March 6, 1919


Samuel Hughes



Under the Militia Department?

[Major-General Mewburn.]


Major General MEWBUBN:

No, not under the Militia Department; it was not even an adjunct of the Militia Department. The Military Hospitals' Commission was authorized and organized and operated until February, 1918. It was considered-and I think finally admitted-that as long as a soldier was a soldier he must be treated by the army as a soldier; that a civilian organization could not very well deal with a soldier while he was a soldier. That I think will be admitted by everybody. That attitude has been approved by every country in the world. The functions of the Military Hospitals' Commission were carried out -with great vigour and ability until the 21st of February, 1918, when it was decided that it was not feasible that they should look after men prior to discharge. At that time another Order in Council was passed bringing into being the Department of Soldiers' Civil Ee-eetablishment and the Militia Department took over the control and hospitalization and medical care of the soldier until the period at which he was fit to discharge. As a necessary corollary the Military Hospitals Commission Command ceased to exist, it being amalgamated with the District Casualty Units in District Depots. Details of all this are very fully set out in what is known as memorandum No. 5, which I have had prepared and which will be laid on the table of the House in a few days. It is a very complete document giving the whole work and machinery of the Militia Department, covering the period from last session to date. I need not bother giving the details of it now. At the time the Militia Department took over the care of the soldier previous to discharge, the Soldiers' Civil Be-estab-lishment Department was organized-I will deal with it later-to take care of the man after he was discharged, that is, when he became a civilian.

Let me now deal with the military side of demobilization. For some time past and prior to the armistice men were constantly coming back from overseas as individuals. They were not coming back in any distinctive unit, but, coming back as individuals. They were, immediately on their return to Canada, sent to one of the various military districts, the headquarters from which they originally came. They were then boarded, all their documents completed, and if they were for discharge, and not requiring medical treatment, their discharges were carried out and the men were allowed to go to their homes. In the spring of 1918, the

(Militia Department published what was known as the " Returned Soldiers' Handbook," which was sent overseas and distributed to every man who was returning to Canada. That handbook set forth in detail everything the returned soldier required to know about himself Until he became a civilian, and also gave information regarding pensions and so forth so that each individual man had full information.

Demobilization has both a military and a civil side. The first includes transportation to Canada and the steps necessary to carry out discharges from the Canadian Expeditionary Force. The second comprises all measures possible towards returning the man to civil life under the most favourable conditions. I would like to point this out, to show what the Government have been doing prior to that period as to demobilization. In April, 1917, the then acting overseas minister appointed a committee in England to deal with this problem. That committee consisted of Hugh A. Allan, chairman; J. H. Plummer, Brig-General W. St. P. Hughes, Lieut.-Col. J. H. D. Hulme, Lieut.jCol. J. L. McKinnon, Major 'George Whitmore and Lieut.-Col. Arthur Sullivan.


Samuel Hughes



You mean Sir

Montagu Allan?

Major-General MEW BURN: The information I have is Hugh A. Allan. That committee proceeded to work and spent a long time working in conjunction with the overseas authorities, the corps, and also the war office. Subsequently, a report was sent back to the Militia Department and an Order in Council was passed in 1917 dealing with that problem. Subsequently in 1917 another report was made and further interim reports were published from time to time and sent to the department here, dealing with the whole problem and laying down certain schemes and suggestions that would be carried out when the day of demobilization came. That was followed down until 1918. That committee has been at work from time to time compiling information, working in conjunction with the war office on the general demobilization scheme. In April, 1918, we had an officer overseas who was working in conjunction with the overseas authorities who had been in consultation with General Currie, and all the brigadiers and corps commanders in France. Subsequently, another committee was appointed on which was a representative from Canada, the overseas authorities, and also the representatives of the

21 i

corps. The report was finally completed in July, 1918, and that report was approved by the Prime Minister when he was in England. It sets forth in detail all the organization, and the suggestions made. While I wish to take all the responsibility that is coining to me in the matter, still I should like to point out to the House that the demobilization overseas is entirely under the control of the overseas authorities, and the responsibility is laid down in the following memorandum

The responsibility for carrying out the demobilization of the Overseas Military Forces of Canada up to and including the arrival, but not the debarkation of the troops in Canada, shall rest with the Headquarters, Overseas Military Forces of Canada, in London, who will issue all necessary instructions and be responsible to the Overseas Minister.

At that time the whole scheme of demobilization had been worked out, but it was realized that changes would have to be made from time to time.

I should like to point out what else the Government have done for the soldiers. An Order in Council was passed dealing with pensions for soldiers, and the Pension Commission was established. A Select Committee of this House dealt with the question of pensions last year, and I understand that a Bill will be brought down this session, but I shall not deal with that here as the matter comes under another department and will be fully explained to the House in due course.

Then, provision has been made for settling soldiers on the land, through the Soldiers' Settlement Board. This legislation was approved by Parliament in August, 1917. I have no doubt that the Minister of the Interior will make a full explanation of the work the board' is doing. The Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment deals with the soldier only after his discharge. Our full duty to the soldier is certainly not done when he has been discharged from the army. Even those who have not been disabled in any way should be given all possible assistance to fit themselves for a higher walk in life if they should so desire. This department deals with vocational training for the soldier after his discharge and there are many men who wish to get on in life who are being trained by the department in some particular line.

With regard to demobilization, the question, of course, was to get the men back from overseas and get them discharged. We were ready here in Canada to meet the

situation but the question was how rapidly could we get the men back. Ihe original scheme, which I think was sound, provided that the men should be returned according to length of service, married men being given the preference. We were at once confronted by the most urgent solicitation from the corps, who were most desirous that the corps should be returned in complete units. This proposal received our very sympathetic consideration, but the question was how to accomplish it. We must remember how the corps were constituted at the date of the signing of the armistice. Each corps consisted of so many battalions, batteries, and other units, composed of men from all over Canada. The 16th Battalion which originally came from British Columbia, is to-day a Manitoba battalion. Would it be right to take these men out to British Columbia, disperse them there and then bring them back to their respective homes? Another battalion which was raised in Winnipeg is to-day a New Brunswick battalion, and there is hardly a battalion or unit at the front today that is composed of men from one particular locality in Canada. It was, therefore, decided that the units would have to be re-constituted in some way, and it was settled, and received the approval of everybody, that the Dominion should be divided into dispersal areas. The number today is twenty-one. A postal guide was issued and sent overseas for distribution to all ranks, so that men who otherwise would not know in which dispersal area their home was could tell by consulting the guide, which showed the location of all the dispersal areas, it also included a map of Canada and enabled them to choose which dispersal area they wanted. iA soldier could get this information by merely looking up his post office address. There are a large number of men from iPrince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Quebec, and Ontario, who have enlisted in western battalions, and it was thought to be only fair that they should have the privilege of being dispersed in their home area so that they could go and see their people. The units are, therefore, being re-constituted on that basis

Then came the question of the documentation of the men, and I should like to explain some of the difficulties in connection with this matter. Every man must be dealt with individually. His pay book has to be made up. His discharge certificate prepared and cheques issued both for clothing

[Major-General Mewbum.]

allowance and the first instalment of his war-service gratuity. Finally, but most important, his medical history sheet has to be prepared. It is absolutely essential in the interest of the men and of the nation that a man's state of health should be determined at the time of his discharge. All these things take time. Under the new system of dispersal areas at least five hundred men can be cleared at an area in one day. Men may come to Ottawa who do not live in Ottawa, but in the area in which Ottawa is the dispersal station. A man can get his cheques for the money to which he is entitled, get his transportation to his home, and his discharge certificate easily within one day.

The chief difficulty we had was to get ships and railway transportation. Immediately after the armistice I had a conference with the Minister of Railways and the presidents of the Canadian Pacific, the Grand Trunk and the Canadian National railways to find out how best to cope with the situation and get the men back as quickly as possible. These railway experts decided that the very best the railways, with their combined rolling stock could do was to handle not more than thirty thousand men per month from the ports of St. John and Halifax. A committee was formed of representatives from the three railroads, whose chairman was selected by the three companies themselves, and ever since the signing of the armistice this committee has been sitting in Montreal looking after the routing, and transportation questions generally. The moment we get information of the sailing qf a ship the Department of Militia and Defence notifies the chairman of this committee, who makes all arrangements for the routing of the soldiers. One suggestion that came from overseas was that we should open a camp in Canada, but I think most people will agree that to open a camp in winter at Valcartier or some other such place to handle ten or fifteen thousand men would lead to far more trouble than is being experienced in England to-day.

We decided, and it was agreed to overseas, that the proper way was to bring out the men in such numbers that on the disembarkation of a shipload at any port, it would be possible to move them rapidly to their homes. And we are insisting that these men shall be distributed equitably all over Canada. That is, we will not bring out, say, about ten thousand men to be dumped in Montreal at once, but we bring out a proportionate number to be distributed

among the several provinces. That has been done and the machinery is running, I think, fairly smoothly. For instance, in the case of a ship disembarking troops at Halifax to-day we are able to get every one of those troops out of Halifax before nightfall.

The question was, how could we speed that up? We consulted with the railway companies on that point. It was decided that, when-navigation opens and we nan use the ports of Quebec and Montreal in addition to those we have, then by using day coaches we can accommodate a great many more. It would be no great hardship, for instance, for the (Maritime Province troops to use day coaches. The troops for west of the (Great Lakes can disembark at Quebec and be carried in colonist sleepers, while those for Ontario and Quebec, except those for the city of Quebec, would disembark at Montreal and go in day coaches to their points of destination. In that way, we can speed up about 45,000 men a month, and with any sort of luck we oan have every one of the Canadian troops, except some hospital cases, demobilized and back in Canada by the end of August.

One of the great problems which has confronted us and which touches another department, is the question of soldiers' dependents. That is a problem by itself. It is a well known fact-it has been reported in the public press-that there have been about 25,000 marriages among the Canadian troops in England and on the Continent. There are at the present time about 40,000 dependents to be brought back. In the early stages of the armistice, with the natural desire of these dependents to come to Canada as soon as possible, a lot of them were put on the troopships. This created a most embarrassing situation. We had our troop trains made up to accommodate 500 men, and fitted up with a commissariat car. You can conceive how embarrassing it was when large numbers of the dependents of soldiers desired to go on these troop trains. The situation became almost impossible. A new arrangement has been made under which those soldiers overseas who have dependents desirous of coming to Canada would come on a special boat carrying only soldiers and their dependents, and now, under the Department of Immigration we are dealing with that matter in conjunction with the overseas representative of immigration. We co-operate in every way, supplying the medical staff, nursing sisters and other facilities, and have set apart a hospital in St. John to receive cases that need treatment. Owing to the epidemic of influenza in England we have found the situation a very difficult one, many women returning who are ill, and who are taken seriously ill after disembarkation.

Mr. PECK, V.C.: I would ask the minister if the plan of Sir Arthur Currie for demobilization was ever laid before the cabinet, or was it settled by the overseas minister?

Major-General MEWBURN: Demobilization by units?

Mr. PECK, V.C.: Yes.

Major-General MEWBURN: I stated

that the first idea was that the men should be brought back according to length of service, married men first. Subsequently Sir Arthur Currie proposed that they should be brought back by units. Subsequently he proceeded to England and discussed the whole problem. His complete plan was never submitted here, I never saw it; but many communications, letters and cables passed; and the scheme I have spoken of was concurred in by Sir Arthur Currie.

Mr. PECK, V.C.: That was not the

original plan?

Major-General MEWBURN: No, because we thought it was not possible to work it out. Several members have asked me how it was that the Third Division came first- how the First Division did not come first. I had a good deal of correspondence with Sir Arthur Currie and other members of the corps at the Front, and a short time ago I had a letter from Sir Arthur Currie giving an explanation of why it was that the First Division did not come first. I think it will interest the House if I read a portion of that letter:

After the signing of the armistice the first intimation that we received as to our future movements was to the effect that the whole Corps would move to the Rhine and I had made arrangements for the First and Second Divisions to leave, my intention being that as they would be the first to be demobilized by moving men first they would cross the Rhine in that order. After a time there they could be shipped by train to the Base, to get ready for demobilization, their places being taken at the Rhine by the Third and Fourth Divisions.

He gives in some detail the reasons why they could not all get through, and only two divisions went. He goes on:

Shortly after the first intimation we were told that only two divisions of Canadians were to go, and I allowed the First and Second to proceed, my intention being that after they spent a short period holding the bridgehead I would endeavour to get them to the Base or

somewhere near there, and replace them at the bridgehead by the Third and Fourth Divisions, thus giving all divisions an opportunity of seeing something of Germany.

I may say that the first intimation was for our second and fourth army to proceed to Germany, we to be part of the second army. This was later changed and the second army alone went back, and with it 11 divisions, so that for us to furnish two divisions was giving us a very high percentage; the actual bridgehead was held by 4 divisions so that the Canadian Corps holds half.

On top of all this I know there is an intense desire to get back to Canada. 1 know the pressure that is being brought to bear on you to see that this is carried out. Our people in England have been pressing the War Office who have been brought to release two Canadian Divisions for demobilization, the first of which is to sail for Canada about March. As it was impossible owing to transportation difficulties, namely, supply of cars, etc., to get the First Division back in time to sail for home first, it became necessary for me to nominate either the Third or the Fourth, and because it was raised first I nominated the Third. A few days ago it began its march westward to a point from which it will be shipped by rail as cars become available to the Base.

By the time it is ready to embark we hope to be able to follow it by the First, then by the Second and finally by the Fourth.

As hon. members are aware, the Third Division has reached England and a part of it has come to Canada. As I have already stated, there are other departments of the Government dealing with the problem of demobilization. It touches the Departments of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, Pensions, Labour, Agriculture, and Trade and Commerce, all of which are working in conjunction with what is known as the Repatriation Committee, whose work is to bring into co-operation in this service all branches of the Government so as to prevent overlapping and promote efficiency, and which, so far as I have seen, is doing great work.

Regarding the whole problem of bringing the men back, it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that no one branch or department of the Government, no one organization can successfully cope with this big problem, but that the nation as a whole, both collectively and individually, must cooperate, must put their shoulders to this enormous problem in order to make our solution of it a success. Through all these serious problems of the war since 1914, when the flow was io the objective on the western front, the greatest enthusiasm existed amongst all the people of the country. I cannot understand why, then, on the signing of the armistice, there should be a kind of backing up on the part of individuals.

It seems to me that if ever in the history of Canada co-operation and friendly assist-

[Major-General Mewburn.]

ance were needed, it is to-day, and until that need is met in the proper spirit this great problem before us cannot be successfully solved. If everybody will co-operate and try to assist the individual men as they come back and take their places in individual communities, I think we need have no fear of trouble in the future.

A great deal has been said about looking after the men. From what I have seen, the men do not want to be pampered. They do not want charity. They want to come back, and, as far as possible, take their places in the community and be absorbed into the national life of the country. The difficulty is that when an individual has been overseas for years, and when he has been trained with one object in view-the object of killing-his mentality is such that it is hard for us to conceive his viewpoint. Whether that man was in an office, a workshop or a bank, his mind has been centred on one object and it is not human nature to expect that that man can come back and immediately take up his old job, or a new job, and get down to normal conditions the same as the man working beside him who has never been at the war. I feel confident that the employers of labour and the citizens of Canada will give the returned soldier every consideration. But, they have to go farther than that. They have to look after the men. I do not mean to pamper them or to follow them around like detectives but they must see that each man gets an opportunity to adjust himself and to do his best. If that spirit is not manifested I am satisfied that from time to time men will become disgusted with their work and will want to chuck it up and leave the job. The superintendents of large manufacturing concerns must show sympathy towards these returned men and I am satisfied that if that spirit prevails we will have no trouble whatever. To give approximate figures, on the 30th November the troops overseas were as follows:

England 123,024

France <. .. 152,264

Total .. , 275,288

From that date to the 28th February we have brought back and demobilized 51,765 and in addition we have got rid of and demobilized something like another 50,000 in Canada; so that, since the 30th November and up to the 8th March, including troops in Canada, we have demobilized about 100,000 C.E.F. troops.

The movement of these troops is an enormous problem on the part of the railway companies but I think they are meeting the situation creditably and efficiently.

I realize, and can sympathize with, the desire of the men to get back at as early a date as possible.

I would like ito refer here, for the information of members of the House, to the question of priority of return. I am satisfied there is not a member of this House who has not been requested, or approached, to try and get back certain individuals from overseas. On the signing of the armistice, I was simply swamped and overwhelmed with letters, telegrams and requests asking me to bring back individuals. I took the matter up with the overseas authorities and corps commanders. I had explained to hon. members to the best of my ability the difficulty caused by the effort to secure priority of return. I have endeavoured to cope with the situation as best I could and I think that hon. members will realize the difficulties and the problems created by a request for the priority of return of certain individuals. This question, I am satisfied, is one of the causes of the trouble at Kinmel to-day. In the early stages in the British Army the principle of demobilization according to trades and occupations was adopted. That was found in the British Army to be an impossible principle to work upon. It created trouble not only in the British Army but in the Navy. I have had many requests from relations and friends to bring back certain officers from the front. It was said that there were jobs waiting for them or that their business interests required that they should return immediately. I cannot conceive why any individual officer who has the honour of having a commission in His Majesty's Forces should dream of having priority and of coming back and leaving the men whom he has had under his control there behind him. I think the officer is the last man who should expect to return. I have never had any applications from officers themselves but they have come from relatives and friends. I have had many applications myself from members of Parliament. I have, to the best of my ability, tried to meet the situation and the policy was finally determined upon that priority of return would only be granted upon compassionate grounds, such as where some financial or business matter was at stake, or where there was serious illness in a family-a man's wife or children dependent on him. In

every case coming within this category we have -cabled and a request under such circumstances has been acted upon promptly.

In other cases that 'have come before me,

I -have sent the information over to the overseas ministry pointing out the request and endeavouring to see what could be done about it. But, where you have a thousand men in a unit and one man, say, John Smith, or a particular officer, is brought

hack in priority you can well see how a______

feeling of resentment would grow up in those who were left behind.

We have also the demobilization question in Canada. We are 'to-day confronting what might be called liquidation. Prior to the armistice we had at our various depots, or in the various military districts, battalions waiting to go overseas. When the armistice was announced we immediately started to clean house in Canada. A great deal of work is yet to be done. Each of the depots had to be wound up, discharges of personnel had to be carried out, ordnance stores and equipment had to be turned in and accounts had to be audited. All the hospitals have 'to be maintained. The various dispersal camps must be maintained and certain depots must be retained in order -to carry on the demobilization until it is completed. I wish to assure the House that this liquidation is going on as rapidly as possible. There is also the liquidation of the war stores. Immediately the armistice was signed contracts were cancelled, stock is now being taken and steps are being taken to dispose of all surplus supplies to the best advantage and for the good of the country. I presume that in the final liquidation there will not be a very large dividend declared among the shareholders .-the people of Canada. But, we are doing the best we can.

There are just one or two other matters that I would like to explain to the House. Questions have arisen as to service, war service badges, orders and decorations and medals, and I submit the following memo as to that subject:

War Service Badges, Orders, Decorations and Medals:

It is evident from correspondence in the Militia Department that there is much confusion in the public mind regarding War Service Badges or buttons, orders, decorations and medals.

War Service Badges. I have mentioned these first, although they are possibly least

in importance, but as they have been issued in large numbers and are generally worn by soldiers discharged, it is well that the House and the country should understand what their significance is. From time immemorial it has been the custom after military campaigns to award orders and decorations for distinguished service and medals signifying the service rendered by a soldier. Of this I will speak a little later but before doing so I wish to explain that War Service badges are a quite recent innovation.

In Great Britain His Majesty during the currency of this great war authorized the issue of what is known as the Imperial Silver Badge. This was to be given to officers, non-commissioned officers and men who had served and had been retired or discharged as no longer fit for military service by reason of old age, wounds or sickness. The idea was that this badge should be worn with civilian clothing to indicate that the man had done his duty, or, in other words, was not a slacker. There was compulsory military service in Great Britain and all men of military age who had served and had been discharged by reason of permanent disability, should have a badge which was at once a recognition of their service and an indication that they had done their duty and were no longer liable for service.

Since the Armistice, amended regulations have been published providing that such men as are unfit by reason of service when demobilized are to be issued with this badge.

In Canada, we have adopted a somewhat different course, in that we have issued three classes of these badges. An amended Order in Council is now in course of preparation making certain changes which are necessary by reason of new conditions. Without troubling the House at great length it will be sufficient to say that there are three classes of badges.

Class "A" designating men who have seen active service at the front in the present war.

Class "B" (Imperial Silver Badge) designating men who have served overseas (either in England or at the front) and who on discharge were unfit by reason of old age, wounds or sickness, but under similar regulations granted by the Imperial Government and issued by us.

Class "C" designating men who have rendered honourable service but who are not eligible for Classes "A" or "B".

[Major-General Mewburn.]

In view of the fact that the Imperial Silver Badge was made available for the Canadian soldier, it is proposed that the Canadian badges "A" and "C" shall be awarded to any member of the British Expeditionary Force as well as members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force (even though he may not have served in the Canadian Expeditionary Force) who complies with the conditions, and who (a) was a resident in Canada on or before August 4, 1914, and (b) has returned to take up his residence in Canada.

So much for badges. We now come to the question of medals. Of these I cannot speak with absolute definiteness. No final announcement has been made but despatches so far received indicate that as regards the army, it is generally agreeed that two medals should be issued, one being an international medal for all troops engaged in theatres of war, and the other a British medal for all troops serving at home and in garrisons. Troops serving in theatres of war would also be entitled to the British medal. Without being able to make a positive statement I assume that with the international medal there will be issued appropriate clasps, indicating either calendar years or different theatres of operations.

Apart from the foregoing two other decorations have been definitely decided upon (A) the "1914 star" commonly called the "Mons Star." Army Order No. 350 dated 24-11-17, stated that "His Majesty the King had been graciously pleased to signify his pleasure to recognize, by the grant of a distinctive decoration, the services rendered by His Majesty's Military Forces under the command of Field Marshal Sir J. D. P. French in France and Belgium during the earlier phases of the war in 1914 up to midnight of the 22nd-23rd November, 1914." The decoration will be a star in bronze; the riband will be red, white and blue, shrded and watered.

The House will be interested to know that a small number of Canadians are entitled to this decoration, principally, 1 think, members of the Medical Services who proceeded to Belgium or France before the date mentioned.

(B) " 1914-15 Star." This decoration is referred to in Army Order No. 20, dated 23-12-18. It will be awarded to those who served in theatres of war between August 5th, 1914, and December 31st, 1915, both dates inclusive. Those entitled to the 1914 Star already mentioned will not be eligible

for the new decoration. The Army Order referred to defines in detail the various theatres of war. This decoration will also be a star in bronze, riband will he red, white and blue shaded and watered. A large number of Canadian troops are eligible for this decoration, including the 1st, 2nd and part of the 3rd Divisions.

In connection with these two decorations it is interesting to note that the issue of the Mons Star led to a proposal on the part of the Governments of Australia and New Zealand to issue a special decoration for the operations in Galipoli. This in turn suggested similar proposals with respect to other theatres of war, and the matter became so complicated it was referred to a committee of which General Seely was chairman, and as a result of its deliberations the 1914-1915 Star was authorized by His Majesty.

In illustration of the difficulties attending the issue of medals in such a war as this, it is estimated that from 12 to 15 million medals will have to he struck by the British Government.

In addition to the foregoing there have been, as the House is aware, a large number of awards for special gallantry to individuals of the Canadian forces. To this must be added a further number of special awards to Canadian soldiers by the Allied Governments.

The latest list of awards to Canadian soldiers which I have includes the following:

Victoria Cross


Distinguished Service Order - - 605

Military Cross


Distinguished Conduct Medal - - 1,453 Military Medal


One hon. member in his remarks during the present debate' referred to the desirability of the issue by the Canadian Government of a special medal for Canadian soldiers. Without expressing any adverse opinion on this proposal, I suggest that its consideration might well be left till the Canadian troops have returned home when the matter can be given due consideration perhaps after consultation with members of the Canadian Army Corps. In view of what I have said about the number of medals already decided upon, the difficulties in connection with design, manufacture, and distribution are formidable, and no harm will result from deferring decision on this point until a little later.

I may inform the House in this connection that apart from badges, decorations and medals there are other issues already

decided upon which call for a vast amount of work by administrative departments. Among these are the following: (a) King's certificate on discharge. This is a special certificate issued by His Majesty to members of the British forces, including C.E.F., who have been retired or discharged on account of wounds, ill health, or disability caused or aggravated by service, (b) A memorial plaque, to be presented by His Majesty to the next of kin of those members of His Majesty's forces who have fallen in the war. This is to be of circular form, five inches in diameter. It bears an emblematic design with the inscription " He died for freedom and honour," and will have inserted in the field (by an ingenious method of casting) a raised tablet enclosing the name of the person commemorated. The design was a matter of open competition and the selection was made from more than 800 models which were submitted. Each plaque will be accompanied by a scroll with a suitable inscription surmounted by a special device, including the Royal Arms in colour with the initials of His Majesty the King, (c) The Canadian Government proposes to commemorate our soldiers who have fallen in a somewhat similar way by the use of a cross, the cross of sacrifice, to be worn by mothers and wives of those soldiers who have died for the country's cause. Designs have been submitted and it is hoped that it may be possible to arrange for the manufacture and distribution of these crosses at a comparatively early date.


Donald Sutherland



Have not Distinguished Conduct awards been made to the Royal Flying Corps?

Major-General MEWBURN: There is one other subject I would like to refer to while considering the question of medals, il have suggested it for the consideration of the Government, and I think the suggestion is one the Government might well act upon. It is that the Government should issue to the mothers, or wives of any Canadian soldier who has fallen in action a silver cross, which may be known as "The Cross of Sacrifice." While the idea is sentimental, I think it would be desirable; it would be a silent memento to be cherished by these gallant women who have suffered so much.


Some hon. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear.

Major-General MEWBURN: Now, as regards war records, trophies and memorials. This is a subject which might well be dealt

with in a separate speech, and I can only touch on it briefly here.

War records and documents. These may be divided roughly into administrative and historical documents. It is sometimes said that a modern war is fought on paper, and the House may be inclined to share this opinion when I state that, apart from the vast number of current documents in the Militia Department, it is estimated that some 600 tons of files will be returned from overseas. These are of priceless value both for present use and future reference. The housing, indexing and preservation of these, and the consolidation of files made overseas with those in Canada dealing with the same subject, or kindred subjects, is a problem of first magnitude.


Samuel Hughes


Sir SAM HUGHES (Victoria):

May I ask the minister a question now which I should have put at an earlier period: Will Canadian who are serving in the Imperial Forces -such as our Flying Corps boys, like the son of the hon. gentleman who interrogated the minister a few minutes ago-be recognized in a similar way to our lads who served in the Canadian Forces?

Major-General MEWBURN: The soldiers to whom the hon. gentleman refers will be treated identically the same as members of the Canadian Expeditionary Forces in connection with gratuity and similar matters. Where a Canadian' soldier is drawing a gratuity or emolument from the Imperial Government, if it is less than the Canadian, the difference will be made up. In the matter of decorations, medals and awards, they will be treated the same as the others.

Historical documents, which include war diaries, and all other written records of the operations of the Canadian troops, are of inestimable value. They will be a priceless possession in the archives of Canada for many generations yet unborn. It has been truthfully remarked "that the care which a nation devotes to the preservation of the monuments of its past may serve as a true measure of the degree of civilization to which it has attained. The chief monument of a nation is its documentary records, the preservation of which is recognized in all civilized countries as a natural and proper function in Government."

The value of these documentary records from a business standpoint cannot be overestimated. They are essential for immediate use, and in many cases have constituted the chief, if not the only, protection of the state against ill founded claims. They cannot be adequately protected by insur-

[(Major-General Mewburn.]

ance, as they can never be replaced. Their destruction would involve loss beyond calculation. For this reason I have recommended to the Government the immediate provision of suitable fireproof structures in which these records can be housed.

By authority of the Privy Council, a com: mission on war records and war trophies, composed of Sir Edmund Walker, C.V.O., Toronto, and Brigadier-General E. A. Cruikshank, of the Militia Department, was constituted, and has submitted a valuable report which will be the basis of necessary action.

One of the most interesting things that could be imagined is the Canadian war records. I think I am safe in saying that the collection brought together embraces some of the most wonderful war records and photographs the world has ever known. I understand these will comprise some five or six hundred works of art, and it will readily be seen, therefore, how necessary it is that a suitable building- should be erected for their proper housing.

There will also be a building erected for the custody of war trophies. In addition a large number of trophies will be distributed to different communities throughout Canada who desire and will require the same. Dr. Doughty, who has been overseas, but I understand is on his way back, is dealing with them. A large number of trophies after demobilization will be returned, and I hope that this commission or committee will be able to distribute them in an equitable way throughout Canada. I am satisfied the Government will desire that these records and trophies should be preserved for all generations.

The last subject on which I shall dwell is that of soldiers' graves, a sad but serious one. I need not remind the House that the graves of those Canadian soldiers who sleep in Great Britain, Belgium and France will be properly cared for. The question has been discussed in the press as to the burial of some of our men in Germany, and in this connection I received a few days ago a cable stating that arrangements have been made whereby the bodies of all Canadian soldiers who were interred in Germany will be removed into the boundaries of France before the Canadian corps leave Europe. In view of the fact that this matter is one of great concern to the Canadian people, I should like to explain that this whole question has been given the most earnest consideration for a long time. At the beginning of the war a department was

created to care for and preserve the identity of the graves of British officers and men overseas., The officers of this department were directly responsible to the Director of Graves Registration and Inquiries. Graves registration units were formed to register the position of graves and see that they were marked with durable wooden crosses bearing a metal inscription giving the name, number, rank, regiment and date of death. At a later date a report was received from the High Commissioner in connection with the provision by the Imperial Government, with the co-operation of the French Government, for the registration and care of graves and the creation of a permanent organization in which the Dominion Government is represented. That organization is now in operation and is doing wonderful work. The following despatch was sent by the Colonial Secretary to His Excellency the Governor General in connection with this matter:

His Majesty's Government have decided that all Dominion officers and men dying in this country should be buried at the expense of the Imperial Government in single graves. The land required for that purpose will be acquired in perpetuity at cost of Imperial Army Funds, and all possible care taken of graves. I am confident that it will be the unanimous wish of every one in this country that His Majesty's Government should be privileged to undertake this charge and insure that the last resting place of these Dominion soldiers may not be unworthy of their sacrifice and of the cause for which they gave their lives.

This despatch was duly published, and-I have no doubt that the terms in which it was couched were a source of comfort and consolation to those of our Canadian people who had lost loved ones in the course of the war.

The Imperial War Graves Commission, as it is now called, has recently issued a report made to it by Lieut-Col. Sir Frederick Kenyon, K.C.B., Director of the British Museum, in which is outlined the manner in which the cemeteries abroad will be designed. The plans include regimental patterns of headstones, central monuments in each cemetery in commemoration of the fallen, and horticultural features of beauty and interest. Similar steps have been taken with respect to graves in England, varied to meet local conditions.

In the result, perpetual care, and, what is more, perpetual honour, is guaranteed for the resting places overseas of our Bead. It is natural that parents of boys who have fallen on the fields of battle should desire to have lull information, and when further information in available I shall be only too

glad ito give it. Some people feel that the bodies of those who fell should not be left there. I appreciate their feeling, but the gratitude for and pride in our victory will centre in those graveyards abroad. They will be the real, the most precious monuments of all; for my part, it seems a great, if sad, privilege to be represented there.

Mr. DuTREMBLAY: Will the minister tell the House why a Canadian brigade composed of men and officers speaking the French language was not organized last year?

Major-General MEWBTJRN: I remember that during last session my hon. friend urged the formation of a French Canadian brigade. I pointed out at that time the many difficulties that would be encountered in carrying out that suggestion. However, I took the matter up when I was overseas, and when I was in France I spoke with French Canadian officers in command of the training camps there, as I did also in England. It was not considered practicable that these units should be withdrawn from the corps- for the purpose of creating a separate and distinct brigade. The matter was taken up very fully with the overseas authorities, and they gave it very sympathetic consideration. At the time of the armistice I do not think there were sufficient troops to organize a complete, individual French Canadian brigade. It was arranged, however, that all these men who went from the province of Quebec to training camps should be drafted not only into the 22nd Battalion, which was 5 p.m. a French Canadian unit, but also into other units of the same brigade. If the war had gone on long enough-thank God, it did not-eventually these battalions might have become entirely composed of French Canadians and become part of a division and a complete French Canadian brigade. But I laid the request of the hon. member before the overseas authorities, as did the Prime Min- -ister.


Arthur Bliss Copp

Laurier Liberal


Why are soldiers now being kept at the different military districts? Some two or three hundred men are being detained at St. John and at Halifax; why is that necessary?

Major-General MEWBURN: I referred in my statement to the fact that in the various military districts a certain number of men were required to carry out the work of demobilization. We are also maintaining in each military district very small forces known as Garrison regiments, not ex-

ceeding 200 or possibly 250. It is considered wise and in the interests of the country that there should be a very small military force in each military district in order to carry out whatever work may be necessary in connection with the military organization within that district. The demobilization is being effected as speedly as possible. The men are not kept there for any special purpose, but it was considered advisable, as I have said, to retain these small forces.


Samuel Hughes



I wish to draw the attention of the minister to the report that the United States authorities are bringing back the bodies of the United States soldiers who fell in France. I would ask him to give this matter consideration in regard to the bodies of Canadians who fell. I know that it would be a very heavy job, but the United States authorities are said to be doing it and a great many Canadians are urging that it be done here.

Mr. PECK, V.C.: The German armies

have advanced over nearly all the Canadian grave yards. I noticed that a lot of the crosses marking the graves of soldiers had sunk into the sand and that the names were gradually fading away; in other cases the tops of the crosses had been knocked off. May I inquire whether anything is being done with regard to this? It is a very important matter.

Major-General MEWBURN: I have no

personal knowledge of that. I have noticed a report that the Imperial Graves Commission has organized a large corps to go over all the battlefields of France and Flanders with a view to looking after this matter. I am personally interested in this because my own boy was left on the Somme battlefield and there is nothing to mark the spot where he fell or where he lies.


Willis Keith Baldwin

Laurier Liberal


own his own home. In the United States, industries have been started out in the country, and land that was purchased for a few thousand dollars is sub-divided into homes for the people who are operating the industry. One minister has told us that the Government is going on with its housing scheme to keep Bolshevism down. I want to tell the Government that the land on which these houses will be built will cost more than both the land and the house could be purchased for in the rural sections. Land could be bought in the country, accessible to the city by trolley lines, and the homes could have every modern convenience, and no one is so happy as when he is in his own shebang. I think that would be one of the finest things we could do in this reconstruction period. Last night at the Forum in Ottawa, the spokesman of the great Methodist Church said: " We are ready to join with the masses, not the classes." We certainly welcome that church with joy to the great family of democracy. That is only one of the great bodies in Canada to-day that says we must have a united people and that this must be attained by taking a practical interest in the common people. But we can never do this unless the cabinet undoes some of the things it has done by Order in Council. That notorious War-Time Elections Act should have been repealed long ago, as well as other legislation that has been passed by this Government. Unless we have good government in this country we cannot expect people to be attracted to it. I would urge the Government in framing a new Election Act not to disfranchise any nationality. Let them disfranchise the people who make disloyal speeches or commit acts of violence against the State, but do not disfranchise a man simply because he comes from Germany or Austria-Hungary, because many of these people have left those countries simply because they were dissatisfied with conditions there and were told there was a democratic government in this country. There are whole communities of these so-called aliens who have helped to build up Canada, especially in the middle West, and I have great respect for these people. An hon. member opposite said the other day that the population of this country will have doubled in a decade. I would ask him, if we are going to handpick the immigrants, where is this population to come from when they know we have an undemocratic and unbusinesslike government here and an enormous national debt? All laws should be enacted by Parliament not by Council.

I wish to take issue with the statement of the Minister of Militia and Defence who said he did not know of any soldier in Siberia who was not a volunteer. I know that lots of men have been sent to Siberia after the armistice was signed who have protested every inch of the way they have been forced to go. Only six weeks ago some of the men were in Japan; they had not reached Siberia then. What right has this country, with its enormous debt, to protect the interests of the United States, Great Britain or France in Siberia? We have no trouble with the people over there. I noticed by the press that the Bolshevik were dropping bombs from aeroplanes on the Americans near Archangel the other day. Why should this country spend money on an expeditionary force to Siberia? There are a great many other things we could better spend our money on. Only the fringe of our resources has yet been developed and we must dig deep if we are to get something worth while from the bowels of this earth that will help to pay our national debt.

I have one or two charges to make against this Government. The Act for raising revenue by means of stamps on matches, powder puffs, perfume, toilet articles and patent medicines is a good one, and in view of the financial state of this country we could do with more taxes of this nature. But I want to protest against the way some of the officers of the Government enforce this Act. With the exception of toilet articles and patent medicines the manufacturers themselves affix the stamps on the articles I have mentioned. I remember well the hon. member for Bellechase (Mr. Fournier) condemning this Government last year for allowing-I do not know whether he called them " hounds "-but at all events, for allowing these " specials " to travel around the country and drop on some poor woman running a store, who may not have five hundred dollars worth of merchandise in the whole place, While the store owner was at lunch, a little child took charge of the shop and the "special" came in. He bought a certain article and as the child could not reach it, the "special" took it from off the shelf. Very shortly afterwards the woman received a visit from the high sheriff of the district, and she was fined $50 and costs; and 'as the costs always equal the fine in these cases, the woman had to pay $100. These "specials" have invaded practically every constituency in the Dominion. In the name of common sense, cannot we remedy this state of affairs? The concoctor of vile nostrums who

spills enough printer's ink may start out with a basket and become a millionaire in twenty years.

Why not have the manufacturers of patent medicines, perfumes, and toilet articles put on the stamps in their own factories? The Government gets a revenue of $196,000 from this tax, and it is a tax on every soul in Canada, and yet it does not pay the expense of its own collection. Fifteen years ago, when the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) was Minister of Finance they had a Stamp Act imposing a tax upon patent medicines. Notice was given to every dealer to estimate the stock in hand of patent medicines, and the stamps were sent to be affixed. It was a tax of only 1 per cent, instead of 4, and 4 is not too much. But it made unnecessary the operation of these special agents and obviated the necessity of these trials and fines. It was a measure decidedly in the public interest. One of these agents came into my county and got cases against two dealers who are by no means among the rich men of the county. I was discussing this matter the other day with a member representing a New Brunswick constituency. He told me that in his county a local druggist was running a little ice cream concern as a part of his business. For a time the person in charge of the drug department was absent and one of these specials-probably knowing the circumstances-dropped in. The girl serving the ice cream counter was asked by him for a package of talcum powder. She said she knew nothing about it, did not even know the price. He said, "That is no matter ; it is never more than twenty-five cents." He put down the price, took the package and went away. That cost the proprietor of that store $50, and I never knew a case where the expense of the suit was not equal to the fine. That is simply robbing the dealers of .this country to enrich the manufacturers who compound these nostrums, and we know that some of these are worth their millions, made out of the people by the lavish use of printers' ink which almost forces the people to buy these medicines. I asked the Finance Minister to reform this condition. Surely it can only be by oversight that it has been allowed to continue.

I have another charge to make. The farmers, who are the very backbone of Canada, whose work is the foundation of our wealth, upon whom we depend most to pay our enormous debt and who work, many of them, a hundred hours a week,

are not fairly treated. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) said he asked no favours for the farmers, nor do I, but I do ask for them justice. The farmers were told to raise hogs for bacon. They went at it, and paid as high as $90 per ton for corn. Yet the Government did not guarantee the price of their produce as was guaranteed to the flour miller. But the flour miller makes twelve and fifteen per cent. By the time the farmer had his pork fattened, corn was selling at $70 per ton. Then, again, the Canada Food Board would not allow the farmer to export his cream. All the butter of this country was commandeered, and the farmer could not even eat his own butter, unless it were produced in his own house-he could not take it from the creamery. It was commandeered at 42 cents a pound, and was held by the commission merchants until they got 48 cents a pound, a nice profit for them of six cents. The profit went to the big men who could afford to do something to keep the Government wheels running. In January last butter was 72 cents in New York, and in Montreal 62 cents. A farmer on the border wrote the Food Controller in Ottawa for permission to send his milk into the United States, which would have made an advance in his receipts of about $100 a month. But the answer was, "No." The rich Americans could take out the cream and milk and make a big profit on it. Is not that suggestive again that there is a nigger in the fence? I do not accuse the Government, but we know that the people who enjoy the benefits of this arrangement are Americans . I do not care to name them, but if anybody twants them he can have them. In this as in other matters the Government is for the big interests, while the welfare of the people is not considered.

It has been proposed that we should have a Department of Health. One department that we could do away with is the Department of Trade and Commerce. Last session, the minister of that department, who is one of the oldest men in this House, spent a week talking about eggs and the quality of eggs, and I presume how many there were in a dozen. He talked also of hay and the quality of hay, and about cement, and the quantity that should be put into a bag. But, as Hansard shows, he could not answer one practical question. Instead of the Department of Trade and Commerce, we need a Department of Industry, with a broad gauge man of energy and big ideas, at its head, a man


who knows the practical affairs of Canada and of the world. I am not personally-acquainted with all the ministers and possibly they have among them a man of the calibre I have indicated. If so they should form a Department of Industry and put him at its head.

I wish to say a few words on this question of public health. It is a fact that, notwithstanding the almost inconceivable sins that are committed to prevent it, there is a pretty fair crop of babies arrive in this country every year. The lamentable fact is that only two-fifths of these live to the age of three years. Every one loves the soul of a child. I believe that this would be the prerogative of women if they ever turn their attention to Parliament. We all believe in the conservation of humanity to the fullest extent but we want to have fewer departments instead of more. I think that all hon. gentlemen on the other side will agree with me in that. As for adults, I would say: Stand straight, breathe deep, live temperately and you will live longer and more happily than you otherwise would. I said in my campaign that if I was elected to this Parliament I would not speak when opportunity offered, but when duty demanded it. I was a very close listener last session, as I hope to be this session.


Richard Clive Cooper


Mr. RICHARD CLIVE COOPER (South Vancouver):

Mr. Speaker, before dealing

with the matters that I wish to take up in connection with the debate on the Address in reply to the speech from the Throne, I desire to refer at some length to the remarks made by the hon. member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes). I am glad to state that a better man than I will take this matter up and will deal with the Cambrai and Mons battles from personal knowledge of these great events. I allude to Col. Peck, V.C. The hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton has given us an honour roll of the members of this House. We find that it is very inaccurate and incomplete and that the recapitulation of services given by that hon. member ds not actually in accord with events as they occurred. In dealing with one hon. member of this House, the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Currie), the hon. member for Victoria takes occasion to defend his own action, as well as the action of the hon. member for Simcoe, at the battle of St. Julien in 1915.

I have nothing to say in regard to the hon. member for Simcoe, but as the insinuation is made that the only man who could be confused with him is Brigadier-General A.

W. Currie of the 2nd Infantry Brigade as he was then, I venture to take up the cudgels on his behalf. We find that the hon. member for Victoria is ubiquitous. There seemed to be some system of telepathy existing between him and the hon. member for Simcoe. We find that every movement of this particular officer during the battle of St. Julien was known to the then Minister of Militia sitting safely at home in Ottawa. I do not intend to enter into any discussion as regards where Col. Currie was at the battle of St. Julien but I will say that for the first time in my life, between six a.m. and seven a.m. on April 24, 1915,

I saw Col. J. A. Currie of the 15th Battalion and spoke to him. I did not see him again until I came here last session. In the latter part of 1915 I was in England and I read * with extreme disgust the remarks made by the then Minister of Militia and Defence in defence of this particular officer. As I before stated, it is only because of my intention to clear the name of our greatest Canadian soldier from any stigma that I am making these remarks.

On the evening of the 22nd April, 1915, I was, with part of my company, within 200 yards of the village of St. Julien and Gen. Currie was at Brigade Battle headquarters at Fortuin and there I received certain orders from him. It was at this time that the gas came over, the Turcos came streaming back while St. Julien was being laid flat. I moved out to the fields. It was wise. I met Gen. Currie and he said: " Cooper,

come along over to Brigade Headquarters until we see what is going to be done." We got orders to move up in support of the 8th Battalion. 1 did not see General Currie again until the night of the 23rd'April, 1915, when he came out to see how we were getting on at the Kerrselaere cross-roads. On the 24th April I spoke to General Currie about five o'clock in the afternoon at For- * tuin. Subsequently, during the night he took the remnants of two battalions of his brigade on to the Gra-venstafel ridge. The remnants consisted of my own battalion, the 7th, and the 10th, Western Canadians. General Currie placed us in position and told us what he knew of the situation in front of us. Then he went to headquarters of the 8th and 5th Battalions who were on our right flank. The next occasion on which I saw General Currie was on the early morning of the 26th when we rejoined the remnants of our brigade at St. Jean. General Currie then led the brigade composed of the remnants of the 5th, 7th, 8th and 10th Battalions up to a line in advance of Fortuin and the Hannabeke, where we re-

mained until the Tuesday night, he establishing his brigade headquarters alongside of us and personally went around to cheer up the men of the brigade. On leaving the salient on the night of the 28th April, General Currie was the last man out. I would further refer to the hon. member's remark.

Well, Sir, frpm the outset of this war I am on record as standing for the saving of the lives of our boys unless it was absolutely necessary that they should be sacrificed.

'Having placed this on record in Hansard, I may ask if he gave this matter the consideration he states when he forced the Ross rifle on the 2nd and subsequent divisions of Canadian troops. The hon. member speaks of Cambrai in the following terms:

I know Cambrai well. General Mewburn has seen Cambrai.

And so on. He says he knows Cambrai. So do I, but only on the map, and I venture to suggest that that is the fullest knowledge the hon. member also has of it. The hon. gentleman quoted from a letter written by him to the Right Hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) which, in Hansard is undated and which says in part:

Any ass can sit back and simply order battalion after battalion to go forward to certain death. General Foch does hot want that sort of thing, neither do the people of Canada.

His remark. is only to true, but also is it true of those who stand hack 3,500 milles and, without full information to guide them, undertake to criticise.

For the information of the hon. member I would draw his attention to the result of the Cambrai battle. Official information shows us that the Canadian Artillery fired 7,000 tons of ammunition against visible targets of troops. In close formation our heavy artillery engaged two hundred such targets. We captured more than seven thousand prisoners and two hundred pieces of heavy and field artillery. Our total captures from the 8th of August until the 1st October amounted to twenty-eight thousand prisoners, five hundred guns, over three thousand machine guns, and an immense quantity of stores. The battle of Cambrai was the deciding one of this period of the war. It broke the great Hindenburg line, and left an open country with only natural obstacles for our troops to fight over in front of them. In giving this information, Sir, I am quoting from official sources. The hon. member spoke of Cambrai as though it were a tragedy. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that far from being a tragedy, it presents

material for an epic, worthy to rank with those written of the " contemptibles " and our own First Division; at the second battle of Ypres.

Now let me refer to the capture of Mons. Official information shows us that on the 9th November, 1918, the Huns were in full retreat along the whole front of the British armies; that Maubeuge was occupied by the guards and the 62nd Division, with the Canadian Corps approaching Mons. Five British armies, with cavalry and cyclists operating in advance of the infantry, were making a steady forward movement; only in the neighbourhood of Mons was any determined opposition met with. Here we find the Canadians advancing towards the town from the south and west, and working round it on the north. Our Third Division captured Mons in the early morning of the 11th of November, killing, wounding, or taking prisoner all the German garrison. The total casualty list shows seventy-five of all ranks, while they took over a hundred unwounded prisoners. This battle, fought on the holy ground that their glorious predecessors, " the old contemptibles," had to retire from against overwhelming odds in 1914, must surely remain indelibly impressed on the memory of the splendid men who were privileged to take part in this action, and on the people of Canada as a fitting culmination to the great work of our corps. \

The hon. member spoke as follows about the Mons battle:-

I have just this to say about Mons. Were I in authority the officer who, four hours before the armistice was signed, although he had been notified beforehand that the armistice was to begin at eleven o'clock, ordered the attack on Mons, thus needlessly sacrificing the lives of Canadian soldiers, would be tried summarily by court martial and punished so far as the law would allow. There was no glory to be gained, and you cannot find one Canadian soldier returning from France who will not curse the name of the officer who ordered the attack on Mons.

The suggestion made there by the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton, and given broadcast to the fathers, mothers, wives and children of Canadian soldiers, is that General Currie, for his own glorification, deliberately gave the order to capture Mons on the morning of the armistice. A graver indictment of a man I have never heard; in effect, the indictment is wholesale murder. Now, I want to protect General Currie's name to the utmost that an humble member of the army, like myself, can. A little later I will endeavour to explain the chain of authority that exists in

the British army, and you will then see that whoever may have been responsible for the order for the attack on Mons, General Currie and the Canadian Corps were just a " cog in the wheel." The hon. member has, I believe, some claim to distinction in regard to winning the South African War. He is an honorary Lieutenant-General in the Service, and for this reason he should at least be as au fait with matters of a military nature as a sergeant. But a sergeant would know all about the chain of - authority in the army and would not have made such a foolish statement as the hon. member made here. At the time of the armistice, on November 11, 1918, we find that the Huns were still an unbeaten force. We find that they still occupied entrenchments behind barbed wire, with their guns, ammunition, and units practically intact. They were still an efficient fighting force. Now, I would like to put the situation to the House in this way: Probably all of you, at one time or another, have seen, if not a prize fight, then a boxing match. I would suggest that the position the Allied armies were in on the morning of the 11th November is somewhat the same as a man who is boxing another, and has his opponent almost down and out. The winner knows that the bell is going to ring in about fifteen seconds, but from some notion of chivalry-doubtless a foolish sentiment-he does not knock his opponent out. That is the position of the Allied army before the Huns on the date mentioned. They had no guarantee that the armistice was going to be signed; they had to hammer the brute to be certain that he would sign it.'

I would now like to deal with the chain of authority in the army, and I promise not to detain the House unduly in doing so.

At six o'clock the House took recess.

After Recess.

The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Richard Clive Cooper


Mr. RICHARD CLIVE COOPER (continuing) :

Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock I was proceeding to detail the chain of authority as it existed in the British Army. As is well known to most people in Canada and the civilized world, Allied operations from last spring were in the hands of Marshal Foch, assisted by an Allied staff. Marshal Foch, assisted by his staff, was responsible for the plan of campaign in all theatres of war in Europe. He, therefore, laid out his plan of campaign, dealing more particularly with the western front. On forming his

campaign he called together the leaders of the various Allied armies in France, explained what he wanted done, and gave them their part in the operation. These Allied Commanders in their turn called in the general officers-in our own case- commanding the British armies and allotted them their part in the operations to take place. The General Officer Commanding the army, in his turn, calls on the General Officers Commanding the army corps and allots them their portion of the scheme inside of his army. The Army Corps commanders then call the divisional commanders together, wrho are allotted their portion of the work inside of the Army Corps. The divisional commanders call the brigade commanders together and allot them their portion of the work inside of the divisional part of the operation. The brigade commanders call the battalion commanders together and allot them their part of the work inside of the brigade. The battalion commanders then collect the company commanders and company officers and explain the work in so far as it is necessary for these officers to know it, and they in their turn go back to the companies and tell the non-commissioned officers and men what is expected of them. In dealing, therefore, with the suggestion that has been advanced that General Currie was responsible for unnecessary loss of life in the Canadian Corps at Cambrai and Mons, it will easily be seen that General Currie was just one small cog in a very large wheel. His was the part that the Allied staff had allotted to him and, just as in the days of the old Light Brigade, " His not to reason why "; he simply carried out orders.

I turn now to another portion of the hon. gentleman's remarks, not made, in this House. I regret that the hon. gentleman is not in his chair, as I hate to hit a man behind his back. Here, however, is a point that I feel very strongly upon and about which I should like to speak.

We understand, Sir, that we are entitled to criticise our own people; but we of the Canadian Army resent very strongly a criticism of the British Army by a man who was not there. I turn to a cutting from a newspaper report of a speech delivered by the hon. member at London, Ontario. He says:

They stood their ground while the Yorks and Durhams threw away their Lee-Enfields and ran because they had "bum" ammunition. On the third day some of the Canadians got some of this ammunition themselves.

Sir, the hon. member rises to a wonderful defamatory height in this connection; his egotism and his dogmatism are absolutely inimitable. But I submit to you, Sir, and to the people of Canada that Canadian brothers in arms will not stand for one moment any reflection being cast upon our Imperial brothers. He referred to two regiments; I shall speak of one of which I know. The Durham Light Infantry came in across the Zonnebeke front and took over part of the trenches of the 8th Battalion, the " Little Black Devils ", and they subsequently vacated their trenches during the afternoon of Sunday, the twenty-fifth of April, 1915. The hon. member has quite omitted to mention that these battalions were part of a Northumbrian division which had been less than two days in France, and were hurled into that hell of gas and high explosive and machine gun fire. He says they ran away. As far as the Durhams are concerned, that is not true; the Durhams retired in perfect order-too perfect order, Sir-they retired in platoons, and. I saw them cut to pieces, leaving their dead behind in swathes. It is a pity that the license of this House is not better taken care of. Free speech is well in its way, but speech that is too free is very bad.

I turn for a moment to go one further than the Minister of Militia did'this afternoon, and when I have gone that one further I think that every Canadian will thrill with pride. I have taken the trouble to work out a little bit of detail as regards our Canadian decorations. I find that 418,052 men went overseas and that 15,750 won decorations and mentions, of which 3,333 were mentions and 443 one bar or more to decorations. The Minister mentioned that this afternoon, but the point I would like to make is that if one decoration had been given to one man instead of one man earning two or more decorations, one man in approximately twenty-seven of the Canadians who went overseas to fight would have been decorated. I think that is a wonderful record. The tale is not yet told, of course, of decorations; we may find three or four hundred more going to our splendid men.

I quote from the Toronto Globe of the sixth of this month, and I feel sure that many thousands of the people of Canada will re-echo the sentiment contained therein:

The terrors of the war have been great and manifold for our gallant men in Prance, but Sir Sam Hughes is a greater than any of them. The enemy never dealt a fouler blow than that


directed by Sir Sam Hughes against the leaders of the Canadian Army still in the field and unable to defend themselves.

I turn now to a matter that I conceive it to be my duty-rightly or wrongly, I do not know, rightly, I believe,-to touch upon. I have the honour to suggest to the Government that they make General Sir Arthur Currie, K.C.B., some monetary grant of generous proportions as a recognition of his wonderful service in command of the Canadian Corps. It has been the custom in the Empire to reward our great men in a like manner and we here at home should not fail in this regard. We find that our great leader comes back with all the honours in the shape of decorations that a grateful home Government can bestow upon him, and we, in our turn, must do something worthy of the glory which he has brought to us. I am proud to say- this is reflected glory, of course-that I knew General Currie before the war in Victoria, B.C. I enlisted at the same time as he did and I served in the same brigade. Without a tinge of envy, I congratulate him on his work. Victoria congratulates her citizen, and Canada will congratulate her son.

Let me now discuss a few subjects that are of general interest to Canada as a whole, and possibly more especially to my own part of the world. In passing, I would like to refer to the two officers, members of this House, who moved and seconded the Address. They did well-"but then, they are Canadian soldiers."

The sudden transition from war to peace has, I believe, found us, to a certain extent, unprepared. I believe that we are better prepared than any other of our Allies, and I feel confident that if we all work together to help the schemes that, the Government is now putting into operation, Canada will not suffer in any great degree, in the near future.

I should like to allude, for a moment, to the visits of our Cabinet Ministers to the West. There is only one way in which our country can be held together. It is vast; it has diverse nationalities; it has many diverse problems, and the only way for the Government to know the feeling of each portion is for the members of this Government to travel. I will welcome, as every man in my own province will welcome, the visit of any member of the Government at any time he can come.

As a comparatively new comer to Canada and as a new member of this House, it may seem presumption that I should refer to the late great leader of the Opposition.

I followed the late, great leader's career long before I came to Canada. I remember him as an outstanding figure in the Diamond Jubilee, although I was not at that time in England. Canada has suffered a great loss. The Empire has suffered a loss. I trust that Canada will rise to greater heights by reason of the example that he has left us.

I turn now to something that may be new to this House, and this may even not be the proper place in which to bring this matter up. In my notes, I have this headed "War Memorials." People's thoughts are now turning to memorials to perpetuate the memory of our fallen, but unfortunately, their thoughts are turning to stone and iron to perpetuate flesh and blood. That is wrong. It is not worthy of the men who gave their lives that we might be free. I suggest that there is a greater, nobler, finer memorial to be erected to our fallen. 1 suggest that education is the only possible, adequate method of perpetuating the memory of the "immortals." Before I came to Canada, I spent some eleven years of my life in South Africa and some eight years of that in Rhodesia. During that time, on three occasions, I was with the late Rt. Hon. Cecil Rhodes, in three of his trips into the south Gazaland country. On two occasions before the South African war, and the last time was a few months before he died. At that time, he was working out his scheme of scholarships. I was a youngstei then and did not take very much interest in it. He often said to me: " Cooper, education is the greatest factor on earth." I said, " Yes." I did not think much about it. He said that he was going to establish a scheme that would reach into every country in the world, and he did so. 1 suggest that this country can perpetuate the memory of her immortals in no better way than by founding scholarships along the same lines, with such amendments to the Rhodes' Scholarships as may be necessary. These scholarships, I would suggest, would go, in the first instance, to those young men who, when the war began, were in the transition period between school and business life and who, owing to the war have lost one or more years of their lives. They should be the first to be considered. Needless to say, there would have to be some kind of educational test. The scheme would not be practical without it. The second people to be considered would be the children of our soldiers, not only oi those who have fallen, but of those who are still living. At the end of a certain term

of years, these scholarships could be turned over at large to the children of this country. There would be no question of creed. All would be on an equal basis. The scheme, endorsed by the Federal Government and supported by every provincial and municipal Government interested and given to the people of Canada to subscribe a capital sum, would, I have not the least doubt, bring from the people of Canada alone a sum amounting to twenty or more million dollars. Such a sum would be adequate for between one thousand to fifteen hundred children a year. Work that out in percentage of our population and see what it means in ten, fifteen or twenty years. I do not see any reason for the scheme not succeeding. I feel that the wealthy men in Canada will give freely; that those who have lost their sons or their husbands will give freely for other people's sons or husbands; that the poor people who cannot afford much, will, seeing so much likely to be offered for their children in the future, also make an effort to subscribe. So I think there is very little doubt that the money could be subscribed, and the scheme would be limited only by the amount subscribed.

There is another point. Our desire for the future is to receive such a class of immigrant that we will never think of turning him out. Our eyes naturally turn to the Mother Country, and I submit that if the many hard-working people *who are anxious to emigrate, for many reasons, one of which is education, see the advantages that Canada offers to her children, they will come to this country. I notice in a cutting from the London Daily Mail of February 3 that two hundred Canadian fighting men are to be selected from students in the overseas forces for British university training while they are awaiting demobilization. One hundred are to be chosen from the men in France and the other hundred from the men in England, but only those students who have completed their second year in medicine, theology, agriculture, engineering, law, etc., in some Canadian university are eligible. That is good, Sir, but it does not go far enough. This scheme may seem somewhat Utopian, but I really do not see any reason why it cannot be made a reality if the Government will appoint the right men to foster the idea.

There is a matter of importance which I have not yet heard discussed in this House.

I refer to national service. We have just . concluded a great war which has taught us, if anything, one great lesson, and that is to be ready. I do not purpose to enter into

details of any particular scheme. I only say that now, with the ending of a great war, it is our duty to prepare for future wars. The training of our children should be carefully gone into in the schools so that if we are at any time confronted with another war our children will be ready to step into arms without any loss of time. If we had been prepared in 1914 it is more than likely this war would not have been fought. If it had been fought, and we had been prepared, it would have been ended very much sooner, with a huge saving of blood, misery and treasure. It is our duty then to provide properly organized units with proper leaders. I have talked with many officers coming back from France who have compared the men who enlisted under the Military Service Act with the volunteer, and not a single one will give the same credit to a draftee that he will give to a volunteer. There is not a volunteer that can possibly fight on equal terms with a draftee. It is our duty then to do away with such unfortunate things. Let us make every one serve the country. It should be the pride of every man, woman and child to serve the country that gave him or her birth. Further, Sir, it should be the duty of the 'Government to see that its people are ready.

I turn to another subject-one that has occasioned intense bitterness not alone in Government circles-I am not alluding to Ottawa, though I know it is rife in Ottawa -but in other parts of the country, and particularly in Vancouver. In the Government service there are employed very many women who need not of necessity earn their living. These women have, in most cases, got there, not by competence, but by influence, and I say it is unfair competition against their more needy sisters. I think the Government should take a hand in this matter and clean up the Government services as far as they possibly can. I know that a great many women worked during the war for patriotic reasons, but there were a large number also who worked for patriotic reasons plus salary.

I now come to the question of our natural resources, and one in particular I wish to mention. It seems to me the natural resources of our country have been the plaything of political parties. They have been handed out for services rendered; the nature of the service need not be specified. But now the time has come for that to cease. For the future we must as far as in our power lies conserve the natural resources of Canada for the British. One industry in particular-the fishing industry in British Columbia, with which I am more familiar than any other-is packed full of all kinds of aliens who only became naturalized for the sole purpose of exploiting the fisheries of British Columbia. They gave us no service in the war; in fact, in many cases they were openly hostile to the cause of the Allies. The smaller kinds of licenses, such as the gill-net and the purse-seine were granted largely as political favours and in a great many cases, particular^ as regards the canneries, a virtual monoply has been created for a favoured few. I submit that in this particular industry very careful revision should be made of the licenses issued, and those who have not given service should be passed over in favour of those who have. At all events, those who have served should be given the preference. I find. that last year there were 5,288 gill-net licenses issued in the province of British Columbia, of which 700 were held by Britishers, which includes natural born-Canadians and men from all parts of the British Empire; Indians, the indigenous natives of British Columbia, 1,130; Japanese, 2,620, or 49.70 per cent; 'Swedes, 105, or 2 per cent, and iSwedes in many cases were nearly as bad as the Huns; Finns, who are closely allied to the Swedes, 106, or 3.70 per cent; Norwegians, who are slightly better than the previous two, 220 or 4.20 per cent; Greeks, 59; Austrian, 32; Spanish, 25; German, 21, and other nationalities, 170. Of course, these are all naturalized British subjects. I am not dealing with the other and more valuable types of licenses, because I cannot obtain the figures from the department, but, what I want the House to note carefully is, that outside the Indians, the British born have 13.23 per cent gill-net licenses in British Columbia waters, the balance going to aliens.

I find a lesolution standing in the name of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Clements), dealing with the subject of enemy aliens. Should I be in order, Mr. Speaker, in discussing that matter now?


Georges Henri Boivin (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Laurier Liberal


I think the hon. member could discuss the matter generally, but he would not be in order in referring particularly to that resolution.


Richard Clive Cooper



The province of British Columbia is concerned in having large government works undertaken at once, and wherever it is possible that a return may be had, even if not for years to come. In British Columbia we have not the industries of the older provinces, and we must necessarily have public works to carry us through this transition period. I congratu-

late the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell) on the policy of public works which he has launched. I would point out in that connection that in our province we must re-absorb the 51,000 men'-less casualties-whom we sent to the war, and many more besides. I am told that the wonderful climate of British Columbia attracts many, and I understand that we are getting some 35,000 more people. We have not work for them at this time, and the only way to absorb them at present is by starting public works.

I trust the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) will go carefully with immigration. Let him bear in mind the large number that are coming back, for whom it will not be easy immediately to find places. I further hope that the policy followed by previous party governments will not., be followed by this administration but the future interests of our country will be considered-we do not hold our country for ourselves, we hold it for the future.

Amongst the Orders in Council brought down is No. 179, which deals with the payment of passage to the dependents of soldiers being brought back to Canada or who were never in Canada before. I wish to tell the Minister of Immigration and Colonization that that Order in Council is rank discrimination, that njany of the women and children whose passages back to Canada are being paid by the Government, are people who remained in the Old Country and ate the Old Country's much-needed bread against the wishes of that government, with these people it was purely a matter of selfishness. One cannot condemn them, of course, because their nearest and dearest were there. But the majority should have been considered. I think that, if it is the intention of the Government to pay the passages of these people, then it is its duty to pay also the passages of those who came back to Canada prior to November 11, 1918.

The War Service gratuity is a method of covering the transition period between doffing the uniform and putting on the mufti. It is not the best way out, in my opinion; I am afraid it will cost the country much unnecessary money. But it is good. Yet here again we have discrimination; the Order in Council was not properly thought out. I want to bring to the attention of the. Government a very just claim in connection with this war service gratuity, the claim of the Imperial reservist who lived in Canada prior to the war and who, when

IMr. Cooper.]

the war started, rushed home to join the colours. He went home and served for 1 s. 1 d. a day-say twenty-seven cents a day. Our Canadian soldiers got 31.10 a day. The Imperial soldier had no reason to complain because the Patriotic Fund came forward generously and augmented his pay to approximately the same as that of the Canadian soldier. But, while they are grateful for that, they are slightly discriminated against by this Order in Council dealing with the war service gratuity. I understand that that is not our business, but I submit to you that these men gave just as efficient service to Canada and to the Empire as did the Canadian soldiers. They have come back to their homes in Canada and have to live under Canadian conditions, and therefore they are entitled to the same war gratuity as are the Canadian soldiers. The Imperial Government has issued a war service gratuity, but no distinction is made between single and married men. Therefore, the private soldier with war service from 1914 up to the present time, if a single man, would receive approximately $200 less than his more fortunate Canadian brother, while the married man would receive approximately $450 less than the married soldier in a Canadian unit. I trust the Government will look into this matter; I sincerely believe that these men have a just claim.

Now, I turn to consider very briefly the case of the man who served in Canada. That man, metaphorically speaking, has been hooted by every Tom, Dick and Harry in the country, he has been called a slacker and other opprobrious names, in many cases without any justification whatever.

There are many splendid men in the service in Canada who have eaten their hearts out to go to the front but who have been discriminated against. We find that the man who had given service in Canada, and was demobilized prior to the 11th November, 1918, does not benefit under the terms of the war service gratuity. It is unintentional discrimination perhaps but it is certainly discrimination.

The Order in Council dealing with clothing allowance gives the first men to come back $8 to $13 and they had to hand in their uniform. 'This was subsequently increased to $35 but was not made retroactive. I can readily understand that the departments concerned in this matter would have to work possibly until the [judgment day in dealing with these retroactive measures, but, in all fairness, I think something should be done to meet the many justifiable com-

plaints that are received from all over the country in connection with this matter.

In the clothing allowance, as in war service gratuity, the draftee benefits at the expense of his volunteer brother. This is hardly fair. I want to take up the case of the officers for one moment because they are not allowed to speak for themselves. I want to deal with the $100 that was given to the officers in England last year. We find that an officer who went to England and never got any farther than England, on August 1, 1918, was entitled to an extra $100 clothing allowance, making in a year or fifteen months $350. We have against that an officer who served overseas and in Canada since September, 1914, and who had to do with the inadequate allowance of $250.

I do not believe that there is a single officer in Canada who would make any complaint except for what appears to be discrimination. I submit that men who have given good service in Canada, but who have not gone to England or Prance, should have been given this extra allowance, not because they desired it but in order to equalize matters.

The Minister of Militia this afternoon mentioned the War Service Button. We have been very generous in our distribution of War Service Buttons but there is a class of men that we have overlooked. There are many thousands of men who, with the best intentions in the world, joined up to go and have a smack at the Huns but who, for some reason or other, were disqualified and never got there. Many of these young men looking physically fit have had the finger of scorn pointed at them as they walked down the street. Is it not possible to give them some badge by which they could show their fellow men that they had tried to go?

The Land Settlement Act is an excellent piece of legislation. I would like to see it put into force, just as quickly as ever the Government can, but I should like to see the matter dealt with according to various provincial problems and conditions. What might be adequate provision for a Prairie Province is not adequate for a province like British Columbia, we will say. I would like to see the measure very much increased in its scope. I think it desirable that men who have given good service in Canada should benefit by its provisions. I need hardly point out to the House that every man we can send to the land, who proves to be an efficient farmer, is a national asset, and that every man we can drag away from the city is a. saving in labour unrest. A large amount of labour unrest comes in the winter months when we have men from

the prairie, farms, bush, and fisheries flocking into town, some with a little money and who, when they have no money left and no work, sit around and make mischief.

Pensions are, in my opinion, inadequate. They are unequal in the way they are determined. I do not think that the method of determining pensions is the right one. I believe that better service could be given if a board were provided in each province, or, where provinces are alike in conditions, in two or more provinces, to deal with peculiar provincial matters. I believe also it would be a wise provision, or until conditions are stabilized, to look at this question of pensions from the rural or city standpoint. It is' unquestionably a fact that a person cannot live, in a city in the same way that he can out on a farm, and where a person of necessity must live in the city, that fact should be considered. I would suggest that pensions err on the side of generosity consistent with our financial strength.

Prohibition is a very vexed question. I will stand behind the Government, in so far as I am personally concerned, for total prohibition for one year from date. I believe it will be in the best interests of the country that liquor should not find its way freely into the hands of the people until our conditions are stabilized. After that time it should go to the people of the country to decide. I will not say what they should decide for.

In thinking out new taxes to meet the interest on our huge outlay during the war, I sincerely trust my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) will not overlook the very large number of people who to-day do not come within the provisions of the present income tax. I allude to single men earning from $800 to $1,100 a year and who might very well pay a small amount into the Government's coffers.

I will ask the Government to go a little farther in the matter of vocational training. It has been found in many cases that the term allowed for the learning of a certain industry or profession is not adequate. It would be an act of kindness to many young men who are in the transition period if an extra fortnight-in some cases a month, in other cases possibly as high as six months,-were allowed so that they could complete their course and become useful citizens of the country.

Further, I would ask the Government to enlarge the scope of the vocational training, whereby it could embrace the young man who went overseas under age, and whose return was asked by his parents on thr t

score, but who is now debarred from the benefits of the vocational training.

I congratulate the Government on its wisdom in placing the Royal North West Mounted Police in the Western Provinces, because I think it is really the only way whereby Federal legislation will be properly administered.

I have never been a party man, for I have always felt that the cult of party led to a neglect of national ideals, and that the country always suffered from it. I was glad when ip December, 1917, so many men from the other side of the House joined up with those that were on this side, and made a strong party with a united front to face the problems of the future. I trust that hon. gentlemen will not be too exacting in their demands from the Government, but will help it in all reasonable ways in their power, in order to get the country back into a real stable condition.

One more remark and I shall close. It amused me intensely to listen to the wild poetic flights that some hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House

9 p.m. indulged in. There was a delightful parody, for example, by the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff). I cannot at the moment recall it, but if I remember rightly, it was plagiarized from a hymn book. That hon. gentleman enjoys a Scotch name, and must surely be familiar with Bobbie Burns. I will therefore quote from the words of the immortal Bobbie, in answer to the hon. gentleman's eulogy of the leader of the Opposition :

Oh, wad some power the giftie gie U3 To see ourselves as others see us!

It would from many a blunder free us, And foolish notion.

Mr. JOSEPH M. DEMERS (St. Johns and Iberville) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, at first I wish to refer to the renowned and _ well beloved leader of the Liberal party whose sudden death has so brutally robbed his fellow citizens of their affection and admiration.

I shall not venture to even attempt to add to the remarkable tributes which have been successively paid to his memory by religious and lay orators in most eloquent sermons and speeches, as well as by journalists in writings that are wonderful in style and inspiration.

I simply wish to lay quietly the tribute of my grief on the grave barely closed of this great man, who personified so well the

CMr. Cooler. ]

noblest and best qualities of his race, which is also mine.

I do not intend to prolong this debate, I am usually brief and so shall be to-day. But I thought it was my duty to address this House on this occasion, as I believe there cannot be a more favourable one for a member to express his views and make his observations on the political condition such as he sees it.

From the beginning of this debate we have heard of re-adjustment and reconstruction. Under ordinary circumstances, there would be not any question of re-adjustment or re-construction before we had made our inventory, so as to realize to what extent we were disorganized. However we find ourselves under such exceptional circumstances that we need not take stock, for the disorganization is complete, general, manifest and admitted by all.

We are politically, socially and economically disorganized. Such is the condition, Mr. Speaker, in which we find our country after the war. Before the war, we had a constitutional and democratic government, now we have but a dictatorship; we had a Parliament and this Parliament has been ignored by the Government during and after the war and now perhaps more than ever before. The representatives of the people were left aside, and instead opthe guarantee of a parliamentary legislation, we were swamped by Orders in Council, thus doing away with our constitutional guarantees.

If the Government intend to carry on a work of reconstruction, first of all, they must' re-establish democracy in this country, namely the government of the people through their representatives.

Before the war, Canada had the reputation of being above all a land of liberty. The Government has changed it all and individual liberty, the freedom of speech and of the press were abolished and replaced by coercion and intimidation.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, if we wish to reconstruct, we must re-establish freedom in this country; we must abolish the censorship immediately, for there is no reason now to maintain it and we must let the people absolutely at liberty to express freely their opinion.

Before the war we had an Election Act based upon principles of justice and fair play, but it was replaced by a system of selection.

That Act is a blot on our statute books, which it will be difficult to fully obliterate. That legislation was an Act of cowardice on the part of the Government and a flagrant

breach of the right inherent in British citizenship. None could have been more detrimental to our country.

At home, it proved loathsome to a great many people, and should such disgust be too often provoked through cynical and arbitrary legislation like the War-time Elections Act, peace would very likely be imperilled in this country.

Abroad, that law has put the fair name of our political institutions in jeopardy, and should Canada ever want to secure foreign labour in the future for the development of our immense resources, I am very much afraid that the War-time Elections Act will show that it has caused our country an irreparable prejudice, as it seejns hard to con-conceive that foreigners will be very anxious to come to this country, when they know how Canada treated her alien population during the elections of 1917.

The great majority of those who came into Canada did so, because they wanted to avoid persecution at the hands of the autocratic governments of Europe and because they thought they were coming into a free country. They were attracted and almost carried here by lecturers and agents who had exalted the humanity of our laws, who had promised they would be granted and enjoy equal rights. And then, all of a sudden, they must realize that after they had been persuaded to abandon their nationality, they were made practically homeless, that is men without a country. What a splendid advertisement for Canada to have it spread abroad, how the foreign element was treated in this country ! We had not long to wait to see the results, as it was reported in the press a short time ago that immigrants whom we had brought here at considerable expense, were withdrawing their deposits from the banks to go back to their native countries, notwithstanding the bad conditions that obtain throughout Europe. Evidently these people are absolutely disappointed; they did not find here that which they were looking for and which they had been promised to secure. They will now go back to Europe and advertise Canada in their own way, according to the treatment they have been submitted to here.

We heard-and I don't know whether it were not repeated in this House-that the Government should frame a policy with regard to aliens. Well, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that if the Government wish to adopt some policy to that effect, they should exercise great care and fully consider what may be the future needs of this country as regards immigration, because the policy thus adopted will surely have a considerable influence and will be an important factor in the foreigner's appreciation of this country's opportunities, in case they intend to come here and seek a fortune.

At any rate, Mr. Speaker, there is one thing which we need not think over very long, that is to repeal the War-Times Elections Act as soon as possible. I believe it is easy to do it. The war is over and there are members of the Government who were shocked by that legislation even in war time. Knowing as we do the earnestness of their convictions, we can easily imagine the efforts they must bring to bear upon their colleagues to induce them to repeal that evil and fatal legislation.

Then, Mr. Speaker, once we have carried out that work of clearing our statutes, let us enact such a law, that the people will be satisfied that the Government had not in view a political machine but a desire to secure the full and free experiment of public Opinion. I hope that this new Act will be framed on the underlying principles of the Act which was in force before the war, particularly as concerns the making out of the rolls. I trust that the system of having these rolls made out by municipal councils will be maintained as. much as possible, that is almost everywhere in Canada. And I also hope, Mr. Speaker, that we shall never see any more government appointed commissioners entrusted with that work.

The hon. gentlemen recall the Dominion Elections Act of 1896, the enforcement of which resulted in such crying abuses that the Liberal party made the repeal of that famous legislation a special plank of their platform.

The making out of the lists of voters by commissioners appointed by the Government looked to me in my youth and would look to me yet like a board of arbitrators all the members of which would be appointed by one single party.

Now, Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to refer briefly to another very important issue which was dealt with by hon. members who spoke before me and more particularly by the hon. member for Dorchester, in the beautiful address with which he favoured this House the other evening. I refer to the question of the independence of the judiciary. I regret to charge this Government with having more than.once infringed upon the independence and sullied the fair name of the judiciary, through their untimely interference with their duties. There was some serious clashing recently between the Department of Justice and some of the judges, and I regret to say that the Depart-

ment of Justice did not always emerge with credit.

For a Government to question the integrity, competence or wisdom of our judges and entertain ails'- distrust for them is tantamount to shaking the confidence of the people in an institution which we always considered as being a guarantee of social order and the safeguard of the liberties and rights of the people. A Government who do not respect the independence of magistrates make an exceptionally serious mistake, for which we must call them to account, for it means the sapping of the foundation of our social structure.

I promised I would be brief, Mr. Speaker, and I shall pass on to another subject without any oratorical precautions.

Let me refer to the way of dealing with the defaulters. I believe this is a very important matter for this country at the present moment. I must say right now that I agree with hon. members who advocated a general amnesty, and here are some of the reasons which make me think so.

I was informed that there were 40,000 defaulters in the country, the majority of whom are among the rural population. In all, 100,000 young men answered the call under the Military Service Act, which meant that the Government has hit the mark and if all those who were called had reported, about 40,000 would have been left aside; but I will not use this as an argument.

The principal reason for which I favour a general amnesty is that I am convinced that this Government is responsible to a large extent for the passive resistance which was manifested.

Our people were not prepared for conscription which was repugnant to them, because militarism was unknown in America. Not only were they not prepared, but this Government exerted themselves in letting the people believe that conscription would never be established.

I refer you to the statement made by the Prime Minister himself within and without this House in 1916, and I ask hon. members to remember what occurred in the election of Dorchester in February 1917, when a Cabinet Minister was re-elected as an anti-conscriptionist and supported by another member of the Government who expressed similar views. Was that what you would call preparing public opinion for conscription?

Two months after the Dorchester election in which the young men were told how easy it would be for them to cross over the border if need be, this Government submitted their Compulsory Military Service CM. Demers.]

Act. Then the elections came. What did they say to the people during the campaign? They said that the farmers and their sons would not be called upon to serve in the army, and it is through such false representations that they succeeded in securing the great majority of the votes in the rural constituencies throughout the Dominion, except in the province of Quebec. Furthermore, in order to countenance the statements made by the Unionist speakers during the elections in 1917, this Government passed an Order in Council providing for the exemption of farm labourers from military service. Is that what you would call preparing the people for the enforcement of conscription? And after that you are surprised that there were some refractory ones. It is under such circumstances that we are asked to deal rigorously with people who unfortunately were so candid as to believe in the sincerity of those who solicited their votes and the very men who benefited by such trickery and false representations would now like to enact legislation with a view to apprehending their victims !

Well, Mr. Speaker, I say: That is enough cynicism.

There is another consideration, namely that no good can come out of any harsh measures that may be taken regarding the defaulters. They say there are 40,000. If we decide to deal with them, we must deal with them all. How many millions shall we have to spend in our endeavour to detect them all? We shall be compelled to use an army for that purpose and then to apprehend them; we shall have to build jails to put them in and spend millions to feed them during their detention. When you consider that most of these defaulters are farmers, you will realize what waste of time and disorganization in labour it would represent.

Let those who expect any good out of such harsh treatment be undeceived. We shall only succeed in bringing shame upon 40,000 young men, who, under the present circumstances, represent not only an important, but also a necessary asset, and most of whom belong to respectable families who have assisted one way or another in carrying on the war. We would only discourage and demoralize an army of workers who could prove very useful to the country.

The Government, in spite of the elementary principles of any democratic system, recently passed an ukase imposing a penalty of from $250 to $5,000 or $10,000 upon defaulters, which means that only the poor will go to jail; the others who have means will, for a money consideration, continue to enjoy their freedom. Indeed, this is a nice

way to ajsply the principles of equal rights, but the same thing can be said of the selective Conscription Act which allowed the rich to take advantage of every kind of jurisdiction to avoid enlistment, while the poor were compelled to submit to this condition and enlist.

Therefore we should not be surprised that the workers are avowed enemies of militarism. They are so instinctively, because they know what is good or bad for them and history has taught them long ago that every time a war breaks out they, the poor, have to pay the greatest tribute of blood.

Moreover, Mr. Speaker, I submit that this Government, instead of collecting fines from defaulters, should remember the enormous and absolutely useless expenses to which the conscripts and their families were put. I would like this Government to recall the fickleness which they showed in the enforcing of the Military Service Act, which fickleness caused the conscripts and their families to spend millions, for we have not forgotten that after they had established exemption tribunals, the Government capriciously abolished all exemptions that had been granted, thus putting the conscripts to considerable expense.

I think the Military Service Act has cost everybody enough up to now and that this Government should not further burden the people of this country. Moreover, they would reap no benefit by being too severe. They would only cause a considerable discontent throughout this country which would impede the work of re-construction that we must soon undertake, as we would create much unwillingness among our people.

We fought to secure a world peace. Let us have it first at home. I believe there is enough unrest everywhere without making it any worse. This Government should not only use leniency, but, in all justice, pardon those boys whose education they neglected and perverted, inasmuch as the purpose referred to was concerned.

There are many more matters upon which it is worth while calling public attention at the present time and which must be considered immediately by all those who are interested in the welfare of our country. There is the question of autonomy.

Since I have uttered the word " autonomy," though it was not intended to come within the scope of my remarks, I feel that all I need to say is that this question of the autonomy of Canada is causing much interest throughout this country at the present time. Public opinion feels anxious and uneasy over what is going on to-day in Great Britain regarding the Dominions. As

far as I am concerned-I regret to say it, but 1 do so because I feel it is necessary-I have no confidence in the ability of the Prime Minister in defending and safeguarding Canada's autonomy; I do not believe in his patriotism as a Canadian because I look upon him as an Imperialist first and always.

At the present time, the status of our Dominion is undetermined, unsettled and uncertain; the press reports are contradictory; we do not know whereat we stand. They have talked about the creation of an Imperial Council in which all the Dominions will be represented. Well, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the creation of any Imperial body in which all Dominions should be represented, would mean the complete surrender of the autonomy of these Dominions. But I hope, Mr. Speaker, that we have not fallen so low that the status of Canada can be modified without the representatives of the people being consulted, and I trust that if ever a change is made, it will be made by those who received the proper authority from the hands of the people.

There are many other questions which were discussed in this House and which will come up again before us, such as the cost of living, a most important problem at th^ present time; the tariff; the civil re-establishment of returned soldiers; the labour question and the special attention which we are called upon to give to what I shall call the great industry of the country, I mean agriculture, every one of these problems is of vital interest to the future of Canada and I intend to deal with them later during the present session, but, on this occasion, I thought I should limit my remarks to what I consider the first step in the work of re-construction.

After we have re-established a constitutional and democratic government and freedom in this country, when we have a Franchise Act based upon principles of justice, when the Government realize the importance of the sacredness of the prestige and dignity of the judiciary, when the sword of Damocles that is held oyer the head of many of our fellow-citizens is taken down, then, Sir, we shall have established a solid foundation upon which we may confidently build up our national fabric.


Henry Arthur Mackie


Mr. HENRY ARTHUR MACKIE (Edmonton East):

Mr. Speaker, in rising to

address the House this evening, I feel somewhat subdued. Last summer I read in one of the magazines published in Canada that this House was composed of mediocrities, and that we looked the part. As for your humble servant, he was described

as the Italian poet who came to this House without originality, and, withal, described as having ready-made clothes-or readymade speeches; you can draw whatever inference you like. I do not know whether one mediocrity is capable of passing judgment upon another, but if I am not wrong, the mover (Mr. Redman) and the seconder (Mr. Manion) of the Address in reply to the speech from the Throne demonstrated rare ability and a clear conception of the conditions of a new era brought about by the war. If, perchance, my appreciation of these two gentlemen is wrong, I know that I am right in saying that whilst our literary genius was being safeguarded at home, meanwhile writing his own persiflage, these Wo mediocrities were not such inferior individuals but that they found their place in the front line of battle. As for your Italian poet, he is before you once more, again with ready-made clothes. And let us hope that they will be more pleasing to our friend, J. K. Munro, who has condescended to become the parliamentary fool. Every court has had its' clown; why not Parliament?

As I have listened to the speeches on the motion for an Address in reply to the speech from the Throne, I have classified them under two headings. On the Government side the position may be summarized quite briefly as this: we have been subjected to a storm, tossed about by the sea, and at times the sun has disappeared almost entirely behind a lowering sky. The sea has grown calmer, the sun has re-appeared and the sailors have fixed their latitude so as to be able to guide their ship safely to destination. In other words, the Government has been subjected to a storm, the ship of State is riding a calmer sea and the ministers have a clear conception of the new conditions brought about by the war and are meeting them in a well defined programme. __

Let me digress for a moment, Mr. Speaker, before I pass to the attitude which I think the Opposition has taken in this matter, to say a few words about the League of Nations, which has been touched upon by the member for Kamouraska (Mr. E. Lapointe), the member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon), and slightly by the member for St. lohns (Mr. Demers). In this connection the speech from the Throne is somewhat positive in its nature. It says:

And effectually promote the formation of a League of Nations which will ensure for all time the peace of the world.

A wave of fraternity is passing over the world. Many believe that it will carry away

the ativic passions and that regenerated nations will live side by side in a friendly rivalry. It is audacious on my part even to express a doubt. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, incorporated this idea in his " City of God," a most marvellous work for that time. He speaks of the Christian universe as being under the crook of the one shepherd. The bishop, having become pope, crystallized this idea and formed a league of nations of which he was the head, and the expression of its creation was given in the following sentence:

Roma locuta est;

Causa finit.a est.

The papacy developed the spiritual rather than the material side; otherwise, individualism in the world would have been seriously threatened. The church, being afraid of shedding blood, chose the holy Roman Empire as its secular arm, and that settled the fate of the society of nations. From arbiters the Popes became partisans, and the princes were not docile sons of the Church. The Holy Roman Empire was incapable of enforcing its decisions, and you have the reason therein for the bankruptcy of the League of Nations under the tutelage of the papacy, a most extraordinary power which could reach the todies and the souls and whose sanctions pursued man beyond the grave. The unbridled Ego of the Renaissance and of the Reformation is as strong to-day as it was then. Peace can reside only in an agreement of interest and can be maintained only by an equitable distribution of the forces at play, and never by the magic virtue of an abstract ideal. The new social order is, as we are informed, to be based, not on fighting, but on fraternity, not on a competitive struggle for mere existence, but on a deliberately planned co-operation in production for the benefit of all who participate by hand and by brain. The labourer demands an equal shaie of enjoyment, or, at worst, equality in misery.

Let me pass a few centuries in one bound and, following the example of the hon. member for St. Johns and Iberville (Mr. Demers) be brief, and let me quote to you our lamented Sir Wilfrid Laurier who, on the 12th day of May, 1911, when speaking on the security of Canada and Imperialism, said:

"We shall not allow ourselves to be detracted from duty to worship Utopias."

At the time of the Coronation of Edward the Seventh, he stated that he "believed in a Parliament of Great Britain but not in a Parliament for humanity."

I should like also to call your attention, Sir, to an article in the Devoir of the 31st day of January, 1919. It is a resume of an address given by Monseigneur L. A. Paquette, and I desire to say that the Rev. Bishop is one of the leading philosophers in America. He refers to the league of nations, about which I have said a few words and which was intended to bring about a Christian universe. This is what he says in part:

It was therefore a veritable society of nations organized over the principles of Christianity, placed under the tutelage of the Church and submitted to the law of Christ, the law of equal justice, of charity, of fidelity, the law of peace and of freedom. It is the rock upon which the intellectuals and the politicians have perished. It is the problem upon which the most stubborn and self-willed have spent themselves uselessly.

I leave it to you, Sir, as to whether we should keep our powder dry. Whilst speaking of the League of Nations, may I incidentally pursue my digression by referring to something that was said by the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) the other night? He said: We are a nation, and we should be treated equally with England; that is, Canada should be on the same footing as England. I do not agree that Canada is a nation. The position which has been given to Canada overseas to-day is due entirely to its splendid participation, not by reason of its status as a nation. Even if we had a status as a nation, we are in Canada a federation of provinces, and I would still deny that we are essentially a nation. A nation is an agglomeration of people who have the same love and the same hate, who have tasted the same joys and undergone the same reversals, who revere the same great historical figures, who salute the same flag, interpreting its meaning in the same way, because they received in the same school the same mentality. In a word, it is an agglomeration of people whose intellectual, moral and political formation is the same. This is not the case of Canada. Let me prove it to you, Sir, in three instances alone, which I choose amongst others. In 1884, at the time of the Soudan war, the flag meant one thing to the French and another thing to the English. In 1899, the same thing occurred again. In 1914, for the third time, the message of the flag was heard with the result which you know as well as I do.

May I, in passing, touch upon a few remarks made by the hon. member for St. Johns and Iberville (Mr. Demers) in this respect? He does not attempt to excuse

entirely the position of Quebec in this matter, but places the blame upon the Administration then in power, if results have not been handsomer than the actual facts show the case to be. Conscription, he says, was not popular. Our people were not accustomed to the word, nor even to the measure, and above all, we had been promised that there should be no conscription. To me that argument can have absolutely no weight, because a people will fight only upon the patriotism that resides within them, and when that patriotism fails then there is no other way than to impose conscription upon them, and it is quite evident that not only in Quebec, but in Ontario as well, the patriotism was not as great as it was in some of the western provinces. Therefore, the reasons given by the hon. member for St. Johns cannot be accepted by me at all events as being sound for excusing the position which his province has taken.

I wish to come back to the appreciation of the speeches made on the opposite side in this debate. I believe I may summarize them as follows and briefly: Come to us, come to liberty, freedom and low tariff. I would say: Liberty, freedom, advocated low tariff, maintained high protection. Come to a state of contradictions, but come anyhow. The question of tariff has been more or less mooted in this House, and we are told that an amendment is coming that is intended to bring about a decision on that question. I am afraid the members of the Opposition will be disappointed in that respect. We shall wait until we have a decision from this side of the House, and the advice given to the Prime Minister the other day by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) was well directed, and I can do no better than to endorse his position in that respect.

Those who hesitate to deal with a question of this sort are neither frank with themselves not true to their country. The question must come up. This Administration may or may not continue to exist; that makes no difference; the present membership must necessarily leave it to the people finally to decide what shall be done in this country. "When our friends opposite endeavour to allure us to their side by speaking of a low tariff I would say to them: Come to us with a well-defined programme. Tell us what commodities you intend to subject to low tariff, and how low. Tell us what commodities you intend to subject to protection, and how high. Not only that, but they must argue their case and show conclusively what will be

the effect upon the country if the changes they propose are adopted. Furthermore, in view of the changes they would propose they must show how they would raise the revenue. Until then without offence intended; I say that historically; what they have done they have done by stealth and the rest is on record.

I wish to take up the other invitation passed acrofes the floor of the House with reference to liberty and freedom, which I heard mentioned several times to-night by the hon. member for St. Johns and Iberville (Mr. Demers). Liberty is defined as follows:

Liberty is freedom for crowds to dominate individuals. It is collective thought, collective emotion. It is the reverse of freedom.

Let me give a few examples. A member of a union may not agree in every respect with the policy of the union, but if he wishes to remain a member of that union he must subscribe to the general policy. Otherwise, he will be thrown out. If a man is a member of a certain church he must subscribe to the tenets of that church, or be excommunicated. The member of a political party-I believe there is a party on the other side, but there is none on this, although one may be growing up-must accept the general policy of his party, otherwise, he will be read out of his party, as happened to an hon. gentleman who sits beside me. Liberty, then, is that circumscribed freedom which the collective body is willing to give to the individual. Freedom is defined in this way "Each individual is free to do and live as he pleases, so far as he does not interfere with the coi responding freedom of other individuals." I do not wish it to be understood that these words have any importance in political issues in Canada to-day. My only reason in referring to them is that I wish the Opposition to know they cannot allure us by catch words or catch phrases. They must convince us.

The balance of my appreciation of the speeches is that there has been a little constructive criticism and much destructive criticism. There has been a great deal of talk by hon. gentlemen opposite of ministers on this side of the House abandoned to all sense of virtue and honour, because they happened to be at one time Liberals-and I believe some of them say they still are. I think I am better justified than they when I talk of the anti-ministers and moek patriots whose whole course of opposition is motived so far as I can see by envy and resentment because the ministers have not complied entirely with all

their wishes. Am I right in saying that the dart of 1917 still rankles in their side?

Let me give an illustration of the destructive criticism that has been offered without any justification whatsoever by the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Uaunon) and the hon. member for St. Johns and Iberville. According to the hon. member for Dorchester we have lost three freedoms: the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, and the freedom or dignity of the Bench, and these freedoms have been lost, he says, through the action of this Government, once democratic, but now autocratic. As to the freedom of the press, if the press of this country has been bought as suggested by the hon. member for Dorchester, or if as might reasonably be inferred from his speech, the press has been muzzled by Order in Council, let me tell him that there has been no censorship on the press of the Dominion of Canada except in matters which might affect the war. And if my hon. friend complains of the lack of publicity which the Canadian press has given him he should remember that he has not been neglected by the German press if I can believe Canadian press reports on that matter. Would my hon. friend have the press used by a certain class of people for the purpose of fomenting insurrection in this country in time of war or now when conditions in Canada have not yet become stabilized? Is that what he desires? As to the freedom of speech, I have been almost from one end of the country to the other and I have heard and read that men can say what they like, and do as a matter of fact. I do not care how many Orders in Council have been passed nor what control of the press there may be by this Government; there never has been any hesitancy on the part of the editor of the Bulletin in the town in which I live to give full vent to his feelings and sentiments. Freedom of speech has not been curtailed so far as I can judge. If the hon. member for Dorchester means that certain radical elements of our population who advocate the use of force to bring about the conditions they desire should be allowed full scope to create trouble in Canada, I take direct issue with him there. What is the other freedom that has gone? The freedom or the dignity of the Bench. Judge Lange-lier has been referred to. Let tne tell my hon. friend that he is no more a judge than I am, but a Justice of the Peace, liable to be discharged like any other civil servant; and he ought to be discharged. ,

The hon. member for St. Johns and Iberville said in his speech this evening that

we ought not to take such severe measures against absentees and defaulters. The weight of the measures which are being enacted to-day, he says, will bear most heavily on the poor people because they are unable to pay the fines imposed. He argues, in effect, that we have no business to impose fines under the Criminal Code, and he would not have us imprison these defaulters.

The general result of his argument is-if a man has committed an offence against his country and the Criminal Code provides that he shall be punished for it by imprisonment or by a fine, if he has the alternative of going to jail, he ought to have the alternative of paying a fine. I cannot understand my hon. friend from St. Johns and Iberville when he says that this Government has acted unreasonably with regard to men charged as defaulters under the Military Service Act. If the law were less strictly enforced, what would the soldiers say, what would the reasonable, thinking people of Canada say after they have made their respective sacrifices-the soldiers by risking their lives, and the civil population by performing the duties incumbent upon them? What would be the result if these gentlemen were given carte blanche in this matter? The only difficulty as a matter of fact, is that the Government has not been more stringent, long before. I say the dignity of the bench is curtailed when you find a magistrate-or .a justice of the peace not a judge-who takes for his guide a letter addressed to a police officer, and governs himself accordingly in imposing fines or fixing terms of imprisonment. It is time that this Government should at least speak to such a man to let him know that he has a duty to perform, and that he shall perform it even if it is absolutely necessary for this Government to intervene. If the man were a judge I would be the first to impeach him. But he is a magistrate, a justice of the peace, and the province of Quebec should see to it that he is discharged at once. It is not the business of this Government to educate justices of the peace to conduct themselves properly in the administration of the law, but if it becomes necessary to do so this Government will not fail in its duty.

There is another instance of destructive criticism: Sir Robert Borden, Prime Minister of this country should be here in his place in Parliament. I remember that the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. E. Lapointe) said that it must be regretted that the late lamented Sir Wilfrid Laurier was not invited to attend the Peace Conference.

Assuming that, if Sir Wilfrid Laurier were alive to-day, and assuming that he had been invited to attend the Peace Conference, would these hon. gentlemen say he should be in attendance at that conference?

If so, then it amounts to this: That Sir Wilfrid Laurier's place was at the Peace Conference, but the place of the Prime Minister is in this House. Are these gentlemen sincere when they take that position? I go further. What would be the criticism uttered by these hon. gentlemen if Sir Robert Borden were in his place in this House to-day? Only last session, my first session in Parliament, I heard the Opposition members state that the interests of Canada had been sacrificed at all times by Great Britain more particularly in the matter of boundaries, but to-day they would have the leader of the Government remain in his seat in Parliament to conduct affairs which, I think, are well conducted by the ministers who are here, and neglect this very question of boundary which is certain to be discussed overseas.

It is said that the Government are not making efforts to secure for Canada indemnity for her war expenditure. But Great Britain says that the colonies will receive pro rata, on the amount paid to Great Britain, and all who read the papers must have noticed that announcement. But I go further and say, that even if there is not one cent coming to Canada by way of indemnity, yet the honour of this nation having been maintained, and the security of its people guarded as a result of this war, the price paid is not excessive.

We are told that the Dominion of Canada is encroaching on provincial rights in the matter of education. True, in a general way, education is a function, of the province. But it is the duty of the Federal Government to protect person and property, and there is no better way to protect person and property than by education. In the olden days, you had the stocks, the whipping post, the treadmill, the penal colony; and to-day we still have the state provided with expensive machinery to punish men, but not one cent for education. "Educate the people," was the admonition of Penn. "Educate the people," was the advice of Washington. "Educate the people" was the exhortation of Jefferson. But the Government of Canada to-day is nothing else but a hangman.


Some hon. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear.


Herbert John Mackie


Mr. MACKIE (Edmonton):

I am glad

these hon. gentlemen realize it, and it is too bad 'Some of them cannot be reached by

the tentacles of the law. If they will repeat outside of Parliament what they say here, they will come under the admonition of the law. We lock up, we hang, we strangle to prevent crime, and judges impose long terms of imprisonment on persons to give an example to others. That is a queer way to form character. The Government of the country should see to the education of the common people just as it does to its national defence, and as it sees to the rewarding of the soldier, so it should see to rewarding the teacher who forms the character of the people. We spend millions in bonusing railways, in assisting agriculture, in teaching people how to grow wheat and cattle, but we do not spend a cent in teaching people how to grow up to be men and women. We spend a dollar in education and five dollars in prosecution. We make the calling of the teacher degrading, and pay instead the police magistrate and the judge. We are anxious to bestow extended franchise upon the people and to make them all-powerful, but we withhold from them the instruction without which that power becomes a curse. It is time the Dominion Government took notice of education in this country, and if necessary amendments should be made to our Constitution to meet the case.

I say that the criticism by hon. gentlemen opposite has been destructive in the main. I do not blame my hon. friends opposite. I wish they were more constructive, but there is a reason for their attitude, and that reason is that we are a democracy. The hon. member for St. Johns and Iberville says that we are an autocracy. If we have had criticism it is due to the fact that we are a democracy, and I intend to prove it. We must not lose ourselves in details lest we may imagine that by showing here and there some imperfections or defects inherent to democracy, we aim a mortal blow at the system itself. History, the educator of statesmen, teaches us that by following the same methods we have in the past undergone the same reverses with the same final achievement of success.

In 1754, at the beginning of the Seven Years War, what was the political system in New France and New England? In the case of the former it was political absolutism, parental government, military discipline. There was a chief to whom all subordinates were ready and willing to render blind obedience. It was governmental and military discipline in all its perfection. If the chief said "Advance" no subordinate would ever have dreamed of saying " Retreat." Montcalm, the mili-

tary expert, was the one chief whose orders suffered no contradiction.

In New England a contrary system held sway. Everybody had the right to express his opinion. There was no Louis XIV, nor a Pompadour. When the New Englander left the Mother Country, she wished him good luck, never intending to follow him to the shores of the Atlantic or impose upon him an Intendant Talon. In other words, they were masters of themselves, and when New Prance advanced upon their frontiers they found the New Englanders engaged in private quarrels. There were wranglings with the Mother Country about the supreme command, and the desire to secure ranks of less importance was the cause of much dispute amongst the colonists. On all sides there were wranglings as to the quota of men and money, and there were those, even the Quakers, who, on principle, were unwilling to fight. But pressure on the farmer and his sons actually set the powder on fire. What was the result? There were humiliating defeats, that of Monongahela amongst others, whilst new friends, thanks to its unity of purpose and action, crushed Montgomery at Carillon. Does this prove that autocracy is superior to democracy? By no means. When, after a time, education had taught the New Englander what the object of the war was he realized that the political absolutism of New France intended to drive him and his democratic ideas into the sea, then the Dutch of New York,_ the English, the Scotch, the Irish Colonists, the Catholics of Maryland, and the Quakers of Pennsylvania, rose as one man ready and willing to shed their blood in the dethronement of political absolutism which meant the triumph of democracy. Has not history repeated itself. The same causes produce the same results. Canada is a democracy where everybody takes advantage of the right of expressing his views on public matters, and it is on that account we find so many Zoilians who find time to criticise the Government in military matters and even in their efforts at reconstruction. All the imperfections they point out are inherent to the democratic system, and with the great Corneille I believe that the most difficult state to govern, especially in war time, is a democratic state.

Clinton was a great patriot and he desired to serve his country well. He proved to be a great organizer, yet he suffered reverses which would have disheartened a man less great than he. But he lived long enough to see the supporters of political absolutism depart for France, and twenty-five years afterwards receive from Madame

Guillotine the reward of their stubborn resistance in the acceptance of the new conditions in a new political era. In this war, as in the Seven Years' War, neither England nor France has escaped entirely the more or less serious discords in its political, social and economic sphere. But did they allow these minor quarrels to minimize their effort in the war? Nor will minor quarrels minimize the united effort of these two countries in peace. Nor did they consider these minor quarrels as serious attacks upon their governments. It is only in Canada that you will find so-called-statesmen so famished for power that they are ready and willing to sacrifice the good name of democracy to the exigencies of their own ambition, which under present circumstances is misplaced; for it neither corresponds with their ability and talents, nor with the unbounded devotion which they ought to have for democratic institutions. In the twentieth century, as in the eighteenth, democracy at times advanced imperceptibly, yet surely. To-day it goes forth like that army in array mentioned in Scriptures, acies ordinata. This last victory of democracy, let us hope, will silence forever the detractors of these methods in war time.

Mr. HER,MAS DESLAURI.ERS (St. Mary) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, I wish to

tender my congratulations to the mover and seconder of the Address for the ability displayed in presenting the policy of this Government in showing the spirit in which it is intended to conduct public affairs in the future.

They said that during the last four years the millionaires stood side by side with the workers. I do not intend to deny that, but I believe my hon. friend from Calgary should have told this House the actual and foremost reason for that combination, which was great. No doubt he overlooked this detail, but those who, like myself, on account of their position or profession, are in continuous contact with the working people, are in a position to state that on every occasion the millionaires, specially in the industrial field, never failed to show in a most peculiar manner their interested patriotism.

In many industries the workers were treated as so many tools, even exacting from women and young girls certain kinds of work which require the strength of a man. This was done by day and night, holidays and Sundays without any rest, and on pain of losing their job, while the profiteers, under the protection of the Government. were raising the prices of commodities to prohibitive rates. For that reason, how many healthy bodies, how many fathers or others with dependents were taken to the cemeteries, while our millionaires, by the side of the workers, were getting more and more numerous under the cover of patriotism. The difference that exists between these two classes of citizens is that those who are the majority have met their death and the few others have become happy and prosperous. I will not insist. It was the period of destruction. This Government had made up their minds to destroy everything in order to save the Empire and re-establish civilization overseas. We must admit that unfortunatly they were very successful. Now, that the war is over, there is no reason why this destruction should go on. So they announce a period of re-construction. Eet us hope that our millionaires and their kin the Trust magnates will carry their gun on the other shoulder for the greatest good of Society and that they will do their duty.

According to my hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. Redman)-and I am with him in this -the soldiers should be absorbed into our civilian life. That is meet and just, but where I differ from him is in the manner of that absorption. To my mind, what would be desirable, what the Government should try to do, would be to re-establish the social order as it existed before the war, when the people on this soil of America led a happy and contented life.

As a consequence every soldier back from the front should have the right to resume the position he held before the war and the duty of the Government should be to oblige the employer to reinstate the man. In this way, Mr. Speaker, we should see the bookkeeper going back to his desk, the machinist to his shop, the shoe worker to his factory, the bank clerk to his bank, and all with the most perfect order. But I strongly condemn what is being done in Montreal and probably elsewhere, a state of things which seems to be approved of by the Government, judging by the remarks of my hon. friend from Calgary, namely that the civilian should be thrown out without pity in order to make room for the soldier. That denotes a sad lack of justice and of fairness towards the man who has done his duty; it disorganizes society; it is anti-humanitarian; it will bring wretchedness and misery to the people; it is a school for the Bolshevism which seems to make the Government so anxious. To place signs outside and inside industrial establishments admonishing all comers to "Make way for the Soldier "

is to bar out any other person who is in need of earning food for himself and family. Allowing the soldiers to step into any place they choose, without regard to their qualifications or their past experience in civil life paralizes industry and throws out of employment faithful workers who from ujv-on will find it very difficult indeed to earn a livelihood; and in certain cases it helps, towards promotion a forger or an embezzler, who enlisted to escape sentence.

That is going a little too far. It indicates approval of what is going on in numbers of our shops where soldiers, about 97 per cent I am told, go from shop to shop, working two or three days here and there, after having caused the dismissal of those who supported them during the war. Why do these things happen? Because there is no effort at regulation. I find this method decidedly unjust. It is a very bad policy, to my mind, and the Government should lose no time in setting up some sort of regulation of these things so that each and every man should be treated according to his deserts.

I wish to point out to the Government that if, at a certain period, ships were more necessary than men, on the other hand, production, to provide for our warriors on the battlefields, is most assuredly the essential factor in warfare; that the soldier be kept in proper fighting trim.

The finest proof we have of this is in the forty years of preparation undertaken by Germany so that when war did come she could call upon her immense reserves of production. Tn the same way, during four years, our workers have laboured to the very utmost so as to uphold those who, on the other side, were sacrificing their lives, having willingly offered themselves up on the altar of Civilization and Freedom. It would be not just that those who for so long upheld our fighters should to-day have only poverty in return. I believe that, without in the least working any harm to the reestablishment of our soldiers, the Government could give a square deal to our civilian population.

I perceive, moreover, that the immigration problem demands the very special attention of the Government this session. This question is decidedly one of capital importance; but for us, of the old French province, faithful to our traditions and to our faith, and who are following in the footsteps of our ancestors, the problem is not quite so acute. However, we admit that, for other provinces, for which we entertain the highest consideration, when the women will have been completely emanci-

[Mr. Deslauriers.}

pated, thanks to the ballot and to their introduction into Parliament, I admit, I say, that the problem will then constitute for our province an equation in the second degree rather difficult of solution. Still, since we have a Unionist Administration which on more than one occasion, has shown its liking for force, I have no hesitation in believing that it will see to it that some sort of selection is exercised in the choice of the immigrants who sooner or later will honour its memory. At all events, in the public interest we reserve the privilege of expressing our humble opinion on this subject.

Now I come to a far more serious problem brought up by the mover and the seconder of the Address: I mean, Bolshevism in

Canada, the natural consequence of the policy of a Government which is much too inclined to use force. This is certainly one of the most serious political problems that the Union Gevernment was justified in mentioning in the speech from the Throne. There is decidedly something to stir up an Administration if the news we get from Red Russia be true and they will likely be confirmed by our soldiers who were sent to this territory through force, always for the defence of our borders.

While we are speaking of Russia I recall an incident or rather an echo of this afternoon, when the Minister of Militia spoke about the Canadian Expedition to Siberia. I must tell the House that I am far from looking upon the action of the Government in this matter from the same angle as the hon. Minister of Militia. I believe his information to be more or less trustworthy. 1 do not know where he found the explanations he gave us, but what I can affirm here to-night is that this expedition, from beginning to end, was never done under the volunteer system. And I have in mind just now an instance of the absolutely Prussian brutality with which the military authorities forcefully withdrew 70 recruits from their battalion, the C.O.T.C., Laval, Montreal. Following the custom of the Iroquois the chiefs had notified the officers of this battalion that they required 70 heads and during the night the choice was made, not by vote, but according to the officers' whims, of the young men who were to sacrifice themselves to go and fight in a territory which is decidedly not our boundary line.

And besides I am not of one opinion with the hon. Minister of Militia who claims that the Government accomplished a very worthy deed on this occasion; I would rather share the opinion of Mr. W. L. Smith, a regular contributor to the Toronto "Sun"

v/ho calls this expedition to Siberia the "Siberian Crime." Those are the terms he rises to qualify this shipping off to Siberia of Canadian conscripts drafted unwillingly into the expeditionary corps on the way to Vladivostok:

"Canada committed a national crime in sending to 'Russia, to participate in a domestic quarrel, men who had no business to interfere with this country's striving after freedom, no matter how blind its efforts may be. The crime is doubly heinous when you think that men who refused to go were nevertheless forced to embark for Siberia. It is a flagrant violation of the law of the country which allows men to be sent beyond the borders of Canada "for the defence of Canada" only. No matter what distortion is made of the phraseology of this clause it can never he claimed that men sent to Siberia to interfere in the quarrels of factions at war with one another are fighting "for the defence of Canada." All these men can do is to implant throughout Russia the hatred of everything Canadian, thus endangering Canada's . future welfare in ways that we have not space to dwell on. Every Canadian citizen is a party to this crime so long as he does not protest against what is taking place. The crime is more than all on the head of N. W. Rowell. Yes, the President of the Privy Council is the only one among the ministers who was so hold as to not only defend what is being done but further to try and get some kudos out of it. On the Judgment Day I prefer to be in the place of the last Publican, of the greatest sinner rather than in that of the "First Layman" of a great church, a man whose hands will be red with the blood of his fellow-citizens sacrificed in a nameless quarrel."

It goes without saying that the terms are perhaps a little overdone, but I believe that in the matter of this expedition we can find more in the nature of a crime than we can of a worthy deed for which we deserve congratulation.

The Government must keep an observant eye on this pagan, this savage organization which strives to overthrow everything in its passage, and by any means that offer. If Bolshevism has become a burning question we must believe that it exists in certain parts of the Dominion. For my part, representing as I do a riding in the largest city of the Dominion (Sainte-Marie, Montreal), with a population of nearly 65,000 souls, I feel bound to assure my hon. colleagues on the other side of this House that there is no danger of this national calamity

"4 l. , , IN

getting a foothold in Montreal, that our soil is not favourable to the growth of this disloyal plant. Of course, a short while ago, we had two or three spouters, who looked like Bolsheviki, bob up on the scene, but the folks felt they were related to "Ti Noir" Desjardins and his silent partners of unholy memory. Their arrest had no effect whatever and they are awaiting the return of the hon. Minister of Justice to receive like "Ti Noir" Desjardins a generous cheque to pay them for their trouble and lost time. It is said that in the days of "Ti Noir" the' motive behind the affair was to apply martial law to the peaceful city of Montreal. To-day people are wondering if the Government is not working along the same lines so as to establish a Mounted Military Police Force throughout the Dominion, similar to the North West Mounted; and this very plan was put forth some time ago by iSir John Willison in the Star of Lord AtholstaiL still all a-tremble from his dynamiting at Cartierville by his friends. There you have what is being said in Montreal, despite all the unfair things and all the silly prattle that is being dished up to us daily by a certain part of the press. I must assure the party now in power that the character of Quebec province does not lend itself to this sort of violence but, if I am to believe my own eyes, things do not look so reassuring in other parts.

Listen to this Bolshevik propaganda, copies of which were distributed by the thousand around the chief industrial centres in Toronto, Niagara Falls and Hamilton- who would ever believe it? Why, to believe certain newspapers, all these places have a monopoly of loyalty to the end of all time:

"After more than four years of massacre, famine and poverty for the workers of the entire world the rival factions of the Capitalists have come to an understanding. Fifteen million workers have given up their lives to decide what gang of exploiters will fleece the workers of the world. Millions of women and children have died of hunger while capitalists were living in luxury. During the war the workers were told repeatedly that they must save the Empire. Working men, you have played the game of your masters. Victory, for you, means only hopeless toil from day to day, mean food, shabby clothing, a hovel for a home, death after a little while. Wake up! Do not let your souls be the souls of slaves. Away with the Capitalist classes. Make the Proletariat supreme. Strive with all your might to establish national institutions in which the workers will possess and control

all the means of production and distribution. You have to choose between revolution for the establishment of 'Socialism, and degradation and poverty.

*'You must follow the example of the workers who have founded Red Russia. You have shed your blood for the benefit of your masters. Surely you are ready to take decisive measures for your own good. Set up councils to administer the affairs of the country. Take hold of the industries. Establish military discipline. Crush the Capitalists as they have crushed you since you were born. You must do this if you no longer wish to be cannon-fodder in time of war and beasts of burden in time of peace.

That is what is being distributed in the centres which are fondly believed to be imbedded in loyalty for all eternity. And I really believe that this manifesto was distributed. And what further strengthens my belief in the existence of this state of things is the speech, delivered by the hon. Minister of Militia on the 13th of December, 1917, before a large gathering in the county which he has the honour to represent, East Hamilton. He was speaking to his constituents:

"In the name of God what possible reason can the people have for supporting the Labour Party. This Party sold us soldiers for an immediate gain just as they did to obtain better wages while the soldiers at the Front were going 'over the top' with fixed bayonets to meet the Teuton hordes. I emphatically warn alderman Halarow (the Labour candidate in East Hamilton) that he is taking a very grave attitude at this time. A day will come when he will be called upon to give an account of his deeds. All the backing he has comes from the yellow dogs who are seeking to evade conscription."

Well, I do not know whether it was really Providence that protected our hon. friend the Minister of Militia, chief representative of our gracious Sovereign George V, or whether the yellow dogs shrank away before his literary broadside, at any rate we have the honour to have him with us in this Parliament. I wonder whether this is not an opportune time to call back Sir Robert Borden from his jaunt to Prince's Island so as to lead the Government in putting down Bolshevism. Anyway, it appears to me that nothing should be dearer to the Prime Minister of a country than to work for the good of his own country before trying to settle matters in other countries.

One thing is certain: the Government was justified in putting this item into the speech from the Throne. Bolshevism certainly has

taken deep root in this country and the situation is serious, since this doctrine is growing in a very dangerous part of the country: an ultra-loyalist section. I hope that under the circumstances the Government will show itself worthy of their position.

History tells us that every time a handful of men have arrogated to themselves the right to do as they please, to disregard the rights of the people and the laws of the country, to gag the people's representatives and the Press and muzzle Public Opinion, without advice and without reason, as the present Government has done and is still doing-and I fail to see why this policy is still continued-we must not be surprised if what is happening elsewhere should be seen in Canada, for in Canada, as elsewhere, there is a limit to patience, and the awakening of the people is often horrible to witness.

I do not think that the theories of the views of Sir John Willison would prove an efficient method of holding in check or rather of putting down this class of people or rather this despicable organization: Bolshevism. I must say that this plan of Sir John Willison was the establishing of a Mounted Police Force throughout the Dominion, similar to the Mounted Police in the Northwest Teritories, with a head-office at Ottawa, and holding priority over all the forces already in existence, municipal, provincial or federal; and this, in all the provinces, even in those where there is no call for such a thing. .

I believe that the Government could find a much wiser way of coping with this serious problem. I sincerely believe that should the Government stop administering Canada in an autocratic manner, by Orders in Council; should they repeal those nefarious laws which are their offspring; and start to forget, before asking others to do likewise; should they permit to breathe the air of freedom those who crossed the seas for the defence of this same freedom, I believe that Bolshevism would hold no menace for this country, and that the general feeling of unrest which we find throughout the Dominion would disappear.

Another way of solving all these questions, without omitting a single one, would be to hold a just and fair general election and give once more the place of honour to British fair play.

We can say now that we have undergone a period of destruction in a frightful manner, that we are going through the period of

reconstruction in a guilty manner and that all that remains for the people to do is to make the Government suffer a period of destruction in a pitiless manner.

On the motion of Hon. Mr. Rowell the debate was adjourned.

On the motion of Hop. Mr. Maclean the House adjourned at 10.50.

Tuesday, March 11. 1919.


March 6, 1919