Mr. MACDONALD:

Mr. KOCH LANCTOT (Laprairie-Napier-ville) (Translation) :

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, at a few minutes to eleven o'clock, I rose in this House to take up the discussion of this conscription Bill which we have been considering for more than two weeks. I had scarcely opened my mouth and uttered two words: "Mr. Speaker" when my hon. friend from Kimouski (Mr. Boulay) immediately sprang to his feet, upon a point of order, and asked if there was a quorum of the House. You had the roll called by the deputy Clerk of the House who stated, after taking down the names of the members present, that there was no quorum, so that the House was then adjourned until Tuesday, yestefiday, at three o'clock in the afternoon.

I may add, Mr. Speaker, that to-day, I will tell you immediately that I am against [DOT]conscription, in case my hon. friend for Rimouski should again rise on a point of order and there would1 be no quorum in this House. Therefore, I immediately declare myself against conscription.

This Bill, which we have been here discussing for over two weeks, is so far-reaching in its effects as regards the people of this country, that everyone is wondering where the Prime Minister is leading us to, as the Prime Minister has so often declared, in this House and elsewhere, that the pursuit of this war would forever be continued under the volunteering system.

In the .course of the debate, in this House, on January 17, 1916, the hon. Prime Minister, speaking after the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) declared, explicitly that there never would

be any conscription in this country. There is, therefore, nothing strange in the fact that the people of this country should want this war carried on without having such a measure of compulsion passed by Parliament. i

As for me, I do not need this conscription Bill to say that I condemn the Government. On several occasions, I have spoken in this House about the carrying on of this war, stating that the Government had led us to bankruptcy, and after putting us in bankruptcy, they now want furthermore the blood of our children.

I agree with the great French and English statesmen. I have always agreed with the big London dailies which have, almost all of them, declared in their columns that to ask the people of Canada 150,000 men, was an extraordinary effort, and that England would never ask so much.

The people of this country have decided to do more than that-T commend the soldiers who have volunteered and enlisted- but, unfortunately, those who will have to foot the bill, after the war, will think as I do, that the enlisting went too far, even voluntarily.

Conscription, in my hum'ble opinion, dates from the moment this Government has attempted to follow in the footsteps of the British government. We have had, some six months ago, the National Service cards, the Government wanting to know the man power of the nation, so they said. Our good papers of Montreal and all over the country, among them that sanctimonious Patrie of Montreal, which circulates in our counties declare day after day in its columns that there was no harm in signing those National Service cards; that the people should obey the State, and it was merely to know the man power of the nation, to work on the farms, to work in the ammunition factories, etc.

I had already declared, previously, in the county of Laprairie-Napierville, that this Government would surely bring about conscription, because I always remembered the statement made by the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen) in his own province of Manitoba, that for this war, as he put it, we should give our last dollar and send our last man.

The hon. Solicitor General counts for much in this Government. It is he who gets the Government out of its difficulties, and I believe he is the Prime Minister's right bower. I may add, Mr. Speaker, that he is often called upon to defind its wrongdoings, for his party gets often enopgh in a quandary.

I therefore did tell them, at home, that we would have conscription. The Prime Minister has not fooled me; I know the Prime Minister better than my electors do, and even better than our bishops of the province of Quebec, who had taken his word and told us: submit, because the State demands it.

As to the National Service, my parish priest read that letter, which had been sent to him by his bishop and, after Divine service, I openly declared that I knew too well the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) too well to have faith in his word and I further stated that these National Service cards were a step towards conscription. I also declared that, in the cases of dogma and religion, I followed the bishop's advice, but that, in politics, I claimed to be better informed than he could possibly be. To-day, these same people admit that I had then spoken the truth and that, indeed, I knew what was going on.

The Government and the politicians, oT both parties, are not agreed upon this Military Service Act. Not being a lawyer, but a farmer, I will refrain from discussing pro or con, but I am comforted when I think that, in a general way, laws are made so that nobody can understand them.

Mr. BOULAY (Rimouski):

(Translation) Not even the lawyers?

Mr. LANCTOT (Translation):

The reason is to enable lawyers to make use of their accomplishments, and I am not at all surprised when I see that they do not quite agree upon this Compulsory Service Act. But, Mr. Speaker, this legal entanglement has, nevertheless, a bad side; it makes our judges grow old too soon and, consequently, we have to pay them pensions too young. At -all events, I am glad that we have an ex-jtidge as Minister of Justice; he grasps my meaning and he may perhaps extend his cooperation towards changing present conditions. Now, that he enjoys fairly good health, that he has recovered his nerve and [DOT]-no mean consideration,-that he receives a fair indemnity as a retired judge, minister and deputy, I say that he should turn all his efforts to improving the Militia Act of this country or any other Act, so that we may be able to discuss them in an intelligent way. Why not insert in the Militia Act that our troops shall be levied only for the defence of Canada, unconditionally? Now, Mr. Speaker, the best evidence of the fact that the Government do not undei'-stand our laws, as I stated a moment ago, is that they have not seen fit to rely upon the existing Militia Act, to levy volunteers

and send them overseas. After all, that Militia Act may perhaps not toe as bad as might be imagined, since the Government could not use it for sending our troops away.

Upon several occasions, I have declared, in this House, that I was in favour of a reasonable participation in this war; even to-day, I am of the same mind, and 1 believe all rational people will suport me in such an attitude; but when the people of this country are asked to bleed themselves to such an extent, I say: Let us stop, it is more than time to do it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what are the reasons given by the Prime Minister to justify the introduction of this conscription Bill? The reasons alleged are that our soldiers are loudly demanding reinforcements and, secondly, that we have trenches to defend in France and in Flanders. To this, I reply that we have no trenches in France, not having been consulted before the declaration of war and that, probably, we will not be consulted either when the matter of signing peace comes up. To my mind, it AVas Canada's duty to aid the Allies in this war, but, I repeat it, having had nothing to do with the declaration of war, I maintain that we have no trenches to defend in Europe and that the countries who have and who must defend their trenches are France, England and .Italy, but not Canada. That is why I oppose, as forcibly as I can, the sending of men to the other side.

We must be fair, Mr. Speaker. The son must assist his father, but he must do so according to his means. If, in helping his father, the son is going to ruin, I say that it is his duty to refuse his assistance. Applying that simile to Canada-and it is appropriate-I say that we must not go any further. I have spoken of this ticklish war question with many people and every one of them has told me that the stand I have taken in this House is surely that which should be taken by all the members and by the Prime Minister himself, if they have at heart the interests of the people whom they represent, before siding with the nations of Europe.

Mir. BOULAY:

(Translation) Even the leader of the Opposition?

/Mr. LANCTOT: (Translation) Certainly. \A7hat did really happen during this journey to England of the Premier and of his two colleagues, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) and the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. R. Rogers)?

I presume that the Minister of Public Works has had a great deal to do with this

Bill for, if I can judge from what I read in the newspapers of this country, and especially in the papers friendly to the Minister of Public Works, something was needed to divert public poinion from the Minister of Public Works himself.

Mr. Speaker, you know that there has been a judgment rendered by a commission sitting in Winnipeg, out of which the Minister of Public Works has emerged something to the worse and on his last leg. Therefore, so as to face the electorate, it became somewhat necessary to save 'appearances, and, in order to shield a little the Minister of Public Works, to introduce this conscription Bill, so that nothing else could be discussed during the coming electoral campaign -Conscription will, in fact, be the main topic of discussion in Quebec and in Ontario; but it will he discussed from one point of view in Quebec and from another one in Ontario.

I believe that the Bill is the master stroke of the Minister of Public Works.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill, and the clauses of which I have read, is called a "Selective" bill. The Government will be able to take soldiers wherever they please. The friends of the Government will say in the West: This is not for you; in Ontario, again it will probably not toe for 'them, because they have done their duty, but we wish to reach Quebec, which has not given enough recruits,

The minister who just now represents the province of Quebec, Hon. Mr. Sevigny, was in Quebec last Sunday; he has given every one his share in Quebec; toe is going to send from the city of Montreal 10,000 men; from the city of Quebec 1,000; from the 'municipalities, which number 1,200, ten each, I believe. That is not much, so he says, but I would like to know who are those who are ready to go, from Montreal, from Quebec and all the municipalities?

As the hon. minister belongs to the old city of Champlain, to Quebec city; as he is strongly in favour of conscription and of war, I do hope he will be the first one to leave Quebec and give the example to the other young men of that city to go and fight the good battles of the Empire. He is young /and, moreover, this gentleman is a man of means. The wife of the hon. minister is well to do-it is far more cheerful, when you set out for the trenches, to leave your wife with enough to eat, as would say my good friend from Montcalm (M. Lafortune), to have some savings, and with her husband in the trenches, she will be comfortable during his absence.

Mr. Speaker, this conscription business will certainly lead to putting the two races

at loggerheads in this country. By the Confederation compact-the fiftieth anniversary of whioh we have just celebrated -it had been decided that both nations, English and French, would retain their rights and respect their obligations. What is more sacred to us, French Canadians, than our language, our faith, our religion; and the enjoyment of these privileges in the way that Englishmen in this country have it, is denied us in several provinces of the Confederation, is denied us by the majority of the people?

We are asked, we French Canadians, to go .and fight in France, in Flanders, to compel the Boches overseas, as they are called, or the Huns, respect the rights of the small nations; to have them respect Belgium's neutrality. That is very fine. But if, on the one hand, we, the French Canadians, are bound to go and see that the treaties, the agreements made by the great powers, be respected, to see that the rights of the weak be respected; I contend that, surely, in this country, the Englishmen should say: You, French Canadians of Quebec, you, French Canadians of Ontario and of Manitoba, you are weak, we shall give you your rights, and now enlist. There would be good sense in that. But, no, they maltreat the French Canadians, and then say: Enlist, go and defend those who .are being outraged across the ocean, but as for you, here, we'll keep on maltreating you, and go on just the same.

Mr. Speaker, I have stated it on many occasions in this House, and I do state it again that, as a French Canadian, and being myself of military age, I shall not vote, for anything in the fworld, in favour of a measure which might enlist me under such circumstances; I would not enlist. I have always declared, and I declare it again, that not one single Canadian should enlist when we see how we are at present treated in this country, for, Mr. Speaker, it is not only in Germany that Boches are to be found; there are some in Ontario and in Manitoba, they are to be found in both political parties. It is here, that we, the French Canadians, must stand up and tell them: which foe have we got to face. But why always persecute the French Canadian and tell him he is not doing his duty, when that majority in the country is forever interfering with our rights and will not even grant the French Canadians, in. this capital city of Ottawa, the right to have their children learn their mother tongue?

Is it a wonder now, if you go down into the province of Quebec, that among these same people, who know what is going on here, in Ontario, and in Manitoba, recruiting should be at a standstill? Mr. Speaker,

I say they are right, they should remain at home and await developments.

Now, as to this conscription Bill, whom will it cause to go and fight for the Empire and for France? It will reach only our poor people, while the folk of the Board of Trade of Montreal, of Toronto and of the whole country, that is to say, the big wigs, the millionaires, those who are coining money out of the war,^-as I see some of them in front of me, in this House,-these people have long been wanting conscription. They are in favour of conscription, they want the war to last as long as possible in order to hoard up still more millions.

We have even in this Government millionaires who favour conscription. Somebody has Spoken of conscripting riches- the conscription of wealth. I would be in favour of extending conscription to all the millionaires who want conscription. I want to be fair. I would exempt all those who do not speak of it, but for all the millionaires in favour of conscription, I would introduce another Bill in Parliament, I would bring in and submit a Bill which would not be No. 75, but No. 76, and I would say: all millionaires of the country in favour of conscription will be left with $100,000 the day after to-morrow, *and they shall retain no more, they will be allowed to start business over again, as in the past; but in the meantime they -shall be left with $100,000 only. Rightly ot wrongly,

I understand there are about 300 of these gentlemen in the country. It may be exaggerated, I do not know. If there be 300, according to what I mean to do, by seizing 90 per 100, that would make a fine amount. There are some having more than one million, some have five millions, ten millions. With such a sum of money, we -could send off 100,000 men, to suit these gentlemen. but I would want the men sent away on these .gentlemen's behalf, to be paid $3 .a day. That is not all. The wives of those soldier-s should be maintained, -during their husbands' absence, en the same style as the wives and children of these millionaires; that is to say, there would be no more use for this conscription Bill, land all these millionaires would be happy, since they want to continue the war and favour conscription. I think -that is the .best means to give them satisfaction.

Now, I have got several observations to' make. As I see on the other side, members who understand me, the hen. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) for instance, I beg

of him to transmit to the Prime Minister and to his colleagues, the message I suggest, as to the Bill I -would like to introduce.

Mr. Speaker, I spoke a moment ago of our millionaires of this country, of those very people who positively want to have 100,000 more Canadians sent over to the battlefields of Europe, in order to allow these gentlemen to make money. It is for this same reason that I suggest to the Government, when this conscription. Bill will have been disposed of by this House, that they introduce another Bill bearing No. 76, and the object of which would be to seize 90 per cent of these gentlemen's money, in order to send off these 100,000 soldiers and to pay them well. If my suggestion be not accepted by the Government, is it necessary to .send overseas 100,000 soldiers chosen among the people of this country, and that the Canadians remaining in the country provide for their expenses?

Let us first examine the present situation in Europe. England, so state .several members who have taken part in this debate, has, at the very least, three million men who are not enlisted, three million men who have not answered their country's call and whom compulsory service, such as it exists in England, cannot, reach. If my information is correct, there are at present in England, more than two million men ready to go and fight in France. I am further told that there are over a million young men, employed in the banks, in brokers' offices, in the theatres and in the moving-picture halls, who, like the others, are not yet enlisted. If .such is the case, Mr. Speaker, why should Canada be called upon to do more in this war than England? If it be true that this war is Canada's war, it is still a hundred times more true that it is England's war, because for our mother country it is a question of life or death. In this war England has at' stake the supremacy of the sea, and the supremacy of trade, whilst for us, for Canada, it would be no more, no less, only a change of master.

I do not mean to say, Mr. Speaker, that I would be ready to change masters, hut my idea is this one, that the outcome of the war is of much greater consequence for England than for us, because England is not used to be under master's lash, while, as far as we are concerned, we already have had two in the past and it would not be .so hard on us to have a third one. I have stated more than once, in my previous remarks, that we had no trenches to defend, and that is certainly true. The Government tell us that we should fill the gaps made in our

ranks by the foe and make good the terrible

losses sustained lately my the Allies. Have we not, in England, as I have just said, two million men that might serve for the same purpose? I will go further. For some time past we have a new ally in this conflict. The United States have just entered into the fray; if that country, with its population of 112,000,000 and the wealth of the whole world, if .that country, do I say, makes an effort, in proportion to the one made by Canada since the beginning of the war, that means that they should send into the trenches of France and of Belgium, from 6,000,000 to 7,000,000 soldiers. It seems to me that the United States are more interested than we are in this war; they have been attacked while we have not, their ships have been attacked and sunk with many lives on board. I, therefore, say to the Government: Do put a stop right off to this war craze and do not lead the people of this country at such a pace to ruin, when others, more interested than we are, having both people and wealth, can, without any apparent effort, furnish those 100,000 soldiers we were to send, and even more. That seems to me as logical as indisputable. There is not a single sensible man, knowing this state of things, that could reply, plausibly, I will say more, with a speck of common sense, that Canada has not done her duty. The whole country acknowledges that the effort made by Canada, i. e. the enlisting of more than 400,000 men, out of a population such as our own, deducting all the foreign races living on our territory, and also the numerous exemptions specified, is most worthy of admiration. I therefore maintain that Canada has contributed to the same extent as any other nation fighting under the Allied standards.

Now, were there any reason to impose conscription in this country, it seems to me that should rather have been done some eight or ten months ago, when Russia's efforts had somewhat slackened, being short both of arms and ammunition; the revolution which broke out in that country might have been considered a reason for the British colonies to make a greater effort. But, when all those clouds have rolled by, when Russia has recently fought such battles with as great a success as at the beginning of the war, when the entrance of the United States into the conflict puts at the Allies' disposal inexhaustible treasures of men and of money, I do not actually see why the Canadian people should be asked to further bleed themselves.

Both the United States and Canada have had quite recently the visit of an eminent British statesman, I mean the hon. Mr. Balfour, who was honoured in .the most important cities of the neighbouring republic, where he delivered quite a number of speeches. On every occasion, he always declared that the most urgent need of the present hour was not men, but ships, ships, and still more ships, as well as foodstuffs, for Europe was threatened with famine. He also came to Canada and did speak to the two Houses gathered in this hall. In his speech here, I do not find that he asked for soldiers, but on the contrary, he made a pressing appeal to the farmers, asking them to increase production for, did he say, foodstuffs are the great need of the present times He is not the only one, Mr. Speaker; other representative men,, no less eminent, have expressed similar views. In June 1916, Sir George Paish wrote in the Statist:

Victory over militarism will depend as much upon the farmers of the world generally and upon those of America and Canada, in particular, as upon the armies at the front.

In a recent number of the Echo de Paris, a noted writer, Mr. Maurice Barres, writes as follows:

We, the Allies, have the superiority of numbers and, in the Franco-British lines, we have even a million men more than the Germans facing us. As to the industrial supremacy, it is decidedly in our favour, on account of America entering in to the war. '

iln another French publication, ithe Paris Journal, Senator Humbert writes as follows :

Stocks are exhausted. The neutrals themselves have come down to the allowance system. The new arrivals are lessening in number. Famine is threatening the whole world. I had foreseen, some twenty months ago, the present consequence of this dreadful crisis, when I said : Let us spare our reserves. But I was not listened to, no more than when 1 demanded a year ahead guns and ammunitions. Is not the danger most apparent to-day? There is only one remedy: to call back from the front-lines two or three hundred thousand Frenchmen, of the older classes, and settle them once more on the land. Such are the necessary means of recuperation. The condition of the armies, the immense numerical superiority of the Allies, on the Western front, compared with their opponents, permit of adopting without delay this method of recuperation. Let us hurry, for it is already very late, and to-morrow, perhaps, it will be too late.

In, the face of these .statesment,s by .such eminent citizens, both in France and in England, I would like to know why the Government .still persists in sending over soldiers and yet more soldiers, when France

herself admits that it would be appropriate to recall home two or three hundred thousand men who are presently fighting in the trenches, in order to apply them to farm labour. Is it not true, Mr. Speaker, that, in Canada, the farmers cannot get the necessary labour, because these same people prefer to .go and work in the munition shops where they earn $3, $5 and even $7 a day? We, farmers, cannot pay such excessive wages, specially in the province of Quebec, where farming pays less than in the western provinces, where wheat is particularly .grown, although there may be other grain, but on a smaller scale. As forces, who aTe doing mixed farming, we cannot pay more than $30 per month for this kind of labour. I may frankly tell you that any farmer of the province of Quebec who would pay more than that, could not live there, .and .pay any interest however low the rate, if he owes anything on his land.

Now, you have also read in, the newspapers, the opinion of a man of this country, the largest manager, I believe, there i- in Canada, I want to speak of Baron Sbaugh-nessy, whose views evidently, are worthy of consideration. I am not .acquainted with him personally, I do not know his politics although I believe him to be a staunch Conservative, but, ,at all events, has he not, on more than one occasion, warned the Government? Has he not dome iit publicly, before the Montreal Board of Trade, in the presence of the ex-minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes) when he called upon him to stop volunteering? That was during the winter of 1916. Did he not warn us not to gi. too quick in the matter; .that the people of the country could not stand such an extravagance; that some day the bill would have to be footed, and that, if war was to keep on, said he, one year more, we, in Canada, would be at war a year and a half or two years after the others, because, as he .said, if you [DOT]really intend sending 400,000 men to the other side of the Atlantic, it will take at last a year and a half or two years before you get them back from the front. Therefore do I say, Mr. Speaker, that upon such .a statement, coming from .such an authority, from a man who knows out country so well; for he personally took a hand in its development .and he thoroughly knows our needs; knowing, .above all, what is going on across the seas, the *warning of this .man is most opportune. I believe that he came to Ottawa quite recently, he must have warned the Premier

i was not present-but, I really believe he must have warned him of the

Mr. CLARENCE JAMESON (Digby):

Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to occupy but a few moments of the time of the House, as I feel that at this hour the country is calling for acts, not for words.

I listened to the speech of the member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald), to-day with a great deal of interest, especially when he was dealing with the amendment of the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) which calls for a referendum. My hon. friend's speech was energetic; it was more than energetic; it was lengthy; it was an able defence of a very weak cause. My hon. friend is an able lawyer, but the inherent weakness of his case was that the leader of the Opposition has heretofore been opposed to the principle of referendum. My hon. friend went on to contrast the sad, sad days under Conservative rule with the glad, glad days under a Liberal ministry, and he charged the ministers of this Government with various sins of omission and commission. He compared the pure government of by-gone days with this Government, which he painted so darkly. As he compared them, I was reminded of those lines in the opera Utopia with which you Mr. Speaker, and the members of the House are doubtless familiar. You remember that the princess presented the lawyer to her father the king, in these words:

A complicated gentleman allow me to present Of all the arts and faculties, the terse embodiment ;

He's a great arithmetician who can demonstrate with ease,

That two and two make three or five or anything you please.

A wondrous logician, he can make it clear to you

That black is white when looked at from the proper point of view.

A marvellous philologist, he'll undertake to show

That "yes" is but another and1 a neater form of "No."

As I listened to my hon. friend from Pictou I thought how marvellous the coincidence that the poet could have described so accurately the hon. member and the lawyer in the opera within the same ten lines of poetry. But my hon. friend's better nature finally came to the surface and although at the commencement of his speech he most vigorously attacked the ministry, he threw out, I think, the olive branch, and as he closed I almost felt that he was willing to accept a seat in a coali-

tion government. And, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman were to enter a coalition government or any other government, he would bring ability, energy, application, and enthusiasm to the Cabinet. I am sure that no person will agree more readily with me than the hon. gentleman himself when I say in all sincerity that he would be a very successful minister.

The Military Service Bill which the right hon. the Prime Minister has introduced provides for the raising of 100,000 men as reinforcements for overseas service by means of the selective draft, that number being required in the future upon the highest military authority. Every one who has familiarized himself with existing conditions knows that these men are available, without drawing upon labour engaged in the vital or essential industries of the country.

The right hon. the leader of the Opposition has proposed an amendment that the principle of the Bill be referred to the people of Canada by means of a plebiscite; a cautious policy in time of peace, but one which the right hon. gentleman did not heretofore favour; a faltering and dangerous policy, I believe, in time of war, with 20 per cent of our voters overseas, and one which will not provide the required men.

The hon. member for Berthier (Mr. Barrette) has moved an amendment to defer the further consideration of this Bill for six months, which is the parliamentary method of stating that Canada has no business in this war; a question which was disposed of, once and for all, in August 1914, when this Parliament unanimously pledged Canada's participation in this sacred cause to a triumphant conclusion.

The question can thus be condensed to one as to which system shall be carried out in future, that of voluntary service or the selective draft. Voluntary service has hitherto proved sufficient in small wars. Many supposed it would always meet our requirements, and had all parts of Canada contributed equally, it might have served in this war. However, it has proved inadequate and improvident. In my opinion, voluntary enlistment has proceeded far enough; it has proceeded so far as already to strain the economic efficiency of Canada. If proceeded with further it cannot but seriously impair our economic efficiency, by drawing men from the vital and essential industries, with possible dire consequences to this country. Most of us appreciate the fact that the world is con-

fronted with a food shortage, one which may result in a famine so widespread that the famine of ancient Egypt would appear trivial by comparison. The western hemisphere, and Canada in particular, is especially favourably situated in this respect, for Canada is an exporting country. But, even in Canada, unless we see to it in time, there may be a serious shrinkage of food production, with equally serious consequences to ourselves and our Allies, who, in some measure, are dependent upon us. This means that our man-power engaged in the vital and essential industries must be kept at productive work, to prevent the danger of disaster both at home and abroad.

Now, to those who still favour voluntary service, I would ask, if, by some magical or new method, the 100,000 men required could be secured by voluntary enlistment within three months, could Canada afford to spare them? The answer must be certainly not, but why? Every member of this House, in his heart of hearts, knows that not 25 per cent of these men, no not 10 per cent of them, would be those that a selective draft would yield. The selective draft would reach those who have not enlisted, and who will not voluntarily enlist, the very men the country can spare, namely, the men engaged in non-essential industries. This, the tribunals provided for by the Bill would decide. It is, therefore, to the men whom the country can spare that our soldiers must look for reinforcements, and, by voluntary enlistment, they cannot be obtained. Hence, the choice is not between voluntary enlistment and conscription, but is really between reinforcements by conscription, on the one hand, and no conscription and no reinforcements on the other.

In my opinion the Bill should pass and the amendments should not be adopted. If the referendum carries, what does it mean? It means that we pass a vote of want of confidence in ourselves, and in this House. A vote of want of confidence, which the people of Canada following our lead would certainly ratify, if the question were referred to them by means of a plebiscite.

I impute motives to no man. Every member of this House is the keeper of his own conscience, but, as I view it, if either the amendment to defer the consideration of the Bill, or the amendment to refer the principle of the Bill to the people by a plebiscite, be adopted, it means, if not in purpose yet certainly in effect, that

Canada's sustained participation in this war ends. Ends not because valour has forsaken the breasts of Canada's soldiers in the trenches, but ends because, shall I not say it?-ends because the spirit of betrayal of our soldiers has entered the breasts of those in Canada, whom they voluntarily went overseas to defend. It means that we, in this House, think more of our political lives than of the lives of those Canadians who, with their crushed and bleeding bodies, helped to stem the tide of Prussian barbarism, which otherwise would have overrun the world.

To-day, for the world and for Canada, peril stands in the gateway. It did not cease to exist when the Huns dug themselves in,' from the sea to the Alps. Young Canadian volunteers thrust themselves between us and that human torrent of hate and fury, which seeks to submerge civilization, law and order. The line they hold is as vital to our safety as the line which is held by Great Britain or by France. For them in the trenches there is not rest day or night, Sunday or week day. Every moment they are defending those in Canada of whom we in this Parliament are the representatives. They cannot always get sufficient time off to restore exhausted nature, because of ceaseless bombardment and lack of reinforcements. Meantime in Canada the Lord's Day Act and eight hour law protect from overtime the men whom the country can spare, the men engaged in non-essential industries, the men whom this Bill only can prevail upon- to go overseas. Should that line give way, either for lack of reinforcements or for any other reason, and the Huns win down to the French coast, the only law this country would eventually know would be the will of the Kaiser and Von Hindenburg. Almost 2,000 years ago, the Emperor Nero fiddled while Rome burned, and history has never let the shameful fact be forgotten. Shall the Parliament of Canada in effect duplicate his despicable act? I trust not.

My conception of the situation is this: That no member of this House can escape his responsibility. Be he prominent or be he the reverse, history will record of him for future generations that in the supreme hour he stood for either national dignity or for national decadence;

'That every member must line up for or against those men in the trenches and for or against the future existence of Canada as the free country it now is. For let it not be forgotten that those who leave others to

defend them necessarily become thereby their vassals;

That the alternative of this Bill virtually means, so far at least as we are concerned, the abandonment of our voluntary defenders to their fate and the abandonment of our country to the most ruthless foe the powers of darkness have ever let loose upon the earth.

What human standards or rules of conduct have thus far survived this awful war -a war whose battle line is 3,000 miles in length; a war in which thirty millions of armed men have contended; a war which will shape the destinies of nine hundred million human beings; a war with, literally, its thousand battles and shaking a hundred thrones? If in this war all other standards have been swept away, two at least have survived. One is that standard of physical and moral courage which Canadian soldiers have assisted in elevating to its loftiest plane; the other is that standard of national and international good faith which requires of uis that we supply reinforcements to those soldiers in the trenches. They at least have worthily performed their duty in the face of stupendous difficulties- difficulties relatively much greater than those with which we in this House and in this country are confronted. If we face our difficulties as a united Parliament and people, they will lessen and finally disappear. Therefore I would say to my fellow members in this House: Let the Parliament of Canada, setting aside all other considerations, emulate the example of our forces in the field, face courageously our difficulties and, by overcoming them, prove ourselves worthy of the sacrifices which our men across the seas have made as well for us as for our people and our country.

Mr. J. J. HUGHES (Kings, P.E.I.):

Mr. Speaker, my remarks upon this Bill will be very brief, but I wish to place on record the position I take with regard to it I consider that the strenuous and serious times through which we are passing make it necessary for the Parliament 'and people of Canada to exercise the greatest moderation 'and prudence, 1-est in our efforts to preserve the peace of the world we lose our own.

The right Hon. A. J. Balfour, when he was here a few weeks ago, said:

We are convinced that for every human combination that has reached the degree of civilization and development that has been reached by all the great western communities, there is but one form of government, under whatever name it may be called, and that ia

the government in which the ultimate control lies with the people. We have staked our last dollar upon democracy, and if democracy fail us we are bankrupt indeed. But X know that democracy will not fail us.

I sincerely hope that Mr. Balfour's vision in regard to the ultimate triumph of democracy may be fulfilled.

The Government, as well as several influential newspapers throughout the country, tell us that voluntary enlistment has broken down and that if we are to do our fair share in the prosecution of this terrible war, compulsory service must be, resorted to immediately. If these .statements be true, a case for compulsory .service is made out. But are they true? The mere fact that the number of men now offering themselves for overseas service is much less than in the early days of the war is not of itself sufficient proof that the voluntary system has failed. The number of men able to go to the front and the number of men that Canada can spare for overseas service, even under the .most urgent circumstances, must necessarily grow less as the months and years go by.

Again it is stated, and, I think, proved, that the voluntary system has never received anything like a fair trial. Hear what a minister and an ex-minister of the Crown say in this regard. The Postmaster General (Mr. Blondin), who went down to Quebec some weeks ago to recruit, .says of his experience there:-

Short as it was, it was enough to show that if Quebec had been well organized from the French-Canadian point of view at the beginning of the war, and if the organization had been immediately placed under the direction of a man like General Lessard, and an appeal made to all French Canadians to enlist in French Canadian units and preserve their identity, Quebec would have replied en masse.

Who was to blame for the discreditable way in which the business of recruiting was handled in Quebec? Surely the Government of which Colonel Blondin was and is a member, and his colleagues from that province were and are supporters. Surely it was the duty of the Government to .see that the viewpoint of the French Canadians in Quebec received some consideration. It would almost seem as if every proper sentiment in Quebec had been outraged to prevent recruiting, so that the voluntary system might break down, or that that province might be charged with lack of patriotism. If this be so, what a terrible responsibility rests upon the Government as a whole, but particularly upon the French Canadian members of the Government. I am led to make these remarks from the fact that in every other

province of the Dominion the Canadians of French descent responded to the call of duty in proportion to their numbers as nobly as iany other class of the population except the British born.

About the campaign that was waged in Quebec by the so-called Nationalists in 1910 and 1911, aided, abetted, encouraged .and financed by the Conservative party I will not say anything beyond stating that if the English-speaking members of the Government and the English-speaking members of the party have a conscience, it must give them many a pang for the pernicious seed which they helped to sow on that occasion, the harvest of which we are now reaping.

The spectacle that was presented only a month or two ago in Quebec would be ludicrous if it were not so serious, and the Government should be ashamed of itself. Col. Blondin, a member of the Government, and General Lessard recruiting for the overseas forces, and at the same time Col. Armand Lavergne in military uniform, and in the service and pay of the Government, recruiting for home defence, and denouncing the sending of troops beyond the seas. In the name of common sense why were troops needed for home defence? Who were going to attack us in Canada? The present Minister of Militia (Sir Edward Kemp) is a business man and is supposed to have some sense. Would he in his private business put half of his office staff at work to undo what the other half was trying to do, and expect success? Col. Blondin, a member of the Government, and Col. Lavergne, in the service of the Government, opposing each other and rehearsing in public "The Comedy of Errors!" The people, as you might expect, either laughed at the pantomime, or turned away in disgust.

But the worst performance of all, if there can be degrees of comparison in anything the Government has done in regard to recruiting, was the admission by the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Sevigny) that he had tried to get a man appointed to a lucrative position in the Civil Service because he had opposed recruiting in Quebec by publishing articles in his paper against it, and he thought that would be a good way to stop him. Yet under those circumstances the Government has the hardihood to blame Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the situation there.

But unfortunate as the situation is in that province, it is exaggerated and misrepresented by several newspapers in Ontario, and with what object? The object of promoting racial harmony, I suppose. A few days ago the hon. member for North

Grey (Mr. Middlebro) who will not be accused of being prejudiced in favour of Quebec, gave us the total enlistments from each province, and Quebec wras credited with 44,000. The figures seemed to have been compiled with a great deal of care and were, no doubt, accurate, because other hon. gentlemen from Ontario, speaking since, have made them larger. The papers to which I have referred, have stated, day in and day out, week in and week out, that the total enlistments from Quebec are but 29,000. What can be the object of such misrepresentation, and why is it resorted to? The Lord only knows. It is evident, however, that the winning of the war is not the only object of all Canadians at the present time. Listen to w'hat the ex-Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Sam Hughes) says in regard to the way in which voluntary recruiting was handled in the province of Quebec and in all the other provinces. Only a few days ago he stated in this House that several members of the Government had hampered him in his recruiting work, and that finally the Prime Minister himself had asked him to "go slow." He said that the Government had been influenced by the war profiteers who did not want to have their business interfered with by having the number of their employees reduced or their immense profits curtailed, and he further stated that he had documentary evidence, even letters from the Prime Minister himself, to prove these statements. But we have additional evidence of the changed attitude of the Government towards voluntary enlistment. In the early days of the war they passed an Order in Council giving the members of the Civil Service who enlisted their military pay and their Civil Service pay as well.

This was more than generous. Later on, they passed another Order in Council giving them .an amount equal to their Civil Service pay only, and last sipring, they passed another Order in Council cutting out the Civil Service pay entirely and giving them military pay only. This was tantamount to telling them they did not want any more of them to enlist, and that they would be penalized if they did enlist. And when we add to this the fact that some of the ministers publicly stated they would not allow their clerks or officials to enlist because of the inconvenience it would make in the office work, can you wonder, Mr. Speaker, that private employers would hesitate to reduce their office and their other help to the point of great personal inconvenience?

But probably the worst blow that voluntary recruiting did or could receive was the outstanding fact that from the day that . war was declared the object of the Government seemed to be how best to enrich their party friends and benefit themselves politically, as witness the nauseating scandals that were brought to light in the purchase of horses, drugs, binoculars, motor trucks, and, in fact, everything that was purchased for the army; as witness the evolutions of that notorious scoundrel, Col. J. Wesley Allison, who with a few Yankee associates, was able to walk off with a million dollars, who was able to give his lady stenographer a present of $105,000, his flute player $50,000, and other pals from $10,000 to $70,000 each; who was able by reason of his association with the Government to bring into Canada from the United States trainloads and scow loads of goods without paying a cent of duty on them, or without even, having them entered or examined at the customs house. There was no danger of Col. Allison losing his soul by trucking and trading; with the Yankees. He was able to 3ell millions of rounds of Government ammunition from the Government arsenal in Quebec at a profit of tens of thousands of dollars to himself. As witness the further fact that the ex-Minister of Militia was able to give his lady stenographer a shovel contract whereby the taxpayers of Canada were mulcted out of thirty or forty thousand dollars. And, as witness the still further fact that the grafting and the profiteering were not stopped or even checked in Canada until Lloyd George, with all the multifarious duties, responsibilities and burdens which he was carrying, had to send a man across three thousand miles of ocean to save the taxpayers of the Dominion and the taxpayers of the Old Land from being literally robbed of tens of millions of dollars, while our Government of fourteen men were looking hopelessly or helplessly on, and either could not or would not bend their little finger to end the disgraceful oi'gie. Such a condition of things would not only stop recruiting, but would almost justify any action on the part of an outraged people.

I have stated that from the day war was declared the object of the Government seemed to be how best to enrich their party friends and benefit themselves politically; and to carry out this purpose it was necessary that Liberals be carefully excluded from all positions of honour or emolument, and that from time to time it be insinuated

and in fact stated that the Liberal party from Sir Wilfrid Laurier down was tainted with disloyalty. Liberals, of course, were expected to take their full share of the burdens and sacrifices, and to their eternal credit be it said they did not shirk their duty in this regard. To prove this statement I will cite some instances from my own province of which I have personal knowledge.

The first two young men from our province to make the supreme sacrifice were from Liberal households-McKinnon and McManus. In their boyhood they had been playmates and schoolmates, and in their early manhood, companions. Now they sleep not far apart in the soil of France. McKinnon's father kept a small lighthouse on the coast, but was dismissed from that position by this Government. Was there any resentment in McKinnon's heart or in his son's heart? Well, actions speak louder than words. I suppose the McKinnons were disloyal.

The next case I will mention is that of Capt. McDonald. Capt. McDonald had sailed the seven seas in charge of square rigged ships, had been in command of freight and passenger steamers, but his wife being in poor health he was willing to accept an inferior position at home where he could be near his family. Consequently the late Government gave him charge of one of the dredges. He is a splendid type of citizen, and his record in the 9 p.m. department was first class in every respect. He was no political partisan in any sense of the word, having voted but two or three times in his life, being generally away at sea when an election would be held. The Conservative members from Prince Edward Island and every man in Canada who knows Capt. McDonald will endorse every word I have said in his behalf. Did his record save him? No, he was dismissed from the service. When the war broke out his three sons were of military age-splendid specimens of young manhood, and all at work; boys of their type would not be idle. Donald heard the call and went with the first contingent. He has been twice wounded, recuperated" at one of the base hospitals, and is back fighting again in the trenches. About eighteen months ago, George, the second son, volunteered. He has been at the front about a year. These boys did not resent the treatment their father had received. I suppose the McDonald family are disloyal.

Now what I particularly complain of is thisr There are a number of military positions on Prince Edward Island all filled by Conservatives. Some of the men who fill these positions have neither sons nor near relatives at the front. Some of these positions Captain McDonald could creditably fill. Has he been invited to do so? Oh no. He is a Liberal and no Liberal need apply, except for a position in the trenches. Are there many military positions of emolument on Prince Edward Island? I think there must be a good many. A few days ago I put this question on the Order Paper:

What are the names and addresses of the - parties on P.E.I. who have been engaged or who are now engaged in recruiting for the army and navy or doing other work of a like military character, since August, 1914? 2. What remuneration or pay does each of the said parties receive, and what allowance is given for travelling or other expenses? 3. What is the total amount each person has received up to the 1st June, 1917?

This question was changed to an order of the House for a return, the number employed being so laTge, I presume, that it was not easy to count and tabulate the several amounts that had been paid, and give the same in an answer of ordinary length. 'Consequently the question was changed into an order for a return. When we get the return I venture a statement that a Liberal will not be found on the list, with the exception perhaps of one or two medical examiners.

The next case that comes to my mind is that of Louis Meurant, a Frenchman and a Liberal. Louis had a large family of children, and when the war broke out his eldest son was just of military age. Louis was only a poor working man who was not supposed to know or to feel much. He needed his son's help as much, I think, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce needed the assistance of his private secretary, whom he would not allow to enlist. Did Louis hesitate or weigh the consequences? No, twelve or fifteen young men were going from the town with the first contingent, and Meurant asked his son if he were going to be one of the number. The boy answered that he did not know. The father said " yes, you are going to be one of the number. If you do not go I will go. One of us is going anyhow." Of course the boy went, and a few months ago he was invalided home seriously wounded. These are but samples, and this is the spirit that was behind voluntary enlistment in the early days of ihe war, grand, noble, incomparable. This is the 'spirit

JUL? 4, 1917

that would still be behind it but for the mean, sordid, inhuman, diabolical grafting and profiteering, some of which has been brought to light, and further, if it were not for the cowardly and villainous insinuations, backed up and supported by action, that Liberals are not as loyal and as whole-heartedly devoted to the winning of the war as are their Conservative fellow-countrymen.

Can it be truthfully said that the voluntary system has broken down in Canada when we have sent across the seas a larger army in proportion to our population than has ever been raised by voluntaryism in the world's history? When we remembeT that our seven and a half millions are scattered over a country as large as Europe or the United States of America, it will be seen that we have done wonders to accomplish this and to keep all our essential industries going at the same time.

Now a word or two with respect to the principle of this Bill. Conscription is, of course, the fair and democratic method of conducting a war such as that in which we are now engaged, but it must be conscription all round. Conscription of everything that is necessary to the winning of the war. It has been well said that you cannot compensate a man, in a monetary sense, for the sacrifice of his life-but that is no reason why all the compensation that is possible to make should not be given him or his family. Those who cannot fight should be willing to surrender all they have, if need be, to win the war, and to compensate, as far as possible, those who offer their lives. On the other hand, it is a great privilege to be able to fight,-a privilege that comes to but a few men, viz., the young, the hardy, and the strong. We shall all die in a few years anyhow and

" Where can man die better than fighting fearful odds

For the ashes of his fathers and the temples of his gods."

Is there a man in all Canada who would not die fighting for the protection of his own home, or his father's home, or his neighbour's home, from the ravisher and the destroyer?-and what is the nation but the aggregation of its homes. And in my opinion Canadian homes are being as truly protected on the battle-fields of Europe as they could be protected at Halifax or St. John or on the banks of the St. Lawrence. Therefore, a measure, call it what you like, that places upon everybody the burden he is best able to bear is both fair and democratic. But because it is fair and democratic, it must be conceived in fairness and above and beyond all, it must be administered in fairness. This is the crux of the question, and with all the good will in the world, and looking at the thing as dispassionately as I can view it, I must say that this Government, judging from its record, will not enforce conscription fairly. Therein lies the danger. Men will put up with a great deal of unfairness under a voluntary system, but they will not submit to unfairness and compulsion at the same time, and they would not be Canadians if they did. And is it fair to say to one man you may work in a munitions factory at from three to six or eight dollars a day, and to another you shall risk your life in the trenches and put up with all the discomforts of warfare for $1.10 a day? The people will not submit to such discrimination.

Everybody will admit that this question has been sprung upon Parliament and the people without any education or preparation whatever, and under these circumstances, people will wonder whether it is for the purpose of helping to win the war or whether it is for the purpose of covering up in the excitement and turmoil it is sure to cause, the record of the Government and the record of a minister who, to say the least, is under grave suspicion. If we bear in mind a few facts in connection with the question they may perhaps enable us to form a correct judgment upon this point. From the beginning of the war till the Prime Minister returned from England a few weeks ago, every utterance of the Government was against conscription. Last fall the Director General of National Service (Mr. R. B. Bennett) declared at a public meeting that what he had seen and heard in the West in company with the Premier convinced him that conscription would be followed by civil war. And when the Civil Service cards were sent out, the clergymen who were asked to encourage the people to sign them were told to announce that it did not mean conscription, and they so announced. Last spring the Minister of the Interior issued circular letters inviting immigrants from the United States, and stating that conscription would not be applied in Canada. And during this session on April 30, the present Minister Of Militia announced in the House that the Government had never even considered conscription. Now what did all this mean if it was not to prepare the public mind against the idea of conscription, and that conscription in itself was a thing to be avoided? More than that the Minister of Trade and

Commerce (Sir George Foster) and the Minister of Finance went up and down the country telling us that production and more production was the thing that was needed. I will admit that circumstances and conditions might have changed to justify this change on the part of the Government, but where is the evidence of that-we have received none.

Did the British Government suggest to the Prime Minister when he was in England the adoption of this policy? No, they did not. The Prime Minister when introducing the Bill stated-see Hansard, page 2280:

Some people with a diseased imagination have asserted that I took my present course at the request or dictation of the British Government. No more absolute falsehood was ever uttered by human lips. The subject was never discussed between myself and any member of the British Government. If there had been any such suggestion from them, I for one, would not have tolerated it.

Now, Sir, I do not for one moment pretend to have any knowledge of high statecraft, but I think the man on the street will ask what the Premier went to the Imperial Conference for, if not to give and receive suggestions. Where could the Premier go, if not to the British Government or some member of it, to get information as to what it was advisable or necessary for Canada to do, or try to do? Did the Prime Minister get his information by inspiration on the ship that carried him home across the Atlantic? Would it have been a bad thing if the Prime Minister had not only consulted the British Government, hut the United States Government as well, [DOT]and the best minds in Canada also, as to what we were expected to do, or could do, in the stupendous struggle in which we are [DOT]all engaged? It appears to me that it would only be by such consultation that our joint efforts could be properly organized and coordinated. But the right hon. leader of the Government knew it all and diu not need the advice of anybody.

Now let us see what the Right Hon. A. J. Balfour, who came to America a few days after the arrival of the Prime Minister, thought in regard to this matter. He said that what was needed by England and her Allies was "Food first and military aid later."

Then we have the declaration of Lord Rhondda, Food Controller of Great Britain, on the 19th of last month. He said:

The Allies rely on Canada and the United States to supply food. We are doing what we can off our own bat by increasing home production and decreasing consumption, but in the main the solution of the primary' problem of supplies lies in the hands of our American

Allies and Canada. I am sure they will not "let us down."

Later still we have the statement of our own food controller, Hon. Mr. Hanna, who declares that:

Great Britain, France, Italy, Belgium and their European allies are wholly unable to supply the Allied armies at the front, and tile quantity needed to maintain the campaign must come largely from this side of the Atlantic. If in a month or so people on the continent begin to note the effects of the war on their breakfast tables they will know that they are curtailing their appetites in a great cause.

Mr. Hoover, the American Food Controller, agrees with these men, and some of the most experienced and practical men in Canada have stated that we cannot take any more man from the essential industries without crippling our productive capacity.

Does the Prime Minister know more than all these men put together? If so he must have got .the knowledge he possesses by inspiration, because np till the time he returned from England neither he nor any of his Cabinet in Canada had the remotest idea that conscription would be necessary. And right here a .serious question 'arises-if iup to a few weeks -ago, and having been at war for two years .and nine months, our Government were totally ignorant in regard to what was vitally necessary to sustain our troops in the field at proper fighting strength, then no greater proof of incompetence ever was or could be given to the people.

_ Another thought that strikes me in regard .to this statement of the Premier that he would no.t tolerate a suggestion from the British Government or any member of it with respect to this matter is this: Suppose Sir Wilfrid Laurier had returned from an Imperial Conference and made such a statement, why Six, he would he denounced from one end of Canada to the other, and the statement itself would be held up as proof positive of disloyalty. Of course no one would question Sir Robert Borden's loyalty. But, then, I forgot, a Tory cannot be disloyal; the thing would be impossible.

A statement made by the Prime Minister in moving the second reading of the Bill deserves, I think, more 'consideration than it has hitherto received either dm the House or in the country. Here it is:

If what are left of 400,000 such men come back to Canada with fierce resentment, and even rage in their hearts, conscious that they have been deserted and betrayed, how shall we meet them when they ask the reason? I am not so much concerned for the day when this Bill becomes law, as for the day when these men return if it is rejected.

Here we have the plain, unvarnished and tremendously important fact, that the Premier did not hesitate to threaten the Commons of Canada with the wrath of the soldiers if the member's dared to exercise their constitutional rights by voting according to the dictates of their conscience and according to what they believed to be in the true interests of the country.

Of course there was no evidence of what the army thought in regard to the matter under consideration, and at the time the Premier spoke there was no certainty as to how the members would vote, but this does not change the gravity and seriousness of the First Minister's threat, but rather emphasizes it. Here we have the civil power threatened with the wrath of the military power, if the civil power dares to exercise its rights and its proper functions. Here is the spirit of Prussian militarism displayed by the Premier, consciously or unconsciously, in all its naked deformity. Here we have the spirit behind the Zabern incident, when the Prussian military officer cut down the lame shoemaker on the street because the latter did not salute the officer in true subservient style. Is the danger of losing our own liberties while fighting to preserve the liberties of the world so remote after all? Even the Montreal Gazette, good Tory organ that it is, in its issue of to-day rbbukes the Prime Minister for making a statement calculated to incite the military against the civil population.

In some quarters it is stated that this Bill is aimed at Quebec, that the people of that province having failed to do their duty, conscription is necessary to compel them to discharge that dnty. In fact, it has been stated that but for the slackness of Quebec the Bill would not be necessary at all. Here is what the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Arthurs) stated: I

I might say, however, that if the province of Quebec had done its duty, this Bill would have been entirely unnecessary, and the required 500,000 men would have been raised.

But the hon. the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen) the other day said the Bill was not aimed at Quebec so much as at some of the other provinces, and that very few men from Quebec would be called to the colours under its provisions. Remember, this is the man who framed the Bill and who, consequently, knows more about its provisions, and will have more to do with its enforcement, than any other man in Canada. That there may be no mistake, let me quote his exact words:

We of English-speaking Canada have the kindest feelings towards our French Canadian compatriots. We realize that there are certain considerations having to do with this subject of recruiting that apply to them that do not apply with the same force to us. This Bill in its results will work more lightly on the Province of Quebec than on any other province in Canada.

So we are to have not only favoritism and discrimination as between individuals, as we have had all along, but favouritism and discrimination, as between provinces.

I ask in all sincerity: Is this a Bill to help win the war, or a Bill to help win elections? Are we gambling with the flesh and blood of the nation?

In addition to this the Bill is not to come into force until it is proclaimed by the Governor in Council, and it may be a long time until the proclamation is issued. So the more the Bill is examined and the more it is explained, the more clearly do we see there is more politics in it than appears- on the surface, and the more clearly do we observe the hope that in the noise and the confusion it will cause many many things will be forgotten; that, for instance, the slimy trail of the serpent of grafting and private profiteering which disgraced the country may be forgotten.

The reason I intend to vote for the amendment moved by the right honourable leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) is that it is one way of consulting the people-and the people should and must be consulted. Some of the members supporting the Government say that a referendum is not necessary, because the vast majority of the people are in favour of the Bill. If that be so, the referendum is most desirable, because we will then have conscription and a united Canada behind it. Other members supporting the Government, and some members of the Government themselves say they will not have a referendum because conscription would be defeated by a large majority. If that be so, how in the name of common sense do the Government expect to enforce conscription, except by strife and insurrection-and is that the way they intend to win the war? Again, some people say that the referendum is un-British. Well, it was not considered un-British in Australia, but perhaps they are not as loyal there as we are in Canada -not loyal enough to satisfy our Tory friends and some of our lachrymose friends on this side of the House. Nor was it considered un-British in England, because the Right Hon. A. J. Balfour, leader of the Unionist party, speaking upon such a prosaic thing as the tariff, said:-

The advantage of a referendum Is this: that the issue is quite clear and quite precise. A referendum has an enormous advantage. It does not involve a general election; it does not involve all the personal bitterness inevitably involved in a contest between the two competitors for a seat; it does not carry with it a change of government; and it does get a clear verdict from the people.

But perhaps Balfour is not British enough for our high Tory friends.

So far as I am personally concerned, what I believe in most of all is a general election, because it, better than anything else, will clear the atmosphere-that is, providing we have an honest election. If, however, the Government tampers with the constitution and holds an election with loaded dice, they will infuse a spirit of unrest and dissatisfaction into the people of this country which will lead to dire results, the end of which no man can see. Only the day before yesterday we celebrated the fiftieth birthday of Confederation-the fiftieth anniversary of our national life, and reference was naturally made to all we had accomplished in the last half century. But, once again I say, this Government, by using arbitrary and harsh methods and following the policy upon - which they appear to have embarked, can start a conflagration which will not be extinguished in the next fifty years.

If we have a general election and the Go vernment be returned to power-which God forbid-they will come back, if not purified, at least strengthened by having a mandate from the people. They can then enforce conscription with some show of reason, and I for one, whether in Parliament or out of Parliament, shall give them all reasonable assistance in the enforcement thereof. On the other hand, if they force this conscription Bill through, and also by reason of their majority in this House and in the Senate, force the extension resolutions through, and then try to enforce conscription in the arbitrary and unfair manner I fear they will employ, we shall have Prus-sianism-naked Prussianasm-and I tremble for the consequences. Only a miracle will prevent strife and all its consequent evils. If the Liberals 'be returned to power we shall have an honest democratic Government in which the people will 'have confidence; a Government that will employ all the resources of the country towards winning the war, employing conscription for that purpose if necessary, but conscription all around. I do not believe it would be necessary, however, because, the people knowing they could trust the Government

to act honestly and impartially, many would flock to the colours with the isame zeal, the same courage, and the same enthusiasm that were manifested in the early [DOT] days of the war.

Therefore, the best thing the Government could do would be to acknowledge their incompetence, resign, and ask His Excellency the Governor General to summon Sir Wilfrid Laurier. The people could then apply to them the saying which was long ago applied to Gharles I, that nothing in his whole life became him like the leaving of it.

Mr. JAMES MORRIS (Chateauguay):

Mr. Speaker, in rising to ask the attention of the House for a few moments, I have no thought of prolonging the debate, because I feel that it has already been extended a little longer than is necessary. In fact, I do not think there should have been any debate on this question. That is my honest opinion. But, Sir, I feel that I should not give a silent vote on this question. I feel that this question of conscription has been augmented, or made to appear much greater than it really is. A year ago there was no man in this country who was more opposed to conscription than I was, for the simple reason that I had given it very little consideration, fully believing that we would never require it in this country, and I am sorry to-day that we are obliged to resort to it. I feel that it would have been a glorious thing for this Canada of ours had we been able to supply the required number of men voluntarily. But when that failed what was there left for us to do? Of all the speakers whom I have heard in this House during this debate, not one single man has offered a suggestion whereby we could improve on the measure proposed. Therefore, when I come to examine this question and ask myself if there, is any other method whereby we can do our. duty, I am compelled to answer that there is absolutely none. So I feel that I have a great question before me, which I have to solve for myself. Formerly I was opposed to conscription, but when the question was placed before me, and before the people of Canada, and when I realized that all other methods of raising men had failed, I felt bound.to come to a decision, as the Government were bound to come to a decision, as to what could be done. And what could be done?

Not a man in this House offered any suggestion as to how that could be done, otherwise than, by conscription. There-

fore, when I saw that such a measure was necessary, I njturally gave it -some thought, and the question gave me many anxious moments before I reached a decision. I know full well that I am going to vote against the wishes of a great many of my electors. If I voted otherwise, I would vote against the wishes of many of my electors who hold oppo-sdte views. < Therefore, I might isay, I am ipre-tty nearly between the devil and the deep sea. I felt that, as a representative of one of the -most important constituencies of Quebec, I had a duty to perform. I had to come to a decision, and to set aside the wishes on both sides of -some of -my electors, and it was up to me to do what I believed ito be my duty. There comes a time in the life of every -man when he -must decide between love -and duty. Perhaps love did not enter into this question, but personal interest entered into i-t, and I am ready to lay aside personal interest and do what I believe is my duty in the interest of -my province, of the Empire, and of humanity. I will do my d-u-ty land take the consequences. It certainly would have been a great pleasure to m-e, h-ad we been -able to raise the required number of -men without resorting to conscription, but within the last few months, it -has been clearly proven, inside of this House and outside, -that the voluntary system bias failed, and that we must do something else. Under the circumstances, in my humble opinion, we cannot desert the boys who are fighting for us in France. My hon. friend from St, John and Iberville (Mr. Demers) thought that we had done enough, and that we -should allow other armies to take the place of our Canadian boy-s. I say the hon. gentleman does not understand the nature of the Anglo-Saxon race, or he never would have made -such a statement in this House.

We have heard a -great deal about democracy. It is stated that this measure is contrary to the spirit of democracy. I would like to call attention to the fact that alongside of us we have the greatest democracy on -the face of the globe. It does not seem to interfere with the -s-pirit of democracy in the United States to pass such -a measure as that which we are considering to-day. We hear no complaint from them. They have entered this war quite recently. They are an independent nation and are not under the same obligations as we are, because we are part of the British Empire, and when the British Empire is at war we are at war. The United States is in a different position. To-day the United States

has passed a Bill similar to the one we are considering, and I maintain that the spirit of this Bill is more in harmony with the true spirit of democracy than any suggestion I have heard from the other side of the House. The fundamental principle of democracy is equalization of men. One man is considered the equal of -another. That is the true spirit of democracy and that is what we are trying to establish by this Bill. I was at first as -much opposed to it as any man in this House, hut after studying the nature of the Bill, and the manner in which it is going to he enforced, I feel it is -more in harmony with the true spirit of democracy than any proposal that has been made in this House. Therefore, to attain the object we have in view, I stand ready to support the Bill, not because I believe it is in the interest of Jimmie Morris, or -any other individual, but because I believe it to be a measure of liberty and justice to every man. I shall after supporting the measure return to my home perfectly satisfied that I have done my duty to myself, to my electors and to my country. I am ready, Mr. Speaker, to take the consequences. Furthermore, I believe that, when the nature of this Bill is perfectly understood by the -people of Quebec, it will be looked upon toy them in a different light from what it is to-day. What are the arguments toeing advanced at the present time? It is stated to the people of Quebec that we are tearing the c-hildien from their mothers and throwing them into the front trenches to toe butchered. Is that a proper spirit? Is that the manner in which we should recruit? We have heard a great deal about recruiting, but I say that, since this debate began, I have heard arguments which would render it almost impossible to recruit in Quebec. We have heard a great deal of criticism of certain things that have been said -by certain men on this side of the House during an election in Drum-mond-Arthabaska, and elsewhere in Quebec in- 1911, We must not forget, however, that that was during a political campaign, and we are not engaged in -a political campaign to-day. We are up against one of the most grave and serious propositions that ever faced this House or the civilized world, with the greatest Empire the world has ever known shaken to her very foundations. Is it not up to every true Canadian to set aside all other considerations in such a crisis? And, Mr. 'Speaker, the time will come when we will n-ot speak of French Canadians, or English Canadians but " Canadians ", regardless of national origin, and only recog-

nizing the distinction of being citizens of Canada. T,o-day, I am sorry to say, reference has been made very frequently in this ddbate to the French Canadians. No man in this House has had better opportunity of knowing the nature of the French Canadian people than I. I have been brought up amongst them, and the best friendis I have in the province of Quebec, pr in the whole Dominion, are French Canadians. They are friends of my youth. I used to go to school with them. There is no class of pe.ople on the earth who have a better sense of fair play than the French Canadian people and. my presence in this House is sufficient proof of that statement. The French Canadians have a majority in my county, but they have elected me, an Englishman. It has been an understood thing in my county, for many years back, that we should send an English speaking representative to the Parliament at Ottawa, and a French Canadian to the Quebec Legislature, and that agreement has never been broken. Therefore, I am justified in saying that our French Canadian friends have as great a sense of justice and fair play as any people in this whole Dominion.

As' far as recruiting is concerned I cannot understand the situation in the province of Quebec. Outside the province of Quebec, , French Canadians have volunteered as freely as the members of any other nationality. Why is it that our friends in Quebec have not come up to the mark? I can make every allowance for the French Canadians under ordinary circumstances, but this ease I cannot understand. Two or three days after Austria had declared war upon Serbia, the eyes of the whole civilized world were fixed upon England. Nowhere was England's course more anxiously watched than in the province of Quebec, and when the news was flashed across the Atlantic that England had come to the rescue of France, a sigh of relief came up from the heart of every French Canadian in the province of Quebec. I know that deep down in the heart of every French Canadian there is a love of his mother country. How could any descendant of the noble French race deny his allegiance to or his love for his mother country? The love of country comes next to the love of God, and I feel that in the heart of every French Canadian there is an admiration for old France that nothing can erase. Unfortunately, immediately after that news came to this country, the cry was started 1-by whom or upon whose authority I do not know: we owe nothing to France; she turned out certain religious organizations.

That was not a sufficient reason for inaction; that was a political matter. The same thing happened in other countries-[DOT] but the spirit of old France remained there, and there it will remain. It is worthy of note that many years ago Atilla, the leader of the Huns, who had set out to overrun Europe, was turned back on the plains of France. Future history will record that in this war the Hun of this day met defeat on the plains of France. That will he another glorious page in France's history. Some men are to-day shouting "a bas l'Angleterre," and that kind of thing; but that does not express the true sentiment of the French Canadian. It does not, at any rate, express the sentiment of the people in the rural districts, where one gets a better idea, perhaps, of the true sentiment of the people. In the cities the people are influenced by men of the type of Bourassa and Tancrede Marsil. These men will disappear in due course of time, but the true spirit of the French Canadian will remain forever.

Mr. E. LAPOINTE:

Will the hon. gentleman tell me in what part of the province of Quebec he heard the words "a bas l'Angleterre"?

Mr. MORRIS:

I have read them in the press of the city of Montreal. I have not the records here, but the hon. gentleman knows that the words appear in the press many times. I admit that they were not written by responsible men; nevertheless, the spirit that provoked them was aroused by the men who were at the head at meetings held in opposition to conscription. But I repeat that these words do not represent the true spirit of the French Canadian people.

It has been said by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House that Quebec would rise in revolt if this Bill should become law. Mr. Speaker, that is false. From what I know of the French Canadian people, if this Bill becomes law they will submit to it just the same as you or I will. It may not be agreeable to them, but they will see the justice of the Bill when it is properly explained to them. Instead of preaching sedition and treason, as members of this House have done, let hon. gentlemen go out into their counties and do as was done in the other provinces. Let the men who influence public opinion go out and do their duty. Let the clergy do their duty in Quebec as the clergy have done their duty in the other provinces. The matter of the duty of the people has

been taken up in the other provinces by the churches, by the public men, by all classes of the people. We knew what our duty was; the spirit of the Canadian people backed us up; every man went into the fight and did what he could. Had that been do lie in Quebec since the beginning of the war, we would have had a greater number of recruits from that province than from any other province in the Dominion. From no other province in the whole Dominion could we have expected greater enlistment than from the province of Quebec. But public opinion in that province has been led astray by the false doctrine that has been drummed into and preached to the people-doctrine that for years back has never been denied or contradicted. But the French Canadians are, down in their hearts, just as good as I am; just as loyal as I am.

Mr. E. LAPOINTE:

Thank you.

Mr. MORRIS:

But they have been falsely trained. It has been suggested by some hon. gentlemen-and I am not averse to the suggestion-that we give voluntary enlistment another chance. Voluntary recruiting has failed, but the system still prevails. Let hon. gentlemen who are advocating voluntary enlistment get busy, go into their counties, and start a campaign under that system. Let them not preach such doctrine as was preached by the member for St. Hyacinthe (Mr. Gauthier), or the member for St. John and Iberville (Mr. Demers). That kind of doctrine will never help recruiting. Let them preach the true doctrine of patriotism and of our duty to our country; the people of Quebec will understand it just as well as you or I understand it. They know what they owe to the British Empire; they know what the British flag means to them; they appreciate the protection that they have enjoyed for many years and the privileges that have been granted to them under British rule. But if the people of that province continue to be under the influence of the false doctrines that have been pTeadhed to them we cannot expect any different results from those that have obtained. Many French Canadian soldiers have returned to this country; let them be employed to engage in recruiting campaigns among the people of Quebec and to explain present conditions relating to the war. If this is done the habitants will understand the situation just as well as we do.

I venture to say that those habitants will understand the situation just as well as we do. They have just as great a sense

of honour and of justice as any of us have. They know the horrors that have been perpetrated by the enemy just as well as we do, and they are ready to avenge those who have suffered from the barbarity of the foe. But, we have to point them to the proper course, and we have to counteract the effects of the evil doctrine that has for years been preached to the French Canadian people in Quebec.

Mr. MEDERIC MARTIN:

The hon.

member a few minutes ago told the various Quebec members to do their share in encouraging enlistments. The hon. member is a member from Quebec province. Has he done so himself? Has he asked his people to enlist, and if so, what have they said?

Mr. MORRIS:

I am glad the hon. member has brought up that question. Early in the war I had the pleasure of taking part at a recruiting meeting. A young officer who, poor young fellow, is to-day buried in France, was sent to my county, and he came to a village adjoining mine. We called a meeting-and what I say will perhaps bear out a little of the criticism that has been offered as to the manner of recruiting in our province. I do not cast any reflections upon the Government for what was done. They selected the men they thought were proper, but sometimes a man who is appointed for a certain purpose, is not always able to fill the position as it should be filled. At all events I had with me on the platform that night two Presbyterian ministers from my immediate neighbourhood. We laid before the people the cause as best we could. This young officer stated his case, and finally when he had finished, he tied up his belongings and was about to leave the meeting. I said to him: My friend, do not you think it would be advisable for you to go down amongst the crowd and speak to the young men; I know that in the audience are a number of young men who, by the interest they have taken in what has been said, are ready to volunteer. The young officer immediately admitted the propriety of such a course. He went down amongst the audience, and I accompanied him and introduced him to a number of young men. The result was that fifteen young men enlisted that night. Four of them were rejected, but since that night forty others have followed the example of those fifteen young men. That is the spirit otf the Canadian people when they

understand the situation. That course was not taken in many other counties in Quebec. In Laprairie-Napierville the people were advised not to enlist and not to contribute to the Patriotic and the Bed Cross Funds. They were told: Save your money for some other purpose. Could one expect recruits from a county where that doctrine w.as preached? That is one of the reasons why recruiting has not succeeded in Quebec. Hon. members speak about what was said years ago, but those are political questions, and it is the leaders of the people in the province of Quebec whom I blame for the want of success in recruiting.

I have said already that it grieves me to be forced to vote contrary to the wishes pf a great many of my electors, old warriors who have fought for me twice in. my political campaigns, and whom I had the honour of leading to a Conservative victory in my county for the first time since Confederation. But I have a duty to perform, and in coming to a decision, I have given due consideration to the question before the House, and if I should have to give up my life on account of the course I have decided to pursue, I am ready to make the sacrifice, to d;o what I believe is my duty. As I said I am ready to take the consequences of my action. I .am the representative of the old county of Chateauguay, and I do not want the finger of scorn to be pointed at that county. Should I vote against this measure and do as the hon. member for St. John and Iberville (Mr. Demers) advises us to do, I feel that the finger of sc.orn would be pointed at me and at my county for all time to come. That hon. member practically advises us to throw up the sponge-to quit. As I have said before, he does not know the spirit of the Anglo-Saxon race or he would never have made such a statement.

There is one feature in connection with conscription that, partly fin account of the attitude that I am taking I should explain to the House, and that is the duty that I owe and the duty that every French Canadian and every other Canadian owes to the Empire. Let the people understand that duty and there will be no need for discussion on this Bill; the Bill would be passed unanimously.

I do not attempt to criticise any statements made in regard to the referendum, but there is one phase of the question on which I have not yet received any light. We are told by the hon. member fpr Welland (Mr. German) that he was fully in accord with conscription, that he felt it was the duty of Canada to force enlistment, and

that he believed the people in Canada would support a referendum on that question. If he believes that, it is his duty as a representative of the people to vote for conscription. Why refer the matter by a referendum to the people of Canada if the people are in favour ,of it? Has the hon.. member not a duty to perform? What was he elected for? W.as he elected to go back to his people every time a question came up in this House, and tp ask them how he should vote? I told some of my electors the other day: " Gentlemen, when you elected me, you did not elect me into slavery. I am an independent man; I am going to vote according to the dictates .of my conscience, and I am ready to take the consequences." That is what I intend to do on this question.

There is another feature that we must take into consideration as regards this referendum. Some gentlemen have told us that they are absolutely in accord with this Bill. Let us suppose that we take a referendum and that conscription is defeated In that event, where would we stand? Either those hon. members will have to vote for this measure against the wishes of the people of Canada-and then what will happen?-or else, we shall have to throw up the sponge and say: We will no longer

support the men who have voluntarily gone to the front.

If we do that, I say that the finger of scorn will be pointed at Canada for centuries to come. I sincerely trust that it will never be done.

Mr.J.A. DE.SGARK.IES (Jacques Cartier): Mr. Speaker, I propose detaining the House, a few minutes only. I do not intend to discuss all the points (which may be raised for or against the question now before this House, to wit.: the passing of a conscription Bill to send 100,000 men overseas to fight Germany and her allies.

During more than two weeks, this Parliamentary hall has resounded with the eloquent accents of representatives of Canada, some demanding conscription, others opposing it. The pledges of the leaders of the nation, assuring the people that there would be no conscription, have been recalled; on the one hand, it has been attempted to prove that conscription was necessary because it was absolutely needed to replace our Canadian soldiers falling on the battlefields; on the other hand, it was stated that Canada has nobly done her share in this war which afflicts humanity and that at all events, volunteering, if it were properly operated, could fill the depleted rosters of

our forces. The partisans of conscription, ait least some of them, have in bitter terms attributed to the province of Quebec the so-called failure of volunteering, by claiming that the French Canadians had not enlisted in sufficient numbers; the opponents of conscription retorted by showing that the province of Quebec occupies a very special position in the Dominion and in the British Empire and that if her contribution of men in the expeditionary forces has not been as large as that of other provinces, it was due to the inadequate or defective methods employed in recruiting and to the feelings of hatred as well as the aspersions directed against her people who are in spite of all, loyal to the Empire and to the British crown. Against conscription has also been raised the argument of the economic condition of Canada who, according to a large number of members, cannot make a bigger effort in men and in money without running into bankruptcy or, at least, without putting herself in a disastrous position for years and years to come. It has been further stated that the sending of our Canadian militia beyond Canada, to go and battle in Europe, was such an extraordinary enactment that, is should not be done without the consent of the people, expressed by means of a referendum or in a general election, especially so in view of the fact that the present Parliament has exceeded the constitutional lease of life and that it exists only in virtue of an extension granted by its own members, a fact which a large number of citizens do not consider as giving it the power to pass a law largely interfering with the rights of the citizen as regards military service.

Other reasons have been put forth which escape my memory just now for I am making this review off hand, not having had time to read the reports of the speeches made in this House. >

As I stated at the beginning, Mr. iSpeaker, I do not wish to take up once more the views advocated in the course of the debate and make in regard to them more or less appropriate comments. What I do want is simply to vindicate the stand I take before this House and the country, upon the question now under consideration.

I have already stated, in the speech T made in answer to the speech of His Excellency, the Governor General, at the. opening of this session, that I was against conscription and that there could not be any question of conscription to send soldiers out to fight with the Allies.

I have publicly stated, at a meeting in Lachine, which is in the county of Jacque3 Cartier, which I have the honour to represent, that I was against conscription; can I now change my opinion? Has the debate which lias been going on in this House, convinced me that I was wrong in speaking as I have done? Conscientiously,

I am forced to answer that my opinion has not changed. ^ '

I do deeply regret to find myself under the necessity of opposing the demand made by the leader of my party, the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) I have always had for this illustrious statesman the highest respect and in him, the greatest confidence. But I would be a miscreant if, as representative of the people, I did not follow the dictates of my conscience; I would deserve the contempt of my constituents and of the whole country, if I did not live up to the mandate entrusted to me.

I have received numerous petitions, containing thousands of signatures, from the electors of my county, asking me to oppose conscription, but, Mr. Speaker, my opposition will not be a seditious one.

I am not against the assistance to be given to the Empire and to the Allies. I want the assistance given to England to be of a voluntary character. Let efficient means of propaganda be taken, and the 100,000 men, whom you want to obtain through conscription, will soon be found.

As for ime, there is. a peremptory reason which compels me to oppose conscription. It is that reason I intend to submit to this honourable House. In my opinion, this Objection is well worth considering. If well taken the Bill which is now submitted, should it ever become law, would be ultra vires, null and void. I submit that Canada is not a .sovereign state. She has no international status; her legislative powers are limited td those granted her by the British North America Act, which is an Imperial Statute. Now, this Act does not enable our Parliament to pass an Act providing for ithe sending, by conscription, of subjects of Canada, to go and fight in Europe or in other foreign countries.

All that we find in the 'aforesaid statute is, in section 91 and1 its subsection, "that it will be lawful for the King, upon the advice and with the consent of the Senate and of the House of Commons, to make taws for the peace, the OTder and the good govem-ment of Canada and, in particular, for the militia, the military iservice, the naval service and the defence of the country".

Will any one contend that, in consequence of the sedtion I have just quoted, Canada has the right to declare war to any country whatever? Certainly not.

Todd, the well known authority on constitutional 'and parliamentary law, says iat page 388, of the second edition of his work:

In affairs of peace and war which, are essentially of Imperial concern, this supremacy of the Crown must be everywhere maintained inviolate.

We cannot, Mr. Speaker, address a foreign country without the co-operation of the English ambassador. If you want, for instance, to obtain the extradition of any party from the United States, you must apply to tlhe British ambassador. Canada can only make certain fiscal .arrangements, she cannot make any international treaty. Admitting that this Parliament had the right to establish .conscription for the defence of her .attacked territory, she certainly has not the right to send conscripts into foreign countries, beyond the seas, and make war to .assist friendly nations, for such an enterprise would constitute .an act Of warfare which alone the Imperial Parliament can do.

In order to .be able to lawfully send conscripts to Europe, in the war zone, we should have to- do as we have done for the extension of the term of this Parliament, that is to say, have the Imperial Parliament, from which this Parliament holds its powers, amend the British North America Act, and authorize us to send conscripts to the battlefields where is being waged this great war which is .presently desolating the whole world.

Let us .suppose, Mr. .Speaker, that England had not taken part in the war, and that Canada had a French majority who. would wish to help France flighting against Germany, would not the sending of our con-cripted soldiers, for that purpose, constitute ian act of warfare which England would be obliged to disavow and to prevent, if she did not want to enter the war herself?

Wiho can say that England, under sudh circumstances, would not have the right of so doing, for she cannot allow her colonies to draw her into any war without the consent of the Imperial Parliament.

Now, we do. not have even now that approval in the 'Constitutional Act of Canada nor in any .amendment to that Act. Therefore, if the Bill, which is now submitted to this hon. House, should become law, that law, in .my opinion, will be ultra vires. Therefore, it might be attacked by .any conscripted citizen, by means of a habeas corpus and it would be impossible to enforce it.

Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add, except Ithat, in consequence of what I have just *said, it is my duty to vote for the amend-

men.t to the .amendment of the hon. member for Berthier (Mr. Barrette), because I consider the proposed Bill unconstitutional. If that amendment is last, I will vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Quebec-East (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) because I consider that a conscription Act to send our soldiers abroad is such a novel .and extraordinary measure, that before entering it definitely in our statutes, it should be submitted to the approbation of the electorate of this country. Finally, if this amendment is also defeated, I will register my vote .against the second reading of the Bill, as a protest against the principle of unconstitutional enactment it contains.

Mr. WILLIAM STEWART LOGGIE (Northumberland, N.B.):

Mr. Speaker, if I speak with some feeling on rising to address the House on this occasion it is because I realize, to some extent at least, the seriousness of the situation with which we are dealing. In August 1914 we were called together as representatives of the people of Canada to deal with the question of taking part in this dreadful conflict. We met here for less than a week and unanimously decided to do our bit in defence of home and liberty. We undertook to do our part and send our men to the front, supplying them with the necessary munitions as far as possible, not at the request of any other nation, but voluntarily and unanimously. No one will deny that our men have done splendidly. Men from my own county have come forward in a wonderful manner. My own province has done magnificently, standing second on the list in the pro rata of enlistment. My home town of about 4,500 inhabitants has suffered over fifty death casualties. The situation is a most serious one. It is in my thoughts day and night, and if I speak with some feeling it is because of my intense interest in the situation in which we find ourselves to-day.

The right hon. leader of the Government comes back from the old land and from the war zone and tells the people of Canada that more fighting men are needed to maintain the standard which we have set for ourselves. He further tells us that the Government of the day are unable to get these men by voluntary enlistment, which is the system we have always had in this country in war time. He has placed that situation before us very frankly, and I shall deal with that in a moment or two. Canada, as I understand it, pledged herself at the time of Confederation to take

part in the defence of her country. It will do no harm to put on Hansard again the words that were used on that occasion by Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir George Cartier, George Brown and A. T. Galt':

We expressed the earnest wish of the people of Canada to perpetuate the happy existing connection with Great Britain, and their entire willingness to contribute to the defence of the Empire their full quota, according to their ability, of men and money.

That is what we are doing to-day; that is what we promised to do in August 1914; and shall we fall down on our pledge? That is the momentous question before the people of Canada to-day. As I see it, . we are in honour bound to live up to that pledge, bound to send the men required to fill u,p the gaps caused by our fallen heroes. How are we to do that? The Prime Minister tells us that he has exhausted all means of getting the men by voluntary enlistment. He now proposes the system of selective draft, which is not altogether a new principle for it has been on our statute-book since the time of Confederation. There was some question, I admit, up to 1904 whether we could send our troops outside of Canada, but, as I understand it, in that year it was made dear by the statement of the Minister of Justice that in the opinion of the Government of that day, if men were needed outside of Canada for the defence thereof, troops conld be sent to India, if need be. If that be true, I cannot see that we are very far afield in enforcing this principle. I admit that the principle has never been enforced, although it has been on our statute-book for years, and for that reason it may now appear rather drastic. I confess I do not like the word " force " any more than do my hon. friends who have spoken on this side of the House, and under conditions existing in 1914 and 1915 when we were getting a goodly number of recruits I do not think it would have been wise to enforce a compulsory law. In the early days of the war the United Kingdom did not force their men to go to the front, but got them by voluntary enlistment, and I think we were wise in following their example. If we had attempted to enforce such a measure >as this before the need really existed-and the need is present now because we cannot get the mien by the ordinary methods-we might have found ourselves in a difficult situation.

I wonder if this principle of compulsion does not already run like a golden thread, as it were, through the statute-books of

Canada, Is it not a fact that the State today protects my home by force? If I sell a bill of goods to a customer in whom I have implicit confidence, but who for some reason does not do his duty towards me, the State steps in at a certain time and compels him to do his duty. The principle of force, as I see it, appears before us at almost every turn in the statute-books. Not only does the State protect my home, but it protects me when abroad in a foreign land. Let me cite one case which was put on Hansard a few years ago. Hon. gentlemen from the province of Quebec know that some years ago in one of the Latin countries of Europe there was almost a revolution because it was thought some prominent man had1 been executed after an unfair trial. Dissatisfaction spread through the land where the execution took place, *and beyond, to Italy.

In Italy we have a Canadian institution, a college for the education of young men for the priesthood. The reverend gentleman in charge of that institution was told that* there was danger of a possible riot and revolution, and was asked what he would do in such a case. Listen to his answer; the answer of a Canadian in the city of Borne: "The British flag is my talisman." So I say, the British flag, even in foreign countries, forces others to protect my interests, if my interests are threatened. And we should all do well if we emulated the example of that clergyman; let us ever hold high that talismanic flag. Speaking on the Budget a few weeks ago, and before the Prime Minister returned from Europe, I made the statement, as Hansard will show, that the Government of the day were responsible for finding the necessary men to fulfil the pledge-if I may so call it; I do not know that it is necessarily looked upon as a pledge, but the leader of the Government since coming back has so interpreted it-that had been given; and I said that they ought to make overtures to the Opposition with a view to getting the men, by voluntary enlistment or otherwise. I do not think it was fair-I say so frankly -for the Government first to come to their finding as to what should be done and then make overtures. I think they erred in judgment, I think they lacked in tact in handling this tense situation; they should have approached the leader of the Opposition before deciding as to action; they should have asked the co-operation and advice of the Liberals of the country, as represented by my revered leader. Had this been done, I question very much if

we would have been in the position in which we find ourselves to-day.

Now, as to the future. It is evident that in order to keep three divisions in the fighting line we must have more men than are now being recruited. I do not know that I can prove that better than by quoting the statement placed before the House by the Department of Militia and Defence, and dated May 14, 1917. This statement gives a summary of strength of the units of the Canadian Expeditionary Force in England. At the time of this statement, as I understand the situation, there were three divisions in the fighting line, each divsion made up of practically

27.000 men. That is, we had 81,000 men in the fighting line. Then, we have a fourth division in the rear. Thus we had in France on the 14th May last 108,000 men. In England we had at that date, ready to go over to France, 26,359 men. Perhaps there were in addition some officers. We had in England also 29,927 men in training. These men were not fit then, and probably would not be fit for some months. We had 5,147 casualties in England who were 'being trained and hardened and made fit for the front. We had, in addition, 3,469 men who were being trained and would be ready to go to the front as soon as they reached the age of nineteen years. Thus we had in France 108,000 men, and in England 61,902 men who would be fit for trench work when properly trained. But the sad part of the story is that during April and May the casualties were considerably over

10.000 for each month. On this basis, six months would take for the fighting line every man we have available in England and would leave us without any reserves in England at all. And, if I understand the situation correctly, it will take about

10.000 men each month to keep up the standard we are now maintaining at the front, and that we are in duty bound to maintain-three divisions of a total of about

81.000 men. If we cannot get these men by voluntary enlistment, I think we are in duty bound to get them some other way.

I am willing to admit that the Prime Minister's proposal Ss somewhat drastic. But, after all, I cannot bring myself to the conclusion that he is unfair or. unreasonable, if the country is in jeopardy, and from the fact I have already stated, I think the country is in jeopardy. More than that, I think the heroic deeds of our boys ought to make the enforcement of a collective draft acceptable in the urgent circumstances in which we find ourselves.

These hoys have done splendid work. Let me cite one proof of it. Early in the war it was said by one of the Prussian officers high in authority, that, ''If it had not been for the Canadian rats the German army would be in Calais." The words "Canadian rats" were not very complimentary; but the noble work done in preventing the German army from reaching Calais will go down in history and will stand forever to the credit of our Canadian boys.

In order to show the House to some extent how I feel on this situation, let me cite just one short paragraph from a letter written recently in France by my son to his sister:

What is the news regarding conscription or a coalition Cabinet? I am strong for conscription myself. What does father think of it?

I say that I cannot do other than support the Government in their proposal to enforce the selective draft, as, in my judgment, nothing else is proposed that meets the situation. I am convinced that in the interest of the State there are times -and this is one of them-when the people should speak through their elected representatives in Parliament rather more than yea or nay on a question that has to do with the defence of the State. On general principles, the people must and do rule, but when the State is in jeopardy, it is incumbent on the duly elected members to speak and act for the people.

This brings me to the amendment moved by my beloved and revered leader, with whom I exceedingly regret I cannot vote on this occasion, for the first time in my life. But I give him praise, I give him nothing more than his due, when I say that he has told his followers to act as their conscientious convictions lead them. I honour him for this proper action in this national matter. I also recognize that he too is guided by his convictions, and that his interest in the State is not any less than mine or that of any other hon. member in this House. More than that, he has guided the ship oft state during many a storm safely to anchor in the calm waters of peace and prosperity. I am sure that if his guiding hand remains at the helm, even though he be leader of the Opposition, no disaster will overtake us if he can help it.

The object the Government have is to get the necessary men by selective draft, while that of the amendment is to do the same thing if the people first say yes. That is the only difference. My right hon. leader, in addressing the House, said that the

Government said we needed more men, and my right hon. leader in replying admitted that more men were required, but said that he thought the object in view could be better attained in another way. I cannot see it just ais my leader does, for this reason: As I said, the amendment is the same as the Bill, except that the people are to be first asked to say yes. The amendment, however, to my mind, does not provide for getting the men it the people, by a small or large majority, say no. But it would have this effect, that the men could not be sent by selective draft to complete .the work that we have unanimously undertaken. In other words, the hands of the .Government, or the hands of any Government, as I see it, would be tied. I understand that the hands of the Australian Government, so far as selective draft is concerned, are tied to-day, and will be tied until there is another referendum. And so the hands of this Government, or of any Government, will be tied until the nay is reversed to a yea by another referendum vote. I cannot see my way clear to take that risk. I cannot bring myself to believe that I would be doing right to the State in taking the risk involved in the amendment. If righteousness exalteth a nation, then right doing on the part of the members of this House and the people o'f Canada must tend thereunto. Hence my duty is to vote for the Bill and against the amendment of my hon. leader.

I feel that the young men of Canada who are so situated that they would come within the operation of the conscription law, young men whose removal from their present occupation would not be considered as detrimental to the State, should make the honourable choice of enlisting, if only out of admiration for the brave men who have fallen. I am going to ask whose war this is? I hear the answer from some hon. gentleman opposite: we are fighting for England. I cannot understand on what foundation they base that statement. Where is the logic in the statement that we are fighting for England? England did not ask us ito fight. When we came here in 1914 there was not a word said to this country that England made any request from Canada, as I understand. We aTe not fighting for England, for the United Kingdom; we are fighting for ourselves. We are fighting for the Empire of which we form an important part. I do not think that we ought to have the doctrine spread abroad that we are in this war at the request of England. We are in this war

because of the doctrine of the unity of a family. It is true that the centre is in London, but, nevertheless, let me use the statement of my honoured leader, when England is at war Canada is at war, because whatever hurts England hurts Canada. We are a part of a whole, and as I see it we are fighting for ourselves just as much as the English soldier is fighting for the United Kingdom. We in Canada are fighting for the protection of our Canadian people and our citizenship. But, we are doing more than that. Why is England fighting? Why did England enter the war? Because Germany had done a wrong thing, because Germany said she was going to tear a treaty to pieces. She did more than that.

She acknowledged she was wrong, and offered to do the right thing, as far as she could, after the war was over. That was very plausible, but I say that England realized that if Germany would break the treaty in order to serve her own selfish ends, there was no telling what she would do after that, if she got a chance. If her armies got- to Calais-and thank Heaven .our Canadian boys stopped them from getting there-what would happen? If they got to Paris and to Havre, as they very nearly succeeded in doing, what would happen the cities along the English Channel? I realize that if Germany had made very much more headway than she did, and if our armies had not come along at the critical time, this war might not have been even as favourable to us to-day as it is. It has certainly been a deadly struggle. I do not suppose any hon. member in this House believed, when war was declared in 1914, that in 1917 we would be disoussing this question in Parliament. I say we decided ourselves, in this House, without any request from any portion of the British Empire, on the course we should take. We are units of that Empire, and, as a unit, we had to perform our duty in defence of home and the Empire. Then we have this glory that we have never had before, and it is quite an experience to us, that we are not only fighting for ourselves, but we are fighting with the greatest nations in the world, and one of them is that chivalrous nation, France. I do a large business with France, and I find the merchants of that country straightforward and businesslike men. I desire to pay the compliment to the French-Canadians in my own county, where I do a large amount of business. I believe they are loyal to the land that has given them birth, and loyal to the land

that protects them, and if the land and flag protects a man, I see no reason why that man should not be bound to protect the flag, in case of urgency or necessity.

Now I come to a more difficult question, because the question after all is really what of the future? The past is history, but what of the future? If the Bill becomes law, what then? The hon. gentleman from Chateauguay, in speaking a few minutes ago, lectured the gentlemen on this side of the House, and told them to go down to their own counties and preach patriotism. I do not think he should have confined it to members on this side of the House, but should have cast his eye around him, and inquired whether that remark could not justly be applied to hon. gentlemen on that side of the House as well. I think it would have been better if he had not made that remark. The question which bothers me is, what is to become of this Bill, and what will be the result of our placing it on the Statute Book? First of all, I have a suggestion to make. I do not know, perhaps, that there is very much merit in it, but no harm will be done by putting it on Hansard. I think there should be a mutual understanding between the leaders on both sides of the House, and that there should be an honest effort made for the extension of the life of Parliament. My hon. friend from the county adjoining my constituency says, "Shame," but I will give my reason for it, and hon. gentlemen can take it for what it is worth. I do not say that one side alone could accomplish anything, and if hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House are bringing down a Bill for the extension of the life of Parliament, they should seek the co-operation, in some satisfactory way, with the leaders on this side of the House. If that cannot be done, it is another question altogether. Then, secondly, If the Bill passes through the regular stages and becomes law, there should be a renewed effort made to bring about a coalition Government, and after that is done I think there should be a final effort made for voluntary enlistment. I really cannot help thinking that there are sufficient men with large ideas in this country, on both sides of the House, to bring about this very desirable situation, which I think would be a very happy start for the new half century, but if we cannot have this happy condition, and cannot get the men by voluntary enlistment, I think there should be an effort made on both sides of the House for selective draft. That would not be opposed, at any rate, to any great extent, in any place in Canada.

That will be taking them by the throat and conscripting them.

Mr. LOGGIE:

I do not think it is altogether doing that. It is certainly not doing it any more than they are doing it in England. We as a rule look up to our British institutions and the example ,of the Motherland. Their ease is not any more urgent than purs, and I do not see any complaint from the Old Country that men are being taken by the throat. If the case is placed properly before the men, I do not think you will find many men in Canada who will not do their fair share. The Bill provides for the men necessary on the farm, in the fishing industry, the mine and the munition plant. It is a selective draft. If there be any partisanship in it, it will kill the chances of it being a success. It must be above partisanship, and that is why I would like to see some effort made to bring about an understanding between the two parties, because to make this selective draft a success, I believe it ought tp be administered by the two great parties in Canada to-day, and they should be brought together by some means. Whether it should be by election is another question. Personally, while I do not mind an election of itself, I do not like the idea of an election with this question as the battle cry. But if it is not possible to avoid that, each man will have to do his duty, regardless of the consequences. But I wish to make another suggestion, and it is this: If the

leader of the Opposition were made the leader of a coalition Government, I believe that with the co-operation of his friends in this House the necessary men could be secured by voluntary enlistment, or, if that failed, by selective draft. My only authority for saying that is my own conviction; I believe that that could be brought about. If my suggestions are not practicable or feasible, I can only say that we had better have an election, and the sooner the better.

Hear, hear.

Mr. LOGGIE:

I will tell you what should happen after an election is held. Whoever the winner is-whether he be the right hon. gentleman who sits to your right, Mr. Speaker, or my revered and honoured leader-he should form a coalition Government to manage our state affairs until the war is over. If this can be done by the leader of the party that wins at the polte, a great service will be rendered to the people.

Each member of this House has the right -and a glorious heritage it is-to vote ae-

cording to his convictions. But, Sir, each member should do more than that. He should be vigilant in furthering the interests of his country, in season and out of season. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty; it is the price that we must pay to maintain the privileges and the liberties that we have enjoyed in the past in this glorious young nation-a nation within a nation, the greatest Empire m the world.

Mr. A. A. MONDOU (Yamaska) (translation) :

Mr. Speaker, I have felt some hesitation in dealing with such an important matter as that which is now submitted to the consideration of this House; but taking into account the present condition of pu jlic mind in this country, I think it my duty to show the reasons why I am opposed to the government measure ! I hope the House will pardon me if I have to go a few years back so as to show in stronger light the responsibilities incurred by the promoters of this Bill towards the electors of Canada. We are urged by the Government to insert in our statute book this proposal concerning a kind of military conscription which is called selective.

On the other hand, the Opposition want this measure to be beforehand submitted to the Canadian people and declares, through its authorized leader, that they will assist the Government in having it practically and immediately enforced should the majority of the people, consulted by way of a referendum, pronounce itself in favour of the measure, whereas my honourable friend from Berthier would have the House dispose of this bill forthwith by refusing, under the guise of the six months' hoist, to recognize its principle. The answer which I shall be ready to give when those several proposals are put to the House will be the direct outcome of my previous stand.

Having never complained of the fact that Canada was taking part in the present war, having, on the contrary, always approved of it in principle, I do not very well see how I could take upon myself to vote against the principle of conscription to-day, before the Canadian people are called upon to render their own verdict. Is it or is it not the wish of our people that its participation which, up (to this date, has been voluntary and free, should become obligatory and compulsory? It must be remembered that our Militia Act, drafted by Cartier and revised under Laurier in 1904, states clearly, in section 69, that, should volunteering not answer the purpose, the Government would have a right to resort to con. scription. In fine, do the Canadian peo-

190*

pie think that our soldiers, now fighting beyond Canada, are fighting for the defence of Canada? As far as I am concerned, I cannot deny the people the right to settle by themselves such a momentous and important question. I wish to know what they think of it, and I may add at once that, in accord with the leader of the Opposition, I shall abide by the judgment of the Canadian electorate. Accordingly, as I do not wish to substitute my own will to that of the people, clearly expressed by way of a referendum, and as I confess having no mandate, under the circumstances, to speak out what I think of the matter, I shall vote against the sub-amendment of the honourable member for Berthier. As for the amendment proposed by the honourable leader of the Opposition, it shall have my full support. And, in truth, I am unable to understand why the Government persist in denying the people, conscious as they are oi their power and aware of the baneful possibilities of its exercise, the right to decide such an important matter. At this critical hour of our national life the people would give this great question all thS attention which it deserves. Besides, be the conditions in a free country what they may, it is for the people to finally decide.

I am perfectly willing to admit that the Prime Minister is actuated by the best of intentions, by an intense patriotism, even; but I cannot admit, however, that he has the monopoly of that quality. Accordingly I think I should frankly state that, having neglected, from the outbreak of this war. to inspire his policy with the Canadian spirit, he would, no doubt, to-day be less fearful and apprehensive of a referendum " somewhere in England." Mr. Speaker, a question of capital importance for the welfare of Canada has been agitated for nearly ten years in this country, and it must be admitted that the proceeding in the course of this and former parliaments has been somewhat stormy ever since. In fact, during the session of 1910 a Naval Service Bill was introduced and adopted by Parliament in spite of the Opposition, then under the leadership of the present Prime Minister, who advocated the idea that the people should be consulted. Just think of it! We were to spend some ten million dollars to build in this country a navy which would be a Canadian navy and could assist the mother country in war time.

I have already said in this House and I repeat to-day that the Naval Service Act was the only cause for which the Laurier Government was driven from power, and as Cartier was defeated for having carried

through the Militia Act by means of which our defence on land was organized, so did Sir Wilfrid Baurier lose power because he had introduced and carried through his Naval Bill providing for our defence on sea. I owe it to history to say, however, that I took no part in the campaign against the Naval Act and its complements, a campaign which was carried on for nearly two years in the province of Quebec, under the paternal and benevolent eye of the present Prime Minister and of his Siamese brother the Minister of Justice. However, I did not suspect, at the time, that this doubledealing had no other immediate purpose than the triumph of the Tory party of old, over the policy of Baldwin-Lafontaine, MacNab-Morin and Macdonald-Cartier. True to the political principles of those men which alone had got me elected to this House, I did not hesitate, on two different occasions, to ask, by way of a resolution, full and complete justice for the Catholic or Protestant minority in the territory of Keewatin which was purported to be annexed to the province of Manitoba. Then again, at the following session, when the present Prime Minister, back from England, expressed, in the speech from the Throne, his desire to change the nature of our constitutional relations with the mother country, I did not hesitate for a moment to urge, also by way of a resolution, that our political and constitutional status should not be changed. That amendment was opposed by the Prime Minister, who stated that be could not accept it, because its adoption, said he, would preclude Canada from raising a finger for the defence of the Empire. During that same session I supported the leader of the Opposition in an effort to defeat the Government measure by which we were called upon to vote $35,000,000 as a contribution towards increasing the naval forces of the Empire.

Once more, on that occasion, I stated the grounds of my stand on that question, and honour be to the Canadian Senate who refused, in that case, to concur in the decision of the majority of this House! But, how fanciful the course of events, and how inconsistent the Tory policy! Those zealous apostles of the rights of the people as against the Laurier Naval Act, were then seen to refuse a plebiscite, or a referendum, and, God help me! general elections on this proposal of later date.

In the early days of this Parliament, Mr. Speaker, always for the sole purpose of remaining true to my promises towards the electors of my constituency, I hastened to ask the Government as to whether they in-

tended to make good the word given to the electorate of the whole country to the effect that the Naval Bill would be repealed as soon as they took office, and on the 4th of March, 1912, I asked the Government the following question:

1. Is it the intention of the Government to propose that the Naval Act he repealed?

2. If so, does the Government intend, should such repeal take place, to introduce another Bill expressing the views of the Government in this connection?

3. If such further proposal is introduced, is it the intention of the Government to submit it to the approval of the people before it is

enforced?

To this question the Government answered through the Minister of Marine (Hon. Mr. Hazen) as follows:

The'answer to each of those three questions is : " Yes ".

I paid no heed to the diplomatic note which the honourable Minister of Marine thought it proper to append to the main part of that answer.

It is now np to the House and to the country to pass judgment as they see fit to do, in the light of the present events, .upon a Government so regardless of the most solemn pledges. As for me, I had the .satisfaction of having discharged my duty and, I was about to forget it, I had the .approbation of a man who, at the time, was a prospective senator of our province.

After all, I was easily comforted, from the 1st of August, 1914, the date on which the present war was declared, by the thought that the present Government which, up to that time, had, been unwilling to do anything towards organizing the defence of our country on sea, might at least, thanks to the foresight and, political genius of a statesman of our race, and I venture to say the greatest we have had since the days of Cartier, utilize our naval units for the protection of our coasts and provide for our most elementary defence.

Honourable members will perhaps understand a little more clearly that this statement of mine is neither gratuitous nor dictated by circumstances, when they have been made aware of the fact that, speaking at Shei'brooke, the queen city of the Eastern Townships in our province, previous to the present war, that is, on the 14th of May, 1913, I stated that, from the day England was engaged in a war threatening to the destinies of the British Empire, it would be the duty of Canada to assist the mother country. Who will say that the destinies of the British Empire are not at stake in the present war? Who will venture to claim

that, in the present war, England is not fighting for the most rightful and the noblest of causes? Let others give themselves up to minute and perhaps untimely inquiries as to the faults and errors of England; ias for me, I have no wish to scrutinize the hidden thoughts of the British statesmen and, in accord with Cardinal Merrier, I take the undoubted fact, the fact which nobody can deny: While Germany was violating clause 7 of the treaty signed at London on the 17th of April, 1839, by King Leopold in the name of Belgium, of the first part, and by the Emperor of Austria, the King of France, the Queen Of England, the King of Prussia and the Emperor of Russia, of the second part, England remained true to her oath. This I do not seek to minimize, but would rather seek to magnify, for it becomes a well-born child to commend all commendable acts of his forerunners. Therefore, faking into account the various events which have preceded and brought about the war, I have been and I am still of opinion that Canada should participate in this war voluntarily and freely. However, and I state it emphatically, I do not agree with those who believe that when England is at war, Canada is also at war. Proceeding from a normal and generous sentiment, this participation is one of a special character which if is most difficult to limit, and that is why I wish, first of all, that the Canadian people who, I think, are actuated by those same sentiments, should, of their own motion, determine that limit. It wouid not be so if the question were to fulfil and to execute 'an obligation; for, as a limit is necessarily implied in all obligations, that limit would be fixed and determined.

Mr. Speaker, I am not unaware of the fact that the present participation of Canada is helping France, and I am proud to be of French descent; but as England is fighting for England, so is my participation looking to Canada first and then to England the free institutions of which have so far preserved our nationality. That is why, in August, 1914-and I say this purposely-the Parliament of Canada was perfectly unanimous in voting, as a matter of urgency, $50,000,000 to pay the expenses of sending volunteers only. Need I quote, here, the words uttered within the precincts ,of this Parliament, on the 28th of May last, by A. J. Balfour, the great British statesman and democrat, who appreciated the nature of this participation in the light of the constitution by which we are governed?

The Government of the Mother Country cannot raise a corporal's guard in Canada,

Australia, New Zealand, or wherever you will; she can not raise a shilling of taxation; she has no power. (Hansard, House of Commons, May 28th, 1917.)

Unfortunately for Canada, its Militia Department was administered, at the time, by a man whose fitness for filling such an important position, even under ordinary circumstances might have been doubted. Redent developments made his position more important than that of the Prime Minister and it seemed only natural that the management of this department should be confided to some other than the regular representative of the Orange lodges. Nevertheless, and I have no hesitation in stating the fact, in spite of all outside as well as inside clamours, the Prime Minister continued his confidence in the Minister of Militia until the revelations of a commission which was extra-judicial and non-parliamentary-for more would have been known-forced the Prime Minister decidedly to break With the representative of the lodges who had made our military organization sectarian in its character to the extent that not only the French Canadians, but even the Anglo Canadians whose fitness was not recognized by a whole hive of middlemen, wearing, or not, the military uniform, were denied finding favour with the department.

Notwithstanding such difficulties, I may say it to the glory of our people, the system of voluntary enlistment succeeded beyond our most optimistic expectations.

Our military organization, under the direction of the Minister of Militia, was absolutely defective from the outset because it had the defence of the Empire rather than of Canada as its object. In a word, it was sought to have Canada play a leading part in this war, whereas, taking our financial position, our population and our resources into account, our help to England should have been limited to the exact proportion in which Canada could contribute. The Department of Militia was left for three years under the almost exclusive control of the member for Victoria and Haliburton as we may call him so now that he is sitting here with ns instead of taking his place in the trenches "somewhere in France," as he gave us to understand that he would do when he delivered a certain speech in New York, in which he first promised-before the Prime Minister did-ito send 300,000 soldiers from Canada, and even 500,000 if need be.

Untiring worker, since he left the cabinet he first thought of getting chosen

again as a Tory candidate in Victoria, where he met another opportunity to -abuse the French Canadians of this country at a political meeting held recently. A few days after, he came to the House and, in the absence of the Prime Minister, he put on the Orders of the' Day a resolution which entailed compulsory service for others.

Are we to presume that, when the Prime Minister was back here, he again yielded to the influence of this evil spirit? At any rate, in the same way that he had supported the request for 500,000 men, so did he introduce, just after his return from England, such a military conscription Bill as the ex-Minister of Militia said he desired.

History must have a very severe judgment in reserve for the men who, to-day, would turn this voluntary, free and generous contribution of our people into an obligation, and who, by the very fact, are paralysing the efforts of Canada while the! war is raging, the most portentous war England ever had to wage. In fact, and it should not be forgotten, Mr. Speaker, the untimely and, to express the whole of my thought, the unskilful manner in which the Prime Minister submitted this Bill to Parliament has alienated from him certain sympathies which he would now try in vain to get back. I would say, further, that the mature of the debate which has been carried on in this House for a fortnight, has caused every earnest listener to understand that one should rather take interest in the unity of Canada, henceforth, before looking to the unity of the Empire.

Certain English papers of this country, like certain 'members of this House, vie with each other in denouncing the disloyalty of the French Canadians who. they say, deliberately refuse to enlist and seem to have become unworthy of the consideration granted to all British subjects. Shall I say It? This movement against the province of *Quebec seems to be more especially mark-*ed in the province of Ontario, which would appear to have nothing more at heart than lio *ee Quebec isolated from the rest of Confederation. Unless I am mistaken about the intention of that province with respect to us, it is not at all unlikely that the conditions might be reversed and that the province which longed to isolate another should be isolated itself.

The Canadians of French descent have done their share in this war, if we consider the impediments of every kind and description which were set in their way. I shall only speak of the nature of those impediments in general terms, as several members

have dealt with it more in greater detail. Our people are attached to the soil upon which their ancestors have settled, and in their estimation, Canada is the only country worth while to them. When this country was conquered, the French Canadians were disarmed lest they should not willingly submit ito the new regime, and yet, the history of the struggles rendered necessary for the defence of our soil has recorded the names of no worthier defenders than they were. Not so long ago our gallant 65th Regiment did great honour to itself in the western prairies by calming an agitation by which peace and order were threatened in the interior of the country. By the way, may I recall, right here, the order according to which severe instructions were given a few years ago to the effect that this French regiment should present arms no more in honour of the Most High. What a sound military teaching, and what better means than this could be resorted to in order to make the sovereign power of the King of England more respected! The assertion is made repeatedly in certain quarters that the present Bill is aimed especially at the province of Quebec. I yet refuse to believe it. If it were so, now would be the time for us to investigate the real meaning of our political and constitutional status in this Confederation, the fiftieth anniversary of which we have just celebrated. We have attained manhood, and before we reach old age which would imply a heavier loss of the privileges guaranteed to us by Confederation, we shall seriously consider the advisability of asking that the federal covenant be set aside. There must he no superior race or inferior race in this country. Those who have associated together as a confederation must enjoy equal rights, and as to us, French Canadians, we have, so far, respected our obligations to the extent that the province of Quebec-and I do not hesitate to say it-may well be quoted as an example to all the rest of Canada for the fair treatment granted by her to minorities, within her limits, they enjoy all the privileges guaranteed to them by the constitution. Is it so, Mr. Speaker, with the minorities in the other provinces? Was it so - in New Brunswick in 1872? Has it been so in Manitoba ever since 1890? Is it so in this province of Ontario? Do our fellow countrymen enjoy a full 'and complete liberty in the matter of school teaching? As an answer to this, you hold out to us the letter of the law, but we appeal to the spirit of this same law, and adding hypocrisy to abuse, certain members of this House declare, at times, that rule 17 was adopted in

the province of Ontario, in order that the teaching of the French language in that province might be favoured to greater extent. No, long enough have statements of the kind been read by us with an excessive equanimity, and the House will allow me to recall, in this connection, the clatter indulged in by the lodges when the ex-Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier) thought fit to have a postal card printed in English and French and distributed in Ontario as well as in Quebec. Ontario, have I said, is practically wrong in taking a position so inimical to minorities, because, in due time, all the minorities in Canada might perhaps adopt as their slogan that of the province of Quebec: "I remember". The province of Ontario has been all-powerful with the present Administration, she has made an ill use of that power, even, by the fact that she was instrumental in delaying, so , far, the construction of the Georgian Bay Canal, a national enterprise above all, and which would have brought about closer relations between the eastern and the western part of Canada, and the opening of the most direct route through the St. Lawrence river up to the head of the Great Lakes.

I should not conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, without stating openly that I am not scared beyond measure by the furious outcry which may be directed against our

province

I say our province, for I am

confident that right-minded people of the great and beautiful province of Ontario are with us. We rely also on the farming community of the West to silence the ambitions, inordinate in many cases, of the Ontario manufacturers. As to our good friends of the Maritime Provinces, I do not think they would find any advantage in parting with their good neighbours of the province of Quebec. May the province of Ontario be inspired, at last, with a true Canadian spirit and never compel her sister provinces to .adopt measures for paralyzing her action so necessary to our national life, thereby averting the possibility of a central empire being created in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, it would have been my pleasure to address this House in the language of the majority, but as long as it will be sought in this province and outside of this House, to preclude the French children from learning the French languague at school, I shall deem it my duty to speak, here, the language guaranteed to us by the constitution, thanks to the efforts of the Liberal-Conservative parity, and in spite of the systematic opposition of the Tory party. So that no doubt is left in any mind as to the broadmindedness of the province of

Quebec in general and of the electors of the county which I have the honour to represent. I may say that the county of Ya-maska elected, for twelve consecutive years, as its representative at the local legislature the only English-speaking and Protestant elector who resided v/ithin the limits of that county, I mean the late Justice Wurtele.

Mr. Speaker, any one may call me a Conservative, a Nationalist or a Liberal if he likes; to my mind, a question of this nature admits of no party, we are guided solely by the sentiment which is in the heart of each of us.

However, I hope that after listening to me no one shall doubt that I intend henceforth to support the distinguished statesman who does credit to the Canadian Liberal party which under his far-seeing guidance represents, better than any other, heretofore, the true aspirations of our race.