I beg the right hon. gentleman's pardon. I was speaking in the more general sense. The Tight hon. gentleman had said that such abuses as had taken place in the enforcement of the Military Service Act -and I presume that would cover the case that I have mentioned-had taken place in other portions of Canada.
I understood the right hon. gentleman to say that the abuses by Dominion detectives had taken place in other parts of Canada. However, these were the causes of the riot. I do not intend to go into any further discussion as to the more remote causes of the feeling in Quebec, but I do say that the fact that the Government, in its enforcement of the Military Service Act, changed the law and employed these detectives in the way which I have indicated contributed to the causes which were responsible for the outbreak in Quebec.
Instead of asking the House to moderate its views on this subject, instead of asking the country to be patient with Quebec, instead, after having studied the question, of saying: This was an outbreak which might have been avoided had we been more careful in our exercise of power, the Government have come before this House and said: We will see to it that coercion is used in the province of Quebec. They have deposited on the table of this House an Order in Council such as I do not think ever was passed in any other British country in the world. Extraordinary power has been placed in the hands of military officers. I respect the uniform of His Majesty and every one who wears it but we have put it in the power of the military officer to arrest on sight any man whom he thinks is committing a breach of the peace. This poor individual is to be tried by court martial. The
civil law of the Dominion, and of the province of Quebec, is laid on one side in order that the military authorities may have full sway. I appeal to my hon. friend the Minister of Justice, who should know the history of his motherland; he ought to be able to tell us whether, from his reading of history, the 700 years of coercion in Ireland has effected anything to bring Ireland more into line to 'help Great Britain and the Allies in the present war. I appeal to the verdict of history. We have seen Poland persecuted, its nationality lost, its religion taken away, but Poland after 200 years is still Poland and the people still long to breathe the breath of Polish freedom. We have also seen Alsace-Lorraine torn away from Mother France, and still, forty-four years afterwards, Alsace-Lorraine is one of the reasons which brought about tbe bloody conflict in Europe to-day. Should, Mr. Speaker, coercion be applied, as it is evident that the hon. gentlemen opposite wish to apply it, should our laws be set aside, should tbe civil laws of the province be set aside-laws guaranteed by treaty and sanctified by tradition-and everything that we consider just, fair, and honourable in the province of Quebec, be set aside,
I aim sorry to say that I do not expect it will profit hon. gentlemen opposite in any degree. As one who is for the fullest participation in this war T am sorry to say, considering those whose spirit has been outraged and whose better feelings have all been disgusted by the treatment of tbe Government, that it will be impossible for us, if we have to use two men for every man we get, it will be impossible for ug to put tbe same force on the battlefields of Europe that I think we should place there. For as long as the feeling of hon. gentlemen opposite is as it is, you will have to maintain a garrison in the city of Quebec, and the effort of taking the men you need will be difficult beyond measure.
1 am, as I have already said, for the fullest participation in the war. Too many of my dearest, truest and best comrades, the truest and best comrades that a man could have, now lie buried in the ground trodden by tbe sacreligious foot of the Hun, and I am sure they never will rest until Canada puts forth its best efforts to wrest from the Hun the land in which they now lie.
It is not my intention to occupy very many minutes of the time of the House at this late hour. I wish, however, to say a word or two on this subject which I consider is of very great importance, not only to the Canada of the present day, but the Canada of the future. We owe a duty to our Canadian boys who have already gone overseas, as well as to those who have enlisted and have yet to go. We also owe a duty to the generations yet to come in this country, and it is our place, as public men occupying a responsible position, to do what we can to relieve isuch situations, and prevent the occurrences of such acts as have taken place recently in the city of Quebec. I am in entire accord with the leader of the Opposition when he says that the law must be obeyed in this country, that property must be respected and peace preserved. I am .also in entire accord with the expressions of certain gentlemen who have preceded me on this .side of the House, who have uttered the desire-an earnest desire, if I may judge from their words-that we may ultimately get peace and concord, and unity, in t'he Dominion of Canada. I do not think, however, that the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Lapointe) was very happy in his speech if he desired to bring about peace and concord in Canada. True, the hon. gentleman was reading from a manuscript which he had doubtless prepared some time ago, no doubt thinking that some mud would be slung from this side of the House, or some insults indulged in, but notwithstanding the fact that there was nothing of the kind, he had, of course, to follow his manuscript and got it off his chest, and I presume he is quite happy now. The hon. gentleman from Kaimouraska (Mr. Lapointe) paid his respects to certain of the press of Ontario, and particularly did he pay his respects to a certain newspaper called the Orange Sentinel, remarking that he would venture to read that paper if he were provided with a gag mask. It does seem to me, having witnessed the efforts of the hon. member in this House on a great many different occasions1, that that hon. gentleman should he immune from gas of any hind. I was under the impression that he was1 not. susceptible to gas attacks, inasmuch as he has manufactured so much gas himself that I am sure he would long ago have been asphyxiated if gas would do the job.
The hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Parent), in speaking on this motion, said that the French Canadian had a good deal
of imagination, and he proceeded to convince us of that fact !by giving us a demonstration of French Canadian imagination. In the course 'of his remarks., on several occasions, he had to be corrected and. facts substituted in place of imagination by the hon. member from Victoria (Sir Saim Hughes). But the efforts of the horn, member for Quebec West along imaginative lines are nothing as compared with those of the hon. gentleman from Quebec South (Mr. Power). I venture to siay that, if the French Canadian, is possessed, of a vivid imagination, the hon. member for Quebec South deserves to take rank as the leader and chief of all the imaginative people of the province from which he comes. He drew on his imagination very largely, starting out with a statement which I do not think he should havie made-which I know h& should not have made, and which he had no warrant for making-charging the Minister of Militia with a desire to get rid .of the people of Quebec as fast as possible by sending them to the war. Never in this House has a more unworthy sentiment fallen from the lips of any member of this assembly. According to the rules of the House I cannot use words which would express imy feelings with regard to that statement as I think they should 'be expressed. But that is the sort of thing which, to my mind, indicates the real kernel of the trouble-which occurred in. the city of Quebec. If a portion of that city will send as its representative to this House a gentleman who will go so far .as to make a statement such as the hon. member for Quebec South has made, I think I can find in that some ground for tlhe cause of the trouble in the city of Quebec. I could not help but ask myself, when he made that and several other statements of a very extravagant character, how much did this hon. gentleman do to prevent these riots in tlhe city of Quebec. It is quite evident from his own remarks that he was on the scene a good part of the time. He has described to us the course -of events from hour to hour; he has told us that he w.as right there looking on when the Biot Act was read, and -he saw many of the acts which were committed. What did the hon. gentleman do to try to calm the people, and to get them, some his own constituents, to go home and .behave themselves .as tihey should? I wonder what the hon. member has ever done to teach the people of his part of the country what their duties and responsibilities were with respect to this war?
That is all very well, and that makes it all the more strange to me why an hon. gentleman who has been over to the front, and who knows the needs of our men, should assume the attitude which he ihas in this House to-night, when he made the charge which he has made against the Minister of Militia. 1 think that is exceedingly strange coming from a gentleman who has ihad on the King's uniform.
The right hon. leader of the Opposition, in the course of his remarks, stated that a more peaceable and law abiding community could not be found in the Dominion of Canada than that of the city of Quebec. Tibat may be so. The hon. leader of the Opposition has represented that constituency for, a great many years, and he ought to know it intimately. It occurs to me that they chose a rather peculiar way of showing their peaceable intentions. I am also struck with this fact: The leader of tlhe Opposition has told us that it was not the people from the city of Quebec who were the ringleaders in the riot; no, they came from the city of Montreal. He is unloading his sinners off onto another constituency in the province of Quebec. And who are they? Ex-convicts, thugs, scoundrels of the worst type. And these strangers came to the city of Quebec, which has been represented for some forty years by the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition. Though it has been represented by the right hon. gentleman, and has had the advantage of his intimate knowledge and his ideas of peace, love and harmony, and should consequently excel in those virtues, we find that city departing from or forgetting the teachings which, I assume, the right hon gentleman has given to the people all these years, suddenly forsaking the doctrines of peace, love, harmony and unity preached to them for forty years, and being carried away by the leadership of four or five ex-convicts, thugs and scoundrels from the city of Montreal. That may be the case, hut it does seem strange to me.
There was one course taken by all the hon. gentlemen, including the right hon. gentleman himself, in regard to this trouble: they laid the blame on the Military 'Service Act and the administration of that Act. The right hon. gentleman went into particulars in regard to the man Belanger, who was a boxer, a fighter and a man of muscle, and another man, associated with him as one of the Dominion police, was also of not very good character. He told us that they stopped a young man
named (Merrier and asked him to produce his papers. This young man said: "I have not the papers with me, they are at my house." They refused to allow him to telephone for them, and the right hon. gentleman thought that that was a crime on their part. As I understand it, these Dominion police are appointed to perform certain duties. They know what their duties were, and it is not included in these duties that they are to allow men to telephone or to make other excuses for non-presentation of their'papers. I also understand from the Act that men of military age are supposed to carry their papers with them, and I can readily understand 'that. There have been hundreds and thousands of cases throughout the country in other provinces where men have not had their papers at the time they were asked for them, and where they had to go with the-officers until such time as they produced their papers. The right hon. gentleman takes the stand that the authorities who were enforcing the Act were to blame because they did not allow this man to telephone to his house requesting that his papers be sent down; and that the Government is censurable because men who, according to the right hon. gentleman, did not appear to be of the best character were appointed to assist in carrying out the provisions of the Act. Well, what does the right hon. gentleman want in the administration of this law in the province of Quebec? When a man is appointed a Dominion policeman for this purpose, must he show hie pedigree? Must he pin on his person in. a conspicuous place a list of this ancestors for several generations back? When he calls upon a man to show his papers, must he put on kid gloves? Why do hon. gentlemen opposite demand for the province of Quebec a different procedure from that asked by the people of any other province? 'They tell us that the people of Quebec, especially those of Quebec city, are of a very sensitive nature. Well, that may be; they seem to think more of their _ own feelings than of the feelings of others. The member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) has informed us of what took place in connection with these disturbances. The mob threw pieces of snow and chunks of ice; and the hon. gentleman congratulates the troops on the way they stood these attacks.
I am sure that the troops, when they read his words in Hansard, will be delighted to know that they have his congratulations; it is about all they get from him. The troops, then, are to be congratulated because they allowed the mob to throw bricks and chunks of ice at them. This happened
on tiwo or three occasions. On the first occasion they show a good deal of forbearance. It happens again, and there is more forbearance. More congratulations from the member for Quebec South, more ice and snow and 'bricks and stones from the mob. A splendid spirit on the part of the troops; a magnificent spirit, I suppose, on the part of the mob in the city of Quebec. 'So this goes on, until not content with throwing stones and ice, breaking into and tearing down buildings and nearly murdering a couple of men; not content with all that, the mob get out their revolvers and shotguns and undertake to shoot up the soldiers. And now the hon. gentleman complains because Queibec was put under martial law; because the military took charge of the situation and intend to round these fellows up and send them overseas so that they may exercise their fighting propensities on the Huns instead of against the boys on this side who want to go over and fight our common enemy.
I am not in sympathy with those who have criticised the administration of the Military Service Act. I was one of the members of the House who voted for and helped to pass that Act, and when I gave it my support I supported those clauses which provided for tribunals, appeal judges, and so on. As we have provided this machinery for carrying out the law, the people of Quebec as well as of the other provinces should have the right to exercise their full powers under the Act. Why has there been so much delay in the province of Quebec as compared with other provinces? Hon. gentlemen have called attention to the number of exemptions and the number of appeals, but they have not taken into consideration also the enlistments from the other provinces, which they should do in order to give the figures fairly. However, I pass that by. In Quebec, then, they were merely exercising their right in appealing against the decisions of tribunals. There were more appeals in Quebec because there were more men in the province eligible under the Military Service Act, and there were more men eligible because fewer men had gone from the province to fight overseas under the voluntary system. This meant congestion in the hearing of appeals. The appeals have not gone forward as rapidly as they have in the other provinces-and why? Simply because the sentiment behind the Act in the province of Quebec was different from the sentiment behind the Act in the other provinces. What are the underlying causes of the disturbances which have taken place in Quebec city and in other parts
of the province of Quebec? About eight years ago, speaking in this House, I made the statement that there was in the province of Quebec an antiBritish or anti-imperial sentiment. I was severely taken to task by hon. members on both sides of the House for having so expressed myself, but within the last few years, since the war started, the conduct of the province of Queibec has thoroughly justified my statement of seven or eight years ago. If there is such a sentiment in the province of Quebec, why does it exist? I believe that it does exist, although I am sorry to hold that belief. I think the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Maokie) struck the nail squarely on the head this evening in the excellent speech he made when he said that in that province they have different ideals, and that there has'been wrong teaching. Wrong teaching by whom? Mr. Speaker, I do not want to go into details, or to go back into the history of this country, but were I so disposed I could quote different utterances of the leader of the Opposition which, in imy judgment, have not been conducive to cementing the relations between Queibec and the other provinces of the Dominion and the Mother Country. I could, if I so desired, quote many utterances of the right hon. gentleman which have furnished an excuse to those in the province of Queibec who desire an excuse for evading military service. I have them under my hand; I could give them to the House; I have done so on more occasions than one. Moreover, I have done so in the presence of the right horn, leader of the Opposition; so that I cannot be accused of saying in his absence what I would not say in his presence. I regret it as much as any man who wishes to see this country what I believe it was intended to be, a great country, and what it can only be if we have a united people. Those of the province of Queibec who have enlisted and gone to the front have proved themselves as courageous and as 'brave as any men who have left the shores of Canada; I have that from personal conversation with different officers who have stood with these men over there, and. I cannot think that these men who have gone overseas and helped to make the record that Canada has achieved are different from the great majority of the people of the province of Quebec; but there are certain elements in the province of Quebec which have kept those people from doing their duty, and I propose to state in just a few words what those elements are.
First of all, I say that one of the causes for the sentiment which exists in that prov-
inee-and this is hack of the rioting which has taken place there recently, and back of the hostility to the Military Service Act,- is men like Bourassa and Lavergne who have misled the people of that province, and inasmuch as Bourassa and Lavergne repeat in their speeches statements which have fallen from the lips of the right hon. leader of the Opposition I hold him primarily responsible as the original teacher of those false doctrines, and he must bear his share of the responsibility. There is a way of dealing with men like Bourassa and Lavergne-a way which I suggested in this House a couple of years ago, on more than one occasion. Lavergne should have been stripped of his rank as colonel long ago, because he is a disgrace to the rank he holds; that also should have been done out of regard to the men who were in khaki and are in khaki at the present time. It is all nonsense to say that if you do that, you will place him on a pedestal as a martyr, which' is just what he wants. I do not believe it for a moment. You put a man like Lavergne or Bourassa behind the bars for treasonable or seditious utterance, and do you think he will boast of the fact that he is behind the bars? Not on your life. He will whine like the cur he is. That is one way of dealing with that sort of people.
Another thing that should be done is to suppress, and suppress immediately, papers like Le Devoir which have not scrupled to scatter their seditious doctrines throughout Quebec and so influence the minds of the people. We are in a state of war and these matters should not be handled with kid gloves. It is either right for a paper to be allowed to circulate that publishes seditious language, or it is wrong, and I do not think there is a man in this House who thinks it is right that such a paper should circulate, and it seems to me,, then that the only thing we have to ask ourselves is: Has this paper circulated seditious utterances, and does it continue to do so? If so, our course of action is clear; there is only one thing to do.
There is another cause for all the trouble in Quebec, and I will refer toi it in just a word. I have said that I believe that one of the causes of the trouble is wrong teaching by such men as I have referred to. Another cause for this wrong attitude and mistaken sentiment on the part of the majority of the people in the province of Quebec is the attitude of the Roman Catholic church in that province. For some reason or other, the attitude of the great majority of the Roman Catholic clergy of that province is opposed to the Military Service Act, and opposed to this country taking its part in the war which we in Ontario and other provinces think it should take. 1 have never in my life uttered one word derogatory of the religion of -any -man,, and I hope I never shall. It is not my purpose to discuss the .rights and wrongs of this or that religious belief. I wi-^h every man, no matter what his religious belief may be, Godspeed on his journey as he sees it through lif-e, and I hope he will succeed in getting to -the proper place when he leaves this world. But while I h-ave no word of. criticism in regard to the Roman Catholic religion, I -say that when -a church, be it Roman (Catholic, Presbyterian or any other denomination, enters -the domain of politics and takes -an active -and influencing part in directing the -destinies of this country, and tells the people what to do in a great crisis such a-s this, I have a perfect right to discuss the matter with them. II do not attack their right to express their views; lif they wish to enter the arena and place th-ei-r reasons before the public they have a perfect right to do so; but I trust th-at no person will then find fault with me if -I pass my opinion upon -their views.
I do not intend to state here why the attitude of -the Roman Ca-tholi-c church in the province of. Quebec is what I believe it t-o be, but I d-o- say that in those two reasons- the hostility of the majority of the clergy of that province to the Military Service Act and to full participation by Canada in the war, and -secondly, to. wrong teaching by such -men a-s I have alluded to-you have the -causes leading up to- the -disturbances which took place in- the city of Quebec last week.
Mr. Speaker, when I was elected to represent in this House of Commons of Canada the constituency of Dorchester, I was under the impression that I would be called here to give, according to the very modest experience which I possess, my views on the legislation which would be submitted for consideration. I have been here now ten days, and I have listened very attentively to the discussions which have taken place. I have had two surprises already, and perhaps I shall have more before the session is ended, Last year, the whole press of this country, Liberal and Tory, proclaimed to the country that a Union Government had been formed, composed of the best elements of our population, to help Canada take her part in the war. But since the session
commenced, we have seen just what kind of Union Government it was that, 'was formed at Ottawa. Last week my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce introduced a Bill, and hon. members on his own side of the House took occasion to make a very violent attack on the minister.
The minister was behind the Bill, or the Bill was in front of the minister. I think the minister was more badly hit than the Bill because the Bill passed. When I left Quebec a day or so ago, I * looked into the faces of women who had lived hours of tragedy and of drama. We had soldiers in our streets of Quebec by the thousands. Every street corner wais guarded with machine iguns. Quebec was practically under martial law. We were experiencing all the difficulties and troubles of actual war. Nevertheless hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House take the occasion of these troubles to bring on a debate, and not to remedy the conditions, not to suggest measures which would bring peace to the people in Quebec and throughout the rest of [DOT]the Dominion. When the hon. member for North Simeoe (Mr. Currie) rose in this House, he rose, not as a patriot, not as a Canadian, thinking only of Canada, but he was thinking of his own petty and mean interests as a local provincial and parochial politician from Ontario.
I bow to your decision. 1 withdraw the words which are not parliamentary. I only wanted to point out to the House that I thought is was very unfortunate that an event of the importance and of the gravity of that which happened in Quebec should be taken as the occasion of such a debate as we have heard in the House to-day. Have we spoken, Mr. Speaker, of the riots in Quebec? Have the members on the other side of the House suggested remedies? I was sorry to hear the hon. member for Fronteruac (Mr. Edwards) making an attack on the Roman Catholic clergy. I have heard members on the other side making attacks on the right hon. leader of the Opposition. I have heard them making attacks on the French Canadians as a race. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. I thought in this House of 'Commons of Canada that, no mat-
ter what province you came from, no matter what nationality you belonged to, no matter what creed you believed in, there was one ideal which was common to everybody-the love of our common country. I do not think, Sir, that discussions like that which took place to-day will help Canada to become the big, prosperous and great nation she should become. Hon. members on the other side of the House have been very wide in their remarks. The scope of* their speeches has extended over the whole political situation in Canada. They have pointed out different reasons for the situation which exists in Quebec to-day. Will you let me say that the members of the Government are responsible for the situation in Quebec to-day, on account of the policy which they have followed, on account of the policy which they persist in, unfortunately, to-day, of coercing the province.
I do not wish to say that the ministers have bad intentions; I do not wish to say the Government is doing it with the object of arousing ill-feeling in the province of Quebec. But I say that the attitude of the Government for the last four or-five years has been of such a nature that ill-feeling has been aroused, and that the Government ought to take measures to appease the people of Quebec. What happened, Mr. Speaker? We have heard the member for North Simeoe (Mr. Currie), the member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) and the ex-Minister of Militia (Sir Sam Hughes) talking about Mr. Bourassa, talking about Mr. Armand Lavergne and saying that Bourassa and Armand Lavergne were the real cause of the whole trouble. I .am not here to defend Bourassa. I have never been a political supporter of Mr. Bourassa, and never endorsed his political ideas. On the contrary, I have .always fought his candidates. I was a candidate in 1911 in the county of Charlevoix. I stood there as a Liberal candidate, supporting the policy of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I stood for the Naval Bill introduced by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and I stood for participation by Canada in Imperial wars. But at that time Mr. Bourassa was not denounced by the member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards), nor by the member for North Simeoe (Mr. Currie), as a cause of danger or as a reason for sedition in the province of Quebec. Bourassa was brought by the friends of the hon. members in the province of Ontario, and he spoke to the people of Ontario in order to defeat the hon. leader of the Opposition. What was the programme of Mr. Bourassa at that time? I do not wish to insist on
this point., but I only want to point out that in 1911 Bourassa and his school, supported, financed, paid' and organized by the Tory party, went through the province of Quebec, and said that we did not owe anything to England, and they were applauded by members of the Tory party who -afterwards became members of the Borden Government. Mr. Speaker, I wish to remind the House of one incident. In the byelection in 1910, in the county of Drummond and Arthabaska, I supported the policy of the right hon. leader of the Opposition, who was leading the fight against the Conservative candidate. Mr. Monk was a minister in the Borden Cabinet. Mr. Sevigny, Mr. Blondin and Mr. Lavergne were there. And who was supplying the money to beat the Liberal candidate? The Montreal organization, backed and inspired by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), if my information is reliable. That night, when the result of the election in Drummond-Arthabaska was announced- the hon. Minister of Railways laughs. He may laugh, but I am quite convinced he knows what I am saying now is true.
On election night, when the Liberal candidate was defeated, when the Nationalist doctrine in Quebec received its first support and triumph, a member of the present Government telegraphed Ar-mand Lavergne and said: "Anything to beat Laurier." The hon. member for North Simcoe, this afternoon rose in this House to inquire about the reason of the riots in Quebec. I will give the real reasons. I have given the first, and I will give later the proximate reason of these riots. Let us go further, and examine the history of the last five years. When the elections of 1911 were held in Ontario,the Tory organization, led by the then Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Cochrane), waved the British flag, and said that in the province of Quebec everybody was disloyal and everybody was a traitor, whereas in the same province, Armand Lavergne, Henri Bourassa and all that crowd were fighting the fight of the Tory party.
You succeeded1. The Tory party came into power. Those who had promised in the counties of Ontario, and ini the counties of the English provinces, to save the British Empire, were the first to give the fattest portfolios to their new Nationalist friends to reward them for their share in the victory. Canada had thiis extraordinary and
remarkable spectacle of an ultra loyalist like the hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) sitting close: to Mr. Monk, who would not fight for England. That is the second causie of the riots in Quebec. It was the want of sincerity on the part of our public men when the Cabinet was formed.
Let us go farther. A gentleman who is still a member of the Cabinet, although he is not a member of this House or a member of the Senate, a man who is kept in this Cabinet against every principle'of constitutional law, a man who has no right to sit in the Cabinet because he has no responsibility towards the people, a man who bored holes in the British flag in many counties in Quebec, has been drawing ?7,000 from the Crown since my right hon. friend has been the Prime Minister of this country. Third reason for the riots in Quebec.
My hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) wants to know why the people of Quebec are displeased. I will tell him. Do you think, Mr. Speaker, that a province IiKe the province of Quebec, which has been the pioneer province of this country, a province that has sent to this Parliament the brightest men that Canadian politics had known, will consent to be represented by a mian who has lost his deposit in one constituency and who lias been beaten in another 'by 2,000 votes? French Canadians may have defects, tout they have one quality, and that is the quality of self-respect. When a race has self-respect that race has the right to be respected by the Government of the country. Fourth reason for the riots in Quebec.
My hon. friend from Frontenae (Mr. Edwards) claims that Le Devoir ought to be suppressed. I am also of that opinion. Suppress it. But I am sure of one thing, and that is that the Government has not the courage to do it. It is no use coming . before this House to lie to the country. What we want are the facts and nothing else. Le Devoir is a menace; suppress it. Orders in Council are easily passed. Why will not Le Devoir be suppressed? I will tell you-because it is financed by Tory money. The hon. member for St. Antoine (Sir Herbert Ames) is the man who financed Le Devoir in 1911 so as to beat my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition. The hon. member for St. Antoine isi not in the House. I am sorry. If he were here I would say just the same thing.
given to Le Devoir to preach this doctrine of sedition, this unpatriotic principle of nonparticipation 'by Canada in Imperial wars, came from the Tory party. Every word which was- printed, every eheet that was distributed in Quebec was paid for with Tory money-
And probably the country's money. How is that money being reimbursed to the hon. member for St. Antoine?-boot contracts for the troops over in Europe. Mr. Speaker, that is the fifth reason for the riots in Quebec.
I wish to congratulate my hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Currie) on the very moderate speech which he has made. I have had very bad information about the hon. member. I understand that last year there was a certain discussion into which my humble personality was mixed and certain things that were said were reported to me. I am quite sure that my hon. friend from Simcoe was not in as good humour then as he was to-day. I congratulate him and I also congratulate the hon. the ex-Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Sam Hughes). I can tell my hon. friend that in Quebec there are some people who do not like him. Why, I do not know. If my hon. friend would go to Quebec oftener and speak the way he has spoken to-night everybody'would like him. -The unfortunate side of the situation between Ontario and Quebec is that the people of Ontario do not travel often enough in Quefbec. If the tw-o peoples w-ould meet, if the two populations would mix, all this friction would soon disappear and this trouble would be a thing of -the past.
I am quite sure, Sir, that you have heard it said in the House that I was a rebel. It has been said. It was said, I understand, last year that if I was elected to this House, I would not be allowed to take my seat because I was worse than Louis Riel.