Mr. W. H. BENNETT (Simcoe):

Is the hon. gentleman not aware that Colonel Morrison is under the immediate control of the British General in charge over there?

Mr. BOIVIN:

Precisely; I have no doubt about that whatever.

Mr. W. H. BENNETT:

Then how did political pull keep him there?

Mr. BOIVIN:

I did not say that political pull kept him there, but I said that political pull sent Colonel Payne home.

Mr. W. H. BENNETT:

It is a good job that. Colonel Morrison was kept there.

Mr. BOIVIN:

In February, 1916, I had the honour of addressing two large recruiting meetings at Massey Hall in Toronto. I am not pretentious enough to believe that my voice was required to urge the people of Ontario to enlist, but I took advantage of the invitation to thank them for what they had done and were doing for Belgium and Prance, as well as for democracy and civilization.

I had my own province in mind when I went to Toronto to address those meetings.

I was anxious that Quebec should do its duty and I was already aware of a few of the reasons which rendered some, if not all of my compatriots, less enthusiastic about recruiting than they would otherwise have been. At that meeting I deprecated the speeches made by Bourassa and Lavergne in the province of Quebec, but in doing so I warned my audience that the school laws of Ontario were being used by many as an argument against recruiting in my province. Striking Regulation 17 from the school laws of Ontario would have sent more French Canadians to the front than this Military Service Bill. Remember, Sir, that I did not then discuss, and I do not propose to discuss now, the merits or the demerits of Ontario school legislation; that is a matter for Ontario to decide. But I say once more to the people of Ontario: even if you are justified in making the law you have made; even if the law is not as unfair to the French Canadians as they believe it to be; even if their refusal to obey the law is deserving of censure-would not the sending of 25,000 more men from Quebec to fight Germany have been worth the price of meeting the French Canadians half way and of giving to their children the right to study their geography and history and arithmetic in French? What reply can the recruiting officer or the public man who is appealing for recruits in Quebec, give to the man who says: You ask me to go and fight for liberty and democracy under the British flag. You want me to fight for the rights of small nations and minorities to govern themselves and enjoy their own religion, language and laws. You compare my liberties with those of German subjects. But what about Ontario and Manitoba? Are they not British provinces? My brother, my uncle, or my cousin, who lives there, tells me that he is deprived of the right to have his children taught their own language.

Mr. BLAIN:

My hon. friend must know, if he knows anything about it, that that is absolutely incorrect.

Mr. BOIVIN:

I am willing to admit that the statement of the Quebec peasant that his relatives are deprived of the right of having their children taught in their own language, may be incorrect. But when we endeavour to explain we have to produce Regulation 17, and admit that he is wrong for the first two years only and that after that he is absolutely Tight.

Mr. BLAIN:

If the inspector makes the statement that the child shall be taught

longer than two years the child is taught longer than two years. My hon. friend must remember that Regulation 17 was put upon the statute-book not as against the French-speaking minority, but as in their favour.

Mr. BOIVIN:

All I can say is that it was a very queer way of favouring the French Canadian minority.

The hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Ernest Lapointe) seeing the condition of affairs, moved the following resolution in this House on May 9, 1916:

That it has long been the settled policy of Great Britain whenever a country passed under the sovereignty of the Crown by treaty or otherwise, to respect the religion, usages and language of the inhabitants who thus become British subjects :

That His Majesty's subjects of French origin in the province of Ontario complain that by recent legislation they have been to a large extent deprived of the privilege which they and their fathers have always enjoyed since Canada passed under the sovereignty of the British Crown, of having their children taught in French.

That this House especially at this time of universal sacrifice and anxiety, when all energies should be concentrated on the winning of the war, would, while fully recognizing the principle of provincial rights and the necessity of every child being given a thorough English education, respectfully suggest to the Legislative Assembly the wisdom of making it clear that the privilege of the children of French parentage of being taught in their mother tongue be not interfered with.

This was not a want of confidence motion. It had nothing to do with the policy of this Government. Still it was bitterly opposed by those same members who to-day claim that the province of Quebec is not doing its duty. It was voted upon on May 11, 1916, and defeated by a vote of 107 to 60. Do you not think, Mr. Speaker, that a united appeal from the Parliament to the legislature of Ontario would have had some weight with the Government of that province? If every one had said: this request is consistent with British liberty and British democracy; do you not think that such an appeal would have had its effect upon recruiting in Quebec? Instead, however, we were told by members on the otner side of this House that the French Canadians had no rights outside the province of Quebec. The member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy) said:

It is absolutely admitted by the speakers on both sides of the House that there can be no just claim by the French Canadian people of Ontario to any legal right to the use of their language in the school system of that province.

The member for Bonaventure (Mr. Mar-cil) put the following question to the member for South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell):

Is the descendant of a Frenchman whose family has lived in the Detroit river settlement for a hundred and fifty years a newcomer to Ontario?

To which the member for South Toronto replied:

He is entitled to only such rights and privileges as the constitution as the province of Ontario allows him.

Hear, hear.

Mr. MACDONELL:

Does the hon. gentleman want to break the constitution of any province?

Mr. BOIVIN:

Not at all. But in the course of a speech in which the hon. gentleman endeavours to point out that the French Canadians are asking too much, he answers the question whether French Canadians have any rights in Ontario by saying: they are entitled to only such rights and privileges as the constitution of Ontario allows them. The people of Quebec, who regard their language as the most sacred right next to their life and their religion, and who were told that their rights were limited to their own province, took it for granted, Sir, that their rights and their obligations were co-existent, and that, as their rights and privileges were limited to Quebec, there also was to be found the limit of their obligations. I do not advance that theory, but I say that it is one of the things which retard recruiting in Quebec. Can they be blamed for this belief when the New Witness, a publication of London, England, the heart of the Empire, completing an article which was Tead by the member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) the other evening, which he found in its issue of May 24, adds the following in its issue of May 31, 1917:

By the help of a printer's error in last week's comment, we are now able to state very clearly the gravity of the French Canadian grievance. We said that Frenchspeaking masters of Ontario were forbidden to teach French in their schools. Now, that obviously would not matter much, for all their scholars speak French-it is their mother tongue. What we meant to say was that the French-speaking masters are forbidden to teach their French-speaking scholars in French. A devlish trick! We published our comment on Empire Day, and that day was marked in Montreal by demonstrations against conscription, accompanied by the breaking of a few windows and the blacking of a few eyes. And now the English press invites you to consider the disloyalty of these French Canadians of Montreal. Luckily, in the province of Quebec there is a French-speaking majority,

and the Legislature is unlikely to imitate the monstrous example of Ontario and Manitoba. But is it reasonable to expect that conscription will be welcomed by men of a race which is suffering elsewhere such tyranny from English-speaking majorities without hindrance from the Imperial Government? That they should have volunteered so freely was more than we had the right to expect. It was far more than Prussia expected of the Poles. That we shall get many more volunteers is doubtful. Apparently Ireland has taught us nothing. Once again, we are doing our best to estrange the people from our cause. But, say some, have we the right to say to Ontario that she shall not forbid the use of French in French Canadian schools? Certainly, we have that right. We ought not to allow her to do anything which offends against the principle of equal rights for all the peoples of the Empire, which is supposed to be the basis of our Imperial rule.

That is not a comment of mine. It is a comment made under date of May 31, 1917, by the New Witness, a paper published in, the English language in London, England, the very heart of the British Empire.

Mt. BLAIN:

How does my bon. friend

account for the fact that in the French population of Ontario the percentage of enlistments was larger than it was in Quebec, if the grievance on the part of the French Canadian people was so great against the Ontario Government?

Mr. BOIVIN:

I can give a very good

answer to my hon. friend. From all along the Ottawa Valley in the province of Quebec, hundreds of French Canadian soldiers came to the city of Ottawa to enlist, and Ontario got the credit for their enlistment.

I desire to pay to the sub-amendment moved by the hon. member for Berthier (Mr. Barrette) a little mome attention than it really deserves. The hon. member for North York (Mr. J. A. M. Armstrong) has said in this House that Sir Wilfrid Laurier personified French Canada. Does not that explain the telegram sent by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) previous to the 1911 elections approving all the methods employed in Quebec, and containing the now hlstorio words " Anything to beat Laurier?" Does not that message agree with the prediction then made by the Prime Minister: " The voice of Toronto

will be the voice of Canada?" The prediction has come true. To-day we see the result; but elections are coming, and something must be arranged to heat Laurier, to destroy the influence of a united Quebec, after the next election. The hon. member for Berthier (Mr. Barrette), and a cleverly engineered sub-amendment, will fill the Bill. A six months' hoist as a sub-amendment!

[Mr. Boivin.l

I have been told by many old and able parliamentarians that a point of order concerning any motion, amendment or subamendment, can be raised and discussed at ,any time before it has been voited upon by the House, or until the point has been considered and decided by the Speaker. I purpose this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, submitting an argument to the effect that this subamendment is out of order. I will ask you kindly to consider my remarks after they have been inscribed upon Hansard and you have had time to verify the authorities I may quote, and to give, on Tuesday or Wednesday next, a ruling upon the matter. Let me first say that I accept, fully and unreservedly, the statement made by the Prime Minister, that he had no knowledge of this sub-*amendment, and the declaration of the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe (Mr. L. J. Gauthier) that by ihiis remarks he meant no reflection upon the fairness and integrity of the officer presiding over this Chamber. I take it for granted that the question of the sub-amendment being in order has never been seriously considered. I* take the liberty of adding that the point of order raised is not for the purpose of avoiding a vote upon the sub-amendment, and I declare here and now, with the expressed approval of the members on this side who favour a referendum upon the matter, that they will vote against the subamendment if it remains before the House. I will vote against it, first, because, according to the admissions made in his speech by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Boulay) it enables the Tory-National-ists to assist the Government, by voting for it, then against the amendment of my right hon. leader, and later pretending in Quebec that Laurier was too much of an Imperialist in agreeing to accept the will of the majority, while their friends are pretending in Ontario that he is top much of a Nationalist in proposing a referendum. I will vote against it because my people are democrats and believe that the majority of the Canadian people should be consulted upon such an important question, and they do not want the matter shelved by a six months' hoist unless the referendum is first refused by this Parliament. I will vote against it because I do not consider it to be in order.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let us consider whether this sub-amendment is in order or not. I find in the Votes and Proceedings of June 18 the following:

Sir Robert Borden moved. That the Bill No. 75, An Act respecting Military Service, be now read a second time.

Sir Wilfrid Laurier moved in amendment thereto,-That all the words after the word "That" in the said motion be struck out and the following substituted therefor:-

"the further consideration of this Bill be deferred until the principle thereof has, by means of a Referendum, been submitted to and approved of by the electors of Canada."

And a Debate arising thereon, tihe said Debate was, on motion of Mr. Morrison, adjourned.

In the Votes and Proceedings of June 20, I find this:

The House resumed the adjourned Debate on the proposed motion of Sir Robert Borden for the second reading of Bill No. 75, An Act respecting Military Service and the proposed motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier in amendment thereto:-"That all the words after the word "That" in the said motion be struck out and the following substituted therefor:-

"the further consideration of this Bill be deferred until the principle thereof has, by means of a Referendum, been submitted to and approved of by the electors of Canada."

And the question being proposed on the amendment:

Mr. Barrette moved in amendment to the said amendment,-that all the words after the word "That" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:-"this Bill be not now read a second time, but that it be read a second time this day six months."

And the Debate still continuing, the said Debate was, on motion of Mr. Pardee, adjourned.

I have read this, Sir, to point out to you the fact that when my right hon. leader moved his amendment, there was only one word left of the original motion. That was the word " that ". His amendment'begins with the words " the further consideration." The hon. member for Berthier ('Mr. Barrette) comes along with a sub-amendment asking that all the words after "that" in the amendment be struck out, but there is no word " that " in the amendment.

Oh, oh.

Mr. BOIVIN:

Hon. members should not laugh too soon. They will perhaps find some authorities that will make them cease smiling. This word " that " was what remained of the original motion. Sir Wilfrid Laurier's motion is struck out entirely, and the amendment of the hon. member for Berthier is inserted. I find in BourinoUs Parliamentary Procedure, edition of 1906, page 318, this statement:

When an amendment has been proposed, it is competent for any member to move an amendment to the same. In this case the original question is laid aside practically for the time being, and the first amendment becomes as it were, a substantive question. The Speaker will then submit the three motions in the order in which they are made, and first take the sense of the House on the last: "Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the amendment? If the amendment is rejected, it is regular to move another, provided of course, it is different in purport from that 181J

already negatived, as soon as the Speaker has again proposed the question: "Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the main motion?"

If the amendment be resolved in the affirmative, it will not be competent to move that it be struck out in whole or in part.

How could the amendment of Sir Wilfrid Laurier be amended by the sub-amendment of the hon. member for Berthier which strikes out every word of that amendment and makes it absolutely another amendment?

I quite agree that the six months' hoist is in order on the motion for the second reading of the Bill, providing it is proposed as an amendment to the main motion; but not otherwise. Hon. gentlemen opposite smiled a few moments ago; some of them even laughed outright. Do they know more about parliamentary procedure than Bourinot, who in his Parliamentary Procedure, 1906 edition, says at page 320:

Only two amendments can be proposed at the same time to a question. Some limit is necessary, and the usage has grown into law, that an amendment to an amendment is allowable, but that no motion to amend further can be entertained until one of the two amendments is disposed of.

A few lines below on the same page we find:

It has also been frequently ruled that an amendment which was merely an expanded negative cannot be proposed from the chair.

There may be a difference of opinion as to whether this ' is an expanded negative or not. But that is not all. Sir Erskine May, in his excellent work on Parliamentary Practice (Edition of 1906) at page 299, says:

Every amendment proposed to be made, either to a question or to a proposed amendment, should be so framed that, If agreed to by the House, the question or amendment, as amended, would be intelligible and consistent with itself.

I will now read the sub-amendment proposed by the hon. member for Berthier (Mr. Barrette):

That all the words after the word "That" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:-"this Bill be not now read a second time, but that it be read a second time this day six months." .

If this sub-amendment is adopted, Sir, how are you going to put from the Chair the amendment of Sir Wilfrid Laurier as amended? Can you do so? Is the sub-amendment in order? Perhaps the authorities cited are not sufficient to satisfy hon. gentlemen opposite.' May, at page 293 of his Parliamentary Practice says:

It is an imperative rule that every amendment must foe relevant to "the question on which the amendment is proposed.

And at page 298, I find:

When the original amendment is to leave out certain words, in order to insert or add other words-

That is absolutely the case here.

-no amendment can be moved to the words proposed to be substituted, until the House have resolved that the words proposed to foe left out shall not stand part of the question.

And at page 299, I find this:

An amendment to a proposed amendment cannot be moved, if it proposes to leave out all the words of such proposed amendment; but in such a case the first amendment must foe negatived before the second can foe offered.

That, I maintain, is the position here. The sub-amendment of the hon. member for Berthier may be quite in order after the House has voted on the amendment proposed by my right hon. leader. I am not bringing this point up because I have any fear about the vote which will be given on this sub-amendment. I have already stated, with the authority of every honourable member on this side of the House who will vote for the referendum, that they will vote against the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Berthier. I shall do so myself. But I want to avoid establishing a precedent in this House, at a time of great excitement in this country, which perhaps will be invoked against us upon other Bills in days to come. My point of order has been submitted. I do not ask for a ruling, Sir, at the present time, but I ask you to give the point of order your attention, and to give your ruling before the vote is taken on the amendment.

I will not refer to the speech of the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Girard) who preceded me. I moved the adjournment of the debate last night in an earnest endeavour to ascertain whether - he was opposed to or in sympathy with the Government upon this question of conscription. I have read Hansard this morning, but I am no more enlightened concerning his intentions. I will not, after speaking so long, refer to the previous speeches. Allow me, however, to congratulate the hon. member for St. Antoine (Sir Herbert Ames) upon his faith and confidence in the valour of our Canadian soldiers, 100,000 of whom, according to his statement, are required to stop the onward march of 750,000 Germans released from the Russian front.

Let me address a word to the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) who thought the best kind of a speech to make

would be another attack upon Laurier and Quebec. Quebec according to his figures had up to May 15 of the present year sent 45,277 men to the front. French Canadians with a population of 1,605,339 had only sent 6,917. This is the kind of argument often used by the detractors of our province, but they overlook the fact that tnere is another side to the argument. If 1,605,339 French Canadians sent 6,917 men to the front, then 316,103 English-speaking Canadians in that province sent the balance of 38,360-more than 10 per cent of their population, and they are therefore almost twice as loyal to the Empire as the constituents of my hon. friend from Frontenac or those of any other portion of Canada. The figures may be wrong, and the French Canadians may have done a little better than the hon. member would have us believe. If not, I can only account for the loyalty of my Englishspeaking friends from Quebec by saying that they reside in a province where they are in a minority, and where, owing to the just and fair treatment which they receive from their French Canadian fellow-citizens who form the majority, they are in a better position than any other to appreciate the true significance of British freedom and British fair play.

Just one word of reference to the address of the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue in connection with this debate. His reason for remaining in the Government ..with., the Postmaster General is an excellent one. It is not conviction, it is not principle. I must quote his own words or I will not be believed. He said:

If my colleague Blondin and I would abandon the Government, what other French Canadians would consent to succeed us?

What a calamity it would be, Mr. Speaker, for his race and his country if the hon. minister resigned his portfolio! Especially in view of the fact that he is a good French Canadian, proud of the great men of his race and willing to do them justice!

Not long ago, speaking at a political gathering in Montreal he tried to secure a front page editorial in the Orange Sentinel by accusing Sir Wilfrid Laurier of having sown discord and hatred between the two races who inhabit this country, and in his recent speech he refers to my honoured leader as follows:

I have before me a man of 76 years of age who is ending his career by seeing the two races more divided than ever. History will tell what he could have done hut did not try to do.

I listened with amazement to these words falling from the lips of the young minister,

who has made several blunders in his comparatively short career. He has even confessed publicly that his blunders were due to his youth, and to the fact that he did not then know the right hon. the Prime Minister. He has told us he was only 29 or 30 years of age when he preached treason to his compatriots-

Mr. R. B. BENNETT:

I rise to a point of order. Is it within the rules of the House for an hon. gentleman to say that an hon. member of this House has preached treason in the province of Quebec or anywhere else? That is what the hon. member has charged against the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:

I did not understand the hon. gentleman to say that the Minister of Inland Revenue had preached treason.

Mr. W. H. BENNETT:

Those were his exact words; that is why I rose to the point of order. Perhaps the hon. gentleman would not mind repeating what he said.