Mr. ACHIM:

Certainly.

Hon. Mr. SEVIGNY:

Concerning the isolation of which my hon. friend has just spoken does he think that it would be a boon for the French Canadians to have no more representation in the Government?

Mr. ACHIM:

My hon. friend puts an exceedingly delicate question to which I could with difficulty reply without hurting his present feelings and without taking explicit exception to the course he has chosen to adopt. Much would have I preferred it had my hon. friend not raised the issue, but since he has, I have no option but to tell him that in my opinion it would be better.

Should ever a disruption occur in this country, Mr. Speaker, I say that it will not take place between the province of Quebec and the remainder of Canada, but between the province of Ontario and the rest of the Dominion. Yes Ontario, where the capitalists are attempting to crush the freedom of labour, Ontario whose manufacturers are attempting to restrain the freedom of trade, Ontario whose jingoes are trying to strangle freedom of conscience. I do say that if ever there is a disruption, that will be it, and the sooner the better perhaps.

Mr. Speaker, I am grieved beyond expression to have to utter such words and I pray you to believe that before bringing myself to utter them, many doleful hours have I gone through; I feel that old bonds are being severed which I had hoped would be permanent. In brief, Mr. Speaker, I must declare that in this House I shall vote on this question with the Liberal party; that at the next elections I shall vote for the anti-conscriptionist candidate, that I resign as conservative candidate in the county of La-belle and that in the province of Quebec I shall speak in favour of the Liberal party.

The Minister of Inland Revenue labours under another delusion which I should like to dispel. He gives the result of the Dorchester election as a verdict in favour of compulsory service. And such is my hon. friend's appreciation of his constituents that he argues-I epitomize-" What is the good of a referendum? We held one in Dorchester and Dorchester has spoken the verdict of all the electors of Canada. When Augustus had imbibed, Poland was full " " Quand Auguste avait bu, la Pologne etait ivre ". The argument is more creditable to the electors of Dorchester than to the Minister's powers of interpretation. The part of his speech to which I refer is to be found at page 2497 of unrevised Hansard and reads as follows:

What does the vote given at this election mean from a constitutional point of view? Does it not mean that the war policy of the Government was approved, as it has been approved by the members for the past three years, and has not this policy of the Government been to make every sacrifice to oarry the war to a successful end, as far as conscription if necessary.

I agree with the whole paragraph save the following words: "As far as conscription if necessary ", To that statement I take the most strenuous objection, because those who did oast their votes for my hon. friend had in their minds not the statement made by the Prime Minister in his letter to workmen dated December 27, 1916, but the one he made long ago on the floor of this House, which was quoted by the right hon. leader of the Opposition and which may be found at page 2497 of unrevised Hansard:

My right hon. friend has alluded to conscription-to the idea in this country or elsewhere that there may be conscription in Canada. In speaking in the first two or three months of this war I made it clear to the people of Canada that we did not propose any conscription. I repeat that announcement to-day with emphasis.

If my hon. friend insinuates that the electors of Dorchester, by their vote, wished [DOT]to approve of conscription, I must tell him

that he would not le sitting on the treasury benches if at the election he had so declared himself.

In all justice however I must say that in the whole splendid campaign wherein I had the honour and pleasure of accompanying him, I never heard the minister, Publicly or privately, oppose conscription. That is a tribute I owe to his sincerity. But my mandate is much less recent than that of the minister. I cannot oppose the principle of the referendum. My election, as that of most of the other members of this House, dates so far back that its mandate might after all be forgotten; but electors sometimes have a clearer memory that their representatives and my electors seem to stick to the motto of their province: " Ils se sou-viennent ", " They remember ".

I do not claim as many do that I know why I have been elected; I am no partisan of the doctrine that a member must in all things and ever do the will of his constituents, even if he realizes that it is founded on unjustifiable motives. My idea is that in 1911 my electors did not place in my hands a blank which I could fill as I cared.

What I do know is that, had I in 1911 stated I was in favour of conscription without the people being consulted, I should not have the privilege of a seat in this House. Now that the people's verdict has sent me here, I will not take advantage of it to rivet irons around the ankles of those who have elected me as the champion of their constitutional liberties.

For freedom, for democracy, for their brothers left behind, Canadians have equalled the very bravest at Givenchy, Langemarck, Courcelette and Vimy. They form a bulwark to our institutions those heroes of ours who live the cruel life of the trenches, writhe on a sick bed, or sleep the last sleep in the knolls of Flanders. The happy vision of a nation whose freedom and self-respect they have helped to maintain is to some a balm to their wounds and was to the others a solace at their last hour.

And that valued freedom, the freedom that inspires heroes, you now want to kill, while those young lives are sacrificing themselves for its sake; it is unreasonable and I will not be a party to it.

Mr. Speaker, I stated at the beginning of my remarks that I would take advantage of my seconding the amendment to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Berthier in order to say a few words on the subject. Allow me, Sir, first to express my surprise at the meaning which my hon. friends of the Opposition seem to give to this

second amendment, taking it for granted that the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe has been a true interpreter of their common opinion. Howsoever it be, the mouthpiece of the Liberal party in Montreal does not hesitate to state that obviously a trap is being set for the Liberals which they are not such fools as to step into.

The best-intentioned give credit to the hon. member for Berthier and myself for a cleverness in tactics which neither of us ever dreamt we possessed. But others there are, whose opinion it would be safer to take, who do think that we are not men who would steer between two courses, but that we are perfectly sincere, honestly believing that we express the opinion of the people of this country in this matter. Every one is free to choose whichever of those two opinions he cares, but I side with frankness leaving to my hon. friends of the Opposition any pretense at astuteness. I wish to add, as the hon. member for Berthier has done, that in seconding this amendment I have not yielded to any outside influence either from the 'Government or otherwise. After hearing the statements made by the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe I did long waver as to making my mind to follow him in the mud into which he floundered; but I deemed the present crisis too acute, the present contest to bloody to ridicule a man whose shoulders are weighted under so many burdens. In any case has he not taken upon himself the task of our vengeance by branding himself with the words everybody knows and which put him in the rank of the very lowest demagogues. But let him beware, the crisis will pass and people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

Our amendment is put forward in such a spirit of loyalty, and is so devoid of partisanship that it should, meseems, rally all members who are good-intentioned and sincere and I must say that whatever be the position taken by the right hon. leader of the Opposition towards our motion, I shall nevertheless vote in favor of the amendment he has moved and so will do the hon. member for Berthier. Although the amendment to the amendment has a much greater bearing on the bill than the Laurier amendment and practically means its doom, I must state that not a member of this House is prouder than I am of being a British subject and appreciates more than I do the blessing of living under the British flag and that I am not yet forgetful that the English colonial system tolerates every freedom and fosters all ideals. My present

position, whatever may be thought of it elsewhere, is that of a true Canadian.

Mr. HERME-NEGILDE BOULAY (Ri-mouski) (translation) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. It being so late it seems to me that we ought to be at least twenty to listen to such a good speaker as the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Lanctot).

Mr. ROCH LANCTOT (Laprairie) having risen to speak:

Mr. HERMENEGILDE BOULAY (Ri-mouski) (translation):

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. At this late hour the hon. member for Laprairie rises to speak, and he is such a fine orator it seems to me there should be at least a quorum of twenty members to listen to him- I call your attention to the fact that there is not a quorum present.

Mr. 'SPEAKER: I find that the point'of order is well taken.

And a count having been taken, it was -found that a quorum was not in the 'Chamber.

Mr. SPEAKER:

There is not a quorum present. This House stands adjourned until Tuesday afternoon at three o'clock.

Accordingly, the House adjourned at 10.55 p.m. until Tuesday, July 3, at 3 o'clock.

Tuesday, July 3, 1917.