arbitrary increase in the cost of living. Previous to the war, $7 was enough to keep a family during a week. In January, 1919, the same family of five was obliged to spend, for the same length of time, the sum of $14.87, which meant an increase of one hundred percent. Surely, people working on munitions earned very high salaries, but the manufacturing of munitions has stopped and there is, so far, no indication of a decrease in the cost of life in the near future. The situation is yet a serious one, nay, is getting to be more and more disquieting, for a great many people are looking for work, and in some cases, there is a tendency to a decrease in salaries. Therefore, the Government must look into that problem with no delay and not so much with a view to securing higher salaries for the workingmen as to making sure that a decrease in the cost of life will be brought about. The buying power of a dollar, to-day, is reduced to such an extent, that nobody will even think of saving under circumstances where this could be done heretofore. It is absolutely, necessary that conditions should change before it is too late.
The hon. gentlemen who moved the Address said: "To-day, the cloud has lifted and we stand on the threshold of an assured and, I believe, a lasting era of peace. Our great epoch of struggle and sacrifice is ended." Those words are true in so far
fMr. Pelletier.]
as they concern external peace, but one has not the same certainty of internal peace when one hears the ominous rumblings, here and in other countries of the world.
My hon. friend says further: "The people of Canada may, now that the tremendous burden of effort and sacrifice, imposed on them by the war, has been removed, pause to review with pride the excellent record which they have made under the leadership of the Prime Minister and his cabinet."
Beyond doubt the people of Canada may look with pride to the great things that have been accomplished. I am sure they have already done so, but they will not pause for all that. Those who have amassed millions of dollars during the war, those who have doubled and tripled their already large holdings, can pause and look back on what has been done, but the workingman, the father of a large family who has to wait for the weekly or monthly pay to buy bread and shoes for his children has no time to pause.
If the Prime Minister and his cabinet are really anxious to give the people time to pause and review in their mind the glorious pages that have been added to the history of our country, the economic condition must be changed; there must be an end to those groping and tentative methods and the country should be given constructive legislation.
By all means let the Government do something to bring down the high cost of living.
Iif nothing is done in that direction, the peace that will be signed shortly in Paris will mean nothing for Canada, for war between classes will have started and no one can predict where it will stop.
What is going on in other countries does not justify us in being optimists. What is happening in the great cities; the bolshevic and socialistic disturbances that we hear of, when the censor abstains interfering with the newspapers, does not convey any great hope for the future.
How can the Government lower the cost of living? First by not allowing the unscrupulous middleman to carry on his speculations in regard to all the necessities of life.
Three years ago, the Canadian people should have been protected against those . vampires. The only means to that end is to impose a very heavy tax on all profits over a reasonable percentage. Those who are convicted of extravagance and hoarding should be severely dealt with. A maximum price should be put on every necessary

article, determined by the cost of production, and not by the fancy of those who have secured a monopoly of the goods.
We are lavishing praises on thd soldiers returning from the front and we .say that nothing is too good for them. Those praises are certainly well deserved, for our men fought heroically and havq made the sacrifice of their lives. But they will not live on praise and eulogy. They cannot be cajoled by such interested flattery.
Let us not forget that these men are returning from a part of the world where a dangerous wind is blowing and that they will not be satisfied with being directed like blind men or coddled like children. Let us remember that in Russia it is the soldiers, the working men and the farmers who have taken the reins. I do not see why the soldiers, the working men and the farmers of Canada could not play the same trick on our 'Government.
The Government have given notice of special legislation for the settlement of the returned soldiers on lands, to promote agriculture. The Government have also in mind the construction of magnificent public roads and are taking steps to attract a very large immigration into this country.
Every one of these propositions is commendable and has some good points. However, they should be approached and dealt with in a practical way. The surest way to improve the economic conditions in this country is to develop and encourage agriculture by a wise policy of colonization.
However, the idea of reserving the crown lands for the soldiers, and excluding all other settlers by rules and regulations as ridiculous as they are tyrannical is a double mistake.
Experience has taught us that the settling of soldiers on agricultural lands is an unproductive and hurtful experiment. In many cases, the returned soldiers, lacking training and experience, will take up lands as compensation for the sacrifices they have made, but the lands will not be put under cultivation, or at least the production will be far below what it would be under good management.
The duty of the hour is to put under cultivation, by all conceivable means, the largest area possible; it is to call on every one to take a hand in promoting colonization.
Let a keen spirit of rivalry be stimulated throughout the country; let inducements and appeals be multiplied so as to guide as many recruits as possibe towards the new
lands. Thus only can it be hoped that the surplus population of country places will be diverted to the new regions, instead of increasing the army of unemployed in the cities, and that the labourers who deserted the farms will be encouraged to resume that eminently beneficent calling.
Let the soldiers be treated with a great deal of kindness, well and good; but be it remembered that the remainder of the nation that toile.d and suffered, that laboured and paid during the whole war, also deserved well of the country. Moreover, the national interest requires it and it is needed to ensure peace in the future.
Let large sums be spent in order to lay out roads, well and good; but the construction of highways for the motor cars of those who have reaped millions of dollars during the war must not alone be thought of. Let an attempt be made in order to give an easy access to the lands intended for settlement; finally, let new roads that will induce settlers to take up the new lands be opened.
On the other hand, let us not rely too much upon immigration during the years to follow the signing of the peace treaty. Every country on earth will need its manual labour and shall have an excess population to feed. The only proof of it is that England is pleased to send to Canada thousands of women who are no more of any use to her and whom they cause the Canadian soldiers to marry. Already 50,000 of those women have entered our country and others will come to Canada.
As for men, we cannot depend upon their coming soon. There are too many gaps to fill in Europe to be in a hurry to let go healthy men fit for production. If we need men, let us keep those we have already and put a stop to that stupid agitation whose result would be to turn out of the country people who have been lured by inducements of all kinds and whose only fault is to have been born in one country rather than in another.
Instead of turning them out, let us teach them to love Canada and to look upon it as the finest, the most hospitable, the freest and most generous country on earth. He who loves a country is loyal to it, and people who have been here since many years, even if they were born in countries which have become hostile, would not be long impervious to that beneficent influence.
Let us begin by expunging from our statute books the War-time Elections Act, that legislative blunder whose only use was to foster distrust and dissatisfaction among

thousands of people who had been granted British citizenship and never did anything to deserve such a downfall.
After all, Mr. Speaker, if it is our wish that Canada pass succesfully through that transitional period between war and peace, if it is our rwish that all the good purposes of the Government, all their good measures be efficiently carried out, let us try to put into practice those noble utterances of the hon. member from Thunder Bay and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) delivered in this House the other day: "I am deeply convinced that the establishment of a real entente cordiale in this country should be the desire of all true lovers of Canada. The man, Sir, whether he be a French-speaking Canadian or an English-speaking Canadian, whether he be a Catholic or a Protestant, who wilfully fosters antagonism of race and creed in this country is neither a true friend nor a loyal citizen of the land we love."
Those are words that should ring into the ears of all those who had a hand in a criminal and condemned policy, in a policy that is very aptly described in a pamphlet which the Government had brought in for their electoral campaign, and which is entitled:	"Language oppression in the
German Empire;" but influential members of the ministry prevented its distribution because it expounded a principle which was a menace to some provincial governments.
Those are words which I take as my own for they express the most intimate conviction of every hon. member of the House, and the Government may rely upon our entire co-operation in all measures they take to establish such an entente cordiale. Besides, that is the foundation of the prosperity and power of our magnificent country, and it should be the first thought of all rulers.


Mr. PELLETIER (Continuing in English) :: If I may be allowed, Mr. Speaker, to say a few words in English, there are a few points that I wish to take up.
The member for Springfield (Mr. Richardson) says that he does not believe in following leaders or parties. I wonder what happened to him at the last session of Parliament when he offered a motion by way of amendment to the resolution proposed with regard to titles, suggesting that no titles of any class or kind should be granted to domiciled Canadians-and then refused to vote for it. The hon. member subsequently stated:
When I proposed this amendment I had no conception that it was a question which in any way might precipitate a crisis in the country.

I had no conception that the Prime Minister of this country would stake the existence of the Government on this issue. I was elected as a supporter of the Union Government, and X would much prefer to resign my seat here tonight than to jeopardize the existence of the Government. In my parliamentary experience-in the old days I understood that when a private member introduced a motion, members of the House on both sides were perfectly free to vote for or against it, according to how it appealed to them.
Mr. Speaker, when a member makes a motion or offers an amendment and has not the courage to vote for his own motion, what can we expect?
The hon. gentleman stated that he did not believe in following leaders or parties. He said further that he thought he was too good to be in this world after a conversation he had had with a political leader of his. If he is too good to live in this world, he is very unfortunate. According to his own statement thjs evening, the Liberal party has withdrawn communion from him. It would appear that the few remarks made by the Prime Minister prior to the taking of the vote on the question of titles resulted in the courage of his convictions being taken away from the meipber for Springfield.
The member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) said on Thursday evening last in the course of his remarks that defaulters under the Military Service Act should not be sent to prison, or words to that effect. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that in many cases the fact that boys did not report for duty was due to their receiving their notices after the day they were summoned to report. In other cases, sons of farmers were under the impression that they were exempt from military service for a certain time and continued their labour on the farm, thus helping the country by producing and helping to feed our soldiers and those at home. And I, Mr. Speaker, like the member for Frontenac, do not believe in imposing heavy fines on such men. In many cases the fine cannot be paid, and the defaulter must take the jail path, which is not a royal one by any means. I believe this policy to be a grave mistake, because these defaulters have shown no criminal instinct, and by sending them to jail you may make criminals of them, even though they be honest men, and blot their careers forever. I demand an amnesty for the young man who was on the farm and was a good soldier in producing and helping to feed the Allies, but who did not understand the law that even lawyers did not understand. If you punish any one, punish the profiteers, whose only ambition was to accumulate wealth and who did not care a continental how long

the war lasted or how much blood was shed so long as they filled their coffers at the cost of the poorer classes, who will have to pay a tax for years to come.
The member for Frontenac also said that the personalities of Macdonald and Laurier suppressed individuality, and that from now on the men who sit in this House will express their individual opinions. The hon. gentleman said that that would be a good thing for the Dominion. Mr. Speaker, such may have been the case in the Tory ranks, but with us it is quite different. The proof is that those who left the ranks of Liberalism to join the Unionists were left free by Sir Wilfrid Laurier to act as their conscience dictated, and they have done as they pleased.
Nearly all my hon. friends on the other side of the House spoke about the dim light in the window. The member for Frontenac claims that so far as the Liberal party is concerned, this light is flickering away. Mr. Speaker, if our light is flickering away, may I ask what has become of the Tory light which has disappeared entirely, never to show up again? No doubt it died out or was submerged in the three elements that the member for Dorchester spoke of last Thursday evening. But our light will come up brighter than ever, because true patriotism and the real interest of our country can be found only in Liberalism.


Mr. THOMAS FOSTER (East York):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Redman) who moved the Address in reply to the speech from the Throne. I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) who seconded the Address. I am sure we appreciate the .efforts of those young men, who, responding so nobly to the call of the Empire, went forward to the front and did their part and returned to this country with great honour. The people of this country showed their appreciation of the splendid work of those young men by electing them to this House of Commons, thus giving them an opportunity of showing that they were equal to the occasion as representatives of the people of this Dominion in this House, as young Canadians who would assist in making the laws and in inaugurating great reforms in this country. Therefore, when the people of this country show their appreciation in that way, we must acknowledge that they deserve the showing of that appreciation.
We should feel that a compliment was paid to Canada by the calling of Sir Robert
Borden to England for the purpose of assisting in the settlement of the terms of peace at the conclusion of the greatest war in the history of the world. We are proud to have such an eminent statesman assisting in that settlement.
I wish to congratulate the Acting Prime Minister (Sir Thomas White) on his splendid leadership of this House during the absence of the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden). We know that the Acting Prime Minister has exceptional ability. He has shown that he possesses it, and we feel that it is the duty of hon. members to render whatever assistance they can to him in order to encourage him in the success which he has made of that leadership.
There are many matters of great importance to be brought before the House during this session. We know that last year the Government had a great deal of responsibility. We know that their physical powers were put to the test by the many duties they had to perform. We know that many Orders in Council were passed and that many commissions were appointed to carry on the great work of this country. We also know that when the members were called to this House at the last session, they felt that there was very little for them to do; that at this period under war conditions it was perhaps necessary that many Orders in Council should be passed and that many commissions should be appointed. Some hon, members, however, thought that as Parliament was in session, some of the responsibility should be placed upon the representatives of the people and some of the work performed by them, and that fewer Orders in Council should be passed and fewer commissions appointed. Now that the war is over, and now that the members

M. DEMERS: Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to the fact that we have not .a quorum.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: The hon. member has drawn my attention to the fact that there is not a quorum present.
And a count having been taken, it was found that a quorum was not in the Chamber.


Georges Henri Boivin: There is not a quorum present. This House stands adjourned until to-morrow afternoon at two o'clock.	[DOT]
Accordingly, the House adjourned at 10.10 p.m.

Wednesday, March 12, 1919,


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


William Thomas White: Mr. Speaker, owing to the want of a quorum in the House last evening the debate on the special Order of the Day which was then under discussion has lapsed, and it becomes necessary to restore it to the Order Paper by motion. Therefore, I beg to move, seconded by Mr. Carvell:
That the special Order of the Day for resuming the adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. Redman for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General, in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, having lapsed by reason of the House having been declared adjourned for want of a quorum on the 11th instant, when the said order was under consideration, be revived and placed on the Order Paper for consideration this day.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, under the ruling of your honour of 3rd of July


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I presume the hon. member rises to discuss the point of order.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Yes.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The motion itself is not debatable. __


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I know that your honour has ruled that this motion is not debatable, but I presume the acting leader of the Government is moving under Order No. 41,- that is, that a motion without notice can be introduced by the unanimous leave of the House As I understand that, Mr. Speaker, it means that the Acting Prime Minister, or any person moving as he is moving, must move for leave to make a motion by unanimous consent of the House. If Order No. 41 does not mean that, I do not understand that it has any meaning at all. If an hon. member makes a motion that requires unanimity of the House, he must first obtain the consent of the House.
I further wish to say that the Order of the Day fixed by rule 25 of the Rules and Proceedings governing this House has set for to-day a certain procedure; and before the hon. Acting Prime Minister can move his motion he should move the suspension of Rule No. 25, so as to give him the right of. way to make this motion. Unless some provision is made for it, we must go through the whole procedure before we reach the Order of the Day with respect to which this motion comes into effect. These are my
[The Deputy Speaker.]
obj'ections. I am not taking obj'ection to the main motion, but merely to the way in which it is moved. I will not discuss the motion, but I am sorry that as one of the fruits of continuous Orders in Council, hon. gentlemen supporting the Government do not think it necessary to be in the House.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Whatever weight may
be attached to the point raised by the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie), that point is one which was settled when a decision was given under similar circumstances two years ago. It so happened that the present incumbent of the Chair rendered that decision; nevertheless it is binding until the House sees fit to alter his judgment on the matter. It only remains for me to follow that decision, which was that it was competent for the motion to be submitted and, if agreed to, that a debate which has lapsed by reason of lack of a quorum may be restored in all respects to the position which it occupied prior to its lapse.
Upon the second point raised by the leader of the Opposition, I would refer him to the fact that at the opening of the session on the 20th day of February, there was passed a motion by which it was ordered that the speech of His Excellency the Governor General should be taken into consideration the following Tuesday; this Order to have precedence over all other business except the introduction of Bills. If the motion which is now submitted by the acting leader of the Government carries, my judgment is that it places the debate in precisely the same position as if it had not lapsed. That the motion is quite in order, and if it be adopted by the House we shall proceed with the adjourned debate as the first Order of the Day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The Civil Service List.-Hon. Mr. Burrell.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Charles Murphy: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are proceeded with, and in view of the interference with the printing of Parliament caused by the strike at the Printing Bureau, I desire to ask the Government what progress has been made towards a settlement of the strike, and, pending a settlement, what arrangements have been made for the printing of the daily Hansard, the Votes and Proceedings, and the Orders of the Day.


Hon. Mr. BURRELL:: The situation is not altered to any extent from what it was when I outlined the position of affairs about three days ago. It was pointed out by me then that at least until the end of the present fiscal year the pressmen who have (struck will be in as favourable a position, or in a better position than those occupying similar positions outside, and therefore, in our opinion, there was no reason for them to strike. There are a large number of others who are still employed at the Bureau but who, of necessity, if the presses stop for any length of time, cannot go on working. In view of a condition of that kind arising and also in view of the fact that undoubtedly the cost of the operation of the Bureau and the production of Government printing is abnormally high, the Government would have to consider the question of the advisability of closing the Bureau. However, I am not discussing that at the present moment. Personally, I would like to see the work carried on under such conditions as to justify the continued operation of the Bureau not only on behalf of the people who are employed but on behalf of the whole of the people of this country. Meanwhile we are carrying on, and we hope that a more favourable condition of affairs may be reached.


Charles Murphy: The Minister has not answered the second part of the question: What arrangements have been made for printing the daily Hansard, Votes and Proceedings, and Orders of the Day?


Martin Burrell: A limited number of the Hansards are being reported, printed, or mimeographed, in this House, and some other necessary papers involving, of course, matters of great importance to the soldiers, as well as some matters concerning the House, are being printed in the Militia Department.



GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. CAHILL:: Have the Government
actually taken possession of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway?


Hon. Mr. REID:: The Government have not taken possession. As receiver I took possession of the Grand Trunk Pacific on Monday morning at one o'clock.



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 11.
Thomas Foster: Mr. Speaker-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. Does the hon. member for East York rise to speak on the debate?


Thomas Foster: Yes.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Under the rules-and I am guided in that respect by a decision given in the British House of Commons under precisely similar circumstances-the debate not having been adjourned but having lapsed, and the hon. member having spoken, he is debarred from speaking further. That is the interpretation of the Rule which I am compelled to take. It works a very great hardship on the hon. member for East York (Mr. Foster) under the circumstances and I am quite prepared to submit to the judgment of the House as to whether the House should nevertheless consent to his continuing the debate. If there is unanimous consent the hon. gentleman may proceed.
And the House having consented:


Thomas Foster: Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for permitting me to continue the debate. When the House adjourned last night I had not quite finished my last sentence, and for the benefit of Hansard I would like to corfiplete it. Now that the war is over, members should take the full responsibility. That completes the sentence. Canada should be more careful about the class of immigration coming into this country in the future. We know that in the past hundreds of immigration agents were sent all over Europe and we spent hundreds of thousands of dollars for the purpose of drumming up and sending forward immigrants to this country. We know that these agents were drawing a substantial remuneration for the work which they were doing and they were anxious to make an elaborate showing. They were not particular as to the class of people they were encouraging to come to Canada. For that reason, instead of securing the better class, these agents paid more attention to quantity than to the quality of the people that they sent to this country. As you know, many thousands presented themselves at the borders of the United States, were rejected, made the short circuit, and landed in Canada. Many of our institutions were filled to overflowing with an undesirable class of people who were physically

and mentally only fit to be placed in institutions which have to be maintained at tremendous expense to this country. These people should never have been permitted to come into Canada.
Surely, in the future, a different policy will be adopted and we should aim at quality rather than quantity in order to secure a better class of immigrants. We should not only be concerned with encouraging immigration into this country; we should be equally concerned with maintaining a check upon that immigration. We cannot help what has happened in the past but the future is before us and that is what we are interested in now. There should be a method of registration. All immigrants coming into Canada from European countries should be registered. They should be kept track of for a certain period, possibly two or three years, and if, at the end of that time they have not become naturalized or become Canadians and British subjects, they should be deported to the country from which they came. That appears to me to be the only way to accomplish what we desire. If we do that we will build up the country with a better class of people and that should be our object rather than to have large numbers who will not be quite so desirable. By a system of registration and keeping track of immigrants for a reasonable time we will know whether they are desirable or not and if they fail to become naturalized we can deal with them.
The experience that we have had in the last four or five years with that class of people who did not become naturalized, who were aliens, foreigners to this country, has not been a happy or a profitable one. I made the statement on the floor of this House last session, that there were thousands of foreigners throughout the Dominion who were taking the places of our own boys who had responded to the call of the Empire. These men were occupying positions in which they were drawing large sums of money for wages, amounting on the average from five to ten dollars [DOT] a day, and running each month to hundreds of thousands of dollars, perhaps even millions. They were becoming wealthy at the expense of our own boys who had left the country for overseas service, and I suggested that there should be a comjnission, or a committee, appointed to go into the matter and ascertain the actual number of these people, their method of living, and the amounts they are earning. iA war tax might then be levied on these foreigners who are earning such large sums of money, and whose method of living was such that they saved al-

most all they earned. I think I recited, on the occasion referred to, two or three cases that we knew of in the city of Toronto, cases where men were brought into the hospital. Of these men one carried $3,000 in a belt, another had $2,500, and a third had $900. It seems to me that the present time is opportune for the carrying out of my suggestion. These foreigners, just as soon as conditions have changed in 'Canada, will disappear almost over-night, each one carrying with him virtually a bank, carrying money that we have received no benefit whatever from in the way of a revenue. I also said last session that we should have levied a war tax on these foreigners, the revenue from which might be applied to alleviating the condition of the orphans^or widows of our deceased soldiers. Had my suggestion been carried out it would have brought in an immense revenue to the country, and would have materially lightened the burden to be borne by our own people. To-day we read in the newspapers that some ten thousand of these foreigners wish to return to some foreign country, and that five thousand others are seeking to be transported to the country from which they came. There are thousands of them going back to their native land where they will be able on Canadian money to live in comfort for the rest of their days. They are carrying millions of good money from Canada which will go to enrich other countries, and we shall derive no benefit from it whatever. So I say, our experience in the past suggests that we should adopt a different policy for the future.
In a few days legislation will be submitted to this House having for its object the expenditure of some $20,000,000 for the construction and improvement of highways. In this connection I wish to congratulate the province of Ontario for the measures it is taking to create public works to afford work for the unemployed, and I shall submit a few figures which I think go to show that Ontario at least is alert to the present situation. Iln the province of Ontario there are thirty-sevan counties, of which thirty-six have established county road systems. These systems comprise a total mileage of 9,400. If to these figures be added the proposed mileage of the provincial system, amounting to 600, it will give a total of 10,000 miles of improved roadways. The expenditures for the year on the county road system will exceed $3,000,000, whereas the provincial system involves an expenditure on roads of approximately $2,000,000. The province of Ontario is arranging to provide this large expenditure for the purpose of

giving work to the unemployed, and that work is to be carried on during the coming year. I think also that Quebec is undertaking e good roads system, and Manitoba also; I have no doubt but that the various other provinces will undertake similar outlays, and perhaps to a larger extent, which, coupled with the outlay proposed by the Dominion authorities, will result in a very large expenditure. While the province of Ontario is undertaking to expend upon roads the large amount mentioned, we have had in that province some experience of road and highway building which has not been altogether satisfactory. I have some figures with me, and contrasting the original estimate with the total expenditure for carrying out the work, there still remains a good deal to be learned in the matter of road building. Furthermore, from what I have heard with respect to the construction of the Toronto-Hamilton highway, a great deal of money expended on that enterprise was virtually wasted. I do not consider that we got full value for the money expended on that highway, nor do I believe the quality of the highway is what it should have been, and it lacks the width that is demanded in a stretch of roadway where tremendous traffic is developing for pleasure and for commercial purposes, and where the amount of tonnage transported will be very large indeed. So great indeed is the traffic which passes over this highway that I venture to say, from the nature of its constiuction in a very short time this roadway will have so deteriorated that it will perhaps have to be rebuilt in a more substantial way, and with greater width. The mileage is thirty-seven, and the original estimate of the cost for a roadway of sixteen feet width was some $340,000. The estimate for a roadway at eighteen feet width was $400,000. That is, after having decided to build a sixteen foot roadway the authorities discovered that it was entirely too narrow and too dangerous, and they enlarged the width to eighteen feet, which means an expenditure of approximately $400,000. The total cost of the highway, exclusive of the bridges, will be about $1,190,000. The total cost including the bridges will be $1,251,000. But I saw a few days ago where the chairman of the commission having charge of the work stated that the total expenditure when the highway is completed would be $1,480,000. So that although the original estimate for this work was $340,000, to entirely complete it will mean an outlay of a million and a half of 26
dollars. Now there has been a great deal oi complaint in connection with this work, and grievances have arisen. When the original estimate of cost was advanced to $400,000, and then exceeded, various municipalities complained. They objected to the further increased expenditure, but the commission applied for the necessary sanction to the Provincial Legislature. I may say that a member of the Legislature is chairman of the commission, and after the highway was started he insisted that the work should be completed at any cost. This gentleman forced upon the various interested municipalities that increased expenditure, and yet, notwithstanding that augmented outlay we have not got value for such large expenditure, neither is the road a suitable one for a thoroughfare with such heavy traffic. Therefore, when this Government proposes to hand over to the various provinces the sum of $20,000,000, I do not think it is showing good judgment. Nevertheless we appreciate the object in undertaking the expenditure of such a large sum in a worthy cause. We know that at this time there are many returned soldiers in Canada, and many other unemployed persons throughout Canada, and I congratulate the Government on undertaking this expenditure to provide work for those who now need it.
I do not think it is good judgment to hand to the various provinces this $20,000,000 that is to be expended in the next five years. This Government should lay down a policy of building a great transcontinental highway from the Atlantic to the Pacific, costing possibly a couple of hundred million dollars and adopt and carry out its own system of building it. What does the handing over of this large expenditure to the various provinces mean? The patronage system still prevails in the provinces, and there is danger that we shall not get good value for the amount which is to be expended. Then, if the roads are constructed by the various provinces, the responsibility for anything which may be faulty or subject to criticism will rest upon this Government, which is furnishing $20,000,000 for this purpose, and, I suppose, will continue to furnish further sums. I do not think we should place on one engineer the responsibility of representing this Government on the various commissions appointed by the provinces in connection with the construction of these highways. I doubt whether that one person could cope with the situation in the various provinces and with the influences that may be brought to bear upon



the spending of this money. I submit that this Government should themselves undertake to expend this money, and should themselves assume all responsibility in that connection.
There is quite a difference between a transcontinental highway and the rural highway or a township or county road. I do not doubt that the idea of building a transcontinental highway is a capital one. It will link up all the principal manufacturing towns throughout the Dominion, develop a new transportation system and create a settlement along this highway that should be very beneficial to the development of the country. It is another method of development. We have our transcontinental steam railways; we are now electrifying many railway lines, and we should construct a highway for motors, commercial and pleasure. But that would be an entirely different road from that which has been built by the provinces or from that which would be generally used by the provinces. We should not be in too big a hurry to hand this money over to the provinces. The Government would be well advised in following my suggestion that they themselves take the full responsibility for the construction of such a highway.
This expenditure of $20,000,000 is proposed, first, to assist the unemployed returned soldier, and, second, to assist the unemployed generally. How will that work out? First, we call upon the returned soldier who is unemployed and we say to him: " Here is construction work; here is employment for you." But this work-perhaps seventy per cent of it-is pick and shovel work, and the soldier will likely say: " I am not used to pick and shovel work, and I do not propose to take up that kind of work for a living." I think that the majority of the soldiers will decline to do that kind of work.
Then, in the towns and cities, there are thousands of men who are unemployed. You say to them: " Here is an expenditure of millions; by applying you can get employment." What will the answer be? I am inclined to think that the unemployed man in the city will say: " My family is in the city; all my interests are there; I do not desire to go ten, fifteen, twenty, or fifty miles from my home to do pick and shovel work." I think, therefore, he will decline to become a pick and shovel man.
Now, the next class you will draw from- and this is serious as I see it-is that of the men in the villages who are labourers or the men on the farm who work from ten

to twelye hours a day, possibly getting $2.50 a day. The latter will say to his associates: "I think we had better give up this work on the farm; it is heavy work; the hours are long and the pay small. We can go to the highways commission and get $3.50 to $4 a day, and work only eight hours each day." Now, in this way you are drawing upon those who are engaged upon production, which is serious. We all know the difficulties that have been experienced in the last four or five years in connection with production on the farms. If therefore, in carrying out this scheme you draw from that section of the community, instead of working a benefit to our country in the way of production of foodstuffs, we shall be injuring it. You may be able to check that up by close inquiry and registration; but will the commission be so particular as that? Or will they circulate this money irrespective of the community that they draw from the necessary labour? We want to give employment to the unemployed; we want to circulate this money, but we do not want to draw from these various classes that I have mentioned, to the disadvantage of the Dominion. If we cannot succeed in building these highways without drawing upon rural communities in the employment of labour, then it is my view that we should not go on with that expenditure.
The Government should be congratulated for offering to the provinces $25,000,000 for the purpose of securing better housing conditions in the large cities, and incidentally reducing unemployment. Many houses in the large cities are not as sanitary and up-to-date as they should be. Toronto has had some experience in housing matters, some houses having been built by a company, but I would say that the undertaking was a failure.
I understand that a commission of the best business men in Toronto has been appointed, composed of men in whom we have every confidence, and who would not go into this if they did not think it would be a success. The difference between the two plans would be this: About ten years ago, when there was a house famine, an agitation was started that the city should go into the housing business. The city decided that if a company was formed, they would guarantee bonds to the extent of $1,000,000 for the housing company, and they would give fifteen per cent of that, or $150,000. The company was accordingly organized, got its charter and went into the. housing business.. The method of building, however, was not modern, nor was it in the interest of the housing of many people. They took two pieces of ground, with a total area

almost as great as the block on which this building stands. These parcels of land are located in two different parts of the city. Instead of the new method that is proposed, the old company endeavoured to see how many houses they could get on a certain piece of ground irrespective of conditions. The result was that terraces of houses numbering from five, ten, fifteen, up to fifty were erected, and at the rear of each house there was a space of some fifteen feet, just sufficient for a revolving clothesline. This space was all open; there was no privacy. The result was that on wash-days the children playing around would run up against the clothes and there would be trouble. This occurred on many occasions. In front, there were nice lawns, which gave the houses a good appearance. In these houses there were three, five or six rooms on each floor, with three families in each house. The Housing Company completed the houses, and there has been a demand for them at good rentals. But it is stated that last year there was a loss to the management of over $4,000, and this has occurred at a period when rents are up sky-high. If that is the condition now, what is it going to be in the future? This Housing Company have, as I understand from the report in the press, decided to hand the management over to some loan company or collecting agency. I think the company is trying to get out from under. That is the past experience of Toronto in regard to housing.
I like the ideas of the new commission better. They purpose building houses worth about $2,500 or $3,000. They purpose having a standard width of twenty or twenty-five feet, with a depth of eighty to one hundred, or perhaps 110 feet, with the lots properly divided from each other so as to ensure privacy. The houses are to have from four to six rooms. That idea is, I think, all right. The houses are to be either detached or semidetached. Each family will have an opportunity to have their own yard, so that their children will have a private yard to play in, and with a rear lot of a fair size there will be opportunity for gardening, which will prove an advantage to this class of people. This class of house will, as the result of experience of the old system, be found to be more suitable for the working people. I see, however, one danger even at this time of erecting that class of house. As we know, things to-day are abnormal. Supposing, as is proposed, a house is built worth $3,000, including the lot. When things become normal in two or three years from now, labour and material will be somewhat more
26J
moderate, and there is a danger of such a house depreciating in value to the extent of from $300 to $500. These houses are to be sold to the working people, so that a workingman who has bought one of these houses may find that his investment has shrunk from three to five hundred dollars, and he will become dissatisfied. If he has to leave the city and go to some other place to work, and finds it necessary either to sell or rent, and if he discovers that instead of three thousand dollars he can get only $2,500, or if he has to accept a low rental, he will become dissatisfied and may throw up the deal. The danger is, therefore, that an unpleasant feeling may be created, and that would not be desirable. The principle, however, that the commission is working on as to the class of house and also in regard to expenditure in order to give work to a large number of people, is all very good, but there is, as I have explained, the danger of dissatisfaction afterwards.
This Government has offered money for housing to the provincial governments, and they in turn have offered it to the various ' municipalities. Neither the Dominion Government nor any of the provincial governments is taking any risk of loss in doing this. That risk falls upon the municipalities. They have to guarantee the provincial governments and the provincial government has, in turn, to guarantee the Dominion. Therefore, if there is any loss, it will fall on the municipalities, and the result might be serious. I do not know, therefore, that at this particular time the municipalities should rush into erecting more houses.	,
Another matter that I have no doubt will be before the House in a few days is the temperance question. We should, in my opinion, continue for another year the Temperance Act that was passed as a war mea. sure, and then, as this is a large and important question, a referendum should be submitted to the people of this Dominion. When one mixes amongst the people in order to find out their views, one is convinced that this is a big question, and if it is settled by the people, the people should be satisfied and we should legislate accordingly. I believe this Government did the right thing in having that Act put through. I, as a citizen of Toronto, congratulate the provincial government on their War Measures Act, although they have got into bad odour for putting it through. But nevertheless I think they were right and they will come out right in the end. What would have been the position in Toronto if that Act

had not been put through? Every member here, I believe, knows the experience we had with the riot that occurred during the latter part of last year.
I am sure that if the saloons had been open, conditions would have been very much worse. As it was, there were several broken heads, and there are claims against the city amounting to from $50,000 to $80,000 for property destroyed. I think the provincial government did the right thing at the right time, and I hope the legislation will be continued, notwithstanding the fact that many people will say that the provincial government acted in an autocratic manner in putting this legislation on the statute-book. I have had considerable experience as a retailer, and I have seen considerable of the evil effects of drinking. It is not the drinker himself but his wife and children who suffer the most. I am prepared to hold up both hands in favour of temperance legislation, both provincial and Dominion.
Since last session there has been quite a restless feeling among the employees of the outside Civil Service. Last session I received many letters from employees of different branches of the Civil Service asking for consideration of their case, as owing to the high cost of living many found it difficult to make ends meet. We felt last session that the Government would relieve this condition, but they did not, and the result was that a strike took place in Toronto. A large deputation came to Ottawa to interview the Government, and I must express my appreciation of the interest taken in the matter by the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Sheard) who accompanied the delegation. The delegation had two or three conferences with the Government and went home with the feeling that something would be done. But relief has not been afforded up to this day, and a spirit of restlessness continues to prevail among many thousand employees of the Government. It may not be necessary to give the men all that they are asking, but something must be done, or we shall have a bigger strike still, not only in Toronto but throughout the Dominion, and a bigger deputation coming to Ottawa, accompanied perhaps by many members of Parliament. The Government should not wait to be forced. I cannot understand their failing to see that the men have a grievance which should be remedied, and I trust the Government will at once take action to satisfy the men.
The postmasters of the substations in Toronto have also a grievance, and the same remark applies to Montreal, Winnipeg and

Hamilton. A deputation representing the substation postmasters waited upon me just before I left for Ottawa. They state that the maximum salary paid at present is $200 per year, and to reach this, the 8 p.m. office must furnish a revenue of not less than $5,000 yearly. This amount is raised altogether from the sale of stamps. I will quote from their petition to the Deputy Postmaster General:
In view of the great increase in the cost of living, advancing rents, and higher pay for help of any description, your petitioners respectfully ask that the maximum salary paid be $400 yearly to officers producing a revenue of $5,000 or more, and to smaller revenue-producing officers in proportion. All commissions to remain the same as at present, excepting postage stamps, which will be increased to 2 per cent and that itinerant vendors' licenses be discontinued.
These itinerant vendors sell a great number of stamps, to the disadvantage of the small vendor who is put to large expense and receives such a small return. This is a matter that the Government should deal with. Two or three people should not be allowed to get the cream of the business, but that has been the case for years and years. The subpostmasters of Toronto feel that in view of the high rents and high cost of heat and light to-day they should receive higher remuneration. They have told me that if the Government does not afford them some relief they will be obliged to give up these substations. If they do that, more clerks will have to be employed to handle the work, and the cost will be greater than at present. So I think it is in the interests of the Government itself to try and meet the demand of these people.
There has been considerable discussion of the Civil Service Commission, which has been described as a very iniquitous body. The hon. membeT for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) and the hon. member for Fron-tenac (Mr. Edwards) have already spoken on this subject, and I think before the debate closes we shall hear more about the Civil Service Commission from other hon. gentlemen. Where there is so much smoke I think there must be a little fire, although I must admit that the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) put up a very gOod defence.
There are rumours, and the public verily believe these rumours, and the only way in which they can be satisfied is to have an investigation. The hon. member for West Toronto and the hon. member for Frontenac have made certain statements. We have heard the reply to these statements. The public have read both the statements and the reply; they have read

the charge and the defence, yet they are not satisfied. They are of the opinion that there is an object on each side. On the one hand they believe there is an object in the charge which has been made, while also they see an object behind the defence, and, they think there is some truth in the charges. This opinion is not confined to one hon. member, nor do I think it will have been confined to four or five before the debate closes, from what I have heard; and I do say that the matter should be investigated and even if the hon. member for West Toronto does not formulate his charges and ask for an investigation, I think the Government will be justified in the circumstances in having an investigation in order to satisfy the people that this commission is doing its work, that it may have made some slight mistakes, but not such mistakes as have been charged against it.
Now, I gave expression in this House last session as to the manner in which I thought this Civil Service Commission might operate. I said at that time that I was opposed to the patronage system as being antiquated, and that we should get away from that. Hon. members do not want to be bothered with patronage. I said, if the Civil Service Commission is going to work out to the satisfaction of the people generally and to hon. members, it will be a godsend. But, I said, I thought there was a danger in the commission undertaking that work, in this way: There is a commission of three; there is a secretary, and there are deputy heads throughout the Civil Service. 1 was suspicious that the commission would not undertake all the responsibility; that some of it would be shifted to_ the secretary, who in turn would shift it to some of the deputies, and between the secretary and the deputies the whole matter would work to the advantage of some, and instead of being patronage to large numbers it would be patronage to a favoured few. That is about what I said last session, and judging by the statements made in this House it seems that that is the way in which matters have turned out. I said then that if that was the way in which it would operate I would not be satisfied with the Civil Service Commission; and I am not satisfied now, notwithstanding the defence put up so far. I shall not be satisfied until this matter has been investigated from A to Z. After that has been done, and it has been shown clearly that there is no justification for the statements that have been made, then I will be disposed to feel that the Civil Service Commission is the
proper means of administering the affairs of which it has charge. I think, therefore, that as the matter stands the Government should have an investigation, whether the hon. member (Mr. Hocken) desires it or not.
Another matter mentioned in the speech from the Throne is Women's Franchise. I agree with the suggestion that something should be done in the way of giving the franchise to the women of Canada. It has been stated on the floor of the House that the women of Canada have done a great deal towards the successful conclusion of the war; and I concur in the opinion that has been here expressed that we should recognize the part they have played in the-struggle. I believe that from their own standpoint the women have done as much to win the war as the men. We know the nature of the work they have done, we are _ aware of the response -which was made by the young women who were prepared to go forward and render every help in any direction in which they were desired to assist. They were prepared to become chauffeurs, to drive automobiles, transportation trucks and other vehicles, to assist in Red Cross work and to do many other things without which we could not have successfully carried on the war. They responded to the call from the farms, and we had farmerettes by the thousand in the Dominion, and credit is due them for the greater production which followed. If they have proven their case-as I think they have- that they were in every way equal to the occasion in every endeavour, then I think the least we can do in recognition of the noble part they have played in the war is to extend the franchise to the women of this country.
It was said by one hon. member on the other side of the House last year, when we were discussing this subject, that perhaps it might apply to one or two provinces, but that he did not think it would be found to be generally applicable. He was of the opinion that the women should be educated; that it was necessary to educate them before they could be capable of properly exercising the franchise. Well, I think we had some experience at the last election of the qualifications of the women of this country as voters. We do not need to educate them further. In my riding they voted by hundreds, and I never heard of a spoiled ballot, or of any confusion in any respect. In fact, I would pronounce them better voters than many of the men, and I think they should be congratulated on

the admirable way in which they exercised the franchise, which was limited at that time. Now, I think we should extend the right to vote to the women throughout the Dominion.
Another matter that may come before the House and in connection with which there has been considerable agitation in the Dominion is the question of the aliens in this country who were disfranchised under the War-time Elections Act. It has been said by many outside of the House that the franchise should be restored to these people. I do not see it in that way. I feel they were disfranchised properly. They were aliens, doing everything they could to create disturbance in their sections of the Dominion, and I am of opinion that they should continue to be disfranchised until such time as they become good Canadians, good British subjects who are prepared to be loyal citizens, satisfied to comply with the laws of the country. Then we might extend the franchise to them, but not before. For these reasons I am not in favour of restoring to them the right to vote. I am prepared to continue for a time the present status of these people and those who may come into the Dominion; because it is only fair in the interests of our own Canadians that this should be so. Why, especially in ridings which they control, should they have as much say as those of our own people who have made such sacrifices to save the Empire, while the aliens, on the other hand, did all in their power to disrupt Canada and cause, if they could, the downfall of the Empire? I repeat, it is in the best interests of Canada that the alien should continue disfranchised.
Then there is one other matter-although in this I think I may be treading on thin ice-in which I think there should be some change. We have a Senate, the members of which are appointed by the Governor General. Their appointments are for life. Apparently, notwithstanding the fact that they are appointed to the Senate, they are eligible for positions in the Government. We have senators who are at the head of very responsible departments and from my experience last session I think it is desirable that the heads of these departments should have places on the floor of this House. Instead of the head of the department being here to answer questions, his secretary, or some officer, or another minister, is charged with that duty. I believe that the three gentlemen whom 1 have particularly in mind at the present moment are well quali-

fled to discharge the duties of the positions that they occupy, and that they have the respect of the people of this country, but I do not think it is proper that men should be placed in these responsible positions who are not directly responsible to the people. Why should we have a Minister of Labour who is a member of the Senate and who is not permitted to be in this House to answer the questions that may be asked and which can only be satisfactorily answered by the head of the department? The Postmaster General is also a member of the Senate. A third member of the Government who is a member of the Senate is Sir James Loug-heed. Surely a selection could be made of gentlemen who are direct representatives of the people and who would be on the floor of this House to defend their departments and to answer questions. I have no doubt that the Government felt-I do not know for what reason-that it was desirable that these gentlemen should be called upon to perform these very responsible duties. But, I would say that their selection is a slight on the members of this House. It would almost indicate that we in this House have not the ability to perform these duties. It would appear as if this Government were under a special obligation to some members of the Senate and they are discharging this obligation by giving them these responsible positions. I feel that the method of representation should be changed. If they desire to select a member of the Senate as a member of the Government he should resign, go to a constituency, appeal to the people and come back as the representative of the people to the responsible position to which he has been assigned, and he should have a place on the floor of this House so that he could answer directly the questions of members which cannot be satisfactorily answered by deputies and secretaries.
Mr. EDMOND SA.VAED (Chicoutimi and Saguenay) (translation): Mr. Speaker, in rising to address the House, I feel the need of all your forbearance toward a representative of the people whose sole ambition is to discharge what he deems to be his duty.
It is not, however my intention to overtax your kind disposition, Mr. Speaker, because I consider that all the questions that have allready been dealt with, have been discussed exhaustively and with more ability than I could hope to bestow on the subject myself. Furthermore, I consider that it would be sheer temerity on my part, at this phase of the debate, to make a long speech on the Address. I shall therefore confine my remarks to a few observations

in accord with the dominant feelings of the people that I have the honour to represent in this House. Before going any further, allow me, Sir, to follow the example, of the hon. gentlemen who have preceded me, and to add my humble quota of homage and praise to the tributes paid for more than two weeks, to the memory of the man who has occupied, and will continue to occupy such a large place in the hearts of the Canadians, and more particularly, of the French Canadians.
I have no hesitation in saying that nowhere Sir Wilfrid Laurier was more loved, more revered than in the vast regions of Lake St. John, and Chicoutimi and (Saguenay; to prove that assertion, suffice it to say that it is largely, very largely-to the prestige of the illustrious dead that I owe my election with more than 1,000 majority I think I can say with the utmost confidence that nowhere our great compatriot will be more sincerely mourned because we feel that by his death we have lost a great benefactor, and that the country has lost the greatest of its citizens.
He is dead, but our hearts will continue to cherish his memory and the history of his life will always be a high example for the coming generations.
Now, Sir, allow me to join the hon. gentlemen who have taken part in the debate and to offer my congratulations to the proposer and seconder of the Address in answer to the speech from the Throne and, who have so ably acquitted themselves. I think it infortunate, however, that the Government has departed from the old established rule-the unbroken rule, I think-of having one of the two speeches in French.
On the present occasion, more than on any other, the custom should have been adhered to, because the French Canadians, like the English Canadians, are coming home from the battlefields after a glorious victory.
However, I think that I find a reason which would seemingly justify them to a certain extent; it is that the present iGov-vernment is a war government that is rather crippled-their big guns not being in their proper places. They thought it proper and necessary to place in the limelight, to uphold their ground, gallant men who gained distinction on the battlefield and who surely have it at heart to maintain their reputation in this House and it seems to me that on that score the Government could not have made a better choice.
Now, Sir, let me state that I have the honour of representing one of the large-if
not the largest-but surely one of the most interesting counties in the country. With, few exceptions its inhabitants are French Canadians, and I would even venture to say that in this respect it occupies the foremost place among the counties throughout Canada, and that is probably one of the reasons why I regret my inability to express myself in the language of the majority, which fact naturally and almost invariably drives out almost every hon. member on the other side of the House. I do not intend to find fault with them on that score because if we were in the same circumstances, if we could not understand them, we might possibly do likewise; but all the same this much I am sure of, we would see that our duty was done and that the business of this House was not suspended.
Let us say here that we are as proud of being French Canadians as citizens of other nationalities are proud of the race to which they belong.
Why would we not be proud of being French Canadians when we can claim to be the progeny of those haughty Gauls who for so long resisted Csesar and his all but insuperable legions? Why would we not be proud of being French Canadians when we know ourselves to be the offspring of that heroic France who for ten centuries waged war throughout the earth, almost always victoriously, for the sake of justice, civilization and freedom, and who for over four years, in a struggle unexampled in the annals of mankind, startled the world by opposing German barbarity? Finally, we are proud of being the descendants of the first inhabitants, the early settlers of this country. Our ancestors fought along while under the flag of France but, Sir, when that flag had to re-cross the seas, defeated but still radiant with honour and glory, does not history teach us that they served then-new country with the same prowess and the same devotion?
Mr. Speaker, I do not intend-besides I, lack the ability-to give a lecture on history, but I am pleased to recollect that at the last session an hon. member on the other side of the House, undoubtedly wearied by the unceasing reproaches heaped ever and anon upon the French Canadian race, recalled to his friends the part' played by the French Canadians in our annals; he recalled the years 1775 and 1812. I am also pleased to remember that many other members on the other side, those whose reputation as French-haters is best known throughout the country, stated that there was no better, no more valorous soldiers on the

battlefields than the French Canadian soldier. Such a testimony from the mouth of our worst enemies can only delight us, as it can be but the voicing of a signal truth.
Mr. Speaker, had it been possible, had we not wanted to remain French Canadians, had we lost our senses to the extent of agreeing to sacrifice the work of many centuries of painful efforts, you would now all be convinced that the blood which flows through the veins of the soldier of the glorious 22nd is the same blood which flows through the veins of the French Canadian lads.
But we are reproached with having failed in the accomplishment of our duty during the war which has just been brought to an end. Why such a reproach when we are well satisfied that the Government left no stone unturned in order to prevent the French Canadians from enlisting? We are entirely satisfied, and I say it with the utmost frankness, that the Govenment would have been pleased and would have preferred it if French Canadians had taken a different stand, so as to enable them to stir racial prejudices, I do not wish to review the circumstances of the whole organization at the beginning of the war.
The facts were already stated during the last session, and I shall be content with placing before this House and the country what occurred in my own county at the time and what were the results. An officer was sent to Chicoutimi to secure volunteers ' and opened an office there. In Chicoutimi as everywhere else, I regret to say, there are men either lazy or idle, very few, but still there are some, and in the best families you will often find all kinds of individuals. Well, those who would not work, the lazy ones, were unfortunately the first to enlist. Some highly respectable young men belonging to good families, would have liked to serve, but knowing as they did that they would be compelled to live for a certain length of time in company with this sort of people, they hung back. Therefore the people of Chicoutimi who were anxious to see the county do, not its duty, for we did not consider it compulsory, but its share as the other sections of the country, in recruiting the largest possible number of,young men, started an agitation with a view to securing from the Government permission to have the recruiting done by the I8th regiment of Chicoutimi and by the officers of that regiment who were well acquainted with all the youth of that country around Chicoutimi and Lake St. John. Mr. Girard, former member for the consti-
tuency, was requested to apply to the military authorities on behalf of the citizens. But that was during the election of Dorchester, in which Mr. Girard was taking an active part. At any rate, four or five weeks elapsed or perhaps more, before Mr. Girard acknowledged receipt of the request. And we heard no more about it. Becruit-ing proceeded as usual; however, we were surprised to see how many young men from the parishes in the counties of Chicoutimi, Lake ISt. John and 'Saguenay, were enlisting under most unfortunate circumstances. To day a great number of them are resting for ever in French ground. Therefore I say that we have done our duty and more than our duty.
Now allow me, Sir, to refer to the Military Service Act. We had every reason to be opposed to that law. I do not intend to enumerate them all, and as everybody knows, when the Act became law we submitted to it and, with very few exceptions, all those who were called reported for duty. I sincerely declare, Sir, that I personally do not know a single young man who did not report immediately in conformity with the requirements of the Military Service Act. In our part of the country there are no unemployed, and as the Act provided for exemptions, most of our young men were temporarily exempted.
Later on the exemptions were nullified either by an Order in Council or by decisions of Hon, Justice Duff, and then the young men were called upon to report. The people of Chieoutimi-Saguenay were in a very awkward position. As I have already stated, there are no unemployed in that county. It was established to the satisfaction of the Courts-and Hon. Judge Duplessis could confirm what I say-that we were and are still lacking at least 30 or 35 per cent of the necessary labour to carry on our industries. The situation was a difficult one.
You remember, Mr. Speaker, that last spring, the lion. Minister of Agriculture called a conference of the Ministers of Agriculture of the various Provinces in Ottawa, in order to find means of increasing the production, and you also know that a subsidy was given to the Provinces for that purpose. I have much pleasure in saying that the Province of Quebec was the only one who not only reached its quota but exceeded it by several thousand acres, and I take ipride in stating that the county of Lake St. John was leading all the counties of that province.

Were we to lose the benefit of the work done at the request of the Minister of Agriculture? Were we to let the crops rot, abandon the land, without a whisper, without even endeavouring to secure a leave of absence or an exemption to help saving the crops? That is what was done, and, personally, for several months, I travelled from Chicoutimi to Quebec with conscripts, helping them as much as I could and I never did anything but advise them to comply with the law, even if it were a bad one. All those who were able to leave their property and their crops for two or three days without any fear of these crops being destroyed, went to Quebec to report.
We have at Chicoutimi one of the largest pulp factories in the world. We have in the person of its manager one of the foremost financiers of the country, a gentleman whose patriotism is above suspicion. Could he close the doors of his factory and thereby bring ruin, desolation and poverty to a great number of families, without at least taking the precautions necessary to make sure of having enough labour to keep his industry from falling through? That is what was done. Mr. Dubuc and myself both did all we could to prevent the farms from being abandoned, the crops going to waste and the factories closed.
Towards the end of September the military authorities or the Government believing that there were a number of draft evaders in the Chicoutimi and Lake St. John region sent a regiment of 300 men, 200 horses and 3 machine guns, together with a great number of exploiters, for rounding up the defaulters. They spent two months at Chicoutimi. What was the result? 'Nothing at all. I believe I am within the mark in stating that they did not apprehend more than fifty men, at least twenty of whom were arrested on the trains when they were on their way to report, young farmers who were going in to the registrar's office because they had been promised that if they reported they would receive generous treatment and would be accorded the privileges granted those who reported on time. These young men had left their farms at, the first possible opportunity so as to come in and report. They were apprehended, they were brought to Quebec, and some of the youths are to-day in Siberia where they were sent against their will and in spite of the pleas entered on their behalf by their families and by the most influential residents of the district. A certain number of the others died of Influenza; finally those who remained were
set at liberty and found their way back to Chicoutimi.
This expedition, which cost thousands of dollars a day during two months, got nowhere, as far as results are concerned. The expense was altogether out of the ordinary and I intend, at some part of the session, demanding an accounting of this outlay in order to show the country the way this money was spent.
Mr. Speaker, like everybody else, we are appalled at the excessive cost of living and we blame this Government's maladministration. We are well aware that when a war is on the cost of living must necessarily increase but not out of all proportion; and we find the cause of the trouble in the pilfering of the public Treasury through scandalous contracts, like those already denounced in this House, awarded to insatiable profiteers against whom the Government has not cared to proceed. When we ponder on the colossal fortunes that certain friends of the Government have built up in the course of the war, we cannot very well feel astonished at the increased cost of living. If we are to believe the ex-Minister of Militia, one of these gentry alone made over 200 millions. This gives us an idea how a certain group is willing to throw everything into the maw of the golden calf. It is true that he who made these fantastical profits made use of the animal which fattens the quickest. Can you imagine anybody making profits like that without causing the people to suffer?
Now, Mr. Speaker, will you allow me to say a word on the subject of Woman Suffrage which the Government intends to put on the statutes. I say that if women must vote with their husbands this will evidently increase the number of votes. On the other hand they will have to frequent public meetings and clubs, and follow the newspapers, so as to form their opinions independently of their husbands; I claim that such a law is one of the most immoral enactments that the Government could be guilty of; for all your fine talk to the contrary notwithstanding woman was never created for that purpose and such a law diverts her from the beautiful role to which she was destined by the Creator, the role of loving helpmate and fond parent ready for any and every sacrifice to ensure the happiness of her husband and her children. This is a monstrous blunder and we protest against it.
Moreover, the women are asking for no such thing, especially in my county where the families are so large. You will allow me to inform you, Sir, that the average in

masters, here is a letter of the secretary, Mr. Foran:
Ottawa, Nov., 6th, 191S.
Sir,-I am to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 14th October in reference to the Postmastership of Chicoutimi Ouest, Que., and I am directed to say that the following procedure is adopted in the appointment of postmasters. If the salary of the post office is in excess of $1,000 the position is locally advertised and the application referred to the post office inspector of the district for his rating. The Civil Service Commission then takes final action on same. Should, however, the position be of a salary less than $1,000 the matter is referred to the Post Office Inspector for his recommendation as to the most suitable party to appoint.
The Post Office Inspector has, as yet, made no recommendation in this connection.
Tour truly,
W. Foran,
Secretary.
(Therefore if I understand rightly, the appointments of the postmasters are not always made by the Civil Service Commission, but are referred to the Post Office Inspector, as in the case of St. Gedeon. I think it is a bad system of patronage and I hope that in the future that method will be modified.


Mr. FRANK BAINARD STACEY (Westminster District):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion so ably introduced by the two gentlemen who have deservedly received the congratulations of this House. And first of all, Sir, on my own behalf, and also on behalf of the constituency which I represent, I wish to pay our humble tribute to the memory of the great Canadian whose chair in this House is empty, but whose influence and example will not soon pass away. As I speak, Sir, I am thinking of a little town on the north shore of the mighty Fraser river, nearly three thousand miles from this Chamber, composed very largely of men and women who are proud to call themselves compatriots of the late great French-Canadian statesman. His portrait is in their public halls, and in their private homes. Though remote from the place of their birth they fondly cherish the memory of his lofty idealism, his matchless diction, his peerless presence and his personal charm. Very many of them were his political supporters, all were his personal admirers. I would be unworthy of my position as a representative of the French-Canadian settlement in my own constituency, as well as of other Englishspeaking Liberals, if I did not at least attempt to voice their sentiments upon this occasion, and to express them in the presence of their brothers and friends.

I wish also to congratulate the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) upon a matter for which he has received divergent kinds of criticism from members of this House: I have in mind his reference to Liberal Unionists on the occasion of his first speech during this session. In that address he gave what I am willing to admit, and believe, was intended, as a courteous intimation to former Liberals now on this side of the House, that there is an open door should they desire to return to their former political friends. I am disposed to treat such an intimation in the same manner in which I assume it was given, and as a private member on this side of the House will take advantage of the opportunity thus afforded of expressing my views on the general question of parties, and the relation of individuals and individual members thereto.
I cannot, under present conditions, endorse the view sometimes set forth that we can or could get along without parties. Citizens holding somewhat similar views on any question may constitute a party and together work for the accomplishment of a definite result. The party is the means of accomplishing this end. Many people, Sir, in this country believe that in Canadian politics the party has hitherto been given an exaggerated and exalted importance, superior even to that of the end aimed at. Political parties rest, orginally at least, on some great principle or policy, and when honest men differ as to the application or interpretation of those principles, there is likely to be a division in the party. For example, my interpretation of the principles of Liberalism as applied to Canadian patriotism led me to advocate publicly in my own town selective conscription two years before it became a vital issue in this House, and my neighbour, a staunch Conservative, so interpreted the principles and policy of his political faith that he reached the same conclusion. So vve came together on what appeared to us to be a question of supreme and paramount importance. Here, to my mind, is the true philosophy of the election of 1917. A great majority of the people of Canada believed that the end was greater than the means; that the salvation of the country was of more importance than the perpetuation of any individual party. Sir, men may exhaust the adjectives in the English and French languages to condemn the provisions of the War-time Elections Act. It may have been good or it may have been evil; that I am not discussing, but I do believe that such denunciations amount to nothing. It is simply a case of shouting

to keep one's courage up. The people of Canada spoke on a great issue, and they spoke with no uncertain voice.
Now, concerning the future. Time was when politicians conjured with a name; time is when men are moved by great facts and principles. I most heartily endorse the remarks made by the hori. member for Springfield (Mr. Richardson) yesterday with respect to the independence of all members of the House of Commons. I go one step further and say that whatever other members may do, I believe it to be my duty to maintain clear, satisfactory relations between myself and my constituents on any measure which may come before this House. Nowadays, confidence in the policy of the Government as a whole should not be expected to necessitate the destruction of selfhood or independence ,6n matters concerning which there is legitimate ground for difference of opinion. I hold myself free to withdraw from any party or any association of men when I am convinced in my own mind that by so doing I can better serve my country and so satisfy my own conscience, and I do not intend, either now or at any time, to lend myself to the support of any measure which I cannot honestly and conscientiously accept as in the best interests of my constituency and of my country. This may probably be regarded by many, perhaps on both sides of the House, as poor politics, but fortunately, Mr. Speaker, I have neither a political past to shield nor a political future to ensure. In my judgment, it is not the cry or slogan of Liberalism, or, for that matter, of Unionism, which will win when the people of the country are appealed to at the next election. I am satisfied that the people of Canada will bring both sides of this House to the three-fold acid test of their past, their personnel, and their programme.
I desire to offer a few remarks concerning two or three matters referred to in the speech from the Throne which have received but slight attention. First of all, I should like to direct the attention of the Union Government to the advisability of making some special provision in the Land Settlement Act that will meet certain conditions which I shall take the liberty of describing. I commend the policy of inducing as many as possible of our returned men to labour or work on the land. That is certainly most desirable and commendable. But, so far as the announced policy of the Government is concerned, I am not aware that any special provision is made for the future of men who may desire to enter upon agricultural life on a smaller scale than is provided for in the
terms which make for their future on the prairies. I come from a section of British Columbia where a large number of men gain a living on small farms; they are very frequently called "small farmers." Large numbers of men were recruited for the Canadian forces from the Fraser valley in -*ie early and later stages of the war. That district was drawn upon for the 104th New Westminster, the 29th, the 47th, the 131st, the Forestry Battalion, and others. Very many of these men are comit-g back to their native province desirous of entering upon life in a new relation; some of them wish to resume positions they held before as farmers on a small scale. It is weu known that in British Columbia, particularly in the Fraser valley, there is ample opportunity for men who desire to engage in the production of fruit, in the growing of vegetables for the market, in the raising of poultry and in the carrying on of other small industries which constitute a very profitable livelihood for any who give attention to them. I know that there is a large number of men who are looking for such a home and such a life. I do not suggest for one moment that these opportunities should be given only to residents of my own province. From all parts of the Dominion men will, I presume, seek the very best that Canada has to offer on the small farm proposition, and if they do so, they will naturally turn their eyes and their steps towards British Columbia, and in particular, the far-famed Fraser valley. That will be a matter almost of necessity, and our hope is that as a result of legislation which this Parliament will enact, ample provision will be made for the future of those men. You may, Sir, ask me: Is land available? Can men secure ten or twenty acres in that country? I do not hesitate to say that ten or twenty acres can be procured and are capable of producing as extensive and satisfactory financial results as a quarter-section of land in the Prairie Provinces. Owing to the former land policies of Governments, which policies I am not now disposed to discuss, the unfortunate fact is that there are in places large blocks of land which are held sometimes by corporations, sometimes by associations of men not so registered. But there is a considerable quantity of land now available, unoccupied, unused, which can be secured. It may be asked: Will not that land be held at a prohibitive price? Is it not likely that the owners will hold up the Government or anybody else seeking to secure land for this purpose? That is possible, but I do not think it is probable in view of the relief which the

Government has. I do not believe it is a right principle, and it is much less a proper national policy, for permission to be given to great corporations to hold large blocks of land in the hope that some neighbours or some enterprising men who may come Into the community will develop and improve the land and so enhance to an unnatural value their own corporate holdings. When you go to these corporations and ask them to put a price upon their land, I would suggest that this proviso be made, namely, that the price which they shall place upon their land, the price at which they hold it, shall be the price which will determine the basis of their taxation for time to come, so that they will bear their full share of financial responsibility in the community. At this period, we should say to the people who are holding valuable land in this country: You must either work or pay. I recognize the right which men holding land have to their so-called vested interests, but it is not in the interest of our country at the present time to permit vast areas of arable land to remain untilled, while the value thereof is enhanced by hard working men who in adjoining districts do their duty as citizens.
There is in our province another source of supply from which the Government may draw. A year ago I took the opportunity of calling the attention of the House to the fact that in my constituency there was a considerable number of Indian Reserves and that possibly these might in places furnish suitable homes for settlers, whether returned soldiers or other white men, in the future. In order to set this matter clearly before the House, let me say that between the town of Hope and the western end of my constituency, an area covering some seventy-five miles in length by thirty or forty miles in width, there are some fourteen bands of Indians. These are placed on seventy-two reserves, according to the last returns a total population of 1,216 people. The land reserved for these bands of (Indians comprises 19,247 acres. I do not think that,	so	far, any exception can be taken to the extent of the reserves	for	these natives.
This country has always sought to deal justly by the Indian, the native of this country, and my suggestion to the Government is in no wise intended to prove unfair or disadvantageous or unjust to the Indians. There is, however, one other reserve within the bounds of my constituency, in the very heart of the Fraser valley, through which the Canadian Pacific passes, between the stations of Ruby Creek and Agassiz.

This island is known as Seabird Island and contains some 4,500 acres of what I do not hesitate to call the very choicest land in the province of British Columbia. That may seem a strong statement, but I think investigation and reports will prove its accuracy. On that island there are reported to be 121 Indians all told, who cultivate a total of 132.5 acres, leaving considerably over 4,000 acres of land untouched. I am of the opinion that not only is that a national loss from the standpoint of production, but it is a bad education for the native. It is not good policy that he should be permitted to hold the view that all that land is at his disposal, when it is not in any sense of the word contributing to his sustenance. It is not cultivated ground. He does not cultivate it. The finest land in the valley is still untouched. I hope the department or the Government will take into consideration the advisability of making such provision as they can for returned men to enter at least upon this island. If they do not desire to enter upon it, then I would say: Open it up for the entry of white people. Let the land be used so that it may be a source of production to the people of this country and especially to British Columbia. This is in no sense of the term a reflection upon the labour or interest or the future of the Indian^. We must look after them, but I claim that this is not at all inimical to their interest, future or welfare.
I want also to draw the attention of the Government very earnestly to a sympathetic consideration of a matter that is akin to that which was presented by the hon. member for East York (Mr. Foster) this afternoon. I shall not attempt to refer to anything to which he drew the attention of the House further than to remark that my subject has reference to the same department, and I .shall put it very briefly.
We have in our country rural mail carriers and rural postmasters who are very much underpaid. These men are doing the business of the country, so far as their duties require and the stipulations of the Government demand, and they are doing it faithfully and to the satisfaction of the ' department, or they would not be retained. But their remuneration is altogether inadequate to the services rendered, and I am speaking now with sole reference to the two classes I have mentioned. The resort of other labourers in such a situation is" not within the range of their activity; they cannot strike; they must continue, and do continue, their labours. I almost hesitate to state to this House the financial con-

dition in which some of these men are placed. It would appear to be almost a reflection upon our honour and sense of fair play, but that I may not speak altogether in the abstract, let me cite one or two cases. I happen to know, Sir, that there are men in the employ of the Government engaged as mail carriers who are in receipt of the-I cannot find an adjective to describe it, and so will say, in receipt of the wage of from fifty cents to one dollar per day for the support of themselves and their families. In other words, the whole of the income they receive from the Government, with the exception of this small pittance, is required for the upkeep of their outfit. No wonder they ask, and beg, and plead, for consideration. I have drawn the attention of the Postmaster General to this matter, and the answer I received was regular, of course, and quite correct. He stated that it was not within the power of the department to grant increases during the continuance of a contract. Of course, that is true. But, Sir, it is within the power of the department, I suppose, to make the necessary recommendation which will ensure to these men ordinary common justice and fair play, and I do sincerely hope that such measures will be taken at an early date as will give to these men who are doing their duty faithfully and well, proper remuneration. True it is that a contract is a contract. But let me say by way of explanation that this particular contract was undertaken two or three years ago when the cost not only of living but of all supplies was very much lower than it is to-day. The increased cost of supplies for the upkeep of their team and outfit has resulted in leaving only the small pittance I have mentioned for the support of these men and their families.
I listened with a very great deal of interest the other day to the address of the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Lapointe). If I understood him correctly, and I would not willingly misrepresent or misinterpret anything he said, he said in substance, when speaking of some amendments to the British North America Act, that as that Act was agreed to by the four original provinces individually, it would remain for the said four provinces to bring about any amendment to the Act. I may be wrong in my interpretation, and I sincerely hope I am, for I cannot believe that that position is correct. The hon. gentleman is learned in the law, while I am but a workingman, but I cannot help feeling that that
position is unjust. It is not morally right, and how can it ultimately be legally right? Has not this House something to say regarding the amendments which may later be placed before the country for consideration ? Is it not impossible to suppose that the provinces which were not then born should be ignored when we come to consider amendments to that Act? It is well known that there is a growing and ever deepening conviction throughout this country that the time is not far distant when certain amendments to. that Act must be brought before the people for consideration. We all know, for instance, that there is a growing feeling in the minds of Canadian citizens that all legislation should be passed by a responsible Chamber. We cannot shut our eyes to that fact, and when an irresponsible chamber delivers itself in the manner in which our friends did towards the close of last session, rendering' inoperative what I considered to be some of the most important items of legislation passed by this House affecting the moral and social welfare of our citizens, that does not tend to deepen the affection in which it is held by the people of Canada. And so, when the question of amendments is considered, and I hope it soon will be considered, I trust that my hon. friend will be found to be wrong, or, rather, I would hope that I have misunderstood him and that he also will admit that this House, which represents provinces not then in existence, will have something to say regarding the said amendments.
Hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House have referred, during the course of this debate, to the question of (national unity. Indeed, some had-the temerity to introduce that phrase during the stormy times of last session. That, Sir, is a great idea. It is so great, in my opinion, that it requires some special consideration. You cannot mention the phrase without the question arising in every earnest and thoughtful mind: What does national unity mean, and how can it be brought about? What are the successive steps by which such a goal may be approached and ultimately reached? This opens up a very inviting field which I shall not presume to enter at the present time, but I do make bold.to say that by a process of elimination we may at least approach an answer to our question. It goes without saying that national unity cannot be a unity of race; that need not be argued. Nor can it be a unity of religion, for all Protestants are not agreed in their religious views, and I am told that even all Roman Catholics are not agreed in their religious concep-

tions. I know not as to the truth of that, but certainly national unity cannot mean religious unity. I suppose it needs no argument to maintain the position that national unity cannot mean language unity.
There will be two languages spoken in Canada, at least for some time to come. Can we expect national unity on political questions? That does not seem very probable within the near future. Then what is left? Wherein may we look for national unity? That, to my mind, is a very serious and a very important question. If we cannot .find it within the realm of the religious, of the political, or of the racial, where shall we find it? There is only one other realm, it seems to me, in which we can find it. I believe that our national unity will ultimately be found in our national objective, and I contend that this country at the present time has no national objective. Our fathers founded this federation fifty years ago, with marvellous foresight they built for the future. During the first half century of Confederation we were engrossed with things material, necessarily and properly so, in the building up of the country, in the development of our industry, and in the bringing of settlers to this land. We were engrossed with the material, which ,to a certain extent was praiseworthy. Then came the war, which did more than anything else- and I do not hesitate in saying it-to unite the peoples of Canada. It did more towards that end, I believe, than any other single event in our national history. Where, then, oan we find such a national objective, as will make real the ideal that is before us? In my opinion, Sir, it can be found, and must be found in the realm of the ethical. Different races, different religions, different political views, even different languages may find in a common ethical objective a bond of unity that will embrace in its manifold ramifications the other divergencies which I have enumerated; and I believe, Mr. Speaker, that such a bond of unity can be found in the ethical.
If I were an artist and had the ability, -I would paint a national escutcheon for the peoples of the provinces of this Dominion, from sea to sea, something after this fashion: I would paint the word "Truth," and beside it the word "Honour," and in tue background I would in some manner suggest the idea of toleration; and with that before the people, I believe we should have the possibility of national unity mat would be the salvation of Canada and the making of a great Canadian nation and Canadian people-a possibility that does

not otherwise seem in sight. What do I mean, Sir, by truth? Why, that suggests, indeed it compels, the very thought of education. Truth is knowledge; it bears the sign "we must know." And I would go so far as to hope that every child born in this Dominion would have a good common school education, without an exception. This, I submit, should be a part of our national provision for the future; and in the matter of education there looms up in the distance, ultimately, not only the possibility but the necessity of a great national university.
I am in full accord with that sentence uttered only recently, I think, by Principal McKay of the University of Saskatchewan,, when he said in substance that the greatest mistake the British nation ever made was that of allowing Germany to assume the role of the schoolmaster of the world. 1 believe he was correct. Germany was looking for truth, but she lacked honour, and the one is as essential as the other to true nationhood. We must have for the future of our country, Sir, the highest possible educational advantages for those who can reach them; and by the use of the word "can" I do not mean mere monetary ability; I mean mental capacity and moral calibre adequate to fit them for the great work that lies before them. I maintain that this Dominion should make it possible for every youth who has the character to attain the very highest position in the realm of service for the country that is obtainable anywhere; and we can do that-not perhaps in the near future, but in the distant future at any rate-Through a great national post-graduate university. Why should we not be able to supply in Canada all that our land needs for its development materially, ethically or educationally? Associated with this thought is the idea of honour. If we could by any means adopt that two-fold principle of truth coupled with honour, the charges that we have listened to, and the accusations that we have heard against the manhood of our country, would very largely disappear. These things are the children of dishonour; and so long as dishonour rather than honour prevails, we shall have trouble-trouble in the House, and trouble everywhere.
The universal consensus of opinion is that we need a higher type of manhood and a nobler type of womanhood. With all deference to the womanhood of our country, I think-and undoubtedly they will be the first to endorse my opinion-that we need on the whole, even in Canada, a still nobler type of womanhood. Therefore, back of all

this, and with it and around it, if we could only acquire the spirit of toleration, I believe, Sir, we would have a nation tnat would, in the days to come, be the largest, the grandest and the best memorial that could possibly be erected to those who have lived and died for all that is worth while in life.
This, I think, is at least worthy of the consideration of those who are dealing with national problems and national questions, and I hope, Sir, that to as large an extent as possible, we may be able, in our intercourse as provinces and as citizens, to keep the idea before us of a national unity that will allow of certain divergencies of opinion, greater liberty of thought and greater freedom of action in matters racial, religious, political, and otherwise. So long as we have before us a high ideal of national truth and honour, in an atmosphere of toleration, this is possible.


Mr. J. E. FONTAINE (Hull) (translation) :: Mir. Speaker, I rise at this moment because I think it is the duty of every member of this House-whether he be the most humble or the most eloquent-to give his opinion upon the serious and unusual conditions prevailing in our country. Indeed, since the beginning of the war, in order to maintain the Canadian army, the 'Government have heaped a debt amounting to two billions. All our industries which for the last four years were turning out munitions are at a standstill since the signing of the armistice. All our national progress is paralyzed, and to fulfil our obligations the lion. Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) issues loans within our bonds and thrusts upon us all kinds and manner of taxes. Mr. Speaker, we have now good reasons to regret all useless expenditures and all the follies, to say the least, which the Government indulged in or allowed during the war.
I still remember the reports of investigations held in the department of Militia then headed by the hon. member from Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) showing that enormous sums were needlessy spent.
Now, Sir, let me state that every citizen of this country was willing to do his bit in order to win the war and to crush forever German militarism. I still remember the language of our lamented and revered leader, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who, speaking on behalf of the opposition, said that we should be ready to made any sacrifice and that Canada should contribute her share for the sake of humanity and civilization. However, that did not mean the enricliment of friends of the Government nor that leave should be given manufacturers to reap profits of one or two hundred per cent, as it has been laid at the doors of the Massey-Harris Company, the William Davies Packing Company and many others which I do not recall. It did not mean that companies would be permitted to become organised without any stock to get in millions, like the International Arms and Fuses Company, the Ammunition American Company. It did not mean either that speculators and combines would be allowed to lay their hands upon all the food in the country and to exact excessive prices from the consumers.
You are going to ask me, Sir, of what use is it to recall so many things of the past which can only stir up still more the indignation of the people against the Government. If I do so, it is in order to fix responsibilities so that, when history is written, it may be known who are the best friends of the country and of the people. Now, what do the Government suggest and intend to do in order to improve the situation? We have lately heard the speech from the Throne. What is there in it? Mere words, nebulous schemes, nothing practical. We are told of a new franchise. I hope, Sir, that as soon as possible will be expunged from our statute books that dishonest War-time Elections Act which enabled the Union Government to retain power against the will of the people. I appeal, to the Liberal I nionists-if however their alliance * with the Conservatives did not deprive them of the sense of honour and fair play-and I trust that the new Act will he more just and fair and will not permit a recurrence of the abuses which were committed at the last elections.
There is no mention in the Governor General's Speech of the repeal of the dangerous War Time Elections Act, which gives the Government the authority of governing this country by means of Orders in Council and allows them to censor all newspapers. Mr. Speaker, let us take care, we must not wait too long, because the people are tired of being governed by Orders in Council. They are waking up and the press and the public bodies are asking that the government by the people be restored. The trades unions are agitating. I have here with me a resolution adopted unanimously by the labour union of the City of Hull, asking me to do my utmost to have that kaiserdike legislation repealed.
They talk about re-construction and demobilization. The latter, as I understand it,



includes the repatriation of all these gallant soldiers who won great fame on the battlefield .and who offered so generously theiir .services for the defence of Democracy. It includes also the duty of the 'Government to facilitate the re-establishment into civil life of all the able bodied men, either by granting them special conditions or settling them on the land, or securing work for them to earn a living, or by paying proper pensions in the case of invalided soldiers. But the war ended three months age and about 100,000 returned men, from overseas and here, were discharged. What was done in their behalf? What did they get? Nothing.
In our city of Hull, we have a great many returned soldiers, and not a day passes by without some of them coming to me to complain about the way in which they are treated by the Government. Do you want me to cite a case, Mr. Speaker? There is a letter which I have just received from a soldier by the name of Joseph Bochon, who is at present in the military hospital at St. Anne de Bellevue after serving three years in the trenches. This man who is suffering from deafness and nervous disease, as a result of wounds, is offered $5 a month as a pension. Is it not a shame? I know some others who made several attempts and applied for work, but never got satisfaction.
I consider that the country owes a debt to these brave men and I say that it is the duty of this Government to do all in their power to give them justice.
While I am speaking on this subject, I wish to present a request to the Government, namely that, legislation be passed at this session granting a general amnesty to the Military Service Act defaulters. The war is over. The enemy surrendered unconditionally. Therefore why should the Government act so unmercifully with the young men who, for different reasons, did not see fit to report? Is it to secure a few cents or dollars from them or to send them to jail? What is the use? Does not the country need the activity of all its sons at the present time? 1 say, Mr. Speaker, that is persecution, and in view of the great victory that we have won, the Government ought to prove magnanimous and pardon them all.
Now, what is the Government doing for reconstruction? First, they will not deal with the question of tariff, because we are in a period of reconstruction. But they are not in earnest; they are not sincere, and the real motive Mr. Speaker is because the Liberals on the other side of this House, who have always favoured a reduction in the tariff would be ashamed to follow the
[iM. Fontaiine.]
tariff and protectionist element who for the time being rule the Government, these Liberals, in order not to lose their portfolios and their opportunities and to avoid crossing over into the cold regions of the Opposition, trample under foot their principles and sing in chorus with the Prime Minister: "Leave the tariff aside, this is a period 0f reconstruction. ' '
However, is it not by revising the tariff and by a better distribution of the taxes that we shall develop reconstruction? Is it not by putting down there tariff walls and letting in free the natural products, agricultural implements and so forth, that we shall reduce the cost of living and encourage agriculture which is the foundation and the basis element of our wealth?
So true is it, that, contrarily to the hon. ministers who are always eager to retain their portfolios, all the farmers of this country demand a reduction in the tariff.
Sir, at a meeting of the Farmers' Association in the Western provinces,-exactly that part of the country to which the hon. minister of Colonization and Immigration (Mr. Calder) comes from, though he says that this is not the time to deal with the tariff-resolutions were adopted, earnestly demanding the immediate revival of the reciprocity policy adopted by the Laurier administration under the very auspices of the hon. member for Queens and Shelburne (Mr. Fielding) who now sits in this House. The farmers of Ontario, of that province which proved so wild with respect to the tariff, held a meeting where they adopted a resolution similar to that which was adopted in the West. So sincere are they, so serious are they also in their request, that, at three byelections for Ontario-provincial elections- where they had candidates of their own choice, they defeated the Hearst administration. and one may say, with no intention in the least to stand as a prophet, that it was the Union Government which they were aiming at.
Sir, I have no hesitation in saying that the majority of the members of this House may continue to support the Government as iong as they like, but that the people is not with them. Listening to the speech delivered by the hon. minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell) I was struck with the appeal which he made to the manufacturers, at least a hundred of whom, did he say, have become millionaires during the war. He asked them to keep employing the workingmen. I am very much afraid that his appeal will not be heard in the town where I live, an industrial town where so

many men are out of work since the war is over, and where it is rumoured that the salaries may be reduced by 10 per cent. A prospective strike is the subject of conversation, the workingmen are dissatisfied, and I say that they are right in this; they have been hoodwinked in every way, for four years past, they have borne the burden of the war during that time, because, after all, it is the workingmen, it is the people who pays. Therefore, let the Government make a law which may give justice to everybody, let them do away, once for all, with that policy of protection the only result of which is to enrich but one class; let them also protect the workingman, so that he may be able to live appropriately; let them fix a minimum with respect to his salary, let them create pensions for old age, because I say, Mr. Speaker, that when a workingman has spent the best of his life to enrich the capitalist in many cases at starvation wages-he has the right to expect that the State will take care of him in his old age, so that he will not be dependent upon his family or obliged to end his days in the poor house. Let the Government grant him a life annuity in his old age and better protection against accidents and in case of unemployment. What I want is an act of justice, and were my request complied with, the important question of capital and labour would be settled forever.
I have been struck also with another part of the speech delivered by the hon. member of Public Works, where it is stated that all the revenue is absorbed by the expenses incurred on account of the war; and that one hundred millions more are wanted in order that the works which are most necessary in the country may be carried on. The hon. minister asks us where that money could be found. If I may be permitted to make a suggestion I shall first advise him to have [DOT] the manufacturers surrender to the Government one half of the hundred million profits they have realized during the war. In fact, it is a shame to see that while the small industries and even the workingmen are being taxed, people like Mr. Flavelle and others are permitted to accumulate fortunes. Let us cut down the number of the ministers. We have about twenty of them. I believe that, with a better distribution of the work, ten would be quite sufficient. Let us do away with all the Commissions which have been appointed and the incumbents of which are granted salaries equal to those of hon. ministers; let us practice economy, and let us be satisfied 271
that, by such means, we shall be in pocket many millions.
Sir, before I resume my seat I would like, a,s did the hon. members who preceded me to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the Address in answer to the speech from the Throne, for the able manner in which they have discharged their duty; but I do not wish to congratulate the Government for having departed from the old custom prevailing in this House and which consisted in having the address seconded in French. It seems to me that it would have been easy enough to find, among the hon. members sitting to your right, a gentleman who was conversant with the beautiful French language, and if no such scholar could have been found, then a well gifted gentleman might have been selected among them and set to the task of learning French.
How I deplore and regret the disappearance of the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier! He was a great statesman, he was for the liberal party a great chieftain, he was the idol of his compatriots and was for me, personally, a great friend or rather a great protector. As a public man, I shall strive to conform to his wise teachings and to adopt this motto which was his own: "First a Canadian, always a Canadian."


Mr. WILLIAM GARLAND McQUARRIE (New Westminster):: ting out their convictions and arguments that Canada had never received any benefit from Great Britain, but, on the contrary had suffered greatlyffiy loss of territory and otherwise through the carelessness and inefficiency of her statesmen and diplomats.
It is with feelings of extreme consternation that we must now contemplate what would have happened to the whole civilized world if these pernicious doctrines had become consummated facts. If Canada had withdrawn from the Empire who can say that her example might not have been followed by other colonies? If our form of Government had been changed and if the British Empire had gone to pieces, is there any sane person who would have the temerity or hardihood to suggest that it would have been found possible to stop the terrible Hun in his ruthless and unchristian attempt to conquer the world? Thank God the true situation has been clearly demonstrated and the stability, foundation and principles of our form of Government have been firmly established.	_
~ The Empire has stood the test of the greatest war of history and has come through triumphantly, stronger aim greater than ever. Long live the King! God bless him! Under him and his advisers, the great and powerful British, Empire was able at a moment's notice to fly to the assistance of courageous little Belgium and of noble France both of which were being ravished and destroyed by the inhuman foe. Under him the silent British navy cleared the seas of enemy ships and shipping and made the transportation of troops and foodstuffs possible. Under him the nation was able to materially assisit our valient allies in bringing the Bosche to his knees. The world is safe once more. It is with feelings of intense pride and admiration that we must contemplate His Majesty's personal record during the war as well as the record of the whole royal family. They placed the cause of freedom and humanity before everything else and nobly did they play their part.
As Canadians we may be doubly proud that His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales attached himself to the Canadian army and shared with them the hardships and dangers of the fight. I am told that he endeared himself to the Canadian troops all* of whom will agree that he is what soldiers call a good head. Perhaps I might also be permitted to suggest that even the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) will agree that the whole British aristocracy, with all their titles and other encumbrances, did magnificent work and that 
we as Canadians must make our acknowledgments to them.
It is hardly necessary for me to say that Canada has been singularly fortunate in the high standard of the men who have been sent to us in the capacity of Governors General. In the case of the present incumbent the high traditions of the office have been maintained.
The speech from the Throne on this occasion will live long in Canadian history if for no other reason than that it contains a well deserved acknowledgment of the splendid conduct of the soldiers of Canada. Every Canadian must have a personal sense of pride when he reads the reference to our Canadian soldiers:
In the notable victories leading to the glorious issue accomplished by the arms of the Allies, none of the forces engaged bore a more valorous or heroic part than those of Canada, whose achievements throughout the entire war have won imperishable renown for their country. It is most gratifying to be able to state that, in the final and decisive stages of the mighty struggle, our divisions in the field were maintained at over strength, and equipped in the highest degree with all the requirements of modern warfare.
I would call particular attention to the final sentence of this paragraph:
The appreciation and gratitude of the nation cannot be too earnestly and sincerely expressed to the gallant members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force, whose sacrifices, sufferings and heroism have played so effectual a part in vindicating the cause of world liberty and civilization.
Personally, I feel that the problems affecting our returned soldiers, their dependents and the dependents of those who will not return, should receive our first consideration. However, with the kind indulgence of the House, I will refer to that subject later on.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents, I would like to add my tribute to the memory of the late, lamented Sir Wilfrid Laurier. So much has been said, and so well said, in this connection that I feel that in anything I might say I could add nothing to our veneration for the memory of this wonderful man. In British Columbia the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier was held in high esteem by both Liberals and the old time Conservatives. His memory will always be kept green, and I believe for all time to come he will be considered as having been one of our greatest Canadians. ^	'
I would also like to be permitted to add my congratulations to the mover and seconder of the Address in reply to the Speech. I think it was singularly fortunate and appropriate that the mover and seconder should both be returned soldiers,

men who had taken a part, and had done their share in defending the liberty of the world. I congratulate these hon. gentlemen on the manner in which they performed their duty in this House, and I believe that it is in strict accordance with the work they did overseas.
I would also like to add my congratulations to those already extended to the new Leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie). He has some qualifications which appeal to me, viz: He is a Presbyterian, he is Scotch, and he is a lawyer, surely a combination which cannot be surpassed; and I hope that the future will show for him a record which will stand side by side with the record made by his illustrious predecessor.
I sincerely regret that there has been some criticism from the hon. gentlemen on the Opposition benches, as to the absence of the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) at the Peace Conference. I have been wondering why these hon. gentlemen should worry so much that the Premier is away at this particular time. I have been wondering if perhaps they think that the majority on this side of the House is not large enough, or perhaps whether they have been thinking that the Prime Minister and his absent colleagues might be induced to follow the "light in the window," which no one else on this side of the House has yet been able to perceive. I would like to ask seriously if these hon. gentlemen really think that Canada should not be represented at the Peace Conference, and should not be represented there by the Prime Minister? Why should not the Premier be absent from this House when he has such a splendid substitute to leave in his place? I remember when I first saw Sir Thomas White. It was at Osgoode Hall in Toronto in 1899 and 1900. He was then the Big Boy of the School, Gold Medallist, prize debater, and so forth. I am glad to see him once more as the Big Boy of this school of statesmen. We must all appreciate the splendid record the Acting Prime Minister made as Finance Minister during the war. He had big problems to solve, he had big work to carry out, and he was big enough to do that work in a manner satisfactory to the great majority of Canadians.
Leaving out of consideration the many other matters in which Canada is interested at the Peace Conference, if the Prime Minister and his colleagues who are attending that Conference can assist in having the Kaiser brought to justice for his many crimes against humanity, their
time will not be wasted. The Kaiser should not be allowed to escape. History will no doubt record that he was responsible for this terrible war. He was responsible for the violation of Belgium, the poison gas, the mustard gas, the liquid fire, and all other fiendish devices of hell; the crucifixion of Canadian soldiers, the air raids and the unnecessary deaths of so many defenceless women and children, and the wanton destruction of property, the sinking of the Lusitania, the murder of Nurse Cavell and Captain Fryatt, the ruthless submarine warfare, with the murderous shelling of lifeboats; and everything that is low, mean, contemptible, barbarous, inhuman and cowardly in modern warfare. The Kaiser should be brought to justice, he should have a fair trial-no doubt he will get a fair trial-and if it is shown conclusively that he personally was in any way responsible for any of the terrible crimes mentioned, he should be punished as he deserves. There are other fiends and archcriminals among his advisers who should also be prosecuted.
I am not one, Mr. Speaker, who thinks that the ministers of the Crown should spend all their time in Ottawa. As a matter of fact I believe that their departmental duties should be lessened to such an extent that they will be able to pay frequent visits to other parts of this great Dominion. The people of British Columbia appreciated the visit of the Cabinet Ministers last fall. It put the ministers in touch with conditions in British Columbia, and let the people see and hear them, and I can say, Mr. Speaker, that they made a good impression upon the people of that province. We had the Secretary of State (Mr. Burrell), the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell), the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder), the Minister of Militia and Defence (Maj. Gen. Mewburn), the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen), the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. J. D. Reid), and the Acting Prime Minister (Sir Thomas White). The latter paid his visit during the Victory Loan campaign. Possibly the most important from the standpoint of my constituency was the visit of the Minister of Public Works. Previous to his visit to my constituency that hon. gentleman did not have a very clear idea of the conditions there, such as a man must get by actually being on the scene.
The first time I met the Minister of Public Works was in Ottawa during the early part of the last session of Parliament, f went to see him about some further improve-

ments in the channel of the Fraser river. He said to me: " Now, look here, McQuar-rie, there is no use in your talking to me about trying to make a ship channel on the Fraser river. You cannot do it; it is impossible; there are too many things to contend with, and I do not propose to spend very much money on it." I said to him: " Mr. Carvell, have you been on the Fraser river?" He said: " Yes, I have been at New Westminster and I have seen the Fraser river, but I must say that I have not actually taken a trip down the Fraser river from New Westminster to the gulf." I said: " Will you promise me that when you visit British Columbia you will come to New Westminster and spend some time on the Fraser river?" He said that he would, and I said that I was satisfied. I remarked further: " Mr. Carvell, after you have seen what kind of river we have out there and what the conditions are, if you repeat your assertion that you do not care to spend any money on trying to improve that ship channel, I shad have nothing further to say; but I have too much respect for your judgment to think that you will take that stand."
Now, we were fortunate in having the Minister of Public Works spend a considerable time on the Fraser river. He is a man who wants to see for himself. You may lay engineers' reports and ad that kind of thing before him, but he wants to see for himself what you have and to find out whether the goods are there or not. That is the kind of man we like; that is the kind of man we want to have visit us. Although his time was rather limited, the minister spent two days and a half on the Fraser river. We have quite a big river there; those of you who have not been out there do not understand what a great river it is. The Fraser is one of the greatest rivers in Canada; it is one of the greatest rivers in the world. It has two branches, one running to the west, which is called the North Ann, and the other to the south, which is called the main channel, the latter being the larger.
The minister spent a half day on the North Arm, and was able to see the conditions there. If we are going to have any considerable industrial advancement in British Columbia, it must be on the Fraser river. The peninsula on which Vancouver, New Westminster and the intervening municipalities are situated is practically identical with Ifew York City so far as its geographical situation is concerned. There the great industries are on an island, which is similar to what we have, and there is the

flat land along the river, which is the proper land for industrial sites.
The minister spent a whole day on the main channel. We took him up to one of the largest and most up-to-date saw mills in the world, that of the Western Canada Lumber 'Company. We took him down the river and showed him sawmill after sawmill, industry after industry, and we showed him the dredges at work at the mouth of the river. The river at New Westminster is something like three-quarters of a mile wide; the distance from New Westminster to the gulf is something like eighteen miles. There is deep water, forty or fifty feet, right at the docks at New Westminster. There is deep water all the way down, a good channel until you get to the sand bars at the mouth of the river.
The minister spent another day going through the upper reaches of the Fraser river. We were able also to give the minister certain information. We were able to tell him that on the Fraser river there were still remaining something like eight billion feet of timber belonging to the Provincial Government and something more than eight billion feet of merchantable timber belonging to the Dominion Government, and that if the present stumpage rate was continued the Dominion Government would receive from that timber in stumpage no less than $4,000,000. We were able to tell him that we had saw mills on the Fraser river, at and near New Westminster, with a capacity of 500,000,000 feet. We were able to tell him that we had shingle mills on the Fraser river close to New Westminster turning out 300,000,000 shingles a year. We were able to show him that something like 8,000 men were employed in these industries, and that indirectly the. whole population of that district was affected. We were able to tell him that there was an investment in mills and timber of something like $100,000,000, and we were able to show him that we did business with the whole world. We ship lumber all over the world, Mr. Speaker.
Our ships are already plying between Canada and many foreign countries, but unfortunately because of the lack of sufficient depth in the channel at the present time, we are unable to accommodate the larger class of ships which wish to do business with us. We have at present a depth of some twenty-four feet, but we want to get a depth of thirty feet. We explained all these matters to the Minister of Public Works and at a little meeting that we had afterwards with him, he stated that he had been mistaken about the Fraser river. He was a big enough man to admit that

the information which he had had was not altogether correct; that he had had an idea that the Fraser river was a very turbulent stream; that it was very difficult of navigation; that there were all kinds of difficulties to be contended with, and that from an engineering standpoint, successful navigation of the Fraser river was impossible of accomplishment. He told us also that he had had an idea that we were trying to build up a port in New Westminster to compete with the port of Vancouver which was a port of sufficient capacity to look after all the shipping that we might ever expect to have on that part of the Pacific. There is a splendid harbour at Vancouver. Everything that the Minister of Public Works said about it is quite true. At the meeting to which I refer, he said: " Gentlemen, I find that you do not wish to build up a port to compete with Vancouver. What you wish is to have a channel out to the sea which will enable you to send out to "the world the products -which you manufacture. You are entitled to that, and I -am going to do everything I can to assist you to get it."
The problem is, to a layman, not a very difficult one, but I must say that, unfortunately, there has in the past been a great deal of bungling and a great deal of money thrown away in connection with the work on the Fraser river. We do not like that. It does not do us any good. It does not bring the results that we want. We want a channel and at present we have not a channel. The reason is that the whole proposition has not been undertaken intelligently. To my mind, the present Minister of Public Works is the first one who has viewed the situation in an intelligent manner. We have been fighting for years to get an engineer on that work who will do nothing but look after the dredging of that channel, who will have entire charge and authority to see that the work is done properly. Formerly, it had been done under the control of the department and there had been some supervision, but no properly qualified man was on deck all the time to see that the work was carried out in an intelligent manner. We put this situation up to the Minister of Public Works and an engineer was put in charge of the work. My information is that during the last year more and better work has been done than in any previous five years. We found that the department had been endeavouring to keep dredged a circuitous channel, one that was full of turns and curves, so that when you dug it out in one place it would fill up in another and you could
never, in the world, expect to have a proper channel. We explained to the Minister of Public Works what we wanted; we said that we wanted to get a straight channel out to the sea, so that the current of the river would wash out the sand and silt which is deposited from above and thus keep itself more or less clear. We showed him our plans. He said:	"That appeals
to me; I am going to try it out." He is trying out this plan and I have no doubt that, under the guidance of the Minister of Public Works, we are going to have a channel down to the sea of sufficient depth to look after our requirements. I think that is what we are entitled to have. If Canada is going to be built up, she must be built up by her commerce and her industries and we, on the Pacific coast, expect to share in the advancement in those respects which is bound to come to Canada.
We had also, as I said, a visit from the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. J. D. Reid). We in New Westminster are interested in railways as well as in other matters. We also had visiting us the managing director, the assistant managing director, and, I think, pretty nearly all the directors of the Canadian Northern Railway. They saw for themselves what the conditions were and they ascertained what our requirements from the Canadian Northern were. The original plans of the Canadian Northern Railway contemplated the construction of the main line through New Westminster to Vancouver. This company, which has at the present time a railroad of about 3,000 miles in length, is in this unfortunate position, that for the last twelve miles of that distance it has to run over the tracks of a foreign railway. Such a thing is a disgrace to Canada. If we are going to construct a railroad 3,000 miles in length, surely we can finish up the last twelve miles of it so as to have our own tracks. The city of New Westminster, in accordance with an arrangement with the Canadian Northern Railway Company, who were then in control of the road, made an expenditure of $500,000 in widening Front street which is close to the river, for the purpose of allowing the Canadian Northern to run through the city. The Canadian Northern purchased lands in New Westminster and contiguous thereto on which they spent something like $2,000,000. Those lands were purchased for the purpose of running the line through New Westminster to Vancouver. I have had the matter up with the minister and also with the managing director and his assistant,

and I believe it is the intention, as soon as the necessary finances are available, to carry out the original plan.
I wish to congratulate the Government and the Minister of Eailways and Canals upon their ^election of the men to take charge of the Canadian National railways. In the West, both Mr. Hanna and Mr. MacLeod are very well thought of. We think they are very big men and quite capable of taking charge of a big proposition like this. They have the respect of the community, and I think they will get results. The men who took over the control of the Canadian Northern railway for the Government had a very big problem on their hands, because the Canadian Northern had a bad reputation,-a very bad reputation in British Columbia. There we have close to us the famous townsite of Port Mann, and I can say without fear of contradiction that Port Mann was one of the biggest steals ever perpetrated in the history of Canada. It is a disgrace to Canada that any one, to use a Western phrase, should be allowed to pull off a thing like that and get away with it. Port Mann did more than anything else to give the Canadian Northern a bad name. The road had also a bad reputation with the banks. I know as a matter of fact, that the banks refused to do business with any one who was looking to the Canadian Northern for payment. I am reminded of a conversation I had on my way to Ottawa last session with two business men of British Columbia, one a banker, and the other a millman. They said: " Now that the Government has taken over the Canadian Northern, it is a strange thing that they do not do something to put it on a proper financial basis. Do you know that one of the largest banks in Canada has refused to advance money to any one on the strength of a contract with the Canadian Northern?" They gave me particulars, and the first man I met in Ottawa happened to be Mr. Hanna. I said to him: " This is a nice kind of railroad you are trying to run. It appears to be discredited with the banking institutions of this country." And I told him of the conversation I had had on the train. He asked if he was at liberty to use that information, and I said, " Yes, I will give you the names of the gentlemen and all details." He said, "All right. There is going to be some fur flying in a very few minutes," and he set off down the street. I am glad to say that under the present management the financial reputation of the Canadian Northern has been very much enhanced. There is a great future for this 
road. I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
Thursday, March 13, 1919.
[Stage Direction]
The House met at Three o'clock.

Newton Wesley Rowell: Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the House, I desire to move that the names of Messrs. Bonnell, Brien, Fontaine, Lang, McGibbon (Muskoka), and Savard, be added to the Special Committee on Pensions and Pension Regulations and all matters appertaining thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. CASGRAIN:: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to ask when we will again have the printed copies. of the Debates of the House?


William Thomas White: At present the copies being supplied to members are mimeographed because the Government has been unable to have Hansard printed. As soon as the conditions change so that we are in a position to print the Hansards, they will be printed and distributed.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: When do you expect that will be?


William Thomas White: I am unable to say.



RIOTS AT KINMEL CAMP.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Samuel Hughes: Has the Government received any further details of the rising at Kinmel Park in Wales?


William Thomas White: There is no further official report.


Samuel Hughes: The telegraph wires must be down.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.

[Stage Direction]
ADDRESS IN REPLY. [DOT]
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 Wednesday, March 12.
Mr. WILLIAM G. McQUARRIE (New Westminster) (resuming): Mr. Speaker, I

was saying when the House adjourned yesterday, that there was a great future before the Canadian National railways if properly managed. The transcontinental line running through the West, formerly the Canadian Northern railway, is a very important one from our standpoint, and I believe that that railway is going to become a great asset for Canada. With railways the most remunerative part of the business should be the haulage of freight, and in this connection, the railroad having the best grades has a great advantage. I believe I am correct in saying that the Canadian Northern Railway transcontinental line has better grades than any other transcontinental railway in the whole of America. The following comparison with the Canadian Pacific railway exemplifies this situation very clearly: The Canadian Pacific can only haul a train of sixteen cars from Vancouver to Calgary through the mountains, whereas the Canadian Northern can haul, with one engine, fifty cars fully loaded, from Vancouver to Quebec. When the grain of Alberta and Saskatchewan flows westward this will be an important factor in the success of the Canadian Northern. A very considerable portion of the grain from these provinces is bound to go out through the Pacific.
In considering the transportation of grain, or any other product for that matter, where rail and water are both to be utilized, an important feature.to be taken into account is to get the shortest rail haul to satisfactory water transportation. This will be accomplished by using the Fraser river route. We expect some day to see grain elevators on the Fraser river. We have miles and miles of excellent sites for elevators from Port Coquitlam to the gulf and when the Minister of Public Works completes the channel of the Fraser river there will be a sufficient depth of water for great freighters to dock at any of these sites.
We have four important railway lines running into New Westminster now-the Canadian Northern, Canadian Pacific, the Great Northern and the Northern Pacific. The Canadian Pacific has already intimated that it will, when the proper times comes, build elevators at Port Cbquitlam and use the Fraser river route thereby cutting down its rail haul about 25 miles. It has acquired a lot of land at Port Coquitlam and will have lots of room. to handle the cars without congestion. The Canadian Northern also owns a lot of property at, and in the vicinity of, New Westminster. Why not follow the lead of the Canadian Pacific and use the Fraser river route for the vast quantity of grain that is bound to be hauled? Perhaps we might even get in ahead of the Canadian Pacific and establish our elevators first. I would advise the management of this railway to consider the ad-visibility of building elevators on the Fraser river without delay and let others do the following. If the Canadian Northern carries out its original plan of building its line from New' Westminster to Vancouver it will save the $2,000,000 it has invested in New Westminster and vicinity. It will also get the business at North Arm, Lulu Island, Burnaby and South Vancouver. Many additional miles of splendid industrial sites will be opened up and much good will result to the whole country.
I think the new management will make good. When the Government took over the line, the Canadian Northern was trying to do business without equipment and without credit. Contracts of the Canadian Northern were not recognized by the banks as security for advances. Since coming under Government control all that has been changed. One hundred and fifty engines and 16,000 cars have been added to the equipment and financial aid has placed the Canadian Northern in this position:	(1)
No shortage of cars; (2) no shortage of pow'er; (3) trains running on time; (4) the public looking to do business with the Canadian Northern instead of the Canadian Northern running after the public; (5) good credit.
When the minister was out in New Westminster, we pointed out to him, among other things, the necessity of having a British Columbia man on the Canadian Northern directorate and I believe that this will have his favourable consideration. Personally, I think that every province should be represented on the Board of the. Canadian National Railways.
The minister had quite a busy time in British Columbia, and we consider that he is the right man in the right place. I would also like to pay my respects to the deputy minister: he is a good man and doing good work. The other Cabinet Ministers were also very busy during their visit to British Columbia. They discussed many matters with the members of Parliament for the province, met many delegations and addressed a number of public meetings. We were glad to have them with us, and we only hope they will come again soon and that other members of the Cabinet will visit British Columbia. There is one minister, Mr. Speaker, who did not come to British Columbia, although he received a very pressing invitation to do so. I refer
[Stage Direction]
to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and I am very sorry indeed that he did not find it convenient to come to our province. All the signs point to trouble in connection with the British Columbia fisheries. In connection with those fisheries we have had Royal Commissions, we have had International Commissions, we have had investigations of all kinds; but the situation does not appear to have yet been cleared up. Great dissatisfaction exists not only in connection with the Fraser river fisheries, . but also as regards the whole of the fisheries of British Columbia, and I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the fisheries of that province amount to something. The industry is a very important one. Unfortunately on the
Fraser river there has been a falling off
for some time in		the pack	of salmon. I
have here	a few figures, giving the packs		
for several	years on the Fraser river, which,		
with the permission of the			House I shall
read. The	Fraser	river total last year was	
206,003 cases, and years as follows:		compares with former Cases.	
1917. .			
1916. .			
1915. .			
1914. .			
1913..			
1912..			
1911..			
1910..			
1909. .			
1908..			
1907..			
1906..			
1905..			
1904..			
1903..			
1902..			
1901. .			
1900. .			
1899..			
1898..			
1897. .			.. ..860,459
1896..			
It will be seen that the 1918 pack, while not the smallest, is below the normal. These figures, however, do not show the
decline in the sockeye pack, which is the best fish for canning, the total being increased by the fact that there was much more canning of other varieties than there was when the sockeye was plentiful. The varieties packed in the Fraser River District were:
Coses.
Sockeye	16,849
Red Springs	15,192
White and	Pink	Springs.. _. .. 24,853
Chums	86,215
Pinks., ..	,,	..	[DOT][DOT]	,,	18,388
Cohoes	40,111
Blue Backs and Steel Heads.. .. 4,395 
Now it is alarming to see the depletion in such an important industry as the salmon, and I think it would be a good thing for the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to give a matter of that kind very serious consideration.
There is another factor in connection with the fisheries of British Columbia, which to my mind requires and demands the attention of the minister, and that is the fact that the great majority of fishing licenses in British Columbia are issued to Japanese, and the great part of the remaining licenses are issued to other foreigners- Austrians, Greeks, Norwegians, Swedes, and so forth. Now I have here some figures which I will give in that connection. This is a letter which I reoeived from one of the fishery officials and is dated 6th of January, 1919:
It is quite true that so far as gill net fishing is concerned, the Japanese hold the majority of licenses. For instance on the Fraser River, during the season just closed there were 473 whites, 86 Indians, and 1,023'Japanese. In 1917 834 whites, 272 Indians, and 1,521 Japanese. In 1916, 605 whites, 198 Indians, and 1,437 Japanese. In the northern part of the province, where in 1918, 2,216 gill net licenses were issued, 1,211 were of Japanese nationality. In salmon fishing the Japanese are restricted to gill net licenses, and there is not a salmon drag, or purse-seine license issued to any one of this nationality. It is quite true that some of the white licensees employ Japanese to operate their seining licenses, but this is a matter over which the department has absolutely no control. True also, certain Japanese acted as buyers of salrffon on the Fraser River for American firms, and this, of course, we cannot control.
Now, I have nothing to say against the Japanese, but I do not think it is a proper condition when we find that the majority of the licenses are being issued to men from a foreign country. Perhaps this may not appeal to hon. gentlemen as being a serious matter, but I wish to assure them that it is a very important matter, from the standpoint of British Columbia at least. When you consider the fact that in a normal year the pay-roll to the fishermen on the Fraser river only is something like a million dollars and when you see the greater part of that million dollars going to foreigners, you must realize that something should be done to remedy that state of affairs.
Samuel Hughes: Could they not get white men to take their places?


William Garland McQuarrie: That is the unfortunate part of it; the white man cannot compete with the Oriental in fishing, because these two classes of people do not live in the same way. The Japanese can live much more cheaply than the white man. The

Japanese is a good fisherman, and we have plenty of white men who are good fishermen, but they cannot compete with the Japanese. I have watched this situation for something like thirty years. I have seen the Japanese menace to the fisheries increase from year to year until now these people have the monopoly of that natural resource. I remember the time when a good run of fish meant prosperity to that district, but now the money received by the fishermen goes out of the country and helps not to build up Canada, but to build up a foreign country.
The International Commission to which I have referred was formed because of the fact that our neighbours to the south were doing absolutely nothing to protect the fish. We had, hatcheries, we had close seasons, we did everything we could, according to the best judgment of the men in charge of the department concerned, to conserve the salmon; but the Americans did nothing but take the fish. On the other side of the line they had large traps in which thousands of these fish were caught which otherwise would have come up to the spawning grounds in the Fraser river. It is unfortunate that those who had to do with arranging the boundary between Canada and the United States in the early days _ did ' not take these circumstances into consideration. The condition is an unnatural one that should not have been permitted to ' exist. However, we are face to face with it; and now we have this International Commission.
My point in referring to this commission is that, according to reports in the press, it has recommended that the number of licenses on the Fraser river be limited to
1.800.	Up to the present time any one who wanted a license has been able to get one. But if the number of licenses is limited to
1.800,	are we going to allow the Japanese to have the whole of them or shall we so arrange it that they will get only a fair proportion of them? One of my constituents has asked me to see if it would be possible to get the Government to make some kind of regulation cutting down to fifty per cent of the total the proportion of licenses to be issued to the Japanese. It seems to me that that suggestion is along the right line, but under present conditions its adoption is out of the question. The Government and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries will have to consider what is to be done for the future; will have to consider whether foreigners are to be allowed to have all our fishing rights.


Samuel Hughes: Why are foreigners accorded fishing rights in the Fraser river?


William Garland McQuarrie: We call these men foreigners, but as a matter of fact they are not foreigners. According to the law, they are naturalized British subjects. Now, you know what that means; anybody who lives in British Columbia knows what that means. These men are citizens of this country only in name and only for the particular purpose of securing a fishing license. They take the oath of allegiance to His Majesty the King, but remain loyal subjects of their own emperor.
I have referred to investigations. As a matter of fact, an investigation is now being conducted in British Columbia by Mr. Justice Eberts, one of the judges of the Supreme Court of that province, under a Royal Commission. Many charges have been made in connection with the administration of the fisheries in British Columbia-charges of graft, corruption, waste, destruction, and so on. Some of those charges have been made by men who have been rash in their statements and very unfair to the fisheries officials and to the Government. A member of the British Columbia Legislature, a returned soldier with a distinguished record in the war, made what I consider to be rash and uncalled for statements. I refer to Major Richard Burde, D.S.O. He made these charges in the Provincial Legislature and also at a public meeting. I have in my hand an extract from the Vancouver Daily Province of February 7, 1919, which reads as follows:
Big Graft Ring in Fish.
Major Burde Used Strong Language in Legislature Thursday.
Gives Details of Difficulty in Getting an Inquiry at Alberni.
Victoria, Feb. 7.-Calling the Fisheries Department a standing disgrace to Canada, "smelling of fish but of a rotten brand," Major Richard Burde, of Alberni, scathingly indicted '/.e Federal Administration for what he described to the legislature yesterday as its absolute disregard of citizens of this province.
"There never was a bigger graft in Canada than there is in the circle where one must wait to-day for a fishing license," he said. "The very fact that an application for a seine-net license is made in private to the Chief Inspector of Fisheries and the public does not know anything about it must make any one of a penetrative mind smell graft.
"You can sell a fishing license any day in a real estate office for $3,000 or $4,000. Our fisheries in this province are being depleted. The sockeye salmon has gone to the museum and the herring would soon be in the same class, but for an inquiry which we now have instituted in the district of Alberni. Herring packers have recently gone into that territory, and fishing for them are more Japanese than I believe have

any right to be in British Columbia. These men are employed to the exclusion of the whites, although Ashing might well be considered a good employment for returned soldiers. In Alberni we procured thirty affidavits to prove that there had been almost enough herring wasted by the seine-net ringsters to feed Canada for three or four years. The bottom of the harbour is silvery carpeted with dead herring. Yet, when we press for an inquiry, the Dominion member for the district, the chief inspector of Asheries and his satellites met us with chips on their shoulders. Our charges by inference involved the chief inspector, but when we asked Ottawa for an inquiry we were told that it would be made by this official. We replied that we would prefer to have -the Federal department send a man down to investigate the inspector rather than have that official take up our charges. The reply from Mr. Desbarats, Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries, was that our message was impertinent, and that if we persisted in that course we would not get any inquiry at all. But we persisted and public opinion forced a probe. Now we have a situation where a Dominion department reluctantly consents to granting us an investigation it should have -made long ago itself. This department has apparently outlived its usefulness. I am told that the seine-net Ashermen impound about 150 tons of herring in each drive. Sixty per cent of them are smothered and dead by the time the other forty per cent are loaded. The dead Ash drop to the bottom of the harbour, and thus the terrible waste goes on. It seems to me, and in fact I have that admission from the chief inspector of Asheries, that hundreds of Japanese working for these herring concerns have no right to engage in the occupation because they are not naturalized. But somehow or other they produce naturalization papers when called on. People say that the canneries hand out the naturalization certiAcates to the Japanese whenever they wish to employ them. The Japanese going home to the Orient leave their certiAcates behind, and the Japanese contractors apparently sell them to the new-comers or to the canneries."
The speaker went on to say that the Japanese put up tons of immature herring and ship them via Tacoma to Japan, in this way robbing British Columbia of one of its most valuable assets. The question was one which the province should take up with* Ottawa and fight the matter through with the Dominion, he considered. The administration of the fisheries of British Co-, lumbia would well be in the hands of the province itself. It might be urged, of course, that to seek to bar the Japanese would be to raise an issue with an ally, but it seemed to Major Burde that if the Empire owed a debt to Japan then the Empire should pay rather than ask British Columbia to meet the whole price of the alliance.
Major Burde was not content with making a statement in the legislature involving the chief inspector and other officials in the Department of Fisheries. At a-meeting held in Alberni he made further charges, involving also the Federal member for that constituency. I have here the Vancouver Daily

Sun of February 22, 1919, from which I purpose reading this extract:-
Major Burde Alleges that West Coast Fisheries are Controlled by Graft -Ring.
Port Alberni, Feb. 21.
Major Dick Burde, M.L.A., made a Aghting speech here to-night, at a meeting of Ashermen and citizens attacking the cannery men, H. S. Clements, M.P., Chief Inspector Cunningham, of the Fisheries Department and Al. Hager of the New England Fish Company, Vancouver. The provincial member was wildly applauded by the crowd when he repeated the charge that the West Coast Fisheries were controlled by a Graft Ring and urged the Ashermen to stay with their Aght. He contended that the scope of the inquiry should be extended, and that Mr. Cunningham should be put on the stand. If this was done, some sensational evidence would come [DOT]out, he said. "There was a graft ring in Ash bigger than the Yukon whiskey ring," he asserted. "I believe it because I can smell it."
With regard to Mr. Hager, Major Burde said he had heard that Hager told certain men at the Hotel Vancouver that "Burde is a liar; if we get him on the stand we will make dog meat out of him."
In answer, the major said "if Hager said he will make dog meat out of me, I'll make dirty, rotten Ash meat out of him."
Referring to the Fisheries Department, Major Burde said it was the Department's business to start the investigation, not that of the Ashermen. He said this was to the disgrace of Clements and the Department. "We are up against a bunch of brigands," he said. 'We must not start anything we can't Anish."
I will now take up the investigation. The investigation was held and Mr. Cunningham, chief inspector of fisheries, went on the stand and was examined and cross-examined at length, denying each and every one of these charges of graft 'and incompetency that had been made. At that investigation not one thing was proved in the way of graft or dishonesty or anything of that kind against the member for Alberni, the chief inspector of fisheries, or any of the officials of the department, and, strange to relate, Major Burde, although requested to give evidence himself, did not see fit to do so. It seems to me that when a man, whether he is a returned soldier or not- and I give Major Burde all credit for his service at the front-make such charges in the legislature, he should know that his charges are going to be substantiated, and that when an investigation is held, when the country is put to the expense of thousands of dollars to hold an. inquiry of this kind, the man who makes the charges should, if he is not able to come and give evidence himself to prove his charges, produce the men upon whose statements he relief when making his charges. This kind of thing is bad for everybody concerned in it. It is bad for Major Burde; it is bad for the

fisheries officials; it is bad for Mr. Clements. It does harm because people see the first reports of those charges and think there is something in them, and they do not see the last reports, which show that the charges have been absolutely exploded. The situation in connection with the fisheries of British Columbia is, to say the least, very unsatisfactory. The control and management of the fisheries is vested absolutely in one man-the Chief Inspector of Fisheries. It is absolutely a one man affair, and if that appeals to the minister as proper, I can tell him that it certainly does not so appeal to me or to a great many others. No matter how honest and capable this one man may be who has the control of licenses and all details in connection with the fisheries of British Columbia, dissatisfaction is bound to exist. The Chief Inspector is managing director, as it were, of the fisheries, with full power. It is only natural that a man who is refused a license should be dissatisfied and think there is something wrong with the man who refused him the license. This gives rise to suspicion and rumours, and rumours nearly always result, as they have done in this case, in charges and insinuations. It will not do. No one man is big enough to have full control of the fisheries of British Columbia, and I am glad to know that the acting minister is considering the appointment of a Fisheries rsoard for British Columbia, composed of no less than three men with a thorough knowdedge of the fisheries and whose awards will be accepted by the people of the province.
I have another complaint to make in connection with the fisheries of British Columbia, and it is with regard to the removal of the office of the ohief Inspector of Fisheries from New Westminster, wnere it had been for fifty years, to Vancouver. I do not care to discuss this matter in the absence of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne), as I may have an opportunity on some other occasion to go into the matter fully. There is a question of principle involved which I shall then discuss. After what I have said I think the House will agree tnat I was quite correct in saying that all signs pointed to trouble in connection with the administration of the fisheries of British Columbia. I regret very much indeed that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries did not see fit to go to British Columbia in connection with the fisheries. I trust that he will be back in his seat before long and will bring down legislation to remedy some of the evils I have mentioned.
Mr. Speaker, many splendid speeches have been made in this debate on various matters by men much more competent than I am to discuss them, but as I have come almost three thousand miles I hope the House will bear with me while I express a few Western ideas in a Western way. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell) has told us that we have to raise millions and millions of dollars and that there will have to be an increase in the income tax; there was nothing else for it, he said. I would suggest to him and to the Government that before increasing the tax an effort should be made to collect the taxation imposed by the present Act. I have here a clipping from the Vancouver World dated February 14 last, -which says that according to an official statement from Ottawa:
The returns to date from the Income Tax Act of 1917, which applies only to incomes in excess of $3,000 in the case of married persons and $2,000 in the case of unmarried persons, show that about 30,00*0 assessments have been made, of which 19,000 are paid.
The first question I would ask is, why have the other 11,000 assessments not been paid? Secondly, why have only 30,000 assessments been made when there should have been at least twice that number? I will tell you the reason, Mr. Speaker. It is because a great many persons liable under the Act have not filled out the returns which they received from the tax collector, but have simply torn them up and thrown them in the waste paper basket, saying: "We shall simply be making trouble for ourselves if we fill these in." I have been told that it is a regular joke in the clubs the way men are tearing up these forms. The statement has also been made to me by men of financial standing that a great many of the returns that have been sent in are not altogether correct. If my information is correct, certainly something should be done to remedy this state of affairs. Everyone liable under the Act should be made to pay, and a return that is at all events reasonably correct should be insisted upon. I think that if that were done it would perhaps be unnecessary to increase the income tax. We should get the money that we require, in an equitable manner, and not, as we have received it heretofore, from some and not from others who were entitled to pay. I am not attaching blame to the men who have charge, in the different provinces, of the collection of the income tax. I know that in our province we have a good man. He has done his work well, but he has not a proper staff. He has not the proper clerical assistance which he

should have to enable him to perform his work in the way in which it should be done. I think that the collectors in the different provinces should be afforded the necessary assistance to carry out their work more satisfactorily.
In regard to the Business Profits Tax, there seems to be a general impression that the Government intends to discontinue this tax. I do not know whether that is correct or not. In this connection I may read an editorial-a short one-which appeared in the Vancouver World of February 19, of this year:
A Tax That Should Continue.
The Business Profits War Tax, it is said, will not be renewed for 1919. If this be true Parliament ought to have a word to say about it.
The Federal Cost of Living Commissioner, in his report for last month on stocks of products in cold storage, points out that profiteering is still going on and strongly recommends that the order limiting profits should be restored and "rigidly enforced." He advocates special measures for the "protection of all Canadians for the period of reconstruction."
One such protective measure is the Business Profits War Tax. It tends to reduce profiteering and at the same time goes some distance towards allaying the labour unrest throughout the Dominion. Besides this, Canada has a huge bill of the war costs to meet and those who have made money out of the war or out of the conditions that will follow the war are the logical persons to bear the heaviest share of this debt.
Public opinion should make itself felt at Ottawa. The profiteers should not be allowed to have it all their own way.
With the sentiments expressed in that article, if the facts are correct, I entirely concur. It seems to me that this is a tax which might very well be continued; it is a tax which has produced a good deal of money. The returns under the Business Profits Tax appears to be very satisfactory, certainly a large amount of money has been collected in that way. According to information which I gather from the press, the assessments under this tax have aggregated $65,000,000, of which $59,000,000 have been collected. The balance will probably be received within the next two months.
I come now to the question of highways.
I am pleased to note that the Government intends at last to do something towards assisting in the construction of highways; but I am afraid I cannot altogether agree with the manner in which this assistance is proposed to be given, as outlined in the resolution standing in the name of the hon. ' Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. J. D. Reid); and I hope that before it is finally disposed of, the resolution will be con-

siderably amended. I think we need, not so much the expenditure of money as the obtaining of results. We need to have assistance from the Dominion Government in the building of highways which will be of some use to the people of Canada. Now, we have in British Columbia a highway which we consider is important enough to receive assistance. I am referring to what is known as the Pacific Highway, which runs from Vancouver to San Diego, California, on the border of Mexico, a distance of some 2,000 miles. It is an international highway passing through the States of California, Oregon and Washington. In those states the counties all along that road are at present hard-surfacing it. Every county is doing its share, and the state is assisting; so that that highway of 2,000 4 p.m. miles down the Pacific coast will have a hard surface practically all the way. In British Columbia there is about thirty miles, to connect up with that splendid international highway. Thirty miles is all we have to do to complete our portion of the work; twelve miles has already been done. The road from New Westminster to Vancouver is a splendid one, a beautiful pavement,-one of the best in Canada, and one of which we are justly proud. Only eighteen miles remain to be done. I think-and I am supported in this opinion by the people of British Columbia, the Good Roads Associations, and all other organizations interested in roads-that that is a road which should receive assistance from the Dominion Government. Now, we have heard from various hon. members on both sides of the House of the necessity for effecting national unity, encouraging the national spirit, and with those sentiments I am in entire agreement.
I think we in Canada are too provincial; we know our own provinces and no others. We do not know what the rest of Canada consists of. Take British Columbia, for instance. Do we, in British Columbia, know anything about the province of Quebec, except what we read in newspapers, and observe casually on trains passing through that province? What do we in British Columbia know of the great provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, which are right at our doors, Manitoba, Ontario, and the Maritime Provinces? We know practically nothing.
The hon. member for Westminster District (Mr. Stacey) the other day, advanced in splendid words, a beautiful plan for promoting the spirit of national unity. I have another plan to suggest and it seems to me-

stages rather than to look after it later on. Epidemics are started because cases are not attended to as they should be at the first. There should be free medical attendance for those who wish to take advantage of it. At the present time all the machinery for carrying out a system of free medical attendance is in existence. You know, Mr. Speaker, that the Government has medical officers and has hospitals to look after the returned soldiers who require medical attendance. These men are supplied with medical attendance, drugs, medicines and so on.
In due time, and I hope in the not far distant future, the soldiers will be discharged from the hospitals, and there will be no further work for those institutions or for the medical men who are looking after them. Why not continue those hospitals and those medical men in the service of the country, and give free medical attendance to the people who want to take advantage of it? I hope that the new Department of Public Health will consider that question, because I believe, and am convinced, that it is very important.
Now as to the high cost of living. I got a letter from my wife yesterday, and she said: " I hope you people down there in Ottawa will try and do something to bring down the cost of living. That is about the most important business that you can think about." That is the way all the women in this country feel at the present time. I do not see anything about this subject in the speech from the Throne, but I think some action is contemplated in the programme of the Government. Mr. Speaker, we must consider the women more than ever now under present conditions

Seme hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Garland McQuarrie: -and if they demand that the cost of living be brought down we shall have to comply with that demand. How it is going to be done I do not know, that is something that will have to be worked out.
As to the Civil Service Commission, I have listened with a good deal of interest to the criticism of that body, and I hope that patronage as in the old days will never be restored in Canada. Personally I do not wish to have anything to say about any of the appointments which are to be made in connection with the Civil Service. At the same time, however, I think that the Civil Service Commission can stand some remodelling, it is not working out very satisfactorily. I am not saying that with any desire to criticise any member of the Civil
I Mr. McQuarrie.j
Service Board, I think they are trying to do their best, but the existing system needs improvement. It is all new, and the needed reforms will have to be worked out. My experience with the 'Civil 'Service Commission has been something like this: I have not heard anything from the commission since I have been a member, neither have I communicated with it, but a rather remarkable thing has happened in that connection, and that is what I want to call attention to. As a matter of fact a great many of the applicants for Civil Service positions from my constituency gave my name as one of their references. I do not know whether it was right or not for them to do so, but at any rate they did so, although not at my request. Now, the peculiar part of the proceeding is that never on one occasion have I had any reference to me from the Civil Service Commission as to any of these applications, and no appointment, so far as I know, has been made by the commission of any one from my constituency. We have good men in my constituency, just as other hon. gentlemen have in their constituencies, but they do not seem to have been recognized by the commission. Whether it is that their applications were refused and thrown out immediately the commission saw that a member of Parliament's name was given as one of the references, or not, I cannot say, but the fact remains that no reference was ever made by the commission to me. Neither am I aware whether any reference was made to any of the other gentlemen who were on the applications or not. I think it is a strange thing that before making appointments the Civil Service Commission should not communicate with all the references given on the applications. I think the Civil Service Commission will be all right if it is given time, but I do hope that patronage will not be returned to the members of Parliament.
With regard to immigration, we have to consider it as a problem-one of -the greatest problems of demobilization. The hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton (Sir Sam Hughes) speaking on this subject, as reported on page 220 of Hansard said: " The first thing is to get population." Again, as reported on page 221 he said: First of all get population, get people with money." I can hardly agree with the hon. gentleman that money should be the only qualification. I would say, get population, but get the right kind.
Sir SAM 'HUGHES:	Hear, hear.


William Garland McQuarrie: The hon. member
for Victoria and Haliburton says, " Hear,

hear," so that I know that I am voicing his sentiments in making this declaration.


Samuel Hughes: Hear, hear.


William Garland McQuarrie: To my mind there
are certain classes of population that we do not want in this country. The first class is one which includes people who cannot readily be assimilated. Among this class are, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Hindus, and other Eastern races. So far as the Chinese are concerned, we get them in British Columbia. The unfortunate thing is that when you speak of the number of Chinese in Canada you practically have reference to the number of Chinese in British Columbia. I only wish the Chinese would come down here in large numbers, and that you would employ them as you think they would be useful to you. I know how you feel about it here in Ontario. You have no sympathy with us, when we speak against Oriental immigration. You say:	" These Chinese will be very useful
to us, we want cheap labour." I want to tell hon. gentlemen that when you get the Chinese you do not get cheap labour. The Chinaman, like everybody else, has become educated, and he is not going to work for any cheap wages. Although there is an overabundance of Chinese in British Columbia at the present time, yet they demand big wages. What would you people in Ontario think of paying $60 to $70 a month to an ordinary farm labourer, when down here you probably pay about $25, or $30?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.


William Garland McQuarrie: I venture to say you pay consideraljly less than $60 to $75 a month for good farm labour. In British Columbia you cannot get a Chinaman who is any good to w'ork on a farm for less than that wage. You cannot get a Chinaman, who is any good, to work in a house or residence, for less than $50 a month and board. If you want to get a good one, you must pay $75, $100 or $125 a month. Talk about cheap labour; you do not get it with the Chinese. I am safe in saying that there are too many Chinese in British Columbia, because I have no less an authority for it than the Chinese Consul at Vancouver. Conditions are so bad that he has found it necessary to go to the Vancouver City council and make representations in the matter. In speaking of these Orientals, the Chinese, Japanese and Hindus, I am referring, of course, to the coolie classes. The Chinese Consul has asked the Vancouver City council to make
representations to the Dominion Government with a view to restricting Chinese immigration. I have here a copy of the written statement made by Koliang Yih, the Chinese Consul, in the Vancouver City Council chamber on February 7, 1919. It is as follows:
Although there is only one Chinese to every 3,000 Canadians in this country, yet labour conditions here, aggravated by the large number of returned soldiers, whom we all honour, make it advisable that no more Chinese labourers be allowed to come at present, unless they are returning Chinese or bona fide exempted class, pending a gentleman's agreement between the governments concerned to abolish the head tax and to limit the number of immigrants.
I understand that some 2,000 alleged students, paying $500 head tax each, have come to Canada during the past few months without expecting the war would end so suddenly, and that head tax has been received here and elsewhere on more than 1,200 alleged students who have not yet left China. I think you should petition your Federal Government and suggest that these head taxes be returned to those paying same and those who arrived at Canada three months before the armistice was signed, if they desire to return. I will do my part in requesting my government to allow no Chinese labourers to come here without applying for government's passport, properly vised by a British Consul.
Many Chinese already in this country are finding difficulties in making a living at present, and the stand I am taking now is for the pro-tecton of their immediate interests as well as those of the Canadians.
Between the period of 1906 and 1917, no less than 30,000 Chinese have paid their head tax to the amount of more than $15,000,000 to your Federal Government. Many Chinese, finding that the conditions, both economic and social, were unbearable to them, have since returned to China, and this statement can be proved by the fact that according to the last census taken, there were less than 30,000 Chinese throughout the whole Dominion. Those unfortunate fellows who paid in the tax and went away elsewhere have certainly found themselves between the devil and the deep sea, without being driven to the latter by others.
The Chinese who are planning to come to Canada know little or nothing about the true situation caused by the sudden end of the war, and it is only right for your Government to refund the tax when it knew itself that 50 per cent of the so-called students applying for admission are unable to go to school at all. Your Government should be more rigid in examining these alleged students and more lenient in dealing with other exempted classes. But once the Chinese are admitted they should be entitled to every right and protection as any citizen or subject from other countries enjoying the most favoured agreement. I have heard so much of the Britisher's traditional sense of justice and I hope it will show itself in this case.
After all, this big question should be amicably settled by the government concerned while we are here simply to express our own points of view. I therefore suggest that the question brought up by the representatives from Fairview and Grandview be not considered by this council, and that the less talk about the Oriental immigration to mislead the public the better.



I have under my hand an extract from the Vancouver World of February 26, 1919, touching this question. It is as follows:
Chinese Pour into Vancouver.
Arrive at Average Rate of Three Hundred a Month, According to Official Return from Ottawa.
Number of Japanese Exceeds Annual Quota. Agreement to Limit Immigration to 400 a Tear Apparently Not Observed.
According to an official return obtained from Ottawa more than 400 Japanese who were to enter the country under the "gentleman's agreement," have actually passed through the ports of the Dominion inward bound during the last few years. The average for the last halfdozen years, in fact, has been nearly double the prescribed number.
There was a tremendous influx of Chinese in the year 1913-14, over fifty-five hundred coming in. The first year of the war saw this number reduced to about twenty-five per cent and during the next three years the whole number of Chinese immigrants just equalled that for 191415. During the first nine months of the official year 1918-19, however, the figures lumped to 2,670, or more for three-quarters of the year than for the whole of the four previous years put together. Should the influx be maintained at the same rate to the end of the period, the present official year will see the Chinese population increased by about 3,500 new-comers.
The figures referred to in the official return are as follows:
Year.	Chinese. Japanese.
1913-	14	
5,512	8561914-	15	
1,258	5921915-	16	
88	4011916-	17	
393	6481917-	18	
769	8831918-	19	
2,670	879
The last figures are for nine months. The question of Oriental immigration must be considered from thq standpoint of the returned soldier, and I believe the returned soldiers' organizations are rather exercised over present conditions. This is an extract from the Vancouver World of February 27, 1919, which reflects the feeling fairly well:
In considering the problems dealing with the repatriation of returned men, some attention must he given to the Asiatic question, Captain P. C. Brown, of the Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment Commission told the Kiwanis Club, on Thursday, in making an appeal for co-operation in behalf of the men who are now coming back from the front. During the months of January and February, no less than 3,000 men were brought back to this city and discharged, and of this number 1,700 are still without employment. In seeking the solution of this condition of affairs, he urged that earnest consideration would have to he given the Asiatic problem in this city, declaring that in some parts of Vancouver, one would never realize this city was not an Oriental city, to watch the passers-by and listen to the language being spoken. South of Granville Street bridge.

he mentioned that no less than seven Orientals were in business for themselves, and said that he had been informed by white merchants In competition with those Orientals that if they did not have to meet that competition they could employ more returned men. It was all very well to talk about those Orientals being Allies, he said, but it has also to he remembered that they did not go away and fight for the country.
He said there seemed to exist in the minds of some business men fear that the returned men would have to be discharged again if given employment, and in this connection put forward a plea for more consideration to he shown the returned man, pointing out that the man who had been through the thickest of the fighting at the front was usually the most difficult to get back to civil life again. He urged business men not to forget the service such a man had rendered his country and to keep up the spirit of gratitude.
I have stated that the Japanese have already obtained practically a monopoly of the fishing industry. They are now going out after other industries. They are commencing to take up small farming, and there is a feeling that if this movement goes on, they will, in a very short time, monopolize small farming in British Columbia. I have not one word to say against the Japanese. The Japanese are a fine people; their men are industrious, hardworking and sober. But still they come within the class to which I have referred, namely, those who cannot readily be assimilated. In this class, we have also the Hindu. I need not say anything more about the Hindu except that so far as I can see the Hindus who are being sent to this country are some of the very worst who could possibly be got together. In any event, they are not suitable for the country; they may like the country, but the country does not like them. With all this class, the same thing prevails, namely, they cannot readily be assimilated and they will always exist as an Oriental settlement in our midst. They send a great deal of their money back to their respective countries; they do not spend it in this country. They do not help to build up this country. They take away from, rather than give, to Canada something that is worth while. There is another class which 1 think should be kept out. That is a class of people who might be readily assimilated, but who are of such moral fibre that we do not want them just at present. I refer, of course, to our enemy aliens. We do not want any Germans, Austrians, Turks, in this country until they are so changed in their ideals that they will be able to look at things as we do, until they reach such a stage of mental development that they will make decent and respectable citizens of this

country, that is, if such a thing ever comes to pass. I notice that practically all the other Allied countries are deporting enemy aliens as fast as they can. China has despatched several boatloads of them. They are being deported from Belgium, France, England. Canada seems to be rather slow in getting rid of'her share. I agree with the previous speakers who have said that we should send the alien enemies out of Canada as soon as possible. If it is necessary and advisable to do that, surely we do not want to bring into Canada other people of the same class.
The third class of people that we should keep out of Canada is the Bolsheviks. We do not want them in this country. After hearing the splendid exposition made by the president of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) of the doctrines of the cult of Bolshevism, I think we will all agree that we do not want any Bolsheviks in this country.
There is a fourth class that we must keep out of Canada, and which is pretty nearly as bad. I refer to the I. W. W's., and included in that class are the labour agitators. I can speak from information which has been given to me as to conditions in British Columbia. During the last year, hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of damage has been done by the I. W. W's. in British Columbia.
Their doctrine is to destroy everything that is of value. They destroy timber by starting fires in the forests, reservoirs by blowing up the dams, machinery by letting the water out of boilers, and all that kind of thing. They destroy anything and everything, and during last year they have certainly destroyed a whole lot in British Columbia. I do not know what destruction they have been guilty of in other parts of Canada, but certainly we do not want these men in this country, no matter how much money they have. I class with the I. W. W. the professional agitator. He is the cause of all the trouble in labour circles at the present time. If you go back far enough you will find that every strike in Canada during the last few years was caused by two or three or half-a-dozen agitators. We should not let men of this sort come into the country, and we should drive out those already here. I agree with the hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) that we need population in this country, but we want population of the right kind, and our immigration officials should be very careful as to the class of immigrant they admit. It is better to get along with our present population rather
than have it increased by any of the classes to w7honi I have referred.
I wish to say a word on behalf of the returned soldier. I am afraid there is a tendency already in this country to forget what the returned soldier has done for us.
I have heard it said that he is asking for too much, that he is unreasonable. I do not believe it. I do not believe that the men who had the interests of this country and of the civilized world sufficiently at heart to go over there and offer up their lives, if necessary, would make unreasonable demands on the people and resources of this country on their return home. All the returned soldier wants is a square deal, and he is certainly entitled to that. We should not forget his wonderful record in this war, and the great changes that have been brought about during the last four years by his fighting for us. Great mon-archs, like the German Emperor and the Czar of Russia, have lost their thrones and their governments are being reorganized. Other crowned heads have fallen, and the map of Europe, of Asia, Africa and other places is being made anew. Nowadays we talk of millions and billions without winking an eyelash and I think it is about time we changed our ideas of what should be done for the returned soldier. Never in the history of any country has the returned soldier got a square deal or been treated as he deserves. I am glad to see that the Government will bring down legislation on behalf of the returned soldier, in the way of increased pensions, for instance. I hope this Parliament will do a whole lot for the returned soldier. We certainly cannot do too much for him.
Mr. Speaker, you have borne with me very patiently. I trust that my remarks will bear fruit and that this Parliament will evolve means to solve the serious problems that now confront us.


Mr. JOSEPH ARCHAMBAULT (Cham-bly and Vercheres) :: Mr. Speaker, one day in the British House of Commons after the Rt. Hon. Walter Long had been speaking for three hours, Mr. Balfour's desk-mate whispered to him, "When is he going to finish?" Mr. Balfour answered, "He has finished long ago, but does not know how to stop." Without wishing to be discourteous to my hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie) I must say that I was reminded of that incident in the British House while he was speaking.
Mr. Speaker, the second session of the thirteenth Parliament of Canada opened

under very remarkable circumstances-circumstances which all those then present will never forget as a blending of joy and grief, of hope and distress. Joy, at the news that the monster of war that had been threatening humanity for four years had finally been vanquished and overthrown. Grief, at the death of the most prominent member of this House. Hope, that the treaty of peace would free humanity forever from sanguinary, contests. Distress, at the thought that the voice of the premier representative of Canadian statesmanship and patriotism would never again be heard in this House.
Mr. Speaker, I should be unworthy of the solicitude and kindness which the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier always showered upon me if my first utterance this afternoon were not a word of respect and admiration for the memory of one who, though dead, yet lives and will always live in the heart of every true 'Canadian. Sir, the achievements of his illustrious career have already been eloquently referred to by the church, the state, and the press. His wisdom, his brilliance, his loftiness as a statesman, his magnanimity, his magnetism and eloquence, indeed, the entire devotion of his life, from his first public utterance in the early sixties, up to a few weeks before his death, to the interests of peace, fraternity, and unity of creeds and races in this country will fill the noblest and brightest pages of Canadian history. But, Sir, he will especially be remembered and cherished on account of his kindness of heart and his generous courtesy even to the most humble. " I am ' glad Sir Wilfrid Laurier did not die while he was Premier of Canada," was the remark I overheard at the funeral of the great statesman. This remark was made by a modest, unknown citizen. "Why?" I venture to ask. "Well, sir," he said, "if Sir Wilfrid Laurier had died while he was Premier this tribute of admiration, and all the expressions of sympathy which have been made in regard to him from every part of Canada, would probably have been attributed to his high position in the state. But look at these enormous crowds lining the streets of the Capital and bearing visible signs of grief, people from every part of the country; they are not lamenting the death of a premier, they are mourning the sudden and final cessation of a heart whose every throb was alive for his country and his people."
The impressive ceremony could not fail to remind me of Tennyson's immortal words:-

The dark crowd moves and there are sobs ana tears,
The black earth yawns, the mortal disappears Ashes to ashes, dust to dust,
He is gone who seemed so great.
Gone, but nothing oan bereave him Of the Force he made his own Being here, and we believe him Something far advanced in State,
And that he wears a truer Crown
Than any wreath that man can weave him.
Speak no more of his renown;
Hay your earthly fancies down,
And in his peaceful rest leave him.
God accept him, Christ receive him.
Mr. (Speaker, I heartily join in the congratulations which have been showered on the mover and the seconder of the Address, in such profusion that it would have made the hon. members blush with confusion had they not been accustomed to more severe bombardments, and although I believe that the honour conferred upon them had the effect of making them rather eulogistic ot the Government, their effort on the whets was very creditable.
I may, however, express regret at the fact that the well established custom of having the seconder's speech delivered in French >
was departed from in this instance. This departure is surely not an indication of progress towards racial unity in Canada. The official excuse given was that the Government, having exhausted last year their French-speaking talent in the person of the hon. junior member for Ottawa (Mr. Chabot) were not in a position to follow the custom. Now, I think that this action on the part of the Government is an emphatic and uncalled for ejectment from the Unionist party of the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Mackie), who speaks French very fluently, and, I may add, eloquently, and who, as the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) has said, could not possibly have mutilated the beautiful language of Moliere and Racine. Be that as it may, I concur entirely in the sentiments expressed by the hon. gentlemen who moved and seconded the Address and other hon. gentlemen who have spoken, in their .plea for a better understanding be-
5 p.m. tween the races and creeds in Canada.
I have carefully preserved all the printed references which have been made to our late departed chief by hon. members of the House and by the press, and have pasted them in a scrap book, already containing articles emanating from the same gentlemen, and the same press during the campaign of 1917. It will be an edifying and instructive page of history for my son to

read when he shall have attained the age of fifteen.
Mr. Speaker, the first part of the speech from the Throne I cannot but concur in, that is the expression of relief at the cessation of hostilities, and the victory of the Allies. The happiness which our brave boys will bring back with them will be marred only by the memory of those who Will never return, and who are now sleeping their last sleep in the blood-stained fields of France and Flanders. This victory is not a victory of one of the Allies, but of all the Allies. Little Belgium held the enemy for a few weeks at a tremendous sacrifice. France, by the indomitable courage of her troops and the genius of her generals, held the foe until relief could be sent. The British Empire, with her watchdogs of the sea and her army always increasing, stopped the invader. Italy, buckled up Austria, and our neighbours to the south, although arriving late, delivered a crushing blow. Mr. Speaker, when the history of this war is written, it will be shown that it was not a victory of any one of the Allies, but that the victory could not have been achieved without the co-operation of each and all of them.	.
But, thank God, this butchery is over, and we read in the speech from the Throne that, prior to the armistice, plans had been made for the return, demobilization and reestablishment in civil life after the close of the war of our soldiers and their dependents overseas. I am not thoroughly acquainted with the work of the department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, but it seems to me that the word " prior " at the beginning of this item is not very accurate in reference to the resignation of the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. McCurdy) and the official cause of his withdrawal. The news of the conditions, and the riots at Kinmel Camp, seems to confirm our belief that the chairman of the Repatriation Committee was perfectly right when, in the first part of his speech, he repeated three times that the armistice took him by surprise. I am informed from a reliable source that the conditions at the camps are intolerable. A returned man of the 42nd, who enlisted in 1914, arrived at the camp on the 27th December last and stayed there a month. Nearly all the men at this camp are invalids and have been wounded. The officers in charge force them to work and assign them to all kinds of hard and dirty jobs. The officers do not take into account the length of service of a man when the question of
return comes up and many men who have been in Europe for a few months are returned before those who had been fighting in France since the beginning of the war. The men are only told a few hours before their departure. The returned man who gave this information started from the camp at 12 p.m. He had to walk five miles to the station. No care was taken of the crippled, the wounded, the sick or the invalided. The officer ordered these men to take their kits on their backs and it took them two hours to reach their destination. Some of the men were totally exhausted. These men, I am informed, had asked for motors, or carriages, for their transportation and they were refused.
I heard from another man who enlisted as a private in 1914, and who arrived a few days ago. He had been over there since the beginning. He was promoted to a lieutenancy on the battlefield and he had been wounded three times and invalided. He was booked to return at the beginning of January last. He prepared himself to come back, but he was notified on the eve of his departure that an officer who had only been in London for three months attending pink teas, was taking his place and the wounded and invalided man had to wait another month.
In a beautiful booklet artistically printed by the minister and distributed by the Repatriation Committee, we are told that since the armistice the men have been classified in order to their better civil re-establishment. Since the armistice? Why, Mr. Speaker, this work had been done for the soldiers of France, England and the United States months prior to the armistice. This situation is a disgrace to this country and shows an incompetency on the part of the department and of the authorities in charge which cannot be too strongly criticised and denounced.
There are many other items in the speech from the Throne which will need our careful consideration. Amongst them is the question of prohibition. I am not prepared to give my view of this legislation before it is brought down in a more concrete form, but I wish to warn the Government of one thing. If it is their intention to have total prohibition, I hope the measure which they will introduce will not be a law of exemption like the Ontario Temperance Act. The remark made the other day in this House by my hon. friend from Dorchester (Mr. Cannon), that in Ontario men are not valued by the amount of wealth they have but by the amount of liquor they possess

is perfectly true. A few months ago I happened to spend a week in Toronto one Sunday and I asked to be shown the beautiful residences of the city. The taxi driver, when I inquired of him who was living in such-and-such a beautiful place, told me: This is Mr. So-and-So; he has $50,000 worth of liquor in his cellar.
Sir, some of my hon. friends were surprised the other day at the -threatening menace of Bolshevism in this country. No wonder, with such measures as the Ontario Temperance Act. Why should the man of wealth, the profiteer, be allowed to gather regular warehouses of liquor and drink as much as he likes, while the working man of modest means, not being able to mobilize his meagre capital, will be sent to jail if he dares attempt to indulge in the very limited consumption of a glass of beer with his meals? Is it fair for the returned man to hear when he comes hack, that while he was fighting overseas, those for whom he was risking his life were " stocking up," and at the same time framing and passing a law to restrict his liberty and deprive him of legitimate enjoyment? There are, Mr. Speaker, sincere and deserving people preaching prohibition, deserving apostles of prohibition, and I entertain a most profound respect for them; but there are also hypocrites, and I want to know where they are. If total prohibition is passed, let us clean the cellars, let us publish a list of all those who have liquor in their houses, or, if my suggestion is better, let us pass a law-


An hon. MEMBER:: An Order in Council.


Joseph Archambault: Or an Order in Council which will force the hypocrites to wear a badge or a button, with a yellow star for every case of liquor they possess; then, I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that some of the most vituperous prohibitionists will look like Indians. Mr. Speaker, prohibition-I mean total prohibition-does not seem to be very popular nowadays. Let me read you a few extracts from this week's issue of the Toronto Saturday Night. I quote:
Out in Alberta the Stewart Government has, in utter desperation, abolished the Commission created to enforce the Prohibition Act, and has "passed the buck" to the Hon. John Boyle, Attorney-General. In turn the Attorney-General also takes a pessimistic view of the situation. For instance, in a speech on the floor of the Legislature the other day, he remarked that out of the 100,000 estimated male adults of the province 60,000 of them were guilty of some infringement of the Liquor Act during 1918. That the violation of the Liquor Act in British Columbia is the chief form of popular amusement in that province Is too well known
fMr. Al'chambauit.]
to require further comment, other than to remark that it is estimated by British Columbians of unquestioned standing that fully eighty-five per cent of the male adults in that neck of the woods have in some form or other broken the prohibition enactments.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Joseph Archambault: Now let us come to a province geographically nearer to us. The paper says:
In centres like Toronto we were promised that when prohibition was in force crime would decrease until there would actually be no use for jails or police. What has been the result? According to the annual report of Chief of Police Grasset, of Toronto, 25,714 persons were apprehended for crime in the year 1917, as compared with 28,206 in 1918, an increase of 2,492 for "dry" 1918. The Chief goes on to state the obvious: "There is no reason to believe that the morals of the people are improving."
Among the members of the Ontario House there are gloomy forebodings. When prohibition is mentioned a chill runs up and down the spines of the members, and more particularly Government members. They are all wondering how the prohibition cat is going to jump. They look back to the half score byelections and their pedal extremities seem colder than the mild winter warrants. In a word, they are in a "blue funk." The other day Colonel H. A. Machin, who sits as Conservative member of Kenora, had his first opportunity since returning from overseas, to express views on the subject. In speaking of the growth of Phariseeism in Ontario, the gallant Colonel referred to the "sin hound" who spent his time trailing people who wanted to live their own lives in their own way, and he reminded his hearers that Canadians had gone "over there" he among them, to fight for democracy and human liberty, and they came back to find their own liberty as British subjects taken away from them. The Colonel made it clear that he did not wish the return of the bar, but he did believe that the present wave of fanatical Puritanism had led the Government into taking unwarranted steps, and in so doing had trampled underfoot the rights of the individual.
I would say furthermore, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to have total prohibition, let us have machinery that will enforce the
law, so that dynamite whiskey-to use some expressions from the West-squirrel gin, or rot gut, sold in blind pigs will not ruin the health of those who are not millionaires or profiteers.
I was astonished, Mr. Speaker, upon reading the speech from the Throne, to find that it contained not one line about the high cost of living. After a few moments' reflection, however, I found out the reason. I discovered again the hidden hand of the masters of this Government, the profiteers, who will not permit any attempt at the deflation of the cost of -the necessities of life. The Labour Gazette of last month shows no relief in the matter of the price

of these necessities-meat, eggs, milk, etc. And, Sir, the profit on these things goes not to the producer or to the farmer, but to the food king.
Perhaps the House will be interested to know the profits of the milling companies for 1917-and I am told that those for 1918 are even higher. The Ogilvie Flour Mills in 1913 made $470,000 in profits, and in 1917, $2,100,000. Their reserve fund in 1913 was $473,000; it is now $2,690,000. Up to 1916 their dividend had been 8 per cent; in 1916 it was 12 per cent, and in 1917, during the war, when everybody was told to be economical, it was 26 per cent, war taxes paid.
The Lake of the Woods 'Milling Company made $385,000 in profits in 1913 and $700,000 in 1917. In 1913 the dividend was 10.7 per cent; in 1916, 14 per cent, and in 1917, 18 per cent. Although the company redeemed $800,000 of bonds from 1913 to 1917, its actual reserve fund is now a million dollars more than it was in 1913.
The Maple Leaf Milling Company made $241,844 in profits in 1914 and $1,763,000 in 1917. After deducting $1,000,000 a year for depreciation, it still had $1,100,000 by way of net profits in 1917.
The Western Canada Flour Mills paid a war tax of $35,000 in 1917, but this did not prevent their profits, which were $445,000 in 1913, from climbing to $840,000 in 1917, to say nothing of an important amount paid up to their sinking fund.
Other milling companies of less importance made a brilliant showing. For instance, one of these which had a deficit oi $62,000 in 19l3 had a surplus of $138,000 in 1917. The result is that we have to pay an exorbitant price for bread, 7i to 8i cents a pound. Mr. Speaker, I could go on giving you figures on the same scale in respect to practically every necessity of life


Mr. NICKLE:: Were the increased profits of the millers the result of an increased turnover or an increase in the profit per barrel on flour?


Joseph Archambault: I am not prepared to answer my hon. friend now, but I will tell him this: When the people are paying more and more for bread and the millers are making more excessive profits every day, something is wrong somewhere. That is common sense.
Our food control is a joke. We have another very artistic booklet. The Government is evidently in the printing business for good, and is flourishing at it, as you have noticed by the report of the commission appointed to inquire into conditions at the Printing
Bureau and the present strike of employees in that institution. What do we find in this booklet? We find that the revenue derived from food licenses "was $531,719 last year, and that it cost the people of Canada $491,000 to collect that amount. Is that good business, Mr. Speaker. Is that good management? No wonder the speech from the Throne did not touch this question. Imagine what the returned hero, who for four years has been risking his life at the front, will say when he finds his wife driven to despair and his children starving on account of the prohibitive prices of foodstuffs.
Another omission from the speech from the Throne was any reference to a matter which recently was of but minor importance, but which last year, through the action of the prime (Minister of Canada, developed into a matter of great importance. I refer to the question of titles. I was surprised that there was no mention of that subject in the speech from the Throne. You will remember, Sir, that last year, when the House was practically unanimous on this question, the Prime Minister came into the House armed with his whip and threatened to resign if the members on your right did not swallow all they had said and vote against their opinions. The Prime Minister gave as his principal reason for his action at that time, if I remember well, the fact that His Majesty's Government had asked that the proposal be stayed until the holding of the Imperial Conference, when the matter would be settled. He intimated that the action of the Conference would be recorded before the next session, and that in the meantime no titles would be granted. The member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) stuck to his guns and to his honour. The member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee), the member for Lethbridge (Mr. Buchanan), and the member for Brandon (Mr. Whidden) gave their support to the Government on the express condition that the matter would be discussed at the Imperial Conference and that in the meantime no titles should be granted. The hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Richardson) wanted to withdraw his motion, and when he could not withdraw it, on account of the objection of the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. E. Lapointe), he declined to support the amendment he himself proposed. The hon. member for West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) did the aeroplane act and flew out of the room. The crack of the lashes of the Prime Minister's whip is still ringing in my ears, and I still see the hon. members crouching before their master. What happened,

what was done	at the	conference?The speech from the Throne should have enlightened	us	on	this subject, but it does not, and I am therefore not in a position to know what was done. But what I know, and what every hon. member knows, is that a few weeks after this slavish incident, contrary to the solemn promise of the Prime Minister, titles were conferred on three persons, one of them being the Minister of Trade and Commerce who must have known what was coming to him when he defended the titles a few days before with a voice trembling with pathos and tears.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: Who were the others?
Mr. ARCHAMiBAULT: If I am correctly informed, one of them was the brother of the Prime Minister and the other was the Clerk of the Senate, formerly, private secretary of the Prime Minister.


Charles Murphy: Then there was a gentleman from London.


Joseph Archambault: A question close. ly connected with the high cost of living is the labour question to which the speech from the Throne makes no reference. Is it possible that the Government is so blind that it does not see the tidal wave of labour unrest and legitimate revindications threatening to invade and flood our political and social institutions? Is it the intention of the Government to wait until these institutions are swamped without hope of rescue, before they wake up to realities and shake off their criminal indolence? Is it not time that the barons of finance, the industrial and railroad kings should not be given the powerful liberty of imposing upon the country their political wishes and of exercising on Canada an arrogant and unjustified dictatorship? In these times of the rejuvenation of the world, the workingman is no longer satisfied to be the material instrument producing wealth for the profiteers, without receiving any share of the comforts of life for himself and his family. Unless the workingman has confidence in his employer and is given for his own protection and welfare, a reasonable control in the management of industries, we are bound to see this peaceful country become the prey of dangerous agitators. In England, the Government has decided to apply the Whiteley system of giving the workingman a share in the management of Government workshops and yards. I hope this Government will see fit to adopt a similar measure and at the same time to provide old age pensions for the workingman.
[Mr. Arehambault.J
Of all the speeches made by hon. members on your right, Mr. Speaker, the one which impressed me most was the eloquent address of the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder). But after it was all over, I tried to relate to a friend of 'mine what the minister had said, and although my memory is fair, all that I could remember when the noise had ceased, and the western tornado had passed, was, first, that hostilities had ceased very suddenly; secondly, that hostilities had ceased much sooner than had been expected; thirdly, that the end of the war came suddenly, and fourthly, that he was still a Liberal; that no person could make him anything else, and that no one could drive him out of the Liberal party. Not relying upon my memory, I waited until the next day and on reading his speech in Hansard, I found that my remembrance was right.
As to the first three points, unpreparedness, unpreparedness and unpreparedness I would respectfully suggest to the Acting Prime Minister that a new department be created and called the Department of " Lack of Foresight " with the Minister of Immigration at the head of it, As to the fourth point, the minister seemed to be the porte-parole and premier exponent of a certain number of hon. members on the other side, the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) included. I wish to ask a few questions of the minister, and I am very glad to see him now in his seat. I do not insist that he should reply immediately to my questions; but I wish he would spend just a few minutes of his valuable time on them, and see if the answers to these questions are quite satisfactory to his political conscience. First of all, what is Liberalism? Is it an association composed of members who are at liberty to belong to it when they wish, who can join when they want to, who can be expelled from it, no matter what their ideals or principles are; or is it a creed, a faith, a group of fundamental principles? Is it not repugnant to reason and to the teachings of political history that no matter what are his principles, his ideals, nay, his	company, a man can always
call himself a Liberal and be an	adept exponent of Liberalism.
I quite agree with the hon. Minister of Immigration (Mr. Calder)-I was almost going to say the Minister of Unpreparedness-that no one has the authority to rule him out of the Liberal party. He has a perfect right to call himself a disciple of Liberalism as long as he wishes, but I submit that his assertion, in order not to

be in conflict with the truth, must be supported by his principles, by his ideals, and by his company. I refer, of course, to his political principles and ideals. Let us see whether his principles and ideals are those of Liberalism. What is Liberalism? I have read somewhere that Liberalism is, in essence, the problem of realizing liberty. It seeks the setting free of the mass of the people in regard to self-government, trade, religion, education, and industry in all the manifold ramifications of society. The opposite to Liberalism is restriction, and means the centralization of government in the governing classes, the setting of the brakes on social progress and liberty. The aim of Liberalism is the common good: the aim of those opposed to Liberalism is the individual good. Gladstone said that the principle of Liberalism is, "Trust in the people, qualified by prudence." The principle of Unionism is mistrust of the people, qualified by fear. Mr. Asquith has said that "Liberalism is a living faith, a spirit, an attitude of mind, a form of political temperament and genius, a temperament, which, whenever it sees a wrong, would redress it absolutely, and wherever it discerns a cause for grievance anywhere^ would pluck that cause out by the roots." In three words I will give you, Mr. Speaker, my own conception of Liberalism: Masses versus Classes.
Now that we know what Liberalism is, let us see if the hon. Minister of Immigration has lived up to Liberalism. As a minister in the Unionist Cabinet, he is responsible constitutionally for all the acts of the _ Government, and constitutionally again, if he wishes to relieve himself of this responsibility his only course is to resign. Not having done so,-and there are no signs that he intends doing so-I logically surmise that all the measures of the Government have his approval.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to put my questions. Is the voting against a measure abolishing titles in Canada included in the Liberal doctrine? Will my hon. (friend pretend that the War-Time Elections Act, breaking faith with thousands of citizens and dragging the honour of Canada and its fair name in the mud, is a Liberal measure? Is it the opinion of the minister that the Military Voters' Act, especially in view of the purpose for which it was used in the last election, is imbued with pure Liberalism? Was not the campaign of racial and religious prejudice carried out by the Government to which the hon. gentleman sticks like a leech anything but Liberalism? Is the consolidation of the financial ring of Toronto, erstwhile denounced by my hon. friend, an action that he could call Liberal? Is the companionship of food profiteers end the benevolent paternalism of bacon earls fit foi any one who still calls himself a Liberal? Are the instructions to the military officers to disregard the orders of the established courts in accordance with Liberal principles? Is the exemption of Victory bonds from taxation, which is nothing less than a camouflage enactment to protect those who have enriched themselves during the war from paying income tax, a Liberal measure? Can my hon. friend state, without wincing, that the censorship of the press and the gagging of independent opinion is pure Liberalism?	Is not
the censorship on publications, which goes so far as to make it a criminal offence ^ for any one to have in his possession Plato's Republic, anything but Liberal? Is the wholesale buying of the press of this country for political purposes a Liberal measure? Is the incompetency and indifference to the welfare of the masses, a,s evidenced by the present high cost of living with no relief in sight, true Liberalism? Is my hon. friend aware that Liberalism stands for a just share by the working man in the profits of industry? Does ^ my hon. friend believe that militarism in its most truly Prussian form can be regarded as an offspring of democracy? Will my hon. friend dare to contend that the forcible sending of men to Siberia without authorization of Parliament is in accordance with Liberal ideals? I should also like to know whether it was a Liberal sentiment which prevented representatives of the people from being called into counsel during the most momentous nine months in our history?
Does the flagrant abuse of the War Measures Act, passed at a very critical time, appeal to the Liberalism of my hon. friend? Is the Government of the people by Orders in Council, even when Parliament is sitting, considered by my hon. friend a Liberal measure? Did my hon". friend ever consider that the passing of Orders in Council, with retroactive effect, is in direct violation of the liberty of the citizen? Can the hon. minister contend that the operation of the War Measures Act,^ three months after the war is over, to . liquidate a railway company, is up to Liberal standards?
At six o'clock the House took recess.

After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Joseph Archambault: Mr. Speaker, before recess I was in the middle of ail argument regarding the Liberalism of the hon. Minister of Immigration and Colonization and that section of the Government who hold his views and still believe that they can logically call themselves Liberals, and remain on your right. I had, to the best of my ability, given to the House my opinion of Liberalism, and the definitions of such men as Gladstone and Asquith. I then proceeded to put certain questions to the minister, and I had a few left when six o'clock arrived. I now beg leave to proceed with them. Did my hon. friend ever consider that the passing of Orders in Council with retroactive effect is an entire violation ol the liberty of the citizen? Can the minister contend that the use of the War Measures Act, three months after the war is over, to put a railway in liquidation is up to the Liberal standard? Is my hon. friend of the opinion that the handing on a plate of a parliamentary seat to a friend of the Government, distrusting at the same time the judicial authority of the Supreme Court of Canada, an action derived from the best examples of Liberalism? Does the minister believe that secret Orders in Council are not against Liberal doctrine? Well, Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand an extra of the Official Gazette of 7th February last, in which nine Orders in Council passed at different dates, one as far back as the 28th September, 1917, are published for the first time-seventeen months after they were passed. To prove my assertion I will cite pages 24 and 25 of the Canada Gazette of 7th February last. The introductory passage says:
The nine following Orders in Council were first published in the Extra of the Canada Gazette dated the 7th February, 1919.
The first Order in Council is dated 28th September, 1917; the second, 4th October, 1917; the third, 24th December, 1917; and the next, 8th day of January, 1918. But, listen to this. The next one is dated Wednesday, 1st May, 1918. Government by Order in Council is bad. It is contrary to constitutional Government and must only be resorted to with prudence and in cases of extreme urgency. But government by secret Order in Council is surely the limit

of autocracy. Yet, Mr. Speaker, it is not the limit to the Kaiserism and Czarism of the present Government. There is one of these Orders in Council passed 1st May, 1918, and published for the first time on 7th February, 1919, to which I especially wish to direct the attention of the House. It contains the following enactment:
Any person who makes default in the performance of a duty imposed upon him by this paragraph shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for three months with hard labour or to a fine of $100 or to both.
The fact that a man might be sent to prison for not obeying a regulation adopted in secret by the Government and never made known, even to the limited class that reads the Canada Gazette line upon line, shows to what lengths governments may go when allowed to be, as the present Government were, more or less, a law unto themselves. Surely the Liberalism of my hon. friend the Minister of Immigration and Colonization is the Liberalism of the Middle Ages when men were sent to dungeons by lettres de cachet at the will of the autocrat. His ultra Liberalism leads him to pass a law creating an offence punishable with imprisonment at hard labour and enabling him to jail a citizen for an offence that he could not possibly have committed. If my hon. friend has the ability, or the elasticity of political conscience to reconcile such measures with Liberal principles he will have well deserved the surname which was given to him of being "the Bob Rogers of the new Administration."
It is useless for me to take up any more of the time of this House in order to show that the company that my hon. friend is keeping is only, as my revered departed chief said last year, Toryism with a little veneer. However, I submit that the only way in which the Minister of Immigration and Colonization can make good his claim that he is still a Liberal is by answering the questions that I have put to him. If his answers satisfy the Liberal party, I will say no more, I shall be satisfied; but if the hon. gentleman's answers should not satisfy the Liberal party then how will he stand with the Unionist party at whose christening he is understood to be anxious to officiate? It is not for me to answer that question, but I have no doubt that his Unionist colleagues would like to hear from the hon. gentleman a full report about ' his visit to Quebec a short time ago, as to whom he met and what was discussed. Lastly, when the hon. gentleman has studied

all these questions, will he not say that he is trying to clothe himself in the livery of Heaven to serve the devil?
Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from Springfield (Mr. Richardson) made a statement last night against which I desire to register my most vigorous protest. After indulging in n remarkable eulogy of b'rance he spoiled his tribute of respect by saying that last year France was ready to ciuit. Sir, France has never quit; France cannot quit; France cannot die because she is immortal. My hon. fiiend cannot phnt to one incident in the whole history of France in which she did not finish w'hat she had started. She did. not even quit in 1870, when she was left alone and defenceless to fight the Prussian invasion; and if last year France made some remonstrances it was because some public men amongst her Allies were not willing to adopt the only policy which enabled us to beat the Hun -unity of command. My hon. friend from Springfield also seems to be a very ardent supporter of the Government, and although he has painted a most vivid and pathetic picture of the battlefields of France-for which he has my entire endorsation-the cause of his admiration and devotion to this Government may not be strange to the treatment which he received over there.
I wish my education in English would allow me to introduce into my description of the feasts he attended, the slangy expressions and phraseology with which he has decorated his address; but not having had the opportunity that the hon. gentleman had of associating with the distinguished people using these expressions, I am only going to give the House a report of one incident which happened while my hon. friend was attending one of the many banquets tendered to him while in England. I am quoting now from a British paper;
R. L,. Richardson, M.P., is extremely fond of grapes. He attended a Guildhall banquet recently as a member of that expedition of Canadian editors which has been irreverently termed "Beaverbrook's printers' picnic," and being seated immediately in front of a huge fruit-basket filled with the luscious hot-house product, he proceeded to gratify his cravings with the same nonchalance as if he were in Canada. Famished Englishmen who noted his fine work estimate that at the current price (about 7 cents a grape), the Editor of the Winnipeg Tribune put away some eleven dollars' worth.
Mr. Speaker, while listening to my hon. friend Tuesday night, and hearing him state that he never believed in the sincerity of the Liberal party regarding the tariff
I could not but call to memory the Macdonald election, when the hon. gentleman told the electors of that constituency the unmistakable faith he had in the Liberal party on tariff matters-that was in 1912, was it not?-and his unequivocal belief in the insincerity of the Premier of Canada, and I could not do otherwise than recall the banquet where, like Noah of old, he showed a propensity for the product of the vine, and my natural conclusion was that the eleven dollars' worth of grapes which he introduced into his anatomy some months ago have fermented and produced the spirit of affection which he displayed for the Government on Tuesday night.
I am coming now, Mr. Speaker, to a much graver question. Of course the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) had to have his usual attack on Quebec, otherwise he would have been censured at the next meeting of his lodge, as the hon. member for Toronto was last year. But I submit, Sir, with all due respect to the brethren, that the hon. member for Frontenac was not particularly happy or convincing in his argument. The hon. member gave us some figures about the number of men who joined the Expeditionary Force from the different provinces, and although he has not indicated the source of his figures, or whether they are official or not,
I have no doubt he acted in good faith when he gave them. But, even supposing, for the sake of argument, that the hon. gentleman's figures were correct, I cannot agree with his conclusion. As the basis of his argument to indicate the number of men who enlisted from" different counties of the province of Quebec, he took the official return of the elections in 1917, showing how many soldiers voted in each constituency. He said, for instance, that in the constituency of the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Lapointe) only fifteen soldiers polled votes and he concludes that only fifteen soldiers left that constituency. Sir, after the debate on the military votes last session no one can seriously contend that the return of such votes can constitute a sound basis to determine the number of soldiers who enlisted in each constituency in the Dominion. The votes of the soldiers were placed at will by the "democratic" agents of this "democratic" Government in the constituencies where they would be most useful. This, Sir, was proved beyond a doubt, and was even openly admitted at the judicial inquiry at St. Johns into the military vote, where soldiers and officers did not conceal

the fact that their purpose was to vote, not in the constituencies where they came from but in the constituencies where their votes would be most useful to the Union Government. The member for Kamouraska informs me that a great number of the military electors of his constituency were forced to poll their votes in the constituency of Cumberland, N.S. May I digress a moment to request the Government not to forget, when they carry out their housing scheme, to provide homes for the six hundred odd officers and men of the Engineer Training Depot at St. Johns who swore that they had no residence in Canada.
As to the other figures given by the member for Frontenac, although I believe in his good faith I am inclined to think that his elaborate calculation about the number of men who should have enlisted in proportion to the population is utterly unfair. Let me remind him and the House, Mr. Speaker, first, that the number of persons engaged in agriculture in Quebec is much larger in proportion to the population than it is in Ontario; second, that the male population under eighteen is about five times as numerous in Quebec in proportion to population as in Ontario or in the other English-speaking provinces; third, that the number of married men in Quebec between the ages of eighteen and thirty-five is about five times as great in proportion to population as in Ontario and in the other provinces; fourth, that the British-born in the English provinces are about twenty times more numerous than they are in the province of Quebec.
Another basic element in connection with this matter which, I believe, has not been discussed in the House, was brought to my attention by an article published in Toronto Saturday Night. I was surprised to read such an article, and before I communicate it to the House, in order that my sentiments shall not be distorted, I wish to state that 1 have the utmost admiration and respect for the men who went overseas and who made sacrifices in so doing. Nothing is too good for them and their dependents in this country, and the Government should provide with the utmost care and diligence for their welfare and civil re-establishment. Having made these preliminary remarks, let me read the article to which I refer:
You have seen what a real hero looks like. Thank Heaven he is plentiful enough to be recognized! Now take a squint at the other sort. Here he comes down the street. Observe him closely, for he is a type, and in his own person sums up all the charges that can be made against the wrong kind of returned hero. 
Before the war he was one of our "unassimilated population.'' He worked in spots, and the spots were not many. He never liked work here or anywhere else, then or now. He never had a job that demanded more than a twelve-year-old boy's intelligence, but now that he has come back he wants a clerical job, "no manual labour" if you please, and a gentleman's salary. He has become one of the leisured class, and fancies no labour harder than lifting his envelope once a week, or once a month, or whatever the term of loafing may be. His idea is to live on the Government, which will make a job for him even when there is no job and he isn't fit for it anyway.
The chances are that he is not a hero at all, that he never got farther than Shorncliffe, that he was an unfit or a bad 'un and was sent home for cause. But take him at his own value and give him the once-over. Cap on the back of his head, no shave, tunic unbuttoned,
belt missing, trousers rumpled, shoes dirty_____
looks as if he had slept in the back-yard of a livery stable all night. He went to the war to get a "trip 'orae,'' and now that he is back without having seen anything of the war nearer than Folkestone, he brings a grouch .with him.
Sir, this article gives me another reason why the figures of the member for Frontenac are not sound. It is this: In Quebec we have not the type described in Toronto Saturday Night. In Quebec, every French Canadian who left made a sacrifice. In Quebec, not a French Canadian left to make a "trip home;" his only home is Canada. In Quebec, every French Canadian who went overseas left behind him dear relatives, often feeble and poor. In Quebec, not one French Canadian who left could be classed as one of our "unassimilated population." I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that the member for Frontenac has given this opportunity of finding why the enlistments in some provinces were large while in Quebec they were not. I repeat that I would not have discussed this matter again had not the member for Frontenac resorted to his bad habit of attacking Quebec every time he addresses this House. Let us hope that he has done so for the last time.
Sir, the union, harmony and fraternity between the two greatest races in the world, the French and the British, have been cemented forever on the battlefields of Europe, and I cannot find a more appropriate way of ending my remarks than by repeating the words which were uttered in this House by my revered and departed leader, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, during the Boer-War. He said:
Men representing both elements of the Canadian family have been fighting shoulder to shoulder for the same cause and under the same flag.
Some of them have made the supreme sacrifice, their bodies rest in the same grave, in a

fraternal clasp, until the end of time; are we not allowed to hope, aract this will be my last word, that in this grave will toe touried forever the last remnants of our strifes and differences.


Mr. ISAUL BONNEDL (East Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to say a few words this evening, and while I have not trespassed upon the time of the House before,
I shall make my remarks very brief, because this debate is drawing to a close, and I am sure the members and the public in general are not anxious to hear a rehash of all the arguments which have been put forward. At the outset, I wish to offer my congratulations to the mover and the seconder of the Address and to add my congratulations and approval to their efforts, which are especially pleasing to me because they are both men who have served their King and country overseas. It is a matter of special gratification to me because the seconder of the Address is a member of my own profession.
We, in Canada, I am sure, all rejoice in the grand and glorious termination of the war. We are proud of the part that Canada has taken and played in this titanic struggle. We are also proud of the imperishable fame which our Canadian boys have brought to Canada.
We are now face to face with the problem of getting some three or four hundred thousand men re-established in civil life. This is not an easy task, and the country has this and many other problems of great importance to deal with. Let us consider, for a moment, what this means. During the past four years, our whole machinery has been untilized towards the developing of a fighting programme. We are now bound to bring ourselves back once more to conditions of peace. The man who has been in the army for one, two, three or four years, has had some one to think and provide for him. He did not have to worry where his next meal or his next suit of clothes was * coming from. Everything was provided for him, even medical attendance in case of sickness or accident. When he returns, he will be thrown on his own resources and will have to provide all these necessities for himself. In many cases he is not the same man as he was when he left our shores. He has many times gazed into the jaws of death, and it is not to be expected that he should be the same man mentally and physically as he was when he went away. I want right here to sound a warning to employers of labour on this man's behalf. Since coming back to Canada I have, in connection with medical boards, come in contact with these men appearing for medical examination with regard to
pensions. I have, as a medical man, observed that these men are not the same mentally or physically as when they went away. I have watched them come back and get employment in Canada. I have watched them try one job after another, become dissatisfied with one job, throw it up and try something else. Many of them are not able to give one hundred per cent of service. All I ask for them is that the employer shall be a little patient with the returned soldier and in a short time he will be as good as he was when he left.
I am sure the Government is to be congratulated on the energetic manner in which they are dealing with these problems which are new and with which no country has had to deal with before. The huge programme of expenditure which the Government have in view will go far towards providing employment for all, and I- was glad to hear the Acting Prime Minister state that in a few months there would be no unemployment in Canada. We must all recognize that we have a duty to perform in this matter, and we must not throw the burden of responsibility from one to another, or as the common phrase seems to be " pass the buck." The Government of this Dominion has a great duty to perform in providing employment for these men. The governments of the different provinces, the municipal authorities, and so on all down the line, must bear their share of the burden. During the past four years public expenditures have been reduced to a minimum. Public works have gone into disrepair. The time has now come when these public works must be put into a proper state of repair and proposed public buildings which have been left in abeyance must be erected. This will take care of a great deal of the excess of labour.
One thing in the speech from the Throne with which I am very much pleased is the statement that the Government have finally decided to constitute a department of public health. I consider this one of the most important pieces of legislation, if not the most important, to be introduced in this House at this session. We take great pride in conserving all our natural resources, but I consider the greatest asset or resource which we possess is our national life. This should be taken care of and fostered, and right at the outset I would say, not that a medical man should be in charge of this department, but that, to get the best results, a medical man must be in charge of this department. The duties of this department would, amongst other things, be to regulate immigration, to protect child labour, to deal with tuberculosis, venereal

diseases, contagious and infectious diseases, such as typhoid fever, etc. It seems to me -and I am sure it is a fact-that the country and the people in general do not appreciate the seriousness of the ravages of tuberculosis.
The statistics for 1916, which are the latest I have, show that in that year the deaths from tuberculosis were as follows: Ontario 2,559, or 92 out of every 100,000 people; Quebec 3,327 or 150 out of every 100,000; Saskatchewan 323, or 45 out of every 100,000; British Columbia 413, or 108 out of every 100,000; Nova Scotia 921, or 181 out of every 100,000; Manitoba 484, or 96 out of every 100,000. There probably is no disease which can be cured more readily than tuberculosis if treated in the early stages. During the latter stages, of course, the deaths are practically 100 per cent. When the disease is recognized by medical men in the early stages and the patient put under proper treatment, at least 90 per cent of these cases can be restored to health. This is a matter of vital importance to the people of Canada. In 1916, 8,027 deaths occurred in this Dominion from tuberculosis, and I am sure that if we had proper housing conditions and sanitaria conveniently situated throughout all the provinces where people attacked by the disease could receive proper treatment, the great majority of these people-would be living to-day and be an asset to this country. But the trouble now is that we have not sufficient sanitaria to take care of these people, and sometimes the responsibility is shifted from one province to another. A doctor in the East, for instance, will recommend a patient suffering from tuberculosis to go to British Columbia because the climate there may do him good. The patient may arrive in British Columbia in the latter stages of the disease and if the authorities there have not hospital accommodation for that man they may say,
" You do not belong to us but .to Nova Scotia or New Brunswick; go back there." Now that condition of affairs is not right and I trust that when the Department of Public Health is established it will turn its attention first to this great'problem of tuberculosis and inaugurate and encourage the building of sanitaria throughout this Dominion. The sanitaria should be built and supported by the Dominion because the responsibility for the lives of the people of this Dominion rests upon this Government.
I have looked into some of the Government's plans for settling our soldiers on the land, and although in a matter of this

kind one is bound to proceed rather slowly I am pleased to see that .splendid progress is being made. In the province of British Columbia we have in our valleys land as fertile as can be found in any other place in the world, and thousands of the soldiers who enlisted from that province will take up land and go on the farm. Many thousands also will be attracted from the other provinces by our climate. The province of British Columbia probably offers a brighter prospect for the farmer than any other province in Canada, because the farmer there has a market right at his door. In the year 1917, we imported into the province $20,000,000 of farm and dairy products, and it practically took every dollar of gold, silver, copper, lead and zinc which we mined to feed ourselves. So I am glad that the Government is holding out inducements to the men to go on the land, and I am sure those who settle in British Columbia will meet with every success. One difficulty in British Columbia is the cost of clearing -the land, and I would suggest that the Department of .Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment make provision for additional assistance to men taking up land in that province to help defray the cost of clearing.
I am sure we are all glad the war is over. The wives and the sisters and the mothers of our soldiers are thankful to have their men home once more. We are all proud of our soldiers for the immortal fame they have brought to this country. We trust that the Peace Conference now sitting in Paris will achieve the object for which the war was fought, which was to make it impossible for another war such as this to occur in the future. In 1860, Tennyson looking into the future spoke of aerial combat and the aeroplanes " raining down their ghastly dew," and went on to say that the battle flag would be furled in the Parliament of Man, the federation of the world. May Tennyson's prophecy come true, and may the Peace Conference be successful in its deliberations and bring about a condition where there shall be a Parliament for the World, to which all disputes can be taken and each case decided on its merits.	-
Mr. JEAN J. DENIS (Joliette): Mr. Speaker, if the incertitude and unexpectedness in the trend of human events were still to be proved, the history of the past year would serve to establish them. Less than twelve months ago, on the 18th day of March, the first session of the thirteenth Parliament opened. Shadow's of doom and forebodings of evil were then prevailing in

our minds; for we lived in anticipation of the dreaded and boastfully heralded German attack on the Western front. Three days after the opening of the session-on March 21st-the attack was launched with an incredible fury such as the world had never before witnessed in warfare. In less than three days the Germans had destroyed the Fifth English Army and had advanced to a depth of more than thirty miles from their starting point. So great was our despair and our peril that, in the confusion of our minds, it seemed to us that the war was already lost. We all know what followed. We know of the prodigious efforts of the Hun, of the masterful strategy of the Allies, and of the ultimate crushing defeat of the enemy. The rapidity of these events, from impending defeat to complete victory, has been one of the happiest surprises of this war, so full of wonders.
The speech from the Throne refers to the successful conclusion of this greatest of all wars, and we are all happy to unite with the Government in devoutly thanking Providence for deliverance from so awful a peril. This session of Parliament, therefore, was summoned under the most favourable auspices. But suddenly, like a thunder bolt on a day of sunshine, a national calamity threw our country into mourning and deep sorrow. I refer to the death of the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier. It had been announced that the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) and the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) would share the honour, on this side of the House, of paying a tribute to Canada's Grand Old Man. I hope I may be pardoned if I, too, following the example of hon. members on both sides of the House, take the liberty of adding my quota of admiration to the memory of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I shall not speak of Sir Wilfrid Laurier as a nation-wide, or even as an empire-wide statesman. By so doing I might possibly do him injustice by exaltations which would not adequately 9 p.m. describe his virtues. What has been spoken, written, and done throughout Canada since the hour of the death of the master, speaks for itself, and is sufficient to immortalize him. But in the name of the people of my race I wish to deposit one more crown of unwithering laurels upon his grave. Our national poet, Mr. Louis Frechette writing about the great compatriot, Louis Joseph Papineau, says:
II fut toute une gpoque, et longtemps notre race N'eflt que sa voix pour glaive et son corps pour cuirasse.
When one ponders the sad event of the past few weeks, these words of the poet seem vividly to apply to our hero. Lover of liberty, defender of the oppressed, he always made himself the champion of the rights of the minority, and unfortunately it so happened that the minority which were so attacked were the people of his own race. The chant of the poet, eminently adapted to Sir Wilfrid Laurier under the present painful circumstances, will forever find its echo in the hearts of the men of his race.
The war is over. Reconstruction has begun; and racial and religious prejudices are vanishing. Generation will follow generation, and history will write the life of Laurier; and when in the years to come pilgrims from all over this country shall travel to the grave of this great man, our children and our children's children, remembering his noble work in the interests of his race, will repeat:
II fut toute une gpoque, et longtemps notre race N'eut que sa voix pour glaive et son corps pour cuirasse.
As to hon. members on this side of the House, his disciples, .1 can find no expression better capable of adequately and justly describing our affliction than this text fi'om the Holy Book: "I will smite the shepherd and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad." The shepherd, Mr. Speaker, has been smitten with an invisible hand, an inevitable hand, and the sheep of the flock, bewildered by the suddenness of the shock, have been scattered abroad with wailing and lamentation. But the flock have assembled anew. They have chosen a new leader, a new shepherd,- good, kind, and devoted-in whom they have placed their esteem and confidence.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to contribute to the numerous expressions of congratulation of which the mover and the seconder of the Address have already been the objects. Their quite apparent sincerity, together with the broadness of the views they have expressed, goes a long way, indeed, towards the bridging of the gap which now separates the two main racial elements in Canada. Let these hon. gentlemen and other hon. members of the House rest well assured that the gallant move which is now being made to unite and consolidate the divers elements in our dear country will not pass unheeded by the generous French-Canadian race, who are ready to go the full half way to meet their English compatriots and heartily shake hands with them. It was with no little pleasure that I listened the other night to the hon. mem-

ber for Springfield (Mr. Richardson) paying an admirable tribute to the French-Canadian people of Quebec. I am not able to quote the words of the hon. member verbatim, but I have them in my heart, and if I understood him aright, he spoke about as follows:
The people of the province of Quebec are good and generous; the people of the province of Quebec should be known better by other elements in this country ; I am sure that if closer relations should exist between the people of Quebec and the people of the other provinces the sentiment which of late has not been what it should have been perhaps would be improved greatly not only to the benefit of the people of Quebec but of every other province and of the whole Dominion. Those were the words, or that was the sense of the words which were used the other night by the hon. member for *Springfield. I want on this occasion to take the opportunity of offering my thanks to the hon. member and to all the other members of this House who think as he does and from what I can see there are a good many of such hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House. This country is too great, its possibilities' are too immense that any of us should be allowed to divert its energies from the course which Providence has set before us or to destroy these energies in the furnace of racial and religious conflict. I believe that in so speaking I express the views not only of the members of this House but of the majority of the people of this country. However good and sincere our dispositions may be I am sorry to say there are still left in this country unrepentant sinners whom I cannot help but mention in relation to race and religious conflicts that greatly grieve me. I may be wrong in my judgment. Pehaps ll am wrong as to this matter that I have reference to but I for one felt that I should not allow this article that I am going to mention now go unchallenged.
On the 20th of last month while our hearts were bleeding freely because of the death of the great man a Toronto newspaper whose principal aim appears to be to insult everything Catholic and French *Canadian was addressed to me and apparently to all the members of this House.
I am referring to the edition of the Orange Sentinel of February 20. What was the object of having that paper addressed to us in the hour of our deep sorrow if not the malicious intent of digging deeper the ditch which unfortunately separates the English from the French by exasperating the latter race. At a time when every

citizen is turning his thoughts more and more towards the unity of Canada, this paper has made it its object to work in an opposite .direction. Looking at the heading on the front page of this paper I read the following:
The tragedy of Quebec, and the great failure of French-Canada in the war.
What a great English newspaper says about conditions in Quebec where the people are held in bondage to the black robes.
The lengthy article which follows and which is presented as the expression of the Saturday Review is nothing short of a web of falsehoods and misrepresentations of the most libellous character. I am convinced that the article must have been contributed by some one on this side of the ocean who is a regular contributor to the -Sentinel because I cannot believe that any one in England with even the most superficial knowledge of Quebec could ever have written so false an article.
Evidently " the black robes " of Quebec are the enemy and as a consequence the French Canadians are singled out to bear the wrath of those who speak through the Sentinel. I feel very sorry that the education of those people has been so neglected that they should not know of the work of " the black robes." Ever since Canada was discovered, are they not aware that it was " the black robes " who followed, step by step, the first colonists of this country? And that the second largest river in the world, the Mississippi, was discovered by one of those black robes, Father Marquette, together with Joliette? Are they not aware that these black robes were equal in every sense to the martyrs of the first ages of Christianity in sacrificing their lives, many of them dying under torture by Indians in order to implant in this country the ideals of Christianity and civilization? Are they not aware that during the rebellion of 1837 the black robes remained faithful to the English Crown, against the people of their own race and religion, notwithstanding the injustices of which, as history has since recognized, these people had been the object? To speak of more recent times, are they not aware that the black robes of Quebec, for many years, were the supporters of Sir John 'Macdonald, an English Protestant and an Orangeman? They followed him against one of their own faith and race. Who will say after this that the black robes of Quebec are bigots, that they are being led in politics by religious influences largely, or that these black robes are not rendering justice to every class and to every political party in this country? They have

supported Sir John Macdonald against Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I would not repeat an incident of that kind if it were not an historical fact. My friends should also be aware that, in turn, Sir John Macdonald always had the greatest consideration and respect for the black robes of Quebec. The apostles of the Sentinel should at least, if they are Tories, respect those whom Sir John Macdonald respected, lest they would pretend to be more loyal than Macdonald himself. If they are Liberals let them respect those whom Sir Wilfrid Laurier respected, lest they should appear to teach a lesson to Laurier. But I do not think these people should belong to either the Conservative or the Liberal party, because they appear to be unaware of the principles which have always guided the two great leaders whom I have mentioned. They are people belonging rather to a class of their own and I do not know how to qualify them better than by saying that they are, perhaps, more to be pitied than censured. Looking at the front page of this paper, I read:-
Our watchword: One School, one Flag, a united Canada.
I wish to draw the attention of the House to these three words and try and find out what they mean as they appear on the front page of this paper.
This motto, appearing in a paper of this kind, is certainly worth noting, as it constitutes one of the finest examples of contradiction and mockery which can be found. "One flag." Every one, I understand admits the desirability of this-even the black robes of Quebec, and it is a surprise to me that this loyal Ontario paper should have as a watchword a proposition which no one in Quebec would ever think of discussing for a second. Are we to believe that there are in Ontario, where the loyalty of the people is unquestioned, people whose faith in the flag is so staggering that it has become necessary for the Sentinel to read them a warning of this kind? " One school." If this means anything, it means that, according to the ideals of those people, there should be throughout Canada one class of schools only, and that is the English nonreligious schools. Again I have to tell my friends: You are forgetting the most elementary principles of British institutions, otherwise you would be aware that in Canada, Egypt, South Africa, and every other country in the world which has been conquered by the British, they have made it a principle to leave to those whom they have conquered the free and unmolested use of their language, faith and institutions. With-29
out these principles, the British Empire would never have become what it is today, and the devotion and love for the flag and the conqueror would never have been implanted in the hearts of the conquered. During my whole life, I have been taught to believe that I should be proud to live under the British flag because of the freedom and liberality of its institutions. Not only have I been taught to believe this, but I have believed it and I do believe it now. For generations my people have been taught to believe the same principles. Not only have they been taught to believe it, but they do believe it now. And yet to-day there is a newspaper published in loyal Ontario with a watchword calculated to destroy, with one stroke of the pen, what has been the immutable principles of British liberty and freedom for the last two hundred years, and which have contributed more than anything else to make the British Empire what it now is. And yet .these people of the Sentinel proclaim themselves loyal subjects. They think themselves empire builders. Empire builders are they? No, they are empire destroyers, and it is fortunate that this class of people are not more numerous throughout the Empire, for they would do more to tear it asunder and destroy it than the Hun himself could ever have done.
A united Canada-this is the third proposition of the watchword. It is hardly necessary to say that this proposition is a fallacy and a mockery in the mouth of those for whom the Orange Sentinel speaks. While these people proclaim a united Canada, they are doing everything in their power to disrupt and antagonize the diverse elements which people this Dominion. I have never seen so illogical a proposition, and L can not explain it otherwise than by saying that the minds of these people have been obscured to such an extent as to deprive them of the happy faculty of common sense. If it be true that there are still in the province of Ontario people so narrow as to find delectation in the reading of absurdities such as those contained in this edition of the Sentinel, give these people their daily bread, but in the name of truth and common sense, strike out from the paper these words "A united -Canada," and replace them with the words, "The disruption of 'Canada," for no one is contributing to a greater extent than they are in the nefarious work of disuniting and rending the component parts of Canada.
Sir, I think perhaps I have been led to discuss this last subject at too great length,



and I feel rather sorry that I have done so, convinced as I am that it is not worth while speaking so long and occupying the time of the House to such an extent, trying to answer propositions such as those we see in the Sentinel. I promise the House that I will never again enter upon a consideration of a subject of this character, because to insist any more upon the views which I have expressed would he to inflict upon hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House what I would call a grave injustice, because it would tend to make other people believe that perhaps large numbers of members in this House share the ideas which are taught in this paper the Sentinel, whereas I am fully convinced that the good thinking English people of Canada reprobate these articles just as much as we reprobate them ourselves.
Now, Sir, a very important question has been more or less discussed by the speakers who have taken part in this debate-I refer to the question of indemnity. In opening up this question I think we may be allowed to ask ourselves, "What shall Canada get from this war?" We have contributed five hundred thousand men-in fact the figures show that nearly six hundred thousand have been enrolled, either voluntarily or under the Military Service Act. We have spent for war purposes nearly two billion dollars. The war is over, we have triumphed, but I think it is reasonable for every Canadian citizen to ask himself, "What shall Canada get from it?" I can imagine my hon. friends on the other side quite ready to ask me: Are you so far behind the times that you are not yet aware of what Canada is getting out of this war? To my mind what we are getting is of a two-fold character. There is first the moral question, and this is the one to which my hon. friends opposite would refer if I had been interrupted on this point. The moral result. That is the good that Canada-in fact all civilized peoples and humanity at large-has derived from this war. If we examine this proposition, I would say to my hon. friends than (Janada has benefited immensely from the war because it has helped to save civilization and democracy in this world. So that from that point of view we have won tremendously. But we have not a monopoly of the moral gain; it is shared by all the other Allied nations. We are, therefore, all on the same footing so far as moral gain is concerned; we are satisfied within ourselves that we have done our duty in helping the Allies to win the war.

But there is another question that we should examine; it is that of material gain. We have spent large sums of money in carrying on our part in the war, and our debt now amounts to $2,000,000,000. If I understand rightly the speech delivered by the Minister of Public Works (Hon. F. B. Carvell) the Government does not at this juncture see its way clear to pay this debt, or even the interest on it. How are we to make up the $100,000,000 that we are short? Let me make a comparison. France has helped to save civilization; she is on the same footing as we are in that regard. But France will receive a material indemnity as a result of this war. France will gain the coveted provinces of Alsace and Lorraine and will obtain other territories, the particulars concerning which have not yet been adjusted. France will gain something of immense value in the way of future guarantees, and she will be able to maintain' an army much smaller than heretofore and spend very much less upon armaments than she was spending before the war. Consequently, poor France, sorely tried as she has been, is getting material gain out of this war.	,
Now, let us take England. England has new possessions that she did not have before the war. She has Palestine; so far as we can judge, she can have the Dardanelles if she wants them; she can control Asia Minor. England has seen the removal of the German menace against her colonies. Egypt and India are no longer threatened; South Africa will no longer be bordered by German colonies. England has established the supremacy of her navy. England will obtain great advantage in the unparalleled development of her trade. Before the war Germany was the great competitor of England in trade and commerce; after the final conclusion of the war by the signing of . peace Germany, as a competitor in this regard, will have disappeared.
I have heard people say that England went into this war for the gain that she expected to derive from it. Sir, I should be ashamed of myself if for one moment I supported a view of that kind. If England had gone into this war simply to obtain some material object and had spent hundreds, of thousands of lives in accomplishing that object, she would no longer deserve the respect of the world. England did not enter the war for that reason. But, actuated as she was by a sense of justice, by her responsibilities in respect of treaties she had signed, and by her desire to protect Belgium, it is nevertheless true that England will derive immense material bene-

fit from the successful conclusion of the war. Italy also will have her gains; she will have her lost provinces on the Adriatic and other lands in the Balkans or in northern Africa.
That brings us to the inquiry: What is Canada getting out of this war in a material sense? Canada is not getting a dollar's worth of material benefit out of this war. Canada has sent her men and spent her money, but is getting no material recompense. Even if the indemnity to be paid by the Germans is sufficient to pay only a part of the debts that have been incurred, I submit that it would be reasonable for Canada to have a justly distributed proportion of that indemnity. I go further; even if the indemnity is sufficient to pay only 25 cents on each dollar of England's war debt, Canada should get more than that, because England is obtaining numerous, material benefits out of the war while any indemnity paid to Canada would be the only material gain that would come to our country.
I read in the Montreal Gazette of March 8, the following despatch:
London, 'Sat, March 8.'-According to the Daily Mail's Paris correspondent, the powers have agreed to distribute the German warships among themselves, but the United States and Great Britain are in accord regarding the necessity for sinking their respective shares.
"According to this despatch, the ships handed over by Germany will be divided among the Allied nations, but England and the United States are going to sink their shares. Certainly we have nothing to do with England or the United States sinking their shares. But it is admitted that Canada is not getting any material compensation in respect of her part in the war, and Canada needs ships. Canada needed ships in 1911; our party was defeated at that time partly on a programme of building warships. We shall need these ships after the war just as much as we needed them in 1911; the time is not far distant when this Government will be called upon to build a Canadian navy. If England sinks her share of the ships surrendered by Germany, it is quite possible that immediately after that is done Canada will begin to build battleships.
I cannot understand a policy of this kind. I can very well understand that, by reason of the competition between England and the United States, because neither wishes the navy of the other to be increased, the navies of neither of these two powers should be augmented and that the ships that are allotted to them should be
destroyed. But instead of destroying the ships that are allotted to England, why should she not distribute them - amongst her colonies? The United States would not be jealous of that. The United States would be jealous if England were to get too many ships and England would be jealous if the United States were to get too many, because rivalry will not end with this war. But what wrong would there be if the Dominions overseas, instead of having to build warships with their own money when their resources are exhausted, were to have distributed amongst them that part of the German navy which will be allotted to England? This is only a suggestion of mine, and I am making it for what it is worth, but at first sight, it appears reasonable to me.
Another question which has been very little dealt with in the course of this debate is that relating to defaulters. How many defaulters there actually are in this country, -1 do not know. Perhaps there are twenty thousand, perhaps thirty thousand, perhaps forty thousand. I have no idea as to the number, and I am sure the Government does not know what the number is. But we are sure of one thing, namely, that these defaulters do not all belong to the province of Quebec. In every province of the Dominion there are thousands of defaulters. What is the Government going to do with those people? We have a debt of $2,000,000,000. We have taxes to meet. We have the question of reconstruction facing us. We need men to cultivate the farms and to develop the industries of this country. We need help from all around. Now that the war is over, now that every one in this country is eager to work in order to unite Canada and make it a great and prosperous country, are we going to take these defaulters by the thousand and send them to jail? It is about time that the Government should let its policy on this point be known, not that I am so eager to hear it, but in order that we may know what we have to do. Not any later than the day before yesterday I was called upon to advise one of these defaulters who has been arrested and brought to Montreal. I quite understand that every man who is an outlaw is liable to be arrested and brought before a court of justice or a military tribunal and tried for his offence. But what is going on throughout Canada? Until recently, we have seen defaulters being punished with fines ranging from $5 upwards, or terms of imprisonment up to a maximum of ten years. The

Government has recently passed an Order in Council fixing the amount of the fine, if I am- not mistaken, between $250 and $5,000. But this does not settle the question. The Government should take the matter in hand at once and should adopt a policy in regard to these people. And I feel confident that when the Government adopts a policy, it will be a liberal policy towards these people. We all know that at all times during all wars there have been defaulters. Such men are what we term political criminals; they do not belong to the ordinary class of criminals. Now, that the war is over, what is the object in going after these people? What is the use of the Government paying officers to go through the cities, towns and villages of this country in order to arrest these defaulters, bring them befoie a judge and have them tried? Such a course is simply spending unnecessarily the public money. The Government need money too much to keep in their service hundreds and hundreds of detectives for this work.
I do not think I should pass over this subject without quoting what I would call a reliable authority on the matter. Everybody in this House knows the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) well, and I think every one will agree with me that the hon. member has no feeling of kindness towards defaulters. This is what the hon. member said not any later than March 6:
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 tne 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.
I always thought that the hon. member was very far advanced in his ideas in regard to punishment for military offenders. Consequently, I wish to ask the Government to follow the good advice given to them by one of their followers.
It is no more right to fine the defaulter than to put him in prison. The fine now ranges from $250 to $5,000. For the rich

man the fine means nothing. The rich man can go before a judge, be fined $250, $500,	$1,000,-it does not matter w-hat
amount-and he will pay the fine. But what are you going to do with the poor man? He will not be able to pay the fine and will, therefore, have to go to jail. Consequently, if this question is to be settled by imposing a fine, the rich man will escape and the poor man will go to jail.
Can we afford at this juncture to put thousands and thousands of men in jail? For no one will deny that if the defaulters are to pay a fine, of $250, half of them or perhaps one-third-I do not know just how many, but at all events, a large proportion of them-will not be able to pay the fine and will have to go to jail. I say that it would be unjust to send to jail the man who cannot pay and let go scot free the man who is able to pay the fine. It would be equivalent to allowing a man to purchase his release from military service. We all know that it has been proved that some have purchased their release from military service. But the war is over now, and the Act is no longer in force, and if the Government persists in this policy it will fall very heavily on the poor man who is not a whit more guilty than the rich man. The poor man may have had to stay at home to support his parents and dependents, while in many cases there was nothing to prevent the rich man fighting for his country. I humbly request the Government to suspend these prosecutions, at least for the time being, until they have formulated a definite policy with regard to defaulters, because the question the Government have to decide is extremely important as it will affect between twenty and forty thousand people in this country.
I listened- with keen interest the other day to the excellent speech of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark). He is a veteran of this House and a man of recognized high culture, and while I would not have the temerity to engage in combat with him, I find it hard to avoid attempting to answer certain statements in his speech. The hon. member spoke as follows:
On the question of 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 political policy has been stated up to the present time.
Mr. Speaker, to say that I differ in opinion with my hon. friend would be but a weak answer, but the statement that my

hon. friend here expressed, an opinion quite different from his action of less than two years ago is worthy of the attention of this House. I will try to make good my statement and prove that the hon. member spoke in contradiction of his action of less than two years ago, not on the question of conscription, but on this very question of the tariff. On the 29th of May, 1917, when my hon. friend, then a Liberal, and still a Liberal according to his own profession of faith, was sitting on this side of the House, on the motion of Sir Thomas White that the House go into Committee of Supply, Hon. Frank Oliver moved in amendment:
That all the words after the word "that" In the motion be struck out and the following be substituted therefor:
"In the opinion of this House it would be in the public interest if the Customs Tariff Act were so amended as to provide:
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.
i. 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.
After discussion a vote was taken on this amendment, the details of which appear on page 1790 of revised Hansard. Among the yeas I find: Bourassa, Buchanan, Clark (Red Deer). So my hon. friend voted for the amendment, and the vote, so far as I can judge, was a straight party vote. Sir Robert Borden, Sir Thomas White, Sir George Foster and Messrs. Cochrane, Doherty, Meighen, Reid, and so forth, voting against the amendment. Those of the Liberal party who were then present voted for the amendment and the Conservative party voted against it. The amendment was negatived. Therefore, after having given his support to the fiscal policy of this party less than two years ago, how can my hon. friend get up to-day and declare that the Liberal party occupies a less advanced position than it did twenty-five years ago? If it be true that the Liberal party in the course of the last twenty-five years has followed a retrograde movement, why has the hon. member followed this party all his life save for the last eighteen
months or so? To say that the Liberal party has retrograded is equivalent to the hon. member's admitting that he himself has followed a retrograde movement. But on the merits of the case is it accurate to say that the Liberal party has not retrograded-not for one minute. To prove my assertion I need only say this: If the amendment of 1917 which I have just quoted was moved again this year and a vote taken on it, who would vote for and >who against it? I think I am safe in saying that the hon. members on this side of the House would vote for the amendment and the hon. members opposite against it; at least, the majority of them would. How would the hon. member for Red Deer vote? I am sure he would have to leave behind his friends of to-day and vote for the amendment. Otherwise, he would come in conflict with his own principles in the most flagrant way. I could not for one moment entertain the idea that the hon. member should have changed his principles in regard to the fiscal question in less than two years; and I am quite sure that he would still support the amendment if it were put to the vote; otherwise he would be voting against himself and against the principles he professed less than two years ago. If the hon. member voted for the amendment, then he would be giving a vote of confidence to the party which sits on this side of the House, and against the party on the opposite side. The Liberal party has not followed a movement of retrogression, as is suggested. I may have been mistaken when I understood the hon. member to say that the Liberal party was not what it was twenty-five years ago. I cannot understand how the hon. member could support the fiscal policy of the Liberal party less than two years ago, and today say that this party is following a retrograde movement, notwithstanding the fact that its policy is precisely the same as it was at that time.
Now, Sir, with great literary taste and a fine sense of humour, in my opinion, the leader of the Opposition concluded his address with the parable of the light in the window; and since then a dozen speakers on the other side have devoted their talents to the discussion of the allegory which it contains. I was really surprised at this, for it never appeared-to me that my leader, by placing his little light in the window, was offering any kind of provocation comparable to the challenge of the toreador waving his red flag. Nevertheless the hon. member for Red Deer has made an effort to

extinguish the light in the window. Foi what purpose I do not know. I can see no reason why so much labour has been expanded on the other side of the House to put out this light, so inoffensive, and so flickering in the opinion of my hon. friend, if it is not their fear that that light may possibly be harmful in the way of dissolving some of the heterogeneous elements which compose the governmental majority. Why this exaggerated fear on- the part of my friends? Is the Government which they support so vulnerable, that a wee
10 p.m. light in the window should be capable of perturbing it? Our friends are giving us every reason to answer the question in the affirmative. Of course, the light is not the only frightful device. The latch string is another. Is the latch string dangerous? I do not think so. What is a little latch string in comparison with the formidable lasso which the hon. the Prime Minister made use of in the formation of his Union Government?
The attitude taken by the hon. member for Red Deer leads one to believe that the sect of the Pharisees is by no means extinct. Like the biblical personage, my hon. friend sits in a conspicuous place in the temple and tenders his thanks to God that he is not like the publican sinner, my leader. We need not Ise surprised, after this, to hear my hon. friend speak of a little shack, as he called it, as representing the home of the light. If the ideals in the materialistic mind of the hon. member do not rise higher than the roof of a shack, no one but himself should be held accountable for the deficiency. To me, the light in the window has a very different significance. I look figuratively to it as to a grain of mustard seed, " which a man took and sowed in a field; which indeed is the least of all seeds, but when it is grown it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof."
The light in the window, small but steadfast, is the symbol of those small heavenly stars which serve faithfully to guide the mariner to his port; while the light which my hon. friend and his associates followed when they crossed over to the other side, may justly be compared to the dazzling and treacherous fires lighted by the vengeance and craft of the Trojans to entice upon the reefs the vessels of the Greeks returning from the siege of Troy.


Mr. RICHARD COE HENDERS (Macdonald) :: Mr. Speaker, in rising to address the House I do so with considerable diffidence, and were it not for the fact that I occupy a somewhat unique position, largely representing the agricultural interests of the country, I should have refrained from addressing myself to this question during this debate. I cannot but realize the wonderful difference there is between the meeting of the House at this time and that which took place twelve months ago. At that time the nations of the world were in the throes of the mighty conflict which has just closed. We in Canada were greatly interested in the issues involved in that conflict, and we scanned the papers for news from across the sea with intensest interest, wondering what would be the issue of the next hour. Things have changed wonderfully since that time. The forces that were struggling for liberty and righteousness, justice and democracy as we see it, though they felt the strain of the conflict at that time to be intense, yet their arm was sufficiently strong and their courage sufficiently great to carry them through to victory. Democracy was saved, freedom was secured, and the small nations of the earth were accorded the satisfaction of knowing that they would be free to work out their own destiny in their own way. The war is over. An important conference is dealing with the aftermath of the struggle and preparing for conditions which, we hope and pray, will usher in a peace that shall fill the earth. We hope that the Peace Conference will be wisely guided and that its decisions will mean the end of all wars.
Coming to the issues that affect us in connection with the circumstances bringing us together in this session of the House, I may be permitted to express my views with regard to one or two things. We were impressed by the magnitude of the problem which the war presented and the energy which the people of this country put into the struggle in order that victory might be achieved. But, Mr. Speaker, while the war is over, while the fighting is done, while we hope the last drop of blood has been spilt, the problems of the war are not settled. The gathering up of the results of the war has yet to be attended to. That which is necessary to secure, out of the war, conditions which will bring peace to the peoples of the world has yet to be attended to. The responsibility resting upon the Government while the war was on in connection with marshalling our forces and despatching them overseas was very great but yet I claim that the problems confronting this

Government to-day are more intricate and difficult of solution than those which already have been solved. I have an anxiety that the men who are at the head of affairs in this country shall be wisely guided and that their hands may be strengthened in every possible way in order that we may get safely through the aftermath of the war.
This brings me to make another statement. The people of Canada elected this Government as a war Government to deal with the war. I believe that I rightly interpret the mind of the people when I say that dealing with the war means dealing with all the issues of the war until normal [DOT]conditions obtain. Therefore, the obligations assumed by this Government continue until reconstruction is attained and the repatriation of our men has taken place. If the people by the pronouncement they made a year ago last December declared that the Government should assume the responsibility of carrying the war through to its conclusion I claim that they demand of the Government that they stay with their job until their task is completed.
With regard to the administration I feel fairly satisfied with the conduct of the affairs of the country by the Government during the year that has passed. I do not mean that the Government has not made mistakes. A government that is traversing new ground, dealing with new issues and new problems and which has not history to fall back upon, unless it is too fearful to amount to anything, is sure to make some mistakes. A government that is progressive and courageous, and that is seeking to grapple with important questions, will push forward, will carry the issues through and it is just possible that some mistakes will occur in connection with its work.' But, it is better to make mistakes of a minor character and go through, than it is to fall down in the great and important work which has been undertaken.
Some criticism has been made in regard to the War Measures Act. I would like to express an opinion in regard to that Act. Like some hon. members of the Opposition, and I have no doubt this is the opinion of members on this side of the House as well, I will say that we do not require, and would not tolerate, a War Measures Act except under peculiar and very special circumstances. Some of us believe that the circumstances were such as to demand that an extraordinary measure should be made use of and the War Measures Act, we believe, was made use of as an extraordinary measure to meet the exigencies of the case.
Why was it made use of? We had been operating under certain regulations in gathering up the men who were to arm themselves and go overseas to fight our battles. We remember very well that in connection with the Militia Act the great majority of the boys responded heartily and readily to the call. But there came a time when more men were needed and the call became more urgent. There was not that hearty response there ought to have been; at least some felt that that was the case. To overcome the difficulty that confronted us at that time other methods had to be resorted to and the introduction of those methods brought serious opposition. When these methods were made use of, people who were not so very free in coming forward under the old Militia Act became very active in propagating the idea that the old Militia Act was all that we needed.
However, the men were not forthcoming, and because of that conscription was brought into force. We come a little further down, and it came to the matter of putting into operation this new Act, The people were looking about for a government that would give effect to the law, and we find the same difficulty confronted the people. Those who said in the first place that the Military Service was good enough, but were not attempting to apply it and to use it to the best advantage, were utterly opposed to the new Act when it , came into force. Therefore when the people were seeking for a government who would enforce that law, and an appeal was made to the country, the Union Government was brought into existence. That Government took hold of the enforcement of the Act, and succeeded in obtaining the men that were needed. At all events the army was brought up to the strength which the Premier of this country had pledged, and it was maintained at that strength. The material essential for the equipment of the army was also maintained in the requisite quantity. Canada was carried safely through the war, and the Government has fulfilled its pledges to the people in that connection. The people are now looking for the carrying out of what I may call the aftermath of the war, and it seems to me we may reasonably expect that the Administration which carried the country safely through the war will have the public confidence in dealing with these other questions. The Government succeeded in getting our troops together, and in training and equipping them and' transporting them Overseas. Now that the war has been won,

the people expect that the same Government will be able to take care of our troops, bring them back again, and reinstate them in civil life; and the Government will not have discharged its full duty until it has accomplished that work.
One of the speakers this afternoon enunciated his conception of the principles of Liberalism. I did not catch all his definitions, but I would like to make reference to one or two of them. I heard the hon. gentleman in question make use of the term "Freedom" as a term that would express what Liberalism means. He propounded certain questions to the minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Cal-der) and asked how he would square his line of action with the great principles he enunciated. The inference was that the adherence to those principles was entirely on the Opposition side of the House, and that an hon. member seated on this side could not claim those principles in any way. While this hon. gentleman was making his argument I could not but think of some of the men in the past who had advocated the principles that the hon. member referred to, and how they stood up for them. I could not help but think of the men who sacrificed life and all they held dear in defence of these very principles. Then my mind reverted to some of the utterances made by certain hon. gentlemen sitting to your left, Mr. Speaker, when the cry came from our gallant boys at the Front, who were fighting for freedom and liberty, to send them assistance. The question was then plaintively asked by some of these hon. gentlemen: "Has not Canada done he? share?" The suggestion was that we should let the rest of our boys stay at home until some other people had sent forward a quota equal to our own. There were our lads overseas, sending back messages to us, and asking: "What are you doing that reinforcements are not coming?-you placed us in this struggle, and you are not behind us." And yet in Canada the declaration was being made, "Canada has done her share, let other people do theirs." Were the people who talked in that way the defenders of freedom? Mr. Speaker, I think that any man possessing a spark of love for freedom, could not have given expression to such sentiments. It was because the Government wanted to stand shoulder to shoulder behind the boys overseas that they took the step they did at that time. Moreover, it is because they wish to see the war problems satisfactorily settled, pro-

vision for our war indebtedness made, and our boys safely brought back and taken care of that the supporters of this Government stand shoulder to shoulder to-day. And they intend to do so, no matter what is said about "a light in the window" on the Opposition side. Mr. Speaker, those who legislate in the interests of the Dominion in the future will be men who have-quit talking about Gritism and Toryism, and all that sort of thing, playing with party politics, men who stand for the principles of democracy.
Coming now to deal with some of the matters referred to in the speech from the Throne, I wish first to make a few observations with regard to the creation of the proposed Department of Public Health. I would rather that the wider appellation had been used of "public welfare," because it would express more fully, I think, what is in the minds of the people.
I hope that in the carrying out of that idea this wider meaning will be kept in mind, and that all matters pertaining to the welfare of the people will be taken care of in that way. Canada is big enough to realize that her greatest asset is the country's manhood, and that she will be strong only in so far as she preserves that manhood in the highest state of efficiency. I haye no doubt that when this matter comes up for consideration such conclusions will be reached and such arrangements made as will meet the case and produce satisfactory results.
I wish to express my appreciation of the statement in the speech from the Throne that the Order in Council referring to the liquor question is to be taken care of and that legislation is to oe put into euect that will hold conditions as they are until the boys are *safely returned. And when they are safely returned I know that there is democracy enough in this House to cause us to say: We will face the issue, we will submit this matter to all the voters who will then decide what Canada's future policy shall be.
Representing as I do a rural constituency, I wish to direct the attention of the Government to the Daylight Saving Act. Someone has said that "God's time is good enough for me." I believe that the vast majority of the people of Canada are of that opinion. The Daylight Saving Bill has served its time; it has ended its pilgrimage upon which it was started by this Parliament a year ago, and has been quietly buried; let us hope that there will be no resurrection. As far as I understand it,

the people, particularly those in the rural districts, are utterly opposed to it and do not want any more of it. I think that until there is a very strong demand for it, the Government would be well advised to leave it quietly alone.
With regard to Reconstruction, the Government has a very important task to perform. I hope that when this Parliament's work is completed, arrangements will have been made to distribute the economic burdens of the country as equitaDly as possible upon the shoulders of uie people. Previous to the war there was a good deal of talk about the burden of taxation imposed for carrying on the business of the country. If it was an important matter to provide the money necessary in pre-war days to take care of the interest on our national debt and provide for the carrying on of the Government surely, naving regard to the responsibility that rests upon us to-day, it will require the united effort and the best thought of this Parliament to devise proper means for our carrying the burden that will fall upon us in those coming days. I am not a pessimist by any means; I believe that with the natural resources which Canada possesses and with the energy and industry of our people devoted to this task, if our forces are united and the burdens of the people are equitably distributed, we shall overcome our difficulties and come out into a successful future.
This is an opportune time for the Government to consider matters that will have to be dealt with in the later sittings of the House and for members from the different constituencies to voice the views of the people on important issues in order that they may receive consideration before the Budget is brought down. So I wish to direct attention to a question that affects very vitally the great interest of agriculture. I refer to the trade policy that is to be inaugurated in connection with the carrying of our indebtedness and the meeting of our expenditures.
The people in rural life believe that the economic burdens of this country have not been equitably distributed. They believe that in connection with a certain economic policy that was introduced in Canada, privileges were obtained and certain classes of the community were able to take advantage of the position in which they were placed by these privileges and to escape the full share of their economic responsibilities and duties.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
Mr. HENH'BRS : I hear some member on the other side of the House say "hear, hear." I wish to call attention to the fact that when these burdens were imposed upon and were being borne by the people, that same kind of cry was heard from tne Opposition for a good many years. Hon. gentlemen characterized these burdens in very unmistakable terms, such as "legalized robbery," and so on.
I quite agree with the terms that were then made use of, but before hon. members opposite say " hear, hear," too loudly, I want them to remember this, that the people who -made very strong use of these terms in the past and who declared their intentions as to what they would do, should they come into a position where they would have to deal with these conditions, were not so loud in their decrying of these principles after they came into power as they had been before. We have not very much to hope for or to expect if we are to be governed by the teaching of either of the old parties when we come to deal with this question.
I am looking to the Union Government-
Mr. DUFF. You have great faith.
Mr. HENDERiS:	I am looking to the 1
men who are not tied to any of the traditions or [DOT] records of the past, because those records contain nothing flattering

I am looking to the men of the Union Government, having completed the duties and responsibilities before them, regarding the war, to undertake the responsibility of framing a fiscal policy that shall be to the advantage of the people of Canada, and after they have formulated that policy, in due time to appeal to the people of this country for their endorsation. I make this statement to them to-day, that as soon as they formulate that policy-and it must be this session-then some of us who hold strong view's on this question, will declare where we are going to stand with regard to it. From what the Government has done since they came into power, I believe that we can safely look to them to open a way into the future and to give us a policy that will be in the interest of the Dominion of Canada.


Mr. JOHN EWEN SINCLAIR (Queens, P.E.I.):: Mr. Speaker, I wish, at the outset of my remarks, to join with the members of this House who have preceded me in extending my 'felicitations to the mover and the seconder of the Address for the manner in which they have acquitted themselves. I also wish to join with the other members of this House, and especially do .1 wish to do so on behalf of my constituents,

in saying a word of tribute to the memory of the late, departed leader of the Opposition, iSir Wilfrid Laurier. It may truly be said of this world-renowned statesman that by his passing a vacancy is left in the political life of Canada that cannot easily be filled. It may also be said that in his passing a life has closed that was full to overflowing of all the elements that go to make for a true democracy, a life so refulgent in its beauty and brightness that it will cast a radiant light down the future ages of this country that will lead the way and enable future leaders to attain to a higher standard in democratic ideals than they could ever have expected to. attain had Sir Wilfrid Laurier never lived.
I do not intend to follow closely the argument of the hon. member (iMr. Henders). As regards his reference to the controversies that have come between the two parties in the last two years, I will just refer to them in this way-and perhaps it may be interjecting a little of a personal reflection, but I feel it is my duty to do so. When I was elected to this Parliament a little more than a year ago, I took this ground; I knew my electorate, and my electorate knew me; and the policy on which I stood was a straight and staunch supporter of the principles of Liberalism as known, announced and worked out under the leadership of the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier. The members of this House all know the disturbed state of mind among the electorate on that occasion, being in the midst of the great war and with all the questions which were put to them. My stand on that occasion was that I reserved from all bias of party affiliation my free right as a citizen of this country to vote for any measure, from whatever source it might emanate, that might, in my judgment, assist in bringing the war to a speedy and successful conclusion. I can say to this House to-night that I maintained my stand to the highest point and never on any occasion was it necessary for me to deviate from the leadership of the late Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier. In the short time that has passed since our late lamented leader has departed, I firmly believe, from the records so far of his worthy successor, that I can . maintain the high commission given to me by my electorate and, at the same time, be a loyal supporter of my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) who now heads the Opposition.
Coming more directly to the matter contained in the speech from the Throne, I wish to express my approval of, and to concur in, that part of the Speech which tenders the gratitude of the nation to the gal-[Mr. J. E. Sinclair.!
lant members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force for the suffering they underwent and for the endurance they exhibited in fighting the battles of liberty and freedom across the seas. I wish also to express my feelings of sympathy and condolence for the sisters and brothers, the wives and sweethearts, and especially the parents, of those brave boys and nurses who made the supreme sacrifice, laying down their lives on the fields of France and Flanders that liberty and civilization might be vindicated and truth and justice prevail.
Reference is also made in the speech from the Throne-and perhaps I am now entering upon matters that will be of more contention during this session of Parliament-to the intention of the Government to grant from the Dominion Treasury substantial aid to the different provinces to aid in the building of permanent highways. It is well kfiown that this question has been discussed at great length in former Parliaments, and I wish to say that, so far as it indicates the intention of the Government to render assistance from the Federal Treasury to the various provinces, that intention will meet with my hearty approval. But from the information contained in the Notice of Motion, I feel that the method employed in granting that assistance to the provinces is not being wisely considered. We have been told time and again that the control of public roads is vested in the provincial governments, and what strikes me most forcibly in the Government's proposed legislation is the fact that the Federal Government will be interfering with and overlapping the work of the provincial governments. This overlapping or dual authority is causing a great deal of waste of money and energy in the different departments of the Government to-day and has been doing so for many years, in some cases even since Confederation.
The speech from the Throne foreshadows a proposal to establish a Department of Public Health in Canada. To illustrate my point I shall make reference to other departments of the public service at the present time. I mention the Department of Agriculture, not because I wish to criticise that department any more than any other department of this Government, but simply to show how the duplication and overlapping of work leads to waste of public money, and to raise my voice in protest against further departments of Government being organized on the same principle. It is a condition that has prevailed in the Department of Agriculture for a very long time, and was probably brought about by

a lack of foresight on the part of the Fathers of Confederation. Under this Department of Agriculture we have a condition of affairs which is not wholesome or conducive to getting the best results for the money expended. We have the Federal Department of Agriculture directing its energies to the marketing end of agriculture, while nine provincial departments are taking care of production. This may seem to the casual observer to be a fair distribution of labour, but in practice it is working out in a very different way. To attain a uniform standard of excellence for Canadian produce from the Atlantic to the Pacific requires a productive organization with a single purpose, with unity of action, and kindred ideals everywhere. It must be truly Canadian, and in all its departments it must have co-operation, co-ordination, and unanimity. It must have one head, and its activities in Canada must be directed from a common centre and towards a common end. In every province we have an agricultural policy that differs essentially from the policy of any one of the other eight provinces. Examples of overlapping of work, discord among officials, and clashing of policies may be found everywhere. It would seem that the haphazard hit-or-miss propaganda of the provincial departments depends largely on the initiative of a few individuals in provincial affairs. Provincial policies thought out by men trained to think in terms of a province are somewhat narrow and wholly provincial. This must be so, because they are working to a provincial end. It will be said that precisely at this point the Dominion Department of Agriculture comes into operation and takes up the work where it is laid down by the provinces. This is what was intended, but the intention is far from being realized. Our Dominion department is failing in the duty it owes to the Canadian nation. Here we have the organization that should have scope and vision and power to achieve. We have also the men unhampered by provincial atmosphere and restriction, who ought to be able to stand out and give direction to the affairs of the country in a manner befitting the trustees of the nation. They should be able to coordinate the work done in the several provinces into a complete Canadian system. But upon analysis we find that the power which logically and rightfully belongs to these men and their organization has been vested in the representatives of the provinces. This leaves the Dominion department to a certain degree powerless. It simply marks time and haggles away at the edge of things
while provincial organizations without either the knowledge, the incentive, or the ideal, work along in a vain attempt to frame the policy of the country. It works out wrongly. It is like trying to dress a man in a boy's suit. Whole battalions of officials are struggling to get Canada into a suit of clothes cut to fit Ontario, Quebec or one of the other provinces. The Dominion officials follow up, taking what is left for them to do, and very kindly see that nothing is left out or forgotten by the provincial brotherhood, while down in the country the public is asking questions that no one can answer.
This, then, is the kind of production policy that is in existence. It is upon such a superstructure that a system of selling associations is to be built that will emancipate the farming community from the dilemma of markets, and guarantee to both producer and consumer an efficient business system and equitable prices in the distribution and sale of the country's foodstuffs. This is a short description of the method employed to encourage agricultural production in our national agricultural policy, and I have given it simply to show the waste of money that such a policy entails.
The war has drawn public attention to the waste in production and marketing. The demand for food controllers has shown that when the nation is under stress, waste and profiteering are intolerable. As a sound economic principle, it may be stated that any public service that can be carried on by the people in the public interest should not be handled by private enterprise for private profit. In the past, deplorable waste has taken place and the business of marketing has been carried on for private profit. The Markets Branch has undertaken to assist agricultural development by organizing the sale of farm produce on the co-operative plan as a means of eliminating these two evils. Until the system of co-operative selling organizations is complete, every production organization in the country will remain handicapped. Marketing is the final process of the farm, and is purely and essentially the farmer's business. This being so, the ultimate success of the whole agricultural machine depends on the Markets Division. The Markets Division in turn depends for its very existence on the disjointed efforts of a producing organization having nine different heads throughout the Dominion. Each of the nine organizations works independently of the others, and all work without a common ideal or a national viewpoint. This,

and my constituents of the measure known as the War-time Elections Act. While I have no intention of anticipating what may be affixed to the Franchise Act, from the opinions expressed by some h in. members seated on your right hand, Mr. Speaker, we may expect that a selective franchise will be offered to this House at this session. In this connection I wish to refer particularly to the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Mclsaac), who, speaking on alien enemies, said:
I, for one, sincerely hope that the Government will exercise its utmost powers in carrying out whatever regulations may he enacted to drive these people out of the country. They have no rights here, and they-have done much harm; X hope the Government will leave nothing undone to suppress them.
I cannot interpret that as the true sentiments of the citizens of Canada towards the people who are termed alien. The hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Whidden), in his eloquent speech, referred to alien enemies and said that we would not be true to our soldiers who went overseas to fight in France and Flanders if we did not send these people home. In justification of his statement he went on to say who these alien enemies were and what constituted alien enemies. The proof which he cited simply showed that the men whom he called alien enemies had made certain statements to the effect that they were not Canadians. I have no brief to defend alien enemies. I have always taken the ground of a common citizenship and encouraged in every way possible our people to be loyal. But, if those who are termed alien enemies were to be approached in accordance with the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Kings and the hon. membeT for Brandon, you could only expect to get the worst and basest principle of their nature brought to the surface. And, Sir, if we are to give a lead-a proper lead-to our people we must not use expressions that will set one class against another. We must propound and carry out a policy in this Parliament that will lead all classes-a policy that they can follow, and follow as a unit. In regard to this matter, I desire to place myself on record in this House, that so far as my influence and voice will go, I will stand for a common citizenship and a universal franchise as the only means of leading Canada towards her proper position in relation to the different colonies of the Empire and the nations of the world.
In conclusion, Sir, permit me to say, that our motto must be: "Let us all be

Canadians in the broadest and truest sense of the term."
"Let us be Canadians."
" Let us be broad Canadians."
" Let us all be Canadians."
On motion of Mr. Peck, V.C., the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Sir Thomas White, the House adjourned at 11.20 p.m.
Friday, March 14. 1919.


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

[Stage Direction]
Certified copy of an agreement between the Elgin and Havelock Railway Company and His Majesty the King.-Hon. Mr. Reid.

Rodolphe Lemieux: Some months ago a vacancy
occurred on the International Waterways Commission owing to the appointment of Mr. Mignault, K.C., to the Supreme Court of Canada, and I understand that the recommendation has been made to the Imperial Government to fill that vacancy. Has the appointment yet been made by the Imperial authorities? If not, when will it be made?


William Thomas White: No recommendation has been made for the filling of the vacancy in question.



RIOTS AT KINMEL CAMP.

Daniel Duncan McKenzie: In view of the great interest that is taken in the country in connection with the military riots at Kinmel Camp, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister when we may expect some report from the Commission, which, according to his announcement of the other day is making inquiry as to the real cause of the trouble?


William Thomas White: I am advised by the Overseas Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Edward Kemp) that a board of inquiry is holding a full investigation. As soon as it reports communication -will be made to the House. In the meantime it is not possible to make any official statement because the board of inquiry is proceeding with the hearing.


Charles Murphy: What about the riots at Witley Camp?


William Thomas White: As I stated the other day, we have no official information regarding any riots at Witley Camp.



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 13th.
Lt.-Col. CYRUS WESLEY PECK, V.C. (Skeena):	Mr. Speaker, I had hoped
not to intrude upon the notice of the House at such an early date because, in the presence of so many experienced Parliamentarians and debaters, I thought it might be more modest for a new member like myself to wait a while. At the same time I felt that there were some subjects being discussed on which I might be particularly qualified to speak, and being a new member and not very familiar with the rules of the House, I thought that in the debate on the Address I was less liable to get out of order; because, Sir, I have noticed from the remarks so far made by hon. members that there is an extraordinary wide range of topics which may be discussed in this debate, and one may speak about almost anything under the heavens, provided he does not talk too strongly upon those subjects which really matter.
Now, Sir, there are one or two things I am going to speak about and they relate to things which really do matter. First of all I desire to allude to a certain statement which appeared in the morning paper. I understand that when imputations are cast upon the character of hon. gentlemen the opportunity is afforded them of rising to a question of privilege. I do not wish to follow that course, or to cause any unpleasantness; I merely desire to say that the statement in the morning paper representing me as being a lawyer is absolutely and entirely untrue.
I wish to thank the House for the exceedingly kind welcome it accorded me on my arrival, and also to all hon. gentlemen on both sides for the very cordial way in which I have been received in this Chamber. I likewise desire, Sir, to thank the staff of the House for the courtesies which they have extended to me during the short time I have been here, and which, I can assure you I reciprocate in the very greatest degree.
il desire especially to thank the hon member for South Renfrew (Mr. Pedlow) for the very kind remarks he made concerning
me when I entered the House and to extend my thanks to the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton (Sir Sam Hughes) for his very kind references to hie. I am exceedingly sorry that I shall have to take sharp issue with the latter hon. gentleman on some of the statements which he made during his contribution to the present debate.
I join all the hon. members of the House who have so far spoken in paying my tribute of respect to the illustrious statesman who so long adorned the benches of this House, and who has now gone forever. I was exceedingly impressed with the touching and noble eloquence of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) in the speech he made the other day, when he spoke of the personal charms and personal character of the late great Leader of the Liberals. It will be well indeed if the Liberal party-I do not know the present leader of the Liberal party very well-all I know is to his credit because his name is associated with the tartan which I have worn for a long time upon the battlefield- the Liberal party or any other party will do very well indeed if they get a leader of the same fine mould, the same high character, the same lofty ideals, and who will be followed with the same devotion, the same enthusiasm and the same abiding faith, as Sir Wilfrid Laurier was followed in this House and in the country.
It is not my intention, in the few remarks I shall make, to enter upon the general subjects of politics which have been very fully covered by other hon. gentlemen who have spoken. I have not been too conversant with the ordinary subjects of politics, and if I may be excused for so saying during the last four year®, to quote from the poet.
Little of this great world can I speak
More than pertains to feats of broil and battle.
I was very grieved indeed, Sir, on my entry into this House to hear the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton (Sir Sam Hughes) make certain statements which I deem to be of the utmost gravity. He made statements with respect to the leaders of the Canadian Corps in the field which pained me very much. I was exceedingly pained, because I felt that those statements might revive the grief felt by hundreds, nay thousands, of people in this country, who have lost their dear ones in the war. There are thousands of bleeding hearts in this country to-day, Sir. Thousands of hearts that will never be healed; thousands of mothers, sisters,
[Stage Direction]
wives and sweethearts are listening in vain for that footfall upon the garden path that will never sound again; and I say that any man who says anything to cause these wounds to bleed afresh should have behind him the most indisputable facts, should be able to guarantee his statements to the utmost, and should be absolutely convinced that what he says is absolutely necessary to be said in the public good. The hon. member for Victoria, whose redoubtable character I respect, in his statements in this House said that the lives of a great many Canadian soldiers had been sacrificed in vain to serve the idle ambition of the leaders of the Canadian Corps, sacrificed for no useful purpose. The hon. gentleman said: "I know Cambrai well, and General Mewburn has seen Cambrai." I do not know whether the hon. Minister of Militia wishes to associate his reputation as a tactician with the hon. member for Victoria, ' but that is what he said. The hon. gentleman (Sir Sam Hughes) further said:
I know Cambrai well. It is a dirty little one-horse town that is not worth the life of one Canadian soldier.
I do not know what the hon. gentleman's religion is, but I rather imagine from his speech that he is a spiritualist, because he seems to have a supernatural knowledge of things that have taken place on the battlefield. As a matter of fact, I think his medium must have been out the night before he made his address, because what he says is absolutely at variance with those things which we who were actually upon the ground saw take place. He says that Cambrai is a little one-horse town, not worth the life of one soldier. Now, I have here two maps, one a German map showing the town of Cambrai on a large scale, and the other one of our own maps showing the town on a smaller scale in its relation to the rest of the country. I wish hon. members could see this map; I shall be glad to show it afterwards to any member who wishes to see it.
Samuel Hughes: Perhaps the hon.
gentleman could tell us the population of Cambrai.
Lt.-Col. PECK, V.C.:	I do not know
the exact population, but I do know that it is far from being a little, one-horse town. Cambrai is a town of from 30,000 to 50,000 inhabitants.


Samuel Hughes: 27,000.
Lt.-Col. PECK, V.C.: Very well; that is near enough to it. But the question is not so much the population of the town as the
[Lt.-Col. Peck.]
relation which it bears to the rest of the front. If hon. gentlemen will look at this map they will see that six or seven great national highways lead into Cambrai; that several great double-track railways run into the town; that single-track railways and hundreds of roads lead into.it. They will see also that a great canal system runs through the town; so that however you consider it- from an administrative point of view, as a road junction and railway centre Cambrai is a place of the utmost importance and was of the greatest strategical value on that front. Moreover, if you look at this map you will see that the German army commander whose army held Cambrai and the high ground to the north would naturally rest his flank on the La Sensee canal. That canal is a very much more formidable military obstacle than it appears to be as shown on this map, because miles of the surrounding country have been flooded by the Germans. So that the German commander would have on that canal a safe and secure flank and would have a very comfortable feeling indeed. But if he lost the town of Cambrai and that high ground he would at once find his right flank to be tremendously involved in the canals and rivers that lie northeast of Cambrai, and he would have to beat a very hasty retreat -as, indeed, happened when the Canadians a,nd the British corps got through.
It must have been the opinion of the generals of the British army that Cambrai was a very important point; otherwise, why should so many military enterprises have been attempted against it throughout the war? And, Sir, such was the opinion not only of these generals, but also of the German general staff. Perhaps you remember a statement made by Ludendorff or Hin-denburg, I forget which, before Cambrai fell, in which he tried to cheer up the drooping spirits of the German people and to belittle the efforts of the Allies. The statement said: "They have really gained nothing, but when the British get into Lille and Cambrai they may begin to talk, for our situation will be serious indeed."
The hon. gentleman (Sir Sam Hughes) tried to paint a vivid picture before members of the House with regard to the town of Cambrai, and if you looked into the background of that picture you would see the villain of the piece: Sir Arthur Currie, the cold, machiavellian leader, who he says was willing to throw away the lives of all kinds of Canadians to gain a little transitory glory.

Now, the action of Cambrai was not at all a local Canadian action; it was part of an enormous military enterprise which extended over a vast area of *country for days and weeks and which was only a part of what was taking place on the great western front. From the time when Foch struck his first blow, on the twenty-first of August, he continued to strike that front like a pugilist, striking here, there, and everywhere, always with relentless determination, always with consummate judgment and skill, no one knowing where the next blow would fall. The German prisoners used to say; "We live in constant terror; we never know where we are going to be attacked." He kept pounding away until he wore down the German army, demoralized the German defence, broke the heart of the German people, and made the German Government sign the most humiliat- ' ing armistice ever signed in the history of nations. So, Sir, if the battle, of Cambrai was 'Wrong, it was not the fault of Sir Arthur Currie or the higher command of the Canadian corps, it was the fault of the British general staff, and had the concurrence of Field Marshal Foch, the generalissimo of the Allied armies and the greatest military genius of the age.
The hon. gentleman (Sir Sam Hughes) said in his speech,-I thought I had the Hansard here to quote from, but I have not, -that Cambrai should not have been attacked by suburb or street fighting; and he quoted the words of an American officer, addressed to General Buller at Colenzo, to show that the only way is to " go around the darned thing." Well, Sir, that is what actually happened.


Samuel Hughes: One week later.
Lt.-Col. PECK, V.C.: Hold on; we will find out about that. I fought in two phases of the battle of Cambrai in which I did not see the town; that shows" what a "tremendous event the enterprise was. The [DOT]Canadian corps were a long way ahead of Cambrai on the northern flank and the British corps were a long way ahead on the south. The reason why they did not actually take the town by storm was because they did not want to cause undue casualties. We had known for a long time that Cambrai was doomed; it was only a matter of time. We can generally tell from the tactical situation what is going to happen, and we knew what was going to happen in this case. So finally these corps closed in and Cambrai fell. As far as I know, there was "very little, if any, street fighting in Cambrai. Our Third division went through the town, and the boys of the Canadian battalions, with their usual enthusiasm, marked on the doors of some of the buildings: " Captured by such-and-such a battalion." The British, I have heard, were rather annoyed about this; they said that our boys had gone over too far into their territory; and as I shall prove later, the centre of the line ran through Cambrai. At any rate, I am acquainted with all the officers in the various divisions, and I never heard that there was any considerable street fighting on that occasion. Of course, there may have been a little; but I question whether it amounted to anything.
The hon. gentleman tried to make it appear that this was a minor and local event with the Canadian corps, and that Sir Arthur Currie or the leaders of the Canadian corps were sacrificing human lives in this last attempt to gain glory.


Samuel Hughes: Wherein do I show that it was a minor event of the Canadian Corps?
Lt.-Col. PECK, VjC. : I am using my privilege as a member of Parliament to defend the leaders of the Canadian Corps, because they are not here to defend themselves. I have no objection to answering any question put to me by the hon. gentleman, that I can, but he will have plenty of time in this House or in the country to reply to anything that I shall say.
Not only was this not a local event of the Canadian Corps, but there were two corps employed in the capture of Cambrai, which as I said, extended over many days. Further than that, if my memory serves me aright-and I will bank more on my own memory than the hon. gentleman will go on his-, not only was this a division between two corps, but it was the division between two armies, because we were fighting on the right of the first army and a British corps was fighting on the left of the third army. One does not have to be a great strategist to see that this was not a local event which was ordered merely for the purpose of gaining glory for the Canadian leaders. I think the casualties were reasonable considering the strategical importance of that point. Cambrai fell and the great German army commenced a rapid retreat going helter-skelter up the roads that lead to southern Belgium.
I want to say this-and perhaps this may be the most important part of anything 1 shall say about the casualties-our orders were to this effect: that we should press forward with all possible vigour, but that

have been attributed to him that have not been creditable and that have absolutely no connection whatever with Colonel John A. Currie.
To whom, Sir, could that allusion refer? What commander was at St. Julien of the name of Currie of sufficient importance to attract the eloquence of the hon. gentleman? I do not know any commander of that name who was present at that battle of St. Julien except Brigadier Ge leral Arthur Currie, who commanded the 2nd Canadian Infantry Brigade, and I should be very glad if the hon. gentleman (Sir Sam Hughes) saw fit to stand up in this House and deny that he meant to refer to that man.


Samuel Hughes: I mean Sir Arthur Currie, and I shall take the fir^t fitting opportunity in this House to say that it is Sir Arthur Currie and to tell what happened.
Lt.-Cbl. C. W. PECK, V.C.: I have heard that this campaign of infamy is to be continued, and if so, I certainly deplore the fact. It will be unfortunate for the reputation which the Canadians have won for themselves, and which should be cherished in the heart of every true citizen of this country. This truth should forcibly appeal, I think, to every honest Canadian.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. member has asked me a question. May I ask him one?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Samuel Hughes: Is it fair that Col. John A. Currie should go through this world under aspersions, without being vindicated?
Lt.-Ool. PECK, V.C.:	I am not at all
discussing the character of the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie). I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that, returning from the battlefield and being received so cordially by the Parliament of the nation, I should consider it the last thing in the world I would desire to discuss or even to question the courage of any hon. gentleman; and anything which I have said has been said only from a high sense of duty and because I know what has actually taken place. And because, further, I wish to defend the reputation of those who cannot defend themselves. I beg to say that if this campaign is continued much longer-I earnestly pray that it may not-I shall tell some things of which I know, and there will be some gentlemen who will curse the day they were born.


Samuel Hughes: I rise to a question of privilege.
[Lt.-Cbl. Peck.]


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member is not in order in rising to a question of privilege. The hon? member for Skeena (Col. Peck) has the floor. He may be interrupted only with his permission, and only to be asked a question.
Lt.-Col. PECK, V.C.:	I am not a sufficiently experienced parliamentarian to deal adequately with these interruptions; but I freely state that I have the highest possible admiration for the redoubtable character of the hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes), and I am not one of those who think that he made a million dollars out of the Ross rifle. I have always had the greatest admiration for him, and therefore I think the statements he has made in the House are unworthy of his redoubtable character.
Now, Sir, an important subject has come up lately to which I wish to refer, namely, the discipline of the Canadian troops. We have all read the astounding intelligence of the riots that recently occurred at Rhyl, Wales. I will not for a moment attempt to condone those riots. On the contrary, I believe that if similar unfortunate events are repeated they will seriously impair the great reputation which has been won by the splendid Canadian army in the field. I shall refer to an article that appeared in one of the leading London daily newspapers. The newspaper despatch reads:
The Daily Express in its main editorial to-day says that a most unfortunate state of feeling has arisen among the Canadians owing to the view they take of their recent treatment by the British Government and the British press. They say that, while British military troubles here and in Prance were minimized the Canadian camp disturbance was given full publicity. We would point out, says the Express, that this is only true of what happened in Prance. There the censor simply stopped the news crossing the channel, but what happened at Folkestone or Victoria Station and at Bow Street on Sunday was fully reported. None the less it is true that the blame attaching perhaps to 600 Canadians was placed on 19,000 completely innocent men, and that one or two comments were foolish and unsympathetic.
Now, Sir, that brings the British press and the British public into court, and I very much regret to strike a jarring or discordant note, as I feel I must do to-day. But I am bound to say that a certain portion of the British public and the British press have not dealt with the discipline of our Canadian troops with due tolerance and sympathy. As the hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) no doubt knows, when the first Canadian contingent was in England, everything was said to exaggerate the slightest irregularity on their part. Now,

it is impossible to have several hundred thousand full-blooded young men assembled together without an occasional violation of what we call military law. Military law is altogether different from civil law. For instance, if a man fails to get in in time, under military law he is arraigned in the morning, tried for a crime, and probably found guilty; while under civil law a man may return home at four or five o'clock in the morning, and make the fact a subject of mirth at his club the next day, discussing the wonderful time that he had the night before. If a man is drunk, military law imposes on him a very severe sentence; whereas in civil life, if he has imbibed too freely at the club, the good boys take care of him, see him safely into a taxi, and he goes home a hero to his friends. So that there is a very wide difference between! civil and military law. But, Sir, the great test, you will find, of the character of our soldiers is the esteem in which they are held by people with whom they have come in contact. You may go to-day from Ypres to the Somme, across southern Belgium and even in Germany, and you will travel through nothing but a swath of abundant good will on every hand towards the Canadian corps. Now, you cannot make people believe that men are bad who are not so in fact; and that the Canadians are good men is the general opinion of the warm-hearted noble French people whom we admire, the gallant people of Belgium,-aye-and even the people of Germany. My battalion-which, of course, you know, is the greatest battalion that ever served in the field-left Lindlar, twenty-five miles east of Cologne, and the German people got out and lustily cheered them. You can have no more striking evidence than that of the opinion which is universally held of the Canadian soldiers.
We marched up to the Rhine on the 13th of December. The First Division crossed on the southern bridge in Cologne and held the northern bridgeheads of the Rhine to the extent of twenty-five miles east of Cologne. The Second Division crossed at Bonn and held the bridgeheads in front of Bonn. From the first [DOT]moment of the time we were in that vicinity, we found the British authorities very unsympathetic and, as the saying is, " They had it in for the Canadians." They asked that the Canadians might be debarred from Cologne, but Sir Arthur Currie refused to do that. After a while there was some trouble in Cologne, sufficient to furnish the British authorities with an excuse to exclude the Canadians
from that city. I may say that the British Military Governor of occupied Germany was Sir Charles Ferguson, and from the outset, as I have said, the British authorities were unsympathetic. And when this trouble occurred in Cologne they put the Canadians out of bounds, and sent a most insulting message to the Canadian corps, saying, that on account of the continued misbehaviour of the Canadians they would be excluded from Cologne.
I am very proud to say that we had commanders in the field who resented that order. I myself saw a copy of a letter which was written by Sir Arthur Currie and also one by General Sir Archibald Macdonell, commander of the First division, which division held the bridgeheads at Cologne and in front of Cologne, in which they replied to the order of the commander of the Second army. Sir Arthur Currie said, in a letter which was characterized by its vigour and dignity: "We can only consider that order, from the way in which it is couched, as insulting." Sir Archibald Macdonell very soon had his Highland spirit stirred and he wrote a letter, of which I saw a copy, to the British army commander in which he called upon him to produce the proof that the Canadians had been unduly obstreperous in Cologne. Sir Charles Ferguson wrote and made certain charges which were very grave. Sir Archibald Macdonell, that doughty Scotchman, made a scientific and searching investigation of the thing and he found that the number of Canadians who * were charged-not convicted-but charged in Cologne was very much lower than the number that would be ordinarly charged amongst a similar number of men during a like period.
When the First Canadian division at last, after four years of warfare turned its weary footsteps backward to return to the rear areas and to their homes in Canada, it did so with with the insults of Sir Charles Ferguson, the military Governor, ringing in its ears.
I want to say	one word about
the character of 'Sir Charles Ferguson and then 1	shall have done with
a subject which is a very unwelcome one to me, because this is the last thing that I should like to bring up. Sir Charles Ferguson is married to a woman of Cologne and that may account for some of his strange sympathies for the inhabitants. Sir Charles was in command of the 17th. Corps at Arras when the Canadian Corps was rushed down there to save that flank of the British army. I leave to history what was going on "in the south-Sir Charles Fergu-

son was very invidious in his references to the Canadians. Sir Charles Ferguson said to one of our officers:	"We never
had any trouble here until the Canadians came," and our officer answered: "Yes, that is what the Germans say."
'Sir Charles Ferguson was the man who gave up Monchy which was one of the points of vantage and which was really, in a sense the key to Arras because from Monchy, you could observe Arras and you would also observe a portion of the Lens salient. Who retook Monchy? The Canadian Corps. Sir Charles Ferguson gave up Monchy and several officers of the 15th Scottish division said to me that it was the most disgraceful moment of their lives when they had to walk out of Monchy and leave a perfectly good position, one of the finest on the front and give it up to the Germans.


Samuel Hughes: About what date
was that?
Lt.-Col. PECK, V.iO.: Just about the *end of March.


Samuel Hughes: In the retreat of
March?
Lt.-Col. PECK, VjC. :	Yes. Why do
I say all this? I will tell you. When I was standing before my grand old battalion at Lindlar, 25 miles east of Cologne; standing before those brave fellows with whom I had been associated for nearly four years, the grandest, the noblest, the finest men that it had ever been my privilege to be associated with, I said: " When I go back I am going to bring these matters to the attention of the House of Commons." I did not mention these things that Sir Charles Ferguson had said because they might have mobbed Sir Charles, or done something of that kind had they known. But I said: " I will go back to the House and defend the character of the Canadian army before the Parliament and people of Canada," and I mean to do everything I possibly can to make the name of Sir Charles Ferguson stink in the nostrils of all honest and patriotic Canadians. *
A lot of things happened in the British army that you never heard a word about. I rode into a town in 1917-there were 40,000 British troops in open insurrection, and they had taken 3,000 or 4,000 Canadian troops, not one of whom ever made any trouble, and put them to guarding railways and bridges, which I suggest was 4 p.m. an invidious duty. Things of this kind occurred and they never mentioned a word of it. The war is [Lt.-Col. Peck.]
still on and I am not going to mention things that happened this year, but there have been things of the most serious character that have happened on the continent, but nothing is ever said about these things. But when a Canadian does anything it receives the utmost publicity in a certain portion of the British press.
Now, I come to the question of demobilization. I am not going to discuss it at any length because I find that I have taken up more time than I intended. Most people do not seem to understand this question. I was very much impressed by the fine speech of the hon. the Minister of Militia and Defence (Major-General Mewburn) the other day. Very few people seemed to know that demobilizing a volunteer army is a greater task than organizing that same army and sustaining it in the field. The great object for which the armies have been striving has been achieved and our men naturally wish to get back to Canada and to resume their ordinary ways of life as quickly as possible. I am not here as an apologist for the Government I do not mean to do anything of that sort, Sir, but we wish to be fair. Therefore, I repeat, I was very much impressed with what the minister said. He said that the people seemed to think that their duty had ended.
If there was one thing that served as a comfort and sustenance to us in the field it was the knowledge that we had behind us a strong, vigorous, generous and chivalrous people. It was the knowledge that every day men of different creeds and different points of view were meeting together and striving in an honourable emulation to do those things that were necessary to support us in the field.
I am sure that we must all make due acknowledgement to the hon. Acting Prime Minister (Sir Thomas White) for bringing to bear on the great question of finance his undoubted talents, and to all those workers who directed the energies and encouraged the enthusiasm of the Bed Cross workers and doing all those things necessary to make more effective the work of different organizations which contributed so greatly to the support of the troops in the field.
We owe an especial debt of gratitude to the fair women all over the land who met day after day in their little guilds and societies to organize the work of preparing and forwarding those comforts and parcels of wonderful things that we received in the field and which were so cheering to us in

those ghastly moments of warfare. That was the greatest comfort we had in the field in all those long years; it was like the shadow of a great rock in a weary land.
And now I wish to appeal to this House and to the country not to think that our labours are done. Having given of your blood and treasure as you have so loyally and generously, I appeal to you to join in this colossal task of demobilization, and to help in getting this wonderful and magnificent army of ours settled back into the avenues of peace and into the field of production, so that they may be able to feel that they have the gratitude of a generous people.
I wish to allude at this point to a statement which was published in the Canadian press of yesterday or the day before. The statement in question originated from the Canadian Associated Press and was to the effect that the soldiers at Rhyl had broken into the girls' quarters-that is the nurses- that they (the girls) cowered under threatened) violence, and that the soldiers otherwise misused them. I desire to point out that Colonel Colquhoun, the commander of the camp at Rhyl, declared that the men had never gone into the girls' quarters and had behaved with the utmost chivalry towards them. I think the Government should investigate this report, and if the Canadian Associated Press is found to be circulating news in this country reflecting on the honour of our glorious soldiers it should be promptly repudiated.
Now, Sir, I come down to the affairs of mundane politics. There is one matter as to which I shall no doubt be out of order if I do not deal with it, and that is the matter of the latch string which has been so much referred to. The hon. leader of the Opposition has done two notable things in the last two weeks: he has become the leader of a great party, and he has coined a phrase. There was a great man who once said, " I would rather make an epigram than rule a nation." You can therefore see that the achievements of the hon. member (Mr. McKenzie) are quite considerable.
I am one of those who are considered by the hon. gentleman as having wandered from the fold. I do not agree with that. I was overseas for four years fighting for the principles of Liberalism, and if the Liberal party has not kept up to the scratch it is no fault of mine. The reason I supported the Unionist Government, and the reason the great bulk of the Canadian troops at the front did so, was because we had no faith in the Liberals getting on with the
war. In the fall of 1917 our position at the front was desperate and precarious. We had had some successes that year, but we had only advanced at any point about two or three miles, except in one locality where probably an advance of five miles was made. We had only accomplished this by desperate fighting and after very serious losses.
I am now speaking of the British army. We knew that the Germans were preparing an attack upon a vaster scale than had ever before preceded the assault of an army. We knew that the U-boats were making great inroads into the commerce of Britain, and it was just nip and tuck-from all the information I have gathered iiTwas just nip and tuck from the way the U-boats were sinking vessels-and we knew that before the Americans could bring any considerable force into the field it would be very late in the following autumn. We knew that in the spring, whatever happened, we would be fighting with our backs against the wall for the very existence of the Allied armies, and for the very existence of the cause of liberty and civilization. Is it any wonder, then, that we turned to somebody who had a definite policy?
Now, Sir, I studied whilst overseas with the greatest possible attention the actions and th6 speeches of the members of the Liberal party as now constituted, and I could get no comfort-their policy was as the shifting sand. But, Sir, the Unionist Government at least offered us a definite policy, and a policy which gave us confidence that they would prosecute the war with all vigour. To whom should we turn therefore except to a Unionist Government, especially when we saw that their ranks comprised some of the most able and eminent Liberals in the country? Now, Sir, that is my position. When the Liberal party can show me that they have a more progressive programme than the Coalition, or any other party, and when they convince me that they are going to follow that policy, I will be prepared to support them. But I want to say this one thing: I am not going to go around in the darkness of the evening and gaze into the kitchen window, I am going to walk boldly in through the front door at high noon.
<1 am a Free Trader.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
Lt.-iCol. PECK, V.C.: I am very much gratified, Sir, to hear the cheers of hon. gentlemen opposite, and I only wish that they had evidenced the same enthusiasm during the last twenty years.


An hon. MEMBER:: Cheer now.
Lt.^Col. PECK, V.C.: Like the hon. members for Red Deer (Mr. Clark), and Springfield (Mr. Richardson), I had been a supporter of the Liberal party for some time, but I have at last come to the conclusion that there is very little difference between the two parties. Free trade and low tariff may, in certain sections of the country be very good planks to ride into power on, but our administrators always seem to find protection the best policy to keep in on, and it does not seem to matter which policy is carried on so long as they can stay in power and bask in the sunshine of office. In that respect both parties seem to be pretty much on the same footing.
Now, Sir, I was elected an Independent and soldiers' candidate, to support the war policies of the Unionist Government, and I wish to say that I certainly mean to do so until I see something better. I think we should give the Unionist Government a chance, and I must say that not only here but in the Old Country, I found the members of our Unionist Government were honestly and sincerely trying to grapple with this great question of demobilization to the best of their ability. I think we should give the Government a chance, and therefore I appeal to hon. gentlemen on both sides to be charitable in dealing with this question. It is all very fine to make a grandstand play in the House, and to read a letter from some soldier who may have had rather a hard time. At the same time 1 know that hon. gentlemen opposite do not wish to take advantage of mean political tactics, and therefore I appeal to them to show a spirit of charity in their attitude towards the Government. I can assure hon. gentlemen they will find that I will take an independent stand on questions. I do not hold a brief for the present Government, but until we get a better Administration I mean to support them.
In connection with the taking over of the Grand Trunk Pacific by the Government, I hope that the Government will institute a vigorous policy in regard to that road. I am told that there is quite a feeling throughout the country that if we leave this thing long enough under Government control the people will get sick of it and go back to private ownership. But I do not think that is a good view to take. A great friend of mine who was a well-known statesman in this country-I deplore the fact that he has since gone-once said: "You cannot build railways without imagination." Well,
I am afraid that you cannot run the Grand rLt.-Col. Peck. 1
Trunk Pacific for a short time without imagination. But the Grand Trunk Pacific runs through a tremendously rich country in the northern part of Canada and taps the great hinterland that lies to the north of all the other railroads. If a vigorous policy is put in force in this connection it would only be a short time before the Grand Trunk Pacific becomes one of the best paying roads in the Dominion. It has the lowest grades and should compete, I think, in every way with the other railroads. I notice the Minister of Railways (Hon. J. D. Reid) looking the other way. I hope that when the season opens up in the spring, a fast, modern, comfortable daily train will be put on between Quebec and Prince Rupert; I am sure that in time it would pay. I hope, 4oo, that steamship connection will be established with the Orient, because through the saving of thirty-six hours at sea and in going over the easy grades of the Grand Trunk Pacific, we can haul the rich cargoes of China, Japan and India, to the great markets of eastern Canada amd the United States much more advantageously than the other roads can do it. It is only a matter of the Government prosecuting the business with vigour and with a proper outlook, and keeping it free from graft and politics.
In closing, may I just say this. In the trenches we have no politics. It does not matter whether you are English-born or French-born, Roman Catholic, or Protestant, or anything else; you are the same as any other fellow in the trenches if you are a good soldier-and all our boys are good soldiers. In the trenches we were one grand brotherhood. Unless you are a soldier you cannot understand the espirit de corps that prevails. It is the next thing to the family feeling; it is a great and wonderful love for your fellow man. As I saw these fellows perform their duties in the avenues of death, under conditions of the greatest peril, without a murmur, always with the greatest cheerfulness, I used to think what a contrast it was when I read in Canadian newspapers accounts of some of the squalid, sordid political quarrels that take place in connection with Dominion, provincial, and municipal politics. I used to say to my officers that when our men got back to Canada, we should surely have a better national life. If we do not have a higher and nobler national life when these men-who have never quailed or faltered on the field of battle, who have shown that they possess every human virtue that men can have-return to Canada and are in-

corporated into our national life, then, Sir, I think that our sacrifices shall have been in vain and our time lost indeed.


Hon. WILLIAM STEVENS FIELDING (Shelburne and Queen's):: Mr. Speaker,
one of our old parliamentary forms is that which allows us, on the motion for the Address in reply to the speech from the Throne, to discuss a very wide range of questions. I think it is a wise provision in the old rules because it enables members at the very beginning of the session, if they so desire, to give expression to their views concerning the public affairs of the country. Sometimes when the debate is protracted, as this has been, outside critics find fault and tell us that, wo had better quit nonsense and get down to business. Sometimes, I suppose, the practice and the rule are abused; but there is another side to this good old form. There have been cases-far be it from me to say that this is one-when the Government, not being too ready with its business, or possibly waiting for somebody who is away to come back-may find it agreeable to allow two or three weeks to be spent at [DOT]the beginning of the session in the harmless occupation of passing the Address. Even that, however, has something to be said in its favour.
Then, there is a further and more serious aspect of the matter. Every government naturally and properly desires to form its policy in harmony with the recognized wish of Parliament, and when at this stage of the session we have this free-for-all discussion, the Government have the opportunity of learning public opinion from its various angles; and perhaps in the end the debate is helpful to" the business of the session and not, indeed, a waste of time.
In a debate of . this kind it is almost unavoidable that there should be a considerable amount of repetition; we deal with the same subjects and the same thing has to be said often. That I may avoid that as far as possible, may I be permitted, without dwelling on any one of the points, to say that I desire to have myself associated very cordially with many of the things which have been said by the hon. gentlemen who preceded me. I should like to be associated with the well deserved compliments that were paid to the hon. gentlemen who moved (Mr. Redman) and seconded (Mr. Manion) the Address; with the expression of gratification that we all feel upon the splendid triumph of the Allies and the apparent termination of the war; with appreciation of the triumphant and
heroic services of the Canadian soldiers and sailors; with reverence for the memory of those who have given up their lives; with resolve that those who are spared to come home shall have every consideration from a generous and grateful people.
I should like also-need I say-to be associated with the many eloquent, earnest and touching tributes offered from both sides of the House to the memory of our great Liberal leader (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) who has passed away, a man who was honoured and admired by all and loved by those who knew him best.
To me it is a satisfaction-I believe it is to all of us-to feel that we have associated with us here in Parliament, in the work which we are undertaking as representatives of the people, so many gallant soldiers who served the Empire at the front and have won honour for themselves and for Canada. We are especially honoured by the presence and association of these men as fellow-workers in the discharge of our duty; and it will be no disparagement to others if I speak of the particular pleasure which we have all shared to-day as we listened to the voice of the gallant Colonel (Lt.-Col. C. W. Peck, V.C.) who wears on his breast the proudest honour that any soldier can have.
The subjects touched by the speech from the Throne are numerous. There used to be a time when, criticising speeches from the Throne both here and in our Provincial Legislatures, men were in the habit of saying that the Speech was more remarkable for what it did not contain than for what it did contain.
It is about the only thing that I have not heard said so far about the speech, and we cannot say that thbre is any lack of material.
The speech touches on many subjects of importance, and it sets forth a considerable bill of fare, promising a very busy session. There are some things that I suppose we shall be glad to have more information about. The overshadowing question before us to-day is one upon which we can at this stage hear but little. I refer to the financial question. The overshadowing question with us must be in regard to the tremendous burdens which are to fall upon us at the clo.se of the war and in regard to how these burdens are to be met. That they must be met intelligently and courageously, we shall all agree. We cannot at present expect any information respecting those. That stage has not yet arrived. Indeed, we do not need much information, for the thing is so big, the figures are so

colossal, that we can easily realize the tremendous burden we shall have to face, the awful debt that is accumulating, the tremendous obligations that we shall have to provide for. All that we know almost as well as when the Minister of Finance will give us the information in greater detail. We must be content to-day with the glimpse we have had of those things from the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Car-vell). The figures, even in the hurried form that he gave them to us, axe startling. We know, however, that they will have to be given to the House in greater detail later on. In the speech of the Minister of Public Works, there were one or two sentences which contained a meaning beyond what he intended. He dwelt, once or twice in his speech, upon the fact that his department, in determining upon expenditure on public works, would have re- gard, not so much to the good of the community, as to the necessity for guarding against unemployment. I thought he dwelt too much on the unemployment and too little on the usefulness to the community. The two things should, I think, go hand in hand. There is in Canada no need, for the sake of guarding against unemployment, to engage in the construction of works which are valueless or of doubtful value. Canada is still a comparatively new country, comparatively undeveloped, and in every part of our Dominion useful public works can be constructed, if we have the means to do so, where we can combine the guarding against unemployment with the service to the whole community. I hope the minister will think more of the good of the community, although I am quite sure we all sympathize with him in his desire to guard against unemployment.
There is one question that we must all think of a little as we look at the vacant chairs, when we recall that there are five ministers of the Crown who are absent from their departments, and absent from their seats in this House. One of those gentlemen, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne), has, we have learned with great regret, been laid aside by a very servere illness. We rejoice to know that he is in a fair way to recovery, and we shall all be glad to welcome him back to his seat in this House, we hope, at an early date. As respects the others, the explanation is not so clear. The Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden), the Minister of Trade and 'Commerce (Sir George Foster), the (Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) and tlxe Minister of Customs (Mr. Sifton) are

absent. We are glad to know that they are not ill. 'It is a great pleasure to know that. * We know that they are in Paris. That is rather a pleasant place to be in if you have nothing particular to do. But what they are doing there, that is to say, what business they are doing, that is to say, what Canadian business they are doing in Paris, is one of the things that no fellow can very well understand. The Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) endeavoured to give us a little explanation; the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) gave us a little more, but whatever impression it made upon others, I must say that their contribution to the discussion led me to believe that they were just as much in the dark as we were. What in the world are these gentlemen doing away from their seats at the present time when there is so much to demand their attention at home? Ah, but you will say; are we not interested in the Peace Conference? Surely, the whole world is interested in the Peace Conference. Canada is interested in the Peace Conference. If Canada had never spent a dollar nor sent a man to the war, slxe would still be deeply interested in the Peace Conference, because it is dealing with world problems. I admit all that, but still the question remains: What interest has Canada in the Peace Conference that is not her interest in common with the Empire at large? If I did not know the hon. member for Halifax as well as I do, if I did not know him to be a loyal member of an ultra loyal Government, I would feel some cause for suspicion in his remarks, because he absolutely ignores the fact that Canada is a part of the British Empire. He gave us to' understand that if our ministers had not crossed the seas, Canada would not he represented. I cannot admit that for an instant. I am too good an Imperialist-an Imperialist of the right stripe, mark you-to admit what I would regard almost as a reflection on British statesinen. When Mr. David Lloyd George, Prime Minister of Great Britain, and Mr. Arthur Balfour, Foreign Minister, take their seats at the council board in Paris, Canada is represented, because Canada is a part of the British Empire. Unless it can be shown that Canada has some interest separate and apart from the British Empire, there is no particular reason why we should be represented there. P have enough faith in Mr. Lloyd George and Mr. Balfour to believe that if we had not sent a minister across the seas, the interests of Canada would not have been sacrificed.

There are times when Canada has an interest in public affairs somewhat apart, an interest of her own, an interest not at variance with the interest of the Empire, but an interest specially of her own. In that case it is undoubtedly a wise provision that Canada should be specially represented. In the past there have been numerous cases in which it has been desirable that Canada should be represented. I notice that in the speech from the Throne we are informed that our ministers are " attending " the Peace Conference. I think I can congratulate the Government upon the happy choice of that word. There are some hundreds of officials over there attending the Peace Conference, but attending the Peace Conference does not necessarily imply that they are doing any very large part of the business, and I have not been able to see that we have had there any Canadian business which calls particularly for their presence.
There is overseas a commercial mission which we should distinguish from the political mission. We have sent across the seas several prominent business men who form a commercial mission. Their object is to extend the trade of Canada. Prom all that I can learn they are not as successful in the matter as we would wish them to be, but whether they succeed or not, is, after all, not the question. The object in view is an excellent one, and I commend the Government for sending the Trade Mission. That mission has work to do; we know what it is those gentlemen are trying to do. But we cannot understand what in the world is the Canadian work that our ministers are doing in connection with the Peace Conference. I want again to emphasize the fact that Canada, as a part of the British Empire, would be represented if those gentlemen had not gone to the Peace Conference at all. I admit at once, as I said a moment ago, that there may be occasions when Canada has a special interest and at such times Canada should, of course, have her own representatives. What Canadian interest is before the Peace Conference in Paris to-day? We have no territorial axe to grind. We are not seeking any extension of territory, are we


Samuel Hughes: Greenland.
e


William Stevens Fielding: -and in that respect we differ a little from our sister Dominion, Australia. Australia did have some special interest to represent. She had a question of territorial expansion to be considered, so there was that excuse for Australia having special representation. She does not appear to have made much out of it, by the
way. Her special representation has accomplished nothing, and she could not have been any worse off if Mr. Hughes had stayed away, because the wishes of the Australian Government-I am sorry it was so-have been set aside. But Canada has no such ground for being there. We are seeking no expansion of territory, we have no islands to gather in; in the matter of expansion of territory we are absolutely without any claim.
What then? Indemnity? If we have a claim for indemnity, in all seriousness what in the world can we do but make out the bill and send it to Mr. Lloyd George? What more could anybody do? We cannot by any act of ours induce the Germans to pay us an indemnity. If there is to be an indemnity at all it will go to the British Empire, and I am loyal enough to believe that the British Empire will give us our share if we demand it. But it appears mat we do not want any indemnity. Some of the information we get from Paris we have to look on rather doubtfully perhaps, but now and then we get some information which has an official look. I have in my hand an extract from the Montreal Star's own correspondent, Mr. H. N. Moore, who in a cable from Paris dated February 10, says:
Canada will make no special claim. A certain responsibility was assumed during the war, and that responsibility will be carried to the end. If indemnities are claimed by Britain, if one of the terms of peace is that Germany must pay not only the bill for reparation and restitution, but must also shoulder the entire cost of the war, Canada would undoubtedly receive her share. But the delegation is not pressing for this. In fact, one might assume fairly that any such proposals would be deprecated*.
So we have no territorial expansion to seek, we do not want any indemnity, and in all seriousness il wish somebody would tell me what is the Canadian question which is at this time engaging the attention of the Peace Conference. There is a glamour, I suppose, about this idea of Canada having special representation. There is something fascinating about it, and many people who I think ought to be wiser are magnifying its importance and trying to make something out of it. The question is asked in Holy Scripture, "Which one of us by taking thought can add one cubit to his stature?" It was a hard question in Bible days. It was a question which was asked for the purpose of showing that the thing could not be done-but that was before the days of the Peace Conference. Mr. Speaker, some people seem to think that practically by taking thought, by passing some petty

Canada-and if there was any business to do over there that concerned Canada and that needed explanation, no man could do it better than my friend Mr. John W. Dafoe, of Winnipeg. But you cannot make bricks if you have neither straw nor clay; and as there was no Canadian business to transact, what in the world could Mr. Dafoe do? .Day after day he sent telegrams explaining this, that, and the other thing, and the very multitude of his telegrams became confusing. Well, we got occasional glimpses from other sources. Among the gentlemen who have been in Paris in connection, not particularly with the Peace Conference, but with various surrounding matters, a couple of gentlemen were sent from among the hard-headed farmers of Western Canada, to look after the wheat business. One of these gentlemen was Mr. Norman Lambert, the secretary of the Canadian Council of Agriculture, a very capable man. As far as I can see, he is an absolutely disinterested witness. I do not see that he can have any possible object in picturing things other than they really are. My friend the President of the Privy Council has tried to paint a picture of the grandeur of this work in which our ministers are engaged over there. Well, he has not been over there himself, and consequently must take things on hearsay. I desire to read a passage or two from the pen of a man who has been on the other side, a capable and reputable witness. I have not the pleasure of knowing Mr. Lambert personally, but I believe he is a gentleman of absolutely good repute. He has referred, in a public letter he wrote not long ago, to this story of the Council of twenty-five-the body that does not meet. He says:
" This spendld vision of a council of Twenty-five, however, suddenly vanished, and out of it sprang the indomitable Council of Ten, comprised of the Prime Ministers and Foreign Secretaries of the five great allied powers, in reality the .Supreme War Council of Versailles. No meetings of the Twenty-five have 'been held "- that is the body on which we do not get any representation; but if we have no meetings, we need not cry over the absence of our members.
" No meetings of the Twenty-five have been held, and the great Britannic Commonwealth has been represented entirely by Mr. Lloyd George and Mr. Balfour. As one crestfallen Canadian delegate expressed himself to me "-
Mark you, a Canadian minister.
" As one crestfallen Canadian delegate expressed himself to me, the proposed Council of Twenty-five was just so much eye-wash."
I would like it to be observed, Mr. Speaker, that the word " eyewash " is not 
mine; it is not even a word of the correspondent whom I am quoting. It is the word of the Canadian minister, the crestfallen minister, given to the correspondent.
Mow, if we have to rely upon our English dictionaries for an explanation I admit that there may be some difficulty in quite understanding the application of the word "eye-wash" to this particular state of affairs. But I believe I am correct when I say that the word "eye-wash" is French for camouflage. Mr. Lambert proceeds-
The reason for such eye-wash-
Camouflage.
-is not quite clear as yet to anybody outside the Ten, least of all to the Overseas Ministers.
So, Mr. Speaker, I hope you will see that I am giving you a fairly good authority for the picture I am trying to present to you of the true inwardness of this Canadian representation at the Peace Conference. He says that the thing is not satisfactory to the Overseas Minister and he goes on:
In order that the members of the British Peace Delegation from Overseas and the delegates from the nineteen small nations should have something to do, the Conference very graciously appointed them to a number of investigating commissions and special committees.
I described that to you a moment ago.
The Hon. A. D. Sifton, for instance, was made the principal British delegate on the Commission to report on international claims in connection with ports, rivers, and railways. Sir Robert Borden was asked to be a member of a commission to go to Prinkipo to deal with the Bolshevists, and also to join another body in determining the claims of Greece to greater territory. Hon. C. J. Doherty was named as a member of the British Sub-Committee on the League of Nations, but for some unexplained reason, no meeting of Mr. Doherty's Committee was ever called. He finally issued a statement to the press setting forth his views on the organization of a League of Nations, and thus was able to let the world know that the representative from Canada at Paris at least was thinking about the League of Nations.
In that little picture of our busy ministers overseas we have taken into account the Prime Minister, with his eyes towards Prinkipo, we have Mr. Doherty showing that he is thinking about the League of Nations, we have Mir. Sifton who seems to be looking after claims in connection with ports, rivers, railways and various other things which are not ports, rivers and railways over here. But there is a missing man. What in the world has become of our good friend the'Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster)? The only explanation I can offer of it is

that our good friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce was too old a bird to be caught with chaff of that sort. I think that when he came to size up the situation he said to himself: " Now, I think that instead of waiting around in the anteroom of the Conference Chamber for something to turn up I had better go down and take a stroll on the boulevard, have an occasional sip of pink lemonade and watch the passing show." If the Minister of Trade and Commerce did that, I commend his judgment, for I think it would be more profitable as well and more agreeable than sitting around the Conference Chamber doing nothing. I have said that this humbug became really so patent that it could no longer be concealed. I have shown you what the opinion of Mr. Lambert was. Now, let me look at Mr. Dafoe's official correspondence. Mr. Dafoe made a brave effort to put the best face on the matter and I commend him for ito He is a master of the art of making much ado about nothing. But he said: We cannot keep up the game any longer, the Canadian people will see through it, and so one day he sent out this despatch-I have not the date of it but it is some time in February:
There is undoubtedly a good deal of feeling at the concentration of the Conference powers in the hands of a small committee of the Great Powers, and it is also a fact that this feeling is shared to some degree by the Dominions which recognize that the assumption of the right of control by the Council of Ten has limited their participation in the affairs of the Conference, as provided by the original plan of organization. This feeling found expression at the last Conference and there is likely to be further evidence of it at the coming meeting.
They could not keep up the game any longer, they had to admit that all this was humbug and they entered this protest. I have not the date of that despatch but on the 19th February I find a later telegram from Mr. Dafoe. You will remember that the 19th February was only a short time ago and that our ministers have been away since November last and have been in Paris days, weeks, months, looking after the Peace Conference. On the 19th February Mr. Dafoe says:
For the first time a representative of the Overseas Dominions has served on The Supreme Council of Ten, the governing body of the Peace Conference. The British Empire's representatives at this afternoon's sitting were Mr. Balfour, the British Foreign Minister, and Sir Robert Borden.
So you see that after long and weary delays, after days and weeks and months sitting around looking for a chance to do something, at last, long last, Sir Robert
Borden is asked to go in that day, that sunny afternoon, on the 19th February. Of course, this was a great day! Of course, some great big thing was going to be done, some grand thing, something of importance to Canada, and that is why Sir Robert Borden was invited to be present! Now, listen:
The matter before the Council was Serbia's claim for enlarged territory.
Far be it from me to underestimate for a single moment the talents of our respected Prime Minister. We all know him here as a gentleman who is well equipped, a lawyer of high standing, and we all know that if there is anything to do, any real business falling within the scope of his professional attainments, he would do it and acquit himself well. But, is it any discourtesy to him to say that if anybody was needed to consider the boundary lines of Serbia there are twenty clerks in the British Foreign Office who could'do it better than the Prime Minister of Canada? Surely all this pretence of Canada having a great part in this Conference is largely humbug. When Canada accomplishes anything in the way of constitutional reform we should be glad to know it and to express our gratitude to those who bring it about. If Canada should acquire any dignity anywhere we should be pleased to know it, but, seriously, does it bring any dignity to Canada to be nominally connected with the Peace Conference under the circumstances described in these statements which I have presented to you- not my statements but information coming direct from headquarters in Paris? No, sir.
If my feeble voice could reach those gentlemen over there I would dare to say to them: " Good friends, come home; there is real business to be done in Canada. If it were not so, we would not hurry you. You Ministers are a hard worked lot; we would not begrudge you a holiday amid the pleasant surroundings of gay Paree, but there is too much real work to be done at home." If the Prime Minister still hungers for the society of the Bolsheviki down at Prinkipo, I would suggest that he read the description of them given by the hon. the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) the other day. My hon. friend pictured them very eloquently indeed and told us what kind of people the Bolsheviki are. Although I have no right to speak for the House generally on many things, I am going to assume that I will have the right on this, question to say to Sir Robert Borden: " In the name

of the Parliament of Canada do not have any truck or trade with those Bolsheviki." And if anybody is needed to settle the bounds of Serbia, or any other question of that kind, important as it may be to some people, there are a hundred persons over there who can do it much better than our respected ministers, and so I would beg them, " Come home, come home, there is lots of Canadian business to be done."
This idea of Canada being a nation seems to have seized the imagination of some people. They like to talk about it, they usually get the notion into their heads that it is a great big thing, that it is elevating Canada. Now I am not able to see it in that light. There is too much talk about Canada being a nation, loose talk; there is too much disposition to magnify our own importance without just cause. There was a report laid on the table of the House a week ago, a remarkable report, giving us some information as to the management of a large branch of the public business of Canada, and in that report the Commissioners said: " The art of doing nothing and making it look like real work seems to have been highly cultivated." Well, Sir, I think that somewhere in the departments here there must be a school of instruction for that sort of thing, and I think our ministers when they went overseas must have been taking lessons in that school, because ever since they have gone, there has been an effort to make it appear that they are doing wonderfully big things, and making of Canada a big nation, when, if X may dare to quote the words, the classic words, of a .Canadian statesman no longer with us, " There aint nothing to it." Canada a nation! There is a sense in which Canada is a nation. The British Empire has been happily described as a galaxy of nations, and in that sense Canada is a nation. But in world affairs Canada is not a nation, and I for one am not inclined to look with great joy when I find the ministers over there setting forth a claim that hereafter Canada is to be known as a separate state-. I quote these words from Lord Curzon, speaking in the British House of Lords. In his statement he uses the words that the place of the Dominions in the Conference was afi admission that these countries were henceforth, to be regarded as separate states by themselves. By themselves! That is to say that the Canadian ministers, and the other Dominion ministers, have put forth the claim that these Dominions are separate states. I do not like that, Mr. Speaker, I think it rather makes more for the separ-fMr. Fielding.]
ation that we used to be warned against than for the unity which we all desire. If our present state of affairs is not satisfactory-I know there are men who tell us occasionally that it is not-I would like to say to those who have any change to propose, " Give it to us in plain terms and let us see what it is." Imperial federation is a magnificent dream, and we are all better for dreaming it. I cling to the hope that one day-I do not know by what process- not by radical measures, not by revolution, but by that process of evolution under which the British constitution has developed "Where freedom broadens slowly down from precedent to precedent," by that process I hope and believe we will bring about some closer union between the Mother Country and the various portions of the Empire. There is an Imperialism and an Imperialism. There is an Imperialism which has been happily described as "jingoism," an Imperialism which blows the horn, and beats the drum, and waves the flag, and shouts about its own loyalty and questions the loyalty of other men who do not agree with it. If that is Imperialism, from it, good Lord deliver us all.
But there is another, and I think a truer Imperialism, to which I am proud to subscribe. If to be a loyal subject of the Crown-at this time when crowns are tumbling all around-if to be proud of British citizenship; if to feel that the British Empire is the greatest force, under divine Providence, for the spread of freedom and the extension of civilization throughout the world; if to desire all portions of that grand empire to come into harmonious co-operation, and into as much unity as is consistent with the maintenance of our own autonomy-if that be Imperialism, then I am proud to call myself an Imperialist. But I would earnestly beg that those who want change, those who are dissatisfied, will tell us plainly and squarely what their grievance is. I know of no grievance that Canada has. Canada has no difficulty in regard to her foreign relations. She has no need of asserting herself as a separate state-I am quoting again the words of Lord Curzon that these Dominions now claim themselves to be separate states. We have had occasion to deal with international affairs, but we never up to this moment had any minister of our Dominion set forth the claim that we were to be a separate state. We have long, Sir, had the right, with the cooperation of the British Government, to deal with international affairs when they concerned Canada. Go back a few years

to 1872, to the time of the Treaty of Washington. Go back earlier. No doubt in the olden days there was a time when Canada was not consulted; when the colonies were not consulted, when the colonies had not advanced to the status which they have since obtained, when treaties were made by Great Britain and they bound the empire whether we liked them or not. But that has all passed away. By the legitimate, constitutional development of Canada we long ago acquired the right to be heard and consulted in our international affairs. In 1872 when the Treaty of Washington had to be negotiated, Sir John Macdonald went to Washington along with the Imperial Commissioners. He did not say, "I come as representing a separate state." He said, "I come as representing the British Empire." And when, a little later, the fishery question came up, and when Mr. Joseph Chamberlain and (Sir Charles Tupper went to Washington to deal with matters from the Canadian point of view, the Canadian representative did not set up any claim that Canada was a separate state; he went there as a commissioner of the Empire, empowered by the British Government. A little later a small treaty, not a big treaty- a lopsided and unfair treaty, by the way- was made at Paris on behalf of Canada by Lord Dufferin, the British Ambasador, associated with Sir Charles Tupper, then High Commissioner for Canada. But Sir Charles Tupper did not put forward any plea to be considered as the representative of a separate state; it was enough for him that he represented the British Empire. Come down a little later. It fell to my lot to be associated with my friend-not now in politics-now Mr. Justice Brodeur to negotiate what I believe we may call the ' most important commercial arrangement with a foreign country that was ever transacted on behalf of Canada-the Franco-Canadian Treaty of 1908. Well, Sir, when my friend Mr. Brodeur and I went to the conference, went to the office at Paris, the very place where the Council is meeting to-,day, the Foreign Office at the Quai d'Orsay, we were received with respect as the representatives of Canada, because our French friends knew we had come to do Canadian business. But I do not hesitate to say that we were received with greater respect, and whatever we had to say and do had very much greater weight, because my colleague and I were able to place before the Government of Mr. Clemenceau-for the old Tiger was then as now Premier of France-and because we 31
were able to place in the hands of Mr. Pichon-who was then and is again to-day, in the whirligig of French politics, Foreign Minister-because we were able to place on the table of the Foreign Office at Paris our credentials as the plenipotentiaries of His Majesty, signed by King Edward. That was the thing that gave us weight, and strength, and power, in addition to whatever power and authority we had as ministers of Canada. That is the way these negotiations have been conducted in the past. What more could we ask? What more can we ask by way of liberty from the British Government than we have to-day? I do not hesitate to say, Sir, I can think of no change that we can ask in our relations to-day which will be at the same time of advantage to the Empire, and acceptable to our Canadian people. There have been schemes of Imperial federation devised, worthy, I am sure, in their purpose, devised by people who are very patriotic and thought they were doing good, but which one of these schemes has ever been found acceptable to the Empire, or even to the Canadian people? Not one of them, Sir, down to this moment.
The President of the Privy Council (Hon. N. W. Rowell) said the other day that the present condition was intolerable, inconceivable; that we could not go on as we are. "Inconceivable"-Sir, the word is not new; there is a familiar ring about it. For a generation and more men have been telling us that things could not go on as they were; that conditions were intolerable, inconceivable. Fussy but well meaning men in the Mother Country have been devising schemes for reorganizing the constitution of the Empire and have been telling us that it is intolerable and inconceivable that things should go on as they are. But the thing which was inconceivable and intolerable persisted in going on. When the South African war came, hundreds and thousands of Canadian boys volunteered and went to South Africa to fight for the flag; out of the intolerable and inconceivable conditions sprang the splendid movement which brought honour to Canada and honour to the flag. Then, we had the same cry; things were intolerable, inconceivable. And what happened? The great war came on. We had been told by these worthy but well-meaning people that if their particular fad or constitution were not adopted, the British Empire would go to the "demni-tion bow-wows." But when the great war came on, without any demand from anybody, by the free voice of the Canadian



people supported by the Canadian Parliament, we raised half a million men to fight for the flag. Intolerable? No, Sir; these things are not intolerable; they are not inconceivable.
True, there is an anomaly in the position. I grant you at once that if we had been obliged to take part in the war, having no voice in the making of it, the condition would be inconceivable and intolerable. But under the principles of our constitution the only power which in reality could carry Canada into the war was the power of this Parliament; and I see nothing inconceivable, nothing intolerable, in that situation so long as the thing that we do is the result of our free voice. I have said that I should be glad if some scheme of closer union could be devised. So far, I have not seen any, and until some better scheme is devised may it not be wisdom that we should rather "bear the ills we have than fly to others that we know not of"?
What is it that Canada wants that she had not to-day? I do not think that Canada has any grievance in her relations with the Mother Country, and I see no particular reason why we should distress our souls over the situation. I fear that out of this glamour of a separate nation, out of this glamour of Canada playing a part of her own, will come some scheme by which we shall grasp for the shadow of a vague imperialism and lose the substance of the autonomy which we already possess.
I want to touch now on a more material question, that of the tariff. We have heard a great deal about it; no doubt we shall hear much more about it in the days to come. There is alarm and surprise in Canada on the part of a large section of our respected fellow-citizens, the manufacturers. They are very much alarmed at the outlook, especially in the West. There is just cause for their alarm. When they see the movement in the West; when they see these many meetings of agricultural organizations; when they see the legislatures of Manitoba and Saskatchewan unanimously passing resolutions demanding great tariff changes; when they find hon. gentlemen on your right, Mr. Speaker, demanding great tariff changes in general terms; when they find hon. gentlemen on your left declaring that there is no line of cleavage between them and the West and that they are prepared to act with the West-then, there is a very grave situation, and the manufacturers may well be alarmed.. For their alarm there
TMr. Fielding.]
is much reason; for their surprise there is'' none. The situation which meets the manufacturers to-day is one which any reasonable man might very easily have anticipated. At times there are great movements of which you cannot get warning; there are tides which come without warning. I was much impressed by a passage in the speech of President Wilson at New York a few days ago when he was warning his people against some of the dangers which were presenting themselves to his mind. He said:-
And I want to utter this solemn warning, not in the way o>f threat. The forces of the world do not threaten ; they operate. The great tides of the world do not give notice that they are going to rise and run. They rise in their majesty and overwhelming might, and those who stand in the way are overwhelmed.
These are wise words, wise in their relation to many things in ovir country and in all countries to-day. But of the tide that is rising in our western country there was no lack of warning.
What was the condition of the western country and of Canada _ generally a few years ago? Shall il dare speak of the year 1911? Generally, Canada was prosperous, more than prosperous in her western territory. While the whole country was doing pretty well, a careful observer might have noticed that the greatest prosperity was coming to Canada in the West; that the greatest growth of Canada was in the West, and it would, not have required very much wisdom and sagacity to look ahead and see the consequences which were to follow from that condition. Unfortunately, our manufacturing friends did not seem to see it. I should not apeak of manufacturers generally, because there were many sane exceptions-I will not be invidious and say honourable exceptions, because they were all animated by what they believed to be their own interests. I am making no reflection on the motives of any, but the manufacturers were solemnly warned. I am going to read to you some words-they are worth something, though the one who spoke them may be of no significance-from an address that was delivered in the midst of the manufacturers in Montreal in March, 1911. The speaker was a Liberal, supporting reciprocity. He made an allusion to a speech that he had made on a previous occasion, and then proceeded to enlarge his idea. He said:-
I ventured to point out to the manufacturers of Canada-
That was in the previous speech.

-that it was a mistake for them to array themselves in antagonism to the people of the Western Provinces. That opinion I want to express again to-day. There is the danger that East and West may be brought into antagonism. The danger is not to be found in Reciprocity itself, but the danger is that the manufacturing interests of this country and their allied moneyed interests will array themselves in hostility to the growing feeling of the Western farmers. Don't make any mistake about it-the day is within sight of the younger men here, and of some who are not so young, when there will be more people [DOT]west of the Great Lakes than east of the Great Lakes. The West is going some day to dominate Canada and we, who live in the East, if we are wise, may as well look ahead and see this. What kind of a West is it to be? Is it to be a wise and prudent and sympathetic West; or is it to be a rash and reckless and dangerous West? The answer can be made by the manufacturers of the Dominion and the allied moneyed interests to-day. I do not hesitate to say that with proper care, with fair treatment, with reasonable argument, we can bring the Western farmer to be sympathetic and to be willing to work in harmony with the people of the Eastern country, who have done so much for the building up of the West.
And further on, the speaker continued:
But suppose you do not do that. Suppose the manufacturers should organize to-day with their money to defeat this agreement. I want to tell you, my brethren, that there will grow up in that western country a dangerous feeling. Don't make any mistake about it. I beg the manufacturers of this country-I always talk frankly to them and I am doing so now-I beg them not to range themselves up against the farmers of the West. The manufacturers are not hurt; they are more frightened than hurt. I give it to you as my opinion, worth much or worth little, that if by the forces of the manufacturers this agreement be destroyed, there will grow up in that western country a feeling that will be dangerous to the manufacturing interests of Canada and dangerous to the welfare of this Dominion.


Samuel Hughes: Whose words were these? I did not catch the name.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think that is of importance. The words are of value; it is of no importance who spoke them. The very condition that is spoken of in those words is facing us to-day. It did not require any great sagacity to make that prediction; it was the observation of the signs of the times. In the West we find that every prediction made at that time is coming true. The manufacturers, who were looking out for number one, unfortunately did not observe what was coming. I do not blame them for looking out for number one. I am not questioning their motives; I am questioning their wisdom. A person has to look out for number one to a certain extent, because if a person does not look after his own interests, nobody else will look after it for him. But there is an intelligent selfishness and a clumsy selfishness,
31 i
and I think our manufacturers indulged in a clumsy selfishness when they ranged themselves against that reciprocity agreement. What is to be the outcome of all this? We have seen in the meetings in the West; we have seen in the resolutions of the legislatures of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and we see elsewhere all through the West, the evidence of a deep feeling of unrest, of discontent, a determination that the West will no longer allow itself to be dominated by the East. We see it in the expressions of hon. gentlemen here to-day who, in their earnest desire to help the Government, are refraining from saying things that they would like to say. What is going to be the outcome of it all. Some of our Liberal friends from the West have, somehow or other, had the besetting sin of failing to adequately recognize and appreciate the measure of tariff reform that they received from the former Liberal Government. I am afraid that I shall have to include my eloquent friend, the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) in that remark, and also our respected friend, the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Henders), who spoke last night. When he condemned all the old political parties, and then when he told us of the splendid things he expected to get in the way of tariff reform from the present Government, the mental comment I made was: "I have not seen such great faith, no, not in Israel." I do not know how much tariff reform my hon. friend is going to get from the present Government, but I know there are, in the West, conditions
which will press	themselves	upon	usall. But we	are	told that	the	oldparties were	no	good; we	are	toldthat the old	Liberal Government	did
not do anything, and that is where lay the besetting sin of my hon. friends, that they were not ready to proclaim how much the Laurier Government had done in times past. And when some Conservative critic said that we had made no material change in the tariff; that we had simply continued the old National Policy, sometimes our Liberal friends who should have sprung to their feet and answered the question, held their peace and let it be assumed that there was something in the charge. There is nothing in the charge. The Laurier Government did great things in the way of tariff reform for the people of Canada. This is susceptible of proof by figures. If you consider only the saving of money by way of taxation at the Custom house; that is to say, if you .look at what was paid in Customs taxes during the period of the


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: May I, not in any spirit of hostility, suggest that Cobden is an instance to the contrary?


William Stevens Fielding: If my hon. friend can tell me that as an independent man so-called, he could get through this House any measure of great importance without the intervention and support of the Government, he will give me a valuable piece of information. I want to say in all sincerity to my farmer friends that if they want to accomplish anything in this great work they must look over the ground and see which of the two great political parties- and there are going to be two; I am not speaking of immediate action-comes nearest to his views. Neither party will do all he wants. I should not like to subscribe to-day to all the opinions that have been set forth in the claims of our respected western friends. I should prefer to have a free hand so that I might deal with any question that comes up in the light that Heaven may give me at the moment. I do not see the wisdom of committing one's self to a thousand and one details in advance, but this I will say: For the greater part of their programme, for the general trend towards lower taxation, for greater freedom of trade, for reciprocity and all the things Liberalism has battled for in the past I shall stand in the future and help my farmer friends to get them.
I would say, with all deference to those advising them to keep out of politics, that until they are able to pursue that course they will accomplish nothing. I do not suggest slavish support to his party by any hon. member, be he Grit or Tory; but I do say that the party system,.with all its faults, is after all the best system that statesmen have been able to devise for the government of the affairs of the people. Nothing can be accomplished in a large way except through the instrumentality of one party or the other. Choose you which you will serve.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


William Stevens Fielding: Mr. Speaker, just before the Deputy Speaker left the Chair at six o'clock, I was endeavouring, necessarily in a somewhat hurried way, to present a review of the tariff policy of the Laurier Government, particularly in reference to the western country, and with some reference to the future tariff policy, and particularly as to the manner in which any great reform must be accomplished in this country. I do not wish to enlarge on that subject now. It is enough to say that I realize that it is a question of very great importance and'that upon whomever may fall the responsibility of dealing with the question, he will have to approach it with a sense of its immense importance in relation to a great many interests in this country.
There is only one point I care to add. I have noticed a revival of the movement to establish what is called a permanent tariff commission. Several years ago the Conservative Government introduced a measure to appoint such a commission. The meas-

ure failed to pass the Senate, and for the session it was abandoned. The Government did not revive it. I judge from that fact that on further consideration they came to the conclusion that the policy was not a wise one. If that was their conclusion I desire to endorse it very warmly, because I am persuaded that the appointment of a tariff commission is not the best way of dealing with tariff affairs in the Dominion of Canada. There is such a commission in the United States, it is true, but the methods of dealing with these things in the United States are not the same as in our country. I need, hardly remind the House that in the United States members of the Government have nothing to do practically with the tariff question. The tariff is dealt with by a ' committee of Congress. The argument in favour of a tariff commission is that members of the Government cannot, with the thousand and one things they have to do, understand fully the tariff question and deal with it in the best way. Therefore, it is argued, they should have a body of experts to deal with it. I noticed quite recently in the Montreal Gazette, a very influential Conservative paper, revival of the argument in favour of a tariff commission. I want to quote a passage from that article in order that I may answer it. The Montreal Gazette of March 5 says:
What a permanent tariff commission may recommend, and what the Government may accept, are not necessarily the same thing, and, in any event, Government, and not the commission, must stand or fall by its tariff policy.
That is a very plausible statement, Mr. Speaker, but when we come to analyse it it absolutely fails to carry conviction. See what the situation is. We are told that there ought to be a tariff commission because the minister, the members of the Government, with the thousand and one things they have to do, cannot sufficiently attend to the tariff question. In other words-I do not say it offensively-the theory is that the Government, and the Minister of Finance, who is usually the officer of the Government dealing with such matters, are incompetent to deal with the tariff question. 'Therefore, they say, vve will appoint a tariff commission which is competent. Then, we are told, after the tariff commission has reported, it is for the Government to say whether it will or will not adopt the recommendation. See how strange the situation would bej, The Government are, according to the argu-
[Slr. Fielding.]
ment, incompetent to deal Nvith the question; therefore, you appoint competent men, and after your competent men have been sitting in judgment and have made a report and decided what we ought to do, you are going to leave it to the incompetent men to decide that they shall set that report aside. The thing is preposterous.
Under our system of government responsibility for the tariff, the greatest taxing machine we have, must rest with the Government and for it they must be responsible to Parliament. Under the custom of our Government the Minister of Finance becomes the proper person to deal with that question. It is certainly to be desired that he shall surround himself with competent help. If he has experts to-day, by all means let him have the benefit of help. If they are not the right ones he will get others. If he needs more help get it by all means; let him surround himself with the best possible help and advice he can get in order that he may do justice to the tariff question as a whole. When that has been done let him take that advice and apply it as he thinks best, bring down his measure to Parliament, but not try to set up any tariff commission between himself and the Parliament of Canada. With that I shall pass away from the tariff question, although it is a very broad and inviting one.
So much has been said about the evils of party politics that I want to say something of the good of party politics. So many hon. gentlemen have told us of the dreadful things that have been done by party politicians. Well, the party system is not perfect. When you say that you only admit that it is a human institution. I am persuaded that those who say that have not fully realized the purpose of the party system. Undoubtedly you can point to harm that has come from party government, but on the other hand, after coming to a calm judgment upon the question, I say you can get better results from party government than from any other kind of government except under certain special circumstances, such as, I frankly say, have existed very lately.
I am going to ask the House to permit me to indulge for about three minutes in a little personal reference. I do not like to intrude my personality upon the House. But I have frequently seen in the public press references to the circumstances under which I had the honour of being elected to this House, and the statements have not always been quite accurate. It seems to me that the point is not important, but if it is

worth while discussing in the press at all perhaps we might as well have the information correct. I was nominated by a Liberal convention. If that is not clear enough and you want something more explicit, I was nominated by a straight Liberal Convention. I was nominated by the same kind of convention, and largely by the same men, as those who had honoured me with nominations for many years before. There was no Unionist convention held or called. My Conservative fellow-citizens held a convention at the same time. They nominated a gentleman as their candidate, and he de-dined to run. I am advised, and I think I am correct, that they then nominated another gentleman, and he declined to run. Then the convention adjourned. A few days later two gentlemen prominent in the Conservative party did me the honour of calling upon me, and they said that they had been instructed by their party to say that they would be glad if I would agree to accept a nomination from them. They knew that I had already been nominated by my Liberal friends, but they proposed that I should be the nominee of both parties. T told them that it would not be wise that I should accept the suggestion. I appreciated very much their courtesy in intimating that they were not likely to oppose me. We take our politics pretty seriously in Nova Scotia, but however seriously we take our politics down there I am glad to say that in all the years I have had the honour to represent that same constituency my personal relations with my Conservative friends have always been agreeable and I have received a great many courtesies from them. I confess that I was pleased with the intimation I received from them, that they were not likely to give me' any opposition. For that courtesy I gave them my warmest thanks, which thanks I repeat here to-day, but I told them that I thought it was best, as I had already been nominated by the Liberal convention, and had accepted the nomination, that I should stand by it. That is the whole situation. Before I was nominated, and after I was nominated, and before I accepted the nomination, I had a heart to heart talk with my Liberal friends. I told them that I was obliged to differ with my leader and with a great many of my friends of the Liberal party on the question of conscription. I told them, whether I was wise or not in doing so, that I supported conscription and that I must take the same position then. I told them that while I thought Union Government had come too late to effect most
of its purposes, I realized the difficulty they had in appreciating the situation. While I felt that Union Government would have been much better if it had come three years before, yet, now that it had come, I was disposed to give it an independent support, especially in all matters in any way dealing with the war. One friend of mine in the convention, with that desire for clear and explicit information which I think is characteristic of Liberals, rose and said: "Mr. Fielding, I want to ask you a question: suppose when the elections are coming on -and, of course, this was before the elections-"it turns out that there is a pretty equal division of the parties up there, and the leader of the party moves a vote of want of confidence in the Government, what will you do?'' I said, "I will vote against that motion. I feel "it to be my duty under the circumstances to give the Government a fair chance to bring forth their measures." That was the situation, Sir, under which I left my constituency. That was my position then, and that is the position which I desire to take to-day. I think the time has not come to bring about a change of Government in this country. I am prepared to-day to play the part of an independent supporter of the Unionist Government. How many hours, days, weeks or months that condition may continue I do not presume to say; but I think I have good reason, satisfactory to myself, why it would not be wise to press for a change of Government at this moment.
In the first place, Sir, the Unionist Government has brought forth a large number of measures designed to meet the conditions which the country is obliged to face. I am willing to admit, Sir, that these gentlemen are honestly and sincerely endeavouring to make the best they can of these arrangements. I do not for a moment believe that these gentlemen have any other desire than to do the best they can in the face of the difficulties which present themselves; and for that reason I would not desire at present to have a change of Government take place. On the various questions that may come up in the House I desire to hold myself free to vote according as my judgment may lead me, and according to the merits of the issue presented. But I say now that unless some new conditions present themselves, unless there is some new situation not visible at this moment, no vote that I shall give will have for its object the turning out of the Government at the present time. There i3

another reason which I desire to give. I think it not advisable to make a change of Government now, because I take it for granted that a change of Government will involve a general election, and I do not think it is in the interest of the country, or of any party, that we should now have the strife of a general election. We are too near the last election to permit us to indulge in the hope that an election to-day would be carried on quietly and smoothly; the echoes and the passions of the last election would remain; we would have a bitter contest, and I am not prepared to say which side would win. I do not think, even for the interests of my friends of the Liberal party, that it is wise for them to press to-day for a change of Government. If my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) or any of his friends should to-day move an amendment to the Address I should be obliged to vote against the amendment; I should take the ground that the Government are entitled to carry their Address. That is the first step to be taken in the management of the affairs of the country, and I should be willing to have that done, and to give them a chance to produce their measures.
Another reason, Mr. Speaker-not the highest reason, not the noblest reason-is that I do not think my Liberal friends have yet brought about that degree of unanimity and unity in the party which I believe to be essential to success. Now, I believe that unity is necessary for any party; a party naturally wants unity in order to carry on its organizations; I am sure that desire must be in the minds of my Liberal friends. Surely, we will all agree in that? Then there is a further reason. With all due respect to my Conservative friends-and I speak of them with great respect, because although we differ from them we try to differ as becomes men- I am persuaded that in the conditions which exist to-day, or which will exist very soon, while any Government will have a troubled time, the only Government which can have any hope of meeting the progressive spirit of this country will be a Government dominated by the Liberal party; and that being the case my desire is that we should bring about that unity which seems to me to be essential for all good ends. We will all agree on either side, I am sure, that that unity is desirable. How is it going to be brought about? I have no special prescription to give as to how it may be done, but perhaps I can be helpful in offering some suggestions how not to do it. Unity in the
	<
Liberal party is not going to be brought about by the men of either section-for there are two sections-throwing rocks at the other, or calling the other names. Unity in the Liberal party is not going to be brought about by either party assuming towards the other a holier-than-thou attitude; nor by either section assuming that they are in exclusive possession of the ark of the covenant of Liberalism, and that all who do not agree with them are worshipping at the shrine of Tory idolatry. None of these things will bring about Liberal unity.
Lastly, may I say that unity in the Liberal party is not going to be brought about by any kind and generous offer to give Christian forgiveness to the wandering brother. My hon. friend the leader of the Opposition made a speech which was admirable in its tone, and moderate throughout; there was hardly anything in it that anybody could take exception to. If I had to take any exception at all it would be to the passage which has been so much talked about, as to the light in the window and the latch string hanging out. My hon. friend I know extended that invitation in the true spirit of Scottish hospitality, but if he will read it carefully again he will find that there is running through it that note of Christian forgiveness to which I referred, as though he were saying, "Poor wandering boys, we are sorry you made such a huge mistake, but if you will come back-we do not say, like the Master, go and sin no more, we say, come and sin no more; and if you will just be good and not do this thing any more you will be welcomed back to the old home". Well, Sir, although I admit that this is all done in the kindest [DOT]spirit, it jars upon the ears of some of us. If there was a suspicion of something of that kind in the speech of my good friend the leader of the Opposition, there was more than a suspicion of it in the remarks of two or three other hon. gentlemen who spoke. Now, Mr. Speaker, the men who wandered away, if that is the phrase, we are not sure they did wander away; but these men who, for conscience sake, for empire's sake, for what they believed to be right, separated themselves from the friends with whom they were associated, separated themselves from the leader whom they loved

these men are not asking any forgiveness; they have no apologies to offer, they have no regrets to express. They felt that they were right; they feel now that they were right. But I do not wish to insist that they alone were, right. They recognize that the question of conscription was a large

one upon which men might differ. They realize that the men who supported conscription and the men who apposed conscription might be equally loyal and patriotic. We who supported conscription did not for a moment, and do not now, question the loyalty or the patriotism of the men who opposed conscription. They were within their rights. If we give them that credit, and do not for a moment question their loyalty or their patriotism, is it too much to ask that similar consideration shall be given to the others? Is it too much to ask now that we shall consider. that question one upon which men may honourably differ, and no longer feel that it should be a cause of quarrelling between us? If some of my Liberal friends want to proclaim that the man who supports conscription cannot be a Liberal- and I have heard that almost said in the course of the discussion-then we shall be obliged to point out that if we erred in that respect we erred in good Libera! company. We have already been reminded that we supported conscription along with Mr. Herbert Asquith, the distinguished leader of the Liberal party in England. We supported conscription along with Mr. David Lloyd George, who, though he may be criticised to-day, has surely been a large contributor to the upbuilding of Liberalism in Great Britain. We supported conscription along with five-sixths of the Liberal party in the British House of Commons. We supported conscription along with Lord Crewe and Lord Bryce-James Bryce as we know him better-and all the Liberals in the House of Lords.
We have supported conscription, Sir, in common with the great mass of the Liberals of the Mother Country; we have supported conscription along with the most distinguished figure in the Liberalism of the world to-day, President Woodrow Wilson. If we are able to point to these examples; if we are able to show some reason for what we believed to be right, though we do not insist that we only were right; may we not ask my hon. friends of the Liberal party to revise their judgment on some of these questions? May we not ask them, not to admit that they were wrong, but simply to admit the possibility that the other fellow inay have been right; that there may have been two sides to the question? And when my hon. friends invite us to return to the home, when they tell us that the latch string is hanging out, perhaps they would do well-the Scripture says:	"Let a man examine himself"-
to give a little consideration to the question whether or not the home to which they invite us is really the old homestead; whether it may not be that they, rather than we, have wandered away. The point is worth considering; and with a very old and hackneyed story, which is very appropriate, I will close this portion of my remarks. It is the story of an Indian who was found wandering in the forest. A passer-by stopped him and said:	"John,
what is the matter, are you lost?" " Lost?" was the answer; "No, Indian not lost; Indian here-wigwam lost."
The speech from the Throne, Mr. (Speaker, deals with several matters which, strictly speaking, are of local concern. Legislation is foreshadowed with regard to technical education, to housing schemes, to highways and to public health-all matters which are largely, if not entirely, within the field of the local legislatures. Some of my Liberal friends feel so strongly on the question of provincial rights that they have objected to the Government legislating on these subjects at all. Well, I do not care to go quite so far as that; il would rather have these things done with the help of the Dominion than not have them done at all. The (Fathers of Confederation, who are often so highly praised, especially by those who know least about their work, made a sad mess of the financial relations between the Dominion and the provinces. For years efforts have been made to straighten them out, but even yet these relations are hardly satisfactory. The provinces gave up to the Dominion the power of taxation in respect of customs and excise. There is this curious difference between the eastern and the western provinces: the western provinces were created by the Dominion, whereas the eastern provinces created the Dominion; the provinces are the fathers in the East, the Dominion is the father in the West. The eastern provinces, then, surrendered their right of taxation, thus enabling the Dominion to gather into the Federal treasury enormous sums of money. The theory of the scheme was that there was a reservation of a sufficient sum to enable the provinces to carry on their work efficiently. Time very soon proved, Sir, that the provision made for the provinces was entirely inadequate. For some years nothing was done; Sir John A. Macdonald was so proud of the Confederation scheme that he would not permit any change of it, he would not listen to any suggestion of change from the provinces. When the old chief passed away and other people came to the front, somehow or other they listened to the claims of the provinces and once or twice material

changes have been made by which the provinces have been put in a better position to handle their affairs. But, even as it stands to-day, the provinces have not sufficient means. If, then, technical education is desirable; if housing is desirable; if the public health improvement is desirable; even if roads and bridges are desirable, I say at once that while I regret that the provinces are not able to do these things, I am prepared to help the Dominion Government do them rather than have them
not done at all. _____
As to the question of highways, there is a danger. The matter has been before the House in time past, and the impression has seemed to grow that the Dominion Government wished to get control of the highways for party purposes. All I care to say about that is this: if the Dominion Government are to provide money for any given purpose and are to put it in the hands of the local governments, the Dominion Government may reasonably ask assurance that the money shall be applied to that particular purpose. That is a fair provision. If the Dominion Government are to provide money for roads, they should require of the provincial governments the assurance that the money will be spent on road schemes. Beyoud that, I do not think that the Government should interfere; they should let the province handle the business and be responsible for it.
And that same principle would apply to other things. In regard to public health, may I say a word? I do not know whether the project of the Government contemplates the creation of a department of public health with a minister at the head of it. We have a good many ministers now; we have been splitting up departments in order to appoint more, and I rather think the Government could arrange this thing without increasing the number of ministers. However, the argument is commonly used that a department of public health will be created at the head of which an eminent medical man will be placed. There are on both sides of this House quite a number of eminent medical men; I have no doubt that there are a dozen men here any one of whom would honourably fill the position of head of a department of public health. At the beginning, then, you would get your medical man. But how long would he continue as head of the department? Unfortunately, we have not arrived at that condition of unity in Canada which enables us to select a man for a department of government irrespective of race, of creed, of province or of division. A vacancy occurs in the cabinet. The question is not, who is
[Mr. Fielding;. 1
the best man for the position? It is: who is the best man for the position within the ranks of the party-necessarily he has to be of the same party-and within the particular division from which he comes? The vacancy may be in respect of a position- I am speaking very frankly-that had been held by a gentleman of the Roman Catholic faith-when you come to fill his place and you are inclined to put a Protestant in the position, you discover that the balance of power would be disturbed if you did that. It may be a case where a vacancy exists out in the western country and there is a medical man somewhere down East, where the wise men come from, whom you would like to put there. But you discover that his province is already occupying all the space it can in the Government;-so you cannot take him in. The truth is that under your scheme of putting a medical man at the head of a department of public health, you would have him at the beginning, you might get him once or twice, but by-and-by you would discover that the head of the medical department was probably some respectable fanner, or, more likely, some lawyer-who, 1 hope, would be respectable.
Now, names do not always mean what they seem to imply. We have a Minister of Agriculture; how often has he been a practical agriculturalist? For many years the Department of Agriculture was presided over by excellent gentlemen who had no particular connection with agriculture. We have a Department of Railways; but when was there a railway engineer at the head of it? Never. These names mean nothing, and the result in this case will be that although you start in with an eminent medical man, in a few years, owing to conditions of party politics, divisional politics, racial politics, religious politics, you will have great difficulty in keeping that man in. It seems to me that if you want to have an eminent medical man preside over that department, the better plan would be to have him act as the head in some other form-as deputy minister, for instance- then he can be there and give the country continuous service. If you put him in as minister of the Crown he may be there a few months, and then he may pass away altogether. I offer that suggestion to my hon. friends in all good faith.
Now I am going to say something on a thorny question-prohibition. I may be told by my friends on your left, Sir, that this is a thorny question which the Government will have to worry over, and that we had better let them do the worrying. I have no desire to treat the question in that way; I would rather be helpful and constructive.

if I could, in the matter. What is the situation to-day? By an Act of the Parliament of Canada-because the Order in Council is equivalent to an Act of Parliament of Canada-supplementing the Acts of the provincial legislatures, we virtually have prohibition over the Dominion to-day. We have actual prohibition in all the provinces save one, and in that province I understand we shall have prohibition on the first day of May. I think it never was, and is not now, the duty of the Government and of this Parliament to take any initiative in legislation on the question of prohibition.
I think that is a question on which we might have due regard to the principle of provincial rights. In the olden days, just before Confederation, there were grave difficulties over the form which our constitution should take. There were men who held that we should have a legislative union, one centralised power at Ottawa, whereas, the other side of the question was that we should have a federal union wherein each province should have its own legislature. This idea of a centralized union was a very fascinating one, and I am not surprised to learn, as I do ifrom various sources, that Sir John A. Macdonald, that masterful man, wanted to have a centralised union. He wanted to have everything here at Ottawa under his own thumb. I have rather a liking for that suggestion of a one-man power, under certain limitations, the putting of one man into some central place to do something, taking care to see that you get the right man and then supporting and helping him. That is the way to get things done, that is the way in which the war was won, when Marshal Foch was made the one-man power for the whole of the Allies. So, I rather like this notion within certain limitations. It would, however, never do in Canada. Our territory is too vast; you cannot undertake to deal with all the affairs of this country from the centre at Ottawa. Moreover, there are the differences of race and creed and other things. So the Fathers of Confederation, in their wisdom, determined that we should have a federal union. I think it is right that the question of prohibition should be viewed largely from a provincial standpoint. It was not and is not the duty of this Government to take the initiative in legislation on that question, but it was and is their duty to supplement the legislation of the provinces by such measures as will make the prohibition thoroughly effective. We have at present a Dominion law which provides that prohibition shall exist until the end of
the war which, I presume, means until peace is signed, and for one year later. We are told that the Government are now considering what they will do after that. There is a current rumour as to what they intend to do. It is because I think that is a mistake that I am going to venture and presume to offer them advice not to do it. Punch's advice to those about to marry is good here, " Don't." It is presumed that the Government intend to have a referendum or a plebiscite. That statement is not made in the speech from the Throne; we do not have it in any official form; it comes to us by way of leakage, I suppose, from the caucus; and I know leakage from the caucus is very unsafe as basis for argument. But one or two members of the House, perhaps unconsciously, have disclosed the fact. The hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Whidden) and, I think, the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Henders) told us that we are going to take a vote on the subject, so we really know what the Government is contemplating. But as the Government have not yet really committed themselves to it, perhaps there is still time for the thought I am offering for their consideration. My view of the matter is that we should not take the responsibility of initiating legislation, but that we should recognize the rights of the provinces. There is a strong movement amongst our temperance friends everywhere to induce the Government to bring forward very stiff legislation. I have no doubt all the members of Parliament have received various circulars on the matter. I have one pamphlet which I will read, because it seems to me [DOT]to indicate the correct situation. This comes to me from Hamilton, from the International Order of Good Templars, which we are informed is the largest temperance organization in the world. I quote this passage;
As every province in the Dominion has shown a desire, by the enacting of provincial laws, to prohibit the liquor traffic to the full extent of their constitutional powers, we believe that the time has now arrived when the expressed will of the people should be enacted into Parliamentary laws, and that at the present Session of Parliament, the "Order in Council" legislation, covering importation, manufacture and interprovincial shipment, should be enacted into Parliamentary legislation.
We think that no further vote of the people is necessary, other than that expressed by the various provinces.
That seems to be sound reasoning. If the various provinces of this Dominion, through their Governments and legislatures, see fit, in their wisdom, to adopt a prohibitory law, and if, as is the fact, they find that, owing to constitutional difficul-

ties, they cannot make that law effective, it is the duty of the Dominion Government and Parliament to give them such supplementary legislation as will make the law effective.
**There was a time years ago when there was a great deal of difficulty over this temperance question. Both the Dominion Parliament and the local legislatures claimed the right to deal with it. We had the Dominion License law. This was one of the things over which those two gladiators, Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Oliver Mowat, fought, with the usual result that Sir Oliver Mowat won and the Dominion License law was declared to be ultra vires. The Dominion courts have established the fact that in respect to importation, exportation and manufacture, the Dominion Parliament will control, but as respects the retail sale the local Parliament will control. Let me give the House an illustration how this works. There is a prohibitory law in the province of Nova Scotia. There are a number of brewers in the province. The Halifax brewer cannot sell his beer to the consumer in Halifax, but he can ship it over to an agent in St. John, and then the Halifax consumer can write to the St. John agent and order it sent back. Thus he can get the Halifax beer if he wants it, but he has to pay the price of the beer and two railway freights in order to get it. The thing is preposterous. Seeing, therefore, that iwe should make prohibition effective, my advice to the Government is this: Do not take the initiative; make our legislation supplementary to the provincial law. I agree with the statement made by the International Order of Good Templars that there is no need for a referendum. I respectfully advise the Government that if there is to be a plebiscite or a referendum, they should leave that to the provinces. I do not believe there is any need for a referendum at all. There is no need for one in my constituency nor in my province. There is no question down there. My constituency stands for prohibition; the province of Nova Scotia stands for prohibition; they do not want any referendum, they do not want any plebiscite. My impression is that if the Government adopt the system of a referendum, they will cause further difficulties. I think it would be sound and safe for them to say that so long as any province, by its legislation, desires to have prohibition and to give the full effect of prohibition which its local constitution will permit, the Dominion Government will supplement that by such

Dominion legislation as will make that prohibition thoroughly effective. That is a policy which is consistent with this demand of the temperance people. It is consistent % with the doctrine of provincial rights to which so many people attach importance, and it is an easier solution of the question than any other method which could be adopted.
I want to speak about three or four other subjects but I am afraid I am occupying too much time, so I will ask your attention to only one or two. We are to have legislation respecting the franchise. I do not know what that means. It is a deplorable fact that every franchise Bill introduced into this House has been the subject of bitter party strife and contention. The impression seems to exist that a Franchise Bill, no matter who introduces it, is always designed to serve the interests of one party or the other and consequently it is always resisted by the people on the other side whether it ba in a provincial legislature or in this House. Why should this be? We all ought to agree that the franchise is something sacred, and we all bught to be willing to agree that every mar. and woman in this country entitled to vote should have his and her name placed on the voters' list. We should not create a condition of affairs which will tempt men to make a struggle not only to get on the lists the names of their friends but to keep off the names of those who might vote the*-other way. There has, unfortunately, been trouble over this question in times past. Why should we have two franchise lists? In most of the provinces, practically all, one might say, there is practically manhood and' womanhood suffrage to-day. A man with any pretence to doing almost anything is entitled to vote, and I am glad to say the women also have that right to-day. Why should we go through the form of making up one list for the provinces and another for the Dominion? The voters have to be the same set of people, and why should there not be co-operation between the Dominion and the Provincial Governments to try and agree upon a common list? This is not a new hope of mine. Thirty-four years ago, in the early days of my premiership of Nova Scotia, I saw the trouble in having two voters' lists, and I ventured to send a telegram to Sir John A. Macdonald suggesting a conference between the Dominion and Provincial Governments in the hope of agreeing on one common list. In those days representatives of the Dominion and Provincial Governments never met

in conference. There always seemed to be friction between them, even when both were of the same political party. I am glad that a better condition has prevailed in later years. The ,Dominion Government has repeatedly invited the premiers of the different provinces to come in consultation, and I commend them for doing so; I think it was a wise thing. Then why should we not bring them together to consider this question of the franchise, and let them meet on common ground without any partisanship at all? I think the offer is worth making at all events, and I earnestly commend that suggestion to the consideration of the Government.
That brings me to another question on which I cannot hope to have my views endorsed generally. I want to agree with those gentlemen who have urged that the Wartime Elections Act be repealed as quickly as possible. It is an amazing thing that men can permit themselves to stand up and support a measure of that kind. We talk sometimes of alien enemies in connection with the franchise. There are no alien enemies in that connection. The men to whom protection should be given, the men who have been unjustly treated, are British subjects, and if they were of foreign birth that is all the more reason why they should be treated justly, because they are guests in our house and a guest is always entitled to protection. How did they come to us in Canada? We sent out agents and literature into the highways and byways of continental Europe, begging men to come to Canada and settle on the land. We pictured an alluring situation where land was open for all. We assured these people of every privilege; we told them the land could be had cheaply, and that if they came here and after a certain time took the oath of allegiance to our gracious Sovereign, they would become Canadian citizens and British subjects. They came and settled here and served their time of probation. They did everything a decent citizen could do. Suddenly they wakened up one day to find that they had lost the highest prize of citizenship-the right to vote. Why? There was no concealment about it, there was no pretense of there being any other reason for disfranchising these people than that the Government believed they would vote against them. Surely, that was no reason at all.
Mr. Speaker, we shall need these men and others like them. There is one great asset of any n-ation, of any people, and of any individual; it is character, reputation, good faith. I made a little tour of the West
Indies a few years ago, and as I went from island to island I was much impressed, as any thoughtful men must have been, by the condition I found there. The population everywhere was black or coloured, except for a handful of white people on each island. In some cases the number of whites would be larger than in others, but in every instance they constituted a small minority. And yet this handful of white men were directing and governing these islands in the midst of peace, progress, and prosperity. I asked a very intelligent coloured man with whom I was conversing how his people got along in such a situation. " Oh," he said,
" it is very simple. These white men are Englishmen." I know he used the word in its broadest sense, not in the narrow sense in which we sometimes use it.
" Englishman " means more than England -" What do they know of England who only England know?" The Scotchman, and the Irishman too, is sometimes offended at the use of the word " Englishman " in its narrow sense, but it was Thomas Campbell, himself a Scotchman, who wrote " Ye mariners of England who guard our native seas." England means more than one part of one little island; it means the Motherland, and sometimes the Empire at large. Well, this coloured man said, " The reason we get along so well is because these white men you speak of are Englishmen, and our people have learned that we can trust the honour and faith and justice of an Englishman." Thank Heaven for that reputation of Englishmen which is the inheritance of Britons everywhere-except in Canada.
A few months ago I heard an address delivered in the Canadian Club of Montreal by a clergyman who had spent much of his life in Eastern countries, particularly in Egypt and amongst the tribes of the desert. He told with much pride and satisfaction of the achievements of Englishmen in that region and of what England was doing to further civilization in the East. iSpeaking of the reputation which Englishmen possessed, he said that among one of the tribes which he knew very well it was a common thing for a man, if he wanted to give you the assurance that he would do a certain thing, to say, " By the word of an Englishman I promise it." A few days ago I heard a statement very much like that by a gentleman from South America. He was telling of the opportunities of trade down there, where we hope to do a large amount of business, and he said that Englishmen are doing a big business there and are going to keep it, " because our people trust the Englishman." And he used the very words of the clergyman, " It is a common thing for a

man if he wants to give you an assurance that he will do a certain thing to say, ' By the word of an Englishman I promise it.' " 'Sir, we ought to be proud of that reputation which Englishmen-and Englishmen means Britons-have won throughout the wide world. Who can say to-day with fairness and justice, " By the word of a Canadian I will do it." The word of a Canadian, tried by the War-time Elections Act, is a word of trickery, a word of deception, the word of a cheat. We shall need immigrants in our country, more backs to bear the heavy burden that is coming. From what countries are we to obtain them? W7e want as many as we can get from Great Britain for the more British people we have in the country the better. No doubt there will be many immigrants from the United States.
No better immigrants come to Canada than those from the western United States But with all that, we are not going to have enough, and shall be compelled to send our agents abroad again. In such an event, I can imagine the agent going to one of the continental towns and talking about emigration to Canada. He has a group of men around him, and one man, who has paid particular attention to all that he has said, declares that he knows all about Canada, his brother having come to this country. The agent will (suggest that perhaps he would like to follow his brother's example. "No," the man will say: "an agent like you came here a few years ago to our house and told precisely the same story you are telling now, about the attractiveness of Canada as a country of great opportunities where land could be obtained very cheaply if not free. I could not go, but my brother went, taking with him his little family. He built a home, settled down, took the oath of allegiance, and did all in his power to become a good citizen. With what result? You robbed him of his franchise. Let us pray, Mr. Speaker, that the time may soon come again when a man may be able to say, "Upon the word of a Canadian I can depend!"
One further thought only will I intrude on the" House. Sir, I want to say in conclusion that I would like to see a strong plea made for a free parliament. "A free parliament?" you say; "have we not a free parliament now?" No! We had not a free parliament last year; and if the same policy of the Government be again adhered to, we are not likely to have a free parliament now. What was the situation at the opening of the first session of the new parliament? My conception of the situation

was this: I felt that on matters relating to the prosecution of the war, the Government ought to be strongly supported, certainly by their friends; and I thought they might even claim support from their opponents. But I believed that on all questions not connected with the war every man in the House of Commons should be at liberty to act according to the dictates of his conscience. Was that an erroneous conception? Was there anything unreasonable in that? I think not. Yet, what happened? Before the session had advanced very far, I discovered that my conception of political freedom, as I have just indicated, was one in which my right lion, friend the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) did not share. On several occasions, on matters in no way connected with the prosecution of the war, the Whips were used to rally men to the support of a particular question; and then in the conclusion came that extraordinary scene in connection with the question of titles. The question was not important in itself. Whether a man votes for or against titles, is not, to my mind, of very great moment; but the manner in which this Parliament was strangled is unquestionably a matter in which we are gravely concerned. A motion was before the House presented by one supporter of the Government; and there was an amendment by another supporter of the Government. These matters were discussed for days and weeks, and every hon. member thought he had a right to freedom of action. Then one night the Prime Minister announced that if a certain course were not followed he would resign. This, Sir, in the midst of war, and at a very critical stage of it, too ! On such a trifling pretext the Prime Minister of Canada was prepared to precipitate a political crisis that might have thrown the country into the throes of another general election. I ask my hon. friends on both sides of the House to stand up for a free Parliament. In a democratic country such as this, we may not all be able to agree on every question. I know I differ from some of my friends on this as well as the other side of the House; but I always endeavour to respect their views and opinions when I feel that they are acting conscientiously; and I ask them to do the same by me. One thing I do very earnestly a|sk them to do, and that is, to insist on freedom of debate, freedom of speech. We might have seen in England, about the same time, a fine example of a free, as contrasted with a strangled, Parliament. The Government had an important Bill before Parliament. An amendment

was made by the House of Lords-rather an important amendment-and when it came down to the House of Commons there was displayed the true spirit of 9 p.m. British parliamentary liberty; for the Government said on this question of the amendment: We do not regard it as vital, and we leave it.to the very open judgment of the House. And the amendment which the House of Lords desired to make to the Government Franchise Bill was rejected. There, Sir, you have an example of a free parliament as compared with the parliament which we had in Canada. I trust that both Grit and Tory:-if there are such people-will hereafter have the satisfaction of knowing that above everything else hon. members will stand for a free parliament representing a free people.


Mr. ROBERT KING ANDERSON (Hal-ton):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may be permitted to preface my remarks with a reference to the distinguished statesman who has so recently passed away, the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier. From the time I took any interest in political affairs he was a dominating figure in Canadian public life. Although not his follower politically, I always gave to him a large measure of admiration and respect. I admired him for his rare gift of oratory, for his outstanding ability, for his commanding figure, and for his courtly presence. He carved his name enduringly on the period in which he lived. Full of years and honours, in the evening of manhood's day, when the thread of life was growing thin he passed away. Already he is like a fragrant flower that has faded and gone. His passing marks the close of a period in Canadian history. We are now writing the title page of a new epoch in our national life, an epoch full of great promise and pregnant with the most wonderful possibilities. I feel I voice the sentiments, irrespective of their political affiliations, of the people of the county. I represent in this House when I express their appreciation of the great service which Sir Wilfrid Laurier rendered to the State. I also feel that I voice the unanimous sentiment of the citizens of the county of Halton when I extend to the widow of the departed state-man their deepest, their most profound sympathy.
I was somewhat nervous in rising to follow so eminent a gentleman as the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding). I must confess, however, that the hon. member is a puzzle to me, and I am sure he is a puzzle to the hon. members of the Opposition. During the first
part of his speech he received considerable applause from the Opposition benches. Hon. members on that side were prepared to rejoice more at the return of one sinner than over the ninety and nine who had no need of repentance. Mr. Speaker, I thought the hon. gentleman was going to step off the fence, but I see he is still in the same position he occupied at the last session of this Parliament. I heartily concur in the remarks which he made during the latter part of his speech, but there are some inconsistencies in the first part of it. He asked the question, what business had Canada at the Peace Conference? For answer to that question I would refer him to the speech of the hon. the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell). The hon. gentleman claims that Canada has no right to representation at the Conference. Now, his attitude is rather inconsistent in view of the fact that he upheld the Union Government in the prosecution of the war. He approved of the sending of soldiers to France and Belgium, and if we took part in the conflict, is it not reasonable that we should have a right to have some say at the Conference? Surely the hon. gentleman will not contend that although we sent soldiers to fight the enemy we should have no voice in the discussion of the peace terms.
The hon. member said that Canada bad not gained one cubit. It is not one cubit but many cubits that this country has gained because of the glorious action of our soldiers in establishing this country in such a prominent position among the nations of the earth, a position which it would not have attained otherwise in fifty years. That is one of the results of our taking part in the European conflict. In regard to our taking part in the Peace Conference the hon. gentleman made mention of the boundaries of the nations of Europe, but he thinks that we should not have any interest in that conference because we have no interest in these various boundaries. I would submit to him that disputes over the boundaries of Europe have been the cause of deluging that continent for a thousand years with blood. If by going into this conference and assisting in bringing about a certain measure of satisfaction with the boundaries that are established we can in the future prevent wars, we shall have done a great deal not only for the Dominion of Canada but for the whole world.
I should like to compliment the hon. gentlemen who moved and seconded the Address in reply to the speech from the Throne. I compliment them on the very

eloquent and efficient manner in which they performed that very responsible duty. Their remarks were most happy and reflected great credit upon themselves and upon the administration for making the selection. Their sentiments in regard to our gallant soldiers will find an answering echo in the hearts of all true Canadians. The heroism, sacrifice and glorious achievements of our citizen soldiers is a theme to inspire some Canadian poet to perpetuate their memory in immortal verse. But, our soldiers do not want to be immortalized. They want to be repatriated in the most effective and speedy manner possible. The Union (Government was elected for that purpose. In their wisdom the people of Canada chose this Government to perform that duty. There is no lack of (Confidence amongst the members of this side of the House in the ability of the Government to live up to the expectations of the people. Liberal Unionists and Conservative Unionists alike gave up their party affiliation in order to come together on common ground in support of a coalition Government. We did that in the stress and turmoil of a great war brought together by a common interest, a common bond and a common danger that raised us far above the petty issues of political strife.
There is not any doubt that in the estimation of the people of Canada a non-partisan government is the best form of government to settle the many vexed questions which will come up for settlement during the reconstruction period. The tariff issue, that bone of contention between the Bast and the West, can undoubtedly be settled better by a cabinet which is representative of the two great political parties in this country than by any other form of government. If a non-partisan government cannot settle that question to the satisfaction of the people no partisan government can. If the members of this House will view that question with reference to what is in the best interests of Canada as a whole, and not from the point of view of any sectional interest, the path of the Government will be strewn with roses instead of thorns.
The hon. member for Prince, P.E.I. (Mr. J. Read)-and I give the hon. gentleman credit for stating many plain truths in his own inimitable way

expressed a wish for a commission to inquire into the tariff and bring in a policy that would be satisfactory to all political parties. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if he is not satisfied with the present Government composed, as it is, of the leading members

of those political parties. Surely, that ought to be satisfactory to any man, even the most exacting.
Possibly the hon. gentleman meant a commission representative of the Opposition in this House, but I reply that the Opposition in this House is not representative of true Liberalism. It is the personal following of the late, lamented leader whose vacant chair so eloquently reminds us that he is no more. It is a striking tribute to his great worth and personal charm that so many gave to him their undivided allegiance. I would like to tell the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) whilst congratulating him on his elevation to that honourable post, that he cannot expect to lead a National Liberal party on a provincial policy dominated by a single province. It is a significant fact that the dividing line between the parties in this House is the defence of our common country. The light is in the window indeed, but it is sadly dimmed by the mists of political prejudice and narrow provincialism. Under such circumstances it becomes the red light of danger giving due warning to all true Liberals to seek congenial companionship elsewhere.
In this country we have quite a large number of defaulters, conscientious objectors and deserters. I have classed the conscientious objector along with the others because a great many of the conscientious objectors were not aware of their objections until the passing of the Military Service Act. The sincere conscientious objector whose objection to military service is based upon his religious faith is entitled to some consideration, and I believe the Government have given that class of man certain consideration. I think- it may be laid down as a principle that he who receives and accepts the protection due to a British subject has placed upon him the obligation to defend those institutions that give him protection. Those institutions are founded on the ballot; by (force of arms they have survived. They have descended to us from preceding generations and are consecrated in the blood of a long line of noble ancestors. Their defence is the common duty of all. The conscientious objector or defaulter who refuses to defend his country in time of war has no right to the exercise of the legislative function in time of peace. The vote is essentially a legislative act. By it laws are enacted and laws are repealed. He who

refuses 'to defend this fundamental principle of democracy has no right to the exercise of its privileges.
I would therefore suggest to the Government that since the war is over the imprisonment of the conscientious objector, the defaulter and deserter is expensive and ineffective. The system of meting out punishment by means of a fine has more to commend it. But I think, Mr. Speaker, that, taking everything into consideration, the best punishment is disfranchisement for life and I would recommend that respectfully to the consideration of the Government. I would make a plea also for more uniformity in the punishment of the defaulter. It is not very edifying to see a defaulter in the province of Ontario given a large fine or a long term of imprisonment when a defaulter in the province of Quebec, equally guilty, is let off with a nominal fine or a few hours imprisonment. In this connection I would cite a case that occurred in Hull just a few days ago. This is from an Ottawa paper, I think the edition of Wednesday:
Twelve absentees under the Military Service Act who came before Magistrate Goyette in the Hull Police Court yesterday escaped with the exceedingly light penalty of six hours in jail each.
In view of the recent passage of an Order in Council which provides a minimum penalty for this class of offender of $250 or three months in jail, the presiding magistrate was asked for an explanation.
"These twelve men were brought before me over two weeks ago," stated Magistrate Goyette, "but for various reasons their cases were not ready to be disposed of until this morning. In view of these circumstances I did not deem it would be fair to impose a new penalty on them, when, if their cases had been disposed of when they were first arrested, they would have gotten off with the usual line of $50 or $75.
"I therefore imposed a term of six hours in jail on each of them, without the option of a fine. You must remember that even one hour in jail, to any one with any self respect, is as big a punishment as a longer term. In future, absentees and defaulters coming before me will be treated under the new Order in Council."
'I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the average defaulter and deserter has not very much self-respect, and a punishment in the shape of six hours in jail is altogether inadequate for his offence. I would call the attention of the Government to the fact that the Orders in Council which have been passed for the purpose of dealing with this inequality of punishment do not meet the case. I have not seen any Order in Council providing for a minimum punishment of three months in jail. There was an Order in Council modifying the first Order
issued in December, 1917, with regard to defaulters, which was amended on the 12th February, and later on the 24th of February. If any other Orders in Council have been promulgated since that date, I have not seen any copy of the Canada Gazette which contains them. The last Order in Council provides for a minimum fine of $250, and a maximum fine of $5,000. The term of imprisonment is to be up to two years. Now, Mr. 'Speaker, I submit that that leaves entirely too much to the discretion of the magistrate, and there consequently is too much room for discrimination in the punishment of defaulters in different parts of the Dominion.
With regard to aliens within our country, there are something like two thousand in internment camps. I am in accord with the policy of the Government that these men shall be returned to their native land at the first opportunity. But I would go further, and possibly the Government intends to do so; I would confiscate the property of those aliens, and even their earnings, leaving them only sufficient to start in a small way in their native land. There are other foreigners, however, in our country who are not enemy aliens, and these men, when they measure up to the standard of Canadian citizenship, should be given a chance; but in every instance, where their interests conflict wita the interests of the returned soldier, they should give way to him.
I am pleased to compliment the Government on bringing in a Bill providing for a new franchise, and giving the women the full right to vote. But I am not in accord with hon. gentlemen on the opposite side when they claim that enemy aliens should be given a vote as before. I hope to see it provided that the enemy aliens, whether they are in this country now or come here later, shall not, get the vote for at least a generation. With regard to foreigners who are not enemy aliens, I think they should be given the vote after a certain time, but not until after seven or ten years' residence in this country, and that an educational test should be applied to them; they should be required to write and read the English language and to have some knowledge of our institutions, to comprehend what - the flag stands for and to understand the responsibility of Canadian citizenship. If they cannot master these things in ten years they certainly are unfit for Canadian citizenship.
The pensions -which are given to our soldiers at the present time, particularly the



pensions to the totally disabled soldier, are entirely inadequate, with the cost of living as we have it to-day. It is possible, Mr. Speaker, that when this country has got back to more stable conditions of peace that	indadequacy	may	disappear. I thinkif there is one	very	definite	thing inthis	country it	is the fact	that thepeople, the members of Parliament and the	Government	are	desirous	that the
Canadian soldier shall receive the highest amount of pension compatible with his disability. I think the people of this country intend to be generous in this respect, and they are desirous that the totally disabled soldier shall receive a pension sufficient to keep him well above want during the remainder of his life. A pension of $600 is certainly not sufficient for that purpose under the present scale of living.
I would like to draw the attention of the Government to the attitude of the Pensions Board toward the average soldier who comes before them for a pension. The returned soldier claims that the attitude of the Pensions Board toward him is to keep the pension down as low as possible compatible with his disability. That is rather a parsimonious attitude. That is not the intention of the Government, ilt is possible that the returned soldier mistakes the attitude of the Pensions Board, but I bring this matter to the attention of the Government in. order that they may inquire into it if they deem it necessary. I believe that it is better the Pensions IBoard should err on the side of generosity than that any soldier should be unfairly treated.
The soldier suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis is in a class by himself. In discussing that question I shall approach it from the viewpoint of the physician. I have seen something of the terrible ravages of this disease on the human organism. I know something of its deceptive character, its tendency to become latent, and its tendency to recur. The contention of the soldier is that the Pensions Board rather treats these cases from a mathematical viewpoint. The tubercle bacilli attack the lung and cause a certain part of it to die and slough off. If the patient is strong enough to resist the sloughing process the lung heals by a process of cicatrization and contraction. This places more work on the heart and causes a lessened power of areation of the blood. The soldier is not as strong as he was before, and is liable to break down under strain. The Pensions Board, after this disease has become latent, measures the disability of the soldier by the amount 
of cicatrization of the lung. I contend that the disability is not always in proportion to the amount of cicatrization of the lung, because in some instances the soldier may be more liable to other diseases; he may not have a strong constitution, and so will break down more easily under strain, and will show more constitutional effects from the same amount of cicatrization of the lung than another person. These soldiers are first treated in a sanatorium, and when the disease becomes latent are sent up before the Pensions Board, and given temporary pensions for six months.
That, I believe, has latterly been extended to one year. At the end of that time, if they remain healthy, they again come before the Pensions Board and are re-examined. The condition of the lung is then stated and the amount of permanent pension apportioned accordingly. If they again have an attack of the disease they are entitled to go to a sanatorium for free treatment, receiving during the period of their treatment pay and allowances the same as if they were on active service. When they are finally cured there is no readjustment of the pension. I think there should be a readjustment of the pension after .each attack, because the lung is in a worse condition after each attack than it was at first. I bring this point to the attention of the Government in the hope that they will look into these statements and see whether they are accurate. They are given to me by the tubercular soldiers themselves.
Up to 31st March, 1918, 3,648 soldiers had been treated for tuberculosis, and at that time there were under treatment 1,619 men, distributed all over Canada in 21 sanatoria.
The Civil Service Commission has been attacked by the member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) and has been defended by an hon. minister (Hon. A. K. Maclean). At the last session of this Parliament an Act was passed under which the Civil Service Commission was given charge of appointments to the Outside Service. In passing that Act Parliament's, express purpose was to do away with the evils of patronage. It was expected that these duties would be carried out by the Civil Service Commission efficiently, expeditiously, without suspicion of wrongdoing. In my opinion, the placing of appointments in the hands of a Civil Ser-' vice Commission does not entirely do away with patronage; we simply centralize it in Ottawa. The work of many is put into the hands of the few. It does not require the mind of a statesman to understand that if this work is not carried on in a proper and honest manner the gravest abuses may re-

suit. An army of something like 50,000 men and women are under the control of the Civil Service Commission at Ottawa. This commission is composed of three members, who are supposed to do all that work. I submit that the number of members of the' commission should be increased. They have a secretary, who is not a member of the commission, but its servant. The secretary should have nothing whatever to do with appointments made under the commission; I assume that he has nothing to do with them. If the commission delegate their authority to him or to any one else, then there is no need for the commission and they should be removed from office.
The members of Parliament have some interest in this commission. They created the machinery under which it is operating, and if there is anything wrong with it they should be taken into the confidence of the Government in regard to the matter. The charges that were made by the member for West Toronto were replied to by the minister, but not all of them were refuted; the gravest charge of all, that with regard to the sale of examination papers to prospective candidates, has been admitted. At the trial in Ottawa a few days ago the person who was responsible for the sale of these particular papers was convicted and fined $100. I must say that it was a surprise to me to see that the commission or the Government were not represented at that trial. It is reported in the press that Mr. Foran, the secretary of the commission, expressed surprise at the verdict; apparently he did not know that the trial was taking place. I should think it was his duty and the duty of the commission, to have known and to have been represented there by a lawyer who would see that all the facts were brought out. For the sale of these examination papers the commission is directly responsible. The sale of examination papers is certainly a very reprehensible act, and it is the duty of the commission to make every effort to discover how the leakage came about and who the guilty party is. Parliament demands that the truth be known. No one will be hurt by the truth except the guilty party, and he should be exposed and punished.
I compliment the Government upon its intention to institute a Federal Department of Health. The member for South Toronto (Mr. Sheard) placed the matter so well before the House that there is not much for me to say. I should like to associate myself, however, with the remarks of that hon. gentleman on this subject, and to impress upon the Government the advisability of having this department placed under a qualified medical man. Many medical men may be found in Canada who are eminently qualified to fill that position with satisfaction to themselves and with credit to the Government.
While on this subject I should like to make a few remarks with regard to the wonderful advance of medical science all over the world. Great advance has been made in other branches of science, particularly in the manufacture of destructive agencies of war-the only marvel is that flesh and blood could stand up against these great engines of destruction. Great advance has been made in the science of transportation, both on water and in the air. But, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the advances in medical, surgical and sanitary sciences have been equal to those made in any other branch of science. This war could not have taken place successfully on the western front had it not been for the wonderful advance in preventive medicine. By virtue of the discoveries in that branch, almost all kinds of infectious disease, such as typhoid fever, smallpox, diphtheria, and so on, have been eliminated from the armies. The deaths on the battle front from disease have been remarkably small; our returning * soldiers who are casualties suffer principally from the effects of wounds, and very little from the effects of disease.
Mr. Speaker, I should be scarcely doing my duty if I did not give some little voice to my feelings with regard to our gallant Canadian soldiers. The day after England declared war on Germany the young men of Canada commenced their steady tramp, to the recruiting offices all over the country; from the east to the west, from the north to the south, they came offering their services in defence of the Empire. It was the most inspiring spectacle ever presented to the world by the colonial possessions of any country ; it was a wonderful concrete evidence of the mighty colonizing power of England. For a thousand years the sons of Britain have been going out from her shores to the farthermost corners of the earth, carrying with them the principles of truth, justice and liberty; carrying with them the tenets of the Christian faith and the foundation principles of democracy; until now, in the twentieth century, at the call of the motherland, the descendants of these adventurous Britishers rushed to her defence in the most stupendous conflict of history. Five hundred thousand of the sons of Canada answered that call, and fighting side by side with the soldiers

of the British Isles, gallantly upheld the best traditions of British arms. _ Sixty thousand of those sons of Canada, in the dawn of their manhood, gave up their all, in order that democracy might live. They are sleeping the sleep that knows no waking on the vine-clad slopes of northern France, and the blood-sodden fields of Belgium, a silent army whose memory will remain green in the hearts of the Canadian people iso long as we cherish British ideals. It is the duty of the Canadian people so to live and act as to be worthy of the great sacrifices they have made. It is our duty to divest ourselves of political prejudices and selfish motives and stand solidly behind the Government in its efforts to do all that is possible for these returning heroes. It is our duty to restrain fanaticism and war-time hysteria and stand steady and firm in support of the Allied Conference now holding its sessions in Paris; so to support their hand against enemy aggression that the glorious victory which our soldiers have won in the field may be followed by a diplomatic victory commensurate with the sacrifices they have made. Unless we do that, we shall be unworthy of those splendid men now returning to their native land, secure in their confidence of a duty well performed, and with a fond expectation in their hearts which we at home fail to understand.
Mr. DUNCAN CAMPBELL ROSS (West Middlesex); Mr. Speaker, at this hour it is not my intention to weary the House with a long speech. I intend to cut my remarks as short as I possibly can, consistently with what I consider my duty to my people.
I have much pleasure in joining with the other members on both sides of the House in complimenting the mover and the seconder of the Address. They have conducted themselves with great gallantry on the field, and they have spoken very eloquently and well in this House, dealing in a most statesmanlike manner with the public matters that were mentioned in the Address.
I must also compliment the hon. and gallant member for Skeena (Lt.-Col. Peck) upon the delightful and instructive address he delivered in this House this afternoon. He has performed for me a task which I had intended to perform and has done it much better than I could possibly do it myself. He has military knowledge from which to gather his conclusions. He has knowledge which comes from being present almost when these occurrences which are spoken of in this House happened, and he
[Mr. Anderson.!
is here as a representative of the people, and trying, and I have no doubt successfully trying, to do his duty by his brother officers who have carried themselves so nobly in this great struggle. As a Canadian I was very sorry to hear aspersions cast on officers of the Canadian Expeditionary Force by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House in this debate. These men are not here to defend themselves. It is very easy to cast aspersions or to put blame on any person, and it is very hard to overtake these aspersions once they have gone amongst the public. The hon. member for Skeena took up the defence of my fellow-countryman, Sir Arthur Currie, and I think there is no doubt in the mind of any hon. member in this House, nor do I think there will be any doubt in the mind of any man in this country, in regard to his action, his gallantry, his courage, his solicitude for his men, after hearing the remarks that fell from the lips of the hon. member for Skeena. The hon. member spoke of Sir Arthur Currie as a soldier; I have known him for years; I can speak of him as a man. The insinuation was made that Sir Arthur Currie wantonly sacrificed the lives of Canadian soldiers for his own glorification and to satisfy his own ambition. As an intimate acquaintance of that gallant gentleman I resent any such insinuation. Sir Arthur Currie is the last man in the British Empire who would be guilty of such conduct. I know him well, almost from boyhood. There is not a gentleman with a more kindly heart in this great land. That is the last thing he would do. As a matter of fact I know from eye-witnesses, who have been with Sir Arthur Currie after the victorious onslaught of our Canadian boys, who have seen him viewing the death and devastation that onslaught has occasioned, and I can say with confidence, believing it is true, that that general who is blamed here to-day for being heartless in regard to the use of his men, was so affected by the sights he saw, by the lives of Canadians that had been sacrificed, that he could not suppress his grief and openly burst into tears. Selfish ambition and self-glorification are made of sterner and coarser stuff than that. I believe, if a public investigation is held, or if this matter is further discussed in this House, Sir Arthur Currie will be absolutely cleared of all these suspicions, and I believe he deserves nothing but praise and thanks from this great Canadian people. It would be a strange thing if this; gallant soldier, who has been honoured, not only by Britain but by France and Italy with the highest

military distinctions that have been given, should not have been worthy of those honours. Casualties may have happened amongst the Canadian troops. We know they did happen. You cannot win a great victory without such things happening. But we must not forget, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Skeena this afternoon, that Sir Arthur Currie was only a cog in the big machine; that he had not charge of the forces of the Allies; that he was not the generalissimo; that he was only a sub-general; that he had to take his orders and had to obey them, just as he had to give orders and they had to be obeyed. I contend, with a considerable feeling of resentment, that, it is not fair, in the absence of this man, who has covered himself with glory, to have attacks made on him in this House.
The Address speaks of our duty to our soldiers. The appreciation and gratitude of the nations cannot be too earnestly and sincerely expressed to the gallant members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force. 1 wish to join with the members of the House who have tried well and successfully to express their gratification at the honour and glory the Canadian soldiers have brought to this country of ours. The glory has been not only the glory of the officers, but the glory of the soldiers. Some one has said that this war was a war of lieutenants, and it is true that these gallant, heroic young Canadian officers have paid an immense toll in order that liberty may prevail in the world and in order that Canada may be a free nation.
But the glory of winning this war is not due to them alone; it is not due solely to the officers nor to Sir Arthur Currie. I quite agree with what was said by the hon. member who seconded the Address (Mr. Manion) that the greater part of the glory for winning this war belongs to the infantryman in the ranks-the man who went over the top and grappled with the Germans in no man's land, and after taking the Hun trenches marched on to his objective, the German front. He is the man who suffered most, who underwent the greatest hardships, who risked most, and it is to him the greater part of the glory for winning this war should go.
We cannot do our duty by merely expressing our gratitude and appreciation ol the services of these men. The men themselves and the people of this country want deeds, not words, in dealing with our returned soldiers, and one thing which the soldiers want and which the people of this country want is their return to the shores
of Canada as quickly as possible. The soldiers are quite right in wanting to get back home as quickly as possible. I appreciate as keenly as any hon. member in this House the difficulties in the way due to the shortage of shipping, for instance. I appreciate the necessity of other troops also getting home, and I appreciate trade necessities in connection with this problem. But "what I say is this, and I feel I shall be backed up by the whole country: It is a strange thing that during the four or five months since the armistice was signed only about one hundred thousand men have been , brought back to Canada whereas, if I am, correctly informed, the American Government has been successful in bringing back from the front about a million of her men. We have been engaged for almost five years in this struggle. Some of our boys have been over there ever since the war began; many of them have been there two or three years. The Americans only went into the war on the 6th of April, 1917, and have therefore been at the front a comparatively short time. They have not been subjected to the hardships our boys have undergone,, nor played the part our noble boys have played, and I say it is the bounden duty of this Government to make efforts much more vigorous than they have made up to-now to see that our soldiers are returned to this country and to civil life at the very earliest opportunity. It should not need a mutiny in a camp with disastrous results to life and limb to wake up the Overseas, Minister of Militia in regard to this matter: As the speech from the Throne intimated' the Government had known for some time that an armistice would be declared so they had plenty of time in which to prepare for the return of our soldiers. I attribute the lack of speed in this matter to the absence of unity of command in our military affairs. I think that if the return of the troops had been handled by the Minister of Militia in Canada instead of by these gentlemen overseas the men would have been returned much more quickly. I fear the reports we read in the papers are only too true, that the knights we send over to England to look after our officers as High Commissioner and as Overseas Minister of Militia are likely more concerned, as Canadians going over there are apt to become, with pink teas, social functions, dinners at the Mansion House, and their own self-glorification, than, attending to the duties they are sent there.-to perform.
The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Car-vell) the other day made the startling statement that in -the coming year this country

would have a deficit of $100,000,000. It this Government wants to save money I -can conceive of no better way than by getting our boys back from overseas at the *earliest possible date. That is one reason why they should be brought back more speedily. For the 250,000 or 300,000 of our men it is costing this country $3 a day each which amounts to an expenditure of from half to three-quar: ters of a million dollars a day. Every day that brings their discharge nearer is going to save this country anywhere from a quarter to three-quarters of a million dollars a day, according to the number of men demobilized. With the finances of the country in the state described by the Minister of Public Works, it seems to me that is one good reason why demobilization should be speeded up.
In the second place, it will mean contentment among the men. They want to get home and continue their education or go back to their ordinary vocations, and it is desirable that they should be allowed to do so at the earliest possible date.
In-the third place, the earlier we get these men back the earlier they will get to work. There is going to be a great call in this country in the coming spring for men not only for the farms, but for all the building ttades. Once these men are back they will be able to help build up the country instead of being an expense to it.
For these three reasons I humbly submit that the Government should do everything in their power to expedite the demobilization of these men, and I would say further, that if they have to charter ships at most exorbitant rates it will pay them financially to do so.
I am heartily in favour of vocational training for the soldiers. Any man who has fought our battles abroad and been injured so that he cannot carry on the occupation he was engaged in before the war should receive ample assistance from the Government to enable him to learn some other vocation, so that he will not be handicapped in the race of life. Vocational training is the very least this country can do for our boys.
I am also in favour of adequate pensions, and I am glad to see that the Government is not treating the matter this session with the same indifference they showed last year. The committee on pensions, I am glad to see, has already got to work, and I am sure they will go thoroughly into the matter and discuss it from all points of view. While I know that the pensions granted to Canadian soldiers to-day are the highest in the

world, )I feel that the members of this House and the country generally will back the Government and see that absolutely adequate pensions are paid. I am glad also that the committee on pensions is considering the cost of living in relation to pensions, and if they report to the House that the scale of pensions is not high enough I am sure the House will back up the Government in any legislation providing for adequate pensions. Furthermore, I would urge that the committee's report be presented to the House in sufficient time to allow7 of a free and open discussion of the whole matter, in order that the men who have served this country so faithfully and well may have justice done to them.
I am also in favour of land settlement for the soldiers, or, rather, for such of them as are qualified to go on the land and desire to do so. I do not think that every soldier who has a notion that he would like to settle on the land should be encouraged to do so unless he is fit and has some knowledge of farming, or is given some practical education in agriculture. But if these pre-requisites are carried out, I think it is in the interest of the country that soldiers should, under these circumstances, be placed on the land. I believe that it is the duty of the Government to take radical steps, and to take them at once, to see that all land held by railway companies, held by speculators, and held for grazing leases, especially near railroads, shall be expropriated at reasonable rates in order that these men may have suitable farms. I suggest that they go further if they really want to help the soldiers. If they wish to make them successful farmers, they should do what they did a year or so ago in connection with the farming industry, when they were, endeavouring to promote greater production. At that time they bought for the farmers, as I am informed, a thousand tractors, and brought them into the country free of duty. It was a very laudable action on their part, and one that resulted in considerable benefit in increasing production. Now, I would suggest to the Government that if they are going to put soldiers on the land, it is only fair to them, and it is in tire interests of the country, that they should take the duty off such agricultural implements as the soldiers require in order to work the land, if it is not their intention to remove the duty from these implements for all classes of the community. I think the Government should make these implements as cheap to these men as it is possible to make them, so that they wrill not be handicapped in their start in a new7 life-work.

In regard to the franchise question, I am glad to note that a new measure 10 p.m. is being introduced. I wish to associate myself with the exMinister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) in his views in regard to the War-time Elections Act. I do not know of any legislation in any British country which was more iniquitous. I say that, not because I was particularly injured by it myself, but I know of other members oir candidates at the last election who were certainly subjected to the gravest injustice by reason of that Act. It was not British, and it was condemned not only on this side of the House. I remember distinctly what the bon. member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) said in reference to the War-time Election Act, when he was on this side; and I remember also the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell) rising in his place-I was next to him-and addressing the Chair when the Act was introduced, deploring the measure ana asking the indulgence of the Chair in the remarks he was then about to make. He said he was ashamed of the fact that he came from the same part of the Dominion of Canada as the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) because of the iniquity of the Act. It is incomprehensible to me what the Government is thinking of, or what the Liberals who joined the Government are thinking of, if they allow that Act to remain on the statute-book.
I welcome the extension of the franchise to women. They have earned it, for they have been the civil soldiers of the war. They have done as nobly at home as the men did abroad, and I think they should have been given the franchise in 1917. At any rate, they deserved it just as much then as they do now; and I believe that at the first opportunity which is given them to register their votes they will indicate in no uncertain way the sentiments which at the present time rankle in their breasts against the action of the Government in 1917, the unfair manner in which they were treated in regard to the franchise at that time. If we are to have a new Franchise Act, I appeal to this Government to make it a fair, an honest, and a just measure. Upon the franchise all our liberties are based. As the franchise has been extended since the Reform Bill of 1832, our liberties have grown. There is only one fair franchise system, as far as I can see, and that is a system such as is followed in the province of Ontario. This was pointed out by the hon. ex-Minister of Finance. I refer to the municipal system. The franchise is based primarily on the voters' list; and if that list is fair and
equitable, the representation will be fair.
I appeal to the Government to adopt that system. The municipal list in the province of Ontario is prepared by the assessor in the first place, revised by the clerk, posted for thirty days, and appeals are heard by the county court judge. None of these officials are politicians; they are non-partisans. The clerk understands who are entitled to vote. He is neither a Liberal nor a Conservative. If he were either he would not long hold office. The result is that the voters' list is fairly prepared, and every one who is entitled to vote, if he desires to have his name on the list, can rest assured that his name will be on it. This is the fair, the British method. On the other hand, the method adopted at the last election was anything but fair or British. How were matters conducted? A host of enumerators were appointed, many of them Conservative ward heelers, who had only one interest at heart, namely to see that voters were on the list who were favourable to the Union Government, while those who were favourable to the Liberal party were excluded. These enumerators were supposed to be recommended by both parties. But what is the practice? We all know what happens. These people are all human; candidates are human, governments are human, enumerators are very human and sometimes very wicked. What happened in my own riding, for instance? I do not wish to be local, but I dare say the same thing happened elsewhere. We heard the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) make the deliberate statement that he would have a fair election. The War-time Elections Act, he said, would'be fair; the enumerators would be non-partisan, each candidate having the privilege of naming half, so that politics would be eliminated. That statement was not only made by the Prime Minister, but ministers of the Crown assured me that such would be the case. What happened, however? There were sixty-nine polling subdivisions in the riding of West Middlesex. Now, I had a right to believe the statement of the Prime Minister made publicly in this country, and to expect that he would keep his word; and I had a right to believe that a minister of the Crown making that promise would keep his word. I repeat the question, what happened, and what will happen again, if this system is allowed to continue? I was never consulted; no member of the Liberal party was consulted. A Tory was appointed and he in turn appointed sixty-nine, or at least sixty-six, Tory partisans. Did they carry out the law justly

and put on the voters' list all who should have been put on? Not at all. Some were fair, but by all means the majority were not; and on election day, instead of attending the polls, as was their duty, to put new voters on that had been left off, these men in some cases were out bringing in voters in Conservative rigs to vote against the Liberals. That is not the kind of thing that will appeal to the Canadian people and inspire them with confidence in their representation in Parliament; and that is certainly not the way in which a Parliament may be made free and honest.
Now, just one remark in reference to the Dominion Health Department. For my own part, I do not believe in it. I think it is an unnecessary duplication of office and will only entail additional expense. Everybody knows we have a sufficiency of cabinet officers at the present time, and a Civil Service that is giving enough trouble. I do not see that any good will be attained through it, and I think it is an encroachment on provincial rights. The followers of this Government will get berths and places, while the public healtn will not be benefited one particle. I am absolutely opposed to it. I believe it is an unnecessary and extravagant encroachment on the rights of the provinces.
There are one or two matters to which I wish to call the attention of the Govern-, ment in regard to my part of the province of Ontario. Some of them may seem parochial, but most of them will affect the Dominion at large. At the present time there is a great wave of unrest all over this country. It prevails among the labouring people and the agricultural community. It prevails particularly amongst these two classes and it appears to me that it is more than justified. One thing I regret, Mr. Speaker, is that in the speech from the Throne, apart from a mention of land settlement which, to say the least, is very illusory, and apart from the assistance which the Government ipromise towards good roads, there is not one particle of encouragement held out to the great agricultural community. We, on this side, have listened until we almost doubt the sincerity of the hon. gentlemen on the other side about the great basic industry of the country, about the importance of agriculture, how our prosperity and the future depend upon its succcess, how it must be fostered, and how the agriculturist must be helped. But we do not see any evidence of putting these high-sounding platitudes into operation and there is nothing in the 
speech from the Throne to lead us to believe that at this session the Government intend to give any relief to the agriculturist.
Some people in the big cities of the country would have us believe that the farmer is a profiteer, that he is getting wealthy, that he is making untold money out of the consumers and the men in the cities. Only recently a report was published by the Ontario Minister of Agriculture. He is a lawyer. I think he is a pietty consistent Tory. I do not think he would have any prejudice in favour of the agricultural community. I have no doubt that his report is absolutely accurate. And what does he find in regard to agriculture in Ontario and in regard to its fortunemaking opportunities? He tells us that there are a million men engaged in agriculture in Ontario. He estimates, after a very careful inquiry into all their resources, an income of $250,000,000 divided among them. In other words, for each man, woman and child there is an income of $250 per year; or for a family of four you would have $1,000 or, to make a generous allowance $1,200. Thus, a farmer with a family of four makes $1,200, and this calculation is based on the returns during the years 1914-1917. The farmer has $1,200 to support his family of four. He buys his farm implements, repairs them, puts in his crops, buys clothes and shoes at the exorbitant prices at which they are selling to-day, pays his taxes, educates his family and incurs all the other expenses incident to domestic life on $1,200 or $1,000 a year. Yet he is claimed to be a profiteer and to be making millions out of the people of the country. After the labouring man, the farmer gets less attention than any other class of the community. As a matter of honesty and frankness I feel compelled to say that the labouring man gets less attention than any other class of the community from the Government at Ottawa. I think he deserves more. But, what have the Government done for the farmer? How have they helped him? It is true that during the war he got larger prices than ever before but we know that this is the first time since the Crimean war that the farmer ever had prices such as he has to-day and this is the first time he ever got prices that came within any proportion of the .cost of producing the things he had to sell.
Did this Government help him? Not a bit of it. This Government said: You are making too much money; we will have to check you and put the hobbles on you.

What did they do to him? When you have any grain to sell you must sell it at so much a bushel, and no more. Did they say that to the miller, the munitions maker, the bacon king or the banker? On the contrary they allowed all these classes to run riot. The miller has made his millions. My hon. friend from Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault) proved that conclusively the other night in regard to the big millers, and, as a matter of fact, I know that the smaller millers in this country never made as much money in their history as in the last two years. They made more money out of the bread of the people in the last two years than in the fifty years preceding. We know that the shoe manufacturers are making large profits, with the result that it is almost impossible for a poor man to supply his family with shoes. The same condition exists with regard to clothes. We know what the munition manufacturers have made. They were not interfered with; in fact, they were helped and given capital with which to start their business. But when the farmer seeks to get the price that the demand for his produce would entitle it to, he is immediately cheeked up and a maximum price of $2.24 or something like that is placed upon his product. It is not fair to this man representing as he does a part of the community upon whose prosperity the welfare of the country so largely depends.
There are several things that the agriculturist at the present time is insisting upon getting, which he says he deserves and which I think this Government will be obliged to give him. If this Government does not give it to him, another Government will be placed in power that will be obliged to do so, The first thing that the farmer is asking in my part of the country may appear somewhat petty, but I think he knows his business as well as any other man, and it is that the daylight saving farce of last year shall not again be put into operation. We consult other men in regard to what they want for the carrying on of their business to the best advantage. I do not see why the farmers, representing sixty per cent of the people of Canada, should not be consulted in regard to this matter. In the wester^ part of Ontario they are determined, as far as they can effect their purpose, that this system shall not be in vogue again. The farmers in the United States are of the same opinion, as are also the farmers in Manitoba and the
West. This daylight saving scheme of last year interfered with many things on the farm. It interfered with their work, it interfered with the transaction of their business in town, it interfered with their children's going to school, and it interfered with the hired help of the farmers; and did no good. It is true that it may have been of some advantage to the man who wanted to go out in the afternoon and play a game of golf, or tennis, or run out into the country in his motor car, but we should consider business first rather than pleasure and the farmer's interest should be taken into account in regard to the daylight saving measure.
There is one argument against the position which the farmers take in regard to daylight saving. We are being told that the people of the United States have adopted it again and we must therefore do so. I protest against any such philosophy. It seems to me illogical and unnational. In the olden days when we tried to have reciprocity with the United States-and some of our friends across the way were not wise enough to vote for it but are clamouring for it now-we were told that if we had trade relations with the United States we were going to become an adjunct of that country, going to be its back-yard. That was not true. We were going, by reciprocity, to put ourselves right on the front street. But it seems to me that If we have to follow them in regard to the daylight saving system, and if we cannot regulate that matter for ourselves, we are certainly becoming an adjunct of the United States and are going to be their badk-yard. Is it more important that the railway time tables in this country should not be reprinted, and the railways be put to a little expense, or that the farmer should be able to carry on his great agricultural operations without the embarrassment which this matter brings to him? It seems to me that the whole thing has come down to that, and I for one, coming from the agricultural part of the province of Ontario, protest against any continuation of the foolish system in question.
There is another thing to which I call the attention of the Government. In the western and central parts of the province of Ontario, there is a pressing and most insistent demand from the agriculturists for an interior terminal elevator for their grain. Not so very long ago the Minister of Agriculture for Ontario, Mr. Henry; the president of the United Farmers of Ontario, Mr. COMMONS
Halbert; and the president of the United Farmers Co-operative Company, Mr. Burnaby, and other gentlemen, experts in the grain trade and in farming, sent a memorial, I believe, to this Government asking for the establishment of an interior terminal elevator. They asked that such an elevator should be built at some place in the province which would give a central location, and they urged the necessity of this on various grounds, being guided by the experience of the West in connection with terminal elevators. They had evidently studied this matter, they "were men of eminence in the agricultural world, and must know that what they were asking was in the interests of the farming community, and they pointed out that in Ontario, unlike the West, there was no elevator where the grain of the province could be collected, where it could be weighed, where it could be cleaned, and where it would get an official stamp, and they urged the need of this elevator in the interest of the farmers of the province. From their representations I would judge that there are about two hundred million bushels of grain grown in Ontario. A great part of this is used in the feeding of stock, but much of it could be used for interprovincial trade, for local trade, and for export trade, and they urged these reasons for the terminal elevator. The advantages may be summarized under the following heads:
It would provide facilities for the storing, cleaning and grading of different kinds of seed and in this regard, would1 foe of great advantage to the farmers of the province particularly with reference to grass and clover seeds.
It would he of much advantage to the livestock industry of the province by facilitating the distribution of feeding stuffs from one section to another ift the case of short crops in the local districts in the province as a whole.
It would be able to perform a distinct service in preventing the deterioration of certain crops in the province in the years of too much moisture, as is illustrated in the bean crop in recent years. The crop of buckwheat this year has had to be dried because of the wet weather which prevailed at the time of harvesting.
Special emphasis is laid on the fact that such an elevator would be a public elevator and certificates issued would be official Government certificates, both of which are advantages affording great protection to the public and not available in the same sense from private enterprise.
No\v, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that these men know what is in the interest of the farming community of Ontario, and that their request is very reasonable. They point out, moreover, that although this grain elevator may not pay as a commercial enterprise from the start, later on it would pay and consequently in that regard there would be no loss to the Dominion. They point

out another thing which is very important in view of the observations recently made by the Minister of Public Works,

that the erection of this grain elevator, which would mean a considerable outlay, would provide employment to a great many men which the Government at the present time think is so desirable. The Minister of Public Works announced that he is erecting certain Custom House buildings in certain cities for the purpose of employing labour. It seems to me that this one form of construction will be more useful than the erection of Custom House buildings which he may be able to dispense with before long. It is one form of enterprise in which labour can be advantageously employed. I leave the suggestion to the Government and hope they will give it their most serious consideration.
There is one thing in the West that the farmers are clamouring for and that is rural credits. The farmers of Ontario, I know, would also like to see rural credits established. They feel the monopolistic tendencies of our banks, and that they would be assisted by the establishment of rural credits throughout the farming district. I have only to recall to the House that in 1913 the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) brought down a proposition in regard to rural credits which was not only accepted by the Finance Minister as a sound financial propqsition, but also received the approval of the House. I think the Government might very well at this time take into consideration the establishment of rural credits throughout the West and in the province of Ontario.
But after all, Mr. Speaker, the vital question to-day is the tariff. I am not going to discuss it at length to-night because we shall have other opportunities of doing so. The Minister of Immigration (Mr. Calder) has said that there is a cleavage between the East and the West in regard to this question. For my own part I do not wish to contradict the hon. gentleman, but I believe he is making a mistake which he will find out before many months go by,
I believe there is no longer a cleavage between the East and the West in regard to the tariff question. At one time it was thought that we might say that "East is East and West is West, and never the twain shall meet" in regard to the tariff. But that day has gone by. The people of Nova Scotia and the people of Alberta are joining hands in regard to this question. The people of Quebec and the people of Saskatchewan are also joining hands; and in the province of Ontario the people are

meeting on common ground. The consumer on the farm, and the consumer in the town to-day are in favour of tariff reduction; and in this connection I know that we are going to have the support, and the farmers are going to have the support, of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) who has just taken his seat, because I remember that hon. gentleman in 1911 advocating in this House, in the skilful way that only he possesses, and analysing with that clean cut analytical mind of his,, the policy of relieving the farmers of Canada of the duty on agricultural implements. Upon that occasion I think the hon. gentleman convinced the House, and almost convinced his own side. I maintain that the farmers and the consumers to-day are one on this question, whether they come from the East or from the West. There is no cleavage in Canada as between the East and the West in regard to the tariff, but there is a cleavage between the people of Canada as a whole-between the consumers on the one side and the great protected privileged interests living in the great cities on the other side. That cleavage has got to be bridged, or partially bridged, by this Government, or the people of Canada will put another Government in power that will do the bridging. These cities seem to think that they occupy the position of old Imperial Rome, and that the whole country should pay tribute to them.
They seem to think that on the clothes on the labourer, on his foodstuffs, on his building material, on everything he uses, tribute should be paid to the manufacturer, to the monopolist, to the combinester, in order to let him live in luxury and plenty. That conviction will be shattered before very long. (I for one-and I have always been in favour of this: it is no new advocacy on my part; it is no new faith that I am expressing-I for one am in favour of a considerable reduction of the tariff. I want to see free farm implements for the agriculturist. He is entitled to them, and I believe that the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) thinks that he is entitled to them. I want to see what the farmer needs for his out-buildings-building material brought in free. I want to see cement, fertilizers, lubricating and fuel oil brought in free. As a matter of fact, I am heart and soul in favour of that resolution which was moved in the last Parliament by Hon. Frank Oliver and so ably seconded by the present Minister of Public Works (Hon. F. B. Car-veil). The people are looking for some relief from the burdens of taxation imposed upon them by the tariff. There is a great
outcry as to where we shall get our revenue. It does not seem to me to be well founded.
I do not believe a prohibitive tariff of 42J per cent is going to bring in a great revenue.
I believe that a more reasonable tariff will bring in a larger revenue; that is the history of tariff changes. It is due to the consumer that the Government bestir itself and bring down such a tariff policy as the people are calling for.
It was brought out by the Finance Minister (Sir Thomas White) that there is a certain amount of stagnation in manufacturing enterprises because the Government has not the courage to move in connection with the tariff. The manufacturers know that there is a cry for a change. They know that the Government does not know what to do. They know that they are badgered on the right by their friends the monopolists and on the left their friends the people from the West. They are standing still, afraid to take the plunge. Capital is unsettled; business men do not know what orders to place. L6t the Government come out in the open and do something. Let them announce a policy; let them convince the manufactui-ers and the business people of Canada that they have some courage in this matter, and let business get settled in the land.
As a word of warning to the Government, I quote the following from an address recently delivered by President Wilson in the United States:
Any man who resists the present tides that run in the world will And himself thrown upon a shore so high and barren that it will seem as if he had been separated from his human kind forever.
This tide of tariff is running so high that these words of the President can be very properly applied to any Government that resists it.
The Minister of Immigration and Colonization speaks also of the cleavage in this country caused by the variety of the races and religions therein; and this he deplores. I say to him in all sincerity that such words from him do not have the right ring. Hardly more than a year has elapsed since the party which he Is now supporting and then supported did everything in my province not only that men could do, but that perverse men could do, to make the cleavage between the races and religions of this country as wide and as impossible of healing as could be done. No Liberal following the Grand Old Chieftain in my part of the country was a loyal British subject; he was branded as a traitor and a pro-German, and classed as being unfit to take

tions and individuals will hasten to hoist, hail and defend the British flag.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Meighen, the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Burrell the House adjourned at 11.05 p.m.
Monday, March 17, 1919.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 20, to incorporate Canadian Merchant Service Guild.-Mr. McQuarrie.
Bill No. 21, respecting the English Valley and Hudson Railway Company.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 22, respecting the London and Port Stanley Railway	Company.-Mr. Cronyn.
Bill No. 23, respecting the Manitoba and North Western Railway Company of Canada.-Mr. Cruise.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
William Thomas White: 1 desire to read the following cable which I have received from the Overseas Minister of Militia (Sir Edward Kemp) respecting the Kinmel Park disturbance:
Answering your inquiry further information Kinmel Park disturbance, my cable March 7th should be read in conjunction with this, covers the ground pending thorough inquiry which is being carried on. Difficulties have been encountered but discipline amongst Canadians has been considered at least equal to that of best Imperial troops. Unrest in Canadian Camps is accounted for by fact that the men have been away from their homes in 'Canada for periods ranging up to four years or more, have suffered great privations and are thoroughly homesick, a fact which is fully appreciated. It will be easily understood that men who have endured such hardships and monotony would when they reached Kinmel Park, the last stage in England 'before embarkation, if held owing to shipping difficulties, become impatient. Everything possible is done to interest the soldiers while they are waiting to be repatriated. Information on this point will follow. Armistice came at beginning of one of most severe winters England has experienced. Weather has been continually cold and wet with absolute lack of sunshine. Had we been fortunate enough to have been able to proceed with demobilization under more favourable weather conditions there would have been less cause for complaint. There has been general shortage of fuel which has added discomfort. Men have lived in camps, for most part in huts, which is only accommodation. Non-combatant troops coming from different parts of France, also lines of communication troops, have
fMr. Fortier. 1
doubted'ly suffered hardships owing to unavoidable and uncomfortable transportation to England, resulting in colds and in many cases influenza. Discomforts which soldier is willing to put up with when engaged in fighting assume different aspect now that war is over. Labour troubles and general unrest in British Isles and on continent have had some effect upon men. In my cable to you February 25th I pointed out that we were short nine thousand in our shipment of troops to Canada for first fifteen days of February. This was caused by MinisterShipping not being able to deliver ships -which had been specifically promised for certain dates. In some cases ships offered were upon examination refused by us because they were not suitable for carrying troops. In other cases sailings of ships have been postponed four, five and six times and such postponements or cancellations of sailings causing vast amount of extra work in re-forming of sailing parties and re-opening of documents and correction of nominal rolls, etc. Delays and cancellations also lead to rearrangement of flow of troops as far back as Belgium. Men who have been over here for long periods but who have served in corps were embarked for Canada in large numbers before March first. It was not until this date that any corps troops were embarked. Men who have served in corps who are casualties in England so far as possible are collected .and drafted into units of corps which go to Canada according to dispersal areas. Difficulties arise in connection with maintaining permanent cadres owing to specially trained or technical personnel desiring to be returned to Canada in their order of priority and their replacement by efficient personnel causes great difficulty. Too much cannot be said on behalf of men engaged in this work as well as staffs in general, including clerks all descriptions who though anxious to get home and in many cases as much entitled as any one to return, are loyally and patriotically supporting me in endeavour to get troops back. I cannot speak too highly of men who are patiently and patriotically carrying on necessary work to demobilize and embark soldiers for Canada, many of whom have served for long periods and in many cases will be last to be demobilized. This work has been greatly hampered by influenza epidemic. Also work of demobilization has been interfered with through demands of Imperial authorities for necessary accommodation in order to carry out their demobilization, many Canadian reserve units in England having had to be moved at same time under great difficulties in the carrying out of their functions of demobilization. Staff difficulties are also very heavy on account of vast amount of documentation requiring to be carried out in England to meet wishes of authorities in Canada. More men have to be provided for in England than at any time since beginning of the war. Necessity of inaugurating a special system for dealing with corps troops and educating of staffs in accordance with systems prevailing in England. There are also difficulties in carrying out two forms of demobilization side by side, this being unavoidable. Disposition of surplus war material in France and England, horses, etc., is big task in itself. Never since war began has there been such an amount of work to be done in so short a period. Took some time to reverse machine which had been in operation for four and a half years and set it going in opposite direction back to Canada. All practical suggestions for improvements to assist in camp life are readily adopted. Notwithstanding all difficulties with

which we are faced we Will have succeeded by end of this month in moving from Prance to England eighty-five thousand soldiers and from England to Canada not less than one hundred thousand, which is considered here at any rate a remarkable achievement considering all circumstances.
I cabled recently to the Overseas Minister of Militia with respect to certain press reports which had reached Canada alleging that the girls' quarters at Kinmel Camp had been attacked by the men. Sir Edward Kemp replied to my cable as follows:
Cannot anticipate findings of Court Inquiry. Times, however, on March 8th stated with respect to girls employed in camp as follows: " The manageress responsible for girls declares that not the slightest attempt was made to interfere with any of them."
Lloyd's paper, March 9th, says : " No attempt was made by the rioters to interfere with them. The girls were treated with the utmost chivalry." The Telegraph, March 8 th, says: " The girls' camp was not attacked, and as a matter of fact the girls were treated with the utmost chivalry." There is indignation here among all Canadians at exaggerations which appeared particularly in earlier reports in British press. I have expressed indignation of Canadians to newspapers privately and publicly. Some have apologized. No Canadian, however, believed that Canadian soldiers would be guilty of conduct as reported in press respecting girls working in canteens with which they were charged. Cannot say at moment when findings Court Inquiry will be ready. Do not want to create impression that haste is of primary importance. What is required is thorough inquiry.
Kemp.



GOVERNMENT PRINTING BUREAU.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I should like the attention of the
Secretary of State (Hon. Mr. Burrell) for a moment. I see by the press this morning that there is some hope of an early settlement of the trouble in the Printing Bureau. We should like to know whether that is so; also when the printing of the Hansard in the ordinary way will be resumed. It is important to members that they be supplied with the usual number of copies of Hansard; its suspension has interfered very much with the ordinary run of business.


Martin Burrell: I cannot hold myself responsible
for the non-printing of Hansard at this time. As to the press report that appeared this morning, I am, of course, not responsible for that either. I interviewed a committee of the striking employees this morning, and the questions involved were discussed very generally. The position at the moment is about as it was. I explained 33
that I did not consider, in view of all the facts, that there was any justification for the strike, and that if the men came back- as I think it desirable that they should, from their own point of view-proper consideration would be given to any grievance that they believe they have.
As to their position after March 31, $3.00 a week has been given to them from April 1 last to March 31, and I shall recommend that the most sympathetic consideration be given to settle things justly as between March 31 and June 1, when the new agreements will be entered into.



CANADIAN ARMY MEDICAL SERVICE.


Charles Murphy: May I ask the Acting Prime Minister if the Government has given consideration to the charges made in the Quebec Legislature by Brigadier-General Smart, regarding maladministration of medical services overseas, and, if so, whether we may expect an announcement in this House with respect to Government action in connection with those charges?


William Thomas White: 

land in 1916; I was associated with Sir George Perley in connection - with the creation of a commission of inquiry; I say that the action which he took was the sound action; that it had the commendation of those who knew the situation in England. And I say further in regard to Sir George Perley that I do not know of any civilian whose record shows more valuable service to Canada during the period of the war and since than that of the High Commissioner of Canada. He is a man of most superb executive ability. I have had much to do with him; I have been in continual cable communication with him on the utmost variety of subjects and he has always been prompt and exceedingly efficient and effectual in dealing with the highly important matters which I have brought to his attention from time to time. His services have been, in my opinion, simply invaluable to this country. I do not believe the charges made against him have the slightest foundation in fact.



AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JOHN H. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guysborough): May I ask the Minister of Finance how soon we may expect the remaining volumes of the Auditor General's Report? When I drew attention to this matter some days ago, I was informed that they would shortly he laid upon the Table. Since that time one volume has been laid on the Table. I should like some explanation as to why volumes I and II have not reached the House while volume III has been distributed.
William Thomas White: I shall be glad to make inquiry from the Auditor General and give a statement to-morrow regarding the matter. One volume has already been laid on the Table. The circumstances relating to the delay were explained by the Auditor General in a letter which I laid on the Table.


Charles Murphy: Has a new Auditor General been appointed?


William Thomas White: Major Sutherland, the Assistant Auditor General, has been appointed in place of the late Auditor General.



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 14.
Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Minister of Interior):: Mr. 'Speaker, the definite object I have in rising is to endeavour to make reply to some features of the address delivered in this House on Friday last by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding). Since the conclusion of that speech, however, the hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Ross) has delivered a very well phrased and well condensed speech on various subjects that have been under review. His remarks consisted mainly in a pilgrimage into problems of tariff, a pilgrimage in which I shall not venture to follow him at present, preferring rather to pursue the advice so often given by my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) when he was Minister of Finance, and refrain, as a member of the Government, from a discussion of questions of tariff until the Budget is brought down.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Ross), however, indulged in the practice which is somewhat frequently pursued in this Parliament, of referring to an address I had the honour to make and a resolution I had the honour to move in this House in the early months of 1911. The resolution asked the House for a substantial reduction in the duties on implements. The remark I wish to make is this: that the hon. gentleman, in his efforts to criticise what 1 said at that time and myself now in relation to it, followed the habit of making a summary, or rather a very rough and hasty interpretation of what I said at that time instead of quoting my remarks as they were uttered. All I ask of him is: that whenever again he seeks to found any argument upon that speech or that resolution, he be good enough to give the text of the remarks I made or the text of the resolution, because I can assure him now that though something over eight years have gone by there is not a paragraph of that speech by whose principles I am not prepared to abide. The hon. gentleman appears to be at the present time a convert to the arguments I then adduced. I am very glad to know that. I cannot recall, however, that I got much assistance from him then when he was supporting the Government in office. He is an example of the very numerous class of men who are much easier of conversion and much more receptive to new platforms and new policies while enjoying the freedom of opposition and of private life than they are when confronted with the responsibilities of Government.
I am sure that the members of this House Sir, both to your right and to your left, will share with me in congratulating the

hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) on the vigour both of mind and body, of which he gave such ample evidence in his speech of last Friday. It is a matter of encouragement to us all, and indeed of inspiration, that a man of his years and of his long register of public service, a man who when very many around him now were in their cradles was Prime Minister of his province, can at this time rise to as high a level of controversial skill as at any period of his career.
There are many positions in the long range of subjects over which he traversed with which I do not care to take issue. Indeed, with much that he said I am in substantial accord, and my references this afternoon will be rather to contentions he brought forward and positions he took up in respect of which it may be said that the skill with which they were defended was very much better than the care with which they were selected.
First of all; in the latter part of his address, he took the ground that this was no longer a free Parliament; that this was a strangled and shackled Parliament and he ventured to appeal to hon. members to shake off the shackles and restore the pristine freedom of this House. Well, any hon. member or any one looking down from the gallery who has watched the proceedings of this Parliament for the past ten years during which I have been a member, or, indeed, for any ten years preceding, and noted the healthy atmosphere of independence and freedom and the extraordinary latitude of criticism exercised by hon. members on both sides, will have some difficulty in conceiving how any reflective -mind could come to the conclusion that this Parliament, of all parliaments, is shackled.
In attempting to establish his case the Ex-Minister of Finance enunciated certain precepts as to what should be the duty of the supporter of a party, and particularly of a supporter of a government, under the constitutional conditions of parliamentary government under which we live. With the principles he enunciated I want to take issue-and indeed the sharpest possible issue. He proclaims himself an adherent of the party system. Generally speaking, I have no fault to find with that position. I am not able to conceive how our parliamentary government can possibly be continued save under some form of the party system. A party system necessarily involves the concession of individual opinion to the will of the majority. It necessarily involves the tempering of individual aspira-
33i
tions to the average will of the entire body, with the result that though the final policy to which the party man eventually adheres may not meet the individual opinions of many, it will at all events fairly represent the average opinion of all. The hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), while supporting the general principle of party support, states that it must be confined to one class of subjects only, and that a wholly different relationship exists between the members of a party and the Government in office, or the members of the opposite party and the leader of the Opposition, in another class of subjects. These are his words:
I felt that on matters relating to the prosecution of the war the Government ought to be strongly supported, certainly by their friends, and I thought they might have claimed support from their opponents even in matters relating to the prosecution of the war. But I believe that on all questions not connected with the war every man in the House of Commons should be at liberty to act according to the dictates of his conscience. Was that an erroneous conception? Was there anything unreasonable in that?
There is just this much unreasonable in that. I should like to inquire why the operation of conscience should be excluded from ,the consideration of subjects connected with the prosecution of the war? Why should conscience reign only in the sphere of the ' trivial and the secondary, and be wholly excluded when it comes to the sphere of the important and the vital? If an hon. member of this House is asked to support some article of policy relating to the prosecution of the war which he believes to be not serving the interests of the country at all, which he believes will be a dishonour to his country and result, in part at all events, in disaster to his country, is he to be told that his conscience must not be allowed to speak or to affect his vote, and that on all such matters of great and imperious concern he must bow to the party will and support the Government in office? And is he at the same time to be told that in matters wholly secondary and trivial and inconsequential to the State, in order that his conscience may be kept alive, he is to be allowed to give it free play and to vote just as he like's?
I have stated, in plain language, I am sure, the principles which the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's deems to be sound. Those principles need only to be stated to be condemned as wholly unsound and wrong.
I said a few moments ago that the very existence of party, necessary as it is to the continuity of governmental authority and

to the efficiency of government as government, necessarily involved unity of action and support by party, save in certain extraordinary circumstances. But it would appear to me that the time when a member might see his way not to support the Government in office which he was elected to support would be an occasion, not of minor, but of major consequence-an occasion when the most vital interests of the State were concerned, and when he would determine that rather than support a policy of far-reaching consequence that he deems to be wrong, he would prefer that the Government of the day should change, or that there should be an appeal to the higher court of public opinion. On many such occasions hon. members of this House have seen fit to break from party and take a place by themselves, voting against the Government which generally they were desirous to support. That is a statement of the principle as it has operated and as it is recognized both in the Old Land and in this.
The hon. member, however, went on to give a special instance, and he said in that special instance a grave error was made which resulted in the shackling of this House by the Prime Minister of Canada. I wish to refer to that instance. It was on the occasion of the titles debate of last session. On that occasion the Prime Minister, in the name of the Government of this country moved a certain amendment to a resolution that was before this House. The circumstances were these: The subject of titles had engaged a very large share of public attention for some time and had been under discussion in the press of Canada. In view of that volume of public attention, and in view also, and particularly, of the fact that the question, important or unimportant though it might be in itself, involved our relationship with the Crown and with the Imperial authorities, the Government of this country felt it its duty to come to a definite decision of policy with regard thereto. They came to that decision, and embodied it in an Order in Council; and, more than that, communicated their decision with regard to this subject to the Government of Great Britain
In that position the Government found itself when the question came under discussion in this House, and in such circumstances the Government was bound to take its place as a government, where it had taken it in the Order in Council, and as thus communicated to the Imperial authorities. Now, I know of no case in British history, or in our own history, where a 
government, having finally taken up a position and having communicated that position to the authorities to whom it had to be communicated under the circumstances, could permit that policy to which they were committed to be overthrown by parliament, and thereafter continue to carry on the government of the country. There must be a consideration on the part of Government, as regards each individual case, of its general bearing on the whole body of public legislation. That consideration a government is bound to give, and the Government having given that consideration and come to its decision, were it to be overthrown, the authority necessary to its efficiency is impaired-and a long series of British precedents has taught us that a government in that position serves the public interests best by retiring from office and giving place to those who better represent the people in Parliament. It is not that a government is afraid to carry on, nor that it seeks anything for itself. It is merely in deference to the well-established rule-established through a thousand years of experience- that a government whose authority is so challenged or impaired cannot with advantage legislate in the public interests. Furthermore, there existed this circumstance in connection with the Titles situation; the Government of Great Britain, after communication of the position assumed by the Government of Canada, had, in the most respectful and urgent terms, asked this Government to defer further consideration of the subject, pending a conference upon it in England in the summer of 1918, and in view of that special communication, the stand taken by the Prime Minister in this House was inevitable and necessary. So that the Prime Minister-whether our stand previously had been right or wrong-in speaking as he did in Parliament on that night, was not making anything of a threat to Parliament; he was merely laying down a constitutional principle, by which constitutional principle he deemed himself 'to be bound.
The hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) referred to an Act, passed not by this Government, but by the Government which preceded it, known as the War-time Elections Act. The language which he applied to that legislation was by far the strongest language which he used in the course of his address-language which later I shall quote, and for which he will have to take full responsibility. He made the attack knowing, as he well knew and as no one knew better, that on the subject of

the merits of that Bill on the merits of the legislation which that Bill put into effect, there was necessarily a difference of opinion on the part of ministers who now compose the Government of Canada. He approved of the principle of those men coming together and uniting for another and a higher purpose, and he knew as well, in making his attack upon it, that that Bill of itself goes out of existence automatically on de* mobilization, and that the Government of the day has no contemplation of its being exercised before demobilization. Consequently there would not appear to be very much practical object to be served by the stand he took.
Inasmuch as the attack which he made was certainly of an extraordinary character, and placed, at all events half of the members of this Government in a position that justifies vigorous defence, I wish to offer a little serious comment from the point of view of a member of this House, and of the late Administration, and in no way affecting to speak on behalf of the Government as constitued now. The hon. member stated that under the Wartime Elections Act, a class of the population of this country was disfranchised. That is true. He stated that these disfranchised persons would have voted against the Government of the day had they not been disfranchised, or would as a rule have voted against it. That also I do not deny. I believed that to be true then, and I believe it to be true now. But he went on to say that the only reason given for their disfranchisement was the fact that they would vote against the Administration. Now, I introduced that Bill myself-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: I prepared that Bill myself.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: I am very glad to hear my work approved by hon. gentlemen opposite. I stated the grounds of that Bill to the House. Many other hon. members of this House, both in the Government and out of the Government, stated the principle behind that Bill and the reasons for it; and no one of them-myself or any other [DOT]-ever stated, as the hon. gentleman claims we stated, that the reason for that Bill was the fact that, the persons disfranchised would otherwise vote against the Government. It is one thing to believe they would; it is wholly another thing to base a Bill on that belief. The fact that
they would would be no reason whatever for such legislation. The reason they were disfranchised, as has a hundred times been repeated-be that reason sufficient or be it not-was that these men, bound as they were by ties of blood and kin, and by ties of a very freshly severed citizenship to the enemies of this country were not in a position, freely as Canadian citizens, to decide an issue that involved the conduct of war with the nation from which they came. That, briefly stated, was the reason given; that, briefly stated, was the reason behind the Bill. It was either sufficient or it was not. In my judgment it was good; in my judgment any other course would have been wholly unjustifiable.
But more than that: the hon. member states that the honour of the British name, the honour of the Canadian name, suffered a very serious defamation by the passing of that Act. I will quote his words. He went through a prolonged homily on the value of reputation and of character; on the value of the British name throughout the world, and he proceeded to say:
"Who can say to-day, with fairness and justice, " By the word of a Canadian I will do it " ? The word of a Canadian, tried by the War-time Elections Act, is a word of trickery, a word of deception, and the word of a cheat.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: Now, hon. gentlemen venture to " hear, hear " again. It may just be possible that that invective, bitter as it is, extraordinary as it is, may in a few seconds be brought back and laid at the door of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's himself. Is it to be argued that because a person is given the rights of a British subject he is guaranteed forever the franchise? Is it to be argued that an alien coming to this country and acquiring the status of a British subject thereby enjoys a higher guarantee of citizenship than a British-born subject? Nobody would venture either assertion. It cannot be supported. It is not contended by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's, or even suggested. He enjoys the same securities as the British subject born, no more and no less. But it is argued that to disfranchise British subjects born, or to disfranchise these others, is to indulge in trickery, deception and cheating. The hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's was for a long time Premier of the province of Nova Scotia. He came into office about the year 1883, and while he was a member of the Government of the

province he introduced a Bill into the legislature of Nova Scotia by which Bill he would disfranchise within that province British subjects in the persons of all within the confines of Nova Scotia who were in the employment of the Government of Canada. That was a clause which was in the Act before, and when he brought it into the Legislature of Nova Scotia and pleaded for its reintroduction into law a motion was made by a member urging that the clause providing for disfranchisement of all these employees of the railways, post offices, inland revenue offices, lighthouses and other services of the Dominion Government in that province, should be struck out. That motion in amendment was resisted by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's,- his resistance prevailed and the clause was retained. That clause reads as follows:
It shall not be lawful for any person to vote at any election for a member or members to represent the people in the general assembly of this Province, who at any time within fifteen days before the day of election, was an employee, or in the receipt of wages or emolument of any kind1 as such employee, in the Post Office, the Custom House, the Inland Revenue Department, the Lighthouse service, on the Government railroads, in the Crown Land Office, or the Local Public Works and Mines.
Then it, goes on to except those who are merely supplying material and the actual postmaster .and mail courier himself. And the class of men disfranchised, born British subjects, bore just about as large a proportion of the electorate of the province as those disfranchised by the War-time Elections Act bore to the electorate of Canada. He himself reaped the fruits of this disfranchisement during five provincial elections in that province.
I am not arguing that the disfranchisement was wrong. I am not questioning it. It is not necessary for my contention to argue that the disfranchisement was wrong. It was put upon the ground that these persons, being employees of the Federal authorities, would be under the influence of their employers and would not be free voters in the contest. It is a little difficult to understand why that argument would not equally aoply to any person in the service of any other employer in the province of Nova Scotia. But, assuming that the argument is good and putting it on the highest plane you can, what is it? It is that by reason of external influence these British subjects were not free in the determination of questions appertaining to the province of Nova Scotia. Will anybody tell me that the influence, the stress, the power of the ties of blood and kin; the groanings
[Mr. Meighen.l
and tears of brothers overseas fighting against this country would not be a thousand times more powerful than would he an influence of that kind? If British honour, if the British name, if the Canadian name has suffered a catastrophe in this country by reason of the exercise of the power of disfranchisement, that catastrophe is a whole lot older than the War-time Elections Act, and the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's was himself a participant in the wreck.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am not sure about the date of the Act to which the hon. gentleman refers. Is the introduction of this not very much older than the coming in as Premier of Nova Scotia of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) ?


Arthur Meighen: I stated so. It was introduced in 1871, three or four years after Confederation, but does the hon. gentleman argue that if men had been wrongfully disfranchised for thirteen years the continuation of the wrong is justified?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The Liberals repealed
the Act in Nova Scotia and it is out of date long ago.


Arthur Meighen: They repealed the Act
in 1909 long after the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's had ceased to be interested in Nova Scotia politics. If the Wartimes Elections Act is absolutely wrong;- though passed only for one election-how could the legislature of Nova Scotia support an Act and keep it on the statute-book for 38 years as the law of that province, founded on the same principle but on a far weaker case?
Now, I come to that feature of the address of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's in which he criticised the representation of this country at the Peace Conference now in session at Paris. The argument of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's was that there were no subjects under discussion at this Peace Conference in which Canada had any special concern or in which Canada had any interest distinct from the interests of the British Islands, and that our representation there should be merged in the representation selected by the British Parliament. His line of thought first of all was that unless we had subjects under discussion there in which we had a purely Canadian interest, as distinct from the interest of Great Britain, we had no right to representation and he said that President Wilson was sound and logical when he resisted representation on the part of Canada. It is very difficult for me to com-

prehend how an hon. gentleman of the long experience of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) could possibly do justice to his intellect and come to the conclusion that there were no subjects under discussion in which we had a very distinct and very vital interest.
We do not fully know what is taking place; that is to say we know nothing more than is communicated to us through the regular channels. The deliberations will subsequently be made public to the extent that the conference decides, and then we will know what has been under discussion. But it seems to me that we can come to a conclusion as to the subjects that are probably under review. First of all there are the fourteen point of President Wilson on the basis of which the terms of -settlement are finally to rest. There are those points -that will be under discussion, and what is one of them? One of them says something about an economic arrangement as to trade between the powers of the world. That must be under discussion. I would not like to undertake to define what was in the President's mind but I presume the-re was something, and will anybody venture to suggest that this Dominion should not be represented and that we have no distinct interest, aside altogether from the interest of the British Islands, in the determination of the question of an economic arrangement as to trade between the Powers?
Furthermore there is under discussion there the question of the purchase, the transportation, and the disposition of food stuffs as between Allied and enemy countries. Will any one suggest that our interests with regard to that are identical with the interests of Great Britain? Our interests are by no means identical; they are distinct, and the problem for us is wholly a Canadian problem. And there could be nothing more vital, and nothing more important, than that representatives of this Dominion of high standing and authority should be there to safeguard the interests of Canada. There is nothing that bears more on the prosperity of this country at this time than- the share of trade obtained by this country in the reconstruction of the .desolated parts of Europe, and the share of purchases made by this country for foodstuffs and for other supplies for Allied and enemy lands. It is all right to have a trade commission, but the principles that bear on these problems are under discussion at the Peace Conference, and in the determination of these principles it is essential to this Dominion that it should be represented.
Then there is the matter of transportation, pending, at all events, the conclusion of the terms of peace. Will any one suggest that the problem of transportation is the same for Canada as it is for Great Britain? It is a different problem altogether, and it is Canadians who must have a say in the solution of that problem so far as we are concerned. I could pass from subject to subject, but there will scarcely be a matter wi-thin the deliberations of thait conference in which we have not an interest, and a distinctive interest. But assuming again that on no single topic have we any concern or any special interest that -may be separated from and made distinct from th-e interest of Great Britain, I affirm here -as a -Canadian citizen that -as -a distinct entity within the British Empire, and as a distinct self-governing entity, we are entitled to a voice in the attitude assumed by Great Britain in the disposal of every question that pertains to the terms of peace.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding) referred to the fact that only on one occasion was the representative of Canada seated at the inner council of Ten which, he states, and rightly states, is so powerful in the determination of the problems of the Conference. He made some fun of the reference in the despatch to the fact that the subject under discussion at that meeting was the fixing of the boundaries of Serbia, and intimated to this House that the determination of that question should be left to cleiks in the Foreign Office in England, and that in it we had no concern whatever. Well, sixty thousand soldiers of this country have come to early graves as a result of this war, and you do not trace very far back the causes that led to the war until you come to the boundaries of Serbia. Bosnia, and Herzegovina filched from Serbian control! the Serajevo massacre ! the flame that lighted the world. And on the proper solution of the boundaries of Serbia, as of every power, on the certainty that those boundaries will be delimited in accordance with rightful principles of race and nationality and of selfdetermination, on the certainty that they will be based on the general consent of nations and in fundamental -equity as between nations-on that depends the peace and prosperity of mankind for generations to come.
It is no flattery to the Prime Minister of Canada, no flattery to the Government of Canada, to say that Sir Robert Borden at

this time, removed as he is from local or European prejudices, wholly divorced as he is from the tie3 and understandings that may have bound countries in days gone by, and possessed as he is, of lofty judicial temperament, high legal endowment and strong personality and will-it is no flattery to him to say that his services may be inestimable in the determination of the question of the boundaries of Europe.
Let me .assure Parliament-it needs no assurance I hope-that the Prime Minister did not go over to take part in that Conference, and in the negotiations that led to the 'Conference and that decided its constitution, he did not go over merely as a matter of his own convenience, or to satisfy his pride; he went over there on the earnest and repeated solicitation of the Prime Minister of Great Britain himself, on his earnest and repeated .appeal-praying him to come not at the end of November, or at the
4 p. m. beginning of the Conference, but praying Sir Robert to come and give his services early, not to great Britain, not to Canada, but to the whole Empire, in the determination of the constitution of the Conference, in the determination of all the arrangements leading to it, and in all the problems with which the Government and the Empire were confronted leading to and before that Conference.
I do not think that the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's was doing quite jusr tice to this Dominion when he pictured the Prime Minister of Great Britain and the President of the United States as feeding out candy to this country, endeavouring to flatter us, and, as it were, to tickle the vanity of Canada in deciding whether we should have representation or not. He even went so far as to say that President Wilson was sound and logical in his position when he took the ground, as in fancy he pictured him taking it, that we had no more right to separate representation than had the state of New York over and above the representation of the United States. Could a more preposterous thought be addressed to a deliberative assembly. Has the state of New York no say in the determination or the government of the United States? Has it no voice in the selection of the delegates of the United States? Has the state of New York any option as to whether or not it goes to war if the United States goes to war? Now let me read the words of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's. He says that he can conceive of an anomaly-he can

conceive of something that would be wholly inconceivable and intolerable, and this is what it would be:
True, there is an anomaly in the position. I grant you at once that if we had been obliged to take part in the war, having no voice in the making of it, the condition would be inconceivable and intolerable.
Well, there may be a sense in which, on a declaration of war by Britain, we have a constitutional right to determine whether we will take part in the conflict or not, there may be a constitutional sense in which we have a right to say whether we will take part in the conflict or not; but assuming there is, assuming the hon. member is right-that it would be inconceivable and intolerable that we should be bound by Britain's decision to go to war if we have no say as to whether she goes or not-then I want to put to him this question: are we not to be bound by the Treaty of Peace? Is the Treaty of Peace that binds the British Empire not to bind this country? Yes. we will surely be bound by every line and letter of that treaty that affects the Empire of Britain. And, if such be true, then on what principle under Heaven are we not to have any representation or any say in the making of the Treaty of Peace? If therefore it is inconceivable and intolerable that we should have to go to war on the declaration of war by Great Britain because we have no voice in the declaration, surely it is inconceivable and intolerable that we should be bound by the Treaty of Peace if we have no voice or say in the terms of the treaty at all.
Now it is quite true that the Council of Ten is the principal body, and very likely the initiating body of the conference. And it is very likely true as well that only on rare occasions can Canada have her actual representatives sitting at that council. But what I contend is this : It is absolutely vital that in the determination of the position that the representatives of this Empire shall take at the conference, be they Mr. Lloyd George, Mr. Balfour or anybody else, the representatives of this country must sit on the British delegation and have their voice. It is true that, those representatives cannot be dominant on the British panel. It is just as true that the representatives of Nova Scotia or of my province in this Parliament cannot possibly dominate this Parliament; but here they are represented and can make their influence felt, and so long as they can do that, they have their rights. Similarly, we must be represented on the British delegation in order

that the influence and the opinion of this country may be reflected in the action taken by the delegates of the Empire in the Council of Ten.
I do not know by what title the member for Shelburne and Queen's ('Mr. Fielding) describes his new faith. It certainly is not the old Liberalism; it is certainly not anything to which this Union Government can possibly subscribe. The idea that our representation in the concerns of Empire must be merged in representatives selected by the Parliament and Government of Britain and that we can have no say outside of that-surely that is not the Liberalism of to-day. The member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) shakes his head, but I think I heard him applaud and I heard a great many hon. members opposite applaud when the member for Shelburne and Queen's was enunciating these extraordinary theories.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.


Ernest Lapointe: Not at that juncture.


Arthur Meighen: I noticed also that the member for Rouville (Hon. Mr. Lemieux) observed a discreet silence; he did not like the new dogmas that were being placed before him by the member for Shelburne and Queen's. If the attitude of the member for Shelburne and Queen's with relation to our representation at the conference-a compound of colonization and imperialism gone mad-is to be taken as an indication on his part of a return to the lighted chamber of Liberalism, he emphatically has taken to heart the advice of the member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) and has taken his provisions with him. I say this to hon. members who so vigorously applauded the remarks of the member for Shelburne and Queen's on this subject; after they go out from under the magic of his eloquence and mingle with their own peoples, they will not hear many plaudits of heresy like this, especially in the strongholds of their faith.


Charles Murphy: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: In this we have the imprimatur of the member for Russell (Mr. Murphy) and so we may take it for granted that hereafter Canada will be conceded to be properly represented in the councils of the Empire and that we shall no longer hear it suggested that the Prime Minister and his colleagues should return to Canada and not continue their work-a work they have so far performed so well in the greatest conference of all time.
A word more, and I have done. I have heard it stated more than once during the progress of this debate, that the Government is seeking shelter from criticism under the shadow of war and that the freedom of criticism of the old days is denied. Well, there was a time, when the war was in progress, when the fate of this country was in peril, that we did ask from hon, gentlemen greater care in the attacks they levelled against the Administration and greater efforts at unity in this House than are ordinarily made under the party system. That was not for the protection or for the good of the Government; it was, as we deemed it, in the vital interests of the country. We felt that the advantages of union were greater than the advantages, however important they were, of the full and free play of party criticism in Parliament. We felt it was important that there should not be an encouragement of disunion in the country by unnecessary disunion in Parliament. But the war is over now-at all events, the peril is passed-we want no favours; we ask for no quarter; we seek no shelter. If the opponents of this Government have any batteries in reserve, let the heavy artillery come on. We shall exhaust every effort to learn and to understand our duty, and by the courage and the efficiency of its performance, we are quite prepared to be judged.
Mr. JULES EDOUARD PREVOST (Terrebonne) Translation) : Mr. Speaker, whoever in this House rises to take part in this debate, cannot help noticing with deep sorrow the vacant seat once occupied by Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Hon. members who preceded me were anxious to lay their tribute of sweet remembrance and praise on the grave of that illustrious Canadian. As the days pass away, we realize more and more that a great voice has lapsed into silence, but within these precincts we can still hear the echo of the golden words with which Laurier used to express the great Liberal principles which always guided his life and illuminated Canadian politics.
Just as the stars project their rays over the boundless space long after their fires are extinct, the splendor cast on our national life by Laurier i,s not about to fade away and will be continued for a long time in our history. He iis istill alive, first in our heart then in the Libeiral policy which was his own and which cannot die. We do not see him among us and his pleasant smile and intelligent eyes shine no more in this House, but his spirit is still present, I mean the vivid inspiration which created.

maintained and developed in hi.s mind the wise political doctrines of the golden mean, the only one that may apply to this country.
Some people have disdainfully called that policy opportunism. Truly, it was opportunism, but the right kind of opportunism. There are two sorts of opportunism; one, woeful and vile, which consists of changing heart and soul according to the time -and chances of personal benefit; the other, a well comprehensive policy, which leads you to accept unavoidable but honest compromises in order to go as far as possible toward the -end in view which it would be difficult to accomplish all of a sudden.
Laurier's science of conceding was always guided by the -most sincere Liberalism. His idea of Liberalism hovered always very high; it was most attractive because it appealed to all indiscriminately -and solicited the support of -every man in the heart of whom, as he so w-ell described, are enshrined the principles of -eternal truth and unalterable justice.
It was Liberalism in its most extensive form, that which Lauri-er advooaited and practiced, opposing action to reaction, the reasonable emancipation of the mind to its bondage, progress to stagnancy, education to ignorance, and including claims for all legitimate liberties, tolerance, war on fanaticism and the firm respect of the rights of mankind.
Thus placed at th-e apex, Laurier's idiea of Liberalism prevailed over the races, 'the creeds and even the parties. That is why he had so many supporters and -explains how h-e leaves so many sincere admirer,s on all -sides, in all groups. But he believed, and we believe with him, that the Liberal party is the political organization which is most capable to carry out the ideal of Liberalism.
W-e are the trustees of Laurier's doctrine. It is our duty, as much as our best claim to glory, to work for the triumph of that ideal of Canadian Liberalism. The whole of Canada is proud of Lauri-er and surrounds his memory with pr-ai-se and regrets as a halo the brightness of which nothing can ever impair.
But we, his adepts, his political followers, have greater cause than any others to pride ourselves on such a leader and to mourn his death. Should. Laurier comeback in our midst now I believe he would s-ay to us, in pleasant and fervid tones: "My friends, men amount to Ixtt1;; what counts is the ideal. The ideal -of Canadian Liberalism did not disappear with me and
fMr. Provost. 1
when I bequeathed it to you, I gave vou the best of myself."
By the light of our late lamented leader's political doctrine, allow me to consider for a few moments the -policy, or rather ihe lack of policy of this Government. It is a well known fact that this Union Government has been the greatest enemy of union in Canada. Unionism has divided the country, the souls and hearts of its people, the Liberal as well as the Conservative parties, and the Government to which it gave birth is divided against itself. The Union Government will destroy itself like the scorpion which bites off its own tail. That party whose policy was embodied in the one cry: "Win the War," has not even succeeded in administering safely the affairs of this country in the actual interest of the war.
The sensational disclosures made in this House, a few days ago, by the hon. member for Victoria, ex Minister of Militia, are adding to the substantial evidence already secured.	.
Those whose mission it is to wash the Government of all impurity may reply that the hon. member for Victoria did not go in the trenches and, therefore, is not well acquainted with what was going on at the front; they may also say that he was relieved from his duties of Minister by Sir Robert Borden and that his criticism is inspired by per-sonal grudge. But another arraignment still more formidable than the charges laid by the ex-Minister of Militia, has just been made against the military administration of this -Government which is alleged to have been created for the *purpose of "winning the war." I am referring to the statements made in the legislature of Quebec, last Friday, by General Smart, Conservative member for Westmount.
In a forceful -speech. Gene-rial Smart, who returned from overseas recently, where he secured an important command and remarkable promotions after four years of active service, denounced the medical service and the general administration of the Canadian army in Great Britain and in Canada.
What will be the answer of this Government to the charges laid by the general, who -makes 'the following -solemn -declaration :
Before I left -England, I was refluested by several officers to call the attention of the Canadian, people upon certain conditions which obtained there for a long time and which the officers could not bring to light.
Unfortunately they can do nothing for those who are dead, except perpetuate their memory and extend protection to their families; but there are many officers and men who are going

to be the wards of the Government- during the next -2'0 or 30 *years, and' it is in their own interest that I should bring forth the following facts: I say, without "any fear of being contradicted by any unbiased authority, that the medical administration Overseas was bad. It showed itself dull and careless and should have been much improved. Personally, after a stay of four years overseas, I have no confidence in those who carry on the administration in Great Britain.
General Smart sharply criticized the heads of the Army Medical Corps and particularly Sir George iPerley who, according to his statement, caused much harm and trouble which he set forth and condemned. In the course of his violent denunciation, General Smart cited facts and names; his facts were quite specific. For instance he charged the beads of the Army Medical 'Corps with having caused the death of General Steele and through their inefficiency and carelessness, and with rendering incurable a great number of soldiers.
The dealings of 'Sir George Perley, General Turner and Sir Edward Kemp are closely scrutinized by that gallant officer. He positively states that the troubles at Rhyl, as well as those which occurred at Shorncliffe, at Witney and at Bramshott, were the outcome of the resentment inspired by the treatment to which the men had been subjected for a long time' past. He denounced some of the Orders in Council passed by this Government and wondered whether this Government were composed of men still possessed of common sense.
After having re-asserted that the overseas administration was 'bad and had been so for the last two years, General Smart moved the following resolution which was adopted unanimously:
That in the opinion of this House, the Federal Government should supply the people with all the information relative to the treatment meted out to officers and men of the Canadian Expeditionary Force recruited in this province, who have returned from overseas sick or wounded and are still under treatment in the hospitals.
Mr. Gault another Conservative of long standing, whose name I have already mentioned, seconded general Smart's motion.
In view of these facts, the "win the war" Government find themselves in a queer position. Such is the work accomplished by the Government, who juggled away the election in 1917, by proclaiming that they want first of all to organize the Canadian army in order to win the war. Such is the record of this Union Government, who persist in saying- that their task is not yet completed and that their existence is absolutely necessary for the welfare of the country. The
. more we go, the more we realize the harm which they are doing, as evidenced by the returning officers and soldiers. General Smart exclaimed in the Quebec Legislature: "I do not want imperialism, if it must be at the cost of the soldiers suffering". These words which fall as a whip's lash on the face of the Government are expressing my own opinion, and I may add that the "win-the-war" cry, with which the Unionists were able to smother the free and true expression of public opinion in 1917, is no longer strong -enough to drown the loud denunciations and the hitter complaints of those who fell the victims of the carelessness, incompetence and favoritism of this Government. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, since the tragedy on the battlefield is over, why should they keep up at home this joke of unionism which has not even a pretence to justify its existence?
Let us see what the Government has accomplished. In establishing conscription, they satisfied nobody, and, less of all, the western farmers; they broke the harmony, so essential to the efficiency of our common endeavour during the terrible war in which we were taking part. Under that useless legislation, they succeed in securing only a few hundred soldiers more than they would have done under the voluntary system, had the latter been properly organized. It is easy to prove- it, and I will do so on another occasion during this session, should I be given an opportunity to do so.
The speech from the Throne contains no reference to the most serious problems which Canada is facing to-day. The country is indebted to the extent of $2,000,000,-' 000. Each year we shall require several hundred millions to meet our most unavoidable obligations. One of the ministers told this House -a few days ago 'that he *expected -a deficit of one hundred millions for the next fiscal year. However, the speech from the Throne does not mention any way by which the Government can secure the revenue which they require.
There is no mention of the cost of living in the speech from the Throne, though it is a difficult problem which requires a prompt solution. Who -does not know of, or has not suffered from the effects of the increased cost of living: unjustified penury and hardship for the great majority of the people, distress for many, evident social unrest, agitation among certain sections of the proletariat, strikes or threat to strike, ever swelling budgets on account of the increases in salary, pensions and bonuses which we must provide for

1899, they were charging 16.17 per cent on all dutiable and free goods, that is 3.49 per cent less on the value of the goods imported for home consumption. For every $100 collected in 1879, we were charging only $83 in 1899. And the Liberal party kept on lowering the tariff from year to year. However when they came into power, the expenses of the country exceeded the receipts by two millions, and this did not prevent them from lowering the tariff. Therefore the Liberals have first reduced the duties to the extent of $17 per $100, and then they did away with high protection duties on all staple commodities.
For instance, cotton and linen and linen goods had to pay a specific duty of from one to two cents per square yard and an ad valorem duty of 15 per cent; the Liberal Administration abolished the specific duty and made a big cut in the ad valorem duty. The consumer was benefited for, when you come down to it, it is the consumer who has to pay the customs duties on all the goods we import into this country.
Some other examples: There was a duty of 71 cents per gallon on petrol; the Liberals reduced this to 5 cents. Under the Tories molasses paid an ad valorem duty of 15 per cent; the Liberals cut this down to li cents a gallon. Under the Conservative Administration ready-made clothing paid 10 cents a pound plus ah ad valorem duty of 35 per cent; under the Liberals the 10 cents per pound duty was abolished and the ad valorem reduced by 10 per cent.
The Liberal Government followed the same policy with regard to woollens; under the Conservatives these goods paid a specific duty of 74 cents and 20 per cent ad valorem; the Liberals, abolished the specific duty.
So that it may be said in very truth that the Liberals instituted a tariff for revenue only; and they adopted a policy of reciprocity with the United iStates in natural products.
We are told that a downward revision of the tariff at the present time would deprive the country of revenue which is badly needed. That sort of argument does not put the question on the proper plane. The tariff may be lowered in such a way as to protect the consumer and nevertheless still maintain and even increase the country's revenue. What must be done is to change the incidence of taxation. Let us note that in Canada about 10 per cent of our revenue is derived from excess profits and from the income tax, while 90 per cent is derived from customs duties and excise, which

latter affect the pockets of the consumer. In England 82 per cent of the revenue is derived from excess profits and from the income tax while customs and excise furnish only 18 per cent. In England the burden is on the rich; here it is chiefly the poor man who pays. In France, besides the income tax there is a tax on excess profits. Starting at 50 per cent this tax has risen to 60 per cent on all profits above 500,000 francs. 1 believe this tax has been still further increased. If I be correct, 60 percent is levied on profits beyond 100,000 francs, 70 per cent above 200,000 and, as in England, 80 per cent on all profits over and above 500,000 francs. In Canada the Union Government which always protects the big fellow .at the expense of those who are least .able to bear it, instead of increasing the excess profits tax so as to hear more heavily on the higher profits, has done just the opposite. I'll prove this to you: the income tax passed at the session of 1917 falls on the salaried workers and, on the other hand, exempts in unbelievable proportions the profits of the big enterprises which have fattened on the war; the same is true of big busimests which, through its tremendous capital, puts an abnormal strain on the resources of the country.
Let us compare the amounts contributed, in proportion to their profits, by the companies with a capital of $100,000, first through the war profits tax which lapsed on December 31, 1918, and then through the income tax.
A company making 10 per cent profit paid into the Treasury, under the business profits tax, $750; under the income tax that company pays only $280. A profit of 15 per cent brought $2,000; with the new tax all we get is $480. A 20 per cent profit gave $4,500; now it gives only $680; a 25 per cent profit used to give $8,250; all it gives now is $880. A profit of 30 per cent which used to bring $12,000 now merely brings in $1,080. A profit of 50 per cent contributed, under the old tax $27,000; under the income tax, the Treasury receives only $1,880. A 100 per cent profit used to give $64,500 in taxes; now it gives but $3,000; while a profit of 200 per cent which was formerly taxed to the tune oE $139,500 is now asked to pay a paltry $7,880.
Would we like to get a better understanding of how it is that the companies which are making very big profits are exempt, fnm the tremendous burden of taxation while those with small salaries are being constantly called upon to pay a great deal more

than they can afford? Let us cite a few instances of this and, Mr. Speaker, you will allow me to be perhaps a bit tiresome so as to make clear what I have to say and prove my case with substantial facts and figures
Let us suppose that the companies I am about to speak of made the same profits in
1916,	1917 and 1918, and then let u.s compare what they formerly paid, and what they pay to-day, into the Public Treasury. Let us take the O^ilvie Company, for instance: in 1916 its revenue on a capital investment of $5,622,486, warranted the payment, under the business profits tax, of $280,886. In
1917,	if we suppose the company's revenue to be the same as in 1916, the tax on its profits .should have amounted to $547,478, but with the income tax all the company has to pay on its 1919 profits is $60,564.
Another company, one which is not unknown, is the Wm. Davies Co.; in 1916 they paid an excess profits tax of $223,063. For the fiscal year ended March 31, 1917, they should pay $1,380,000; but for 1919 all the income tax demands from them is $55,200.
The net profits of the Nova Scotia Steel Co. in 1916 were $2,104,478 and the excess profits tax brought $237,2150; but their income tax for 1919 is only $84,056.
Take Canada Foundry: net profits in 1916, $653,852; war tax, $222,368. The income tax has reduced this amount to $26,152.
.The Ford Motor Co., with an .invested capital of $5,909,000, cleared profits amounting to $3,303,678, or '54.2 per cent, in 1916. Under the old tax this company contributed to the Treasury $697,328. In 1917 its taxes amounted to $1,782,095, but with the income tax this will be cut down to $127,987.
The Northern Aluminium Co., with a capital investment of $3,860,000 cleared $1,636,600 profits in 1916, or 42.4 per cent; tax in 1916, $341,679; tax in 1917, $822,332. With the new income tax this company has to pay a mere tax of $65,565.
The Canada Forging Co., with an investment of $1,455,526 cleared $991,359 profits in 1916, let us say 68.11 per cent, and this brought a tax of $222,368; in 1917 this eom-.pany paid into the Treasury $590,689; while in 1919 all they will pay will be $39,524.
The Steel Co. of Canada, with an investment of $13,963,000, cleared in 1916 a profit of $2,210,343, or 15.83 per cent; hence its tax amounted to $308,240; in 1917 the company paid taxes to the tune of $337,056; the income tax will bring only $88,293.
The Imperial Oil Co., capital, $27,161,000, cleared in 1916, $4,837,364 or 17.81 per cent;
war tax, $734,046; 1917, $924,849. The tax under the new order will be only $193,374.
The Fairbanks-Morse Co., capital, $3,686,500, cleared $669,100, in 1916 a percentage of 18.15 per cent; war tax $102,748; 1917, $135,767. The income tax will be satisfied with $26,640,
These figures go to show how lightly the income tax bears on the companies that are making the heaviest profits. And we must not lose sight of the fact that a great many of them are. manufacturing articles of universal use, the prices of which have increased enormously since the declaration of war.
It is evident that these millionaire companies are not paying a sufficient share of the taxes which burden our Canadian people. Even when their share of the taxes was higher than it is today they were still paying less than they would have paid in Australia for instance.
Thus, in 1916, Stanfield Limited, instead of paying $14,297, would have paid $54,844 in Australia; in 1917 they would have paid $82,266. The Consolidated Rubber Co., would have paid to the Australian Treasury, in 1916, $458,750 instead of $154,687; and in 1917 they would have paid $680,625 instead of $247,500. In Australia, in 1916, the Dominion 'Ganners would have paid $278,425 taxes instead of the $79,125 they paid Canada; in 1917, their taxes would have been $417,637 instead of $177,120.
The Government, far from looking to these millionaire corporations lor ian increase in our revenue at a time when the war which brought them colossal fortunes is putting a huge debt on this country, asks them for less than ever and lightens their burden.
If the Government had adopted a more enlightened policy, as has been done in Australia, they could abolish the duty on every single one of the prime necessaries of life and still increase the country's revenue.
The Union Government has neglected, and continues to neglect the alarming difficulties which the nation are vitally interested in seeing solved. If this Union Government insists on staying on despite the march of events which to-day fail to justify its existence, at least it should not reveal itself as a union against one race, against a minority that, within the fold of Confederation possesses, by virtue of our Constitution and of the most elementary justice, the same rights as the majority.
Oligarchy has been precisely defined: "A small group of citizens who undertake to

govern to the exclusion of the other citizens" (such was Canada from 1791 to 1840) "or a numerous class who exercise a monopoly of political power to the exclusion of the other citizens" (such is Canada since 1917, that is since the spontaneous generation of Union Government.)
We must regard a government of that kind as one of the enemies of freedom.
The present Government systematically neglects the French Canadian element and refuses to grant these people the share they are entitled to in the administration and the reconstruction of the country.
The Government is not justified in giving as its reason the fact that the province of Quebec went solid against those in power at the time of the 1917 elections. To begin with, the French Canadian element has plenty of company: the Opposition group in this House represents 800,000 Canadian voters of whom 519,940 are outside the province of Quebec; and this figure of 519,940 is one half of the vote polled by the Government throughout the entire Dominion.
Besides, has the Government any right to indulge such a narrow-minded grudge when it has proclaimed itself so often and so loudly the champion of democracy, justice and freedom? Nevertheless the Union Government, instead of striving to bring about the union of all races, the harmonious concord of all minds and hearts in a common national undertaking, without distinction of nationality, creed or opinion, seems determined to organize a union against the French Canadian Catholics, and thus comes under the head of the definition I gave a moment ago: a class who exercise a monopoly of political power to the exclusion of other citizens.
I find one proof of this, one out of a hundred, in the fact that we barely find two French Canadians on the numerous commissions appointed by the Government during the war; so much so that the Montreal district Chambre de Commerce was moved to protest, and with good reason, against this ostracism of French Canadians on the commissions appointed by the Union Government, especially on the commission sent to represent Canada in France and Belgium. In this connection the Government's fanaticism brought about the result, which n.)t only is ridiculous but will work harm to our country's interests, that commissioners who have not the slightest knowledge of the French language represent Canada in France and Belgium in an endeavour to promote our commercial interests after the

war! After that we can hardly feel astonished that the said commission is not meeting with any great success.
I find another proof of this deplorable spirit that seems to animate the Government, which styles itself a Union Government, in the list of physicians recently appointed by the Repatriation committee. Out of fifty doctors appointed how7 many are French Canadian? Not a single one!
If we but watch a bit these governmental appointments and the distribution of federal funds w7e are soon convinced, and the conviction strengthens the further we go, that w.e French Canadians are being systematically robbed. We are being deprived of our share of the profits accruing to us 'as partners in Confederation. The element which supports Union Government comprises only 54 per cent of the population and still they 'wish to treat the French Canadians as a conquered and ransomed people. What we contribute to the Pubhc Treasury and what comes back to us in the form of public expenditure shows clearly the supremely unjust manner in which the Government of National Discord treats a race that is inferior to no other and that holds imprescriptible rights to representation whether in the councils of the nation, in the public service or in honours and in the distribution of State moneys.
Can it be that the Union Government is the official representative of that Anglo-Canadian clique defined and upbraided by William Moore in his fine book "The Clash" in which he, a Protestant and an Anglo-Canadian acknowledges and proves that his compatriots are meting out to the French Canadians -exactly the same treatment as that which characterized the deportment of the Germans towards the people of Alsace-Lorraine, the Poles and the Danes.
I am asking for no favour or privilege for the French Canadian all I wish for iis the recognition of that right for which the Great Pow7ers of the Entente have just won a glorious victory. Have not the French Canadians the same right to national liberty and to justice as the Czecho-Slovaks, the Poles and the other nationalities within the muscovite empire? After the war which has just come to a close and which was heralded as humanity's crusade for the triumph of right let us hope that never again will any people be forced to hear the yoke of a tyrannical majority. Let -them well understand and harken to what I say, those Unionists who are plotting the de-

gradation of the French 'Canadians, those jingoes and Tories who persecute us in our language and in our faith wherever they meet us.
We must never lose sight of the fact, and particularly the Union Government should always bear in mind, that the British Empire is not founded on violence, on force, on oligarchy, but on moral principles, on the principles of liberty and equality.
I claim for all those whose country occupies the first place in their hearts, and who want to see this country rise to prosperity and greatness in the full enjoyment of peace and harmony, I claim for both races in Canada the same political reciprocity that King Albert promised the Walloons and the Flemish on his return to Belgium last November.
'Let the Union Government which insists on surviving the war at least accomplish deeds of life and not of death. Let the Government beware of dishonouring the name of Canada by depriving citizens of foreign extraction, whom we ourselves brought here at great expense, of rights which were promised and given them. Let us clean, or rather let us disinfect our statutes of that iniquitous measure the War Time Elections Act, and not show more severity than France or the United States towards citizens of enemy origin. So long as these folks remain peaceful citizens, respectable, industrious and law-abiding we cannot, without forfeiting our honour, repudiate the rights we granted them when we admitted them to British citizenship.
Let the Union Government give millions to the provinces for the building of great national highways, for the development of technical education, which forms the backbone of our industrial progress and our commercial expansion, for organizing hygiene and sanitation throughout the country, for agriculture; I am in favour of all that; but these grants should be made on a just basis, on the basis of population, and the distribution of the grants should be left to the autonomous government of each province.
Let the Government think of the people and stop being the protector of our millionaires, and this latter to .such an extent that one of the Government's own friends was able to say that it belonged to Mr. Flavelle.
Let the Government see to it that the consumer is protected and this can be done without working any harm to our industries, if the tariff is lowered on all the necessaries of life and prices are fixed in such a way as to prevent the profiteers from piling up fortunes out of all reason.
Let the Government proceed to make a more equitable distribution of the taxes, so that the rich man and not the poor man will pay most. Let it show the greatest solicitude for our glorious soldiers who have emblazoned the name of Canada on the battlefields of Europe, let it show as much interest in the humblest of them as in the officers; let. it shelter from misery our wounded and their families and furnish steady employment to the others, by reinstating them in their old positions, by settling them on the land or by utilizing their labour on works of national importance.
Let the Government be generous and just to all military defaulters; most of them are farmers who had been promised exemption and were shamefully deceived by the Government. Let the Government forgive; it has itself so much to be forgiven.
I fear, Mr. Speaker, that ail this cannot be accomplished under the present Government which instead of giving its attention to matters of what we term reconstruction, seems to be entirely preoccupied with holding together its own structure which threatens to fall apart. We perceive the outer sign which permits us to force the tumbling into a heap of this patched up edifice. That is what is causing such great anxiety to the Government and that is what makes us feel hopeful; for the sooner this mongrel union, which will go down in history under the mocking title of "unionism," has been sundered, the better it will be for the people of this country who will then choose administrators and legislators more respectful of our Constitution, more jealous of the rights of all our citizens, and more devoted to the real interest of this dear land of ours.
Mr. JOHN A. MAHARG (Maple Creek): Mr. Speaker, before proceeding with the discussion on the question that is now before the House, I would like, on behalf of the interests that I largely represent, as well as on my own behalf, to say a word or two in regard to the passing of the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier. We in the West owe very much to our departed friend, much more than I would attempt at this time to enumerate. About the time of his taking up the reins of office here in 1896, the West was in a very bad condition, the agriculturists of Western Canada being, in so far as the marketing of their products was concerned, almost entirely in the hands of possibly one of the largest and most gigantic combines. I refer to the grain combine. It is not necessary to go into the details; suffice it to say that we had to take just



what they saw fit to give us. As there was no machinery whatever of a Federal character to deal with such conditions, we appealed to the late Prime Minister for redress, and we received it in a very great measure. Whatever else there may be on which we may differ, there is at least one warm spot that will always remain for Sir Wilfrid Laurier in the hearts of the agriculturists of Western Canada. We feel that he was indeed a great and noble person; his aim in life was to relieve the oppressed, and I think I can say with all sincerity that the life of our departed friend was largely devoted to this sublime object. If the words of the Master be true,- as I believe,-then, I am sure that the dead Liberal chieftain's cup has been an overflowing one in this world and Will continue as such in the great beyond.
Before touching on the speech from the Throne, I would like to refer to one or two of the remarks made by the hon. member
for iShelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) in this House.
I am sorry the hon. gentleman (Mr, Fielding) is not in his seat, not that I have any very serious criticism to make, for with a great deal that he said I am thoroughly in accord; but there are one or two points I should like to touch on, and the first point is with reference to the presence overseas of certain ministers of the Crown. I am not in a position to say whether it is necessary for them all to be there at the present time, but I have no hesitation whatever in saying that, so far as the presence overseas of the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Boiden) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) is concerned, there never was a time in the history of Canada when they were more required over there than now. I had the pleasure of being in England a couple of months ago, and conditions there and on the Continent are such that unless we have the very best possible representation overseas conditions in Canada within twelve months will be very far from favourable. I will refer to this matter later when dealing with the chief product of Western Canada -our grain.
I also wish to criticise the remarks of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's , with reference to the "word of a Canadian'' not standing for very much when certain legislation passed by this Parliament some time ago is taken into consideration. With all due respect for his opinion, I can cite a case where we would have suffered much greater humiliation by breaking our word
[Mr. Maharg'.l
than on the occasion my hon. friend had in mind. Ever since our boys have been going to the war, what promise have we made to them? From one end of Canada to the other the parting word has been: "We will see you through boys, we will back you up to the last man and the last dollar.'' As to that there was no division of opinion throughout this country. And I ask, what value would be placed on our word now if we in this House had said, as some have said: "Canada has done enough for the present; let other countries who have not done their share have their way for a while." If this Parliament had said that, the word of a Canadian, the word of the Canadian people might truly have been lightly thought of; if we had not taken the stand we did I shudder to think of the criticism that would have been levelled at us by the few Canadian soldiers who would have returned. I for one would have hung my head in shame when they came back, and I am sure many others would have done the same.
The hon. member (Mr. Fielding) also gave some advice to the farmers of Western Canada. He advised them to join up with one or the other of the two great political parties in this country, but he would not undertake to say which party they should join. Surely, the hon. member, with his long political experience, was a little unreasonable in leaving the selection to agriculturists without any political experience whatever, especially seeing that for the time being he had decided to stay in a position from which he could jump to one side of the fence or the other. For his information and for the information of the House I might say that the farmers of Western Canada have absolutely no intention,-and I doubt if they will have for some considerable time-of tying themselves up to either one of the two great political parties we knew in this country in the past. Neither do I think they are going to tie themselves up definitely to the Unionist party, at this particular time. They do not wish to fetter themselves in any way; they are determined to have absolute freedom so far as action in this House is concerned.
A representative of . the press has described it as a case of choosing between the sheep and the goats. That should be an easy decision to make under ordinary circumstances, for certainly the western farmers do not want to link themselves up with the goats whichever they may be. and as the Good Book tells us to beware of

wolves in sheep's clothing, we do not like to tie ourselves up with the sheep, even supposing we were able to distinguish them from the goats at the present time.
With the greater portion of the speech of His Excellency the Governor General, and particularly with that part referring to the war having been brought to a successful conclusion, I am in hearty accord. But with other parts of the speech I do not entirely agree. I think the first legislation mentioned is the new Franchise Act that will be brought down. I do not know just what is in the minds of the Government, but I will say this much: unless the new Act makes radical changes in the Act on which the last election was fought, it will be severely criticised so far as Western Canada is concerned. I do not say that I disapprove entirely of the War-time Elections Act, but it has certain features which the West did not like, and I trust the Government will give due consideration to that.
With regard to highways, although I should undoubtedly like to see good highways, I am thoroughly convinced that there are other things which We need more at this moment than highways, or what might be termed automobile roads. A national highway has been spoken of. To attempt to build such a highway at this time would in my opinion be utter folly, and I am convinced that there are many other works which should first be undertaken, and which would prove much more valuable and provide an equal amount of employment, and perhaps more congenial employment. Take, for instance, our railways. The amount of money which the Government purposes setting aside for distribution, over a number of years, in the building of highways, would go a long way towards giving relief in the way of railway facilities to certain districts in Western Canada which have been waiting patiently for it for the last seven or eight, and, in some cases, ten or even twelve years.
The next matter referred to in the Address is the question of housing. Now, if it is the intention of the Government to confine the proposed assistance to returned men, I have nothing whatever to say in opposition to it. I entirely agree with any proposal that aims at assisting those who are now seeking homes, and who have been married overseas. I think we should give such men every possible assistance in securing homes. But if it is the intention that this assistance shall be general, for any and every one in the country, then I would certainly object very seriously. I do
m
not think that such a thing would be proper. We, in Canada, should surely be in sufficiently good circumstances to be able to look after our domestic wants,-that is, those of us who have remained at home during the war. Employment has been abundant, wages have been, to say the least, fair, and in some cases more than fair; and it seems to me that those desiring accommodation should be in a position to obtain their own requirements, if they have not been overseas. The matter of assisting the returned soldier is one that, in my opinion, should be given special consideration. The plan under which the Gov-" ernment are now working is in some respects very good. In other respects I do not think it goes far enough. Some three or four years ago I outlined what I thought to be a better plan, and the Government has adopted my suggestion practically in its entirety, but with this exception, that they are leaving the returned soldier entirely at the mercy of the land speculator, at least so far as Western Canada is concerned. As far as I can ascertain, there is no provision made for dealing with those who purchased land in that part of the country years and years ago, who gave for it a mere pittance, and who are now holding it at what, to my mind, are exorbitant and unreasonable prices; at all events when it is offered to the returned soldiers. This Government might very well indeed devote its attention to some measure whereby the present Soldiers' Settlement Board, or some other board, could step in when they considered prices were exorbitant, and act as arbitrator between the returned soldiers and those holding the land.
Now, I come to the question of prohibition. I do not' think we need worry very much about that. I feel that the Government must surely be convinced that the people of Canada have intimated very unequivocally to them their opinion on this matter. There is one argument,-indeed,
I might term it a campaign,-that is being used to defeat the interests of prohibition in Canada. This argument came to my notice on different occasions. It is an argument which is being urged by those who are anxious to have the prohibition law, as they say, " eased up just a little bit." They contend that the soldiers want beer; that they have been accustomed to getting it overseas and will demand it on their return. Well, were I a returned soldier 1 would regard such a statement in the light of an insult. I cannot for one moment think that the boys who have been "over there" fighting all this time for our protection,

will come back and lend their assistance to any attempt that may be made to restore in this country a demon which no less a personage that the Prime Minister of Great Britain said was a greater enemy to England than the Germans themselves. I repeat, Sir, I cannot for one moment think that those boys have anything like that in their minds at all.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I shall mention some of the things that are not contained in the Address of His Excellency, and which are of considerable interest, at least so far as our part of the Dominion is concerned. I have learned much since coming here, and I have discovered that the gulf that existed between the East and the West is now in some respects very largely bridged; and that there is a feeling, which is apparently steadily growing, in favour of a greater degree of freedom in relation to matters of fiscal policy. We discern it on all sides. It appears in very unexpected quarters; and personally I think that this Government would be wise to heed it. At the present time, owing to some misconceptions as to what the Western agriculturists, as well as those of Eastern Canada, have been asking for, I would request the privilege of placing on Hansard the entire platform as propounded by the Canadian Council of Agriculture. It has never before been placed in Hansard. The first section of our platform is this:
1.	-A League of Nations as an international organization to give permanence to the world's peace by removing old causes of conflict.
2.	-We believe that the further development of the British Empire should be sought along the lines of partnership between nations free and equal, under the present governmental system of British constitutional authority. We are strongly opposed to any attempt to centralize imperial control. Any attempt to set up an independent authority with power to bind the Dominions, whether this authority be termed parliament, council or cabinet, would hamper the growth of responsible and informed democracy in the Dominions.
The Tariff.
3.	-Whereas Canada is now confronted with a huge national war debt and other greatly increased financial obligations, which can be most readily and effectively reduced by the development of our natural resources, chief of which is agricultural lands;
And whereas it is desirable that an agricultural career should be made attractive to our returned soldiers and the large anticipated immigration, and owing to the fact that this can best be accomplished by the development of a national policy which will reduce to a minimum the cost of living and the cost of production;
And whereas the war has revealed the amazing financial strength of Great Britain, which has enabled her to finance, not only her own part in the struggle, but also to assist

in financing her Allies to the extent of hundreds of millions of pounds, this enviable position being due to the free trade policy which has enabled her to draw her supplies freely from every quarter of the globe and consequently to undersell her competitors on the world's markets, and because this policy has not only been profitable to Great Britain, but has greatly strengthened the bonds of Empire by facilitating trade between the Motherland and her overseas dominions-we believe that the best interests of the Empire and of Canada would be served by reciprocal action on the part of Canada through gradual reductions of the tariff on British imports, having for its object closer union and a better understanding between Canada and the Motherland and at the same time bring about a great reduction in the cost of living to our Canadian people.
Posters Combines.
And whereas the Protective Tariff has fostered combines, trusts, and "gentlemen's agreements'' in almost every line of Canadian industrial enterprise, by means of which the people of Canada-both urban and rural-have been shamefully exploited through the elimination of competition, the ruination of many of our smaller industries and the advancement of prices on practically all manufactured goods to the full extent permitted by the tariff;
And whereas agriculture-the basic industry upon which the success of all other industries primarily depends:-is unduly handicapped throughout Canada as shown by the declining rural population in both Eastern and Western Canada, due largely to the greatly increased cost of agricultural implements and machinery, clothing, boots and shoes, building material and practically everything the farmer has to buy, caused by the Protective Tariff, so that it is becoming impossible for farmers generally, under normal conditions, to carry on farming operations profitably;
And whereas the Protective Tariff is the most wasteful and costly method ever designed for raising national revenue, because for every dollar obtained thereby for the public treasury at least three dollars pass into the pockets of the protected interests, thereby building up a privileged class at the expense of the masses, thus making the rich richer and the poor poorer;
And whereas the Protective Tariff has been and is a chief corrupting influence in our national life because the protected interests in order to maintain their unjust privileges have contributed lavishly to political and campaign funds, thus encouraging both political parties to look to them for support, thereby lowering the standard of public morality.
Definite Tariff Demands.
Therefore be it resolved that the Canadian Council of Agriculture, representing the organized farmers of Canada, urges that, as a means of remedying these evils and bringing about much needed social and economic reforms, our tariff laws should be amended as follows:-
(a)	By an immediate and substantial allround reduction of the customs- tariff.
(b)	By reducing 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 in the remaining tariff on British imports that will ensure complete Free Trade

between Great Britain and Canada in five years.
(c)	That the Reciprocity Agreement of 1911, which still remains on the United State statute books, be accepted by the Parliament of Canada.
(d)	That all foodstuff not included in the Reciprocity Agreement be placed on the free list.
(e)	That agricultural implements, farm machinery, vehicles, fertilizers, coal, lumber, cement, illuminating fuel and lubricating oils be placed on the free list, and that all raw materials and machinery used in their manufacture also be placed on the free list.
(f)	That all tariff concessions granted to other countries be immediately extended to Great Britain.
(g)	That all corporations engaged in the manufacture of products protected by the customs tariff be obliged to publish annually comprehensive and accurate statements of their earnings.
(h)	That every claim for tariff protection by any industry should be heard publicly before a special committee of Parliament.
Taxation Proposals.
4.	-As these tariff reductions may very considerably reduce the national revenue from that source, the Canadian Council of Agriculture would recommend that, in order to provide the necessary additional revenue for carrying on the Government of the country and for the bearing of the cost of the war, direct taxation be imposed in the following manner:-
(a)	By a direct tax on unimproved land values, including all natural resources.
(b)	By a graduated personal income tax.
(c)	By a graduated inheritance tax on large estates.
(d)	By a graduated income tax on the profits of corporations.
(e)	That in levying and collecting the business profits tax the Dominion Government should insist that it be absolutely upon the basis of the actual cash invested in the business and that no considerations be allowed for what is popularly known as watered stock.
(f)	That no more natural resources be alienated from the Crown, but brought into use only under short-term leases, in which the interests of the public shall be properly safeguarded, such leases to be granted only by public auction.
The Returned Soldier.
5.	-With regard to the returned soldier we urge:-
(a)	That it is the recognized duty of Canada tc exercise all due diligence for the future well-being of the returned soldier and his dependents.
(b)	That demobilization should take place only after return to Canada.
(c)	That first selection for return and demobilization should be made in the order of length of service of those who have definite occupations awaiting them or have other assured means of support, preference being given first to married men and then to the relative need of industries, with care to insure so far as possible the discharge of farmers in time for the opening of spring work upon the land.
(d)	That general demobilization should be gradual, aiming at the discharge of men only as it is found possible to secure steady employment.
(e)	It is highly desirable that if physically fit discharged men should endeavour to return to their former occupation, employers should be urged to reinstate such men in their former positions wherever possible.
(f)	That vocational training should be confined to those who while in the service have become unfitted for their former occupation.
tg) That provision should be made for insurance at the public expense of unpensioned men who have become undesirable insurance risks while in the service.
(h) That facilities should be provided at the public expense that will enable returned soldiers to settle upon farming land when by training or experience they are qualified to do. so.
6.	-We recognize the very serious problem confronting labour in urban industry resulting from the cessation of war, and we urge that every means economically feasible and practicable should be used by federal, provincial and municipal authorities in relieving unemployment in the cities and towns; and, further, recommend the adoption of the principle of co-operation as the guiding spirit in the future relations between employer and employees- between capital and labour.
Land Settlement.
7.	-A land settlement scheme based on a regulating influence in the selling price of land. Owners of idle areas should be obliged to file a selling price on their lands, that price also to be regarded as an assessable value for purposes of taxation.
8.	-Extension of co-operative agencies in agriculture to cover the whole field of marketing, including arrangements with consumers' societies for the supplying of foodstuffs at the lowest rates and with the minimum of middleman handling.
9.	-Public ownership and control of railway, water and aerial transportation, telephone, telegraph and express systems, all projects in the development of natural power, and of the coal mining industry.
Other Democratic Reforms.
10.	-To bring about a greater measure of democracy in government, we recommend:-
(a)	The immediate repeal of the War Time
Elections' Act.	[DOT]
(b)	The discontinuance of the practice of conferring titles upon citizens of Canada.
(c)	The reform of the federal Senate.
(d)	An immediate check upon the growth of government by order in council, and increased responsibility of individual members of parliament in all legislation.
(e)	The complete abolition of the patronage system.
(f)	The publication of contributions and expenditures both before and after election campaigns.
(g)	The removal -of press censorship upon the restoration of peace and the immediate restoration of the rights of free speech.
(h)	The setting forth by daily newspapers and periodical publications, of the facts of their ownership and control.
(i)	Proportional representation.
(j)	The establishment of measures of direct legislation through the initiative referendum and recall.
(k)	The opening of seats in Parliament to women on the same terms as men.

That, Mr. Speaker, in substance is the programme of the Western agriculturist. I might go so far as to say that it is the programme of the agriculturists of Eastern Canada also. I might go even further and say that those who have been the most advanced in the demand for tariff concessions have been the organized agriculturist body of the province of Ontario, and they have gone further in their demands than have the organized agriculturists of Western Canada. Things are moving, and it will be well, indeed, not only for the members of the Government, but for the members of this House to keep their ears very close to the ground. There is a feeling of discontent abroad which is not by any means confined to the agriculturist; the consumer is probably just a little more agitated over present conditions than even the agriculturist. That is being manifested very clearly in a great many quarters, and even from some unexpected directions, so that I think it behooves us all to give serious consideration to this matter during the present session in order that we may possibly avoid serious consequences before Parliament might have an opportunity of meeting again.
I am not at present going to enter into any argument about the tariff, because this is not the proper time to do so-when the Budget is brought down ample opportunity will be afforded for full discussion-but I would just say, for the benefit of those entrusted with the framing of that Budget, that we expect something of a rather generous nature in .so far as the reduction of the tariff is concerned. As intimated last session by myself, we have been keeping close watch on the trend of events, and we have been keeping our ear to the ground. Hon. gentlemen will remember that I stated then that we were prepared to give the Union Government every opportunity to make good.
The reason advanced last session for not interfering with the tariff was the seriousness of the war situation. We agreed with , that to a man. Not a Western member that I know of raised the slightest objection to passing that issue over until another session at least, and possibly until the actual conclusion of the war, that is, the actual fighting. Now the war is over in so far as the fighting is concerned. We expect that within a very short time the peace treaty will have been concluded and signed, so that we shall know where we are at. We have come back again this session, and the request now made is that we leave the tariff question in abeyance during the period of

reconstruction. Mr. Speaker, that is going just a little too far; that is asking just a little too much; the request is entirely too indefinite. There are those who might endeavour

I will not say that they would- to have us believe that reconstruction will be going on when the next session meets. I do not doubt but that it will, for reconstruction will take some considerable time; it depends entirely upon the attitude of the people towards reconstruction work. A Reconstruction Association has been formed in Eastern Canada they were very anxious to get Western Canada linked up with them- and they had their representatives ~out through the West. We attended some of the gatherings, addressed by those gentlemen, and listened to their speeches, but it is the same old method that has been adopted. They, too, according to their spokesmen, have an Eastern and Western method of campaigning. One of their officials-and a very prominent one I may say-when speaking in a manufacturing town in Eastern Canada, the town of Galt, I believe it was, is reported as having said that the tariff was a dead issue, it was as musty as the tombs of Egypt, and should not, under any consideration, be resurrected; it should be left there. That same gentleman came West. He visited my home town and addressed the Canadian Club there. I had the pleasure of listening to his address, but in so far as the tariff was concerned the mustiness had all disappeared-the issue had been resurrected from the tombs of Egypt very hurriedly and had been transplanted to Western Canada, for his words there were that the tariff was quite a live issue and must be dealt with. "But," this gentleman said, "I do not say that there should be an upward revision of the tariff at all;" he took very good care; however, not to intimate that there would be a possibility of a downward revision in so far as they were concerned; he kept that very much under his hat. That kind of talk will not satisfy Western Canada.
Surely we can deal with this tariff issue on its merits, give it the same position in the East as it holds in the West, and talk in exactly the same way to those who may be anxious to have it maintained as to those who are anxious to have it revised downward. And there is another attitude that has been displayed in the House which I deprecate very much. I noticed the other day that when some references were made to the reduction of the tariff, and one Western gentleman was waxing quite eloquent in speaking of the subject, an hon. gentleman from Eastern Canada

jumped up very indignantly and strutted out of the Chamber, using expressions in regard to my friend's arguments that I would not care to use on the floor of the House, as I think they would be pronounced unparliamentary, and you, Mr. Speaker, would be quite within your jurisdiction in asking for a retraction of them. If that is the attitude some people in Eastern Canada are going to take against the arguments of the West, well and good, but we had all hoped there would be a different spirit displayed. Let me say that the West is not one of those com-munitiqs of people that cannot at least attempt, and I think fairly well, to distinguish and appreciate the other man's point of view. We have never taken the attitude that we are absolutely right, that we invariably have got to have exactly what we ask for; but we would like the manufacturers, who have been asking us to postpone tariff reduction from one year to another, to at least give us an idea of what we might expect from them even if we did agree to postpone it for another year.. But they vouchsafe no information; they simply ask us to come back a year later when doubtless we will be alsked to postpone consideration again for some other reason.
How, as I have already stated, in so far as Western Canada is concerned, we have got to the end of our tether, and for the benefit of the manufacturers I want to make a statement to the House, and it is this: I may preface it by stating the position four or five years ago, when this matter came up in the House. There was a strong agitation in the West at that time for tariff reduction, and there was just as strong opposition to it in the East. The press was inflamed with arguments and abuse of the western farmer by eastern interests. Then a movement was started in the West in the way of a campaign to persuade all our western agriculturists to buy only imported articles. Now, that was just at the bursting point, as it were; and a few representatives of agriculture in the West counselled these people at least to stay their hand in that respect, which they did.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. J. A. MAHARG (resuming):: Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock I was attempting, for the benefit of the Manufacturers' Association, to describe a situation that was almost sure to arise unless something was
done along <the lines -I had suggested in regard to the tariff. I was endeavouring to describe the acute feeling in favour of tariff reduction versus protection that existed in Western Canada some few years ago. I had just started to outline a movement that was taking form there, the result of which would have been that practically no articles of Canadian manufacture would have been purchased throughout Western Canada. As I intimated, some of the leaders in the movement thought this would be unwise and, their counsel prevailing, no action was taken at that time. The matter had come before our organized bodies in a very concrete form, and everything pointed towards definite action being taken, but the feeling was allayed for the time being. Feeling is, however, running a little high again, and I have no doubt that a similar situation will arise in the future. Should that be the case, none of the leaders would be able to stem the tide. I am not saying this for purely selfish reasons. Under present conditions we have to have a revenue, and if the Government decides to maintain the present policy of raising the major proportion of its revenue by indirect taxation by means of a tariff, then there is only one thing for us as patriotic citizens to do, and that is to buy our requirements in such a way that the revenue derived from that source will go into the treasury of the country and not be divided between the treasury and those whom the tariff is protecting. We shall be very sorry to see such a condition of affairs arise. We are just as anxious as the manufacturers themselves that they shall continue to prosper and increase their output. In fact, from the attitude the manufacturers assume, I think we are a little more anxious for them to increase their output than they are themselves. We are supported in our views not only in the West but in the East, and what I have described is the feeling not merely of the agriculturists of the West but of almost the entire population of the West. I do not think there is in Western Canada a newspaper that does not support the platform of the Canadian Council of Agriculture. The Legislature of Saskatchewan, at a recent session, unanimously passed a resolution endorsing these views and asking for tariff reduction. Although that assembly is composed of persons on both sides of politics, there is no division in that regard. Returned soldiers in Western Canada with whom I have been speaking are in favour of those principles. I hold in my hand a letter from a returned soldier who has undergone eight

or ten operations resulting from his wounds, but who has still enough pluck to go back on to the land and endeavour to work out his own destiny. This is a quotation from his letter:
What your association is fighting for will benefit thousands of soldiers who go on the land.
It is the association of farmers to which he refers. This is not class legislation so far as the West is concerned.
The West made Union Government possible. Why did the West support Union Government - almost unanimously? In the province from which I come Union Government could not have received stronger support than it did. Out of seven or eight acclamations of Unionist candidates throughout all of Canada, four came from Saskatchewan. There was not in that province a single Unionist member who did not receive a very large majority, and, taking into consideration the vote polled, Union Government got on the average, in that province, the largest majorities received anywhere in Canada. I may isay further that Saskatchewan returned a complete list of Unionist members. Why did the people of Saskatchewan do that? I suppose we have in that province the largest association of agriculturists in the world, banded together in one body. We have some fourteen or fifteen hundred distinct entities in that one organization, and so far as their actions are concerned they are entirely autonomous. It is probably as educative a body as can foe found anywhere. Any hon, member who has been fortunate enough to attend our conventions at which we have from fifteen hundred to two thousand delegates, will realize that those people are trying at least to inform themselves. They take this attitude: We have listened to promises long enough; we have, if I may use the phrase, seen the buck passed from one side to the other; we have seen in this Parliament, when one side was in power, the other side would immediately bring up something of special interest to Western Canada. The former Liberal Government, for instance, went into power on the distinct promise that they were going to have a tariff for revenue only, and the West expected great things from them. But when a resolution came from the other side of the House asking for radical reductions in the tariff on agricultural implements, our Liberal friends did not see fit to grant them. The same gentleman who moved the resolution has been on the treasury benches now for a considerable time, but he has not gone out
[iMr. Maharg. ]
of his way to bring about that reduction although he has a better opportunity to do so. The West has come to the conclusion that there is no use depending on preelection promises; that there must be something more than that. The reason why the West supported Union Government is because Union Government had been bold enough to do something; they had taken a stand; they said: We are going to furnish sufficient recruits to keep our forces at the front right up to strength. That was doing something that appealed to the people of the West. They said: A Government that has grit enough to take such a stand regardless of consequences is the Government to which we want to give an opportunity to carry on a little further. The Union Government carried out their pledges to the letter, and when the big push came, as it did last August, the forces of Canada were second to none on the Western front. It is recognized that they were the best disciplined, best equipped troops on the field, with every battalion right up to strength, and with a strong reserve, and that they were ready to go into action at any moment.
The Union Government carried out its pledges. That appealed to the West, and the West is prepared to support this Union Government again if it will take the same bold stand in our domestic affairs as it took with regard to our soldiers on the western front. The Government's policy then was no mythical thing floating in the air; it was nailed down in legislation. It is no use for any Government, whether it be Unionist or something else, to appeal to Western Canada again until it has demonstrated its sincerity by taking action.
The West has been spoken of sometimes as unpatriotic, and our schools have been held up to ridicule by some Eastern journals in a very unfair way. I remember that during the last provincial election in Saskatchewan there seemed to be more anxiety in some parts of the East than there was in Saskatchewan itself. A friend of mine in Ontario, for instance, sent me copies of a certain paper which pointed out the condition in which our schools were supposed to be, and told us we were educating our children to be non-Canadians and such stuff as that. Just to show the patriotic feeling amongst the school children of Saskatchewan let me give one illustration-* and I could give several. During the war an organization was formed to raise funds for a patriotic purpose from the school children throughout the entire Dominion. The appeal was made to

probably twenty millions. Now, Serbia has no food of any kind. Her people are merely living from hand to mouth, and must be supplied from extraneous sources. Their producing possibilities are almost nil, as the country has been completedy denuded of all equipment in practically every direction, being destitute of even seed to sow. Rumania is in the same position, while alien countries are in as bad a plight. Germany, with her very large population, was not a considerable importer of wheat. Although she consumes a great deal of cereals, of about 400,000,000 bushels consumed she did not import more than about 70,000,000 bushels of wheat, but she was a large producer of rye, Which took the place of wheat. Now we are given to understand that Germany's producing powers are practically exhausted, so that she may be compelled to import large quantities of grain. With all those countries in that condition, with not only transportation and distribution facilities to be secured, but credits to be provided, I believe that Canada will have to provide credits for a very large amount of her exports to them. Therefore, the people of Canada must arrange matters to meet these circumstances, if they are going to dispose of their products. Possibly we could secure credit elsewhere. We might secure it from the United States, and probably that would be satisfactory; but in view of rumours which are current overseas and in Canada,
I think the safest course for the Dominion to take is to provide those credits herself, so that there may be no possibility of restrictions in any shape or form interfering with the export of her products. I am not in a position to say definitely that then have been restrictions, hut the rumours one hears from time to time might indicate that there has been some difficulty in that direction.
About the beginning of January there was quite a large surplus of wheat in the world. The United States had about 300,000,000 bushels, while India, Argentina, and Australia had probably an equal amount amongst them. But what do we find today? These stocks, so far as the United States is concerned, are going very quickly. At all events, the millers are now offering a premium over the fixed prices to secure this wheat for their mills. That must surely be an indication, that the stocks of wheat, so far at least as the United States is concerned, are in demand; otherwise the millers would not be offering a premium for the wheat. Now, if the European conditions are as I have outlined them, there will be a heavy demand for cereals from this

country. The United States at the beginning of the year was reported as having sown the largest acreage of wheat in its history. Conditions were almost perfect, and it was thought that there would be a tremendous surplus, of wheat on hand when the United States crop should be harvested next year. Well, there may be, but one cannot estimate the crop six months before it is harvested. We might just as well try to figure out the crop of Western. Canada, the seed of which is still in the granaries, as to figure out the crop of fall wheat that has been sown in the fall. So that we do not know, and nobody can tell, just what the situation will be, but personally I am convinced that if a satisfactory peace can be arrived at; if conditions can be restored to anything like normal in those countries that I have just mentioned; if transportation facilities can be provided, with an organized government of some form to carry on the distribution- and if credit is forthcoming, we will find a ready market for all of our wheat and our other agricultural, products as well. But it will be necessary for this Government to exert every effort. I am certain that our representatives overseas are working on that. They were doing so-at least some of them-some months ago, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) has no holiday, I can assure you, Sir. He is as busy a man as can be found anywhere. I had not the pleasure of meeting the Prime Minister. He was in Paris at that time, but I met the Minister ol Trade and Commerce on different occasions, and he assuredly will have all he can do for some time to come, and instead of criticisms being directed at those gentlemen, they should be given every encouragement in order that they may assist in an attempt to remedy conditions to permit of a free export of our products into those countries.
This brings me to the question of what is going to be done with the wheat crop of Western Canada. Different suggestions have been made. There is a request from one of the provinces that the price of wheat should be fixed. I will not say at this stage whether that is a proper thing to do or not, but one thing I will say, and that is, that if we are going to have a stabilized business industry in Canada during the next wheat season from August or September on something musit be done.
I have outlined to you the difficulty of disposing of our grain quickly. It is going to take us the entire crop year to dispose of it. We will not be able to rush it out. Storage facilities will not he available for

it should we have a fair average crop. Something will have to be done to stabilize the price which will be paid for that grain. If it is thrown open to the world, and open to speculation, and an assurance of equal treatment is not guaranteed for the entire year, the market will simply be glutted early in the season, the price will be forced down to the lowest level, and after all the storage has been occupied and all the money of the country has been invested in wheat, the price will go up and neither the producer nor the consumer will get a square deal. The consumer will have to pay the high price and the producer will have to* take the low' price. This Government has got to do something; whether it be to fix the price or to absolutely prohibit speculation, something must be done. I think there is only one way to do it and that is by fixing the price. It is a very difficult matter to prevent speculation in the handling of grain. The only successful remedy we have found for it has been the fixing of the price.
With all due respect to the other two provinces, they are not as anxious for a fixed price as we are in Saskatchewan. Their interests differ from ours. They are not the wheat-growing provinces that Saskatchewan is. Our province produces more wheat than all the re^t of Canada combined. Consequently, we are very much interested in what is going to be done with wheat. Manitoba has a more varied production in the matter of coarse grains and stock, while from 75 to 80 per cent of the agriculturists of Saskatchewan produce wheat. Almost the entire balance is divided between oats, wheat, and some stock.
Some arrangement will have to be entered into if you are going to stabilize the industry because its effect will be far reaching and will not be confined to agriculture. It will go all the way down through the line to the consumer in more ways than one. It will have an effect on production in urban centres in the same way 'that it will have throughout the country. If something is not done to stabilize this industry, to give some kind of a guarantee that all who produce wheat are going to receive fair and equal treatment, the area that will be sown to wheat will be decreased to an alarming extent. I have met men-yes, scores of them-who have said that unless something is done to guarantee them a fair return they will not under any circumstances seed anywhere the amount of ground they had prepared for seeding. Seed is very expensive; it costs something to seed in Western Canada and the old saying that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush is going to appeal very forcibly to those people before they are going to spend from ?4 to $5 an acre to provide seed for this land.
I want to go back again to the criticism of the farmers of the West that I have heard since 1 have come down here. I will give one illustration. I have been told: "You fellows come down here to Ottawa with your seal skin coats and your fur-lined coats (and all that kind of stuff); the West must be rolling in wealth." You have only to look at tire blue books which are available to everybody to be able to reckon for yourself what the average income has been for western farmers from Winnipeg to the Rocky Mountains. True, we had a bumper crop in 1915 almost all over the entire West. What was the result with regard to prices? While we had a jumper crop, prices fell on the market and it is doubtful if there was any profit at all in the production of the crop. In 1914 there was practically a crop failure in Western Canada. Eastern industry felt it very keenly.
' Unemployment existed all over the country, soup kitchens were established everywhere and provincial governments were loaning money to different municipalities to provide employment. I remember that in our own little city thousands of dollars were expended in crushing stone in the hope that it might be used some day for pavements just simply to give employment as a consequence of the 1914 crop having been almost an entire failure in Western Canada.
If there was a little profit in the 1915 crop, which there, was, and I am not arguing that there was not, it was largely taken up, and in some cases entirely taken up in meeting the deficit of 1914. What has been the result since 1915?-very moderate crops on the average and in large areas almost total failure. Take Saskatchewan as an illustration. Our entire exportable surplus of wheat from the last crop is about 65,000,000 bushels or, say, 70,000,000 bushels. The proportion of that from Saskatchewan, put it at one-half, would be in the neighbourhood of 35,000,000 bushels. We have in that province roughly speaking 120,000 or 125,000 farmers. We will say that 25,000 farmers were producers of other grain; that is a very liberal estimate. We will take 100,000 was exported. The proceeds of these 35,000,000 bushels of Saskatchewan grain that was exported. The proceeds of those 35,000,000 bushels, providing it was all high

grade grain, none of it less than No. 2, would be $70,000,000, roughly speaking. It might average $2 per bushel but no more provided it was high grade grain. Therefore, you have $70,000,000 distributed amongst 100,000 people. What does that mean? That is the gross amount and you can figure it out for yourself. That would only give each man a gross revenue of $700. Out of that he has to take his entire expenses. In the first place he would have in the neighbourhood of $500 or $600 to pay for labour, allowing only one man to each individual farmer, he would have to pay from $60 to $80 and if he employed a married couple he would have to pay from $100 to $125 per month. At the very start he has to pay from $600 to $700 for labour and that would leave him about $900 to take care of all his other expenses. I could go on and give you the actual expenses that this man had to pay, and show you that the average farmer of the province of Saskatchewan did not make one single dollar last year. Indeed, I doubt if he broke even. You have only got to take the actual figures for that statement. You do not need to take my word at all, go to the blue books and find it for yourselves. The Conditions in the two years previous were very little better. So that in so far as the farmers of Western Canada are concerned, they have not been making money out of the war. As far as Eastern Canada is concerned, the representatives of the Eastern agriculturists are more familiar with the situation here, and can deal with it themselves. The condition with respect to the West is this: That up to the outbreak of the war, agriculture in Western Canada was at a very low ebb. The tide was flowing the other way; instead of increasing numbers engaging in agriculture, the population was decreasing. There is no question about that; any man who was in Western Canada and was familiar with the conditions, knows that the number of people living on the land was decreasing-they were moving out of the country right along. The war has helped to hold them. There was the prospect at least of securing a good crop and a good price for their grain. They lived in hopes of securing a good crop, and they are still there and prepared for another trial-at least, practically ninety or ninety-five per cent of them are still there. I do not think more than five or ten per cent had migrated from the land; they are prepared to try it again providing they will get at least some return for what they produce. I have placed these facts before the

Government and the House in order to show that unless something is done in regard to the marketing of our crop next year, the sowing of an increased acreage in Canada next year need not be looked for, but on the contrary, the result will be much the other way.


Mr. H. B. MORPHY (Perth, North):: Is there any remedy to he found in shipping to the United States?


John Archibald Maharg: We are prohibited from shipping there now.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: But ordinarily the market there is open?


John Archibald Maharg: It will be open on one condition, and that is if the production of the United States is below their requirements.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Who shut you out?


John Archibald Maharg: The United States Government, on account of the war conditions. Now they have got an abundance of wheat there for themselves, the price of which is guaranteed by the Government, and they are not going to purchase the surplus wheat of Canada, and take a chance of disposing of it again. They have got sufficient wheat of their own to look after, without taking ours.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say in conclusion that Western Canada is watching this Government very closely. It is also watching this House, and individual members of the House very closely, and unless something is done,-I want to be very clear and emphatic in this statement,-to attempt to remedy conditions in so far as the West is concerned, you will at least have a number of by-elections on your hands before this House meets again next session.


Mr. GEORGE PARENT (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, a born citizen of Quebec city cannot let the occasion pass without paying a last tribute to the memory of our late leader, the member for the electoral division of Quebec East, J3ir Wilfrid Laurier.
To speak on behalf of electors, whose confidence and admiration in Sir Wilfrid Laurier have never faltered, my first impression was to use the French language. It is the language that Sir Wilfrid loved the most; it is the language he spoke at home, it is the language spoken by every one of his former electors. In speaking French I would feel more at ease, hut I realize that in making use of the English language, it may demonstrate that with very little effort and good will, one can be made to speak both languages.

/I have come to the conclusion that in being courteous to the majority in this House, I am but following the example of my revered leader. If, Sir, at this time, the whole country is in mourning, no part of Canada regrets more the loss of this illustrious statesman than the electoral division of Quebec East. Sir Wilfrid began to serve his country as far back as 1871 in the Provincial Legislature of Quebec. A few years later he had already reached distinction as a statesman both in the Parliament of Canada and outside, to such an extent that he was offered, and accepted, a portfolio in Mackenzie's Cabinet. An election had to take place and the newly chosen minister had to go before his constituents of Arthabaska to have this choice ratified, but Arfhabaska turned him down. In an instant, a nomination paper was prepared in St. Roch and St. Sauveur, and a delegation succeeded in bringing to Quebec East the then down-hearted and disappointed young minister. From that time this constituency has enjoyed the honour and privilege of having been faithful to one of the very best public servants this country has ever had. Of him it may well be said:
In youth a student, and in old age a sage,
Lover of freedom, of mankind a friend,
Noble in aim from childhood to the end,
Great is thy mark upon historic page.
Among those who then affixed their signature to the nomination paper for the election of Quebec East very few are alive today. Their names were given lately in the press, and I shall quote them in the order in which they were published: S. N. Parent, Chas. A. Parent, M. Coleman, J. B. Laliberte, Jos. Gauthier, J. E. Martineau. It is	these men	who
jointly with the members of the district of Quebec have been claiming the right to bury their distinguished compatriot in Quebec city where a reverent population could come and pray by his grave. Their desire was a true expression of their love and devotedness, but when they realized how painful, not to say cruel, it would have been to impose a second separation upon Lady Laurier, the accomplished and beloved wife who for over fifty years had been the best companion of her husband, the claim was given up.
It is not my intention to make a full review of Sir Wilfrid Laurier's career. Laurier will sleep forever in a cemetery of the province of Ontario and, to use the expression of Archbishop Mathieu, of Regina, he lies as a connecting link between Ontario and Quebec, the two large provinces which during a lifetime he has tried to see
united in perfect harmony. Unfortunately, Sir, his teachings have not been successful in the province of Ontario, and he died at a time when the racial and religious prejudices have in that very province reached possibly the limit. Let us hope that a reaction will soon occur for the general benefit of the community.
We find, from the speeches delivered by members in this House and from expressions that have lately appeared in the press, that a reaction is certainly taking place. No province would more gladly welcome a change than the province of Quebec. Educated by Laurier and following the broad principles for which he stood, it will gladly join with those who have at heart a sincere desire that the Dominion shall enter upon an era of progressive reconstruction and readjustment.
These two words, Sir, cover a great deal of ground; they involve a consideration of various problems connected with the situation created by the war. I shall glance rapidly over a very few of the most important of those which I find mentioned in the speech from the Throne.
The consensus of opinion is that nothing is too good for the soldier, especially the returned soldier, and that steps should be taken at once to enable him to enter into civil life under the best possible circumstances. I need not say that every policy having such an aim in view should meet with unrestricted support. I am not very conversant with things pertaining to militia or military matters, but I have heard remarks made to justify the assertion that unless a distinction be made between officers and men who remained in Canada and officers and men who have actually gone to the front, troubles will surely arise. It may be true that certain officers knew so much about certain things that their services were more valuable at home than they would be abroad. Unfortunately, the soldiers who have been overseas do not seem to think so. What this Government, therefore, ought to do, is give to returned men positions that have been filled by men who have done no actual fighting. In various departments, not only in Ottawa but in many cities all over Canada, the very best situations have been held during the last four years or more by men who did not-so far as we can judge, at any rate - make what could be called a real sacrifice in connection with the war. It was said that their services were so valuable that they could not be dispensed with-that was always the excuse given when it was desired to keep a man in a job of some son.

But as soon as the soldier; return from the front, the very first thing they say when they see an officer who has not been overseas, is: "This man will soon disappear; we will see that he disappears and that we take his place." If you want to facilitate the re-establishment of the returned soldiers into civil life, one of the first things to be done is to replace by returned soldiers men who have remained in the country during the last four years. The soldiers want it, and I believe they are entitled to it. Of course, this may not meet with all views; it may not be in line with all purposes. Evidently the Government, however, has realized some of the necessities of the situation, because in the speech from the Throne certain things are mentioned, the carrying out of which will likely have the effect of helping the soldier to re-enter civil life. Among these are two which I have specially noticed: the construction of highways and the provision for better housing conditions.
I have heard some criticism of the proposal for the construction of highways. I have heard men say that to some extent this is an infringement upon provincial rights; that whatever moneys go from the Dominion Government for this purpose should be handed directly to and be spent by the provinces themselves. There may be a good deal in that suggestion, but from the resolution as it appears on the Order Paper-of course, the resolution has not yet been moved-it seems to me that there is not much danger to be apprehended in this connection. I am much inclined to congratulate the Government upon inaugurating this policy for the construction of highways. I know of no other province where the policy of improving roads and highways has been so well developed as- it has been in the province of Quebec, from which I come. That being the case, 9 p.m. I am interested in supporting a policy of that kind. Although in Quebec that policy has produced good results, there is yet something lacking. We find in certain places that our highways are disconnected because of the absence of bridges. It would be a good thing if some of that federal money could be spent on the building of bridges at certain places, for instance to complete a break in the road connecting Ontario and Quebec by building a bridge at Ste. Anne de Bellevue, so that the people of the twc provinces may pass back and forth in automobiles instead of by train, and so that they may not be separated as they have

been in the past. I suggest that if some of that money be spent in that way, much good will result. Besides, we find that throughout the country, industries which were formerly engaged in the manufacture of munitions have now stopped work. If bridge building is carried on these industries will have something to do, soldiers and ordinary labourers will find employment, and one more step will be taken towards re-establishing the soldier in civil life.
Then, the speech from the Throne mentioned some steps to be taken to provide better housing conditions. I have heard a good deal of criticism of that from gentlemen on the other side of the House, but in itself the policy is not so very bad if it is properly applied. Of course, we cannot discuss it very well at this stage because we do not know what the Bill will contain. But although we have not the Bill, in a certain little booklet that the Government has spread all over the country, called "Conservation," certain photographs are published. It appears from these that the houses recommended for the labouring classes are to be built in rows, one house touching the other, without any extra land at all. It seems to me that if any moneys are to be spent in that direction, a fair quantity of land ought to be provided for each house to be occupied by labouring men. That would be much better for him and for his family, and would go far towards preventing the bad feeling which may exist among labouring classes who live under such condition's that they have no chance of taking a little fresh air.
Other things are mentioned in the speech from the Throne; I shall not refer to them all. But I believe that the Government should not stop with the proposals mentioned in the speech from the Thrdne. I think that money devoted to the development of our natural resources would be well spent; and in this respect I share the views of a few hon. gentlemen who have referred to this matter during the course of this debate.
Part of the Northwest is altogether unknown, and in Quebec there is a territory which is unknown and which is said to be probably the wealthiest section of Canada so far as minerals of all kinds are concerned. I am speaking of new Quebec, or Ungava. The iron beds of Ungava are said to be the very best in the world. According to the report made by Professor Low some years ago, there is in that territory immense wealth in reserve for the people of

Canada. It is said that the water-powers of the Hamilton river of Ungava will produce as many million horse-power as imagination can conceive.
We have been told -that the returned soldiers have been so much in the open air that many of them will not care to return to office work. Here is an opportunity for them. Let survey parties be formed and sent into the Ungava district. There are hundreds of returned soldiers who have experience in connection with aeroplanes, who will be glad to take up this work, and the time is not far distant when aeroplanes will be used for this purpose. His Excellency the Governor General recently made a speech in which he said:-
Obviously, it is not for me, in my position, to attempt to lay down either rules of policy or rules of conduct. But certainly I may say that my experience here-very short but if I may be allowed to say so, my very happy experience in Canada-teaches me that far greater attention ought to be paid than is paid at the present moment to research work and to the development of the natural resources of the country. And I cannot help thinking that, in facing the great problems which lie in front of us those who are responsible for the administration and the conduct of affairs should proceed on these lines. Whatever money is required to be spent that money should only be considered as an investment, and a very safe investment, I believe it will be. Canada provides a very fruitful field for both research work and development. It is almost commonplace to say that the Dominion's resources have only been scratched. Thus we have unlimited opportunities for the future, and it is for all, whether we belong to great institutions like yours, or whether we are engaged in other affairs, to do everything which lies in our power to develop on sound, scientific, and practical lines, the knowledge which we already possess of these great resources.
So much for the mineral and other resources of Ungava. I think the Government will do well also to inquire into the fishing industry in the province of Quebec. The Labrador coast, the Baie des Chaleurs and the Gulf of St. Lawrence can provide the whole of Canada with the best fish in the world, but up to now the industry has been altogether ignored. Strange to say, there was given, a short time ago before the Quebec Board of Trade, a splendid address by a prominent Englishman, Mr. H. C. Thomson, in which he showed the people of Quebec what could be done as regards the fishing industry in that province. To embody what he said, I will put on Hansard the resolution passed by the Board of Trade following the speech delivered by Mr. Thomson:-
Resolved:-That the thanks of this general meeting of the members of the Quebec Board of Trade be expressed to Mr. Harry Cranfuird
Thomson, of London, for his most interesting address upon the extent and wealth of the deep sea fisheries of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the Baie des Chaleurs and the coasts of New Found-land and Labrador, and that the Board desires to express its conviction of the inestimable value of these fisheries as a source of cheap food for the people of Canada and the United States, made so urgent by the present high prices of all other food. That the experience of Aberdeen, Grimsby, and other fishing ports of the United Kingdom whence thousands of tons of fresh fish have of late years been sent daily in chilled cars to all the cities of England and Scotland, and also that of Gloucester, Mass., whence similar shipments are made to United States centres, and where fish preserving and curing in all its shapes is now being carried on, would seem to point to the advisability of more attention being paid in Canada to the exploitation of this source of cheap food. There would seem to be no reason why Quebec should not become, like Aberdeen or Grimsby, a distributing point for fresh fish brought in by properly equipped iced fish carriers from Baie des Chaleurs and the Gulf of St. Lawrence, destined to all points in Canada and the United States, provided a suitable iced warehouse were erected on the Louise Dock alongside both railway tracks and deep water.
If the Government will take these remarks into consideration and also the requests made by many hon. members to develop the natural resources of Canada, I have no doubt that such a policy will meet with general approval.
With regard to the situation created by the war, I have been very much impressed by the speech that was delivered by the Minister c.f Public Works (Mr. Carvell). I think he stated that the debt this country is facing to-day is over $2,000,000,000, and that our expenses cannot be less than $300,000,000 per annum. He stated that our revenue is not expected to be more than $195,000,000, so that we are short $105,000,000, and the Government at last puts this question: Where are we going to find the money? I must congratulate the Minister of Public Works for having boldly put the facts and the situation as it is before the country. I have also been impressed by the speech delivered by the ex-Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes), in which he made certain statements, and I said to myself: Perhaps the Minister of Public Works could find in that speech a hint as to where he could get a little of the money for which he is looking. I was amazed to hear falling from the lips of an ex-minister of the Crown (Sir Sam Hughes), who was responsible for some of the expenses of the war, the following words:-
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.
Let me read a little further. The ex-Minister of Militia and Defence tells us that in the very midst of the war, when the lives of our soldiers were at stake, there were grafters around trying to get money out of him. The hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Lapointe) stated the other day that for every dollar spent on the soldier another dollar has gone in graft, and it begins to look as if that statement were true To continue the words of the ex-Minister of Militia (Sir 'Sam Hughes):
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 tire 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 handed1 over in the last three or four years in the United States under contracts with the British Government and other governments to this gentleman, 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 he upwards of $100,000,000 in the last four years on theste commodities alone.
Bir, if we are short of money, as w'e are told by the Minister of Public Works, one of the first steps we should take is to get back the money that has been pocketed by these people. There are other ways, perhaps more interesting to the city of Quebec in particular, in which money could be saved by this Government. It is no secret that for a good many years past the province of Quebec has been deliberately isolated by the Government of the day. Still, Quebec is alive just the same, and will probably continue to live. Although we are not receiving any favours from the Government, there are citizens among us who wanted to help on the war and do something for the soldiers. Mr. G. G. Stuart, K.C., a lawyer well known all over Canada, a considerable time ago bequeathed

to the Government his beautiful estate of about three hundred acres, to be used for hospital purposes for the Canadian soldiers. The property is situated on the St. Foy road, overlooking the St. Lawrence river, occupying as fine a site as could be imagined. Although this property was bequeathed to the Government over a year ago, the Government has done nothing towards providing a hospital, and not a cent has been spent on the property for the benefit of the returned soldier. On the contrary, the Government has been renting hospital accommodation elsewhere. The Government, for instance, rented Kent House, which is situated on the Quebec Railway, Light & Power Company line, which company is very friendly to the Government, while all the time the property bequeathed by Mr. Stuart was lying idle. Another instance of how the Government is favouring this company is the fact that it has given the company a contract for lighting all the public buildings of Quebec-the post office, the Customs Department, the Revenue Department and the Militia Department buildings-without calling for tenders, and the contract is good for five years. There are other competing companies in the city of Quebec, but they were not given a chance to tender. This was simply another case of throwing away money.
I wish to refer to the Siberian expedition and to correct a statement made by the Minister of Militia and Defence (Major-General Mewburn) the other day. I understood him to say that all members of the Siberian Force had left this country voluntarily. That is not correct, because I know quite a few young men who, though willing to go and fight in France, deliberately refused to sign any papers for Siberia. And yet those men have been sent. I was very glad to hear the Minister say they would all soon be back. The province of Quebec badly needs these men, and they should certainly be back in Canada for the beginning of the summer. In Siberia, they aTe of no use to this country or to anybody else, unless, as wras suggested by the hon. member for North Essex (Mr. Kennedy), they are there trying to collect loans made by capitalists of Europe.
I was very much interested in the speech of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Peck), and particularly in his defence of Sir Arthur Currie; and one thing which he said in connection with that matter impressed me considerably. He said that when the troops were going through places infested with Germans the natural feeling at the moment
MARCH 17, my
was to crash the enemy, paying them back in their own coin. But he said the policy of revenge was not worth a man's life. These words struck me as being very eloquent and compelled a thought which I shall now express, in regard to the last Order in Council passed by the Government that the fathers-for that is what it amounts to-of defaulters under the Military Service Act should be fined at least $250. I do not know what the intention of the Government is; but if it is intended that defaulters should go to jail, I would say, let that Order in Council stand as it is, because with such a fine as that at least eighty per cent of the defaulters would have to go to jail. Now, if the policy of revenge is not worth a man's life, it should not, I think, be worth a man's liberty; and I think that if the Government persists in enforcing such heavy fines it is nothing but revenge. It is ungenerous; and the result will be that a good many young men who were not as guilty as some people believe them to be will be sent to prison. Every one expresses a desire for harmony now. Well, if the Government have the same desire, I suggest that one of the first things they should do is to repeal that Order in Council and leave the whole matter to the discretion of the judges. Our judges have proven themselves capable and honourable throughout the whole history of Canada, and I do not see why they should now be incapable of dealing with this matter. They are familiar with local conditions and should be the best judges under the circumstances-at least better judges than the Government.
In conclusion I will say this: Quebec is not as bad as it has been represented to be. Quebec-is well disposed toward the rest of Canada, and will gladly unite with those who have the best interests of the country at heart. It stands for order as against the forces that would make for revolutionary change. Its devotion to Canada's cherished institutions and to the highest interest will continue in the years to come.
Mr. JOHN A. CURRIE (North Simcoe): Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the House and the country must be getting tired of this prolonged debate on the Address. I am one of the old members of the House and I have not yet seen an Address discussed at such length. However, it is just as well, perhaps, that the Government should have the views of its followers and the hon. members of the Opposition upon questions of public policy, so that it may frame its legislation in accordance with such views.
It would be quite impossible for me to offer any tribute as touching or as graceful as those tributes which have so far been offered to the memory of the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier who has passed away from his place in this House, and whose face and figure I am sure all of us miss a great deal.
I have known him for a great many years, and I always had considerable admiration for him-personally unbounded admiration; although I confess I could not see my way clear to follow him in some of his policies. He had that magnetic quality which endeared him to his followers, and he had filled the place in the public life of this country with dignity, with courage and address; and even his bitterest enemies cannot deny that though he may have erred in his policies, he erred believing that he was doing his best for the country.
Now, it is always painful for a speaker- especially so is it for me-to refer to personal matters; but possibly it might be just as well for me to dispose of these questions at the beginning of my address. Unfortunately, in his speech the other day, the hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) made a reference to myself which was calculated to reflect upon .Sir Arthur Currie, the leader of the Canadian army in Flanders. In that speech the hon. member left it to be inferred that an injustice had been done to me by Sir Arthur Currie. He said that I was blamed for something for which Sir Arthur Currie was to blame, and that no effort had been made to vindicate me. Now, I am very much obliged to the hon. member for his endeavour to help me fight my battles; although my friends and intimates will admit, I believe, that I am generally quite capable of attending to my own affairs. The circumstance to which he alluded was this. In the second battle of Ypres >1 had the great honour to be senior officer at Grafenstafel Ridge, and that point, which was farthest east in the enemy's line was held by my battalion, the 15th Battalion, 48th Highlanders, of Toronto. When the war broke out I wag in command of that battalion in the city of Toronto. It was considered one of the crack battalions of Canada, and was then 985 men strong which was greater than the number of men in any other single battalion in the country. It was fully armed, had complete field equipment, and was ready to take the field, and when the call to this war came, as a member of this House, and for the dignity of the House, I considered it my duty to leave all personal affairs and go; so that it should not be said by the people of this country that when the call to the war



came no member of the House of Commons was willing to go, and that we were all a lot of " safety-firstcrs." I went to the war, and I do not regret it. I will say further, that from the very moment I landed in England, I felt that there was being made an effort-to use the vernacular-to " can " me. But I behaved myself with becoming dignity, avoided controversies of every kind, kept out of politics, and attended to my own business. I complained only once. When my men were up to their knees in mud and their tents were down, and there was no place for them to warm themselves, or dry themselves, il did write to Headquarters. I told them I thought that in Canada we did better for hogs, than they were doing by the men over there. Nothing was said about that; I was forgiven. The reason I did say it then, or make a kick, was simply because the Canadian battalions had given details of men to build huts for themselves, they had built them, the huts had been unoccupied for nearly three weeks and we should have been allowed to go into them. When I went to France I still felt that I was under observation and that there was some hidden hand behind, I do not know whose, seeking to destroy me in some way or other. I was not mistaken. When we were at Fleurbaix my battalion was very well-behaved and we did not have a crime oftener than once in four or five days. Then commissioners came down from army headquarters to investigate and I was virtually deprived of my command. They wanted to inspect my battalion and they inspected it. They told me that my battalion had been shielding crime amongst the men. They inspected every company and every man, and if the inspecting officer found an " i " that was not dotted, or a " t " that was not crossed, and if every man was not clean shaved and in his proper order and place, I knew what was going to happen to me. Fortunately, the battalion was well-behaved and the commissioners, after they had been around, came and complimented me and said that they were in error, that they did not consider it possible that a Canadian battalion could have such good behaviour, such fine discipline and such clean, well-behaved men as mine. I was permitted to carry on. They could not have found anything else because the men who were with me were amongst the finest boys to be found in the city of Toronto, all well-behaved lads, not such a class as you would expect to be guilty of any crimes.

At the battle of Ypres I was placed in a peculiar position. I was the commandant or senior officer on Gravenstafel ridge. That ridge was held by my own battalion together with the Montreal Highlanders; and the 7th were dug in on our left, this being the battalion to which the hon. member for South Vancouver (Mr. Cooper) was attached. The 7th was dug in on the road between St. Julien and Gravenstafel ridge. It was on the morning of the 24th that the Germans attacked my battalion. Early in the morning the gas attack came and my battalion was gassed and it seemed as if every gun in the German army was turned upcn us. We were attacked about fifty to one and they flattened our front line trenches, killing and wounding a great many of my men.
I might here say as a matter of explanation that when I came back to Canada I was told by some high military officers that I should have withdrawn my battalion rather than remain in such a dangerous place. If I had had my own way I would have withdrawn to the crest of Gravenstafel ridge and dug in. But we had no option in the matter. On the night before the grand attack word was sent out to every individual company commander by telephone that he was not to move until help came next day. If I had withdrawn my battalion or any of my men before orders came to move, I would have been courtmartialled, and I would have deserved it, because it would have been disobedience of orders. In the morning, however, when the attack came, I was there. The attack occurred about four o'clock in the morning. My men had nothing to do but fight and die in their places or be taken. They could not get out. Three-quarters of my battalion fell, but they sold their lives dearly. Between six and seven o'clock the grand attack was virtually over. My second in command, Major Marshall, had been posted on my left in a reserve trench, with my adjutant, now Col. Dansereau of Montreal, with a machine gun and a platoon of men. At daylight a German Albatross flying machine came over and dropped green flares over them. In a little while several batteries of eight or nine-inch guns began firing into their trench, blowing it to pieces and killing every man in it except seven or eight. I saw Major Marshall emerge between my men and the line of the 7th with half a dozen men and walk in the direction of the dressing station, and I went down to see him in order to ascertain what had hap-

pened to the rest of the command. I had seen them bombarded about 350 yards away and I wanted to know what had happened to my adjutant. He told me that my adjutant was killed- Fortunately that did not turn out to be true; he was badly wounded on the top of the head but he managed to crawl out afterwards. At that time the commanding officer of the hon. member for South Vancouver (Mr. Cooper) came over to me. He was a young man, Major Odium, now Brigadier-General Odium and one of the famous Canadian officers. His commanding officer had been killed the evening before near Kaiserleer when they went out to reconnoitre the German line. I refer to Col. Hart Maharg. Major Odium came and asked me if I felt he would be justified in remaining in his position. I asked him what he thought he ought to do, and he said that he thought he ought to stick it. I told him to carry on. He did stick it and the 7th died in their trenches almost to a man. They were dug in between St. Julien and Kaiserleer. The hon. member for South Vancouver says he saw me that day and spoke to me. He said he had seen General Sir Arthur Currie also. If he saw, and spoke to me, it would be at the dressing station and if so he was out of his position or a casualty because he otherwise should have been with his men on the road. I do not recollect seeing him that morning, but if he did speak to me it was at the crossroads in the rear of Kaiserleer at the dressing station. I do remember that scattered units of men had carried wounded men to the dressing station. I ordered them back to the trenches on the reverse slope of Gravenstafel ridge as senior officer and it may be that I did sometimes use language rather more forcible than polite. I believe that one man did write home that I told him and his chum to get into the trenches and that if he moved out without orders he would have his blooming head shot off, or something of that kind. However, that is where I was that morning, and I did not leave that position that morning.
With regard to Sir Arthur Currie, the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) has' placed this question quite clearly before the House already, and as far as he (Gen. Currie) was concerned, there was nothing discreditable either to me or to himself, as far as I can see, in the whole transaction. He was at Fortuin his headquarters immediately south of St. Julien. Our brigade was on his left, and on our
left were the French. He had given us the 10th and the 7th to help us out the evening of the day when the battle opened. The 10th battalion was badly cut up that night. That battalion w^s formed of troops from Saskatoon and Moosejaw. The 16th battalion, the Highlanders from Vancouver, which the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Peck) had the honour to command and the 10th were lined up immediately to the west of St. Julien. They were in reserve and they were lined up on Thursday night after the gas attack on the French. They formed line with fixed bayonets and went forward to meet the Germans at St. Julien wood. There never wat a braver bayonet charge than that in the whole war, They drove the Germans back half a mile and established themselves, and their losses were tremendous. On Saturday morning the 10th Battalion was withdrawn, or at least the remnant of it, consisting of about one hundred and fifty men under Major Ormond. It was sent down to our assistance in the terrible salient, that tract we were in, at Gravenstafel Ridge. Major Ormond reported to me that morning-and his report is in the archives of the Militia Department-to that effect. Sir Arthur Currie was at his quarters in Fortuin. We all expected that reinforcements would have arrived at daylight in the morning, but they did not. The reinforcements did not arrive until hours afterwards, until after noon, or rather late in the afternoon, when the Durham Light Infantry came into that sector. Sir Arthur Currie got tired of calling on the telephone for help, and walked down from Fortuin to Wiltchz, about a mile and a half away, and he had a "-head-on" collision with the British commander, General Snow-at least I was so informed, I do not know personally. He w anted to know why they were not sending help to us. I wish to say that if I had not been in the position, the honoui-able position, that I was in on Gravenstafel Ridge, I would just as soon have been in his position, because there was nothing dishonourable about it, and I think when his report is brought before this House it will establish that fact. Now, as far as the point is concerned where I was located, and the hon. member for South Vancouver (Mr. Cooper), if there was one little spot in the whole world at that moment that the German Emperor wanted, it was that very place, Gravenstafel Ridge. If he had captured it that morning many believe the history of the world would have been changed. We held that ridge, and what is more we did not give it up. The ridge

was turned over to English troops, the Durham Light Infantry, who fought and went into action that morning right fresh from England, never having seen a trench before, not knowing the difference between a hedge and a trench. They fought for nearly two weeks in those trenches at the cross-roads, where I had previously been, and held the place. Nobody can cast any reflections upon any of those officers and men in my hearing with my consent. This war has seen a great deal of sacrifice, and it is most unfortunate that some people at home have done nothing but scandalize and slander the living and the dead. Why should I say anything against Sir Arthur Currie? I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that he is a wonder, and the fact that he managed to come through with all the intrigue that I saw going on-not amongst the soldiers, mind you, but there was intrigue going on-the fact that he, a civilian soldier, * like myself, a militiaman, came through with the highest honours and led the Canadians to victory, I think is a marvel. It should encourage every other citizen in this country to perfect himself in the study of arms, so that should the time ever come when their country is in danger they will be able, as the old Greeks said, to take their place in the ranks.
Now', Mr. Speaker, I have covered that phase of the matter. I do not know, Sir, but I trust that we have heard the last of all this talk. I agree with the hon. minister, who suggested that some substantial recognition should be granted to Sir Arthur Currie. I think, Mr. Speaker, that the very first thing this House should have done- and I regret there wras nothing at all pertaining to this matter in the speech from the Throne-was, after offering thanks to Almighty God for saving us, \vas to tender the thanks of this young nation to the officers and the men who have fought so bravely for us in those foreign fields in this great war, and w'ritten the name of Canada with victory and with glory. There is no man living in the Canadian forces that I can feel in my heart for one minute would do anything wrong, or anything that might injure his country. If he did wrong -and after all we are only human-it would be with the motive of doing good; and if a man makes a mistake in war when he is trying to do good. I think our forgiveness should be extended to him. But I cannot recall a single case of the kind.
The Canadians have had great losses. The living are coming home, many of them to find their homes virtually desolate, their

business gone, and hardly knowing which way to turn. To them we should offer every encouragement. It should not be our part to seek in any possible way to minimize their employment. They fought for this country, and they did so, not because they expected that Canada was'going to get any territory added to its already broad acres, or that it was going to have any wrongs righted; they fought because they were fighting for humanity, and making the future of this country sure, making sure that Canada would never become an adjunct or an appendage to any other country in the world. That is the feeling they had, and that is why they went overseas and sacrificed their lives. To these officers and men the thanks of this House are due, and I hope that the leader of the Government will take the earliest opportunity to have the House pass a unanimous vote of thanks to our army, such as the British nation always does after its army is victorious in a great war.
Attempts are made right and left to set the men against the officers, and I have heard remarks in this House, and read statements in the Canadian press, trying to disparage the officers, and saying -that the pensions of the men should be the same as the officers, or that the officers should not get more than the men. In my view there is nothing too good for the men, but you must bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that the officers of the Canadian army that went overseas in the first place-it is true their pay has been increased a trifle-on the basis of the same pay as the English officers; in fact their pay was less than that of English officers, while our men received four times the pay of the English private. I do not begrudge our men four times the pay of the English Tommy-they were always willing, if necessary, to do four times the fighting of any other man in the field. But as far as the officers were concerned a lieutenant-colonel, occupying the same position as I occupied, in the British army received a dollar a day more pay than I did. And those young men who led the troops over the top, the bravest of the brave, our subalterns, our lieutenants, what did they get? They did not get enough to maintain their wives on, they did not get as much money, Mr. Speaker, as the armourer corporals in the Canadian Forces got in pay. And still there is talk about the big pay of the officers! I trust that this House will not hear any more talk about the difference in pay or pension between the officers and the men. They all

did their duty, and they all did it very well. In peace they will be united.
As far as I am personally concerned, it is not very comfortable or pleasant for me to speak of my own affairs, but I will say this: I am not sorry that I took part in the war, it will always be a pleasure to me, even though I got no honour or glory out of it. You would think to hear some people talk that I had made a million out of the war over there, that I had received a peerage, or title, a V.C., and all that sort of thing. I got nothing, I did not want anything, and I do not want anything. The fact that I have the honour and affection of my men, the fact that the "Original" men of the First Division, last year asked me to lead them in the parade on Yonge street, Toronto, on St. Julien day, does not show there is any great reflection on me. I did not seek glory of any kind; I trust, therefore, that the House has heard the last of that and that no further reference will be made to it.
I want to compliment the member for Skeena (Mr. Peck, V.C.) on being in this House and on having secured meritorious recognition; also the other young men on this side of the House who have fought in the war and have been in the actual zones of combat. I am sorry that more of my old colleagues in the House cannot say that they were in the actual zone of conflict. A great many of them volunteered, put on khaki, raised regiments and took them overseas, and just as they got as far as the front received the same kind of telegram to come home that I got. I do not think that I should have ever got to the field of battle unless by some accident.
Two other members of tire House of Commons got to the actual zone of combat. One was Colonel Baker-blessed be his memory. He died in action; no finer man ever wore khaki. I trust that some spot in the new buildings will Ire found where a monument may be placed to remind future generations of parliamentarians that there were men of red blood in the House of Commons in the days of the Great War.
Then, the member for Ontario, Colonel Sharpe, went to the trenches and would not leave them until his health broke down and he was a complete wreck. He died in Montreal-no wonder, when he spent two years and a half constantly within the sound of the guns, constantly in the midst of that great carnage. It was with great difficulty that he got as far as the front, but he was determined that nothing short of illness or death would take him away, because h^ like every other member of this
House, knew that if he did come back, he would-having my case in mind-" have it thrown into him " for all time to come by those who had stayed at home. But he has gone to his reward, and I trust that a place will be found to erect some monument to his memory. No finer comrade in arms could any man have than the late Colonel Sharpe.
I would like to say a word about those young men who have given their lives for their country. They died in order that Canada might be a great country, and here a responsibility rests upon members on both sides of the House. The responsibility is upon us of making this country great; of avoiding selfishness; of seeking to further not our own personal interests, but the interests of our country. These men have died gloriously in the cause of the Empire and, as Rudyard Kipling has said, quoting Ecclesiasticus, " Their names and their memories shall live forevermore." They have died in a great cause. It is a matter of deep regret that matters should be brought up which will cause the heartstrings of their parents and relatives at home to be wrung again. I know what that means, because for two days my own family lived in apprehension, having been informed after the battle of St. Julien that I was missing, that I had been killed.
We should not offer these parents condolence, because the young men of Canada died doing their duty. We may offer our consolation. They will always have the feeling that their sons did their duty and that of all the people of Canada they stand nearer to the heart-strings of our country than any others. Many of these people will send sons to this House; many will come to this House who have served in the war. You may rest assured that these men will do good service for their King and country and that Canada will never suffer by them.
I have heard it said that the'country is afraid of the returned soldier. Mr. Speaker, people do not understand the returned soldier. References of a disgraceful character have been made in the press to the riots at this town in Wales. I am not surprised at riots if conditions were such as described to me in a letter from a fi'iend. I know what it is to be up to the knees in mud, I know what it is to be without coal and to have to buy coal and coal oil out of my own pocket in order to keep my men warm. I know what it is to have the sleet and rain beating down and to hear the men coughing, their physical resistance breaking down, so that one could not sleep at night. There are several hundred dead Canadians in the

Netherhaven cemetery who perished from cold and exposure on Salisbury Plains. These men at Rhyl Camp must have been undergoing the same kind of exposure or they would not have rioted. The riot is to be regretted. I trust that the country will forgive them; the only thing I cannot forgive is the; loss of life in connection with those riots. Somebody is responsible for that, and sooner or later, when the proper time comes, unquestionably this House will fix that responsibility.
I have dealt with some personal matters to the satisfaction, I hope, of everybody in the House. I trust that this recrimination will cease. We should all be satisfied that every officer and man of all the forces has done his duty to the best of his ability. Many of our boys gave up their lives in the performance of their duty. There are fathers on both sides of this House who have given sons to the great cause. These boys may have died trying to do the impossible, but it was because we did the impossible that the name of Canada is on the map in connection with this war.
I wish to deal at some length with fiscal questions. It is now ten o'clock, and I would ask the indulgence of the House in permitting me to move the adjournment of the debate.


William Thomas White: If the hon. gentleman desires that the debate should be adjourned, I do not think I should be justified in offering, opposition, although the hour is not very late.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
On the motion of Sir Thomas White, the House adjourned at 10.05 p.m.
Tuesday, March 18, 1919.
[Stage Direction]
The House met at Three o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. N. W. ROWELL (President of the Council) presented the first report of the Special Committee on pensions, pension regulations, and all matters pertaining thereto.
On the motion of Mr. Rowell, the report was concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Copy of a letter from the Secretary of State for the Colonies to His Excellency the
[Mr. Currie. 1
Governor General, of the 25th of February, 1919, transmitting copies of the Convention signed on the 16th of January, 1919, prolonging the armistice with Germany, together with copies of the financial Pro-cotol of the 13th of December, 1918.-Hon. Mr. Rowell.
Census of industries, 1917. Part I, Agricultural Statistics, 1917; Part III, Fisheries Statistics, 1917.-Hon. Mr. Oarvell.
Annual Report of the Inland Revenues of the Dominion of Canada for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1918, Part I, Excise. -Hon. Mr. Reid.
Trade report of the Department of Customs, containing the tables and statements of imports and exports of the Dominion of Canada for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1918.-Hon. Mr. Reid.
Copies of a general rule and order amending a rule of the Exchequer Court of Canada, pursuant to section 88 of the Exchequer Court Act. R.S.C. 1906, Chap. 140.-Hon. Mr. Burrell.

[Stage Direction]
ARRIVAL AT OTTAWA-STATEMENT B\' MINISTER OF MILITIA.
On the Orders of the Day:
Major General the Hon. S. C. MEWBURN (Minister of Militia): With your permission, Sir, I would like, as a matter of courtesy to the members of this House, to remind them that the Princess Patricia Canadian Light Infantry is expeoted to arrive in Ottawa to-morrow morning. The regiment will detrain at the Central Station at 10.30 a.m., and, on arrival, will receive an address of welcome from the Mayor, on behalf of the Corporation of the City of Ottawa. They will then proceed by Besserer, Nicholas and Rideau streets to Connaught Square in front of the Chateau Laurier, where a platform is being erected, and it is hoped as many members of the Parliament as possible will be present there. I am sure their presence will be appreciated by the regiment. Tickets are being sent down here this afternoon for Members of the House of Commons and the Senate. A short address will be delivered by His Excellency the Governor General, and the regiment will immediately thereafter move along Sparks street and thence by Bank street to their quarters at Howiek Hall.


[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 17.
Mr. JOHN A. CURRIE (North Simcoe): Mr. Speaker, yesterday evening when the House so kindly granted my request for adjournment, I stated that it was my intention to-day to deal with the question of the tariff and the economic condition of this country. The great war in which our soldiers have been engaged is over, and this country like every other country, is now confronted with the weighty problem of reconstruction. Very few people, when they speak of reorganization and reconstruction, realize the vital importance of those matters to Canada. Such a war as this was an unheard of thing before. In the whole history of the world, nothing like it had ever before occurred. It has swept away old traditions. It has destroyed old institutions, and many preconceived notions. In fact, all the old ideas of public men and of the people generally have undergone a change. This was brought very strongly to my mind the other day as I listened to the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), discussing, in the same old tone, in the same old words, old policies and old matters that do not count at all to-day amidst the vital issues that confront us. His speech reminded me very much of J. M. Barrie's play "the Mollusc," which I had the pleasure of seeing not long ago. As J. M. Barrie's plays always contain a moral, this play contained a moral for the politicians as well as for others. According to the play, a mollusc is a shell-fish that attaches itself to a rock or some other object, and that never moves. When I heard the hon. gentleman quoting from the speech of President Wilson about the waves and the tides moving on and sweeping things before them, the idea of the mollusc naturally occurred to me. As a mollusc attaches itself to a rock and never moves from that spot, so, many public men holding certain views, are determined to stick to them; never to change their policies; to carry on consistently forever with the same old politics, living entirely in the past. When I heard him speaking of free trade, and also my good old friend from Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark), whom I love to listen to, speaking
about free trade, at this present moment, knowing the actual condition of the economic affairs of the world, the idea of the mollusc instinctively occurred to me, and I realize that no wave, even of war, pestilence and famine, will move those people one inch from the same old ideas.
Listening to these speeches, one would think for the moment that the whole world had stood still during the war and was starting on from 1914 as if nothing had occurred in the meantime. What are the facts confronting the people of this country? The whole world is, at the present time, engaged, not in a war of arms, but in an economic war. We find that England has slammed the door shut with embargoes on every country; that the United States has closed its doors and embargoed everything; that France has embargoed the foodstuffs and manufactures of the whole world. In fact, there is, at the present moment, no country discussing or even mentioning the words "free trade" except this country of Canada. These are facts. England will never go back to the former state of affairs, so Lloyd George says. England, at the present time, is in exactly the same position as she was in the time of Cromwell. She has Navigation Laws as she had then and Protection as she had then, and that Protection is even more effective now. You cannot get a dollar's worth of your manufactured goods into England, and England has decided that the manufacturers of Germany, the United States, or any other country, can no longer dump their goods into England to the detriment and injury of the English workingman. Not only is that the condition, but the agricultural situation has entirely changed. We listened with a great deal of pleasure to the remarks of the hon. member (Mr. Maliarg) who, last evening, gave the story of the West-and a very fine story it was. If I did not know the actual conditions I should be very much inclined to agree with his view.
Let us first consider the conditions confronting the agriculturists of this country, and then see whether free trade (or in other words economic destruction) is going to assist them. A significant statement was made in this House a day or so ago by the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen). He is fully aware of the principle of cabinet responsibility, anc\ therefore his statement that he stood for the total abolition of the tariff on agricultural implements, as he did in 1908-1909, was very significant. The manufacturers and working men, of the
[Stage Direction]
East are forced to the conclusion that this Government stands on that very ground. What are the conditions affecting the agricultural interests of this country? Mr. Lloyd George in one of his great speeches during the last election-I think it was at Manchester-said that in the year preceding the war Great Britain had raised only twelve weeks' supply of her own food, but that last year she had raised forty-two weeks' supply. That was a significant statement. He further stated that Great Britain would never again be dependent upon the outside world for her foodstuffs as she was before the war, and that legislation already existed and further provision would be made guaranteeing the agriculturists of Great Britain protection and a fair price for their product. Can we,' therefore, look for a market in England? Can we look for a market in Europe? Russia has been mentioned. Nobody in his senses would propose to sell anything to Russia at the present moment, because she has repudiated her national debt. In fact, all those countries of Central Europe to which it is intimated we are going to sell vast quantities of cereals are seething with Bolshevism, a doctrine, which is founded on the repudiation of national debts. If we sell anything to those countries, can we be sure that we will receive payment unless Great Britain or one of the other big powers guarantees payment? Conditions the whole world over have changed. Every elevator in this country, through the failure of the Government to put an embargo on foreign wheat, is jam full of American wheat and other grains. The result has been that we have not been able to move our own grain from the West, although the people of this country have provided the money to purchase it. Owing to the Government giving way, as a matter of policy, to the cry in the West for free wheat, we now have free trade in wheat with the United States, so far as our laws and treaties provide. But have we really got free wheat? The hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Maharg) told us that we could not ship a pound of wheat or cereals now to the United States. How is that, when the treaty provided for reciprocal privileges? The reason is because the United Slates is protecting its own people. It has a protective policy, just as Great Britain has at the present time, and will have, according to present indications, for many years to come. The policy of Prance, of Italy, and of every other country except Canada is also a protective policy. We are supposed to have 
free wheat with the United States, but the door of the United States has been slammed shut on our farmers, and I am satisfied that she will have an embargo against our wheat just as long as free wheat between the two countries is on the programme. But free wheat has not prevented the United States from selling us their wheat. According to the returns for 1918 the United States sold us half a million dollars worth of wheat, while we sold none to them. Last year we sold no cereals to the United States, as was admitted last night, but the United States sold us between seven and eight million dollars worth of corn to be used for human food in this country, and we were forced to eat it as a substitute for our own wheat. The result is that to-day every grocer in this country has his shelves loaded down with corn flour and is unable to sell it. It will mean a great loss to those who have bought these wheat substitutes from the United States. What is the use of treaties and reciprocity which are not observed.
I have read all the authorities on free trade and know my Adam Smith possibly as well as the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark). I also know something of Jean Baptiste Say, who, according to the French-speaking members of this House, was an apostle of Adam Smith. He certainly was the apostle Paul of Adam Smith, because he cleared up many things on which Adam Smith himself was not so clear; Now, according to old economic doctrines preached before the war, a great war such as we have had was impossible. It was said that no great power could live in a condition of war with another great power for more than two or three weeks. Nevertheless the great war came and lasted four-years, exploding all the fallacies propounded by Norman Angell and others who talked of peace, and whose work we now know was simply a form of German propaganda intended to render us defenceless so that we could be struck down by not being prepared.
Will any hon. gentleman tell me what country wants free trade at the present moment? Germany to-day has all her factories intact; not a wheel has been hurt, and they are ready now to flood this country with cheap manufactures if free trade is extended to them. Therefore, I ask this House and the people of this country soberly to consider exactly what our situation is. Is it not a fact that those who have the interests of this country at heart and our legislators, who know how delicate the situation is at home in our cities and towns,

should unite and forget all this ancient babble about free trade? Is it not in the interests of Canada to ask the Government to initiate a policy of embargoes against every country, so that when the economic conference sits in Paris, as it will immediately after the Peace Conference has concluded its labours, Canada will have at least a jack-knife to trade? To my mind, that is the sensible policy. I am fully conscious how difficult it is for me, a manufacturer, to address a gathering of any kind on any question pertaining to the industries of this country. We all know how unfairly the manufacturers of this country are constantly being attacked. The press of this country is fanning the flame of class hatred, so that the manufacturer appears to be a man full of plans of spoliation of treason, strategem and spoils, whose whole aim and object in life is to destroy society and pocket as much money as possible himself.	.
To give you an idea of the unfair way in which the manufacturers are attacked, I need refer only to my own case. A few weeks ago I addressed a gathering of Liberal Conservatives in the city of Toronto, and at that time the Toronto Globe was preaching far and wide all over this country that Canada had a forty-two and one-half per cent tariff. Now everybody knows that that is not so. If you turn up the pages of the customs returns, you will find a page devoted there to the percentage of the tariff of this country on goods entered for consumption. You will find, on that page, that the percentage is only 16.7, if I remember rightly, for last year. In view of that fact, why should the Globe talk about 42J per cent? The Globe for forty years has been menacing the industries of the country constantly, in season and out of season, at a cost to the people of millions of dollars. As the leader of this Government at one time said in the city of Toronto, we are living constantly on suspended sentence. That is the chief reason why Canada has not achieved a success equal to that of the United States. If we had not been going around with one arm tied behind our backs, this country of ours would have a population to-day of at least 25,000,000 or 30,000,000. But this constant agitation, I pointed out, had injured' the country. I challenged the accuracy of the Globe statement that the tariff was 42£ per cent. As a matter of fact on the goods consumed in Canada that are subject to tariff the duty amounts to something like 27J per cent, which includes 71 per cent war tax. We must bear in mind also, Mr. Speaker- and I would like all
hon. members of the House to remember this-that the foreign manufacturer exporting into Canada is allowed, whether rightly or wrongly, to reduce the price of his goods below the regular market price in his own country by 5 per cent; so that this country and the manufacturers of this country lose exactly 5 per cent thereby. Now, take 71 per cent from 271 per cent and you have 20 per cent; from that take 5 per cent again, and the total protection that this country really has on the goods that are entered for home consumption is only something like 15 per cent. Surely that is not a very high tariff. I replied to the Globe to that effect. The Globe reported me to the extent of a small paragraph, but came out later with a column and a half of a reply. It began by stating that I was president of, or was connected with, a concern engaged in the manufacture of wire; and said by inference that I was virtually a member of a wire or nail combine. Now, I am connected with the Imperial iSteel Company of Collingwood, and for two years we have not manufactured and sold in Canada products to the extent of 20 tons. We went into the foreign market and tried to sell goods wdiere the Germans had sold before-in South Africa, India, Ceylon, Java, and other foreign countries. That concern last year sold goods to foreign countries to the value of over $850,000 worth, and paid out over a quarter of a million in wages in the town of Collingwood. I do not think, therefore, that it owes any apologies to the Globe. Furthermore, the Globe stated that a case had been tried in the courts in which a suit had been brought by a dealer in eastern Ontario against a manufacturer of wire, and that the judge, in giving judgment, said that the goods were sold with the understanding that the jobber who purchased them would maintain the " association " price. Therefore, the judge and the Globe said: " You are a combine; you belong to a combine; an association; you are characterized by the courts as being an illegal combine." Now, if the Globe had gone into the facts, it would have discovered that the " association " price was not an association price of the manufacturers at all, because no combination exists, nor has existed for very many years, among the makers of wire nails or wire, nor has there been any gentleman's agreement. The association price referred to was the price of the jobbers' association, and not of the manufacturers. Nor do I belong to any association that is involved in any combine, for that is a very poor argument to put for-
[Stage Direction]
ward, after all is said and done, as the United States is now discussing the necessity of permitting its manufacturers to form committees of trade to deal with the sale of United States goods in foreign countries. Why should such unfair argument be raised? I challenge the 'Globe to show that I belong or have belonged to the association which has been referred to,, and I make that challenge openly and publicly. I do not belong to the Manufacturers' Association, because if I did I would be challenged on that ground also. Ever since I went into public life I have kept out of the Manufacturers' Association. So that, as far as all these things are concerned, I hope the hon. gentlemen who are listening to me will realize that I am not speaking on behalf of any interest of the kind. I am trying to put the industrial side of this question, for the workmen as well as the manufacturers.
Now, the problem before the people of this country at the present time is the demobilization of the soldiers, and the remobilization of our industries. The question of our taxes, which have been added to enormously through the war, also confronts us. On the question of demobilization I do not quite agree with the programme of the Government. Two years ago 1 expressed my views in one of the local papers here-I said that the soldiers should be returned by units and that the Headquarters of the units should be established in brigade areas here, and that the men should be allowed to have working furlough, and should be kept under pay for six months or a year after they return. I expressed the opinion that when a man returned he should be given a working furlough so that he might obtain a position, and if he did not like it he could go back and drill for a while, and when he became tired of drilling he could go and get a job again. In that way he would be able to find the position that suited him best and in which he could be most useful, because the men who are discharged are in an unsettled state of mind. They are not in their old frame of mind, and when they get a position they do not always realize how good it is, and after a few weeks it becomes irksome, and they give it up and walk around the streets, acquiring habits of idleness. Now, if it is unavoidable that they should be idle at any time, it would be better for them to spend the interval with their unit, where they would be under discipline for the time being. If such were the case the country would not see the sad spectacle of some of these men peddling shoe-laces. The soldier has had very little fMr. Currie. 1
out of the war. If he was kept a year in this way. he would not be getting as much out of it as the man who stayed at home working on munitions. The question is, what are we to do with the soldiers? A programme of land settlement is proposed. The soldier must go into some industry, either in the manufacturing industry or in the industry of agriculture. A few years ago-not ten years, or even eight years ago-we had millions of acres of idle land in the West. We have Colonization Ministers, and Bureaus of 'Colonization and all that sort of thing, but strange to say, when the soldier returns and a little piece of land is wanted for 'him, there is no land left. A programme is proposed, a copy of which I have here, which provides that the soldier can purchase a farm costing up to $5,000, the Government assisting him, and that he can borrow $2,000 more for his house, and farm implements. Then he is expected to begin life as a farmer on a hundred, or hundred and fifty acres of land, with a mortgage of $7,000 tied round his neck. I do not approve of that, Mr. Speaker. I think that the returned soldier who has fought in the war is entitled to just exactly as fair and generous treatment as a soldier who fought in South Africa, or those who fought in the Fenian Raid, and I say that adequate justice must be done these men. They should not be allowed to be the dupes of a lot of real estate dealers. The returned soldier is at the mercy of real estate men, and, indeed, at the mercy of everybody. He never will be able to raise his head above water if you put a debt of that kind upon his shoulders. *
We know there are millions of acres of land in the West standing idle. Great corporations control between 22,000,000 and 25,000,000 acres of the finest land in the West along the railways that never had a plough in it and never a man settled upon it. It would be much better to take that land over at a fair price and give the returned soldier his land free. Give him assistance,, if need be, to help him along; supply him with seed wheat, give him a start and do not allow him to become the victim of the real estate sharks. This country surely is not run by real estate sharks. I never saw them do any good to any country anywhere, much less to Canada.
How about the returned soldier in urban districts? I want to tell this House and this Government that if you are going to start closing the industries, if you are going to adopt the policy of reducing the industrial life of the country, if you are going to

deprive the present factories of the small amount of protection that they now have, you are going to take away from the Soldier the opportunity of employment. As the conditions are now, there is not a manufacturer in this country who will invest a dollar in any industry. Every dollar they have and the employment of their men is menaced by this movement to wipe out protection and to have free implements, and free this, and free that. That means that the United States will be the country that will be manufacturing those things for us, and the workmen that are at the present time employed in the industries of Canada will have to go to the United States.
In the name of God is that going to give employment to our returned soldiers? Not in this country. That, Sir, is directly the opposite of the view we should take in regard to these matters.
The hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) made use of an argument that is constantly employed against the manufacturers. He said that if he purchased a foreign article on which there was a duty of $2 he would pay that $2 into the treasury of this country. Quite right. But if he purchased an article of Canadian manufacture, the Canadian manufacturer would put the $2 into his pocket. Would the Canadian manufacturer put the -$2 in his pocket? Go a little beyond that and see how much of that $2 the Canadian manufacturer would actually put in his pocket. The Canadian manufacturer does not earn five per cent on his turnover. The balance of the $2 would really go into the pockets of the men, women and children who were employed in his factory. And they are doing what? They are eating the products of those men in the West who are so much opposed to them.
Let me put the argument to you .in another way. There is one thing that the farmer in the West needs, and that is greater markets. He is not only producing far more in the way of cereals than this country, or the United States, or Great Britain, or any other country, will for the moment need. He needs greater markets. He thought that he was going to get a greater market in the United States. Did he get it? Bang! The Americans shut the door in his face in spite of treaties and everything else. That is just in line with what I and other hon. members on the floor of the House said they would do, when we were discussing the reciprocity question. We said that it did hot matter what we did in connection with reciprocity; the very
moment the United States got it they would slam the door in our face, while at the same time shoving their goods into our country.
The elevators of this country are filled with United States wheat, and it is the duty of this Government to embargo their wheat and grain unless they want this country flooded with their products at any price in the next two or three months, resulting in the price of our wheat being reduced to forty or fifty cents a bushel. They will be willing to take several million dollars loss on last year's crop, and on this year's crop, if they can get rid of it and control this market. That would stop their farmers coming to Canada.
Suppose I were a.farmer in the West, and I bought a tractor in Canada and paid a dollar or so more for it because it was a Canadian product-is there not such a thing as nationalism, as love of country? Has all that feeling been taken out of our breasts entirely? I know too much to believe that. But, supposing you do buy an American tractor-every pound of the food that the men who built that tractor in the United States consume is supplied by the growers of American products and you do not supply anything in exchange for the money that you have paid for that tractor. But if you built that tractor in Canada, every dollar that went into its manufacture would go to the men here who were providing a greater market for the men in the West, by consuming their wheat and beef in Canada and God knows we want greater markets.
We want to help the West. The East has never tried, and never will try to injure the West, even in spite of all those new trenches and wire entanglements that they are setting up, and all their threats about what is going to happen to us in the East. We are men of red blood, we are the fathers and brothers of the men who carried Vimy Ridge, took Cambrai, and destroyed the finest units in the German army. You cannot scare us. We never get scared.
My hon. friend the Minister of Colonization and Immigration (Mr. Calder) said that the greatest danger in this country was the politician who was appealing to the soldier. I say that the man who is the most dangerous to the people of this country is the man who is preaching class hatred. The press of the West, with very few exceptions, have been preaching class hatred against the East for a number of years. They have been constantly threatening us and calling upon their people to unite against the East.
[Stage Direction]
What has the East done to the West? The time came when not a pound of western grain could -be sent to Europe. Great Britain, with all her boasted resources, had no money to buy grain or flour two years ago. We have heard a great deal about what free trade has done for Great Britain, but free trade had not increased English industry during the twenty years before the war one-quarter as much as protection had increased the industry of Germany, France and other countries. Great Britain was without any money; she was at the end of her resources and the western crop could not be moved. Where was the West to get its wider markets then? There was no money in Europe to purchase grain. The United States slammed its doors tight. In that situation, did the people of this country stand idly by and do nothing to help? The Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) asked the people of Canada to buy Victory bonds in order that the crop should be moved from the West and in order that we might provide Great Britain with the credit that was necessary for the movement of that crop. Was there any demur from the people of the East? They went down in their pockets and bought Victory bonds. The men in the factories that the western people want to close up bought Victory bonds. The little girls working in the factories in the east went without winter clothing to buy bonds in order that the people of England might have food, and that the people of the West might get good prices for their wheat. Is it becoming of the West to come down here, threaten these people and say: We want to close up this factory and that factory because they want ten or fifteen per cent protection; we will send the people employed in those factories over to the United States? We want to buy foreign goods, not Canadian made goods.
And I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that as a matter of fact within the next year the people of this country will have to go down into their pockets to buy another crop in the West. Now would it be well for any manufacturer in the East to go round saying to our workingmen, " I would boycott the West, I would not buy any western flour or any western oatmeal, I would not buy Victory bonds to pay for their wheat or do anything of that kind because those people in the West want to close our factories?" That is exactly the kind of class hatred that some of these men in the West are preaching against the East, though there are hon. gentlemen in this House, representing the Grain Growers' in the West, who are big enough and broad-minded enough not to

take that stand. But it is exceedingly difficult for them to do so:	they are bombarded night and day by telegrams from a lot of men in the West, headed by a man named Wood, who is known to be an avowed annexationist.
An hon. MEMBER:: I ask the hon. gentleman to prove his statement in regard to Mr. Wood?


Air. CURRIE:: It is well known that Mr. Wood and his crowd are the people who have been raising such a row because the Germans in the West lost their votes. We have had hon. gentlemen talk in that way here. The German schools in the West, and the Germanizing of the West rests at their door. They are responsible. We know exactly where all this clamour comes from, and we know there is a small clique of these men in the West, so-called leaders of the farmers, there, who are trying to induce them to form Soviets1, and councils of agriculture, [DOT]and this, that, and the other thing which will have the effect of destroying industry and dividing this country. Now I do not pretend, and I do not wish to be so understood to be preaching class hatred of any kind. We have had a little bit of that class, of race hatred between Quebec and Ontario, and nothing has come of it, only perhaps a broken head or two; but the kind of class hatred to which I am alluding touches the life of everybody-it touches the pocket and the employment of all. It is going to tear this country to pieces and destroy its industries-that is exactly what is going to happen. Let me ask hon. gentlemen a question-and I would like them, and the people of this country to ponder well over it-how are you going to get additional employment for the returned soldier in factories if you are going to close those factories? I cannot see how it is going to be done; and to my mind it is disgraceful that there can be found in this Dominion people going about the country preaching class hatred of that kind. I know exactly what I am talking about. Up in my riding ia year ago there was a gathering of farmers, and they sent for me to>
come and direct them. We weire taking council together to find out how they could best increase production for that particular township for the coming year to help in the war. I went there and we had the finest meeting possible. Talk about a class meeting, or a religious meeting-there was nothing at all of the kind that could equal it. When the meeting was over and the assembled farmers had decided that they were going to add five or ten acres of wheat each, so many cattle and hogs, and what they were going to do to make up for

the boys that were away (they were going to help one another anti exchange their labour with each other and do all the good they could) about half past nine a man came in with a grip under his arm and asked if he could be allowed to talk. We said " yes " we were quite willing, and he got up and started in preaching this Bolshevism. First, he wanted to destroy the commercial- travellers because he said they were eating up $500,000,000 a year of the money of this country. Then the lawyers came in for criticism. They were the worst of the lot, they were parasites, the names he called them were something awful. Then he started after the other professions and the manufacturers, and the legislators, and it was only a tirade and torrent of abuse. He had been going along in this way for about half an hour when a farmer rose and objected. He said to me, " Are we going to listen to all this nonsense? Where does this man come from? Is he a pro-German?" I said, "I do not know." Then the farmer asked the man himself, "Where dot you come from?" The man replied that he came from some place in western Ontario. The farmer then said to him, "How do you come to be here preaching this kind of stuff to us, who pays you for coming here?" The man's reply was, "The United Farmers of Alberta sent down a thousand dollars to carry on this propaganda." There is the whole story. Then a farmer said, "You are not preaching Canadian propaganda-you are a disloyal subject and a pro-German," and four or five of the audience made a rush for him and he had to get out of the meeting. That is the kind of propaganda that is being carried on all over the country, and we might as well face the issue now squarely and fairly, we might as well look it fairly in the face and ask ourselves the question, "Are we going to be subjected constantly to these class hatred programmes, or are we going to listen to such trash for the moment in the presence of our dead, or going to try and build Canada into a great country and be a united people.
Now let us look at the question from another aspect. I saw this programme of the Council of Agriculture. It was very nicely and skilfully drawn up, and a man in my riding, a farmer, said to me, "Did you read that platform?" I said, "Yes, I did." "Well, you know," he said, "it reminds me of the dress my old lady wears in the summer." I inquired, "What is that?" He said, "It is a Mother Hubbard." I inquired, "Why is it like a Mother Hub-oard dress?" "Because," he said, "it
covers everything." This programme covers everything. There are only two things left out of it that I can discover, the Ouija Board and the Twentieth Plane, nothing else. Very well, let us examine it. What are the tariff propojsals? I have dealt with those and I have told the House plainly that if you are going to remove the protection that we have we shaill be destroyed industrially. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) put a very pertinent question, and placed his finger on the sore spot when he asked, "Why cannot Canada compete?	That is the whole thing.
I say that in the markets of the world we have had to go out and seek business in competition with the Americans during the last few years. In one export business the manufacture of wire, Canadian manufacturers have increased the business from nothing to $9,000,000 last year in competition with the United States and foreign countries. Why can we not compete at home? That is the question. The reason that iwe cannot compete is because the L mted States will not allow us a free exchange with them.- If we had a free exchange of commodities, of all kinds of manufactured products, with the United States, there is not a manufacturer in the Dominion but would be willing to compete and be very glad to do so. But what has occurred? They never allow us to compete on fair terms. As a matter of fact a great many of the leading manufacturers in Canada to-day have within the last three or four years built factories in the United States, so that when their line of business is wiped out by the western propaganda they can take their workmen over there and find them employment. The United States will welcome them, and protect them with a high tariff. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, is that fair to our working men? Is that building up this country? Can we compete under such circumstances? Is there any line of business that we can compete in? Can the grain growers in the West compete with United States at the present moment in the article of wheat?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


John Allister Currie: See where you are at the present moment.


An hon. MEMBER:: There is no doubt we can compete.


John Allister Currie: You will know inside oi six months whether you can compete or not. You know that to-day you cannot compete to the extent of a bushel of wheat in the foreign markets against American wheat.


An hon. MEMBER:: We are willing to try.


Mr CURRIE:: Unless, as an hon. member said last night, the Government fixes a price for you in your local market you cannot compete and you have to submit
to a loss on the wheat you export for the Americans are going to take a big loss which their government will pay. Who will pay your loss?


An hon. MEMBER:: What about seed?


John Allister Currie: I do not say anything about that. We bought seed for the West and I was very pleased to support that^ proposal in Parliament. That is one of the greatest examples of the benefits of a national policy.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Allister Currie: Wait a moment until I get through. I say that was one of the greatest examples of the benefits of the national policy that I have yet seen, when we bought that seed wheat for the West and especially for Saskatchewan. We bought that wheat and gave it to the farmers, and inside of a year or two it resulted in the addition of over a million bushels yearly to the crop of this country. That was national protection. Now, suppose we had adopted the policy of "do nothing" which these gentlemen teach; what- would have happened then to the West? I am quite in agreement with the hon. member for Maple Creek when he says that we should fix a price for the wheat of the West. That is in line with the National Policy.


John Archibald Maharg: May I make a correction? The hon. gentleman has made the straight assertion that I asked this Government to fix the price of wheat.


John Allister Currie: No, I am wrong there. The grain growers of the hon. gentleman s province asked that, and I will support my hon. friend in this House on that proposal- if he will be a good National Policy man and go in for protection. You cannot blow hot and cold in this matter. You cannot get all your manufactured goods free and then ask the rest of the country to fix a price for your products. That is impossible. We should stand together on all these questions. Having regard to the tremendous production of cereals in the United States, it is a question whether we should go in for cereals as strongly this year as we might.
The hon. gentleman painted a lurid picture last night of what was to happen to the farmers of his province. He said that

the farmers of a community of 100,000 received only something like 370,000,000, or $700 each, from the sale of their exported grain. But only a few days ago the Minister of Agriculture for Saskatchewan was telling the assembled farmers there that that province had marketed over $370,000,000 worth of farm products and that the average income from this source of every farmer in the province was over $3,700. Now, who are we to believe? I believe that the people there are not so badly off. I am inclined to accept Mr. Dunning s statement in preference to that of the member for Maple Creek' (Mr. Maharg), although I have great regard for that hon. gentleman. I think, however, that in the statement which the hon. member for Maple Creek made, he had reference only to wheat, not to other cereals.
Now, I have given you a picture of what is going to happen. You may say: "What are you going to do about it?" I am going to point out the actual facts of the case.
I am going to ask hon. members of this House to forget all this class talk, to remember there are two sides to every question. I sat at the feet of Macdonald and Tupper and other great statesmen. I listened to their arguments, and I became a firm protectionist. I made up my mind that protection does not mean high tariff. It means the assisting of every person in this country when he is in need; it means an effort to build up our country and make it greater to give it a place in the sun. It is not a question of high taxation or low taxation. I am going to deal with the matter of taxes in a few minutes. But let me ask this: Is there anything in the policy of this Council of Agriculture, when you examine it from end to end, which can convince you that the community which adopted that platform has shown any desire to assist in paying the taxes which have been brought about by the great war? The figures will be here in a few days, and I am satisfied that it will then be shown that the people of Toronto are paying more income tax-a form of taxation which all the western members are strongly in favour of

into the Dominion treasury than all the Prairie Provinces are paying. The member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) laughs. He is taking great consolation to himself because the Governments of the United States and of Canada have adopted the income tax. But income tax is only a form of taxation whereby a government raises revenue for its purposes. Various methods of taxation were em-

ployed before the income tax was adopted. In South Africa they have a hut tax; a man pays so much on his hut. In England the tax on window-glass was abolished years ago; people did not dare put window-glass in their houses without being taxed for doing so. Then, there were taxes on the wheels of the carts, so that it was found advisable to have carts with two wheels instead of four. Previous to the war Great Britain did not raise the bulk of its taxation by an income tax. Income tax did not amount to fifty per cent of the taxes raised by Great Britain. She now has a large income tax because there was no other way in which the money of the wealthy people could be got at. The leader of this Government was not careful in his provision for an income tax on the people of this country; he did not distinguish between the people who earn their income by personal exertion and those who derive their income from estates that have been left to them or investments. That distinction is made in Great Britain. For instance, a lawyer like the Minister of Public Works (Hon. F. B. Carvell) has, we will say, an income of $6,000 or $7,000; he is taxed on a certain amount of that, while a farmer alongside of him whose income is the same, if not larger, escapes the income tax entirely by saying: "My income is in the nature of wages; I have worked hard with my hands for my income. What I have spent on my family should be deducted and therefore I do not have to pay any taxes." This man is let off, while the hon. member is taxed. That is not fair.
The income tax is very unjust in many ways. Income tax is a field which is or should be reserved entirely for municipalities. In Toronto I pay an income tax of 3J per cent on the little salary which I get -"indemnity," we call it-from the House of Commons; and other members from Toronto do the same. Then we have to turn around and pay an added tax to the Bomin-ion Government on that same amount. In adopting the system of income tax, the Dominion Government, rightly or wrongly, entered a sphere of taxation which had been reserved for the municipalities. Having done that, it must now go further into it and get after the land sooner or later; then where will our friends the agriculturists come in? The platform of the Council of Agriculture states that tnere should be a tax on land that is not used. Well, go ahead and do that, and in a few years there will be no land that is not used; then where will you get your taxes? The next step will
then be the placing of a tax on the farm. After the great Napoleonic War there was a land tax in England of eight shillings on every acre of farm land. Considering the direct tax you would have to put on the farmers of this country if you abolish custom duties, as compared with that imposed upon other classes, two dollars an acre would be a fair amount to impose on farm lands. Every farmer in this country would, therefore, if you are going to adopt the system of directly taxing their property, have to pay two dollars an acre as his share of that taxation. What Government would carry out that idea and live? If you are going to wipe out the industries that are now supplying $40,000,000 or $50,000,000 of this taxation by taxing their output, where will you then go to get your money? The declarations of the Council of Agriculture are revolutionary; they include many of the platforms of the Soviets. If you put the tax all on one thing and thus wipe out that thing altogether, then, of course you wipe out the taxation. How can you get an income out of the factory in the East if you take steps which cause the factory to be closed and it has moved to the United States?
I warn every man, woman and child in this country who earns his living by industry to beware of agitations of this kind. I ask every man, woman or child who owns a Victory Bond: What is going to be it? value if this policy is carried out? If the leader of the Government intends to adopt this policy of cutting down protection, to whom is he going to appeal when he again wants to sell Victory Bonds? What will be the result of such a policy? Can he sell his bonds to the Council of Agriculture? This country has only a small population. It comprises a number of provinces and those provinces have many divergent interests. Let me briefly sketch the condition of affairs in each province, and then let me ask the people of those provinces whether they are prepared to adopt an agrarian policy as against an industrial policy?
Let me first consider 'that province down by the sea which is represented by the leader of the Opposition . (Mr. McKenzie). He could tell me that at the present time hundreds of workingmen are walking the streets of the towns of 'that province, waiting to see what the action of the Government is going to be in the matter of protection of industries. At the present moment in Canada, -all industry is paralysed, standing still. Gentlemen will have to ex-

cuse me for using such strong language, because I am not accustomed 'to doing so; but I am a good patriot-at least I hope so; indeed, I hope we are all good patriots and when some one introduces such an antinational policy at such a critical time, it is like a bugler sounding the retreat to our army when the Germans are upon them. That is the position we are in. In my hon. friend's province down by the sea there is a vast quantity of coal; but owing to the policy that has been adopted of taking away the ships from this country and using them elsewhere, the coal industry of Nova Scotia lias languished, and instead of Canada supplying South America, Central America and part of Europe with coal, as She could have done if we bad been allowed to use our own ships, our ships are taken away from us, no effort is made to replace them, and the collieries are virtually idle. The coal industry >and the steel industry of Nova Scotia are great industries and the steel industry will, if it is properly developed, be one of the greatest industries in the world. If is far greater than that of Germany because Germany has lost her iron fields, whereas Canada has her iron and her coal fields there. What can a policy of agriculture to offer to the province of Nova Scotia? It means that if you remove the taxes, the manufacture of agricultural and other implements will fall into the bands of United States manufacturers and there will be less iron and coal needed from Nova Scotia. The result will be that many of 'those brave Nova Scotians-and in Nova Scotia is to be found the finest class of industrial people on the continent-will start the same old exodus of twenty years ago into the New England States. It is these people who went into these States in the old days who have made itheir industries what they are. At the present time, if you go into one of the manufacturing concerns in the New England States an'd ask to see the skilled mechanic, Who is running the plant, the master-mechanic, the man who does the designing, you will find What? That he is a Nova Scotian. Eecently, I had occasion to go to Pittsburg to consult one of the greatest metallurgists in the world. After we had talked for a while, he said: " You will be surprised to know that I am a Scotch Canadian." I said: "Are you?" " Yes," he said, " 'my father moved to the New England States when I was a small boy, and I was born in Nova Scotia." Nova Scotia has never had a proper opportunity; it has never bad a 'tin roof put on its in-
dustries. Some people, even amongst Nova Scotians, are continually preaching against the industries of that province. What has Nova Scotia to expect out of grain farming? Nothing at all. The country is, to a certain extent, rough, and is not adapted to agriculture; it would barely feed its own population. Nevertheless, Nova Scotia, with all its wealth of coal and iron, can easily sustain an industrial population of 20 000,000. Its coal and iron, is on the sea-board, where it should compete with the world.
Let me come now to New Brunswick, and we find similar conditions in its forests and mines. Nothing is being done to develop its fisheries, although there are great fisheries there. If this country had taken the proper stand, so far as the fisheries of that province are concerned, it would have provided cold storage facilities, so that the fisheries oi New Brunswick-and the same may be said of Nova Scotia-would have been supplying frozen fish to Europe in competition with the whole world. But they cannot compete. Why? Because they have not the money to provide themselves with the necessary transportation to put their products on the markets of the world. Assistance from the Government is necessary, and a national policy is a policy that would provide them with ships and cold storage and would see that their fish were put on the markets of the world.
In Quebec there are great water-powers, vast iron fields, great forests and large industries. The finest workers to he found in Canada are from Quebec. The people of Quebec are an industrial people, and there is no reason why, with her cheap power, Quebec should not be the Manchester of the whole of North America. In textiles, in manufactures that require power and skilled workmen, she has made tremendous strides. Does the man or woman who works in a factory in Quebec want to have that factory closed? The manufacturers can always, in some way or another, escape disaster; he will cash in, and move to the United States, but the workingman, when the factory is closed, cannot cash in. He has to give up his house, losing what he invested in it. He will have to leave his own parish, losing everything, and go to the United States in order to carry on business there. For many years, while we were fighting for industries in this country, many of the people of Quebec were unfortunately compelled to go to foreign factories in order to earn a livelihood. When the National Policy was endorsed by that great leader, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, whose seat is now vacant,

when he refused to destroy the industries of the country at the behest of some of his followers-and he was a greater protectionist than many so-called protectionists, because they did not practise what they preached- his province began to develop its industries on a greater scale, the workers came back, and emigration ceased. These people did great service in this war in manufacturing munitions. If Quebec had not an industrial population it could not do that. If it had not cheap power it could not do that. It has all that is necessary to make a country great industrially. Is there anything for Quebec in a policy that destroys the factory and fosters nothing but agriculture; that wipes out all those great factories and turns them into turnip fields?
I wag almost forgetting that little green island called Prince Edward, down by the sea. It is an agricultural island, but still it is a model of thrift, and its cities and towns are gradually acquiring factories. It has a good, sound, well educated population. It is like Denmark. Denmark has no coal and it is the greatest agricultural country in the world, but still one-third of the population of Denmark is an industrial population, employed in factories.
Let us see what resources Ontario possesses. Ontario and Quebec have the cheapest power in the world. This war has taught us at least one thing, and that is this: Coal is power, water is power. Power is everything. The country that has the cheapest power is the country that is going to dominate the industries of the world, if that country is given the opportunity. Coal will never be a dollar a ton again. I used to buy lots of coal for a dollar a ton, but you cannot buy it at any such figure in the United States now. Coal will never go back to a dollar a ton again, unless, perhaps, in Alberta. We have power in Ontario and power in Quebec. We can harness that power on to the belt of a machine at a price equal to a dollar a ton coal. When we do that we can compete with the world, but we cannot compete with the United States in the way its goods are sold in this country. Let me point out one way in which they have, to my personal knowledge, competed with Canadian manufacturers, and I will ask you if such a course is fair. The Globe, in its discussion of the wire industry, stated that a large quantity of wire products had been sold Vy the United States in western Canada last year. That is true. How does it happen that while we are sending thousands of tons of wire products out of this country in competition with the United States, the United States can com-36
pete with us in the home markets? On that class of goods the tariff is very small. This is the method the United States' manufacturers adopt: During the whole period of the war the base price of nails in Pittsburg was about $3.50 per hundred pounds. That was the price quoted on your order. If you were an American and went to Pittsburg for a car of nails they would say: "The ordered price is $3.50 per hundred weight in car lots." I might say that I wanted a carload of nails to sell in Indiana. They would ask me when I wanted the nails. I might say: "Next week, because there are a lot of farmers there wanting to build farm houses." They would reply, "Very sorry, we will book your order, but we cannot guarantee to deliver until after the war." Then you wotdd be stumped and would have to buy "spot" nails. The price of "spot" nails ranged from $5.00 to $5.50; that was the export price to all foreign countries except Canada. * The conditions were then, that if you were an American and wanted nails for immediate delivery, you had to pay $5.50, but if you were a Canadian you could have the nails delivered next week at $3.50, the ordered price, because they want to put Canadian industries out of business. The Canadian manufacturers sold nine million dollars worth of wire products in competition with American manufacturers in the markets of the world last year, and at the same time the Americans took our market here. They are doing exactly the same thing with wheat, by putting an embargo on it. That is their policy every time-to drive our industries out of business-and they have no more mercy on a Canadian farmer than for any other Canadian manufacturer; and the farmer is the biggest manufacturer Canada has.
We now come to consider the province of Ontario from an industrial standpoint. We have the largest amount of developed water-power, and we have a thrifty population. Toronto is a great city. Some people call it "Hogtown," but its heart beats true to the people, and industries of this country, no matter where they are located. It has just as soft a spot in its heart for the men of the West as for any other people in the world. Why, most of the people now living in the West originally came from Ontario. Manitoba is peopled almost entirely by people from this province, and I know the heart of the West responds to the heartbeats of Ontario. Ontario's policy is to build up everything in this country, so that one day Canada will have her place in the sun with other na-



tions. The province is rich in iron. It has no coal, except white coal, hut where in the world can you find more silver than in Ontario, where can you find gold mines greater or better developed than in our province? The Hollinger mine is the greatest gold mine in the world.
I want to tell the House something about the iron mines of Ontario. We have great fields of iron which have never been touched, but there is not a workable area of iron ore in the province an acre in extent that has not been staked out and owned by the alien. In the United States millions of dollars are invested in the iron business; there is more money involved in that business than the value of the whole resources of Canada. These corporations are not interested in opening up iron mines in Ontario. To show how they operate, there are great deposits of iron in Minnesota. A new range had recently been discovered known as the Cayuna range. Some poor men owned that range at first, but later an option was taken on the property by a great iron corporation in the United States, which put in two years diamond drilling on. the range. When they got through they said to the owners: "We are very sorry, hut we cannot exercise our option as (here is no ore there " That is the kind of stunner the people of Canada get Who are interested in iron areas, after they are examined by American corporations, unless the property should be of proved value, when it might be taken over and shut down. As it happened, there were men of money on that Cayuna Range and they, the owners, proceeded to develop it with their own money, and last year the range turned out to be one of the great iron areas of the United States. That shows that the iron corporation which had an option on the property was only interested in keeping the iron out of the market. That is what these people would do with the iron deposits of Ontario, just to keep the iron out of our markets. I hope that fresh discoveries of iron will be made in the province of Ontario and, as a good National Policy man, I trust the Government will do something to assist the iron mining industry of this country, and then the province of Ontario will take its rightful place as a great producer if iron.
The province of Manitoba is a great graingrowing country. The farmers of that province have become wealthy and have decided to make their homes there. They have beautiful farms, and houses like the chateaux of France. The city of Winnipeg has cheaper power than almost any city in the

world and is destined to be one of our greatest manufacturing cities-greater even than St. Paul or St. Louis. I do not know whether I shall live to see that day, but it will undoubtedly come if the Government adopts the policy I should like to see adopted, because Winnipeg has cheaper power, an active population, and other advantages. The northern part of Manitoba contains untold mineral wealth. In that district is the Mandy mine, one of the greatest copper mines in the world. Rich gold and nickel mines have also been discovered in this province. What is this country doing to assist in the development of those mines? Nothing. I am not one of those who want to see public money thrown away at the present juncture, but I would say that it is the duty of the Government, in the case of mines that have been proved to contain forty to fifty million dollars worth of ore, to build railways to bring out the products of the mines. The late J. J. Hill used to say that one good copper mine in the West was better than a whole wheat county. I do not know whether that is true or not, but if what the best experts in the world say of the mines of northern Manitoba is true we have a wonderful source of wealth there, which will mean a great future for the province of Manitoba and the country as a whole. I hope to see the day when the province of Manitoba will march along with Ontario. Hon. members may be surprised to know that in the particular business in which I am engaged we can buy manufactured goods from the city of Winnipeg and bring them down to Ontario cheaper than we can get those go.ods from our local mills. We ship our product in jute bags, and we bought those bags in the city of Winnipeg cheaper than we could have got them in Ontario or the East. Our staves we buy from New Brunswick. This goes to show that the industries of this country are closely interlinked together and that there is no inter-provincial divisions. We. must all realize that, and not be small and narrow and provincial.
I now come to the province of Saskatchewan. One of the things the people of that province want is the abolition of the duty on cement. Now if there is one business that the AVest is succeeding in, it is the manufacture of cement. Ontario no longer makes any cement for the West. All the cement the West uses, and it uses a great deal, is manufactured in the West. Saskatchewan has rich fields of clay for cement, and great areas of cheap coal to burn that cement, and is destined to be one of the

great cement producing districts in the world.
There is another point. Can any hon. member tell me of any industry involving manual labour and the use of power that has been established in this country without the help of a protective tariff ? We all know, if we read the history of the United States aright, that the greatest industry in that country is cotton, and that the cotton industry was not firmly established in the United States for many years until after a stout protective tariff was put on cotton so as to give their own cotton growers a chance against East Indian cotton. Can anybody point to one single industry established in Canada that has not been protected? In Saskatchewan there are great areas of natural gas and coal, and areas of oil that undoubtedly have not yet been discovered in that great province, which I believe will be one of the greatest manufacturing provinces in the Confederation. There are also great mineral resources, such as asphaltum, in the northern parts of that territory. We have been establishing councils of research to see what industries we can establish. Permit me, Sir, to point out one industry which we could establish by a national policy. There is no duty on pottery coming into Canada. We have no potteries. Consider the millions of dollars worth of china that is brought into Canada, yet, strange to say, the china clay, feldspar and all the materials that go to make pottery in the United States are imported into the United States from Canada, and all the cups and saucers and chinaware used there are manufactured from Canadian materials. Why should we let ourselves be robbed of our natural resources in that way? Why should the pottery industry not be established in Canada? I understand there are great deposits of china clay in Saskatchewan. Now, why should not thousands of soldiers who are engaged in potteries in England not be brought to these provinces so that a great industry might be established in this country? There are also vast areas of glass sand in Canada. We had a small glass industry in Canada, but whisky bottles were all that we made, because that was the only line protected. Window glass to the value of $8,000,000 or $9,000,000 a year,-and up to even $15,000,000 is used in Canada. But we have no window glass industry in this country because there has been no duty on window glass, and you cannot establish an industry under such circumstances. One half of the wire industry of this country is without protection, and if this Government would place a proper 361
protective tariff on it I am confident in saying that a whole division of returned soldiers could be absorbed in that industry alone. We have not these industries simply because there is no duty. There is no better glass sand than is to be found in the West, and we should be making all the glass windows that are needed for our stores, and for the stores of the Empire, and I believe we could secure the trade of Australia and foreign countries if we had such an industry here. But all the people of Saskatchewan do not approve of this agitation and class hatred, and they are looking forward to the day when Saskatoon and Regina and all those fine cities there will see the wheels of industry running, and every village will have its factories. There is no reason why this should not be so, and why the western farmer should not take his automobile in the evening and go into town and meet his boy and girl at the factory and go to the movies. That would be the proper condition in this country, but you cannot live miles from civilization and make yourself believe that that is right. Why, Mr. Speaker, if I were to believe the doctrine that is being preached by alleged representatives of agriculture, I would not think of advising returned soldiers or any body else to go into farming, for they would be nothing more nor less than slaves. You cannot preach that doctrine to the farmer, because he knows better. The farmers of Ontario are thrifty, having in their houses all the modern conveniences of the city home. They are becoming wealthy land-owners, and have all their money in the Ontario factories; and that is why they voted against reciprocity.
If we took the tariff off and reverted to free trade and that policy came before the people of this country again they would reject it. Now, as regards Alberta, the German Empire has 4.5 per cent of the coal of the world. Alberta has 124 per cent. Canada has 174 per cent of the coal of the world, and yet Germany built an Empire on 44 per cent. Now, if we are really Canadians we will not do one single act in this House or elsewhere that would tend to delay the day when Canada will take her proper place as the greatest manufacturing country in the world, with all the resources we have. I have never seen iron in Michigan or 'Minnesota to equal that of Alberta. There is in that province everything that goes to make a country great. It possesses the elements to make it the greatest steel and iron producing section of the whole of North America. " That is all right, Colonel," you say, " but why not let all the coal fields there be used to grow wheat? Never mind

about the coal." Well, when I was a young man, twenty-five years ago, .1 was in Colorado. In that state it was all gold mining, Cripple creek was booming and any one who mentioned the iron industry would be run out. The idea of Colorado competing with Pittsburg in the iron or steel business was considered absurd. But what has happened? To-day Colorado has forgotten about Cripple creek and although it is far away in the Western States it has an iron and steel industry that produces great wealth, and is of considerable importance, and will compare with any steel and iron centre in the world. At that time no mention could ever be made of iron. I hope to see the day -if this country adopts a proper system of protection, when the province of Alberta will put Pittsburg and all those iron regions in the United States in the shade. Its coal resources are far greater than Pennsylvania ever dreamed of, it has iron and gas, and all it needs is a policy of protection to encourage investment there, and the building of railroads to connect the iron with the coal fields, and the coal fields and iron fields with the natural gas resources, and Alberta will have a greater iron industry than the world has ever seen. Yet the farmers of Alberta, headed by a man named Wood, want all the industries of the East destroyed, and would discourage the eastern man who would like to go to develop these resources from going West and investing his dollar there. Has Alberta after all staked its all in agriculture? Has Saskatchewan staked its all in agriculture? Agriculture is only one of the dozen eggs they have in the basket. And Manitoba? Well, it does not follow the programme of the agriculturalists when it comes to voting. And let me turn to ask the province by the sea in the west, British Columbia, with its great areas of coal and iron, and its water-powers beyond the comprehensions of the world. No country in the world has such great hidden wealth as British Columbia. It has a great wealth of minerals, a great wealth of coal, and enormous forest wealth, it is capable of producing tremendous quantities of paper.
As to fisheries, no country can equal it. Well, British Columbia is British Columbia and after all British Columbia is not the "West" British Columbia is the place where the east and west meet. If we are going to have foreign trade one of the great channels oi the country through which that trade will pass will be British Columbia. Our greatest field for foreign trade is the Orient, and Australasia.
Now, you may ask me:	What do you
suggest doing? That is the question, if I IMr. Currie.]
had the doing, I would immediately place an embargo upon the grain and manufactured products of every other country. Talk about the handling of grain! Those men who talk about grain-growing in the West, those men who control the grain of the West, allow a small coterie of Americans to get in ahead of them and to fill our terminal elevators with grain while they have their grain still in the granaries. It is absurd. The time has oome when no alien should be allowed to own any of the granaries or transportation resources of this country. I do not care who he may be, or how friendly he may be. They have now blocked all our elevators with their grain. If the agriculturists of the West had devoted as much of their time to looking after their own interests as far as the elevators are concerned as after the affairs of the eastern manufacturers they would not have allowed their elevators to be stuffed with American grain while their own wheat is still in the fields and granaries.
The hon. member for Maple Creek made reference to the late lamented leader of the Liberal party, and he said that he was the man who first brought the elevators in the West to time. The western elevators are not brought to time. I have in my pocket a report on these western elevators which I might read, but I have no desire to extend my remarks. There are men in this House who are interested in these terminal elevators. Mr. Speaker, will you be surprised when I tell you that last year the overage-that is the amount of grain that was illegally taken from the farmers in the West by the elevators amounted to over $2,000,000. Has there been any kick? Or any row raised about that with the elevators?-No. Why? The -Grain Growers own elevators and I understand the earnings of that company last year were 44J per cent. There is no manufacturing industry in the East that can -compare with that, not even Sir Joseph Fl-avelle's. Let us take the mote out.of our own eye before we remove the beam from any body else's.
What would I do? The situation is very grave. Let us drop all this trade controversy for the moment. Let us assist the Government and back it- up. Let us insist upon the adoption of a policy of embargo similar to that which every other country has adopted so that when we g-o into treaty making we will have a jack knife in a trade we will have -a jimmy that will force some of our products into the markets -of those countries. This is the way to provide foreign markets for our products.
There -is only one way to get those foreign markets and that is by providing pro-

per transportation at sea. There has been a great deal of talk about this 'Government giving contracts for building ships but that is the wisest thing the Government ever did and there is not a ship building on our stocks to-day that could not be sold tomorrow for a great deal more money than it is costing us to Japan or some other nation. That is ia fact that everybody in the business knows. Those ships should be put on those lines of transportation, not between Canada and broken down European countries which have been devastated by the war but between Canada, South and Central America. South Africa, India, China, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. What did the export of our manufactured _ goods last year amount to outside of munitions? It amounted to over half a billion dollars, principally to these countries. If this Government provided lines of transportation So that goods can be transported from Canadian factories to the markets of the world at less than they can be carried from the factories of Germany, France or the United States, we can get the market. We will get them. It will not matter then so much if the Americans come in and sell their stuff here; we can carry on and Canada will become a great manufacturing country and its products will find a market all over the world. The American manufacturers want a market at their door. They are afraid to go abroad in search of markets. It is only the big companies there that seek the foreign markets. The manufacturer in Canada has sought a market for his goods abroad; he has more courage than any other man in the world. When they were asked to make shells the Canadian manufacturers supplied their own money and financed themselves whereas in every other country the manufacturers were financed by the government. If you provide the Canadian manufacturer with transportation they will get the business. You would imagine from listening to those who are trying to stir up class hatred that the Canadian manufacturer is a terrible man. The manufacturer has a heart like any other man. He has a wife and family, he tries to do good in the community. He sometimes goes to church on Sunday. He is not such an awful man as he is pictured. When it comes to the question of patriotism the manufacturer takes no back seat to any grain-grower or any other person in the community. He has given a great deal to the war. What did the manufacturer do when he was asked to make munitions? In England they gave the manufacturer the money with which to put in his
machinery and to finance the payment of his workmen. In this country the manufacturer had to go down on his knees and dig and shovel for himself. He did that and he made munitions cheaper than in any other country in the world. Did he not play his part in this war? You would think that it was not the man fighting in the trenches who won the war but that it was somebody away back on a farm or little village who talked politics. It makes me tired to hear such nonsense as that. Let us take a big view of this question. The manufacturer has done his share. He only asks what is fair and square. He does not want the country to adopt a policy that is _ going to drive his workmen out of his factory and into a foreign country. Nor, does he want to be driven out of the country himself. He wants to be considered a Canadian. His profits have not been as great as those of any other class of the community. I mentioned that the grain growers' profits were 44J per cent. I do not believe that any of these manufacturers have ever made such a profit as that. Let us forget all that and let us be big. Let us adopt the policy of Canada for the Canadians. Let us adopt a policy that will give employment to our soldiers and to every class of the community. We cannot grow up to be a great nation if one foot-the industrial foot-is bound up like the foot of a Chinese lady who goes limping about. We cannot make this a great country unless it is well balanced. The United States is an example to us in that respect. The United States is a great country and under normal conditions it does not care whether it exports its cereals or not. In case of war the United States could live alone. It is a self-contained country. Germany was almost in the same position before the war. It adopted a form of national policy and aspired to national greatness. One hundred years ago Germany was composed of a hundred very small states but they united and Germany became a great industrial country. She was foolish enough to commence this war in the effort to dominate the world industrially. She made a mistake as a result of which her dream of world power has been shattered but not her industries. Her industries will come back again and her -products will seek the markets of the world later on. Are we prepared to give them free trade?
I have put before the House the views of those who look upon this question in the same way as I do. I sat at the feet of the fathers of the National Policy; I have

listened to their arguments. I have nothing to go back upon in that respect. I am a Liberal-Conservative. I believe in the National Policy and I do not believe in giving way one inch to sectionalism, to one part of this country in opposition to the interests of another part. My party is not in any sense represented in this Govern-ernment. We realize that. We were quite willing-
Some lion. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


John Allister Currie: Hon. gentlemen need not laugh. I am stating facts. The Conservative party could have carried on. It never needed to ask anybody to come in, but when this war was on, in the greatness of their hearts, there was not a single man of the party that was not willing to ask other members of this House or gentlemen outside who were of the same views as we were in regard to carrying on the war, to come in and take a share of the responsibility. But the Conservative party did not have before it, when that question was discussed, the trade issue. We did not have that before us, and we did not invite people into the Government of the day who were going to adopt the policy that would be destructive in its effects on agriculture or the industries of the country. We did not follow the policy that was adopted in Great Britain, the policy of governing by groups whereby the Unionists have their own caucus and their own whips, the Conservatives have their own caucus and their own whips, and the Liberals who went over to the Liberal-Unionist ranks have their own caucus and their own whips. According to that rule, which is an historic one, we, the Conservatives in this House, should have had our own whips and our own caucus, and be represented directly in the Government by our own ministers. We did not do that, we were big and broad enough not to press for that. The Conservatives in this House have not held any caucus, and have not decided, or taken, any ground as far as any of the policies of the country are concerned -we were quite willing to leave that to the Union Government as an Administration. Other groups have caucused. But if there is going to be a change, if there is going to be deviation by the adoption of any policy that violates the principles of the historic Conservative party, there will be, without question, a caucus and a meeting of the Conservative party of this country in convention. It will foregather and we snail see who is going to have the funeral-we shall have a state funeral of some kind.

There is no doubt about -	- can set that
down as being as certain as that the sun rises in the East every day. After all the sacrifices that the members of that party have undergone for the sake of peace and unity and the building up of this country, if the principles which they have fought for to build up this country, and with which we have beaten our opponents again and again-and we can beat them again with the same policies-are going to be violated, and if it is intended to come down to a policy of compromise, all I can say is, "Nothing doing." I come from a race of Covenanters, and we do not compromise. There will be a decision very soon on this matter, and whatever that decision will be. upon it will depend to a large extent the future prosperity of this country. What have our men fought for? What have they died for, for wrhat reason have they written, the name 01 Canada large in the four corners of the whole world, if we are going to adopt a policy of retrogression, if we are going to stand still. It cannot be done. We must march on, and I would ask my friends on both sides in this House, and in all parts of Canada, who are lovers of their country and like to see things moving along, to drop all this piffle about Free Trade that we had before the war when there were no real issues at stake. There is only one great issue before the people of this country at the present moment, there is only one great issue for every man in this House, and that is the future success of Canada. Now that the war is over that is the great subject that confronts us. Let us think of that constantly, let us forget our own personal interest and put the interests of Canada above everything else.
iMr. MICHAEL CLARK (Red Deer): Does not my hon. friend, who has just taken his seat, think it would be wise ro give the evidence of a direct quotation before he makes a statement in this House that a gentleman occupying so important a public position as Mr. Wood-the United Farmers' President in Alberta-is an annexationist?


John Allister Currie: Unfortunately I have not got the statement here to prove it, but it is well known that during the Reciprocity fight Mr. Wood was trying to preach the doctrine of annexing this country to the United States, or making this country an adjunct of the Republic. He is an American bom, and he thought he had all the Americans in western Canada behind him in that propaganda. Unfortunately for him, when the war broke out, and the Americans were

drawn into the struggle, those settlers of that nationality in the West gave every evidence that they are just as good and loyal Canadians as the rest of the people of Canada. I have not got the quotation, but it is well known in the East and spoken of everywhere, that Mr. Wood was an avowed annexationist-that his object is to annex this country to the United States.
If that is not the case, I am very sorry "to put him in wrong." Until such time, however, as he changes his belief I shall have to adhere to my description of him.
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIlEUX (Maison-neuve): The House will not expect that in the few observations I have to offer I shall discuss the rival policies of Free Trade and Protection. Opportunity will be afforded during the debate on the Budget to deal with that very important issue; but it strikes me, after having listened to the remarks of my good friend from Simcoe (Mr. Currie) that there is something wrong in his arguments about high protection, and about the future of this country, both of which he has linked together. If I gathered rightly from his remarks, he preached the doctrine of wider markets for Canada, and at the same time advocated a policy of embargo against foreign goods.
I am only a layman, I do not pose as an authority on economics, or to have slept with Adam Smith by my bedside-although I admit some familiarity with the works of that great economist-but it seems to me that the Canadian manufacturer and the Canadian Government would have very poor results indeed if they were to place an embargo on the goods of foreign countries.


John Allister Currie: I think the hon. gentleman mistakes the purpose of an embargo. There is such a thing as an embargo, and there is also a system of licensing. The embargo would be placed against the goods of foreign countries coming into Canada; the licensing system is applied to goods exported by some countries.
Mr. LEMIlEUX:	I understood my hon.
friend to advocate placing an embargo on goods coming from the United States.


John Allister Currie: My hon. friend is correct as to that.


Rodolphe Lemieux: At all events it is clear
in my mind from what my friend said that the high protectionists of Canada all want things their own way, and those who do not share their opinions are to be termed Bolshevists.
I have listened to the lecture which my hon. friend (Mr. Currie) has read his colleagues on that side of the House. I am not impertinent enough to desire to intervene in the quarrel	or quarrels that
may exist. All	these rows,	which
have taken place in the House since the beginning of this debate, will,
I am sure, be transferred to-morrow, if I am well informed, to the caucus. We do not see any latch-string at the door ^ for entrance to that caucus, but 1 can offer some advice at least to my good friends-if the worst comes to the worst, let them follow the Queensbury rules.
Mr. Speaker, this debate has lasted long enough, and should soon come to an end.
I do not intend, therefore, to offer any lengthy remarks this afternoon; I shall make them as concise as possible in order to expedite the business of the House.
First of all, I join with members on both sides of the House in tendering my most sincere congratulations to the two young members who moved (Mr. Redman) and seconded (Mr. Manion) the Address. I think it will be agreed that they are an addition to the debating power of the House of Commons.
I wish also to congratulate my friend the member for North Cape Breton and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) upon the great honour which has been conferred upon him in his selection as leader of the Liberal party during the present session. His fidelity to his late leader and his loyalty to his friends and to the principles which they represent have been tested by his clansmen sitting at your left, Mr. Speaker. He was not deterred by clamour or by passion from doing what he conceived to be right. He knew in days gone by how to steer his course; he was not deceived by false lights on the shore; and that explains why he sits where he does to-day.
The member for North Cape Breton and Victoria succeeds, as has been said by several others, a great leader, one of the great Canadians of the age. It seems to me that in the disappearance from public life of the lamented Sir Wilfrid Laurier a giant oak has fallen in the forest. I believe that I express the sentiments of the House when I say of him:
The Knight's hones are dust,
And his good sword rust;
Hils soul is with the saints, I trust.
Mr. Speaker, 'Sir Wilfrid Laurier is gone from our midst; but his spirit is still with us. I believe that on both sides of the House we can find inspiration in the noble life and lofty ideals of Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
Allusion has been made in this House and outside of this House-notably in a

manifesto issued by the member for Shelburne and Queen's (Hon. Mr. Fielding) during the last election, when a division occurred in the ranks of the Liberal party- to the "Quebec situation." I admit that there has been a Quebec situation, unfortunately; but time is a great healer and the clash will not last forever. Already I see signs in and out of this House which indicate that the time is not far distant when the estrangement between the old province of Quebec and the rest of the Dominion will be a thing of the past. I say that the clash cannot last, because there are men of good-will on both sides of politics and amongst all races. The extremists, unfortunately, have had sway of late.; now has struck the hour of moderation and for moderate men. There was a Quebec situation, as was stated by the member for Shelburne and Queen's in his manifesto; but it was not of our making. It was very easy in 1870 for Bismarck to create a French situation by the sending of a false despatch from Ems. So it was easy in 1917 to create a Quebec situation, which, I repeat, was not of her own making.
I read during my leisure hours the speeches of that great Irishman who is acknowledged as foremost amongst English orators. You will notice that when the Irishmen produce a man of genius, John Bull, who looks always after number one, takes him unto himself. I have always been struck with the following phrase from one of Edmund Burke's speeches, which I would like some of my friends to read and to ponder;
It looks to me narrow and pedantic to apply the ordinary ideas of criminal justice to this great public contest. I do not know the method of drawing up an indictment against a whole people.
Mr. Speaker, as I stated a moment ago, there was a Quebec situation during 1917, but it was concocted, it was planned, it was matured, and it was launched, by expert hands. It was engineered by a patriot, Sir Clifford Sifton, aided and abetted by two other knights of equal fame, Sir Joseph Flavelle and Sir William Mackenzie; and it was worked up to a frenzy by a subsidized press. A clear and far-seeing man like my esteemed friend and ex-colleague, the member for Shelburne and Queen's, might have . discovered the eye-wash, the camouflage, because they were of the same creation as those of 1911 which destroyed the policy of my hon. friend, advocated by us during that year. Mr. Speaker, it was given to a plain Scotch "hielander" to discern it. The member for Shelburne and 
__	Queen S'stated the other evening
5 p.m. that gratitude was a scarce commodity. Unfortunately it is, but the Liberals of this Dominion and their representatives in this Parliament have not exhausted their supply of gratitude; and that is why at the opening of this session, on the morrow of the death of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, unanimously and enthusiastically they entrusted their political soul to a Scotch Presbyterian whose head is as cool as the snow-capped mountains of the highlands, and whose heart is as warm as the glens of dear old Scotia.
I do not need to import into this House the domestic affairs of the Liberal party. At the beginning of the session the leader of the Opposition held out the olive.branch to those hon. gentlemen who differed from us on a single issue relating to the war: to accept or reject it, as they might choose. This friendly offer was undoubtedly the extending of a privilege, if they chose to avail themselves of it, to hon. gentlemen to whom it was made. But it has been a surprise to the members to your left, Mr. Speaker, to hear some hon. gentlemen impute motives and intentions on the part of the leader of the Opposition that we know were not entertained by him when he made	this .offer
out of the goodness of his heart.
May I, therefore, be pardoned if I refer briefly to what was said on this score by my old colleague and esteemed friend, the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding)? The hon. gentleman gave us a good deal of gratuitous advice in the course of which he coupled up the friendly invitation of the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) with the claim said to have been made by some person or persons connected with the Liberal party to the effect that when the upheaval took place in 1917, those who remained true to their leader became the possessors of the Ark of the Covenant of Liberalism. Personally,-and I am pretty well informed on the affairs of the Liberal party-I do not know of any such ' claim having been made. Thank Heaven! in the Liberal party we respect individual opinions; we can differ and yet remain Liberals. I do, however, know that in repelling the persistent attacks of certain newspapers, when they continuously sneered at us and claimed that we were not real Liberals, but mere Laurier Liberals, we were obliged in self defence to direct public attention to certain historic facts; and perhaps it would he well that I should do so again in order to remove any misconception that, may exist in the mind of the hon. member for

Shelburne and Queen's or in that of any other hon. gentleman on this subject.
Estrangements and divisions have taken place before to-day in the Liberal party in Canada and in other countries. It is a common occurrence in the traditions of the Liberal party that at times the members ol that party may differ. Take the history of English Liberalism. In 1886, some Liberals of the Rowellian type differed with Mr. Gladstone. If I mistake not, the Liberals who left Mr. Gladstone on the Home Rule question and who joined the Unionist party of the time, became leaders of the Conservative party of to-day. Has not the same thing occurred at a later date? When Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman was the leader of the Liberal party in 1900 there was again a difference of opinion; and I am told, in fact I know, that the Liberals who left him on that occasion, left him for good, joining the Conservative party, and they are at the present time still within the ranks of that party. On those two occasions, therefore, it is historically true that the custodians of the Ark of the Covenant of Liberalism were those who remained true and faithful to Gladstone and to Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman.


Michael Clark: I am sure, knowing my hon. friend's mind, and appreciating as I do that he does not wish to be historically inaccurate, he will permit me to say that in the case of the Liberal-Unionist split, Sir George Trevelyan was one of two Liberal-Unionists who participated in the famous round-table conference for the reunion of the Liberal party. Afterwards, Sir George Trevelyan, on his own initiative, returned to the Liberal party.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I can quote chapter and verse in support of my own opinion. I can tell my hon. friend that Lord Lans-downe was a Liberal until he left Gladstone on the Home Rule question and became one of the leaders of the Tory party in England. Earl Grey, a former Governor General, left Gladstone and became one of the leaders of the Tory party. I may say that Lord Rosebery left Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, and Lord Rosebery is today considered one of the leaders of the Im-peralist party in England. I could give name after name; but it is true, as a matter of history-and my fibn. friend cannot deny it-that those who remained with Gladstone and with Campbell-Bannerman represented the Liberal thought of England.
!So it was in Canada at the time of Confederation. Take the example of George
Brown. In 1885, in 1890, in 1891 and in 1911-on each of these occasions of political disturbance, the Liberal leader and those who remained true to him wei'e regarded as the custodians of the Ark of the Covenant of Canadian Liberalism. Does the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) contend that the upheaval of 1917 must be considered as an exception to the rule, and that because of the personality of this or that gentleman who then broke with the Liberal party, the records of the past and the teachings of history must be ignored? If so, he will find few to agree with him-more particularly when it is borne in mind that by a statute of this Parliament, the leader of the Opposition is officially recognized. I will say this to my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's that there is another side to the Indian story which he told the House the other day. The wigwam was not lost; the Indian was lost. The Indian left the primeval forest in the morning; he met some white trash, drank some fire water, and in the evening when he came back into the bush, he could not find the wigwam. I would advise my hon. friend to hold another parley with John, the Indian, and say to him: "John, the wigwam is not lost; the wigwam is just where it always was, but the old chief, against whom we took the war path is dead; and so you might as well put away your tomahawk and scalping knife and come in from the war path and lend a hand to those who are trying to restore a free Parliament in order that they may re-establish the ways of peace."
To be serious, let me say this: The Liberal party is greater than any individual. Further, it is our belief that in the general recognition of this truth by Liberals of all shades of opinion will there be found a rallying place for the forces that make for national harmony and national progress, and that only upon such common ground will it be possible to formulate a policy that will make Liberalism the cure for the-ills against which the masses of the people are now crying out in words of ominous import.
I remember, when I was a boy here at the University, trying to emulate my good friend the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Murphy), the professor would ask me to translate from Pope's Essay on Criticism. I remember the first two lines of that Essay:
'Tis with our judgments as our watches, none
Go just alike, yet each believes his own.
Exactly so. My hon. friend and esteemed colleague the member for Shelburne and

Queen's (-Mr. Fielding) believes lie is right in his conception of Liberalism. I believe he is wrong. Our watches do not go just alike. We each believe our own. I will make a bargain with him. Your watch, my friend, is not accurate. Perhaps mine is not accurate. Let us therefore turn to the old grandfather clock and set the time by it.
Mr. Speaker, this awful war is over, and I need not say how proud we all are of the record our soldiers made at the front- proud of the living, and prouder still of the dead. If this victory means anything it means the crushing of militarism, not only in Germany, but the whole world over, Canada included. -Canadians have played their part in this war. For territorial aggrandisement? No. For the securing of indemnity? No. For a voice in the foreign affairs of the British -Empire? No, Mr. -Speaker. The five hundred thousand Canadian soldiers who with unfaltering steps faced the grey lines of Germany fought the battles of this war in order to put an end to all wars in the future, so that there might not perish from the earth what was so w-ell defined by old Lincoln as " Government of the people, hy the people, for the people." What will be the outcome of this welter of blood? We are told that we are to have a Society of Nations, possibly a League of Peace, but call it by whatever name you choose, I proudly hope that this Parliament of Canada. after all the sacrifices that have been made by our boys, will be called upon to ratify the treaty and the covenant of peace.
I know we are not a sovereign power, but, Sir, I remember two occasions' during my parliamentary career when this Parliament -and we were not then a sovereign power- was called upon to ratify foreign treaties- the French treaty and the Japanese treaty. Both these treaties concerned our commercial relations with two foreign countries. Surely, if this Parliament can ratify commercial treaties as a matter of course, it should be called upon, in view of all the sacrifices that have been made by Canada in this war, to ratify the Peace Treaty. We have given unsparingly in men and in money. We mourn the loss of sixty thousand of our bravest, and thousands have come back maimed or wounded. Our country is saddled with a colossal debt, our industries are crippled, and we are facing a future fraught with the gravest perils as a result of our participation in the world wrar. I claim for Canada, my country, the honour of ratifying the Peace Treaty along with the other Allied nations. Canada has won that

distinction. We owe that to the living; we owe it to the dead. True, Mr. Speaker, this may not increase our stature hy one cubit. But it may enlarge our orbit. I have no patience with those who claim to be Liberals and are satisfied with the clerks of the British Foreign Office to represent Canada and do our work eternally.
I said a moment ago that this great war was over. The historic parties are aligned anew. I have listened to several addresses by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House-all my friends-and I heard them repeat one after another their belief that all parties in this country had gone to pieces, that there were no more Liberals and no more Conservatives. True, my hon. friend from North Simeoe (Mr. Currie) declared that the old, historic Conservative party was still in existence.
I turn to my authority. Burke, for his definition of a political party:-
A body of men united for promoting by their joint endeavours the national interest upon some political principle in which they are all agreed.
Air. Speaker, the party system has existed in Great Britain for many centuries. We borrow our traditions and our ideals, politically speaking, from the mother of parliaments, and as long as there are two Britishers in the world there will be a party system, and that party system will resolve itself into two groups-a Liberal group and a Conservative group.
What is Liberalism? liberalism is not so much a policy as a habit of mind. It is the disposition of the man who looks upon each of his fellows as of equal worth with himself. Upon class distinctions in society, rank, wealth, race and creed he wages unceasing war. What is Conservatism? The Tory habitually thinks of his fellow creatures, not according to their individuality, but according to their class, the face value of which, regardless of their intrinsic worth, either entitles or disentitles them to his favour. They either belong to his own class or they do not. The real worth of each is not the standard by which he forms his judgment of them. Every act and utterance, every refusal or protest of another person is referred to the artificial connection or distinction, instead of being judged for itself. In a word, the Tory looks down from the institution to the man; the Liberal up from the man to the institution. That, Sir, is the basic distinction between Liberalism and Conservatism; it is the distinction which exists in all liberty-loving countries, such as those under the rule of King George the Fifth.

Party government needs no justification. Men differ widely in their views, but they can co-operate by subordinating some of their ideas to a general policy. What is the function of parties? It is to crystallize public sentiment, to formulate issues. In 1911 my hon. friend the Acting Prime Minister (Sir Thomas White) crystallized the policy of the Conservative party in one phrase which he coined in Toronto, " No truck or trade with the Yankees," and my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) crystallized and formulated the policy of the Liberal party-wider markets for Canada.


William Thomas White: May I be permitted to interrupt the hon. member?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Certainly.


William Thomas White: I never used such an expression at any time in my life.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am very glad indeed,
I am very happy to hear the responsible Acting Prime Minister of Canada deny the imputation that he ever used those words. Sir, it has been repeated time and again; but, of course, ashes only remain of the old buildings, and all our words are buried with the ashes.


William Thomas White: And should be.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Well, these -words have been repeated. I do not know how many sessions we have had since their alleged use, but it gives me great pleasure, indeed, to hear the Acting Piime Minister of this Government state boldly and emphatically that he never used such debasing language in reference to our great ally to the south of us. The people have a direct voice in deciding public questions and in choosing and controlling the Government. Party government, I will go further and say, intensifies popular interest in public affairs, and promotes stability and order in national affairs. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that as long as we follow the British system of government, and British ideals, we shall have the party system. It is true, parties may be temporarily decimated, but they are bound to revive. Iln England a few weeks ago Mr. Asquith was defeated-and it was a great misfortune for the United Kingdom that he was defeated; and the Liberal party was absolutely annihilated. Parties may be annihilated for a time, but, I say, they will revive; and only the day before yesterday in a by-election which took place in England, Mr. Lloyd George suffered the severest blow in his political career. In the province of Ontario the Liberal party was annihilated. We had a so-called leader who made an alliance with the Premier of that province in order to prevent public opinion from pronouncing itself on the public issues of the day. But what has happened? The people have taken into their own hands their salvation; and in by-elections which have taken place of late, Liberal opinion has asserted itself in the province of Ontario. I dare say if the Government of the day in Canada were to open some of the constituencies-the good Scotch constituency of Glengarry, the constituency of North Ontario, the constituency of Assiniboia, and Quebec East-I dare say my hon. friend would hear 'from the people; and the Government, strong as it is, might perhaps learn something from them. Mr. Speaker, you cannot change human nature. You may tell the people not to mention this, and not to speak of that. You may scientifically muzzle the press and prevent it from conveying to the public the real facts of the case. But you cannot change human nature; and already, Mr. Speaker, there is a clamour in this country against the methods adopted by the present Government. Why, Sir, we have that clamour arising from the ministerial benches. We all heard the speech delivered the other day by my hon. friend the member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes), and we heard the speech delivered by the prominent Unionist member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding). And what do we gather from these two speeches?-to take only two examples. Since the beginning of this debate my sympathies have rather been with my good friend the genial Acting Prime Minister (Sir Thomas White). He has been attacked and badly handled on right and left by his own friends. What did we hear? The hon. member for Victoria-who, I am told, was in his younger days a staunch Grit-he and the editor of the Toronto World one day bore the banners in a procession headed by the late Sir Oliver iMowat. He evidently recalls his younger days, because the other day he was the first to sound that note to the Government: "Restore the rights [DOT] of a free Parliament;" and that note was reechoed by my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's. We have been told from both sides of the House-and we have heard it especially from both groups on the other side of the House-'that Orders in Council should be abolished if responsible government is not to be a by-word. Sir, I say that the latest example that this House has had of lack of responsible government

is the Order in Council which came as a bomb the other day in reference to the receivership of the Grand Trunk Pacific. That we should in the year of our Lord, 1919 clamour for responsible government in Canada is indeed a sad commentary on Unionism in Canada. But this is not all. We have been told repeatedly by gentlemen belonging to both groups of the Government, that the iniquitous War-time Elections Act snould be repealed. We have heard that it is a blemish on the statute book of Canada. Oh, it is true, my good friend from Westminster (Mr. Stacey), whom I do not see in his seat at present, said-in order probably to forestall the criticism that might come from this side of the House- that in that election of 1917 the people did not care for the means but were only looking at the end. Mr. Speaker, it is the first time that this doctrine of the end being justified by the means has been proclaimed in the House of Commons of Canada. I have been told-indeed I have read it not once but in practically every issue of the Orange Sentinel-that this doctrine is a sinister Jesuitical one. Mr. Speaker, if that is the policy of the Unionist party as proclaimed by my hon. friend from Westminster (Mr. Stacey), I would ask my good friend, the Secretary of State (Mr. Burrell) immediately to appoint a delegate-who should be Mr. Hocken himself-and send him to Borne and have him tender .to the General of the Jesuit Order an abject apology on behalf of the Orange party. The end justifies the means, said my hon. friend from Westminster. But what about the charges which were made during the last session? What about the charges that were made, and made so eloquently, by our young friend the hon. member for iChambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault) in which it was established beyond a doubt that hundreds of men were induced to swear falsely as to their domicile in Canada? What about the charges made on the other side of the Atlantic? The Prime Minister, the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. J. D. Reid), a King's Counsel from the province of Nova Scotia, and a certain colonel from London, Ontario, were said to have had their hands in a plot during the last campaign so as to apportion votes to constituencies where ministerial candidates were not safe. What about these charges? Can we ignore them? If the Government has any honour, and its honour is in its own hands, it is in duty bound to probe the charges which have been made and to

investigate every one of them. If the Government does not do it, let it open one or two constituencies even in the province of Ontario and it will learn what the good people of Ontario think of such methods.
The hon. member for Westminster (Mr. Stacey) said that the bond of unity in Canada should be based on honour, truth and toleration. Let me tell him that if the War-time Elections Act is not repealed we cannot speak of honour, truth or toleration in this Parliament. Let me now make a very brief survey of the conditions prevailing in Canada.
The hon. the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) depicted in this House the other day a very roseate outlook. As a result of this great war Canada had participated in the deliberations of the War Cabinet and out of the war there would be evolved a cabinet of governments. He was not very clear as to the constitutional aspect of that change. Then he depicted conditions prevailing in Russia under Bolshevist rule. Sir, I do not think it is necessary for Sir Robert Borden, our Premier, to go to Prinkipo in order to investigate the conditions in Russia under Bolshevism. This Government appointed a friend of their own, Mr. C. H. Cahan, K.C., who was my opponent during the last Dominion election, to investigate the socialistic propaganda in Canada. Of late he has published a pamphlet as to what he found in Canada. He declares that there is in Canada a socialistic and Bolshevist propaganda that in my judgment should be enough to prevent the Prime Minister from running after it in Russia. In the last page of his pamphlet Mr. Cahan says:
I have endeavoured to give you an idea of the milder forms of the propaganda, which has covertly been carried on throughout Canada, with the evident object of weakening the will of the Canadian people to carry on the war to a successful conclusion, and, more recently, to create difficulties and dissensions within Canada so as to hinder the attainment of a satisfactory peace. I say milder forms of propaganda advisedly; for, if I were to quote at length the quantities of obscene, profane and seditious pamphlets which have been circulated throughout Canada by the social revolutionists, it would only serve to excite your bitter animosity, and perhaps lay myself open to the charge of disseminating sedition, though merely repeating it for your information.
Here we have a gentleman appointed by the Government to inquire into the operations of the Bolshevists and socialists in Canada. His report is full of information on this subject of the most serious nature. Yet we are told by the President of the

Privy Council that Bolshevism is operating only in Russia. He did not say it but I suppose the logical conclusion to be arrived at from his speech wa,s that the Prime Minister of Canada was therefore justified in going to Prinkipo. Let us look after our own affairs and let the Bolshevists of Russia look after theirs.
The observations and the ramblings of my hon. friend the President of the Privy Council may be very interesting but we must face, and solve, our own Canadian problems. As the hon. member for Shel-burn and Queen's said, let us attend to our own affairs. What is the true situation to-day? I will not give my own opinion. I will give the opinion expressed by a bosom friend of the President of the Privy Council, a very eminent divine belonging, if I mistake not, to the Methodist church. Dr. Bland addressed a meeting a few evenings ago in Toronto and he used this language as he described the conditions in Canada:
There is no English-speaking country at least so ill prepared for the storm now breaking on the world. Canada is a steamer drifting into the rapids, the crew quarrelling and no captain in sight. We have section pitted against section, race against race, class against class and the soldiers a powerful and unknown factor.
Is that picture too sombre? Is it true that Canada is the image of a steamer drifting into the rapids, is it true that the crew is quarrelling, is there no captain of the ship? Let us look at the situation. That the crew is quarrelling we have no better evidence than what we have had this afternoon, yesterday and indeed ever since the debate started in this House of Commons. That we have no captain is undisputed. The hon. member for Shelburne and Queens told us the other day that the captain was in Paris with three of his colleagues and that he was more needed in Ottawa than in Paris.
This session of Parliament has been delayed for nine months. In England, last year, they held two sessions and had a general election. In Canada we have delayed for nine months the meeting of Parliament. The usages of Parliament have been abridged. I have read the Parliamentary and constitutional history of England as interpreted by the best authors. It struck ' me that two years ago when we allowed Sir George Perley and two of the parliamentary secretaries to sit in this Parliament and to receive the emoluments of office without going before the people we were seriously abridging the British and the Canadian constitution. We saw a minister of the Crown (Mr. Blondin) defeated in two constituencies, and yet for months afterwards he continued in office and received emoluments as Portmaster General. He had no seat in this House, but finally he was provided with one in the Senate.
The writs for by-elections, Mr. Speaker, are not issued, as you well know. The national debt of Canada is simply staggering in its figures. We are facing a huge deficit. The Minister of Public Works the other day asked the House to look carefully into the condition of affairs, before the coming financial year was over, with a view of seeing what we are going to do in the future, and to look carefully, from a business standpoint, to the question where we are going to get the extra one hundred millions of revenue which we shall require after the present fiscal year. The adverse balance of trade is growing, and growing abnormally. Here is what I read in The Morning Sun, of New York, of March 11th, speaking of the staunch ally, the opulent customer and near-kin that Canada is to the United States:
In the seven months Canada bought from us a quarter of a billion dollars more than Canada sold us.
This is how the balance of trade stands as between Canada and the United States. And yet for years and years, when my good friend from Shelburne and Queens (Mr. Fielding) was the financial pilot of this country the wails of my hon. friends opposite, wails of sorrow and regret, filled the other Chamber. They would speak then only of the adverse balance of trade. Well, Mr. Speaker, this year, after a period of only seven months there is an adverse balance of a quarter of a billion of dollars as between the United States and Canada.
The Civil Service, right here in Ottawa- and if the expression were not a little vulgar, I would say right under the noses of the Prime Minister and the minister responsible for the Civil Service-are up in arms. Labour is arrayed against capital. Unemployment is rife in the large cities. Why, only in the city of Montreal-df I am well informed by my friend the member for Bonavemture (Mr. Marcil) who is one of the city commissioners-there are actually twenty-five thousand men clamouring for work and bread. The railway problem is more entangled than ever. The freight rates have been unduly increased, and perhaps the express rates may be also unduly advanced before long. The cost of living is soaring higher and higher every day, and riots are occurring all over the land. Not

in Quebec you have noticed, Mr. Speaker -we have riots in Quebec only on the eve of a general election when there is a Unionist Government appealing for support, and those riots are concocted and paid for by the Department of Justice. There have been riots in Toronto-actually in the loyal city of Toronto-.and the police of that city, .a splendid body of men, had to defend themselves against the returned soldiers. Restaurants were broken into and .men were bleeding from wounds. Where was the mayor of Toronto in all .that trouble? Alas, investigation does not say. There were riots in Toronto, in Winnipeg, in Halifax, and in Lindsay


Samuel Hughes: That was over a girl.


Rodolphe Lemieux: -There is mutiny in the camps. We have all heard of what has taken place at Rhyl. I was informed the other day that the Third Division had mutinied because they had refused to be used as a police force against their fellow-workers in Great Britain. I cannot say whether it is true, but it has been asserted to me-of course, ithe press would not give out that information. Is the steamer drifting	into	the rapids? Sir, theGovernment has no policy, no pilot, no captain and no head. Its policy is indecision, confusion, humiliation and anarchy. I may be told that, all this is the result of the war. Sir, a Frenchman who came to this country during the war	as a trade	commissionercoined a very good phrase in my presence as he was	delivering a speech in
Montreal. He said: France was taken unawares by war, France must not be taken unawares by peace. I agree, Sir, that all the Allied Governments were taken unawares by war, but this Government was warned repeatedly, during two, three and four sessions, that it should not be taken at a disadvantage and should cut its cloth accordingly. In England, Sir, they provided for peace conditions. Two years ago, according to a report to the British Government,, a Ministry of Reconstruction was created. I shall not waste the time of the House, but we have in that report the evidence that John Bull, as ever, was prudent, was far-seeing, and knew how to conduct his affairs. In Canada we did not know how to be prudent for the future, and the Government has been very derelict in its duty. All we hear is, words, words, and only words- reconstruction, co-operation, Imperialism, and nothing is done. The truth of the 
matter is this so-called Union is nothing but a bombast, a fake, a sham. First of all, there is no union; since the commencement of the session u'e have had that experience. There is no union, there is no Government-eve are ruled by factions. Sir Clifford Sifton is the ruler of this country, and he belongs to a Trinity. My friend from Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) said the other day that the Government was owned by Sir Joseph Flavelle. He stated only part of the truth. The Government is owned mainly and really by Sir William Mackenzie, Sir Joseph Flavelle and Sir Clifford Sifton. They are the masters of this Government, and when I say that there is no government, that we are ruled by faction, I am within the bounds of truth, my statement is borne out by the facts. The speeches delivered by hon. gentlemen supporting the Government are not only warnings, but they constitute, in my judgment, the most serious arraignment that was ever made against a government.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, when the House
rose at six o'clock I was directing attention to the fact that the Government was being assailed not so much by its opponents, which is quite natural, as by its own friends. During the course of this debate we have heard not only very grave warnings, but also charges of a most serious character. The charges laid at the door of the Government by the member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) are among the gravest ever made against a Government. Sir, let me read to you a few sentences from the speech delivered in this House on March 4, by the member for Victoria. I find the following in a letter which he had addressed to the Prime Minister, and which he read during the course of his remarks:
I have on other occasions drawn your attention to the massacres at Lens, Passchendaele. etc., where the only apparent object was to glorify the General in command, and make it impossible, through butchery, to have a Fifth and Sixth Division and two Army Corps. .	.
I think the time has arrived when you should assert yourself along positive lines, demand the removal of incompetents and have this needless slaughter-for I can call it nothing else-of our Canadian lads stopped. You should secure returns of the losses by brigade and battalions during each year or tenure of command, and what each brigade accomplished, and it will be found that, in many instances, the brigades and

battalions that have accomplished the most have suffered the least.
Bull-head and incompetency are traceable by the horrible casualties rolling up into eight and ten times the total force of a battalion or a brigade.
The hon. member spoke about the attack on Cambrai and the taking of Mons. He said:
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.
It has been my misfortune to lose my only boy in this war. I would not, as the father of that boy, think for one moment of attacking the General Officer Commanding the Canadian forces. I do not for one moment believe that the charges made by the member for Victoria against Sir Arthur Currie are well founded; it is unbelievable that they should be so. I cannot believe that our boys were caused to be slaughtered and butchered for the sake of a little vainglory on the part of the Commanding Officer. But these charges have been made; they are now public property; they have re-echoed from province to province; indeed they are known throughout the world. The charges are made not by an insignificant person, but by a gentleman who was a member of the Government as Minister of Militia, by a gentleman who more than any one else can claim the credit of having equipped and sent overseas our First Contingent. The charges are made by one who, with all his failings, is known to be a generous-hearted gentleman. Sir, the Prime Minister and his colleagues may deny the charges; brother officers in this House may refute them, and the press may speak of the cruel egotism of the member for Victoria. But there is a sound public opinion in Canada, and whether the charge is well-founded or not, you cannot annul it by a mere denial or a sneer. The fathers and mothers of those who went through the valley of shadow during the great war will not be satisfied by a denial or by a sneer; they will insist, with bleeding hearts, upon an investigation which will probe these charges to the bottom. Indeed, the whole military situation so far as Canada is concerned is but a sad and melancholy tale of the Government's incompetency.
I have spoken of the charges made by the member for'Victoria. What about the specific charges made but a few days ago by Brigadier-General Smart, a gallant officer
if there is one, who has seen four years' service at the front, who does not belong to the Liberal party, who supports the Government in my native province as member for the loyal city of Westmount? Sir, the day of his first appearance in the Quebec Legislature on his return from the front, he deems it his duty to inform the country of what has taken place and of what is taking place yonder. Let me read in a few crisp sentences the charges made by General Smart. I quote from the Toronto Globe's report of his speech:
I feel it is up to me to tell the people of Canada how the Canadian Medical Service blundered overseas; how patronage, influence, pull, went to paralyse the good work of the medical services.
That is not surprising. During the session of 1916-17 the same charges were made from liiis side of the House, but we were debarred from the right of having Dr. Bruce's report laid on the Table. You will remember, Sir, how that genial gentleman who occupied my seat at that time, the Hon. Mr. Pugsley, insisted that that report should be laid on the table of the House. We could, however, never obtain that report. General Smart goes on to say:
I perfectly know who is responsible for this state of things; official Ottawa knows it too; Sir Robert Borden does not ignore it, but no one dares tell. And that is why I feel it is up to me to show all the evil that has been done, to show the abuse, the ill-treatment our wounded and sick received overseas at the hands of the improperly managed medical service. The whole trouble is to be traced to Argyll House.
We have heard, during the last few months, a great deal about slackers and time-servers. The farmer or the farmer's son, who was working on the farm, in order that our soldiers might get food, was not a slacker; but I am told that there were thousands of slackers at Argyll House in London receiving high pay. General Smart continues:
And I may add that personally, after seeing all that I have seen, I have not the slightest confidence in those who administer the affairs in England. Sir George Perley had much to do with the management of our medical service. Who gave him the authority to treat our wounded in such a way, be it even for the cause of Imperialism? Well, gentlemen, I tell you, if Imperialism is to be maintained through such a system, I say it is time that it be destroyed. I am as good an Imperialist as any one, hut I do not care for this Imperialism at such a price; I care not for Imperialism if it is to be built on the sufferings of our wounded heroes.
Let me tell the Acting Prime Minister (Sir Thomas White) that such severe language was never used by any hon. mem-

bers on this side of the House. General Smart says that Brigadier-General Turner is wealt-armed. He blames him for the recent riotings at Rhyl and other camps, and he traces the matter back to the abuse and ill-treatment of the men.
General Smart said that many Canadian officers in England had asked him to bring these facts to light. Recalling the death of Major-General Steele, in London-
One of the best Canadian soldiers that Canada ever produced,
-he said that the Major General died of a broken heart over these things. He says he will produce correspondence to this effect.
Further he says:
Gentlemen, I tell you, without fear of impartial contradiction, that the medical service overseas was directed in an insensible and neglected way. Our Canadian wounded were afforded a medical service that was absolutely inadequate, and I have seen instances where medical officers, ridiculously inapt to care for the sick and wounded, were put in charge of important hospital units. I have pitied the poor soldiers that were made to travel through the British Isles to far-off hospitals when they passed close to the unit that should have received them for their particular treatment. . . . He stated instances where men medically found unfit in Canada, were, however, sent to England. These men caused hard work and worry to the officers overseas, went through hardships, and are now coming back a charge to the country, for they will be getting pay pension all at the expense of the country. Then General Smart told of what he saw in his own Military District of Shorncliffe. He said he could not criticise the medical officers and nurses. They were up to what he had expected from them, but, he says, I feel I must and do criticise the headquarters of management of this service.
General Smart said that each Canadian hospital had its full stall: of competent doctors and nurses, but outside of these hospitals, there had been organized Voluntary Aid Detachments, made up of people of good-will, but who knew little or nothing of medical care, and he stated instances where soldiers were left for definite treatment in these Voluntary Aid Detachments while cots were empty in the regular hospitals.
He stated that, in cases he knew of, men had lost the use of their eyes because of this practice. When such cases reached the proper hospitals, said General Smart, it was too late for treatment to have any effect.
General Smart then mentioned cases where patronage placed in responsible posts men who had not even diplomas of medical studies, while competent men without the "pull" were kept in England or in posts where their science and experience could not be used to succor our wounded and sick.
Talking of the riot, General Smart said that the Rhyl outbreak was not the first of this kind; there had been outbreaks previously at Shorncliffe, Witley, Bramshott, and even at Rhyl before.
General Smart concludes by vindicating the French Canadian soldiers. I must offer General Smart my sincere thanks for that
[Mr. Lemieux.j
timely vindication. I have noticed that the subsidized press, when the cable despatch telling of those riots reached Canada, assigned the cause of them to the Montreal regiments; but, of course, a denial was immediately forthcoming, and then the subsidized press published another lie in order to cover up the old one. It said that the French Canadians at the Rhyl camp had been seen with Bolshevik flags.


An hon. MEMBER:: Shame.


Ernest Lapointe: Propaganda.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 

policy. I am not anxious to be quoted unless you think it necessary.
Sincerely yours,
Arthur C. Pratt.
I was rather surprised, Mr. Speaker, to see that letter published in the Toronto Telegram, as I remembered another article published by the Telegram immediately after the famous election of 1917, referring to the frauds during that election in Toronto. The Telegram said, " We should have denounced those frauds before, but our denunciation might have helped Laur-ier; but now we are free to speak." So the *Toronto Telegram can speak of the military frauds that have been perpetrated at the expense of our soldiers on the other side. I say to my hon. friend the Prime Minister that charges of the gravest character are made, not by civilians, not by political opponents, but by generals and colonels returning from the front where they have served their King, their country, their Empire, well and faithfully. They belong by tradition to the Conservative party, and the least that the Government should do-as it is in honour bound to do-is to probe those charges and punish.the guilty. But, Sir, the Government is not only assailed by the military authorities; not only by its opponents, but we have undergone such a revolution during the past few years that the Government is being assailed by one of its own members and can survive the assault!
I am glad to see my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. T. A. Crerar) in his seat. There was held in the city of Winnipeg some time ago a convention of the farmers of the West, but more especially a meeting of the Canadian Council of Agriculture. The platform which was adopted at that meeting was read yesterday by our friend the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Maharg) who is, I believe, president of the Grain Growers' Association of Saskatchewan. That platform, Mr. Speaker, contains the tariff policy of the western farmers, and in most of its planks I take great comfort. If it may please my hon. friend, I may tell him that I endorse several of the planks of that platform. As it was read last night, I need not refer to it again; I may, however, add this. I find that besides the tariff question the farmers passed several resolutions on different matters. For instance, they passed resolutions to bring about a greater measure of democracy in government. As democratic reforms, they demand the immediate repeal of the War-time Elections Act, and the discontinuance of the practice of

conferring titles upon citizens of Canada. I have always contended, and I still contend, that titles in this country have been a source of corruption. Let me say this further to my Conservative as well as to my Liberal friends, that if they want to keep in their fold their followers, they should pass at this session the timely resolution which I see on the Order Paper, and which was moved last year. Let us abolish those titles, which are only a lure to the weak-kneed. The leader of the House knows whereof I speak. The Government has been assailed right and left, since the beginning of this war, and before the war, by some wealthy friends who were anxious to be knighted; and many of the rumblings whieh we hear to-day against the Government are no doubt attributable to disappointed knighthood seekers; and I have this confession to make to my Highland leader, that the Liberal party in the old days lost many of its friends because they could not obtain knighthoods from iSir Wilfrid Laurier. I repeat that it is a source of corruption, and I agree entirely with that plank of the farmers platform. But let us proceed. The farmers advocated an immediate reform of the Federal Senate; an immediate check upon the growth of government by order in council; increased responsibility of individual members of Parliament. in all legislation; the complete abolishing of the patronage system; the publication of contributions and expenditures both before and after election campaigns ; the removal of press censorship upon the restoration of peace, and the immediate restoration of the rights of free speech, the setting forth by daily newspapers and periodical publications of the facts, of their ownership and control; proportional representation, etc., etc. Now, Mr. Speaker, that platform is very compact and very substantial. It will play its part whenever the people of this country are called to the polls. But the point I wish to make is this: This is the platform of the farmers of the West; it is a radical platform. Amongst the delegates who drafted the platform and who contributed the material that produced that platform, I find, to my surprise and my astonishment, the name of the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. T. A. Crerar). Yes. I find the name of Hon. T. A. Crerar from Winnipeg, representing the Manitoba farmers; and I am told-my hon. friend will correct me if I am wrong- I am told he presided at the meeting, put the motion to the meeting, and declared it carried.


Hon. Mr. CRERAR:: I must correct the hon. gentleman. I did not go quite that far.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Well, Mr. Speaker, I accept at once the amendment to the statement I made. But, in all earnestness, I will put this one little question: Does he, or does he not, approve of this platform of the western farmers? I will pause for a moment and ask him to answer " yes " or " no."


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The hon. gentleman is rather curious this evening. The platform to which he is referring was not drafted at this meeting in Winnipeg of which he speaks. It was drafted two years ago and reaffirmed at that meeting. I have no hesitation in confessing that, with reference to the platform which was drafted two years ago, I was one of those who assisted in drafting it. I thought it was a good platform then, and I think it is a good platform now.
Mr. GiAUVREAU: You will not stay there very long.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would have no hesitation in enfolding within the Liberal party my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture. I accept his word: Yes, he assisted in drafting this platform. He was for it then; he is for it now. He has only one thing to do; that is to resign from the Government. This is a very serious matter. Here is a Government where gentlemen are united to carry on the affairs of the country. We have on the Government benches two groups of ministers who differ absolutely one from the other, not on secondary issues, but on the issue of the day. I would be very much interested in knowing what the views of my hon. friend the Minister of Immigration and Colonization are on this question. I know where the able young Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) stands. He stands with my hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Currie). I know where my good friend the hon. the Acting Prime Minister (Sir Thomas White) stands; he stands where he stood in 1911. I know where my hon. friend the Minister of the Civil Service (Mr. Maclean) stands, and I know where my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture stands. He stated it with a plainness and a frankness that I would like to have the other members of the Government practise. Let us, then, test the frankness, the truthfulness, of my hon. friend the Minister of Immigration. He said the other evening that he was a Liberal and that nobody could eject him from the Liberal party. He said
37}	,	. _	.
that he stood with the farmers whom he represented in this House. Here is the platform of the farmers of the three large Prairie Provinces. We have the statement of the Minister of Agriculture that he stands by that platform. I want to know if the Minister of Immigration is the same gentleman who goes out west and whispers to the farmers that lie is their friend and that their policy will prevail. Let him speak boldly and proudly this evening. Let us see if he will imitate the good sense and judgment of his colleagues. If the hon. gentleman will allow me to pause for a moment I would like him to answer as the Minister of Agriculture has done.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. GALDER:: If I may be allowed-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The minister has already spoken and it is a reversal of the rule and practice of the House that a member who is speaking should interrogate hon. members who have already spoken and who are in their seast.


An hon. MEMBER:: By unanimous consent.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: We are proceeding away beyond the bounds of order in permitting the hon. gentleman to speak.


James Alexander Calder: If I may be allowed just one word, I think that before the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lemieux) asks me to answer that question he should answer a question himself. He intimated that he agreed with some of the planks of that platform. He has not taken the House into his confidence to the extent of telling it which of the planks in the platform he agrees with. When he asks me the very general question if I agree with every plank in the platform I think he should at least state his own position.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Then I am to understand that that is the plain, unvarnished answer of the Minister of Immigration?


James Alexander Calder: No; the hon. gentleman has no right to interpret my words at all. There will be lots of opportunities during this session to state exactly where I stand on these various questions, and when the proper time comes I will state where I stand. But I do not propose to be moved in that way by him during the course of a debate to state my position in a general way in reference to a great many matters of very general interest.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The House will readily see the very difficulty 1 anticipated when I endeavoured to prevent the minister from replying. The proceeding is unUsual and very irregular, and I would recommend that it be discontinued.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is a good thing that the Rules of the House should force me to-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I was not blaming the Speaker at all.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What order?


An hon. MEMBER:: Order in Council.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not think that the hon. member (Mr. Lemieux) is questioning the ruling of the Chair.
>Mr. LEMIIEUX: I did not question the ruling of the 'Chair. It is an excellent ruling and we had an eloquent but typical answer from the Minister of Immigration. He stands by that answer and the people of the West will judge. In my opinion, he remains true to himself. I was told when he came here that he was a little bit of a trickster and something of a ward politician.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There is one word that the hon. gentleman should withdraw and which I call upon him to withdraw, namely, that the Minister of Immigration and Colonization is a trickster. That word is certainly far beyond the bounds of Parliamentary language.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I bow to your decision with pleasure.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw, withdraw.	.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is most amusing
that we should have such an aggregation before us this evening-two groups of ministers on the vital issues of the day differing absolutely one from the other. Of course, we shall hear more during the session, and some means will be found to test the principles of my hon. friend the Minister of Immigration and Colonization on the tariff. At all events, the House knows this evening where the Minister of Agriculture stands.
He was not afraid, he did not beat about the bush, he said yes. Mr. Speaker, this is a very vital issue, and it has engrossed the attention of the press of western Canada of late. The farmers of the West sent a representative here some days ago,
[Mr. Caldt-r.j
a gentleman by the name of Rice Jones, and I wonder whether he is an annexationist or not. That gentleman canvassed the opinions of the hon. members who represent western constituences, and according to The Manitoba Free Press of March 15th, here is what he reports:
The wire sent to Ottawa and the replies received from some of the Alberta members follow :
Full Board Meeting of United Farmers now sitting at Calgary request that you, while in Ottawa, present farmers' platform to Government, as representing the organized farmers of Alberta in lieu of sending delegates from here with joint deputation from three Prairie Provinces.
Also make personal demands on each of Alberta members on behalf of their former constituents, that they work and vote for enactment into legislation of reforms embodied in platform at present session. Am mailing copy of platform to each Alberta member.
The following are opinions of western members. I quote from the newspapers:
From Michael Clark-I have been working along the lines indicated for many years, and you can rely on my continuing to do so.
No beating about the bush in the case oi the hon. member from Red Deer.
J. M. Douglas-I may say that all the Western men are a unit in support of a measure of this kind, and we have strong hopes that something will be done this session.
Of course, " Hope springs eternal in the human breast."
H. H. Halliday-I can assure you that 1 fully appreciate the necessity of this action, and am glad to be able to advise you that the members for the three Prairie Provinces are almost-
He had the Minister of Immigration in mind.
-unanimous on this subject.
W. A. Buchanan-I can state my position very briefly. I am in entire sympathy with the platform, and have advocated it in my newspaper. I will use my influence as a member of the House of Commons to forward its adoption in the legislature.
D. L. Redman-I will give this matter my earnest and sympathetic attention.
Mr. Rice Jones, who has just returned from Ottawa was very pessimistic over anything being done this session on the tariff. The situation appeared to be that while the western Union members were solid on the tariff issue for reform yet they were hesitating to embarrass the Government by coming out and voting for them and thereby possibly defeating the Government.
Mr. Speaker, I leave it at that. I hope that we shall hear from some of the western members, so that we may find out if they really are trying to press forward the adoption of the tariff platform, but hesitate before defeating the Government. My hon.

friend the Minister of Immigration has inquired where I stood on the fiscal question.


Arthur Meighen: On the whole platform.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I must say that for my part, with very few exceptions I would readily subscribe to that platform.


James Alexander Calder: Will the hon. gentleman allow me?


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend is not in order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is perfectly in order for a question to be put to an hon. gentleman who has the floor, with his consent. I do not think it is proper for an hon. gentleman who has the floor to interrogate various hon. members who have already spoken and who are in their seats.


James Alexander Calder: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to put a question?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Pardon me.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend is very canny, but he is not canny enough for me. He wanted to know where I stood on the fiscal question. '


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, that was the question. I will tell my hon. friend where I stand, order having been restored. I will quote chapter and verse. The last great message of the former leader of my hon. friend the Minister of Immigration, was delivered in this city on the 14th of January last, and his platform has been published, just as the platform of the western farmers, as drafted by my friend the Minister of Agriculture, has been published. I may say for the information of the House that this platform, which was unanimously adopted by the Liberals assembled at Ottawa on the 14th of January last, was prepared under the supervision of the late lamented Sir Wilfrid Laurier. After having recited the many resolutions concerning the tariff, moved whilst he was in office and leader of the Opposition, the platform thus concludes:
Now therefore be it resolved that in the opinion of this Association, not only should the said Tariff increases of 7J per cent and 5 per cent be immediately repealed, hut 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, Mr. Speaker, is my platform. I shall have an opportunity during the present session to vote for it, and I invite those westerners who represent the three (Prairie Provinces to support that policy, because 1 can assure my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture, who drafted the farmers' platform, and I can assure my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. dark) and those others who are acting in good faith on the tariff issue, that after the caucus of to-morrow they will know they cannot get anything from the present Government so far as tariff reducions are concerned. Here is where I stand, and I am in good company. I also stand for the fair treatment of soldiers and sailors; for generous care for dependents of the fallen; for the gradual democratization of labour; for the abolition of Government by Order in Council; for the abolition of press censorship; for the repeal of the War-Time Elections Act; and for a League of Nations. There may be some slight differences between the farmers' platform and the Liberal platform. I stand by my leader-I follow his fiery cross-and I stand by my party on this tariff issue. I do not beat about the bush as the Minister of Immigration does.


James Alexander Calder: The hon. gentleman has not stated whether or not he agrees with the farmers' platform on the tariff. I would very much like to be informed as to that.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about you, now?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I stated a moment ago where I stood when I read the platform laid down by Sir Wilfrid Laurier. My hon. friend is hard of understanding this evening. He cannot comprehend a plain statement; he abhors truth. I said that there were differences, but very slight differences, between the farmers' platform and the Liberal platform. I stand by the Liberal platform, and I think that the farmers of


Samuel Hughes: Will my hon. friend be good enough to explain-I do not understand it yet-how our manufactured goods were prevented, by this arrangement, from being sent overseas?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I know they were prevented by this licensing system-


Samuel Hughes: I do not understand it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: -and by the embargo. We have here the sorry, sad, and melancholy comment of such stout Canadians and Britishers as Mr. Lloyd Harris and Mr. Frank Jones. This lis not a new policy. It was the policy of Mr. Chamberlain, the father of that Imperialism; he did not want our manufacturers to compete with the British manufacturers. There is a lesson to be drawn from this last incident. Let us think of Canada, first, last and always. Let us be Canadians inspired by British ideals, but loyal, first, last and always to our native country, Canada.


Samuel Hughes: I was fairly intimate with the policy of the late Rt. Hon. Joseph Chamberlain and I never heard him make such a statement. Will the hon. member be good enough to give an example of where Mr. Chamberlain objected to goods manufactured in Canada coming into Great Britain?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will give the example of the " hidden list "-the hon. member for Shelburne and Queens will remember it- a list of manufactured goods which in any preferential agreement with the Mother Country should not compete with British goods. I have chapter and verse and I shall be happy, on another occasion, to convey that information to my hon. friend.
Let us be Canadians, inspired always by British ideals, but loyal to our country. I am not advocating the independence of Canada. I am not hinting at any annexation movement. Far be that from my thoughts. I am a Canadian. My ancestors were in this country three hundred years

ago, and I am not going to sell my birthright for a mess of pottage. I am a Canadian and I -am a Britisher, but I say that the time has come, after this great war in which we have made so many sacrifices- that, in the words of Sir John A. Macdonald, " we should think of our country always." I remember a speech delivered by Sir John Thompson, on the occasion of the death of Sir John A. Macdonald, and I find these words in appreciation of the career of that great chieftain:
Sir John's Jove of Canada and his desire to serve her must he put far dn front of all his characteristics. His daily thought might 'be expressed in Webster's words : "Let our one object be our country, our whole country, and nothing hut our country." " Nothing but our country " in the sense that Canada was to be first of all, in every consideration of -public policy or personal action. His true and1 deep Canadiandsm was the " pillar or cloud by day, and the pillar of fire by night," to the hundreds of thousands whom he led as no man oou-ld have led by a mere party banner."
That was the Canadian policy of Sir John A. Macdonald. It was also the policy of Sir Wilfiid Laurier.
We have responsible Government in Canada and we cannot -turn baok to colonialism. I do not share the views of my esteemed friend and colleague the hon. member for Shelburne and Queens (Mr. Fielding) that we should fee satisfied	to let the	Colonial Office in
London manage the affairs of Canada.
I have a little more pride than that. We are not a nation of one million or two million, but a nation of eight million people, and some day when good times come back, when a Liberal administration comes into office perhaps we shall have a population of ten or fifteen million. We have won responsible government.	Formerly, England
drafted our tariffs, managed our post office affairs, looked after our public works, involved us in her commercial treaties, and defended Canada with her regulars. But we have outlived that policy, and to revive it now would simply be to ignore our national dignity. For eighty years Canada has been working towards greater efficiency, greater self-reliance, and more complete self-government. In matters of defence, we control not only our land forces, but our naval forces also. As a Canadian-I am speaking only for myself-I stand by the policy of ruling our own country and looking after our own affairs. A nation, like the individual, must go forward-not go backwards, crab-like. We must go forward, and I am looking hopefully forward to the day when there will be, not a colony or even a

dominion of Canada, but a Kingdom of Canada. That was the view held by the fathers of Confederation. Sir, the fathers of Confederation delighted to proclaim that their offspring was to be a nation, and they did not hesitate to assign to Canada prophetically and proudly, its place and order among the nations of the earth. The Hon. Adams G. Archibald, of Nova Scotia, said that the united provinces " would form a nation which in all the elements that constitute real greatness might he ranked as the third or fourth on the face of the globe." Lt.-Col. Gray, of New Brunswick, said that they " wanted a national union, one which would enable them to take an honourable place among the nations of the earth." The Hon. Chas. Fisher, of New Brunswick, said that the federation " would be the fourth maritime power in the world. England, France and the United States would alone be superior to it." Sir George E. Cartier said that the delegates had " met to inquire whether it were possible for the provinces from their present fragmentary and isolated materials, to form a nation or kingdom." Sir John A. Macdonald said that the delegates had in view " the noble object of founding a great British monarchy in connection with the British Empire and under the British Queen." He said:-
I am a subject of a great British-American nation, under the government of Her Majesty, and in connection with the Empire of Great Britain and Ireland.
" Confederation," he added, " would give them the national prowess and strength which would make them at least the fourth nation on the face of the globe." He preferred for the title of the new confederation " The Kingdom of Canada," and he desired an Imperial alliance with the Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with the Crown as the sufficient bond of union. At another time Sir John A. Macdwonald said that the new constitution " was intended to be, as far as circumstances would permit, similar to that of the Imperial Government, and recognizing the Sovereign of Great Britain as its sole and only head."
Sir, I accept the views of the Fathers of Confederation, and notably the noble views of the late Sir John A. Macdonald. The British Empire must assume this grander character and rise to its higher ideal. I claim that there should be not inferiority, hut equality; not subservience, but equi-pollence; not subjection either of Canada to the United Kingdom now, or of the United Kingdom to Canada, but absolute and unreserved brotherhood, making with Australia, South Africa and other great

nations " a galaxy of nations." That phrase was coined by the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier when he spoke in England at the time of the Diamond Jubilee. But in order to attain to the proud position of being a kingdom in the sense that there will be a feeling of brotherhood between all the British Dominions and the Mother Country, we must first of all be a united people. And I think the House will agree with me that the time has come to unite the Canadian people of all creeds, of all races and of all provinces. I remember a great speech delivered by the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier in Nova Scotia at an Acadian convention a few years ago. He told his audience that during his visit to the old country he had admired the noble proportions of some of the Gothic cathedrals of England and of France, and he prophesied that Canada too some day would take the form of a Gothic cathedral. "In that wonderful architecture," he said, " there is marble, and it remains marble; there is granite, and it remains granite; there is oak, and it remains oak; but those materials are blended into a harmonious whole." Mr. Speaker, we have in this country the best elements of which to create the great Kingdom of Canada. The very best races of the world are here-the sturdy Scot, the impulsive Frenchman, the warm-hearted Irishman, and the cool and brainy Englishman. Sir, if these races, representing as they do the loftiest ideals and the noblest traditions of Europe, are blended together after this war in which our men have played such a noble and lasting part, we shall then be in a position to build a great Canadian nationality.


John Flaws Reid: I congratulate the hon. member for Maison-neuve (Mr. Lemieux) on the very able manner in which he has held the attention of this House for nearly two hours and three-quarters. I shall not inflict myself upon the House for that length of time. I am sorry the hon. member cannot swallow the organized farmers' platform, but I suppose he is not used to taking pills of that kind unless they are sugar-coated with politics. I understand that my hon. friends came into power in 1896 on a platform as radical in many lines as the present farmers' platform, and it was practically forgotten for fifteen years by my hon. friend and his associates. Now I want to say as a farmer from the prairies that the farmers of the West-I can speak for them-are not as easily caught to-day as they were in 1896; and if my good friend and his associates want to get the farmers' support they will
have to undertake, not as a pre-election promise, but at once, a thorough housecleaning on their side of the House, so that they may say with some degree of truth that they are Liberals indeed.
I wish in passing, Mr. 'Speaker, to refer to some of the statements made by the gallant colonel who represents the constituency of North Simcoe (Mr. Currie). I shall borrow a phrase for the time being from the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Richardson). I am of the opinion that we have two prophets in this House. At all events I am sure we have at least one, representing the constituency of North Simcoe. Unfortunately he is a prophet who predicts destruction. He tells us of the great calamities that will befall 'Canada if the tariff is interfered with; and that reminds me, of a statement that was made in the city of Winnipeg some years ago by a secretary of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, when he said that the Manufacturers' Association of Canada was so strongly organized that, if they saw fit, they could cause the grass to grow on the streets of any town or city in the Dominion of Canada. 'Perhaps my friend from Sim-coe is one of that number. He made the statement in regard to the embargo on wheat, endeavouring to make us believe that it was the American Government that _ put on that embargo. If il am correct- and I believe I am-the embargo was put on by the Government of Canada -at the request of the British Government in order that the foodstuffs of Canada might be preserved for Great Britain and her Allies; and even if the embargo had been imposed by the American Government conditions would not compare at all with those of normal times. Then he states that there was a duty on foodstuffs in Canada of 271 per cent, but he failed to tell us how this would enable the labourers or mechanics working in factories in the cities to obtain their foodstuffs cheaper. I think he made a mistake when he quoted that figure of 27J per cent as the average duty on foodstuffs. Next, in dealing with the land policy of the Government he gave some advice as to what the Government should do in regard to the returned soldiers. He said in effect that the Government should give to the soldiers land on the same terms as given to the ISouth African veterans, implying I presume, that they should be issued scrip. Now any one who has been in the West for any length of time knows that very few soldiers who received scrip settled on the land. It was merely a bonanza for the speculators, who bought the scrip at a

trifling figure; and as a result many of the scrip lands to-day lie unotcupied. But while the gallant Colonel'(Mr. Currie) who has had the honour to represent North Sirncoe would like the Government to do well by the returned soldier, I would suggest to him one way in which he might very materially help those returned men who desire to go on the land. I presume he is a member of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. Might he not persuade the association at least to give our soldiers who go on the land their implements duty free? That would be a considerable help to those men. The hon. member launched an attack on Mr. H. W. Wood of Alberta, President of the Canadian Council of Agriculture, a man who has been re-elected to that position by acclamation for two or three years. I have known the gentleman myself for a number of years and can say most emphatically that he has a character at which no one can	point a finger;	and	beforeany	hon.	member in this	House
makes any charge against him, he should at least be armed with the proof; and 1 hope that before very long Mr. H. W. Wood will request the hon. member for Sirncoe to prove his words. The hon. member tells us that a concern with which he is connected successfully competed in the foreign market to the tune of $9,000,000. Well, I am glad to know that, Mr. Speaker. The western farmers are glad to know that the Canadian manufacturers are able to compete in the foreign market against any manufacturer in the world, and if they can compete in the foreign market thousands of miles away from home, the query is why can they not compete right at home? He says-in order to scare us, I suppose-that the Canadian manufacturers are commencing to build factories in the United States because there is a fear of the tariff being interfered with. That may be so. I do not doubt the words of any hon. member of this House, but I would like to have the proof of that assertion; and if the manufacturers are doing that, the remedy is quite simple-lower the tariff to the same level as the American tariff, and then our Canadian manufacturers will have access to a field where there are one hundred millions of people, while the American manufacturers will have access to eight millions. I think that the advantages are on the side of the Canadian manufacturers, if they could see it. The hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) says they cannot see it-but there are none so 
blind as those who will not see. Then the hon. member goes on to say that the farmers of the West are Bolshevists, that they are stirring up strife. Shortly after that, however, he evidently forgets himself, for he says that the farmers in the West mostly all came from Ontario. Now, if his first statement is correct, that the farmers of the West are mostly Bolshevists, then good old Ontario must be a cradle of Bolshevism. The hon. member says he became a convert to high protection when he sat at the feet of the late Sir John A. Macdonald. I am not at all surprised that the hon. member for North Sirncoe became a convert to high protection when he had the great privilege of sitting at the feet of such an illustrious leader; but I am convinced of this that when the late Sir John A. Macdonald was buried, my hon. friend from North Sirncoe buried his intellect in that grave and that he had nothing more to learn in connection with tariff. Another of his prophesies is this: he says that if anything is done to the tariff there will be a state funeral. I understand that the hon. member for North Sirncoe was one of the foremost men-he was indeed a very prominent man-at a banquet in the city of Toronto where seven of the Ginger group were present. Now, Mr. Speaker, he threatens there is going to be a state funeral if the tariff is disturbed, and, Sir, I am of the opinion that the funeral he refers to will be the funeral of the Ginger Group which he represents. I am of the opinion that the Canadian manufacturers represent the situation for trade in a cartoon which appeared in the Grain Growers' Guide about two months ago. This is a farm scene, Mr. Speaker, and you will pardon me for citing it here. The cartoon pictured a calf about two years old and the farmer trying to wean it away from the cow.	It was nip and tuck which
one would win-the farmer or the calf. It is my opinion that the longer we give high protection to our Canadian manufacturers, the longer will they want it to be maintained.
Mr.' McMASTER: Hear, hear.


Mr. J. F. REID:: I am very glad to hear an hon. gentleman on the other side of the House say "Hear, hear." Then the hon. gentleman from Sirncoe told us that the manufacturers did not make a profit of five per cent on their turn over. That statement is just a little misleading. Why did the hon. member for Sirncoe not tell us what interest they made on their capital in-

vesed ? Then we would understand what their profit amounts to. To state that they do not make five per cent on their overturn is very misleading. Perhaps he will inform us later on what interest the manufacturers make on their invested capital and also on their watered stock.
Mr. Speaker, in passing, I wish to add my tribute of praise to the late, beloved and lamented Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and in doing so would simply say "Amen" to all the good things which have been said of him who has crossed the bar. A year ago when this Parliament met for the first time we did so under the great cloud of war, and the victory which has since been achieved was still hanging in the balance, and to many of us it seemed that victory was doubtful or at least a long way off, but to-day, as part of the British Empire, we rejoice with her and-our Allies that victory has come to us, and the whole world breathes easier and our gallant victorious soldiers are now returning home to us. The task of taking care of our men and re-establishing them back in civil life will be equally as large an undertaking as the prosecution of the war and will bring up many new problems for our government to handle. As an independent supporter of Union Government, it is my opinion, Sir, that it is well for Canada that we have a Union Government and not a party Government to grapple with the gigantic problem of reconstruction, and, Mr. Speaker, while the remark has been made by hon. members opposite that our Union Government, and especially the Minister of Immigration, was in a state of unpreparedness when the armistice was signed; even if that is so, Sir, I do not think it is very much to be wondered at, because we know that even the British Government, who were very much nearer the seat of war than we were, were of the opinion, and in fact, had made preparations for continuing the campaign for at least another winter. But, Mr. Speaker, at this late stage of the debate I do not wish to occupy the time of the House very long, but I wish to make a few remarks in passing on some of the problems that immediately confront us.
I would like first to say a word on the land policy of the present iGovernment, which also applies to previous Governments, both Grit and Tory. We are informed, Sir, that there are about 15,000 homesteads available within 15 miles of our railways and that only 2,000 of them are fit for cultivation. I am informed we have over 4,000 soldiers at the present time ready and willing to go on to the land. To ask our returned soliders to go beyond the fifteen mile limit to homestead would be a crime, when we have 31 million acres of alienated, uncultivated and unoccupied land lying within the fifteen mile railway belt. This condition, Mr. Speaker, has not been brought about by this Government or by the policy of this Government but by the policies of past Governments, Liberal and Conservative; and we now find that our Dominion Government have got to go into the open market to buy back the lands which were previously sold for a trifle to speculators and corporations. When I say sold I would perhaps express it better if I said were given away for a trifle, for I understand that from $1 to S3 per acre was about the prevailing price received for our lands years ago.
I will now point out to you, Sir, some of the evils of the unoccupied lands. In the first place our unoccupied lands do not contribute anything towards the cost of construction of our railways other than the trifling amount for which they were sold. Then again, miles of railroads must be built past unoccupied lands to reach the occupied lands. While the occupied lands produce traffic for the road, and the exportable products help to pay the nation's debts, unoccupied lands produce no revenue and create no trade for the benefit of the road and further our unoccupied lands do not contribute anything towards paying the debts of the country; they retard the progress of settlement and in many cases prevent the establishment of schools; in many cases also they are not taxable and do not help to build or maintain public highways.
I would like to point out, Sir, to this Government the evil of selling lands to the individual or corporation without duties of occupancy attached. I would recommend to the careful consideration of this Government the selling of lands only to actual settlers. It is not the price obtained by the State by the sale of lands that enriches the state but rather the products of the soil which feeds the population, creates business and the exportable surplus must help pay the debt of our country. I would like also to point out to you the spirit of the West. When famine stared the British Empire and her Allies in the face, and our Government urged greater production, the West responded with a very large increased acreage put under cultivation. This was brought about partly by the fact that small tractors were brought into the country free of duty, and thereby the price was very materially reduced. But, Sir, the West

The Question of ways and means is so basic in relation to alt other matters that after much consideration would' urge you not to be satisfied with anything less this session than a distinct step toward fiscal programme Canadian Council of Agriculture. If Government balks, let it take the responsibility; the sun will still rise and set.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the West believes that the Union Government will be able to read the handwriting on the wall. This is the ultimatum of organized agriculture. If you do not listen to the members who are here to-day, you certainly will have to deal with the West at no distant date.
I want to say a word with regard to the Canadian manufacturers, particularly the manufacturers of agricultural implements. Why is it, Sir, that our manufacturers will not treat us, the farmers of Canada, the same as they treat farmers in the British Isles, Australia, New Zealand, and European countries, where they sell their machinery in the open market, competing with other manufacturers of the world? I am informed on very reliable authority that the prices at which these implements are sold in Europe, Australia and New Zealand, are very much below the prices at which they are sold to the Canadian farmers. This applies particularly to us in the West. We are Canadians, and we wish to be treated at least the same as farmers are treated in other countries by our Canadian manufacturers. I do not think that is asking too much.
We know, Sir, that our Canadian mechanics are second to none in the world and that our Canadian manufacturers are stronger than many of the manufacturing concerns in the United States. Manufacturers have told us that electrical power in Canada, of which they use a good deal, is dearer than it is in the United States. I have a book issued by a commission in the United States before which Sir Adam Beck gave some very valuable information. I find from it that electrical power on this side of the line is about fifty per cent less than the price in the state of New York.
Organized agriculture does not for a minute want to put the Canadian manufacturer out of business, but we want to see him get down to competition. The wider field for him is the wider market. The necessary change in our tariff laws will open up to the Canadian manufacturer a field where there are 100,000,000 people and enable the American manufacturer to get into a field where there are 8,000,000 people.
The Second Vice-President of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, Mr. J. S. McKinnon, in an address to one of the clubs 
in Toronto, said that the Grain Growers wanted to escape practically all taxation. That is not so. If you read the platform of the Organized Farmers you will find that we have set forth a system of taxation which we believe would be suitable to conditions in Canada to-day. The Second Vice-President of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association is not a strong high protectionist, as some members of this House are. He says:
The present tariff is imperfect. It has many contradictions and imperfections. As it has not been revised since 1907 and as there have been many changes in our national life since that date, especially on account of the war, it is obvious that the present tariff may not be suited to the conditions of the day. We believe that it should be revised, but revised scientifically.
Referring to the first statement made by Mr. McKinnon, the Organized Farmers' platform clearly sets forth the fact that the Grain Growers do not want to escape taxation; that they are willing and anxious to pay their full share. But we do object strenuously to paying taxes to bolster up the manufacturers under the present iniquitous tariff system. We are willing to pay taxes to the Dominion treasury, but not to the coffers of the manufacturers. Then Mr. McKinnon goes on to prophesy the bankruptcy which will come about in Canada if the tariff is removed. He asks whether the soldiers must wait and possibly be prevented from obtaining employment before the tariff laws are changed. I say emphatically, no. The soldier who goes on the land to farm is just as anxious as any other farmer that the tariff be reduced.
It must be distinctly understood that agriculture, being the basic industry of Canada, is the foundation stone upon which all our industries rest, and if that basic industry is not attractive as well as profitable, our industries will all suffer accordingly. The Government of Canada, therefore, must see to it that our basic industry prospers; if it does not, all industries will come to ruin which the member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) has predicted.
I pray for the indulgence of this House while I read a short extract from some literature which the Canadian Manufacturers' Association have supplied me with. Before doing so, I will read just two paragraphs from a statement made by Mr. Tom Moore, President of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, in an address which he delivered to the Canadian Club in the city of Toronto yesterday:-
I tell you if you are content to wait until revolution has taken place, you will have the upheaval in Canada as well as they had it in

Russia' and everywhere else. So declared Tom Moore, President of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada in an address to the Canadian Club here to-day, speaking on the subject of "industrial unrest of the present day."
He further stated:
Mr. Moore declared it was the duty of the Government to set the example for all employers in placing its own contracts. The Government should base its contracts on the best conditions of wages and employment that exists in the country, and not according to the local conditions, which were often unfavourable.
'Labour forces and many employing forces,' Mr. Moore said, 'believe that a greater measure of nationalization of some of the monopolies of the country should take place.'
Mr. Moore touched on the Tariff question. 'Any industry which needs a protective tariff should be prepared to place its books under Government inspections, and the inspection of its workmen and should show why it needs the tariff,' he declared. 'If you leave it to one side, I'm afraid you will have a hard time convincing the workers that a tariff is neces-sa ry.'
Let me quote just an extract from the Toronto Globe under date of January 30:
The manifesto of the Manufacturers' Association on the tariff leaves no room for doubt as to the attitude of the association towards the removal of the war tax on imported goods. . . . The issue between the high tariff manufacturers, who constitute what is relatively small proportion of the manufacturing interests of the Dominion and the consumer, is put plainly in the manifesto. An indefinite delay in tariff revision is proposed permitting the continuance of a fiscal system under which three-quarters of the taxation of the country is to be drawn from customs and war taxes upon imported goods and raw materials. A system of taxation so one-sided cannot be continued indefinitely. It oppresses the poor and unduly favours the rich, because the taxation is levied most heavily on food, clothing and household utensils which are as necessary in the homes of the poor as of the rich. . . . The conditions admitted by the Manufacturers' Association in its statement, that customs taxation on consumption yields over 75 per cent of all our federal revenue from taxes, ought not to be continued indefinitely. They stifle Canadian enterprise and overload the shoulders of the bread winner in humble circumstances upon whom customs taxation falls relatively far more heavily than the well-to-do.
Then the Ottawa Citizen says in effect:
The statement issued by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association replying to the platform of the organized Canadian Farmers says that the tariff reform policy of the farmers will revolutionize our present fiscal system. There is nothing to be afraid of in this reference to a possible fiscal revolution in Canada. People should be prepared for it, young people especially ; for the time must undoubtedly come when Canada will be again a young man's country, emancipated from the control of the old men who staked everything on a belief in city industries	Whatever the outcome may be,
the organized farmers should press forward with their educational propaganda. There can be nothing to fear from a policy of free trade
with Great Britain in five years, and of the other proposed fiscal reforms in the platform of the Canadian Council of Agriculture, provided that Canada is ready to become a young man's country again.
Then the Beacon, a newspaper published in the city of Stratford, says under date of January 31:
The Manufacturers' Association does not want any disturbance in the trade of the country which would be caused by a discussion on the tariff.
This is from the Montreal Star under date of February 5:
Let us get at the facts, promptly, radically, and in a spirit of justice, make a beginning first with the necessities of agricultural production. Let us work out a new national policy based upon the new national needs and freed from the old shibboleths.
Then the Manitoba Free Press has these words to say:
The statement published by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association yesterday in reply to the tariff planks in the Farmers' Platform evinces no desire to find a middle way between high protection and free trade. It admits that a revision of the tariff is due, urges its postponement until after the reconstruction period, and claims that their services to the country and the Allies during the war entitles the manufacturers to a free hand in transforming Canadian industry back again from war to peace conditions. The proposal to postpone even this technical consideration of the tariff until after the period of reconstruction is over shows the manufacturers to be as blind as ever to the real imperfections of the present situation. . . . The complete lack of statesmanlike vision among the manufacturers make more than ever imperative the discovery of it among the political leaders of the country. The farmers have spoken; the manufacturers have replied; and it remains for the Union Government, in its turn, to adumbrate a policy which will by firm reasonableness disarm the potential combatants and enable Canada to turn a united front towards the great task of meeting its obligations while building up a contented and prosperous community.
The Grain Growers' Guide has as usual something to say on the -tariff. It has this article on February 5:
The main argument which the Canadian Manufacturers' Association advances against the tariff demands of the Farmers' Platform is that the present is not a wise nor safe time to lower the tariff. This argument may be accepted as pure camouflage. So far as the manufacturers are concerned, there never was and never will be a time when they will be willing to lower the tariff in any way, shape or form. They want the tariff as high as they can get it and to be kept there as long as it is possible.
I will read just one more extract, and that is from the Morning Leader of Regina, Sask., under date of February 1:
The people of Canada have listened to many a wailing appeal from the manufacturers of

Canada in the years that have elapsed since the Conservative party, away back in the seventies, committed this country to the pernicious policy of high tariff protection. During a period of over forty years every hint or suggestion of a reduction of tariff, no matter how small, or how restricted it may have been to a few items, has been the signal for the manufacturers to put up a poor mouth, and cry like the infants they at such times profess their industries to be. On other occasions, however, they puff themselves and ask admiring people to gaze upon their strength and greatness, and the pre-eminent place they occupy in making Canada a nation and giving to it its present stability and prosperity. Canadian manufacturers are puny, weak infants when they are clamouring for favours, or when anything threatens them; but they are giants, bold and unafraid, when they are in a position to dictate to the Government and the masses of the people. It is questionable, however, if during all these years the manufacturers ever issued such a palpable, dishonest, snivelling disgusted appeal as that handed out this week by the general manager of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association by direction of the executive council of that body. It is worthy of the despicable, unspeakable Hun, who, having plundered, destroyed and mutilated to the limit of his ability, throws up his hands when the hour of retribution comes, and like a coward shrieks "Kamerad! Kamerad!" The present wailing appeal of the manufacturers indicates how thoroughly frightened they have become on account of the rising tide of national indignation against the present high tariff which is robbing the people and draining the very life-blood of the nation into the pocket-book and safety vaults of the big interest magnates.
There are several other quotations that I could read, but I wish merely to show to the House that the press of Canada is fairly equally divided on the issue. In fact, I believe, if the balance were found, that the majority of the press would be on the side of the organized farmers.
Motion (Mr. Redman), that an Address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to the speech from the Throne, agreed to.
On motion of Sir Thomas White (Acting Prime Minister) it was ordered that the Address to His Excellency the Governor General, be engrossed and presented to His Excellency by such members of the House as are of the honourable the Privy Council.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 22, respecting the London and Port Stanley Railway Company-Mr. Cronyn.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir Thomas White (Acting Prime Minister) it was ordered that this House do on Wednesday next resolve itself

into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to His Majesty.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir Thomas White (Acting Prime Minister) it was ordered that this House do on Wednesday next resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Ways and Means for raising the Supply to be granted to His Majesty.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. A. Meighen (Minister of the Interior) Bill No. 3, to amend the Railway Belt Act, was read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-issue of patent for land held by deceased settler.
Arthur Meighen: The clause adopted last session permitted the patent to issue in the name of the deceased person, but did not go on to state what the legal effect of that would be. Another clause similar to this was passed with relation to Dominion lands, and did go on to state what the legal effect would be, namely, to vest the land in the heirs and devisees according to the law of the province. The Deputy Minister of Justice takes the view that the legal effect is doubtful under the amendment of last session, and that an amendment should be made to the same effect as in the clause with relation to Dominion lands.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Arthur Meighen (Minister of the Interior), Bill No. 4, to amend the Yukon Act, was read the second time, and the House went into 'Committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-Council reduced from ten members to three,
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Perhaps the Minister will give some explanation as to the necessity of this Bill and what its purpose is.


Arthur Meighen: The Bill has three clauses. The first clause provides for the reduction of the Yukon Council from ten members to three. The Act of last session empowered the Governor in Council to abolish the Yukon council altogether and establish in its place an appointive body if the Governor in Council saw fit, or an appointive organization of any kind. After conferring with the Yukon Commission, I

have come to the conclusion, with the approval of my colleagues, that it would be better to maintain the elective body, but that there is no necessity for so large a body; and it is therefore intended to reduce it from ten to three. It is also intended by clause 3 of the Bill, which I may refer to now, to reduce the annual indemnity from $600 to $400. This is necessitated by the reduction in the estimates, and justified by the reduction of the population in the Yukon.


Mr. DEVLIN:: Might I ask the minister if it is the desire of the Yukon council that this Bill should be put through, or if any communication has been received from the Yukon council respecting the Bill?


Arthur Meighen: No communication has been received from the Yukon council respecting the Bill that I am aware of.


Mr. A. THOMPSON:: In the early history I stood for an elective council and against the appointive council. I have not changed my views on this important question, and I am glad to see that the elective principle is retained, and that the people will be able to carry on their affairs as they have been accustomed to carry them on, and in accordance with the principles of democracy.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Does it not appear to the hon. Minister that any deliberative body managing the affairs of any territory and consisting of only three persons is very small? It seems to me that it would be almost impossible to carry on the business of any considerable country by a body consisting of only three members. It has to be a miniature assembly. It must have a chairman, or a speaker, and that leaves only two men on the floor; and if one moves a motion and the other refuses to second it, there is a deadlock. It would appear to me that there should be at least five men, as the smallest possible number charged with managing the affairs of any province; and I really think the hon. minister should allow this Bill to stand and have a very serious consultation with the representative from the Yukon with a view to seeing whether it is not advisable to make this body larger than is proposed.


Arthur Meighen: It is true the body is not very large; but while the territory over which it would have jurisdiction is large, the population is very small. The population of the Yukon Territory to-day is only the population of a very small town. I have had the privilege and advantage of a conference with the member for the Yukon
on this subject and also with the Yukon Commissioner, who has been for many years associated with the administration of that territory, and I thought it was advisable to reduce the total expenditure to something commensurate with the size of the population; and in doing so I find it necessary to recommend the reduction that is ^contained in the Bill. This reduction meets with the approval of the Commissioner of the Yukon Territory. Regard must also be had to the fact that it is a very circumscribed area of jurisdiction they exercise. A great deal of the administration under the Act is vested in the Minister of the Interior and in the Yukon Branch of that department.


Mr. L. A. LAPOINTE:: May I ask how the members of the council are elected?


Arthur Meighen: That is provided for by another section. They are elected by districts.


Louis Audet Lapointe: Does this include Dawson City?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Alfred Thompson: I might say for the information of the hon. gentleman that it is proposed to have three districts, each electing one member. The city of Dawson will be one district, the gold-producing creeks in the vicinity of Dawson and the Stewart river will be district No. 2, and the country around White Horse will be district No. 3.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: What is the jurisdiction
of the Yukon council?


Arthur Meighen: That is really a question that would require some study of the Act in order to answer, and it would take some time.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Roughly speaking?


Arthur Meighen: They have jurisdiction
analogous to that of a town council. They maintain a sort of municipal organization.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: They have roads to deal
with, and I presume they must have something to do with the internal legislation of the country.


Arthur Meighen: Not very much.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Have they a Speaker?


Arthur Meighen: No, it is a council, not a parliament.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: It is something in the
form of a commission?


Arthur Meighen: Very much.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: And besides the council
there is a regular commissionei ?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, the regular commissioner is an officer of the Government and performs the active functions of Governor of the Territory. The great bulk of administrative work is on him, and he attends meetings of the council.


Alfred Thompson: Perhaps I can
answer the hon. member. The Yukon council is an advisory body. Any Money Bill must originate with the Commissioner of the Territory who is a direct representative of the Federal Government and through whom all moneys voted by Par liament are expended. Money Bills originate with the Governor and he presents them to the council. No money Bill can originate with the council. The council may meet and make ordinances for the good of the country.


Louis Audet Lapointe: Have they got the power to impose taxation for municipal purposes?


Arthur Meighen: They have a limited power of taxation.


Mr. ROBB:: This advisory council was
originally composed of ten members and the minister proposes to reduce it to three. What is the difference between the per capita representation as the council originally stood and as the minister proposes to reduce it?


Arthur Meighen: I am not sure that I know the maximum population which the Yukon reached, but it seems to me that it will bear to the present population not far from the ratio of ten to three. The hon. member for Yukon would perhaps answer that question more accurately than I.


Alfred Thompson: It is very difficult to tell what the population of the Yukon was when it reached its highest poipt. It was estimated at from 25,000 to 40,000.


James Alexander Robb: Was the council of ten formed at the time when the population was at its greatest?


Alfred Thompson: When the population was at its greatest the territory was governed by a council appointed by the Federal Government. Judge Dugas, afterwards the Chief Justice of the Territorial Court, served on that council, as did the Commissioner of the Territory, the Controller, the head of the Northwest Mounted Police and the Gold Commissioner. They were all Federal officials. At first the Government permitted the people of the terri-

tory to elect two representatives. . That was in 1902. In 1904 they were given the right to elect five and at the next election after that they were given the right to elect the whole council of ten. I think that perhaps the population of the territory had reached the apex of the curve by the time the council was made elective.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Will the hon. gentleman state whether this Bill is satisfactory to him as the representative of the Yukon?


Alfred Thompson: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I take the responsibility of saying that it is satisfactory to me after having consulted with the Commissioner of the Territory, a number of people in the territory and the Minister of the Interior. Some people in the territory would like to have the council abolished and an appointive council created under this statute, but as I said a moment ago I could not convince myself that that was quite in keeping with the spirit of the times, and I am glad to know that the elective principle is being maintained.


Arthur Meighen: Sections 11 and 12 give power to the Commissioner in Council to impose taxes for any purpose within his jurisdiction; respecting the summoning of juries and the enforcement of the attendance of jurors for the trial of civil and criminal cases; the control and regulation of the sale of and traffic in intoxicating liquor in the territory, which is drawing to its close as no liquor has been allowed in for a time, and the preservation of game in the territory.
On section 2-franchise extended to women for election of council:


Arthur Meighen: That extends woman's suffrage to the Yukon Territory.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Will the minister please read the section as it is amended?


Arthur Meighen: Section 9 as amended in 1908 reads as follows:
The Commissioner in Council may prescribe the qualifications of those entitled to vote at an election of Members to the Council; provided that only those persons shall be entitled to so vote who are natural born or naturalized male British subjects of the full age of twenty-one years, and who have resided in the Territory for a period of twelve months prior to the date of the election.
This adds, after the word "male" the words "or female."


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is universal suffrage?


Arthur Meighen: It puts the female suffrage on the same basis as the male suffrage.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There is no qualification except that they shall be British subjects and 21 years of age?


Arthur Meighen: And shall have resided in the territory for twelve months prior to the date of the election.
On section 3-indemnity of councillors reduced from $600 to $400:


Arthur Meighen: This reduces the indemnity from $600 to $400 which is considered sufficient.


Alfred Thompson: Representations
have been made to me from the Yukon that the indemnity should be left as it is; that is to say at $600. The minister has already stated that one of the objects of this legislation is to give a more economical legislature for the territory. However, in view of the fact that we are cutting down the number from ten to three, I think the minister would be well advised if he left the indemnity as it is at $600. They make that suggestion to me. It is only a matter of $600 as between the $400 and $600 for the three members.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: How long do they sit in a year?


Alfred Thompson: Like our Parliament here, they do not sit any particular number of days in a year. They sit until the business of the territory has been finished. They sit once a year.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: Do they sit at
night?
Air. A. THOA1PSON: Sometimes they sit at night,


Ernest Lapointe: They sit only once a year?
Air. A. THOA1PSON: Once a year, the same as Parliament.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: As a general rule, how
long does the session last?


Ernest Lapointe: Have they Orders in Council?


Andrew Ross McMaster: How long does the
session last?


Alfred Thompson: I think from ten to fifteen days. Three weeks would be a fairly long session of the council. They sat for four weeks one year but from two to three weeks would be about right.
Air. A1EIGHEN: In answer to the hon. member for Kamouraska (Air. E. Lapointe) I may say that they do legislate by Order
in Council as empowered by the Act of 1908 which hon. gentlemen passed.
Bill reported


STATISTICS' ACT AA1ENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
Hon. A. K. A1ACLEAN moved the second reading of Bill No. 16, to amend the Statistics Act.
James Alexander Robb: It is now nearly eleven
o'clock, and I think we had better adjourn. We have done a pretty fair day's work.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Bill which I am
asking the House now to consider is a very short one. I have another which is also very short and will not detain the House, at any great length. I should like to make some progress, and I hope that hon. gentlemen will consent to consider these two very short and harmless Bill#.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On section 1-transportation returns excepted from operation of section 15 respecting secrecy,
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Would the minister
be good enough to explain the provisions of this Bill?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Under section 15 of the Statistics Act, which was passed at the last session of Parliament, it is provided that all returns made by any individual or corporation upon the request of the officials of the Statistical Bureau are entitled to secrecy. That is, any information they may give is deemed to be secret, and cannot be made public by any body in the department. Of course if that relates to private affairs it is a very proper provision. Section 28 of the same Act provides that statistics furnished by transportation companies is merely privileged. But section 15 is held to override the provisions of section 28. The result is that under a strict interpretation of the Act, statistics given by transportation companies could not be published. The purpose of this section is merely to restore the provision which existed in the statute law in respect to transportation statistics, prior to the passage of the Act.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I would ask the minister if there have been any steps taken in his department to try and co-ordinate the statistics that go to the different departments, with a view to bringing all statistics under one heading?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Act passed last session, respecting the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, had in mind the very thing which my hon. friend has mentioned. I cannot,

I am sorry to say, inform the hon. gentleman just how far the transfer has been accomplished. I do know that a great deal of the statistics heretofore published by the Customs Department is being transferred to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, and it is expected that the railway statistics will also be transferred to that bureau. Ouir statistical system is being extended, and I think the Act passed last session will have a very beneficial effect in affording to the public a wider ranged and better prepared statistics than we have had heretofore.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Statistics, I might remind the minister, would be more useful under the one heading. For instance, under the Dominion Bureau of Statistics the members of this House, and other persons throughout the Dominion, might have one office to apply to in ordfer to get the statistics relating to any particular subject they may be interested in. At the present moment we might apply to that Bureau for certain statistics, and again be referred by it to perhaps my hon. friend's department, or to *the Railway Department, for certain other statistics.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I might inform my'hon. friend that to-day the Bureau of Statistics will obtain for any hon. gentleman any statistical information he requires, no matter to what department it relates. The railway statistical branch has not yet been transferred to the Statistical Bureau, but I trust they will be very shortly.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I want to say that Mr. Coats is a highly efficient public servant, and I would like to render him that testimony here.
Mr. JOHN H. SINCLAIR: I presume that the statistics referred to include the information obtained in answer to questions sent to manufacturers. Now manufacturers write to me that they have a great many returns to make in connection with their business, that it is becoming an onerous thing, and that some of them have to employ special clerks to look after the returns that the Government call for. I would like to know what use is made of these statistics after they are forwarded. It will be satisfactory to the people who are incurring this expense in compiling and forwarding these statistics, to know that they are utilized by the department and placed before the people in some shape or other. Will the minister tell us what is done in that direction?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am quite aware of the fact that during the latter part of the war,

various departments of government were seeking information of one jrind or another, and I fear there was a great deal of overlapping, and in some instances our business men were perhaps unnecessarily put to expense and annoyance to afford statistical information to more than one branch or department of government. For instance, the Canada Food Board required at times certain information. Later it would transpire that the Cost of Living Commissioner of the Labour Department might be wanting statistical information along these same lines, and in consequence my hon. friend is quite correct in saying that many business men have been protesting recently against the vast amount of statistical information demanded of them. However, the intention of the Government, and of the various departments, now is to centre in the Bureau of Statistics all work relating to statistics. The Statistical Bureau is attempting to build up statistical information in reference to our internal trade, which figures were never available in this country before. If the Bureau succeeds in compiling reliable information concerning our internal trade it will be of very great interest and benefit to the public. Of course this will mean that the public must vouchsafe on request certain information, but while it may entail some little additional work on the part of certain members of the community, still it will be in the public interest to have that information. However, I can assure my hon. friend from Antigonish and Guysbor-ough (Mr. Sinclair) that it is the purpose of the Government-in fact that was the intention of the Act passed last session- to centre all statistics in the one branch.


Frank S. Cahill: What is the difficulty in the way of getting railway statistics into the Bureau of Statistics?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I cannot answer my
hon. friend exactly. There has been some delay. I am not sure whether the Railway Department are facilitating matters very much; and that might be true of any Department-they naturally wish to hold on to their statistical branches as long as they can. I have not had an opportunity of knowing why the railway statistics have not already been brought under this statistical bureau, but they will be very shortly.


Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR:: We have been
collecting these statistics now for some time. Is anything being done in the way of utilizing them?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes, a great deal of statistical information has already been compiled. I hope that the report of the Bureau will be presented to the House shortly.


James Alexander Robb: The minister is aware of the trouble and expense that business men have been subjected to in providing statistical information [DOT] for different departments of the Government. As he has truly said, the country is sick and tired of it, and this is a good time for the minister to make a reassuring statement to the country that, the *war being over, business men will no longer be required to employ extra labour in the compiling of these statistics. Moreover, when this information comes into Ottawa an army of employees is required to dig it out and put it into shape. Great economy would result, not only to business men throughout Canada but to the Government as well, if a good deal of the statistical information that has been required during the past year could be done away with.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The purpose of
the passing of the Statistical Act of last session was to centre in one branch of the public service the compilation of all statistics. The Bureau created for that purpose should be able to co-ordinate the work and minimize the demands upon the public for information. I think I can very sincerely assure my hon. friend that henceforth demands made upon the public for statistics will be very much less than they have been during the last year or two. Statistics were required from the public for many reasons during the last two years, but with the ending of the war the need for obtaining much of this information has passed away.


John Howard Sinclair: Is the Food Board still calling for returns from the business people?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think not.


Thomas Foster: What is the
estimated cost of establishing this Bureau?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Bureau of
Statistics, in a certain form, has been in existence for a long time. The Director of the new Bureau of Statistics was the Census Commissioner.


Charles Murphy: Prior to that, editor of
the Labour Gazette.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think so. Last session the Dominion Bureau of Statistics was established, under the Department of Trade and Commerce. It is intended that all statistics shall be compiled in that Bureau.


Thomas Foster: Do you propose to extend the work of that Bureau?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


Thomas Foster: What I want to get is the difference between the cost of the present system and that of the new system which it is proposed to establish.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I shall endeavour to give my hon. friend that information. The expenditures of the Customs Department, for instance, in compiling their statistics will be very much lessened by the work of this Bureau.
Mr. ROBB; The complaint is not that information is sought; it is that there is duplication in this respect, with resulting duplication of expense both on the part of the business men throughout the country and of the Government. The minister has said that the Bureau of Statistics was established with a view to gathering all this information, but since that Act was passed the Government of which he is a member has authorized other departments to seek information and has made the business men of the country liable to penalties if that information is not supplied. That is what we are complaining of; we wish that these penalties be withdrawn.
. Mr. A. K. MACLEAN: Prior to the establishment of the Bureau of Statistics, the Canada Food Board, the War Trade Board and other war organizations were established. Properly or improperly, they thought they required certain statistics and demands were accordingly made upon the public for the information. In the meantime, the Bureau of Statistics was not completely organized; as a matter of fact it is not fully organized yet. When the organization of the Bureau is complete, so far as I know there is no reason why any demands should be made on the public for statistical information except through this one body; therefore duplication should be eliminated.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Do I understand that the statistical information gathered by the officials of the Railway Department-I am taking the Railway Department as an example-is now passed on to this Bureau of Statistics; and that the information thus obtained will appear not in the report of the Railway Department, but in the report of this Bureau of Statistics?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is the intention. The Railway Department have a Statistical Branch which publishes a blue book of railway and transportation statis-

tics. In a short time that branch will pass over to the Bureau of Statistics, the publication now issuing from the Railway Department will cease, and that information will appear in the general statistical book to be published by the Bureau of Statistics.


Charles Murphy: In other words, a person requiring information regarding statistics of any character will apply not to the particular department with which that information is connected, but to this Bureau of Statistics?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes, for instance, in reference to customs statistics, it is expected that the Bureau of Statistics will have more complete and fuller information Uian is to be found in the customs return I think it is likely that the Customs Department will continue to publish an annual blue book showing the customs duties paid upon importations, but the Bureau of Statistics will take the customs returns and interpret them in a different way and make them more valuable to the public.


John Howard Sinclair: What did this Bureau of Statistics cost last year?
Mr. A. IC. MACLEAN: I could not give that information to my hon. friend. That will be made available to him when the estimates relating to the Bureau of Statistics are before Parliament.


John Howard Sinclair: Is there a large staff?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I should not like to venture an answer to my hon. friend. The staff is .probably larger now than it was at the close of the last session of Parliament. It shalll likely grow, I cannot say.
Mr. ,1. H. SINCLAIR: Who is at the head of it?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Mr. Coats, who was formerly Commissioner of Census.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I do not want to prevent the minister from getting his Bill through, but he has, I take it, given to the House the assurance that the statistics now going to the Railway Department will in future go to the Bureau of Statistics. Am I right?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Without wishing to anticipate any of the work of the session, might I ask if there is not in the Railway Bill that is at the present moment going through the Senate a clause with an amendment* to it to the very effect that that branch of statistics will go to the Railway Department?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I understand that an application will be made to strike those clauses out. They were in the Bill, I understand, as originally introduced, and I think at the last session of Parliament, either in committee or in the House, they were struck out, but the Bill was republished with those clauses incorporated.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: They will be struck out?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I hope they will be struck out. I intend to ask that they be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-dates of making and forwarding transportation returns changed.
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The purpose of section 2 is simply to change the year for which transportation statistics may be collected. The year required by the Act as at present is the old Government fiscal year ending on June 30, and it is proposed by this section of the Bill to change it to the calendar year, as this corresponds with the financial year of most transportation companies.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Why not attempt uniformity in the financial statistical years of the Government? Our financial year at present ends with the last day of March. Would it not be very much easier to get information for men who take an interest in such matters, if we had all our years coterminous; that is, if our statistical year, our financial year and all our other years in the business of the Government ended with the same day? It is confusing that one year ends with the last day of March, another ends with the last day of June, and another ends with the last day of December. If they could be co-ordinated and systematized so that when we were talking about a statistical or financial year in Government matters we would all have in mind the same period, it would be much better.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I quite agree with the leader of the Opposition that it would be very desirable to bring about the end he suggests, but that is, of course, impossible. The section of the Bill which we are now considering refers merely to transportation statistics, and as these are always con- . trolled by individuals or private corporations, we must accept their fiscal year; at least it makes it less difficult for them if we adopt the calendar year as the period for which they must furnish the annual statistics. That has been the experience of the Bureau of Statistics. Nearly all the

railway companies have their fiscal year corresponding with the calendar year, and this will promote the suggestion made by my hon. friend from Chateauguay (Mr. Robb), because it will make it feasier for transportation companies to give this information at the end of the calendar year which corresponds usually with their business year.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On the preamble.
Ernest Lapointe: Have the statistics obtained by the 'Canada Registration Board been transferred to the Bureau of Statistics?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: They have been, or will be transferred.


Ernest Lapointe: Is the Canada Registration Board still in existence?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, it has passed out of existence and all the information gathered by that board, which was according to the card system, has been or will be transferred to the Bureau of Statistics and will be available there for any information which it contains. I do not know whether that information will be of very much interest hereafter or not, but I remember that Mr. Coats, Director of the Bureau, told me the other day that he could tell, by reason of the information gathered by the Canada Registration Board, how many farmers or how many carpenters there were in any county in Canada. Whether such information will be helpful in the future or not I do not know.


Ernest Lapointe: I read the other day in one of the Montreal newspapers that the bachelors of that city were protesting very strongly because the Canada Registration Board had sold to the city or to the commissioners of Montreal, for the sum of $500, or a little more than that, the statistics which they had gathered, in order that the city might collect a tax from the poor, unfortunate bachelors. Is that the case?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is a case in which the Dominion will be assisting in the assertion of provincial or municipal rights.


Ernest Lapointe: But the rule of
secrecy will, in that case, have been broken for a price. _


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I did not know that that information was given under the secrecy clause ol the Statistics Act or not, but we shall allow the bachelors to raise that question.


James Alexander Robb: Will the next census be taken under the direction of the Bureau of Statistics?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.
Bill reported.
On the motion of Hon. A. K. Maclean for the adjournment of the House:


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What business shall
we take up to-morrow?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Questions first, and notices of motion next. I assume that will exhaust the day, but if not we shall proceed to Public Bills. The Resolution that will be taken up first will probably be the one standing in the name of the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) relating to the Grand Trunk Pacific.


James Alexander Robb: I should like to make a suggestion to the minister who is leading the House, which he might take up with his colleagues. In the British House of Commons, on Thursday of each week, the minister who is leading the House gives a statement of the business for each day of the following week. I think the Government might very well adopt that practice. It would enable members and people throughout the country who are interested in a particular item of legislation to know when it was coming up in Parliament.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I shall be very glad to call the attention of my colleagues to my hon. friend's suggestion as it will appear in Hansard to-morrow.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House adjourned at 11.30 p.m.
Wednesday, March 19, 1919.