Mr. BUREAU:

Mr. Pelletier, the Commissioner of the province of Quebec in London. Ho they want to stop in England? No, Sir: they go further; they cross the channel and go right to the trenches. The other day I read in a newspaper a letter from a young French Canadian from the province of Quebec, stating that even in the trenches practically the only thing they had to read was a paper which was circulated, a paper which was slurring and slandering the French-Canadians. It is a Toronto paper, which has for its title Jack Canuck. That is the kind of literature they get in the trenches, and that is the kind of respect that is shown not only for the slacker, but for the man who has gone to the front to shed his blood.

Not only since the beginning of the war but for a long time before, we have been insulted; but we have borne our ills with patience. The element which is so active against us cannot realize the position. Let me tell them that the French Canadians did not come to this side of the ocean in palatial steel steamers. When the Frenchman came to America he did not proceed to the Windsor hotel, there to spread a map of Canada before him, pull out his cheque hook and decide where he was going to invest his thousands of dollars. He did not come either to seek wealth. His arms and his capital were courage and a strong heart. -The wealth he was seeking was peace and happiness. The twin screw steel p_alaee that he had was nothing -but a small bark, and when he fastened it to the shore of the, St. Lawrence, when he stepped on the shore, there to wrest and conquer from the forest and from the aborigines a piece of land on which he could live in peace and raise his family he was satisfied. What he wanted was to create a home for his descendants, to worship his God according to his creed, to speak his language, and to find happiness with his family by his fireside. This man cannot have the same mentality as the man who came to Canada twenty-five or thirty years ago. This man is rooted to the soil, and his only country in the world is the spot bought by his forefathers by the sweat of their brows, and paid for with their blood. We are proud of the French blood that flows in our veins, but you cannot call us French we are Canadians. The fortune of war went against ns one day; we had to change companions and to submit to a new regime. We did it, we accepted the new companions, to live in peace with them. At that time, Sir, the

partner senior was holding the majority of the stock, 70,000 against 3,000 when men of his blood called Lafayette and Rochambault came and made him a proposition to forego his allegiance and join the American republic; he said no. He was loyal, he knew that he had sworn allegiance to his new associates. Let those who doubt the loyalty of that man go down into the province of Quebec, on the national highway along the St. Lawrence, and there they will see that the French Canadians has in front of his house the witness of his pledge, they will -see on every farm the cross, standing there to remind the French Canadians that he cannot be a perjurer. to the British Crown- and he never will be.

To show the animus of a certain element, I need only refer to what occurred this afternoon. I was amazed at the answers made by the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Arthurs). My friend from Cape Breton asked him a question. The member for Parry Sound was making a statement that there were only a thousand French Canadians left at the front, that one regiment had been decimated, that only commissioned and non-commissioned officers were in England. Upon that my friend asked him a question something as follows : You made the statement that there were 5,000 or 6,000 French-Canadians; one regiment has been decimated, 1,000 are in the trenches, where are the others? The hon. member replied: They must have deserted.

Shame, shame.

Mr. BUREAU:

Sir, is that noble, is that generous, I ask you, is that British-is it even decent? I say no.

Mr. C. A. WILSON:

It is German.

Mr. BUREAU:

Do you think that a mother with a heart in her breast or a father with blood in his veins will tell his son to enroll under men who express such sentiments as that? What treatment can he expect? You say: Go and fight the

Prussians; in the name of liberty, in the name of democracy, go and fight the Prussians: Why? Because he has called

his pledges scraps of paper, because he has put his heel on the weaker nation, Belgium; because he has tried to wipe from the earth the smaller nations of the Balkans; and in the same breath you treat your fellow countrymen, you treat the men in the trenches, in this way. Read the casualty lists, and you will see that some men have deserted to go to a better land; some have deserted by shedding

their blood; some have deserted by taking Courcelette, and I ask a gentleman who says he has been in the trenches, a gentleman who says he has raised a regiment and who has nothing but words of scorn for men who have lost their lives, I ask: Are we going to enroll with such people? No. And then, Sir, those gentlemen will come-

Do not call him a gentleman.

Mr. BUREAU:

I am not calling him, I am talking about the gentlemen, on the other side generally. They will come and call us the white-livered brigade, the cold-feet association, the slacker band. Do they think we are going to follow their footsteps? Who is the man who is foolish enough to go and enroll when he knows he will have a greater fight with the men who are commanding him than he will have with the Prussian when he meets him? The insinuations, the implications, the slurs and slanders against my fellow countrymen were started by a certain element in the neighbouring province of Ontario. Mind you we exempt certain good-willed people. A movement was made to try and bring about a better understanding between the two provinces. There was the bonne entente delegation. I had the pleasure of being present when they came to Three Rivers, and I may say that they were all delighted and some were surprised at what they saw. A return visit was made, but some titled editors laughed and scoffed at it. Why, Sir, what we want now is unity. What we want now is not strife and struggle; we want to understand that we are a common people fighting for a common cause, and that there is no superior and no inferior race in this country. I will never consent to be a party to ratify broken pledges. I will never consent to be content when one class of the citizens is being brushed aside with the hand as unworthy of being Canadians.

As I have said, the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Arthurs) and the member for North York (Mr. D. A. Armstrong) are not the only ones. We, whc depend upon treaties and pledges for our safeguard, have heard the statement made in this House, by members who claimed they represented the people, that they did not care for the constitution I will quote the speech so that I will not be unfair to the hon. gentleman. Mr. Armstrong of North York started with the usual complimentary address:

I must say that the reason why conscription faces ixs to-day is because French Canada has failed to do its duty.

Further on he says:

I personally do not care two straws whether it is constitutional or not. Personally I would puncture the constitution a dozen times, if it was necessary, in order to stand by the boys at the front and to uphold Canada's arm in this struggle.

Going back to the opening of his address, I find he made the following statement:

Those who know the political history of the part of the province from which I come know that the riding of North York has,long claimed to be the birthplace and cradle of reform; that it has given to the public life of Canada men like George Brown, William Lyon Mackenzie, Sir William Mulock and Sir Allen Aylesworth, names that are closely interwoven with the history and principle of old time Liberalism.

Sir William Lyon Mackenzie and George Brown are gone, hut there are men living to-day who must find a considerable change in the constituency of North York. I had the pleasure ,of being closely associated with one of them, Sir Allen Aylesworth, and no man had more respect for the constitution than he had, and I ask myself, how is it that to-day North York is sending to Parliament a man who wants to puncture the constitution? He had* better go and puncture the Prussians first. What are we fighting for and what are we asked to fight for? The very same thing that the Allies are fighting for. We are asked to fight because the constitution, or pledge or treaty that Germany signed, protecting a smaller nation, Belgium, has been treated as a scrap of paper. The hon. member from North York says, " I will tear in pieces the treaty or contract which safeguards you as a minority. In the name of liberty, I enslave you. In the name of democracy I shackle you." I remember the indignation of the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce when we passed legislation creating new provinces. I was reminded of the preacher in an old church in the southern states, when he made us hear the rattling of the shackles on the young man on the plains of the Northwest, and when he made them cry, " Give me liberty or give me death." What are we to expect? Has Prussia been transported to America. Has Kaiserism been implanted in Ottawa? Has the gentleman gone into hysterics, or is it mental aberration? I do not know what to think. My people do not know what to think. Are we going to be slaves, or are we going to be treated as slaves. I say, No.

The ex-Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes) said the other day that one of the influences which worked against recruiting was that some young people would get on

the platform and call the others slackers. And he says the young men who were called slackers would get tiheir backs against the wall and say, "We will not enroll." Mr. Speaker, do not let our friends believe that, because iwe do not hold the majority of the stock in this association, we are going to run away. Don't let them think that abuse or threats are going to scare us, either inside or outside of this House.

Hear, hear.

Mr. BUREAU:

Mr. LALOR:

The hon. member says

that upon this side of the House reflections have been cast upon the clergy of Quebec. Will he kindly explain who cast those reflections?

Mr. BUREAU:

The hon. member for

Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes)-I cannot speak as to the year.

Mr. MEDERIC MARTIN:

In 1910.

We have not forgotten that.

Mr. BUREAU:

We discussed in this House a motion asking for an expression of sympathy for those French Canadians who live in Ontario, asking whether in the opinion of this House it would be well not to abolish the teaching of the French language in the schools of Ontario. We remember how that motion was received, and I will abstain from going into details. The French Canadians of Ontario, when they made that request, were practically told: Those privileges ars constitutional; they do

not extend beyond the limits of Quebec, and your privileges are co-extensive therewith. Therefore, the only conclusion to be drawn, although it was not put in so many words, was: If you want to. enjoy those privileges, go back to the province of Quebec. I have here an expression of opinion, not by a French Canadian, not in a paper published in Quebec, not even in a paper published in'Canada or in the United States, but in an English paper called the New Witness and edited by Mr. G. K. Chesterton. On page 78 of the issue of May 24, 1917, I find the following:

As we are in the act of celebrating Empire day, it may be well to consider what is the charter of the Empire, General Smuts said recently: "The British Empire, or this British

Commonwealth of Nations, does not stand for unity, standardization, or assimilation, or denationalization; but it stands for a fuller, a richer, and more various life among all the *nations that compose it. And even nations who have fought against you, like my own, must feel that they and their interests, their language, their religions, and all their cultural interests, are as safe and as secure under the British flag as those of the children of your household and your own blood."

This is the comment of the editor:

And at this very moment, in Canada, we are giving the lie to his words. The slander that the French Canadian has been a slacker in the war, which has been given a good deal of publicity, was bad enough. But that slander has been effectually rebutted by the Montreal paper, La Presse. What is now happening is more serious than mere vulgar abuse. The French Canadian is being robbed of his language. Despite our solemn guarantees, tne use of French in the Manitoba Legislature has long ceased; but now the separate French schools have been abolished-a few months ago the final blow was struck. In Ontario it is now a crime to teach French to little French Canadian boys and girls in French Canadian schools. The penalty is a fine of $500 or six months' imprisonment. In the event of the French-speaking people of Ontario. refusing to submit meekly to this iniquitous rule, they are threatened with the fate, of Manitoba; their schools will he suppressed. What does General Smuts say? "Even nations that have fought against you feel that their interests, their language, their religions, and all their cultured interests are as safe under the British flag as those of the children of your own household and your own blood." But in the war of American Independence the French Canadians stood by the British flag-and this is their reward! Redress has already been refused by the Privy Council. But we cannot he content to know on Empire day that in this "free" Empire of ours we are imitating so slavishly the methods of Prussia in Poland and Alsace-Lorraine.

That is not from the pen of a Frenchman or from a newspaper in Quebec, but from an English paper published in London. How does this compare with the Toronto

News of 2nd June, 1914, shortly before the war? It boldly repudiates the pledge and says, "One-hundred-year-old treaties must be interpreted in the light of new circumstances." Just exactly two months and three days later the Prussian Chancellor was using the same language in the German Reichstag. Now they are telling us: You of the province of Quebec have no enthusiasm, or inspiration. How can we have it, Sir, when we have to fight at home. We are being attacked as if we were to be isolated. We are being slandered and slurred. Is that an encouragement or an inspiration to us? In the hour when we close onr eyes to the sun where will we find the friend, where could the word of consolation so sadly needed in that hour come from? When we see around us nothing but hatred and slander, w'hen we hear no word of sympathy,

I for one can feel no enthusiasm.

But that is not all. Why does the Government refuse a referendum? The Minister of Trade and Commerce said this was a dilatory motion moved for the purpose of gaining time. The Prime Minister has

offered an election but has refused a referendum, and is has been stated in this House on both sides that the referendum was refused because it was feared it would be defeated. Even those on this side of the House who do not share our views have expressed the same opinion. My hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) urged that we .have an open vote, because there were men who were opposed to conscription, he said, who dare not express their views.

Mr. Speaker, a man who dare not speak his mind has no right to call his neighbour a slacker. A man who has not the courage to stand up in a free parliament and say what he thinks, or stand'up in a free country and express his opinion, has no right to call his neighbour a coward. The coward is he who is afraid to speak his mind when he thinks he is in the right. Kaiser-like, this Government, knowing the people do not want conscription, say: We will put our heel on their necks; we will be the masters. Is that democracy? Is it in the name of a democracy such as that, that we are going to compel our race, who have ideals, to enlist? Sir, that is no inspiration to us. We do not want to fight for liberty in Europe and create a condition of slavery in Canada. We do not want to fight for democracy in Europe and establish autocracy in Canada. The time has passed when we can be called to slavery

in the name of liberty, and to love in the name of hatred. Let us get together. I have spoken my mind without any reservation and without any malice. I have stated the facts as they are, and put the case as I conceive it to be. That being done I repeat my appeal to my hon. friend from North Grey. I appeal to - him and to all the ministers of the Cabinet to find half a dozen men of good will who will stop this campaign of slander and calumny in Ontario and other English-speaking provinces against Freneh-Canadians. Not till then shall we have peace and unity. Do not think because we are in a minority that we are heartless; we feel all the more on that account. We can only appeal to sympathy, and how can conditions be bettered when that sympathy is lacking, and distrust and worse is in the hearts of those to whom we appeal. If this campaign of slander were stopped and good-will were established between the two races it would not be necessary to put a Conscription Bill on the statute book to get French Canadians from the province of Quebec to enlist. When you show some sympathy to the French Canadian of the province of Quebec Tie will reciprocate and show how he is loyal and true. The things that are so dear to him, his fireside, his language, and his faith, are the only things that have kept him patient under circumstances where any other man would have lost his patience. It is his love for the land that he has discovered and conquered that has kept him silent. If I were a young man eligible to enlist I would consider that the condition I have exposed would justify me in not enlisting. If the people of Quebec have not responded the fault is not with the right hon. leader of the Opposition or members on this side of the House from the province of Quebec, but it is for the reasons I have stated.

Mr. FERDINAND JOSEPH ROBIDOUX (Kent, N.B.):

Mr. Speaker, I would take no part in this debate did I not feel bound to raise my voice in support of the measure introduced by the Prime Minister, and I take this position believing it to be in the best interests of the race to which I belong, as well as of the country generally. I have : followed with close attention the debate which has taken place in this House during the last few days, and it'seems to me that there are a few things which have been pretty conclusively established, the first of which is the fact that the principle of compulsory military service has been embodied in our statute law ever since Con-

federation. It is therefore quite clear that the proposed Military Service Act does not introduce into the legislation of this country any new principle as far as compulsion for the defence of Canada is concerned, except in so far as it provides that troops shall be raised by selective drafts and not by the methods laid down in the Militia Act, which require that the men be selected by ballot. The new Act does not trust to luck for the selection of the men; it provides that the selection shall be made in an intelligent manner, having regard to the requirements of the great industries of the country, chief among which must necessarily rank agriculture and the fisheries, which are the most important agencies of food production.

In the second place, it has been shown beyond question that the Governor in Council already has the power, under the terms of the Militia Act of 1904, to send Canadian troops beyond the limits of Canada for the defence of Canada in a case of emergency. The hon. member for Kamouraska has cited old statutes in force before Confederation, in which it was specially stipulated that the militia could be called out and marched to any place without the province, but conterminous therewith for the purpose of repelling or meeting an attack. My hon. friend cited those old statutes in an endeavour to prove that under the present Militia Act the same limitations applied. But in my judgment he has only succeeded in proving exactly the contrary proposition to that which he sought to establish. In the Militia Act of 1868, drafted by Sir George Etienne Cartier, as well as in the Act of 1904, the word " conterminous" has been eliminated, showing conclusively that the framers of the new law had in contemplation certain circumstances which might arise and might compel Canada to send her troops even beyond the seas to fight for the defence of Canada. Otherwise the word " conterminous " would have been left in the statute. Moreover the words uttered by the then Minister ot Justice, Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, at the time the clause dealing with this matter was adopted, words which have already been quoted in this House, evidently show that this is the true and proper construction to put on that clause.

There is another fact which, clear and distinct, looms out of this debate and out of the events which transpired in this country at the outbreak of the war. Canada went into this war, not only because Great Britain and the Empire were threatened

by a grave danger, not merely for the purpose of helping Great Britain and France in the tremendous struggle into which the unjust aggresision of Germany 'had thrust them without cause or warning; but Canada entered this war for the stern and fixed purpose of protecting herself and her people against a grave and serious danger which would inevitably become a disaster should Germany win out. It was mainly this sentiment of self-preservation which prompted the people of this country at the outbreak of the war, and ever since, without distinction of race and creed, to unite in a common voluntary effort to resist the German menace and help crush it, and upon this sentiment chiefly rested the appeal which was made to the youth of Canada in order to urge them to enlist and fly to the defence of our country.

Finally it has been shown by the Prime Minister, and i.t has been generally admitted by those who have spoken in this debate, that the system of voluntary enlistment had ceased to , yield the requisite number of .men to maintain the Canadian troops at full strength at the front. While this state of affairs is to be regretted, at the same time I agree with those who hold that voluntary enlistment has not been a failure. My own native province, the province of New Brunswick, has done wonders under the voluntary system. It gave me a good deal of satisfaction the other day to hear the former Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes), quoting from a memorandum on recruiting which he had addressed to the Prime Minister on July 10, 1916, state that " it must be borne in mind that the Acadians have done magnificently." While I might not be justified in saying that the Acadians in proportion to numbers have enlisted as .well as their Englishspeaking fellow citizens in my province- and there are good and valid reasons which I need not give here which can account for this-still it, can indeed be stated truthfully that they have nobly answered the call to arms and that they have performed their duty as Canadians and British .subjects in a splendid manner. But, Sir, the attitude taken by my compatriots in the present war is in line with the best traditions of the past. In years gone by, in the hour of their country's need, they never failed to respond to the call of duty. As far back ,as in the year 1812, when they had just begun to recuperate from the hardships of evil days, when hostilities broke out between Great Britain and the United States, we

find them faithfully -and courageously serving their king and country in the militia of their respective provinces. A few days ago I came across an old militia list containing the names of a comparatively large number of Acadians from my own county, the county of Kent, the population of which was small in those days, the names of men who, within a month -after the declaration of war, had enlisted to fight for their country. I would like, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, and the consent of the House, to put these names on Hansard as a matter of record: