Mr. PAQUET (Translation):

Has the hon. member information to justify his assertion that the French Canadians are replaced in the munition factories by Englishmen just come from the British I-sles?

Mr. LAFORTUNE (Translation):

Certainly, I am not afraid to assert it.

Mr. PAQUET (Translation):

The charge is a most serious one. -

Mr. LAFORUNE (Translation):

Most

serious, I admit it; but I do, nevertheless, declare that, in many cases, French Canadians are turned out of doors and that their places are given, a few days later, to your Englishmen just landed if roin London. The very thing happened in a shell factory in my own village; these French Canadians were told: "Why don't you enlist? Why don't you go and help the Empire?" They were thus forced to sacrifice themselves and to give up all they held most dear, in order to save the Empire.

'Mr. 'Speaker, I am of the opinion of the learned member for L'Islet, when he stated in his eloquent and so moderate speech- that if recruiting had been conducted in a sensible way in the province of Quebec, it would have been most successful. Men have been sent to do recruiting in Montreal who certainly were not qualified for such positions, men who could not speak a word of French. Was that the right means to take if you wanted to induce our Canadians to enlist? In the province of Quebec, although the English population is very small, we employ on our police force only men who can speak both languages *and my hon. friend from St. Mary's (Mr. Martin) who is also mayor of Montreal, and whom I see in his seat, can confirm this assertion. In the face of these facts, I am actually surprised that the French Canadians have enlisted In such large numbers.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for L'Islet has done justice to his compatriots of Quebec, when he stated that if recruiting in Quebec had not given the expected results, it was not the fault of the French Canadians themselves, but that H was rather on account of the methods which have been adopted.

Before I take my seat, you will permit me a final observation. Is it true, as have declared several hon. members on the other side, that the French Canadians have not done their duty? To those hon. gentlemen, I will say: You are mistaken. The French Canadians have never shirked their duty, as have said and repeated several members on this side of the House. I say that it Q not among the French Canadians you will find cowards and timorous men. Besides, we have proved it before today, fear finds no place with us. When struggles have been started for what the Canadian holds most sacred; his country, his language, his religion or his schools, you have seen all these noble

hearts ready to defend those rights. I will even go further, I will say that all far-reaching reforms have originated in Quebec; her citizens have always taken a hand in forwarding great movements. .

When we see in the province of Ontario that the French lang-uage is shackled, and by those who cast aspersions on us, who abuse us for not doing enough for the Empire, I may answer to these Ontario people: Deal fairly with us, if you wish us to help you. Do justice to the French Canadians, to those who speak French over there. Try, if you dare, to blot out the French words which are on His Majesty's coat of arms: "Honi soit qui mal y pense." Try it then, and see if you can replace them by English words. French is the language of the great nations; French is the language in which are drafted all important social and political documents. You cannot, I say, replace those words.

It is no fault of mine, if you do not understand our mentality; it is not my fault if you -do not understand what we are.

When I see Quebec men, like the honourable Mr. Cochrane, like the honourable Mr. Rogers, also from Quebec, who allow us to be insulted by the men of Ontario, I say to them: You do not love your province, you are not equal to your task, you who have risen from the ranks of the province of Quebec.. I understand that, with you, politics Smothers your better feelings. As for me, as long as I have a seat in this House, I shall never be afraid to say to the men of Ontario, I will never be afraid to say to all who are good enough to listen to me, that the men of Quebec are just as good as the men of Ontario.

Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) :

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from Montcalm (Mr. Lafortune), who has showered me with some compliments, and who made some observations with regard to me not quite so complimentary, will pardon me if I do not undertake to take up seriatim the different matters which he has dealt with in his somewhat prolonged address. The question with which we are concerned presents itself to my mind from a very different point of view from that from which the hon. gentleman evidently looks at it. I may have occasion to refer, as I proceed, to one or two of the subjects to which he has adverted, but he will forgive me if, before doing that, I say something that seems to me vital to be said in connection with the consideration of this very momentous question. More than one hon. gentleman in this House

lias already said-and many of them among those who are supporting this measure- that the idea of compulsion in itself was repugnant to them. Some of them have gone further and claimed to entertain a special and superlative repugnance to it. Let me say that none among them more than I find it repugnant in itself. And when I say it is repugnant in itself, let it be understood that I do not mean to say merely that it is repugnant to me, looking at it from the point of view of my being the person, or among the persons, to be subjected to it. It is repugnant to me in that sense, but it is vastly more so to find myself in a position where it becomes my duty to be one among those who say that now, and at this time, it is necessary that compulsion, in the manner provided in this Bill, should be imposed upon others, in order that Canada may do her entire duty, and that she may do it in the method which shall so operate as to make the performance of that duty impair, in the. least possible degree, the performance of other duties that are incumbent upon her and her people to-day, and impose upon her- although that is a secondary consideration -'the least possible sacrifice.

5 p.m. Mr. Speaker, duty is the subject of my story. I have listened to a large part of this debate, I have read .the remarks of those hon. gentlemen whom it was not my privilege to hear, and let me say to you in all frankness, that I have waited till this moment in this debate before speaking myself, to see whether, among all the able men who have taken part in it, among particularly the many able men who have spoken in opposition to this measure, any one of them would advance a reason that would justify me in saying that it was not my duty to continue to give the Bill my support.

Hear, hear.

Mr. DOHERTY:

If, with all the great

intellectual power that these gentlemen possess; if, with all the research that they have given to the examination of the question, if with all the zeal that inspired them to find that sufficient reason, they have not succeeded in finding it^and I would have welcomed that reason-it looks to me clear, as it did when this measure was proposed, and as when I gave my assent to the suggestion that it should be proposed, that it was the duty of this Government to propose it, and that it still is the duty of this Government and of the members of

this House to support it. I respect the views of every man, and I have no quarrel with those whose consciences inspire in them the belief that their duty lies in another direction. For me the path of duty is absolutely clear with regard to this question, and it is because that path of duty is so clear that I find myself today impelled to intervene in this debate at this last moment. _

I have said that duty is the subject of my story. If I intervene in this debate, it is because I fain would emphasize, so far as it may be possible for me to do, the necessity-I would rather say the obligation-that in my judgment lies upon one and all of us to concentrate our minds in our dealing with this question upon that one thing: our duty to Canada. So concentrating our- minds, let me say, Mr. Speaker, I think that it would be well for all of us to 'try, for the time being at all events, to put aside many considerations which might naturally influence each and every one of us in arriving at a conclusion as to wlhat our own individual course of action upon the question should be. Let me not be misunderstood. I am not undertaking to criticise what other hon. members may have considered it their duty to say, as supporting one view or the other upon this measure, but I permit myself to say that it has been a matter of very great regret to me, as I have sat here listening to this debate, to see how far

The hon. gentleman (Mr. Lafortune) who has just resumed his seat has found fault with one gentleman and another, whose names he has mentioned, on this side of the Llouse, because, as he said, they sat silent and said no word in defence of the province of Quebec. May I be permitted to say, Mr. Speaker, that in this wide Dominion there is no province, in my judgment, of which a man may be more proud to be a citizen than my native province of Quebec. I have no apologies to make for her. She holds her place in this Confederation, and it is good for this Confederation that she does. We live in that province, men of different races

and creeds, and may I be permitted to suggest that we be left to ourselves to deal with the faults and the virtues of the province of Quebec? That is equally true if you reverse the situation. May I not say to my friends from the province of Quebec that in the discussion of this question, perhaps it was not necessary that we should refer to the faults and the virtues of our fellow Canadians from the province of Ontario. Can we not for the moment forget those things? Can we not too forget the differences of race that exist? Things have been said from one point of view and from the other that, frankly, I do not think it could have been pleasant for any Canadian to hear. It doe^ seem to me that it was most unfortunate that it should have been thought necessary to say these things in the discussion of a question whose decision is of such vast import to this our common country, and in regard to which it is of such prime importance that whatever that decision be, it may, when it is once reached, be presented for acceptance to a united people.

We are of different races in this country, but we are all Canadians. I have suggested that we forget for the moment that we are of different races. I do not want to suggest that it is desirable that we should drive from our memories the history of our progenitors. I firmly believe that there is no greater or more overpowering influence that directs the actions of men than the race feeling, and no call which men respond to more readily than that of the blood. It works for great and good results. I am not here, therefore, to suggest to anybody that it is his duty to forget those from whom he descends, or to repudiate the race to which he belongs. But, there is a time and a place for everything. Here, to-day, when we are dealing with a question, a right or a wrong decision on which will carry with it consequences that none of us can foresee- consequences that will have to be borne, not by ourselves alone, but by our children and our children's children for many generations-am I not right in saying that it is incumbent upon us to concentrate our minds upon the one fact that we are all Canadians, and that this is a question of what is the duty of Canadians to Canada here and now.

I would have made no reference to the matter of which I am about to speak if the hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat (Mr. Lafortune) had not taken upon himself the responsibility of telling you, Mr. Speaker, and this House, not only what my constituents in the division of Montreal,

St. Anne, thought about this question, but - that he has comejiere to tell us the settled conviction of every Canadian of Irish blood within this country, and he says that they are all convinced the same way. The hon. gentleman will allow me to question his authority for making that statement. The men of my blood speak for themselves, and the men of my blood who have the glorious privilege of being Canadians, are as thorough Canadians as breathe within the limits of the territory of this country. They do not need the direction of my very good and very highly esteemed friend from Montcalm to tell them what they ought to think about this subject. The hon. gentleman was eloquent about the llack of mandate with regard to a great many other things, and as he ispoke I asked myself whence came his mandate to speak in this House for all Canadians of the Irish race. There (was not one exception; he knew all about it. Then he bewailed my sad fate: that I should be standing alone, separated from them all. I thank him for his sympathy, but I do not feel that I need it.

The people of my race are as intelligent a people-I am paying them a high compliment when I say that-as the people of the race of the hon. member for Montcalm. That means that they aie quite capable of judging for themselves, and that they will consider this matter from the standpoint of Canadians anxious to do their duty. 1 do not doubt that there will be differences of opinion among them; some will reach one conclusion, and some will reach another. But they will not, as the member for Montcalm says they will, in one body pronounce themselves absolutely on one -side of a question, with regard to which there are argument, -serious arguments pro and- con. The hon. gentleman is entirely mistaken when he undertakes the responsibility of making th-at suggestion. He will allow -me, further, to -submit that he is -a little rash in assuming that responsibility simply as the result of attendance -at a meeting convened by gentlemen, -all of them my very good and very highly esteemed friends, but all of them members ef the Liberal party in Montreal. The member for Montcalm went to that meeting and, in consequence, apparently considers that to him has been handed over, as it were, the entire Irish race in Canada, and he comes here and represents that the Irish race in Canada are throwing their weight and judgment in one scale in regard to this matter. That is not exceedingly modest on

his pari; moreover, I do not know that it is quite respectful to the people for whom he undertook to speak. Nothing is more dangerous than for a man of one race to speak for the people of another, unless it he for a man of one race to undertake to instruct the people of another in Tegard to their duty. I should have made no reference at all to the race to which X belong if it had not been for the somewhat extraordinary undertaking of the hon. member for Montcalm. When I go back to my constituents to render an account of what I have said, what I have done, and what I purpose doing on this question, I shall go to meet them all as Canadians, of whatever race they may be, and I shall make my justification to them all. It would be a matter of great regret to me if these Canadians of my own race should disagree with me upon this question. But they will exercise their judgment, and they will credit me with the sincerity for which I give credit to them and to the men of any other race who may reach a conclusion different from my own. But I shall not ask the member for Montcalm to intervene or to mediate between me and my constituents, of whatever race they may be. I shall go forth with a good conscience; I shall meet all my friends in St. Anne's and whatever their view may be they will greet me as they have greU. ;u me in the past, notwithstanding this judgment upon me by the hon. member for Montcalm. Down in St. Anne's we do have differences of opinion, differences of race, differences upon political questions, But I am proud to say that we live together as good friends, having confidence and trust in each other, and that we can maintain that condition of affairs without the kind attention of the hon. member for Montcalm.

I have said that we ought to get rid of all consideration of the fact that we are of different races or different creeds, or that we come from different provinces, because at this time one great question concerns our common country, Canada. I have said a word about my feeling for my own province of Quebec; I felt that I owed it that. But since we have bad questions of race, *may I add one word about the race that has been criticised in this House. I question no man's right to say what he believes to be pertinent and relevant; and I am in the judgment of every other member of the House whether what I say be proper or not. But in view of what has been said, I desire to dissociate myself - I go further

and say that I absolutely dissociate this Government - from any suggestion that anything in this measure is directed against any one part of the country against the province of Quebec, against any one race in the country, or in particular against the French Canadian people. I have heard the criticism, and I have heard the defence. To me, there is one overpowering, iall-answering defence, and that is that we proceeded to recruit under a voluntary system. What does recruiting under a voluntary system mean? It means that this Government and this Parliament and the Canadian public practically unanimously took the position that upon the question of recruiting each man was absolutely free to act according to his own judgment and his own conscience. Nobody took the responsibility of indicating that a man had any duty to discharge one way or the other. The principle of voluntary recruitment means that every man has the right to decide for himself; that his responsibility is to his own conscience. That being the case, I do not think that it is within the jurisdiction of any one to condemn a man because he exercised a recognized right. On the other hand, I have heard much that was said as against the criticisms made; and, frankly, a good deal of that I would be just as glad not to have heard. I do not undertake to determine whether these contentions were well founded. At any rate they did. not seem to me to be quite necessary; sometimes one may be on the defensive, and still overlap a little into unnecessary offensive. I should like to get .out of that atmosphere; I should like to approach this question purely and simply from the point of view of a Canadian.

What is the question? The question is: What is Canada's duty at this moment under conditions as they exist now? In August of 1914, Canada went to war. It is not very material now to' discuss why she went to war. She went to war of her own volition, as was evidenced by the unanimous action of the membership of this House, enthusiastically endorsed by the voice of practically all the people of Canada. Since then she has been at war, and to-day in the first place the question is: Should she withdraw from that war? In my opinion that is the one question, because we must either go forward to enact this Bill or we should withdraw from the war. I know that other people whose opinions I respect do not look at the matter in that way, but that is the way it presents itself to my mind. Why do I say that? We have

a certain farce at the front. I have not heard it suggested that the force that has gone to the front is greater than represents Canada's fair share in this common enterprise into which we have gone with Great Britain and the Allied Nations. This measure proposes what? To send an additional force, to add people to our force. This measure purposes providing reinforcements so that the force that is at the front may be maintained. It seems to me either we must provide those reinforcements, or we must withdraw from the war, because our force at the front is, day by day, being depleted. There are people who say that we never should have gone into the war, and people who say: Now we have exhausted our effort we should go no further; let our battalions disappear, and let Canada cease to be known a& an active participant in this great struggle for the defence of Christian civilization upon this globe. Those men, in my opinion, are absolutely logical when they say: No conscription. I do not say they are right, because I do not agree with their premises. But the men who -say that we ought to go on with this war, but that we ought not to take to-day, under the conditions of to-day, the step that this measure purposes taking, are, in my judgment-I speak with all respect- absolutely illogical. 1 say that for two reasons. In the first place, I do not know and I do not care whose is the fault or what are the causes that brought it about, but I do know that persistence in the voluntary system is not bringing us the men as fast as they are required. I have not neard that statement seriously controverted. The second reason comes to me from the arguments I have heard against conscription. As I have said I have listened and I have read attentively and carefully, looking for the reason that would justify my withdrawing from the position that I have taken, and I have not found it. But among the reasons that I have listened to, the one that -struck me as having very considerable force, was the argument based upon the assertion that, under present conditions in Canada, we need and we can use every man for purposes of a nature to give more valuable 'and more effective support for 'the armies of the Allies than we can give by sending him to war. I have been impressed by that argument. If the facts upon whi-ch it is made to rest were established to me, I am not at this moment prepared to say that I might not think that was the reason that would relieve me of this duty that to-day weighs

so heavily upon my shoulders. But I say that out o-f that argument has come to me the conclusive reason why we should proceed, (if we are not going to drop out of this war and send no more men) to obtain our men by selective conscription. If the statements of fact upon which some hon. members advanced that argument, he absolutely sound, what will this measure do? It will establish their soundness. I wondered often as I listened to the discussion in this House, and I wondered more as I read discussions out of this House, to what extent this measure had been read and its principle grasped by the people of this country. In the face of what I have just stated, this measure is strenuously resisted by people who say that we must not send -another mian because we cannot spare another man. If hon. members have confidence in their affirmation, why do they so strongly oppose our finding out whether it is true or not? For my part I -am quite -satisfied that they are mistaken. I think, as has been said repeatedly in this House, we all of us have before o-ur -eyes to-day the evidence that they are mistaken.

Mr. MEDERIC MARTIN:

Does the Minister of Justice mean by his statement that Lord [DOT] -Sha-ughnessy was mistaken when, on his coming here from England, he said that the only thing to do was to- produce for the Allies?

Mr. DOHERTY:

I have not suggested that we should not produce for the Allies, and I think if the hon. member will wait until I get through he will see there is no contradiction between what I am saying and Lord Shaughnessy's proposition, even as he states it, though I am very far from believing that he states it correctly. Lord Shaughne-ssy and a great many others-and I have no criticism to make-have insisted upon the importance of our producing to help the Allies. I am not aware that Lord Shaughnessy has ever said that that was the only thing we had to do. We have many duties in this matter; we are trying to deal with one of them now, and at the proper time and the proper place I trust we shall be able to overtake all our duties. But the way to get all those duties done is not to tie this House up indefinitely in resistance to the measure that is proposed to do one duty, and the one which seems to us to present the most imperious call upon us.

To me the second and the conclusive argument why we should proceed to get the men we want by this measure of selective conscription rather than by voluntary en-

listment-even if voluntary enlistment were producing men as fast as it did in its best days-lies in what those hon. gentlemen have put forward as the very basis for their affirmation that we should have no conscription at all. Just to the extent that they are right in their facts, just to the extent that we cannot spare men from Canada, does it become imperatively necessary for us to see that when we send more men we shall send those and those only who can be spared. This is a measure to ascertain who can be spared, and because they argue that nobody can be spared, gentlemen get up and say: "You must stop right here; you must not find out who can be spared. We tell you nobody can be spared, so stop your measure." What are they apprehensive of? Can they be so convinced that nobody can be spared, when they are so frightened of inquiry being made whether anybody can be spared? I do not agree with them in their statement that nobody can be spared. I am absolutely confident that there are still many men whom we can spare for this great work which is essential for the maintenance of Canada's honour. I am willing to take the risk of having the matter fully and carefully investigated as under this measure it is proposed to be investigated and I shall have to take the consequences if that investigation proves me to be wrong. So I say that just because it is true that we have reached the stage where we have to scrutinize carefully just whom we can spare and whom we cannot, ;t lias become the duty of the Government of this country and of the members of this House and of the people of this country to say to the voluntary system: Halt there. We cannot afford to . let who will go. Many of those who would go, we need at home-and as the Act says, it is more in the national interest that they should remain at home than enlist: Canada needs those men. If we continued with the voluntary system, what has happened in the past would undoubtedly be repeated in the future; the men most valuable at home would go, as they have gone before, and the men who might make excellent soldiers but who are doing no useful work at home, would stay in Canada and help consume the very products that we are urged to save so as to send them to Great Britain and the Allies.

To me at least it seems quite clear that we owe it to Canada to see that there shall be a selection of the men who are to go, and that those go who can be spared, and those stay who are absolutely needed at

192J

home. As I have said that reason has come to me as the result of reflection on the strongest argument put forward as a reason against sending anybody at all, namely, that we could not spare a man. I do not believe that latter proposition, but I do believe that there is this element of truth in it: that the time has come when it behooves us to carefully scrutinize the men who go and the men who stay. That being so, it becomes the duty of those who are responsible for seeing that Canada does her full duty in this war, to take steps that will bring about the result that the man most useful as a soldier shall be a soldier and that the man mose useful for the great work of production and for maintaining our people here at home shall be utilized for that purpose, or at all events that he shall have the opportunity of turning his energies to the fulfilment of that purpose.

Bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that it might be absolutely true that we need in this country every .man for the work of production, agricultural and industrial, and it might be .true at the same time that there were many men in this country whom we could let go, because, unfortunately, every man who is at home here is not helping in the work of industrial and agricultural production, and so far I have not heard it suggested that there is any method by which the men who are doing nothing can be compelled to work in industrial or agricultural production. It is quite possible that the men who are not so engaged, whether that ought to be or not, might, under military discipline, make good soldiers. Canada cannot abandon her effort, and I am not going to discuss that, because, if what has already been said in this House has not convinced those who heard it, that Canada cannot in honour abandon her effort, then for my part I abandon hope of carrying that conviction to their minds. That is my starting point, and I think that the general sense of this House is that that is true. If we are to do our duty there is only one course open to us, and that is that we should provide additional men by selective conscription, not to save this man or that man from going to the war, not as some hon. gentlemen are at pains to insinuate, because we are looking for a method of discrimination between one man and another, but in order that we may see to it that both of Canada's duties are performed, one of which duties is that to which my hon. friend from St. Mary's (Mr. Martin) attaches such great importance.

Let me say just a few words on what this measure means. It has struck me, in listening to this debate, that it might not have been a bad idea if we had departed from the usual practice and first examined the provisions of the Bill in order to grasp and thoroughly understand its principle. Had we done this, I think we should have been in a better position to discuss the measure. Much .of the debate has been upon a principle of conscription, assumed to mean a system under which every man from twenty to forty-five years of age, without regard to condition, domestic relations, occupation, or the distress which might fall upon an abandoned family, was to be taken by force and marched out to the war. And a great deal of the public opinion that my hon. friend from Montcalm (Mr. Lafortune) sought to show by promenading us from parish to parish in the province of Quebec, is based upon the representation that that is what is proposed to he done. But when you look at the Bill you find that it restricts the number of men to be raised to pne hundred thousand. Note, that is not a minimum, but a maximum. In the second place, the Bill provides means intended to enable us to ascertain, as I have already said, who can be spared. We have had some criticism of the proposed system. Some hon. gentlemen say it will give an advantage to the rich man at the expense of the poor. If I am not mistaken the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) said it was a system under which discrimination of all sorts was possible; that the measure had been prepared for the very purpose of making discrimination on racial, or provincial, pr religious lines, or discrimination as between the rich man and the poor. That was far from the minds of those who drafted the measure. And, more than that, it has been stated by the Prime Minister that suggestions for the improvement of the Bill will be welcomed. Let me say to the hon. members whp are at suah great pains to have it go forth to the people that there is a desire to discriminate against the poor or against any other class: Come with your suggestion, and it will be welcomed; if you have a better methpd, to make it sure that there shall >be no discrimination, let us know what it is. There is no other desire in the heart of anybody who stands behind the Bill than to find the most effective method of preventing discrimination of any kind. Under this Bill the rich man's spn will go under the same conditions as the poor man's son; the man of any province the man of any race, the man of one religion,

will go absolutely under the same conditions as the man of another. There is, from beginning to end of this Bill, nothing upon which can be based what I venture to call the unworthy suggestion put forward that there is hidden in it somewhere the germ of unjust discrimination. But I repeat what I have already said: If any man suspects the existence of that defect, let him tell us ho>w to remove it. The men who have made these suggestions are able, astute, capable men; surely they can find *means to make more sure the purpose we have in mind. The suggestion to which I have. referred, I say, is unworthy of the *men who made it, not only because, in my judgment, there is nothing in the measure to justify it, but because they know that if they have a 'better suggestion, it will be *acceptable, and because they know also that statements of that kind can have but one effect-to add to the already too-mueh inflamed condition of a public mind which is not yet thoroughly informed upon the imperative necessity of this measure, and more particularly not yet thoroughly informed upon what the putting into effect of the measure will mean throughout the country. I register my most emphatic protest against that sort of insinuation. It is unfair to us who stand behind the Bill- but that is a minor matter-it is the contribution of the hon. gentlemen who make it, to add to the already disturbed condition of public opinion.

Here is a measure that is far from being what it has been represented to be, viz., a measure of conscription which is going to take away man, woman and child. We have had pitiful descriptions of the husband snatched away from his wife and children, and of distressful conditions that, it *is said, will surround the enforcement of the measure. We want one hundred thousand men, and before any married man is asked to go under the terms of the Bill we shall have exhausted the supply of men from twenty to thirty-five years of iage who are unmarried and fit to go. I shall not go into figures which have been given already, but it would appear to be beyond peradventure that this married man, whose fate we have been asked to bemoan, will not be called upon under this measure; he will certainly not be called upon until every man of the class I have described has been called upon and has given his services. But the picture that has been drawn is really the picture of what has happened under the voluntary system. The

man with a wife and young children, who. because he was of high heart and had a strong sense of duty, responded to the call that his heart and conscience put upon him, or yielded to the pressure of public opinion that necessarily existed under what we call the "voluntary" system, went under the distressing circumstances so pathetically enlarged upon. How many and many a father has left this country and gone over, to give his life in this great struggle, fix to return crippled and unable to support that family; while men with no dependents, men of leisure, men with money, men who did not need to denote themselves to production, men without ties, *with no one dependent upon them, sat at home-and, under the voluntary system, s.at at home in the exercise of their absolute right. I say that this is a measure for the protection of the family; it is not a measure that threatens them with the dire consequences that have been spoken of.

At six o'clock the House took recess.

After Recess.

The House resumed at eight o'clock.

Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) (resuming):

When the House rose I had been dealing with what I conceived to be the principle of the Bill, and I had endeavoured to make clear what some of its principal dispositions were. I had taken occasion to make some observations in regard to certain insinuations that some of its dispositions revealed a desire to create or make possible discriminations in the administration of the Act. May I just add upon that subject one observation? Hon. gentlemen suggest that the measure, in some of its terms, makes discrimination possible and they impute to this Government therefore the intention to bring about that result. Do they quite realize that the first thing this Government did, after the Bill was drafted, was to make a proposition that hon. gentlemen from the other side should come into the Administration, displacing a number of those who are here now and that, unless they were going to be parties to the working out of this discrimination which they say the Government contemplated, it would be absolutely impossible. Could there' be any more manifest evidence that there could have been no ulterior purpose at all events in the working of any of these dispositions than the readiness and willingness to confide their administration to the newly constituted government which would be equally representative of what is now the Opposition and what is now the party that happens to be in power and, that would be not merely composed for one-half of it, of gentlemen who would be nominated by the present leader of the Opposition, but if my memory serves me aright, would be composed for the other half of gentlemen who would sit in that Government subject to the veto of the right hon. gentleman who represents the Opposition? Surely, at all events, we can claim that we have an absolute defence against this insinuation of some ulterior purpose hidden or-I do not know whether hon. gentlemen go so far as to say -apparent, on the face of this measure. Furthermore, this invitation, of suggestions to meet possible objections to any particular provision, or series of provisions, has been extended and certainly will be acted upon.

Before I pass to another phase, may I just, by way of transition, say one word upon the fact that certain hon. gentlemen have taken occasion of the discussion of this measure to refer to what they consider the numerous sins of omission and commission of this Administration. How can that bear upon the question we are called upon to deal with, the question of whether the method proposed is necessary and advisable and is the one which the conditions in which we find ourselves impose upon us the duty of adopting? Again, I point out that simultaneously with the presentation of this measure the Government offered to disappear and allow it to be administered by a newly constituted Government composed in the manner which I indicated a few moments ago. Surely that makes it evident that we have just one question to deal with, and that we may pass without further observation from the objections, grievous as they may appear in the eyes of some hon. gentlemen and which have no bearing upon the question as to whether this measure should or should not be adopted.

Now, I pass to the consideration of another matter that calls certainly for an observation from me and which has arisen out of this debate. We have heard a great deal about pledges and promises. We have heard something about broken faith and we have listened to very eloquent denunciations of this Government whose pledged honour, hon. gentlemen say, has been violated. I think we even heard something about scraps of paper. I, in particular, had the pleasure of sitting here and hearing the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux), the hon. member for Laval (Mr. COMMONS

Wilson) and the hon. member for Montcalm (Mr. Lafortune) to-day refer to a matter in regard to which I desire to say a word. The affirmation was made that conscription was a bad thing for Canada because of what the Minister of Justice had said to a very distinguished prelate in Montreal whose name I would not think of introducing into this discussion. It was alleged that I had said a thing which was not true. The hon. member for Rouville was delicate in his expression in that regard but I think he fairly conveyed that meaning. My hon. friend from Laval was less delicate. Before he got through with me he told this House that I had made all sorts of false representations to this reverend gentleman. Then, we go on up in a crescendo. The hon. member for Montcalm did not make any bones about it at all. I do not know whether he felt called upon to go one better than the hon. member for Laval but he did not hesitate to state that I had lied to the archbishop. As far as the pledges of this Government are concerned, it is not for me to deal with this subject. Hon. members have heard recited what have been described as the pledges of this Government. It takes a good deal of determination to find a case of broken promises, to read into the declarations which these hon. gentlemen have read, a promise of future action under all circumstances no matter what might happen. Is a Government never to be free to state what its actual policy is, never to be free to state that it has not certain things in contemplation without being held to have bound itself that never in the future (no matter how conditions or circumstances may change, no matter what knowledge may come to it that it had not at the time that of statement of policy) would it take any course different from that which it was actually following and had then in contemplation? That is the proposition.

We hear about the bankrupt honour of *this Government and about its broken (pledges. I am told that I made all sorts of false representations, and that I lied to a very distinguished gentleman and a very Valued friend of mine. I have adverted to the statements that were made on behalf of this Government. Let me say one word as to the statements which I made, wherein I am told to-day that I lied. In [DOT]the first place, let me say that I would not dream of contradicting any statement made h*r Aift-inguished gentleman to whom I .refer, as to what I said to him. I accept his statement as to that as unquestionably true, and I have no doubt that I conveyed ito him the meaning which he now attaches

to it. It looks as though the desire of the hon. gentleman was to put me in contradiction with this distinguished gentleman, who has my respect and veneration. I say with truth as well as with pride, that I count him among my most valued and respected friends, and if that be their desire, they certainly shall not succeed. I have no hesitation in saying that what I said was true at the time, and is just as true to-day. I said that the National Service cards had no connection, near or far, with conscription. I say that to-day, and it is true. Gentlemen have been through the province of Quebec who were so fond of talking conscription that one would almost believe that they sighed for the day when it might come, or, at all events, might be proposed, in order that they might use the fact to further their political advancement. These gentlemen had been making statements in Quebec, and I shall not say they lied. I have more consideration for the hon. gentleman from Montcalm (Mr. Lafortune) than apparently he has for me. They have been stating what perhaps they did not know to be false, but what they certainly did not know to be true, namely that the National Service cards were [DOT]a step in the direction of conscription. I stated at the time that that was untrue, and I say to-night that it is untrue and I defy any body to establish the contrary. And because, forsooth, I told that truth, hon. gentlemen talk about my having lied, and they talk about my broken faith and about all sorts of representations that I made. I expressed my absolute conviction, as a conviction and an opinion, that conscription would not come in this country, and I believed it absolutely. If the gentleman to whom that statement was made understood it to be a pr.omise, and said that I made it, let it be well understood. I am not denying that what I said may have justified the view he took of it, though I venture to say nothing was further from my mind, at the moment, than that I was making a promise. Let it be clearly understood I made no such promise. Had I undertaken to make such a promise, hon. gentlemen would have a right to reproach me, not for the breaking but for the making of it. I recognize that that would be a grave offence. Mark you, I refer to a promise such as the one I am reproached for having broken, and such as the hon, leader of the Government is reproached for having failed to keep. I say that if any' public man should undertake to promise that he would not adopt a cer-

tain course, no matter how clearly circumstances might make it his duty to adopt that course, he would be gravely to be condemned for making such a promise. And, when circumstances which he did not control made it his imperative duty, in the interests of his country, or brought home to his mind the conviction that it was his imperative duty in the interests of his country, to take the course that he had promised not to take, would hon. gentlemen contend that he should say, " Yes, it is quite clear now, the salvation of my country depends upon a certain course being taken, I am the man who is in a position to take it, I alone, can set on foot the measures to bring it about, but I made a promise, and I must stand by it, and see the honour of my country lost, and see the soldiers of my country left unsupported, and see possible defeat come to those to whom I have pledged my assistance, and see the cause that I thought of such importance as to justify my plunging my country into war go down to disgraceful defeat, because, forsooth, I rashly and unwisely made a promise?" I say, Mr. Speaker, that a man who, in those circumstances, would feel that he was withheld from doing that which was his clear duty, gravely as he had offended in making the rash promise, would offend more gravely by keeping it. I see my hon. friend from Montcalm smiling at me in a calm way. I put a case before him. I have heard people speak in the strongest way against the use of firearms. I have heard men say that never, under any circumstances, or under any conditions, was a man justified in carrying a firearm, or in using it against his neighbour. Suppose a man, having made that declaration and pledge, finds himself in -a situation where his house has been broken into by a powerful ruffian, who, perhaps, proceeded to outrage his wife and his daughter; the firearm lies right by his hand. Would the member for Montcalm say that the husband should fold his arms with the remark: oh, I made a promise; I shall not interfere?

Mr. LAFORTUNE:

I never said that.

Mr. DOHERTY:

The member for Montcalm-and the member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) also, if I may judge from what he said the other evening, with his hands in the air, about the " broken faith " of this Government-would stand behind that husband and say: beware, your broken

faith, your broken faith! And he would expect that husband to drop his firearm and take no action. After the ruffian had

carried out his operations to his own satisfaction, and this promiser, his house looted and his family murdered, was himself ready for the grave, I suppose the member for Rouville would conduct the victim there in admiration and would see to it that a monument was erected to his memory. I suppose he would inscribe upon that monument the words of the poet about a man who acted not dissimilarly : " Faith, unfaithful, made him

falsely true."

I say again that I never made any promise. If it is said that I made such a promise, I am not questioning the statement of the gentleman who so understood my remarks. If I had made any such promise, I would have done a thing that I should not have done. If the circumstances be such as the Prime Minister says they are to-day on the other side of the water, and as I absolutely believe them to be; and if the reasons which 1 gave this afternoon prove that the only effective way of meeting these conditions is the adoption of this measure, then I say that had I made such a promise, my only course as a man of honour would have been to do that which my position here, the exigencies of the case and the needs of my country called upon me to do.

So much for pledges and promises. The member for Montcalm to-day gave great credit to the ex-Secretary of State (Hon. E. L. Patenaude) for his action in leaving this Government. To what did the member for Montcalm attribute that action? He said that the former Secretary of State would rather leave this Government than be a party to the breaking of these pledges, and he expressed the wish that other gentlemen had felt likewise. I should like the member for Montcalm to remember the expression by which he qualified the statement that he attributed to me. As I do not like to get beyond Parliamentary rules, all I ask him to do is to take it that I am making a similar statement with regard to the statement of his; that the ex-Secretary of State left this Government rather than break his pledges. Did the member for Montcalm read the letter of the ex-Secretary of State? Does he still persist in saying that the reason he gave why the ex-Secretary of State left the Government is correct? I will not toy to qualify his action if he does so; the member for Montcalm would have just the word to use -but I shall not use it.

Mr. LAFORTUNE:

I have not a word

to withdraw.

Mr. DOHERTY:

That is exactly what

I said.

Mr. LAFORTUNE:

I have my archbishop with me.

Mr. DOHERTY:

one thing I am absolutely convinced of, and that is that they have not the slightest interest in the discussion of the merits of political parties at this moment.

I was about to say, when I was carried into this digression, that I am prepared to trust the people, to trust the sane, judgment of the people; to trust the judgment of the people after they have had proper opportunities for information. But to-day we are dealing with

a people upon whom this proposition has come unexpectedly, and they are not prepared for it. I think that members of Parliament should be guided by the opinions of the people, but by the opinions of the people arrived at and formed after opportunity for consideration, and expressed at the proper time and in the proper manner under , the provisions of the constitution. The hon. member for Montcalm took us nearly all over the province of Quebec, and told us of meetings that he had attended that were against conscription, including one in my own constituency. He further warned us that it would not be safe for us to go there and say a word for conscription, because the Lachine canal is near. Well, let me tell the hon. member in turn that, when he wants to make the statement that I lied, it would not be wise for him to go back and make it in St. Anne's hall, even at a Liberal meeting, because the Lachine canal is very near.

Now, I was saying, I trust the people. I trust implicitly to their judgment when they have had opportunity for information and consideration. But I do not conceive the functions of a representative of the people to be to go around to meetings throughout the country addressing people who have not the necessary information, stirring them up to express an opinion in a certain sense, and then walk into this House and say: There is nothing more to be said; I am here to express the opinions of the people. The question what the function of a member of Parliament is under the British system is not a new question. I am not going into that question, but I would suggest to these hon. gentlemen who are so anxious about the opinion of the people that they should take a few minutes some day to read a famous speech of that great English statesman-I should rather say, that great Irishman whom Ireland gave to England to be one of her greatest statesmen- Edmund Burke. That will tell them what is the proper position of a representative of the people. Let me read a few lines. Burke was being reproached for not having

followed the opinion of his electors-the subject is not material. He said to them:

For, gentlemen, it is not your fond desires, nor mine, that can alter the nature of things ; by contending against which, what have we got, or ever shall get, but defeat and shame? X did not obey your instructions. No; I conformed to fhe instructions of truth and nature, and maintained your interest, against your opinions, with a constancy that became me. A representative worthy of you ought to be a person of stability. I am to look, indeed, to your opinions; but to such opinions as you and I must have five years hence. I was not to look to the flash of the day.

We owe a duty to the people and that is not to look to the flash of the day, not to be governed by the opinions of people described by the hon. gentleman as being in a frame of mind where they throw one into the canal if he express any opinion other than what they may happen to entertain at the moment. Speaking for myself, and having respect for the people who were at these meetings, I can quite understand that at the first flash this proposal, ill-understood and worse explained, does not commend itself to their judgment but when it is brought to their attention and properly explained I am satisfied they will give it their approval. I am satisfied that if, by any mistake on the part of this Government and Parliament, we should decide to let this question be settled at this moment by a vote taken without further preparation, upon the submission of this sole question to the people when they are being appealed to in the most powerful way and by the most eloquent gentlemen to resist and reject this proposal, that if we should subject the honour of Canada to being soiled by the possibly unfortunate result of a vote taken under these circumstances by the people ill-informed and without proper explanation, these very people themselves, when they saw the result, would never forgive us for what we had done. They would tell us, in the words of Edmund Burke: You should not have been governed by the flash of the moment; you should have waited for our opinion one year, two years or three years hence when we shall be in a position to appreciate the possible results; perhaps even to know the actual results of the decision you are called upon to make.

Now, I feel that I owe the House and yourself, Mr. Speaker, an apology for the length at which I have allowed myself to be led into going in connection with this most important question. I do not know that I can flatter myself that what I have said can alter the views of any man but at least I feel that the best thought that I have been able to give to the most im-

portant question that I have ever had to consider has inspired me to say what I have said.

In conclusion, let me just say one word as to what has been called the constitutional lack of power of this Parliament to pass this Bill and the absence of a mandate on the part of its members. I wonder if hon. members remember what happened in January, 1916, and I wonder if their memory goes a little farther back to August, 1914. In August, 1914, nobody could question the mandate of this Parliament and nobody could speak of this Government as being moribund. I do not feel quite so shocked about that expression as the hon. member for Montcalm thought I ought to. The best of us, even my hon. friend from Montcalm himself, will come some day to be in a moribund condition and still he marvels that we do not rise in wrath at the very mention of it. I do not know what we are expected to do or to say when we are described as a moribund Government as we have been by the leader of the Opposition. Well, we have to stand that epithet. Could this Government be described as a moribund Government in 1914? Had this Parliament a mandate in 1914? What did this Parliament do in 1914? We had a three or four days' session. I think we all look back with pride and pleasure to those three or four days because in that three or four days' session we realized to the full the condition which the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) the other day recalled to us as having been described by an English poet in words put into the mouth of a Roman of old lamenting the disappearance of those days "when none were for a party and all were for the State." In those four or five days we realized that. I hope that we will still, notwithstanding the difference of opinion that exists between us as to this particular measure, be in that frame of mind. There could be no doubt about it at that time and what did this Parliament, then in the full enjoyment of its mandate, under the impulse of that common sentiment, realize? Was it wondering about the rights of the people, was it wondering whether it should have a referendum, was it anxious even about the rights of the people's representatives? Not a bit. This Parliament did at that time, and under the inspiration of the impulse that prevailed then, something that was absolutely unprecedented in the annals of Canadian Parliaments and, I am not quite sure whether one could not safely say, in the annals of any British Parliament. Parliament then handed over to this Government, that was not moribund then, absolutely its entire legislative powers in so far as matters pertaining to the war were concerned. Conditions were so critical that the people's representatives were willing to forego their control over legislation and to hand it over to the Government, a Government that had not been elected to deal with these matters in particular. Parliament then realized that what would be necessary would be prompt action and it thought it was worth while to sacrifice even the right of the people to make their own legislation through their own representatives in order to ensure that needed action would be taken at the proper moment and that there should be no delay. That is what Parliament did then, a live Parliament, a Parliament that had an unquestioned mandate. I am not going to claim now that the Government might do what it chose. I think it might have done what it believed to be right, but this Government, in carrying out its duty, has been truly conservative in the exercise of its- powers. But, I have referred to their wide scope as indicating what this Parliament in the vigour of its life, when its mandate was undoubted and its motives of the highest, thought it proper to do on behalf of the people. It was absolutely like the action that the earliest democratic peoples realized, in very ancient times, to be the proper action in like conditions. We all know that when the State was in peril, when the enemy was at the gate, when civil commotion threatened, in the old Rome of the Republican days, the people, ever jealous of their rights, stood not upon them, and the Senate said to the consuls: Take care that nothing of evil befall the Commonwealth. Caveant consules ne quid detriment Republica capiat," and left to them the plenitude of power.

And in virtue of what Parliament did then, in the full vigour of its life and unquestioned mandate, I venture to say the Government might have proceeded upon the authority so conferred to enact the present measure. We have not sought to do so, nor would we dream of going that far. I refer to the legislation merely to show what this Parliament thought was the proper line of action in the day of its fullest vigour. In 1916 what did this Parliament do? Parliament voted that it was desirable that, though, under our written constitution our mandate expired in October last, the mandate of Parliament should be extended for another year, and to-day the

hon. gentlemen who supported that motion, .who felt that the good of the country imperatively demanded such action, now say one after the other, "Oh, we did something we had not any right to do; although we did it with our eyes open, we had no right to do it, and therefore we do not now represent the people."

I was amazed to hear members make speeches in this Chamber on the strength of the fact that they did not represent the people. I desire to say one word with reference to that proposition. It is quite true that, under our written .constitution, this House was elected for a .fixed period of five years. But the constitution of this country is susceptible of (amendment, and the people may express *their will tacitly, just as clearly as by *their vote, and when, in 1916, this Parliament, composed of representatives about *whose mandate there was no doubt, gentlemen who represented the entire country, unanimously said that the safety of the country required that there should be no election, but that the life of Parliament ehould be extended, and when the people ' of Canada from one end to the other ratified that decision, I say, Mr. Speaker, that *we then modified the constitution in the most regular and normal British way, that is by what is done and accepted as being the needful thing to meet new and unprovided for conditions. It is true we have a written constitution, and it can legally be altered only by the Imperial Parliament. The Imperial Parliament sanctioned the Bill passed [DOT]in 1916, and that rendered legal what had been decided upon by us. I can say that when the Parliament, under those conditions, and with the absolute ratification of the people-and I am satisfied that will not be disputed-passed the Bill extending the life of Parliament in January, 1916, a Parliament was constituted with all the powers that ever belonged to any Parliament in the Dominion of Canada. Our right to sit as a Parliament was questioned by the hon. gentleman from Montcalm (Mr. Lafortune) as being illegal. That is part of the original law that the hon. gentleman gave us this afternoon, but when it is said our existence is unconstitutional I can only say that while this Parliament is not^here by the will of the people, expressed in the ordinary and usual form, it is here by the unmistakable assent of the people, who were convinced that the expression of their will in the usual form would be detrimental to the best interest of Canada. I, for one, have no doubt of the validity of my mandate, nor have I

any doubt of your powers, Mr. Speaker, in this House. We can do anything and everything that a lawfully .and constitutionally elected Parliament can do, and, therefore, I have no doubt of my right to sit here and perform my duties as a member of Parliament. I have already endeavoured to point out Canada's duty at the present time, which is quite clear. Here we have in our hands the mandate, and on our shoulders the responsibility, for seeing that Canada does her duty. Mr. Speaker, I for one-and I am satisfied the great majority of the members of this House will be with me-will not shirk this responsibility to-night upon the mere plea of undue anxiety about the rights of the people.

In conclusion, to go back to where I began, let me suggest that we all endeavour, in the decision to which we may come, and the action we may take in pursuance of that decision, to join together, with the realizing sense that there is but one question in reality before us, and that is: What is the duty of Canada to-night? What is her duty to herself, to her honour, to her Allies, to her voluntary soldiers who have died, and are dying and facing death to-night? Let us forget that there are different provinces. Let us forget all the reproaches one race may think it has to make against another. Let us forget all the petty quarrels which may have occurred between us, by reason of political divergence, or differences. Let us forget that there are any political parties. Let us forget that theref ore any Government or any Opposition. Let us remember just one thing alone; that there is come to us the great privilege, carrying with it the heavy burden of responsibility, of determining for Canada to-night the most important question that any Canadian Parliament has ever been called upon to determine, a question upon whose right decision, and upon the proper action following that decision depends t'he honour of our country, Canada.

M. THOMAS MacNUTT (Saltcoats): I

wish to place on record my reason, for polling the vote I intend to poll to-night. I am a believer in the referendum, as a general thing. If any large questions come before the House and before the country, for which there is no mandate by an election, I think the situation should be laid before the people, and that they should be consulted. But, Sir, I do not see how this present proposal can possibly be a fair referendum. The men who are most interested in the carrying out of this Bill are

the soldiers at the front to-day. At the time the Soldiers' Vote Bill was passed, it was recognized that it was desirable to poll the soldiers' vote. Very strong opinions were expressed at that time that it would be impracticable. Other opinions from hon. gentlemen, for whose judgment I have great respect, were expressed to the contrary. One of those opinions I cannot pass by; I refer to the opinion of the Prime Minister, who was behind the Soldiers' Vote Bill, who believed it was practical at that time to take their vote, but he has been across the water in the meantime, and looked into the matter, and he has made a statement in this House with respect to it. I wish to quote a couple of sentences from his remarks:

The men at the front will be not only practically, but actually, disfranchised If an election does take place in this country while they are in the trenches. That Is my conviction.

Further, in connection with the Soldiers' Voting Act of 1915. he said:

I am not disposed to think that the arrangements made in that Act or in any other Act that could be devised are such as to enable those men to vote, or at least any considerable number of them.

We must have in this country a great many men who are available for service at the front. Some of them are what we call " slackers"; others are opposed to Canada's participation in the war. These men would have the right to vote, tout a great many of the men who have bravely gone overseas to defend British institutions and who are calling for reinforcements would be debarred from voting. If only 10,000 of them . were debarred from voting, I would still not support a referendum, having regard to present conditions. The men who are fighting for us overseas are specially interested in this matter, and they are the men who should toe first considered.

It has been contended that the voluntary system could even now be made successful. Well, the present Administration have had that matter in hand and it is likely that they will continue to have it in hand for some time. They declare that they cannot do much more along the line of voluntary recruiting. What are we going to do about it? It is all very well to make recriminations and to say that they should have done better or that under different conditions they would have done better. But, Sir, discussion of that kind can very well be left for a while; what we have to face now is the present situation. Werequiremenatthefront, are there any men in Canada available for that service? I believe that there are. The

slogan at the beginning of the war was: the last man and the last dollar; it is nearly time that we tried to put that into effect. It was not anticipated that the war would be such as it turned out to be, but the country has to continue to perform its part, even if it takes the last man and the last dollar. At the same time, there are many men who are not available for service at the front. An authority has stated that out of the 100 per cent only 25 per cent of the energy required to win the war is represented by men who can be classed as combatants, the remainder being made up of those who take part in agriculture, transportation, the manufacture of munitions and so on. On the other hand, many men are employed to-day in non-essential industries-piano and automobile factories, and so on-who could be sent to the front and their places filled by others, including returned soldiers. Any one who visits a lacrosse or baseball match is struck by the number of athletic, able-bodied young men who play these games professionally for the amusement of the crowds, in order to make money. This is the kind of man that ought to be at the front. They do not seem to want to go, and it strikes me that they should be made go to defend the institutions of their country. Other men attend these games and gatherings-they are sometimes called rooters-many of whom could be sent forward. As a matter of fact, many men are available who could be well spared, and if they do not know their duty, it should be pointed out to them. I do not think, howeVer, that a single man should be taken from the farms. I do not say that because I am a farmer, but I know that though we may manage to get the crop in, the outlook for saving it is not very bright. If many more men are taken from the farms, production will be made much less, and production is as essential as the sending of men to the front. Great judgment will have to be exercised in selecting the proper men to send forward.

I think that there should be lamotber form of conscription, that which has been referred to as the conscription of wealth. There are many men in the country who Have large incomes-professional men, promoters, commission men, man who have inherited large sums of money. The lives of these men. are in no danger; they cannot go to the front; they should, therefore, be called upon to pay out some of their surplus money to assist in feeding and equipping the men at the front. How

30Tl

many men of this kind there are, I do not know. Other men have a considerable amount of capital invested in businesses that are not touched by the present taxation. Why should not a man who has $25,000 or less in a business pay his share of taxation as well as the man whose business is capitalized at $50,000? If he is allowed profits of 10 per cent, he will get $2,500 a year. If he makes only 10 per cent, he could be exempted from taxation, but he could well afford to pay into the treasury one-quarter of each additional 5 per cent earned, one-half of the next 5 per cent earned and three-quarters of any further profits earned. When a domestic loan is floated, most of these men are glad to invest their money in 5 per cent non-taxable bonds which will be a charge upon the whole country for a long time and which will be a charge even upon the men who are at the front. Why should we send to the front a young man who has only his life to give, and leave behind, out of danger, other men who have large incomes which are taxed not at all or comparatively lightly? These men should at least he called upon to pay a large proportion of the money necessary to equip and maintain the men 'at the front.

One of my reasons for speaking to-night was that of making a few remarks with regard to a matter that has not been brought up in this debate and which relates to the foreign-bom citizens of Canada. We have an enormous country in the West that required people to work and develop it. Very properly, the Government invited settlers from all parts of the world, and many came from what are now enemy countries. These men are not at all to blame for the war; they settled in our country; many of them took up third-class lands that nobody else would take, and have made good.

Prom my experience with these people I can say that they are good and industrious settlers. I notice a smile on the face of an hon. gentleman opposite. These people are not all Liberals. In some parts of my district there are a number of foreign-born settlers, and in some of the polls in these districts there is generally a Conservative majority and 'in others a Liberal majority. I am not talking politics at the present time. These -men are citizens of this country, and they 'have a perfect right to have their citizenship respected. They have, however, been looked upon as enemies. I do not know of any recruiting meetings having been held in those settlements, but I do know that a considerable number of foreign-born settlers and sons of

TMr. MacNutt.1

foreign-born settlers have enlisted or have endeavoured to enlist, and many of them have been turned down because their country of origin was Austria or Germany In that way an antagonistic feeling has been built up which should not have arisen. These people are not responsible for this war. Perhaps there were agitators and sedition-mongers amongst them, but they have been looked after, and I might say that they are not the only people amongst whom there are agitators. I am satisfied there is a field for recruiting which has not been worked. I am rather curious to know whether this Conscription Bill, if it passes, as no doubt it will, will be applied in the foreign-born settlements, as they are called. Although we cannot expect these people to be as enthusiastic as our British-born people are, they are not disloyal; in fact, many of them we may consider as very loyal indeed. To give an instance, an influential German-born citizen who came out here when very young told me not long ago that he had made an offer

I suppose to the Department of Militia^- to raise a battalion (amongst his own people if they were allowed to go and fight the Turks. That showed, of course, a perfectly natural feeling on his part. He said: "We do not care to volunteer to go to the front, and perhaps shoot our relatives there, but we are ready, if they send us, to go and take part in the fight against the Turks." I told him that a number of German officers were in command of the Turkish army. He said that did not matter, that they had no relations amongst the officers. This man had a younger brother wounded about three weeks ago fighting for the Allies. I could give a number of similar instances.

I do not think I am out of order in speaking along these lines. I want, if possible, to remove some of the false impressions [DOT]that there are in regard to the foreign-horn ^settlors in the West. In voting, as I intend to do, it may be that I shall render myself unpopular amongst some of my electors, hut I am willing to take the risk. ,At the same time I believe in fair play and in stating what I know to be the truth ;in regard to these people or to any matters that may be under consideration. On fre-jquent occasions I have been invited to and havie attended Union School picnics, where, perhaps, thirty or forty children from each of fifteen, sixteen or eighteen schools for foreign-bom settlers meet for an outing one day in the year. It would probably open the eyes of some of our friends in the East if they could attend some of those picnics.

They would find the children bright and [DOT]well-dressed marching .around, every one of [DOT]them waving a Union Jack and singing patriotic songs, and I do not think you could tell very much difference between them .and the children of British-born people. I noticed 'the other day in a local paper the description of a concert, which I shall take the liberty of reading, as it has a bearing upon this question:

On Monday, June 4, a patriotic school concert was held in Goodeve Town Hall, in aid of the Patriotic Fund. Not only did the children show a thorough mastery of the English language, but entered into the patriotic choruses, drills and recitations with an enthusiasm which showed that they are real young Canadians, heart and soul. Every child was of foreign-born parentage, Ruthenian, Polish, German and Austrian; yet these parents went to much expense and trouble to equip their children for the concert and to help it along in every way. Mr. Riley, the teacher, acted as chairman, and introduced the programme with a speech in which he paid a high tribute to the patriotic work which the foreign-born are doing in this district. "Give these children only a chance," he declared, "and before the present generation has passed they will bless British institutions, and produce men of whom Canada and the British Empire will be proud." He added that loyalty can never be driven into any human being with a sledge-hammer. It is a tender plant whose root is in the heart. It will blossom and bear fruit in the sunshine of sympathy and kindness, but persecution and insult will only wither it. The other items on the programme were: Choruses-"O, Canada,"

"The Band of the Maple," "Rule Britannia," "Britannia, the Pride of the Ocean," "Wake, Says the Spring-time" ; recitations-"Britannia," with thirteen characters to represent various parts of the British Empire, and "Pair Canada," which the children printed letter by letter on a maple leaf; drills-the boys (12 in number) gave the British Empire drill and marched and executed turnings, etc., with the accuracy of veteran soldiers. The Flower drill, sixteen girls each dresed in pure white with a flower wreath, marched at first and then executed slow graceful movements to the accompaniment of the Flower Song. A supper and dance followed the concert. The total cleared from the concert was $80.

I know this settlement. The people came out very poor; the parents are very proud of the manner in which their children have jgot on, and they appreciate very highly the institutions of thie country. I believe many of them are prepared to defend those institutions, if they are required to do so, or even if they are requested to do so. They *have been discouraged from enlisting, and [DOT]that is one of the reasons why recruiting [DOT]has, to a certain extent, fallen down. It -may not have made a large difference, but *it has made some difference. Every man *recruited is of assistance, and these people *would prove good fighters; they would he hghting for something that they valued. I

*do not know that many of this class of [DOT]people can he spared from the land, but under different circumstances many of them would have enlisted before. I repeat that if we are to produce-and we have to produce-we must interfere very little with *the men, of whatever nationality they may be, who are working on the land. I do not *think it is necessary for me to discuss that *matter at greater length. I could give instance after instance to show that the extract I have read is only a sample of what *occurs at nearly every point that I know of in the West where there are foreignJborn *settlers, or descendants of foreignJborn settlers.

I intend to vote against the amendment to the amendment. With considerable reluctance I shall also vote against the amendment. I am reluctant because I have the honour to be a supporter of the right hon. leader of the Opposition, and it goes pretty hard, I can assure you, to vote differently from him, but he would be the last man to say we should not vote according to our convictions. I intend to vote for the second reading of the Bill, but I do not promise to vote for its third reading. I want to have some assurance that in conjunction with the conscription of man-power there will also be conscription of wealth. I believe that a partial assurance has already been given, but I hope that before the third reading the Government will definitely assure us that wealth will also be conscripted.

Mr. FRANCIS N. McCREA (Sherbrooke): Mr. Speaker, I wish to take up a little of the time of the House in expressing my view on this measure. I have been debating in my own mind for the last, two or three days whether I could square a silent vote with my conscience, and I have concluded that I cannot. If I could have done so I would much Tather have said nothing, because I think on matters of this kind too much time is wasted in long discussions which do not amount to very much in the end, and which certainly do not change very many votes.

Almost invariably, when we on this side of the House criticise the actions or motives of the Government we are accused of disloyalty. I think that the men who make this charge cannot really mean what they say, because on inquiry we find that prae-tically ais many Liberals have gone to the front as Conservatives. For instance, the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Power) has three sons and two sons-in-law at the front. The hon. member for Bagot (Mr. REVISED EDITION

Marcile) has two sons at the front, and there are many others that I could mention. The only son I have of military age and who is physically fit is now in France. I might mention that he is not over in England with a commission, floating around London enjoying himself, and drawing officer's pay and separation allow-anae. He is a private. When he got through his college term in July of last year he enlisted as a gunner in the McGill Siege Battery. He told me he had made up. his mind to go to the front, and I asked him whether he was going to try for a commission. He isaid: "No, I don't want a commission. If I go to Prance I want to do some of the fighting, There are already a number of men with commissions who found no openings when they reached England unless they stepped down in rank and went over to France as privates. Many of them did not want'to do that, and consequently they are now in London drawing military pay and wearing military dress, but doing nothing. For my part I want to do some of the fighting." I therefore feel at liberty to speak on this measure without being accused of disloyalty or of being a traitor to my country.

The Prime Minister of this country recently. visited England. He went over, I presume, to get information, to exchange suggestions, and ascertain what the conditions were. He comes back and abruptly tells us without any notice that it is necessary to have conscription in this country, as more men and more money are required. If it be true that the voluntary system has failed, that more men are needed and cannot be got except by conscription, we will have to have conscription. Personally, I am inclined to think that the voluntary system has not been fully tried out. I do not wish to be harsh in my criticism, but I ' feel it my duty to criticise where criticism is due. If in any statements I shall make to-night I shall seem a little harsh or even personal, my object is not to knock the Government, but simply to give honest straightforward criticism where I think it is due.

In any large enterprise, war or anything else, where millions of men and millions of money are engaged, there is something else also required. If any hon. member of this House were engaging in a great enterprise involving millions of men and millions of money the first thing he would do would be to organize. He would get together men in whom everybody had confidence, men of ability who were willing to devote their whole energies to carrying to a successful issue the enterprise with which

they were entrusted, classifying and utilizing to the best advantage all the men and money at their disposal. Is it the opinion of this House and the opinion of the country that such a combination of men as I have described is in charge of the affairs of this country? The affairs or this country should be managed just as is the business of any large corporation. Let us see whether the men in charge of the affairs of this country are competent, whether they are men of large views and long experience and absolute honest intentions, with no graft or protection for friends, but openhanded justice to all. Where a large number of men are engaged in some enterprise no partiality or favouritism should toe shown. If there is, the men who are favoured are all right, but the men who think they are not favoured do not feel so well about it. This proposition to conscript the maii-power of the country without conscripting its resources and wealth is not in the right direction. It is not fair to ask a young man of twenty years of age to go to the front and offer his life as a sacrifice for the protection and good of the country while the other man, who is older and therefore has had more benefit from the country, if benefits there be, makes no sacrifice at all. It is said that the married man with a family should not go to the war, and I think that is right. Yet, there is another side to that question. The man who has a wife and family of young children is more interested in the good government of the country than the young man who has no dependents to think of. Old men like myself and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) cannot go; but we must be just to those who go, and just to those who stay at home.

The Minister of Finance and the Government, in my humble judgment,. have failed in their duty, not through lack of judgment, but, I am inclined to think, through lack of courage. When the war broke out in 1914 the Government should have made provision, not only of men to-send overseas, but of money to pay them. They should have adopted a fiscal system to raise at least fifty per cent of the necessary funds to maintain the army at the frdnt, especially as this country is at present, and has been for a couple of years past, immensely prosperous. The time is coming at the end of this waT-and, I think, has arrived now-when more money will be needed. The minister should have imposed more taxes-I do not mean piling it all on the manufacturers as he has.

done, but so levying the taxes that all should pay their equal proportion. Is there any reason why every man should not pay according to his means? That principle will have to be conformed to before this war is finished and the bills met. I was talking with a financial man here in Ottawa last week, one of the first financiers of this land. He estimates that when this war is over, though he does not pretend to know when that will be, our national. debt may amount to four billions of dollars, taking both our borrowings and also our liabilities in providing for invalided soldiers after they return home. When the war broke out the minister should have adopted several systems of taxation. One is the form which he has adopted, the tax on business profits. He should also have an income tax. I think that, in addition, he should have gone to the municipalities and said to them: You shall levy taxes upon the taxable property of your municipalities at such-and-such a rate; collect it with' your ordinary taxes and pay it over to the Government. The minister expects to raise through new taxes about $50,000,000 a year. If he had imposed the taxes he should have imposed, he would have raised $150,000,000. I want to tell the minister that the next time he goes to the country to raise a loan of $150,000,000 or so, it is not going to be so easy as it would have been had the war expenditure been met more by taxes and less by borrowings. I think the Government lacked courage; they have simply followed the line of least resistance, realizing that taxation is always unpopular. The fact remains that taxation must be resorted to, and that it cannot all be piled up on one section of the people. The system the Government have adopted is unjust .and unbusinesslike. If you doubt it, read the financial papers of this country and -see what they think about it. I am not complaining of the tax on business profits, provided that all are equally affected. And when I say that there should be an income tax, without boasting at all, I think I should be affected somewhat myself. I want to be, because we owe it to our country.

Then there is the cry that recruiting has failed, especially in Quebe-c. Let us see if there is not a reason why the young men do not enlist in as large numbers as we think they ought to. I maintain that the Government is to a large extent responsible for it. Early in the war, when the British Government wanted munitions

193i

and the people of this Country were not equipped to supply them, and did not understand the methods of production, it was necessary to -pay high prices, in order to get manufacturers started in this line. But the manufacturers did undertake this line of production, and soon they were flocking here to Ottawa, spending months of time, and begging for orders,-and could not get them unless they had political influence. The Government then, instead of fixing their price as they did at nearly twice what they ought to have paid, should have called upon the several manufacturers to say how many shells of certain sizes they could proride, and at what prices and what delivery, thus putting the whole matter up to competition. Had they done this, they would have got, their shells for far less money than they have paid. I know one concern that declared a dividend of 400 per cent last year. When the Government imposed their business tax of 25 per cent on profits over a certain amount the - manufacturer said: I am not going to worry myself or rustle around looking for help; I will simply pay my help more instead of giving it to the Government and I will get all the men I want. The result has been that men, not mechanics or tradesmen, but comm,on labourers, have made as high as $12 and $15 a day. The farmer cannot get help to work his farm and the ordinary manufacturer cannot get help in his shop because he cannot pay these prices. The prices of all kinds of provisions have gone up as a result of the scarcity pf labour. These men that are working in munition factories and earning $10, $12 and $15 a day are not very apt to enlist -at $1.10 a day to go to the front. The man who gets $10 or $12 a day eats his meals in his qwn home and sleeps in his own bed. Can you expect him to drop that job, to enlist voluntarily at $1.10 -a day -and sleep amidst the rats .and mud of the trenches? That is what the Government ask him to do. The Government are responsible for the lack of enlistment in having disturbed the whole system and price of labour. The farmer, and the ordinary manufacturer, are hampered by the want of help. But the Government say that a young man should be patriotic enough to leave his job at $10 or $12 a day and go to the front f.or $1.10 a day. If he does not do that he is not a patriot; he is a slacker. Let us see whether there are not other slackers. When the Minister of Finance floated his last lpan, did he do what they did in the United States- go to the bankers and say: We wan-t you to handle this loan free of charge and vou

will not get anything out of it? No, my information is that one of the biggest banking institutions in Canada was employed to float the last Government loan and that it received .a very handsome commission for doing it. The Minister of Finance did not ask this big bank to work for nothing hut he thinks this young man, working in a munition factory and earning $10 or $12 a day, is a .slacker, that he is not a patriot, if he does not drop his job, go to the front at $1.10 a day and sleep in the trenches and sometime not sleep at all.

When this war broke out the Minister of Militia called to the service a gentleman from Toronto

I think one of the Ellis Brothers-to assist him in buying binoculars. Giving evidence before the Public Accounts Committee, this gentleman said he had done the work entirely for patriotic purposes, that nothing would have induced him to leave his shop and come down here to.superintend the buying of binoculars but pure patriotism. But, when we got the evidence we found that he had received 10 per cent on everything he bought or that was bought. Not only that, but he allowed his friends to buy binoculars here, there and everywhere, some were bought for as low as $9.75, some for $24 and $25, but by the time these binoculars reached the Government they cost $57. That is patriotism. That is the kind of patriotism that this Government and their friends appear to think is all right. For my part I do not.

I was going to enumerate a, lot of the sins of commission and omission of this Government, but I do not think it is necessary. My hon. friend from Kings, P.E.I. (Mr. Hughes) described all these matters last night; they are fresh in the memory of every one in this House, and if they read Hansard they will find an array of offences committed that I think would [DOT] to some extent establish the fact that this Government has not handled the business of this country economically, wisely, honestly, free from all kinds of graft and crookedness, or in such a manner that the people would have confidence in it.

I said at the outset that this war is the nation's war, and that it must be won at whatever cost if possible. I also said that one of the essentials was men, another was money, but that the third and most important essential was judgment and good management. I do not think that any business men in this country would put the amount of money or the number of men that are called for in the carrying on of this war or in carrying on the affairs of this country

into the hands of men who are scrapping amongst themselves, who have no respect for one another, and who have been accusing one another of being crooks and grafters. The situation reminds me of what Robert Burns said when two ministers fell out, were quarrelling over their congregations, and were blackguarding each other, the congregation clapped their hands and said: "Neither is lying.'' That also brings to my mind the words of one of those old Presbyterian ministers who were always supposed to be very solemn and very earnest. He was preaching to his Congregation one day when a matter of great political importance was engaging the attention of his congregation and the public generally. He said, "An honest man is the noblest work of God, but, politically speaking, I do not think He has made one for the last fifty years." I think that applies to the situation to-day.

Sir GEORGE FOSTER:

That takes in the last Administration.

Mr. McCREA:

What is that?

Mr. NICKLE:

That takes in the last Administration.

Mr. MoCREA: The question of recruiting, in Quebec especially, has been pretty fully dealt with by other speakers, and!, therefore, I do not propose to take up the time of the House by a reference to it. It has been stated here^andi I 'think with , reason-that no honest effort has been made in that province to recruit. It would look to me rather that it was the intention of the Government, or at least the idea of the men engaged in that part of the Government's business, that they would rather have a chance to say to the people of Quebec that they were slackers and were not doing their duty. I think it has been said in this House that Sir Wilfrid Laurier did not take the part in recruiting that he should have taken. I think the hon. gentleman from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) said that Sir Wilfrid Laurier could go down to Quebec and come back with fifty or sixty members supporting him in this House. That may be so in politics. Sir Wilfrid is getting old. He is a statesman, and not a military man. When he goes down to Quebec and appeals to the people for their support, he appeals to them as their lea^eT. He says, "Vote for me, follow me, and I will bring you to success." As a politician he says, "Come, vote for me; follow me, I will be your leader in the election, and in the House when the election is over." But

he cannot go down to Quebec, appeal to the citizens, invite them to enlist and tell them that he will lead them, not only to the seaboard, 'but to the other side of the Atlantic, and lead them in battle. If the Government were anxious to have recruits from Quebec, they should have sent men of military training and knowledge to that province. They should select men who would be understood by the French Canadians, and in whom they would have confidence, who would havie said to them, "Enlist, and come with me. I will lead you to the battlefront and will stay with you in the battle." Such an effort has not been made. Nobody knows, better than I do that the French Canadians are a law-abiding, courageous people. I have lived among them, and most of my employees have been French Canadians. If the French Canadians have confidence in a man they will follow him a good deal more closely and place more reliance on him than most Englishmen would follow their leader. But the Government did not send men of military training to Quebec to recruit. They did not give Quebec a fair and honest trial. They commenced by calling them .slackers. The war had hardly commenced before Ontario was hurling insult at them about being slackers, and not enlisting. Ontario appears to be very much interested in Quebec, and it spends a lot Of time and energy abusing the people of Quebec for not recruiting. I think if they had spent part of the time in trying to do justice to the minority in Ontario, by granting them the right to teach their children in their own language, instead of calling them slackers, they would have accomplished more in the direction of recruiting. It appears to me that the first duty of the Government in times of peace- and very much more so in times of war-is to endeavour, first, to create good feeling and harmony amongst all classes. Has the Government of this country endeavoured to do that? Last year a simple resolution was proposed by an hon. gentleman on this side of the House, not to coerce Ontario, not to dictate to the people what they should do, but to ask them, in all fairness and kindness, under all the circumstances, if they would not be willing to enter into a conference and have a heart to heart talk on this question, and see if they could not come together and agree? Did the Government vote for that? What would you have expected of a Government that was trying, heart and soul, to create peace and haT-mony among the different elements of the Dominion, especially during war time, when

we have one common enemy to fight? Would it not Shave been wisdom'on the part of the Government, if they were bent on doing justice to everybody, to have said: Well,

we will invite Ontario in; we have no right to dictate to them, 'but we have the privilege to ask them to consider the question. They might have done that, but they didn't do it. And why did they not do it? There was nothing in the resolution; it was simply asking them if they would condescend to do so and so, and they said: No. The leader of the Government, with everybody behind him following his lead-

Mr. SUTHERLAND:

Why does the hon. gentleman single out Ontario and say nothing with reference to Manitoba, where more drastic legislation was passed in reference to the schools?