April 5, 1918

L LIB

Thomas Vien

Laurier Liberal

Mr. VIEN:

I am citing these instances

to show that the Government, on the present occasion, put aside the constitution of the country, that they were not justified by the circumstances and that they will find no precedent to sustain their conduct in this- regard. They will not find any precedent in England, in 'Ireland, in Australia, in America or any place in the world.

Topic:   ADOLPHE STEIN.
Permalink
L LIB
L LIB

Thomas Vien

Laurier Liberal

Mr. VIEN:

Except Germany, and I was coming to that. We are fighting against Kaiserism, against bossism, against Prus-sianism. What are these appellations? What do they mean? They mean the encroachment of an organized military Government against the freedom of modern democracy. If we want to make the world free for democracy, which is stated to be the intention of the allied countries, we must not follow the same path that the Kaiser has followed on the other side. We must not introduce into this country Prus-sianism and Kaiserism with their results.

Canadian' blood has been shed in Quebec. A few years ago a great strike broke out in France. The employees of the various public utilities quit work. The telegraphers and

the railway, employees left their employment. They organized themselves to prevent others from working in connection with fee Public utilities. The Prime Minister y France then took the necessary steps to put down the disturbance land after having used all his power to accomplish that result he was.able to go to the French. Parliament and to shoiw 'to the whole world that his hands were clean of French 'blood. I very much regret indeed to say that after the repression of the Quebec riot the Prime Minister of this country is not able to say to this country that in suppressing that local disturbance hds hands are clean of Canadian 'blood.

Topic:   ADOLPHE STEIN.
Permalink
L LIB

Joseph Read

Laurier Liberal

Mr. JOSEPH READ:

Yes, and innocent blood.

Mr. VilEN: And innocent blood. It is

a most regrettable incident. It is a most unfortunate feature o.f that incident that it should have 'been given such grossly exaggerated proportions, that it -should, have caused the [Government to set aside the principles Of British. Government. There is an incipient apprehension in this -country and in this House when we see the constant trend in the .political movement in the direction of superseding the civil" power by the military power. What is the real effect of the Orders in Council which have been laid on the Table of the House? The real -effect, 'Sir, is to take away the judicial *power from the properly constituted authority, and to vest and merge it in the executive power. This has never been done under the British flag since the Bill of Rights. It is n-ow twenty minutes after two, and I will no longer occupy the attention [DOT]of the House.

Topic:   ADOLPHE STEIN.
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear .

Topic:   ADOLPHE STEIN.
Permalink
L LIB

Thomas Vien

Laurier Liberal

Mr. VIEN:

Some of my friends on the other side appear to think that I have taken too much time already.

Some hon, GENTLEMEN: Go on.

Topic:   ADOLPHE STEIN.
Permalink
L LIB

Thomas Vien

Laurier Liberal

Mr. VIEN:

We will certainly not he afraid of whatever threat the Government of Canada choose to hold out to the French Canadian element, or to the province of Quebec. We are law-abiding citizens. We were equally so under voluntary enlistment law, because there was no compulsion then. We are still law-abiding citizens when we take advantage of the provisions of the Act to enforce our civil rights, and I think it is a vicious insinuation to characterize the action of the French Canadians in that respect as absolutely unpatriotic, as was done this afternoon. I think that if a better un-derfMr. Vien.l

standing of t'he French Canadian point of view were arrived at by the English-speaking side of the House no such thing would be possible. I think that through a more intimate intercourse we could come to understand each other's point of view more intelligently and more closely. We do not criticize the English-speaking element of Canada, neither do we want to impo&e our views on them. We do not wish to enact laws to govern them, our desire is that they shall be free to do as they please under the British flag. But, at the same time, Sir, we ol-aim the same privileges for ourselves. If this is a free country, and we are to continue to enjoy the liberty to which we are entitled, all will be well. But I say that the provisions contained in the Order in Council laid on the Table to-day are opposed to that liberty, and if they are put into force I am afraid this beautiful Canada of ours will not be a happy country to live in. I am afraid that grave danger of disruption is impending, and that the Government is not taking the necessary steps to eliminate that danger in the future. As I have already said, we are law-abiding citizens, and we will continue to he so, but there is not the slightest reason why a vicious reflection should be made on the character of a whole population because of the occurrence of a riot of a merely local character.

Topic:   ADOLPHE STEIN.
Permalink
UNION

Daniel Lee Redman

Unionist

Mr. D. L. REDMAN (Calgary, E.):

Mr. Speaker, I feel that I would be doing very much less than my duty to my constituents who elected me to Parliament on the 17th of December last, to say nothing of ignoring my own very strong feelings on the subject, were I to remain silent and not to express my views on the subject under discussion. I come not from Ontario, nor from any part of Quebec, where possibly historic conditions may be responsible for local feeling or prejudices, but from western Canada, where I can assure you there is no feeling or prejudice against any nationality or any special race. I,n the West we regard ourselves as Canadians and we think that answers all requirements. For us there are no especially favoured communities ; and we feel that as Canadians, as members of a free community of the British Empire we have very great rights and privileges, and that it is our duty now, and whenever occasion may demand, to fight as fuliy as may be in our power for those rights and privileges. I do ncvt think I am taking an unreasonable view in expressing the belief that the willingness to fight for the rights and privileges we enjoy should be coexistent with their enjoyment. I am absolutely free, as I

believe the people generally in our province are absolutely free, from any prejudice. But we do feel, for two reasons- first, (that we need the men, and secondly, because the province from which I come, and perhaps other parts of Canada have done more towards sending men overseas than have been done in the province of Quebec- that more men should be sent to the firing line from that province. The mandate which was given to me, equally, I believe, with the mandate which was given to other members who sit on your right, Mr. Speaker, on the 17th of December last, was that we should come to Ottawa and do our utmost to enforce the Military Service Act, not only in a similar manner in each province, but also that like results should be obtained from one end of Canada to the other. That, I feel, is the reason that I was sent here by my constituents, and, to be frank, I have grave doubts as to whether I was sent here for any other reason. Such being the case and such being my own personal belief and feeling, I intend to do what little I can here to see that the Act in question is carried out absolutely and entirely.

As regards the riots that have taken place in Quebec, I do not think the Government have gone too far in'the way in which they have attempted, and have to some extent succeeded in enforcing this Act in that province. The previous enlistments in the province of Quebec for service overseas were not nearly as great as in other parts of Canada, and while, under the Military Service Act, one hundred and seventeen thousand, men have registered-there are still a great many who have not done so-the province of Quebec has sent overseas only some three thousand, or less. Under the circumstances it seems to me that we have a right to demand that more men shall be obtained from that province. I believe that the enforcement of the Military Service Act up to date in the province of Quebec has not been successful. Therefore, it is necessary for such changes to be made in the Act as will ensure a greater degree of success. I wish to congratulate the Government on the Orders in Council deailing with this subject which they have brought down. I believe that each and every one of them will make the Military Service Act more successful, and our opinion is that the changes necessary to render the Act more successful must be made.

I feel that if it is not made successful, and that if we do not obtain, and obtain speedily, from the province of Quebec as many soldiers to go overseas as the rest

of Canada has furnished, each and every one of us who have come here with very, very clear orders given on the 17th day of December, will have failed to do our duty in carrying out our instructions, and that we are not worthy to represent the people who have sent us here.

I have listened to-day to various speeches by hon. gentlemen on the opposite side, in which they have professed a willingness to obey the law, and to participate, as far as Canada is concerned, fairly and equally in this war. I am not going to say what may be the actual beliefs or feelings of those hon. gentlemen, but it does occur to me, afteT listening to their speeches, that the result of their words cannot in any sense be calculated to cause those who follow them to be more anxious or more likely to obey the law; nor do I think that the consequence or effect of their words will in any way increase recruiting. By the plainest of logic, and the use of the most ordinary commonsense, one cannot come to the conclusion that these hon. gentlemen are very anxious to assist recruiting or exceedingly anxious that the law should be obeyed. I would not care to be in the position of those hon. gentlemen, who can exercise influence over their people to the proper end, and who have influenced them in the manner which they have taken here to-day. Various arguments have been put up, the usual arguments we have heard before, that these men should be retained at home for food production. Food production and other industries are all very fine. But men are needed at the front, and when men go overseas, very often they get killed, and each part of Canada should bear its share of that risk. I know of no reason why that should not be.

I would remind hon. gentlemen that they are here to-day enjoying the rights and privileges of British citizenship, and while they are right in protecting those rights and privileges, if we do not send men overseas, and if we do not do our part, and others do not do theirs, we shall see such a sweeping away of British rights and privileges that there will be none left. I have seen the work of the Germans. I have been overseas and have seen them doing their work. And we on this side are doing what should be done in this country to preserve these various rights and privileges, about which we have heard so much talk.

Another point which is very significant to me ie that these riots have (broken out at the exact period when overseas we can almost see the fate: of our country and of

Lord Elgin is speaking himself; this was in 1849.

When I left the House of Parliament, I was received with mingled cheers and hootings hy a crowd by no means numerous, which surrounded the entrance of the building. A small knot of individuals consisting, it has since been ascertained, of persons of a respectable class in society, pelted the carriage with missiles which they must have brought with them for the purpose.

The article continues:

The "missiles" which could not be picked up in the street were rotten eggs. One of them struck Lord Elgin in the face. That was the Canadian method of expressing disapproval of a governor general for acting in strict accordance with the principles of responsible government. But this was only part of the price he had to pay for doing right. Worse was to follow.

Immediately after this outrage a notice was issued from one of the newspapers calling an open-air meeting in the Champ de Mars. Towards evening the excitement increased, and the fire-bells jangled a tocsin to call the people into the streets. The Champ de Mars soon filled with a tumultous mob, roaring its approbation of wild speeches which denounced the "tyranny " of the governor general and the Reformers. A cry arose, "To the Parliament House!" and the mob streamed westward, wrecking in its passage the office of Hincks's paper the Pilot. The House was In session, and though warned by Sir Allan MacNab that a riot was in progress, it hesitated to take the extreme step of calling out the military to protect its dignity. At this time the whole police force of the city numbered only seventy-two men, and, in emergencies, law and order were maintained with the aid of the regiments

29* 1 , i

in garrison, or by a force of special constables. Soon the House found that Sir Allan's warning was against no imaginary danger. Volleys of stones suddenly crashed

through the lighted windows, and the

members fled for their lives. The rabble flowed into the building andi took possession of the Assembly hall. Here they broke in pieces the furniture, the fittings, the chandeliers. One of the rioters, a man with a broken nose, seated himself in the Speaker's chair and' shouted, "I dissolve this House." It seems like a scene from a Paris Smeute rather than an actual event in a staid Canadian city. Soon a cry was heard. "The Parliament House is on *fire." Another band of rioters had set the western wing alight, and, in a quarter of an hour, the whole building was a mass of flames. Although the firemen turned out promptly, they were forcibly prevented' by the mob from doing their duty, until' the soldiers came to their support, and then it was too late to save the building. Next day only the ruined walls were standing. The Library of Parliament was burned in spite of efforts to save it, and the student of Canadian history will always mourn the loss of irreplaceable records and' manuscripts in that tragic blaze.

Now, what was the reason tor this affray? Was it because the lives of the Englishspeaking citizens were endangered, was it because their institutions or their religion were threatened? Had there been any violence or exactions? No, the reason was that the Governor General had sanctioned a Bill passed by -a Parliament with a majority of English-speaking citizens to indemnify those who had not taken part in the Rebellion of 1837, and whose property had been wantonly damaged. The law did not attack the lives of these most loyal citizens, but their pockets, and it was more important than their own lives and the blood of their fellow citizens. Mr.. Speaker, I relate these facts not to excuse what happened at Quebec, but to show what might have happened if conscription had been voted down by Ontario and enforced hy the Government. I am not 'au fait' of .provocating acts in Quebec, but I know what happened in Montreal. Men were arrested even when they had their exemption papers in their possession. Their papers were taken away from them and the men put in jail until writs of habeas corpus were taken in the courts of Montreal.

It might be interesting if I informed the House how many writs of habeas corpus have been taken in Montreal from the 27 th February, 1918, until to-day. There were thirteen. One was taken by P. L. Charre on February 27, the next day the military authorities through Colonel Hibbard, declared that the man was wrongfully arrested and did not oppose the writ. On the 1st March, E. St. Denis made a petition, and was liberated

for the same reason on March 16. On the 4th of March, D. Giaconimi made a petition and was liberated the next day. On the 9th, E. Ciamarro made the same petition and was liberated on the 12th of March. On the 11th, Joseph Fortin made the same petition and was liberated on the 14th, On the 21st, H. W. Dodd, made the same petition and was liberated two days after. On the 23rd, J. Paulicci made the same petition and was liberated three days after; and so on. The names, of the other men who made the same petition and were declared to have been wrongfully arrested were A. J. Villeneuve, J. Romani, Henri Fugere, Louis Paquette, Charles Dube.

I have here an affidavit in the case of Henry W. Dodd, who was arrested on the 21st of March, and liberated on the 23rd.

That your Petitioner, on the 29th day of November, filed in the hands of the Registrar,

nder the Military Service Act, for the District of Montreal, an Appeal from the decision of the local tribunal, which Appeal, the Registrar acknowledged having received on the 3rd day of December;

That your Petitioner was summoned to appear on the 21st December before Honourable Mr. Justice Duclos on his claim for exemption, and his case was continued until the 7th of January, 1918, in order that he may be examined by the Revisory Board in the meanwhile ; , ,,

That on the 24th day of December, the Military Medical Revisory Board declared that your Petitioner was of category "E", and therefore on the 7th day of January, 1918, Honourable Mr. Justice Duclos rendered judgment accordingly, allowing the Appeal, the Appellant having been placed in Class "E" ;

That, nevertheless, on the 4th day of March, 1918 your Petitioner while at work in his office was informed that one Major McKenzie wanted him at the Military Headquarters;

That on the said date your Petitioner, although having produced his papers, showing that he had been placed in Category "E", and that, consequently, he was permanently exempted from all Military Service, was lodged in the military prison in the Guy Street Bar-

That the said Major McKenzie pretended that your Petitioner having been placed in Category A2 on the 12th of October by the military doctors had to undergo another examination and to follow a treatment at the Montreal General Hospital;

That on the 5th day of March your Petitioner was taken under guard from the Guy Street Barracks to the Montreal General Hospital where he was detained until the 11th day of March, during which time he was guarded day and night;

That on the 11th day of March your Petitioner was removed from the hospital and was again confined in the Military Prison at the Guy Street Barracks, and had to suffer the most ignominious and injurious treatment, as if he had been serving a sentence;

That on the 15th day of March he was put in uniform and permanently attached to the 1st Quebec Regiment under the orders of

[Mr. Archambault.j

Major General E, W. Wilson and Lt.-Colonel Pichd;

That your Petitioner, has, on many occasions, prayed the Respondent to see that his liberty be given him, stating that he had been exempted from Service by judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice Duclos on the 7th day of January, 1918, and had been placed in Category "E" by the Medical Advisory Board ;

That the papers which he had in his possession on the 4th day of March were taken from him;

That the Respondents have always refused to grant to your Petitioner his liberty;

Mr. Speaker, I "was present on the morning when the petition was presented before the Hon. GMr. Justice Lamothe in Montreal, and Lieut. Col. Hibbard, who represented the military authorities; stated that the facts mentioned in this petition were true and the man w.as liberated. This is one of the reasons-T do not say it is an excuse- why riots occurred in Quebec. If the law had been applied in the same way in Quebec as it has been in Montreal, if men had Ibeen robbed of their exemption papers, confined in prison and only released by the arm of the civil law by habeas corpus proceedings there is no wonder the people are excited, and resort to serious measures, and no wonder these regrettable incidents occurred in Quebec.

In closing, I wish to answer the remark made by my hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. Currie), who asserted that Le Devoir had published seditious1 articles, and that Henri Bourassa ought to he interned. It is not my duty, nor my intention to defend Bourassa in this House. He is well able to defend himself; hut if I judge the knowledge of French of the hon. member for North Simcoe by his love for it, he certainly has not read those seditious articles in French. If he has read a translation, and the translation was made, as they generally are, for the sole purpose of creating racial and religious feeling, I submit that the hon. member for North Simcoe, before rendering judgment on those articles, ought to take a special course in French. French is like good music and it might have a good effect on him. "La musique adoucit les moeurs."

Mr. E. D'ANJOU (Rimouski) ('translation) ; Mr. Speaker, since the hour is late I will be brief, and as the point at issue has, till now, been argued in English I will pay a tribute of homage to Her Majesty in the French tongue by using it to convey the few remarks I wish to make anent the important question which forms the subject matter of the present debate.

First of all, I. believe it my duty to reply to the attacks 'directed against the clergy

of the province of Quebec by the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards). The hon. member-it is, moreover, a habit with him, -did not miss this opportunity to criticize the French Canadian clergy of my province. According to him, it is the clergy who have instilled into our people their present state of mind, and what is happening to-day is due to their influence.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we have in nowise to blush for the actions of our dlergy, and that, under all circumstances the wisdom of their guidance has led us through the paths of right, of honour and of duty. If the hon. member for Frontenac has the least knowledge of Canadian history he cannot ignore the fact that at the time of the war which resulted in American independence it was the clergy of the province of Quebec who advised the French Canadians to refuse the advantages offered them by the Americans who sought to enlist the aid of the Canadians in the struggle for independence.

Neither is. anybody ignorant of the fact that when the Government, last year, inaugurated national registration by means of cards called national service cards, the clergy took upon themselves as a duty to exhort the people to obey the law. Always, the clergy have shown themselves worthy of their high position and it truly is a matter for regret that we should have in this House members who never allow an occasion to pass when they can throw insults in the face of the clergy of the province of Quebec, in particular, of the Catholic clergy as a whole. Let us remember that at this moment thousands of French priests and monjts are shedding their blood on the soil of France for the cause of liberty and civilization.

Such attacks are unjustifiable and I do not see how I, the representative of a county both French Canadian and Catholic, could let them pass without a reply.

To my mind, the question of the Quebec riot has been debated with such forcible arguments that I have no intention of recurring to all the points discussed; but, Mr. Speaker, one thing is certain: if this riot in the city of Quebec has taken place, it is because the people of Quebec were provoked and, Mr. 'Speaker, it is not solely in the application of the Conscription Act that we meet this provocation.

I represent the county of Rimouski, and in the parish of Mont Joli, barely a few weeks ago, a trainload of soldiers, coming from Ontario or from the western provinces -I do not know which-stopped at Mont

. -i*9

Joli. The soldiers left the train, and proceeded to storm the drug-store, breaking down the doors in order to procure whisky; then they went to the restaurants and insulted the young waitresses there; in a word, they aroused the entire population of Mont Joli who are peaceful folk but who, as our expression has, willl not allow their feet to be trod upon.

It is just such deeds that bring on riots. What happened at Quebec, therefore, is not a matter for surprise.

There is no doubt that the same gang who operated at Montreal was behind the Quebec affair, and perhaps the hon. Minister of Justice will be obliged, before long, to hand over another $10,000 bail in order to get one of these individuals out from behind the bars.

The application of this Act was put into the hands of irresponsible people, most of the time, ne'er-do-wells, individuals totally devoid of discretion, and of judgment, who hie themselves to street corners and there insult peaceful folks, men whose very aspect is a certificate of exemption. For instance, you might have noticed in the papers that the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Fournier) was arrested at Quebec. He was asked to produce his exemption certificate; was it not ridiculous to make such a demand upon a man whose hair is sufficient witness to his age? In a way, of course, it was flattering for him, but on the other hand, it was pretty insulting to have some nondescript of a policeman lay hands upon him, without cause or justification.

Mr. Speaker, feeling' in the province of Quebec is against conscription; there can be no doubt on that score. For my part, I was elected in Rimouski county as an anti-conscriptionist; I was opposed to conscription before it was voted ; I was opposed to it during the elections and I am against it still. I have not changed my conviction, because I believe that this conscription law is inopportune, that it is opposed to the best interests of our country and that it is not a help to the British Empire.

I was saying a moment ago that there had been provocation; well, if there was provocation, there was more than that. Certain high-falutin' personages in the Government of this country came, one day, to give advice to the voters of the province of Quebec, during that notorious election in Dorchester, when Mr. Blondin, the musical-comedy colonel, caane to Dorchester to assist Mr. Sevigny in the contest, and that your humble servant had the advantage of

meeting with him at iSte. Rose de Dorchester.

Mr. Blondin, while I was telling the voters that conscription was on the way, spoke in this vein: "You people here in Ste. Rose; if conscription were to become law in Canada, you are near the American frontier; all you have to do is to escape."

When a man of Mr. Blondin's position comes to the people of St. Rose and says: "If conscription comes to Canada you can escape to the United States," how can you expect the people of the province to submit to this law; to submit, after that sort of advice coming from such an important figure in Canadian politics?

I say that the Government was ill-advised when it passed this conscription law. It seems to me that it would be better under the circumstances to withdraw the law so that, peace of mind may reign once more in all Canadian homes.

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to engage the attention of this House too long, but I wanted to express my opinion before this debate had ended. I received from the voters of the county which did me the honour of sending .me to this House a very definite .mandate: I was elected as an anti-conscriptionist; I aim to-day, and I will remain an anti-conscriptionist.

Topic:   ADOLPHE STEIN.
Permalink
L LIB

Charles Alphonse Fournier

Laurier Liberal

Mr. C. A. FOURNIER (Bellechasse):

Mr. Speaker, as this is my first utterance in the House I crave the indulgence of hon. members. I have been very much impressed with what has been said upon this subject during the course of the debate. What impressed me the most was the position taken by the hon. member for Fron-tenac (Mr. Edwards). The very moment he rose to his feet he reached deep into the well of his feelings and hurled his anathemas at the province of Quebec. I regretted his words very much, and especially those in which he launched an attack upon the Catholic clergy of that province. I regretted it on his own account as much as for myself. The province of Quebec is accused always in the same old way. All through the campaign the province was subjected to attack, and I was accused of upholding a doctrine antagonistic to the interests of the Empire. I hope I shall have an opportunity of stating the position which I took during that campaign and I am not ashamed to state it here. -I did not preach cowardice, but on the contrary I maintained that we should do our duty to France which gives us our intellectual life and that we should also do our duty to the British Government which has preserved

the liberty that we have thus far enjoyed here on this Canadian soil. I took that position, Sir, and I am doing business at the old stand still. I regret that hon. members on the other side of the House who have been elected as Unionists should feel called upon to east reflections on the province of Quebec because we differ in opinion with them on certain questions. I took the stand that my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) took and the stand that Mr. Lloyd George himself, the Prime Minister of England, has taken. He has said that what we want is ships, ships, and more ships, to carry the last bag of wheat to feed the Allies. I trust that I may say without any discourtesy to the hon. member for Fron-tenac that the word of Mr. Lloyd George is as good as that of the hon. member for Frontenac. I heard the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Mackie) speak about the ambition, the passion and the philosophy of nations. I confess that I. want none of his philosophy of nations or his ambitions. I am a Canadian enjoying the liberty here that the British Government has established and I wish to continue to enjoy it. He said that it was independence that we were searching for; at least that is what I understood him to say although I could not understand him very well. He also mentioned annexation. I have lived under the Stars and Stripes and ll say, I hope without reproach, that I want to enjoy British liberty. We appear now to be a financial dependency of the United States. In connection with every measure that is adopted the United States is mentioned. What I said a moment ago I will always maintain. I repeat that I want to enjoy British liberty. My hon friend from Parry Sound (Mr. Artnurs) said that his opponent had stated during the campaign that if my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition came into power all the soldiers would be liberated. I could not quite catch all of his remarks hut I think he said something of that kind. Probably that would take place in the trenches because that is where the promise was given. All through the campaign I did not go -farther than my right hon. leader. I took a stand against conscription because I believe that in this country where we want production, you cannot have both soldiers and production and if you drain the country of man power production will be very much diminished. Of course, we must be careful not to compromise the action of the Allies and that is why I took the stand I did. If you want production you must allow the

farmer to remain a farmer. You cannot make him a soldier and a farmer at the same time. It was stated at the beginning of the war by the greatest economists of the world that in this conflict famine might perhaps have the last word. I believe we are all verging on famine and that Canada will pass through a great financial crisis. I believe that this country has great resources but we must husband them and we must conduct our affairs in accordance with the principles of economy or else the future will he compromised. We must be careful that we do not allow the tendency towards militarism in this country to compromise our future or interfere with the success of the Allies.

Topic:   ADOLPHE STEIN.
Permalink
UNION

Hugh Boulton Morphy

Unionist

Mr. H. B. MORPHY (North Perth):

Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to prolong this debate. I had sent word to the Speaker earlier in the evening that although I intended to say a few words I would refrain from doing so out of regard to the lateness of the h'our and the number of speakers. But I just wish to say one word. Whether one is moved by emotion or passion I do not know and whether it be a crime I am not prepared to say. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Fournier) who has just taken his seat. He has moved me by the strong British sentiments which he has expresesd to rise to my feet and tell him, an hon. member of French origin from the province of Quebec, the pleasure it gave me to note the splendid, sterling, British ring of the utterances with which he has favoured the House.

I liked his speech so much that that is my excuse for saying a word or two in this debate; it was in marked contrast to the speech of the hon. member from, I think, Montmagny-

Topic:   ADOLPHE STEIN.
Permalink
L LIB
UNION

Hugh Boulton Morphy

Unionist

Mr. MORPHY:

-to whom I listened to-night with feelings of great regret. I acknowledge the hon. gentleman's earnestness,-his ability, and his out-spokenness, and I was rather pleased in one way to hear him address the House as he did, although I totally disagree with the sentiments which he uttered. I have been told, Mr. Speaker, and it has been commonly said, that the ideals of the province of Quebec, -as a part of the Canadian confederation, were based largely upon thoughts such as were expressed by the hon. member for Lotbiniere in his observations to-night. What were they? Without going into details I hope the hon. gentleman will pardon me when I state in an abstract way

what I gathered from his remarks, viz.- that his ideal of life and liberty was limited to Canada entirely. He had not, like the hon. member for Bellechasse, who has just spoken, the same high ideal of the liberties we enjoy, and have enjoyed under the aegis of the British Empire. He seemed to forget, Mr. Speaker, that these liberties have been preserved to us by the great British Empire. I am sorry to say it, but in this, the greatest stress of the world's life, in this the greatest crisis in the history of the world, in this day When the British Empire-and what ought to be his beloved France but which apparently is not-when these two great empires are struggling against the power and might of the vandal Hun, it is a travesty upon the life of any part of the civilized world that in the Parliament of Canada a member could be so recreant to hi.s duty as to stand up and condemn those of us who think differently from him, because we say that we have a duty to perform to the man-power that is gone to fight the battles of liberty, not only from the provinces outside of Quebec, but from that province itself.

Topic:   ADOLPHE STEIN.
Permalink
L LIB

Thomas Vien

Laurier Liberal

Mr. VIEN:

Will the hon. gentleman allow me to say this: I may not have proven to him what I intended to prove through lack of fluency in his language, but what I intended to say is this: That we believe in maintaining in this country British institutions, but we claim that the best way to help the Empire is not merely by sending men. We can help the Empire otherwise and at the same time foresee the after conditions of the war for Canada.

Topic:   ADOLPHE STEIN.
Permalink
UNION

Hugh Boulton Morphy

Unionist

Mr. MORPHY:

I do not wish to get into a discussion particularly about it, nor do I desire exactly to accept the statement the hon. gentleman now makes, or to withdraw anything which I have said. I am endeavouring to give to this House the full effect and meaning of the words that the hon. gentleman uttered in as good English as any man who has spoken in this debate. The hon. gentleman, beyond peradventure, gave the House to understand that he was prepared to-day to stop the sending of any more men overseas from this country, and he gave as the reason that the United States should send men, that Canada had done enough.

Topic:   ADOLPHE STEIN.
Permalink
L LIB
UNION

Hugh Boulton Morphy

Unionist

Mr. MORPHY:

Am I wrong, Mr. Speaker, when I so construe the hon. gentleman's remarks? If the hon. gentleman said that, and he did so, and I do not think he will deny saying so, I maintain that such an

utterance was the most pusillanimous utterance that was ever made on the floor of this House during the six or seven years that I have had the honour of being a member of it. I have been told, but did not believe, that the ideals that the hon. gentleman has set forth here to-night were the ideals of the province of Quebec. It has 'remained for him to prove that there is one county at least represented by a member who cherishes those ideals. We from Ontario sit still under the accusations of lacking friendship to Quebec, of wanting to domineer over Quebec, of wanting to impress the power of Ontario upon Quebec. These gentlemen, Mr. Speaker, who deal in that kind of recrimination, who set up those men of straw for the purpose of knocking them down, do not know the people of Ontario. I have stood here to-night and listened to all the unpleasant things that could be said about the Orangemen of Ontario. I happen to be a member of the Orange order, and I am very proud of it, because, I want to tell the hon. gentleman, in the Dominion of Canada, nay, in the world, there is no Order that has gone to the front as loyally and patriotically as the members of the Orange Order in Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

Topic:   ADOLPHE STEIN.
Permalink
L LIB
UNION
L LIB
UNION

Edgar Nelson Rhodes (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Unionist

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order. The hon. member 'for North Perth has the floor, and it is only with his permission that any other hon. gentleman may make interruptions.

Topic:   ADOLPHE STEIN.
Permalink

April 5, 1918