Mr. W. F. MACLEAN:

There is a good deal in what the hon. Minister of Justice says, but it does not quite deal with the difficulty. He has spoken of general laws as I have and we have found out that many Acts of this Parliament are not enforced. Take that most important law in war time -that against combines to enhance prices contrary to the public interest; we have never had any enforcement of that law in this country, tout they have enforced similar laws in the United States. They not only have a commission, but they have converted that commission into a court for the enforcement of the law. There are criminal proceedings threatened to-day against the paper manufacturers of the United States under the Federal law and the Federal Government are enforcing that law. We have never done that here. The more we see of legislation going through this House the more it does seem apparent that we ought to have some provision for the enforcement of not only one Act, but of all Acts, even if their enforcement does more or less clash with the authority and responsibility of the provincial governments. The provincial authorities have not always enforced the Criminal Code. You cannot get them to. Complaints have been made that the Ontario Government should have at times enforced the law against combines. It has not been enforced. While I agree in a measure with what the minister has said, it does not meet the situation and we are not meeting it in Canada. We have not risen yet, after fifty years of experience, to an appreciation of the duty imposed upon this Parliament to provide for the enforcement of its own

laws. I have not any doubt that in this particular case, following the ordinary routine, a sum. of money for the enforcement of the law will be forthcoming and will be voted as a money grant. But, sooner or later, we must depart from what is now an obsolete method and we must come to the practical, democratic method of enforcing Federal laws; that is, by putting the responsibility on the Government and high officials and giving them money for that purpose.

As to the Act itself: I have not spoken a great deal on it so far. I have almost left it alone, for the reason that the thing that has struck me in this debate as far as it has gone has been that in war time, no matter how democratic your government may be, and I am a believer in democratic government of the people, by the people, and for the people, it is not so much a question of legislation as it is of administration. For four weeks or more this House has taken up time in discussing the matter. I disagree with my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), who proposes a referendum on this question. A government charged with the responsibility of conducting a war must carry on that war as a matter of administration. If it wants legislation, it is the duty of that government to get that legislation in short order, put it through Parliament and assume the responsibility of it.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER:

Better dispense with Parliament altogether.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN:

No, not in a case of this kind. I want to tell the right, lion-gentleman that in England and the United States they put their conscription through in 3hc.rt order. Can my right hon. friend imagine a government, clarged with the administration of the war, having a long discussion in Parliament on a law which it proposes? War time is not a time for discussion but a time for administration.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER:

My hon. friend had better sit down then.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN:

No, I will not sit down. I shall deal with that in a moment in another direction. The duty of the Government in war time is to carry on the war and if it wants legislation it ought to come to Parliament and get it. This Parliament should have put through this measure in one week if it was necessary to do it. I believe it is necessary. In the United States and Great Britain they got similar legislation through in a much shorter time be-

cause they regard these things as matters of administration and not so much matters of discussion.

Mr. MARCIL:

Has my hon. friend read in to-night's paper that the German Reichstag had been closed because the parties failed to agree? '

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN:

That may be. I do not want to take my line of conduct in any respect from Germany. I want democracy, I want democratic government apd democratic principles, but in time of war, when we have a responsible Administration charged with the conduct of the war, we are perfectly justified in putting a measure through in short order and carrying it out as a matter of administration. To-day, a government that believes in conscription is asked to go to the people and get their approval in connection with this measure. What we have .to do is to allow the Government to carry on the war and put the responsibility upon them when the time comes.

There is a corollary which follows what I have just said. What is it? We had a peace government in this country when war began. We have carried on the war for three years and we are now beginning to have a war government. The people think that the time has arrived when we should have a national government, a union government, a coalition government, if you care to call it such, to carry on the war. The trouble in Canada to-day is that we have not got a united government. We only have a government so far on party lines. There has been a proposal in the country, and it has been referred to in the House, to get a union government. We have to get that union government to carry on the war and to enforce this Act. I started out to talk about how we were to enforce the Act and I discussed the question of money and of the officer who was responsible for its enforcement. But we must have a union government to enforce vthip Act. The people demand it and my hon, friends on the other side of the House who voted for conscription showed that they had heard the voice of the people demanding the enforcement of this conscription Act. They want to see it put through in short order. There are three things that the people of this country want -first, conscription, second, a union government, and, third, and above all things, to avoid an election in which political passions are called into play in this time of war. In some way or other, we want to see national unity but it is a hard thing

to get. I do not despair of that unity and the way to get it is to begin with a national government, a government representing all the people who are in favour of com scription. We cannot get them all but in war tjme, if we are bound to win the war, if we want to create national unity, or at least unity among all those who believe in conscription, we must have a national government on that line. I hope national government will come and that it will be made up of those who are in favour of a national policy to win the war and of devoting all the energies of the people to that end. I do not think Canada is going to be disrupted on this question by reason of this proposal for conscription. What you want is vigour and strength in doing what ought to be done and the responsibility for that is on the Administration. The Administration then ought to go forward with the law that does require what should be done, a law that has to be enforced and, above all a law that will be enforced and upheld by a national government.

We must'come to that in this country; we must come to it within the next six weeks or I do not know what is going to happen. There will be dissension in this country, because there are to-day signs of a lack of unity. But there are also growing signs of national co-operation among the different parties in this country. The speeches that have been made in this House by hon. gentlemen on the other side in favour of conscription have only reflected the opinion of the people of this country, and this House must be as big as the people. But we are not. The people of Canada are largely in favour of this law; they are in favour of its enforcement; they are in fav.oux of unity and co-operation, and not of political dissension. We are making headway in that line to-day and we have been for a good many days past. The people are with us. They desire to have this Parliament reflect their views and establish a national government which will help to build up and strengthen national unity. They also want, above all things, to have all the resources of the country devoted to the winning of the war, this to be worked out on lines of administration. This is not a time to discuss questions of principle that should have been settled and were settled in this country years ago, when the present Militia Act was passed. We have undertaken in this time of war to re-discuss a principle that was settled long ago, a principle which we have no business to be discussing" to-day. The Administration here should be as strong as the Administration in England has been since the establishment of a national government. That Government oame down' and said: Here is a conscription measure which we propose to put into force. We want Parliament to pass it within a few days. That was done in England and it was done in the United States, and these are both democratic governments, just as much ,as ours is. We can learn from them a good many things about how to conduct a democratic government, even in war times. But the characteristic of all governments in war times ought to be administration and not discussion. The Government has assumed the responsibility and can easily discharge it if they will rise to the point-and the Prime Minister has risen to the point-of proposing a national government. If that is done, there will be no trouble in enforcing this law. I d>o not want to see this discussion prolonged. I want to see the law placed on the statute book and to see it enforced, and I want to see a union Government to enforce it. If that is done we will get the 100,000, or any number of men we have to get. We will get them in some way, and a union Government will have no trouble in getting them. With a union Government there will be no delay in administering the law; it will go right ahead with it. If we can do that on this occasion there will be very little disunion in the country, there will be, on the Contrary, a splendid display of national union, all our people joining together in a mighty effort to win the war. We are fighting for principles which we hold dear, the principles of liberty. Every nation now in the war is working on the principle of conscription.

Mr. PUGSLEY:

What about Australia?

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN:

conscription measure does not intend, or is not able, to enforce it?

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN:

I did not say that. I say they will enforce it much betteT, judging by public opinion in this country, and I am guided by public opinion, as I gather it, and am only putting forth, my own views and representing the views of the province from which I come when I say that the people believe in conscription and believe that a measure of conscription can best be enforced in this country by a union Government.

Mr. MEDERIC MARTIN:

How can you say they believe in conscription if you do not consult them and give them a chance to express their views?

Mr. "W. F. MACLEAN: You had a chance to discuss this when it was up in this country, and Canada to-day is committed to conscription by the Militia Act, What surprises me and the people of Canada is that we are ire-discussing this question of conscription. I am willing to have discussion of the matter, but it should be reasonable discussion. I am trying to reflect the views, not of either political party in this country, but of the people, and I say that the people of . Canada to-day are largely in favour of this conscription measure, and in favour of its enforcement, and that they think the best way to get it enforced will be by a national government.

Mr. GRAHAM:

I suppose that the question of whether we are ito have conscription or not was largely settled some days ago when the second reading of the Bill w.as passed.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN:

I grant that.

Mr. GRAHAM:

My hon. friend apparently takes the ground that we should take this law as read without any question as to any of the clauses,

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN:

I did not quite say that. I said that the legislation ought to (be put through this House in the same way and in the same time as in England and the United States.

Mr. GRAHAM:

To get hack to the Bill, which :my hon. friend has been retarding for some time, buit which the rest of us are so .anxious to get through.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN:

That is a fine

remark.

Mr. GRAHAM:

All this discussion we

had on the second reading, and if my hon.

friend had been here during the past few

days discussing these questions iandj making suggestions in response to the invitation of the Government, he would understand how anxious the House is not to throw all the responsibility on the Government because no man can go away into the country and say that the Government did something for which he is not responsible. Each member has to take his responsibility. I do not want any government, national or otherwise, to take responsibility that I should assume myself. I assume a share of responsibility, after the second reading of this Bill, and eo does every member, to have the Bill placed in as practical and as workable a shape as possible.

In that direction both sides of the House have been working for some days. In reference to section 16, has the Solicitor General made any estimate of the number of men it will take to enforce this measure? I do not' mean any special work, such as looking after those who refuse to come before the tribunal, but in tbe formation of the tribunal. I agree with the Solicitor General in one respect; I think there is a large number of good men in Canada, who, 'being unable to go overseas themselves would gladly give their services in any direction the Parliament of Canada would suggest to them. I made the same statement when the National Service Board was being selected. I thought it was a great error to select partisan men, and pay them so much a day, or per month,- and expenses, when men of equal calibre would gladly do the work for nothing. Would it not be wise, not as an essential, but for the appearance of the statute when it is printed and bound, that subsection 2 should be made a section by itself, possibly the last section in the Bill? It is one of the most important sections.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

There could, be no objection to making subsection 2 a section by itself, and it seems to me it would be all right to make it the last section.

Mr. PUGSLEY:

It should be a separate section, and not a subsection.